Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary final environmental impact statement/management plan

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

Olympic Coast
National Marine
Sanctuary

Final Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan
Volume 1

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

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

. .... . . . . .
...... ...............
.. .. . . .....
I.NW." ..... .... ..

.... .....

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

Al.

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

Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
1305 East-West Highway
12th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20910

OF November 1993

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
ot

%I Or

uNrrr=o s-rATES or=PARTmr=NT OF commrsRcE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The Chief Scientiat
Of Washington, O.C. 20230

DEC 13 1993

Dear Reviewer:

In accordance with the provisions of Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, we are enclosing for your review and consideration the Final
Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan on the Olympic Coast National Marine
Sanctuary, prepared by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National
Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of
Commerce.

The responsible Federal official for this project is W. Stanley Wilson, Assistant
Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, National Ocean Service,
NOAA. Any written comments you may have should be submitted to the contact person
identified below by February 12, 1993. Also, one copy of your comments should be sent to
me in Room 6222, U.S. Department of Commeirce, Washington, D.C. 20230.

CONTACT PERSON

Ms. Debra Malek, Regional Manager
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Ocean Service
1305 East West Highway, 12th Floor
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Donna Wieting
C5
Acting Director
Ecology and Conservation Office

Olympic Coast
National Marine
Sanctuary

Final Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan
Volume 1

Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
1305 East-West Highway
12th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20910

U - S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
November 1993 COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

property of CSC LibrarY

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division

Printed on Recycled Paper

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE
OLYMPIC COAST NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

Prepared By:

Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
Office of Ocean and coastal
Resource Management
National Ocean Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
1305 East-West Highway
SSMC 4, 12th Floor
Silver Spring, MD 20910

Title
Final Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan for the
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary

Abstract
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) proposes
to implement the designation of marine and intertidal coastal
waters adjacent to the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State, and
the submerged lands thereunder, as a National Marine Sanctuary.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan (FEIS/MP)
differs from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Management
Plan (DEIS/MP) in three significant ways. First, although the
preferred boundary in the Strait of Juan de Fuca is at Koitlah
Point both in the DEIS/MP and FEIS/MP, the study area has been
expanded, pursuant to public comments, to include waters of the
Strait of Juan de Fuca eastward to Observatory Point. Second, oil
and gas development is prohibited within the Sanctuary. Third, as
long as the permit exists authorizing the Navy to use Sea Lion Rock
as a practice bombing target, NOAA is imposing a condition on the
permit limiting access to the rock from November 1 through April
30. When, and if, the permit is revoked by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), no practice bombing in the Sanctuary will
be allowed.

The Sanctuary boundary encompasses approximately 2,500 square
nautical miles (8,577 kM2) of ocean waters, and submerged lands
thereunder, over the continental shelf, from the United
States/Canada international boundary to the southern boundary of
the Copalis National Wildlife refuge. The boundary extends from
Koitlah Point, near Neah Bay, due north to the United States/Canada
border, then proceeds in a northwesterly direction to a point just
north of Buoy Juliette where it intersects the Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ). The boundary then follows the EEZ in a westerly then
southwesterly direction where it intersects the 100 fathom isobath
at latitude 48014 4611,1N, longitude 125*40,159"W. The boundary
continues southeasterly in a straight line, approximating the 100
fathom isobath, to a point at latitude 47057113"N, longitude I
12502911311W. There, it continues across the head of Juan de Fuca
Canyon by continuing southeasterly in a straight line to a point at
latitude 4705010111N, longitude 125"05,'42"W. It then follows a
straight line in a more southerly direction to a point at latitude
47040105"N and longitude 12500414411W. The boundary then
approximates the 100 fathom isobath to 4703510511N and longitude
125*0010011W. The boundary then continues in a straight line in a
southerly direction, crossing the head of Quinault Canyon, to a
point west of the mouth of the Copalis River at latitude
47*07145"N, longitude 124*58112"W. It then continues due east to
the shoreline. The coastal boundary of the Sanctuary reaches to
the mean higher high water line except when adjacent to either
Indian reservations or State owned land, where it extends only to
mean lower low water, cutting across the mouths of any rivers I

Part I of this (FEIS/MP) is the Executive Summary. It reviews the
authority for Sanctuary designation, the goals of the National
Marine Sanctuary Program, the purpose and need for designating a
national marine sanctuary off the Olympic Peninsula, the
socioeconomic consequences of designation, the manageability of the
area, and a description of the Sanctuary designation process.

Part II of the FEIS/MP describes the study area used for
determining a final preferred boundary alternative, including human
uses, natural resources, and the existing resource protection
regime. The area recommended for 'the proposed Sanctuary, boundary
alternative 4 (approximately 2,635 square nautical miles), provides
the habitat and setting for a distinctive assortment of living and
non-living marine resources.

Part III examines the alternatives considered in developing the
proposal to designate a national marine sanctuary off the Olympic
Peninsula. These alternatives were considered in terms of
achieving optimum protection for the ecosystem, improving
scientific knowledge of the area, promoting public understanding of
the value of the resources, minimizing overlap with existing
political jurisdictions and minimizing any harmful effects to the
area's economy. Based on these criteria, preferred boundary,
management, and regulatory alternatives were selected.

Part IV of the FEIS/MP describes environmental and socioeconomic
consequences associated with each alternative.

Part V describes the management plan for the Sanctuary. This plan
is intended to ensure that all actions taken after designation will
meet stated Sanctuary objectives. Management actions are
considered in four program categories: (1) Resource protection;
(2) Research; (3) Education; and (4) Administration.

Volume II of the FEIS/MP contains the appendices including the
Response to Comments and Designation Document.

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Ocean Service
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Contact: Rafael V. Lopez, Pacific Regional Manager
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Ocean Service/NOAA
1305 East West Highway, Suite 12108
Silver Spring, MD 20910

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
THE PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME I. PAGE

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. iV

LIST OF TABLES ............ o .................................. Vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS .......................... o............ o..... iX

PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................. oo ....... I-1

PART II: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................... II-1

PART III: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ... III-1

PART IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES ..... o.... IV-1-

PART V: SANCTUARY MANAGEMENT PLAN .................... o....... V-1

PART VI: LIST OF PREPARERS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........ oo ..... VI-1

PART VII: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS
RECEIVING COPIES ................................... VII-1

PART VIII:REFERENCES ..... o.......................... o....... VIII-1

VOLUME II

PART IX: APPENDICES

A. Response to Comments ...................... o ......... o... A-1

B. Notice of National Marine Sanctuary Designation;
Final Rule; and Summary of Final Management Plan ........ B-1

C. Material for use in Preparation of Environmental Impact
Statement... o ......................... 4 ............. #... c-1

D. Treaties with the Makah and Quinault.. ....o ............. D-1

E. Fish, Shellfish, Waterfowl, and Plants Relied on by the
Makah, Quileute, Hoh and Quinault Peoples for
Subsistence and Ceremonial Purposes ..................... E-1

F. Species Inhabiting Habitats in the Proposed Sanctuary...F-1

G. Intertidal organisms of the Olympic Peninsula .......... G-1

H. Navy Analysis of Alternatives to Sealion Rock ........... H-1

I. Sanctuary Development Process ............................ I-1

J. International, Federal, State, Tribal and Local
Authorities Applicable to the Olympic Coast National
Marine Sanctuary ......................................... J-1

K. Memorandum of Understanding between Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries and Assistant Administrator
for ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management
Concerning the National Marine Sanctuary Program ........ K-1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figgre. Title Page

1. National Marine Sanctuary Designation Status ........... 1-3

2. Sanctuary Study Area Location Identified in the
Site Evaluation List ................................... 1-8

3. Biogeographic Provinces of the United States ........... I-11

4. Study Area for the Olympic Coast Sanctuary ............. 11-5

5. NOAA Preferred Boundary Alternative .................... 11-6

6. Olympic Coast Designations of National Significance .... 11-8

7. Makah Indian Reservation ............................... II-11

8. Quileute Indian Reservation ............................ 11-13

9. Hoh Indian Reservation ................................. 11-15

10. Quinault Indian Reservation ............................ 11-16

11. Plate Tectonic Structure of the Pacific Northwest
Continental and Oceanic Region .......................... 11-22

12. Bathymetry of the Olympic Coast Offshore Area and
Submarine Canyons ...................................... 11-24

13. Oceanic and Continental Currents ....................... 11-27

14. Simplified Mean Winter and Summer Current Patterns
on the Washington Shelf ................................ 11-28

15. Generalized Position and Extent of Columbia River
Plume in Winter and Summer ............................. 11-31

16. Beach Surf Zone Environment ............................ 11-33

17. Beach Surf Zone Habitat-Unprotected .................... 11-35

18. Beach Surf Zone Habitat-Protected ...................... 11-36

19. Rocky Surf Zone ........................................ 11-37

20. Rocky Surf Habitat-Unprotected ......................... 11-39

21. Rocky Surf Habitat-Protected ........................... 11-41

22. Above Tide Rocky Shore Zone ............................. 11-42

23. Pelagic Ocean Zones .................................... 11-43

24. Euphotic Pelagic Zone Habitat ........................... 11-44

25. Disphotic Pelagic Zone Habitat: ......................... 11-46

26. Rocky Non-Vegetated Benthic Zone Habitat ............... 11-47

27. Mud Non-Vegetated Benthic Zone Habitat ............ ..... 11-48

28. Muddy Sand Noh-Vegetated Benthic Zone Habitat .......... 11-49

29. Sand Non-Vegetated Benthic Zone Habitat ................ 11-50

30. Kelp Habitat ............................................ 11-51

31. Surfgrass Benthic Zone ................................. 11-53

32. Sanctuary Study Subareas ............................... 11-54

33. Percentage of Breeding Seabirds along the Marine
Shorelines of Washington ................................ 11-69

34. Estimated Breeding Populations of Seabird Families by
Region along Coastal Washington ........................ 11-70

35. Distribution of Nesting Sites of the Washington
Species of Seabirds ..................................... 11-71

36. Populations of Breeding Seabirds and Percentages of
Total Aggregate Population in Washington ............... 11-74

37. Distribution of Harbor Seal and Sealion Haulout Sites
Along the Washington Coast .............................. 11-83

38. Historic and Current Distribution of Sea Otters in
Washington State ............. .......................... 11-86

39. Indian Reservations and Associated Archeological Sites
Along the Olympic Coast ................................. 11-91

40. Commercial and Recreational Fishing Areas .............. 11-96

41. Washington-Oregon Planning Area ........................ 11-99

42. MMS Planning Areas for Lease Sale #132 off Washington.. II-100

43. Tank Vessel Traffic-Outer Coast ........................ 11-105

44. Tanker Exclusion Zone .................................... 11-106

45.' Vessel Traffic Management Service off the Strait of

VJL

Juan de Fuca ........................................... 11-117

46. Traffic Separation Scheme in the Strait of Juan de
Fuca and Puget Sound ................................... 11-119

47. Zones of Military Activity off the Coast of Washington. 11-130

48. Quinault Range Tracking Area and Bottom-Mounted
Instrumentation ........................................ 11-132

49. Restricted Airspace R-6707 ............................. 11-134

50. Flight Paths of Aircraft Transiting from Whidbey Island
Naval Airforce Base to R-6707 .......................... 11-136

51. Number of Days/Month the Navy has Used Sealion Rock
from 1986-1990 ......................................... 11-137

52. Number of Days/Year the Navy has Used Sealion Rock from
1986-1990 .............................................. 11-138

53. Study Area Proposed in the DEIS/MP and FEIS/MP ........ 111-5

54. Boundary Alternative 1 ...................... o .......... 111-8

55. Boundary Alternative 2 ................................. 111-9

56. Boundary Alternative 3 ............... o................. III-11

57. Boundary Alternative 4 with Alternative Boundaries ..... 111-13

58. Boundary Alternative 5 ............... o................. 111-16

59. Boundary Alternative 1 in Relation to Fisheries ........ IV-8

60. Boundary Alternative 1 in Relation to Marine Mammal
Haulout Sites and Distribution of Kelp ................. IV-9

61. Boundary Alternative 1 in Relation to Seabird Colonies
and Seabird Foraging Areas ............................. IV-10

62. Boundary Alternative 1 in Relation to Vessel Traffic
Management Regimes, Dredge Disposal Sites, oil and
Gas Resources and Gravel Deposits ...................... IV-11

63. Boundary Alternative 2 in Relation to Fisheries ........ IV-14

64. Boundary Alternative 2 in Relation to Marine Mammal
Haulout Sites and Distribution of Kelp ................. IV-15

65. Boundary Alternative 2 in Relation to Seabird Colonies
and Seabird Foraging Areas ............. __ ........... IV-16

vii

66. Boundary Alternative 2 in Relation to Vessel Traffic
Management Regimes, Dredge Disposal Sites, oil and
Gas Resources and Gravel Deposits ...................... IV-17

67. Boundary Alternative 3 in Relation to Fisheries ........ IV-19

68. Boundary Alternative 3 in Relation to Marine Mammal.
Haulout Sites and Distribution-of Kelp ................. IV-20

69. Boundary Alternative 3 in Relation to Seabird Colonies
and Seabird Foraging Areas .............................. IV-21

70. Boundary Alternative 3 in Relation to Vessel Traffic
Management Regimes, Dredge Disposal Sites, Oil and
Gas Resources and Gravel Deposits.. ... oo ..... oo ...... o. IV-22

71. Coastal Beaches in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.......... IV-29

72.. Boundary Alternative 4 in Relation to Fisheries. ...... IV-31

73. Boundary Alternative 4 in Relation to Marine Mammal
Haulout Sites and Distribution of Kelp.... ..... IV-32

74. Boundary Alternative 4 in Relation to Seabird Colonies
and Seabird Foraging Areas ....... o...... ....... IV-33

75. Boundary Alternative 4 in Relation to Vessel Traffic
Management Regimes, Dredge Disposal Sites, Oil and
Gas Resources and Gravel Deposits.... ............. -oo IV-34

76. Boundary Alternative 5 in Relation to Fisheries ........ IV-37

77. Boundary Alternative 5 in Relation to Marine Mammal
Haulout Sites and Distribution of Kelp.. ..... -oo ...... IV-38

78. Boundary Alternative 5 in Relation to Seabird Colonies
and Seabird Foraging Areas.... ... IV-39

79o Boundary Alternative 5 in Relation to Vessel Traffic
Management Regimes, Dredge Disposal Sites, Oil and
Gas Resources and Gravel Deposits... o ..... o ..... --oo IV-40

80o Analysis of Navy Overflights and Seabird Breeding
Activity.... ................. IV-91

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Title FAqe

1. Bird Species Observed in Sealion Rock Study Area ....... 11-63

2. Marine Bird species Additional to those Listed in
Table 1 occurring in or near the Sanctuary Boundary ... 11-64

3. Marine Mammal Species Reported from the Coastal Waters''
of Washington .......................................... 11-81

4. Volume and Value of Washington State's Local Water
Catch by Fishery Type (1981-1985 average; 1990) ........ 11-94

5. Current and Projected Vessel Transits in the
Study Area ............................................. 11-103

6. Known Threats to Marine Organisms from Oil and Gas
Exploration and Development ............................ 111-22

7. Number of Common Murres at Major Breeding Sites on the
Outer Coast of Washington, 1979-1992... ......... 0 ...... 111-48

8. Summary of Environmental Effects of Marine Mining by
Resources Affected ..................................... IV-70

LIST OF ACRONYMS

Acron Mean.ng

APA Administrative Procedure Act
AGL Above Ground Level
ARPA Archeological Resources Protection Act
ASA Abandoned Shipwreck Act
ATBA Area to be Avoided
ATCAA Air Traffic Control Assigned Air Space
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act
COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CVTMS Coordinated Vessel Traffic Management System
CWA Clean Water Act
DEIS/MP Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan
DWT Dead Weight Ton
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EPA Environmental Protection Act
ESA Endangered Species Act
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulations
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FE Federal Endangered
FEIS/MP Final Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan
FMP Fishery management Plan
FT Federal Threatened
IM0 International Maritime Organization
JCG Joint coordinating Group
MkRPOL 73/78 International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MFCMA Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act
MOA Military Operating Area
MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act
MMS Minerals Management Service
MPA Marine Preservation Association
MPPRCA Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act
MPRSA Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
MSRC Marine Spill Response Corporation
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NEP National Estuary Program
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NERRS National Estuarine Research Reserve System
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NPS National Park Service
NWIFC Northwest Indian Fisheries commission
NWR National Wildlife Refuge
OCS Outer Continental Shelf

OMS Washington State office of Marine Safety
OPA 90 Oil Pollution Act of 1990
ORAP Ocean Resources Assessment Program
PFMC Pacific Fishery Management Council
PSVTS Puget Sound Vessel Traffic Service
SAB NOAA's Strategic Assessment Branch
SE State Endangered
SEL Site Evaluation List
SEPA State Environmental Protection Act
SMA Shoreline Management Act
SSC Sanctuary Steering Committee
ST State Threatened
USCG United States Coast Guard
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
WDCD Washington Department of Community Development
WDOE Washington Department of Ecology
WDF Washington Department of Fisheries
WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources
WDOA Washington Department of Agriculture
WDW Washington Department of Wildlife
WSPA Western States Petroleum Association

PART 1: Executive summaKy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS, PAGE

I. Introduction ............................................ 1

II. The National Marine Sanctuary Program ................... 2

III. History of the Olympic Coast Proposal ................... 7

IV. Purpose and Need for Designation ........................ 9
A. Introduction ........................................ 9
B. Natural and Historical Resources ................... 10
C. Present and Potential Uses ......................... 14
D. Adequacy of Existing Authorities to Manage the Area 17
E. Benefits Derived From Sanctuary Status ............. 18
1. Oil, Gas and Mineral Activities ............... 19
2. Discharges and Deposits into the Sanctuary .... 20
3. Discharges and Deposits that Enter the Sanctuary
and Injure a Sanctuary Resource or Quality ..... 20
4. Moving, Removing or Injuring Historical
Resources ...................................... 20
5. Alteration of or Construction on the Seabed .... 20
6. Taking Marine Mammals, Seabirds-or Turtles ..... 21
7. overflights .................................... 21
8. Vessel Traffic ................................. 21
9. Fishing/Aquaculture/Kelp Harvesting ............ 22

V. Socioeconomic Impacts of Designation ..................... 23
A. Oil, Gas and Minerals ............................... 23
B. Discharge and Deposits .............................. 24
C. Alteration of or Construction on the Seabed ......... 24
D. overflights ......................................... 25
E. Vessel Traffic .................. 25
F. Fishing/Aquaculture/Kelp harvesting ................. 25

VI. Manageability of the Area ................................ 27

VII. Consultations ............................................ 29
A. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ............ 29
B. Endangered Species Act (ESA) ........................ 30
C. Resource Assessment ................................. 31
D. Federal Consistency Determination ................... 31
E. Fishery Regulations ................................. 31
F. Other Federal, Tribal, State and Local Agencies
and the U.S. Congress ............................... 31

PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. INTRODUCTION

in accordance with Title III of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act.(MPRSA), as amended, 16 U.S.C. ��
1431 et seq. (MPRSA), this FEIS/MP proposes the establishment of a
national marine sanctuary off the Olympic Peninsula of Washington
State to facilitate the long-term management, protection,
understanding and awareness of its resources and distinctive
attributes.

Title III of the MPRSA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to
designate discrete areas of the marine environment having special
national significance as national marine sanctuaries so as to
ensure comprehensive management, conservation and protection of
their recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational,
or aesthetic resources and quality. The U.S. Congress directed
NOAA (P.L. 100-627, section 205) to designate the Western
Washington outer Coast (referred to herein as the Olympic Coast) as
a National Marine Sanctuary.

.II. The National Marine Sanctuary Proaram

Consistent with the mission of' developing a system of National
Marine Sanctuaries for the long-term benefit and enjoyment of the
public, the following policies were established for the program by
section 301(b) of the 1992 re-authorization of the MPRSA
(P.L. 102-587):

1. to identify and designate as national marine sanctuaries
areas of the marine environment which are of special national
significance;

2. to provide authority for comprehensive and coordinated
conservation and management of' these marine areas, and the
activities affecting them, in a manner which complements
existing regulatory authorities;

3. to support, promote, and coordinate scientific research
on, and monitoring of, the resources of these marine areas,
especially long-term monitoring of these areas;

4. to enhance public awareness, understanding, appreciation,
and wise use of the marine environment;

.5. to facilitate to the extent compatible with the primary
objective of resource protection, all public and private uses
of the resources of these marine areas not prohibited pursuant
to other authorities;

6
p@ to develop and implement coordinated plans for the
otection and management of these areas with appropriated
Federal agencies, State and local governments, Native American
tribes and organizations, international organizations, and
other public and private interests concerned with the
continuing health and resilience of these marine areas;

7. to create models of, and incentives.for, ways to conserve
and manage these areas;

8. to cooperate with global programs encouraging
conservation of marine resources; and

9. to maintain, restore, and enhance living resources by
providing places for species that depend upon these marine
areas to survive and propagate.

Thirteen National Marine Sanctuaries have been established
since the Program's inception in 1972 (Figure 1):

1. The Monitor National Marine Sanctuary serves to protect
the wreck of the Civil War ironclad, U.S.S. MONITOR. It was
designated in January 1975 and is located 16 miles southeast

1-2

NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program
Marine Sanctuary Designation Status
October 1992

Northwest Straits, WA

Olympic
Coast, WA
Thunder Bay, MI

Stellwagen
Bank, MA
Cordell Bank, CA

Gulf of the
Farallones, CA Norfolk Canyon, VA
Monterey Bay, CA MONITOR. NC

Channel Islands, CA

Gray's Reef, GA

Hawaiian Islands Designated Sites
Humpback Whale Active Candidates Flower Garden
Whale Study Areas Florida Keys, FL
Kaho'olawe Banks, TX/LA (Key Largo)
Isla nd, HI Fagatele Bay, American Samoa (Looe Key)

Sanctuary Program Sites
Designated Sanctuaries Western Lake Erie Islands, Ohio Designation Process
Cape Vincent (Lake Ontario), New York
Stellwagen Bank, Massachusetts Nantucket Sound, Massachusetts National Marine Sanctuaries are
USS Monitor, North Carolina Mid-Coastal Maine chosen for their national signifi-
Gray's Reef, Georgia Virginia/Assateague Island, VA/MD cance based on natural and
Florida Keys, Florida Ten Fathom Ledge/Big Rock, NC
human use values. For a site to
Key Largo Port Royal Sound, South Carolina
Looe Key Florida Coral Grounds be designated, it must first be
Flower Garden Banks, Texas/Louisiana Big Bend Seagrass Beds, Florida placed on the Site Evaluation List
Channel Islands, California Eastern Chandeleur Sound, LA (SEL). When named an Active
Monterey Bay, California Baffin Bay, Texas Candidate, an Environmental
Gulf of the Farallones. California Cordillera Reefs, Puerto Rico Impact Statement and Manage-
Cordell Bank, California East End, St. Croix, Virgin Islands ment Plan is prepared. State
Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Southeast St. Thomas, Virgin Islands
governments and other agencies
Fagatele Bay, American Samoa Cortes-Tanner Banks, Caltomia are consulted, and public
meetings are held. Upon
Morro Bay, California
Active Candidates Heceta-Stonewall Banks, Oregon
Northern Mariana Islands, South Pacific completion of this process, and
Thunder Bay, Michigan Southern Mariana Islands with the approval of Congress Cocos Lagoon, Guam
and the state governor, the site is
Norfolk Canyon, Virginia Facpi Point, Guam designated by the Secretary of
Olympic Coast, Washington Papaloloa Point, American Samoa
Northwest Straits, Washington Commerce as a National Marine
Sanctuary.
Congressional Study Areas Cultural Resource Sites (Proposed)
Manitou Passage (Lake Michigan), MI
Kaho'olawe Island, Hawaii Whitefish Point/Bay (Lake Superior), MI
Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
Yorktown Fleet, York River, VA Office of Ocean and Coastal
SEL Sites Battle of the Atlantic/Cape Hatteras, NC Resource Management
Douglas Beach, Florida National Ocean Service
Natural Resource Sites (1983) Tampa Bay, Florida National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Green Bay (Lake Michigan), Wisconsin Apalachee Bay, Florida Administration
Apostle Islands/Isle Royale (Lake U.S.S. Tecumseh/Battle of Mobile Bay, AL U.S. Department of Commerce
Superior), MI/WI Westernmost Aleutians, Alaska (202) 606-4126

Figure 1. National Marine Sanctuary Designation Status.

I-3 1-3

of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.

2. The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, designated
in September 1980, encompasses 1252 square nautical miles of
offshore, nearshore and inter-tidal habitats roughly 20
nautical miles offshore of Santa Barbara, California. The
waters of the sanctuary support breeding habitat for five
species of seals and sea lions and thousands of seabirds.
Over 20 additional species of whales and dolphins occur in the
sanctuary. Large nearshore forests of giant kelp provide a
nutrient rich environment for teeming populations of fish and
invertebrates. Several endangered species inhabit the '
sanctuary including the gray, blue, humpback and sei whales,
southern sea otters, Guadalupe fur seals, the California brown
pelican and the California least tern. The ocean floor
contains a wealth of prehistoric artifacts from the Chumash
Indians and the remains of over 100 historic shipwrecks.

3. The Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary, designated in
January 1981, is a submerged live bottom coral reef located in
50-70 feet of water on the South Atlantic continental shelf
17.5 nautical miles east of Sapelo Island, Georgia. The
Sanctuary encompasses 17 square nautical miles. Gray's reef
consists of limestone outcroppings and ledges up to six feet
in height which support a host of sessile invertebrates. It
is.recognized as a highly productive and unusual habitat for a
wide variety of species including corals, tropical fish, and
sea turtles.

4. The Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary,
designated in January 1981, encompasses 948 square miles off
the California coast just north of San Francisco. It provides
a habitat for a diverse array of marine mammals, including
California's largest.breeding population of harbor seals,
along with California sea lions and elephant seals. Several
species of whales and dolphins live in or migrate through the
sanctuary. The Farallones Islands are home to one of the
largest concentration of breeding marine birds in the
continental United States. Nurseries and spawning grounds for
commercially valuable species of fish such as Dungeness crab,
Pacific herring and rockfish are within the sanctuary.

5. The Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary in American
Samoa was designated in August 1986. This .25 square mile
sanctuary surrounding an eroded volcano crater on the island
of Tutuila, contains deepwater coral terrace formations
that are unique to the high islands of the tropical Pacific.
It serves as habitat for a diverse array of marine flora and
fauna including the endangered hawksbill sea turtle and the
threatened green sea turtle.

6. The Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, designated in

May, 1989, encompasses 397 square nautical miles off the
central California coast, contiguous with the northern
boundary of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine
Sanctuary. Due to a rare combination of oceanic conditions
and undersea topography, in a discrete well-defined area,
Cordell Bank and its surrounding waters provide a highly
productive marine environment for a rich variety of benthic
organisms as well as fish, marine mammals and seabirds.

7. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary was designated
by the U.S. Congress, under the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary and Protection Act (P.L. 101-605), on November 16,
1990. The Act designated an area of coastal waters off the
Florida Keys encompassing approximately 2600 square nautical
miles. This area includes the world's third largest barrier
reef. The purpose of this Act is to protect Florida's coral
reefs, one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world, from
harmful activities such as vessel groundings and pollution.
Upon implementation of the Management Plan, Key Largo and Looe
Key Sanctuaries, designated in 1975 and 1981, respectively,
will be incorporated into the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary.

8. The Flower Garden-Banks National Marine Sanctuary was
designated in November 1991. The Sanctuary is partitioned
into the East and West Flower Garden Bank. The East Flower
Garden Bank component, encompassing 19.20 square nautical
miles of ocean waters and submerged lands, is located
approximately 120 nautical miles south southwest of Cameron,
Louisiana. The West Flower Garden Bank, encompassing 22.5
square nautical miles of ocean waters and submerged lands, is
located 110 miles southeast of Galveston, Texas. This site
represents a complex, biologically productive reef community
noted for outstanding fragile coral development and the only
known oceanic brine seep on the continental shelf of the
Atlantic Ocean. The banks lie on the extreme northern edge of
the zone in which extensive reef development can occur.

9. The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary was
congressionally designated in September, 1992. The
Sanctuary, approximately 50 miles south of San Francisco,
encompasses an area of approximately 4,024 square nautical
miles off the central California coast, approximately 50 miles
south of San Francisco. Monterey Bay is California's second
largest bay and one of the few major bays along the entire
Pacific Coast. The bay's most significant feature is the
Monterey Canyon, the deepest and largest.submarine canyon
incising the continental shelf of North America. The
nutrient-rich waters of the Monterey Bay support extensive
fish, invertebrate, seabird, and marine mammal populations.
The area supports several endangered and threatened species of
marine mammals such as the California Sea Otter. The

1-5

world's entire population of Ashy Storm-Petrels feed above the
Monterey canyon during summer and fall months.

10. Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary was
Congressionally designated in November, 1992. The Sanctuary
encompasses 638 square nautical miles of Federal waters
situated on and around the submerged Stellwagen Bank located
6.3 miles north of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The Bank supports
a seasonal abundance of several cetacean species, including
the largest high-latitude population of humpback whales in the
contiguous United States. Biologically productive Sanctuary
waters also provide important feeding and nursery grounds for
fin, minke, northern right whales and several smaller cetacean
species. Commercially and recreationally fished since
Colonial times, the Bank also supports a growing whalewatch
industry.

11. The Hawaiian'Islands Humpback Whale National Marine
Sanctuary was Congressionally designated in November, 1992
pursuant to the Oceans Act of 1992. The primary purposes of
the sanctuary are to protect humpback whales and their
breeding habitat and to provide for the identification of
marine resources and ecosystems of national significance for
possible inclusion in the sanctuary. Other resources
inhabiting the waters of the Sanctuary include several
additional cetacean species (sperm, pilot, false killer, pygmy
killer, melon headed, Pacific bottlenose dolphins, and many
others), a majority of the Hawaiian population of juvenile and
adult green sea turtles, the endangered leatherback and olive
ridley sea turtles, and the highly endangered Hawaiian monk
seal. There are a number of seabird colonies in the Sanctuary
as well. The Sanctuary supports an extensive.coral reef
ecosystem and commercially valuable fisheries.

III. History of the Olympic Coast Proposal

The Olympic Coast, recognized for its rich natural resource
potential and human resource values, was placed on the National
Marine Sanctuary Program Site Evaluation List (SEL) in August, 1983
(48 FR 35568) (Figure 2). The re-authorization and amendment of
the Act in 1988 directed the Secretary of Commerce to issue a
notice of designation with respect to the Olympic Coast National
Marine Sanctuary (as generally described in the Federal Register
Notice of August 4, 1983) not later than June 30, 1990 (P.L. 100-
627, section 205). In report language accompanying this
legislation, Congress noted that the Olympic Coast possesses a
unique and nationally significant collection of flora and fauna,
and that the combination of rocky stacks, sea birds, marine
mammals, and it's adjacency to the Olympic National Park merited
the designation of the area as a national marine sanctuary (H. Rep.
No. 4210, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., 1988).

NOAA conducted four scoping meetings in Washington State
during April 10-13, 1989, to solicit public comments on the
proposed sanctuary: Aberdeen, Port Angeles, Forks, and Seattle (45
FR 10398, March 13, 1989).

All interested persons were invited to attend, and asked to
comment on readily identifiable issues,*suggest additional issues
for examination, and provide information useful in evaluating the
site's potential as a sanctuary. A map of the study area was
presented to depict the area under consideration for designation as
a National Marine Sanctuary.

NOAA released the DEIS/MP in September, 1991. Six public
hearings were held between November 6-20, 1991 at Port Angeles,
Seattle, Olympia, Aberdeen, Seaview, and Washington, D.C. A total
of 894 comments were received on the DEIS/MP. Appendix A contains
a summary of the comments and NOAA's responses.

Pursuant to public comments, the FEIS/MP includes the Strait
of Juan de Fuca eastward to Observatory Point in the study area of
the proposed Sanctuary (Figure 4, p. 11-4). The analysis of the
Strait of Juan de Fuca.as part of the preferred alternative is
presented in Parts III and IV of the FEIS/MP. The inclusion of the
Strait of Juan de Fuca in the preferred alternative of the Olympic
Coast National Marine Sanctuary was rejected by NOAA due to the
lack of: 1) public involvement in the process of considering the
inclusion of the Strait within the Sanctuary boundary; and 2) an
opportunity for NOAA and the public to analyze the Strait within
the context of the boundary alternative for the proposed Northwest
Straits National Marine Sanctuary. The estuaries of Grays Harbor
and Willapa Bay are not included in the study area considered in
the FEIS/MP.

1-7

126*10' 126*W 125*30, M*00' M*301 124900' 123*30' 123'20'
48*45' 48*45

ftT FT
48*30! 48*30'

2ao "z-' -'6'c4 @4
300

5o-
To
d,

tio
+ + 4eW
BOUN AR
ALTERN
NO. I

47*W - 47'30'

GANYoN

47'00' - 4TW

46W
46-30'
UNITED STATES -WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
,NAUTICAL MILES,

46*12' f 46*1LY
126010' 126'00' 125'30! 125*00' 1 *30, 124*00' 123*30' 123OW

Figure 2. Sanctuary Study Site Identified in the Site Evaluation List.

1-8

IV. Purpose and Need for Designation
A. -Introduction

The overriding objective of the Olympic Coast National Marine
Sanctuary is to provide a comprehensive ecosystem-wide approach to
natural and historical resource management. Sanctuary status will
permit the implementation of a coordinated and comprehensive
management plan resulting in better protection of ecological and
historic resources. The preferred alternative would promote
resource protection by:

bolstering the existing resource protection regime;
establishing a coordinated research program to expand
our knowledge of the resources within the Olympic Coast
Sanctuary and to provide the basis for sound management;
establishing a broad-based education and interpretive
program designed to improve public understanding of the
sanctuary's importance as the habitat for a unique
community of marine organisms;
providing a comprehensive plan to protect this habitat.

Various agencies currently have responsibilities for specific
activities or for particular natural resources in the area. No
single government agency, however, monitors the cumulative effects
of human activities in a comprehensive, system-wide manner.
Additionally, more effort is needed to promote research and public
education.

The designation of a national marine sanctuary in the waters
off the Olympic Coast will create a system for assessing the
overall impacts of current and future activities in the area.
Sanctuary designation will ensure that it is given specific
protection and consideration from an overall planning perspective.
Further it will encourage careful review of proposals for
potentially harmful activities. Monitoring and study of sanctuary
resources will provide a greater understanding of both the area's
needs and it's ecological balance, thereby providing a foundation
for better management. Finally, a sanctuary program of public
education/interpretation will promote greater sensitivity to the
significance of the area's natural resources. Such a program in
coordination with existing interpretive centers and other
educational programs, can inform the public of the effects of human
activities on marine resources.

Therefore, a forum of special management that provides
research, resource assessment, education, coordination, long-term
comprehensive planning, and additional protection is desirable in
order to ensure that the extraordinary wealth of natural resources
in the area is not jeopardized. Sanctuary designation will provide
the opportunity to fill management gaps and enhance existing
resource management systems.

1-9

B. Natural and HistoricalIzesources

The sanc tuary area is a highly productive, nearly pristine
coastal environment that is important to the continued survival of
several ecologically and commercially important species including
invertebrates, fishes, marine birds, and marine mammals. The
diversity and richness of marine organisms, and the contributions
made by these organisms to the species migrating through the area,
suggest that sanctuary designation. will provide exceptional
opportunities for scientific research in the areas of species
interactions, population dynamics, and'physiological ecology
(Chelsea International Corporation., 1983). The sanctuary is
representative of an ecosystem within the Oregonian biogeographic
province characterized by rocky coastlines with pocket beaches, a
narrow continental shelf incised by submarine canyons, and
relatively clear water (Wolteira, 1992) (Figure 3).

The diversity of habitats that make up the sanctuary support a
great variety of biological communities. This unusually large
range of habitat types includes: offshore islands and rocks;
intertidal pools; erosional features such as rocky headlands,
seastacks and arches; interspersed exposed beaches and protected
bays; protected inlets at river mouths; submarine canyons and
ridges; the continental shelf, including broad shallow plateaus
known as the La Perouse Bank (referred to as "the Plains"), and
Swiftsure Bank; and continental slope environments.

The area is characterized by high biological productivity with
abundant floral and faunal communities. During spring and summer
months, prevailing northwesterly winds combined with the Coriolis
effect (the tendency of moving matter to turn right in the northern
hemisphere as a result of the Earth's rotation) cause the surface
waters to be deflected and replaced with nutrient-rich bottom
waters. This "upwelling" supplies nutrients that increase the
productivity of the surface waters, especially when the phenomenon
corresponds with periods of high solar radiation. Submarine
canyons indent the shelf along the Washington outer coast and are
sites of enhanced upwelling.

Numerous seastacks and rocky outcrops along the coast, coupled
with a large tidal range and wave splash zone, provide a substrate
for an extensive rocky intertidal community. The biological
community of the intertidal zone is characterized by distinct
horizontal bands of plants and animals that correspond to a range
of physical and biological factors (e.g., wave intensity,
predation, and tolerance to drying). The abundance of organisms
and zonation in the rocky intertidal zone illustrates a readily
apparent example of the region's productivity and diversity.

The area provides an essential habitat for a wide variety of
marine birds and mammals, and is of special interest due to the
large number of endangered and threatened species that live or

I-10

Chukchi/Arctic

Beringian West Coast Fjords
Aleutian Great Lakes

Acadian
Oregonian

Virginian
Montereyan

San Diegan Carolinian

Floridian
Tropical Insular Pacific Louisianian

Antillean

Figure 3. Biogeographic Provinces of the United States (Wolteira,
1992).

I-11

migrate through the region.

The seabird colonies of Washington's outer coast are among
the largest in the continental United States. Over 87 species of
marine birds have been sighted in the nearshore coastal area
(Speich, et al., 1987), and at least 11 species have been observed
feeding in or migrating over the nutrient-enriched waters of the
continental shelf (Wahl, 1984). The region contains one of the
largest populations of bald eagles in the continental United
States. In 1985 there were 220 confirmed nesting pairs of
threatened bald eagles in Western Washington (McAllister et al.,
1986). In 1987 about 30 active nests were reported on the outer
coast between Cape Flattery and Copalis Head (Speich, et al.,
1987). Currently, there are 51 observed breeding territories in
the coastal area, reflecting a trend of increasing success in
reestablishingthe bald eagle population in Washington state (WDW,
1993). Coastal rocks and islands provide important breeding,
nesting and roosting areas for marine birds. One of the ten
largest colonies of Rhinoceros auklets in the eastern Pacific ocean
occurs on Destruction Island (Speich, et al., 1987). Estimates of
the total nesting seabird population along the Washington coast
range'from 10.8,530 breeding pairs (G. Tillet, pers. comm., in
Strickland and Chasan, 1989) to 240,000 individuals (Wahl, 1984).

Twenty-nine species of marine mammals are reported to breed,
rest within, or migrate through the Olympic coast region. Marine
mammals commonly found in the area include the California sea lion,
northern (or Steller) sea lion, Pacific harbor seal, harbor
porpoise, California gray whale, and sea.otter. The sea otter,
harbor seal, and harbor porpoise are the only marine mammal species
known to breed in the region. Species which regularly migrate
along the Washington coast include the northern sea lion,
California sea lion, California gray whale, and northern fur seal.

The northern part of the coast is an important habitat for a
reintroduced population of sea otters. Sea otters were hunted for
their pelts during the late 19th century, and by the early 20th
century the entire population had been extirpated from the
Washington coast. In 1969 - 1970, 59 sea otters were brought from
the Aleutian Islands and released at two locations along the
Washington coast believed to have been population centers for
original sea otter stocks. Today sea otters 'have expanded their
range to include 70 km of the coast; and the present population is
estimated to be 300 individuals (Bowlby, 1992).

The proposed Sanctuary supports a wide variety of fish and
invertebrates that are of ecological, commercial, recreational and
subsistence value. Five species of salmon migrate through the
Sanctuary and concentrate over the Juan de Fuca Canyon where
upwelling of nutrient rich waters during the summer months fuels a
rich food web (Parmenter and Bailey, 1985). Steelhead and sea-run
cutthroat trout also can be found in this area. Groundfish are

concentrated on the banks surrounding the Juan de Fuca Canyon and
along the edges of the continental Sihelf. Common species include
halibut, flounder, lingcod, rockfish, among others. Pink shrimp
and Dungeness crab are found in concentrations over the continental
shelf as well. The Olympic coast is recognized for its diversity
of invertebrates. Diverse invertebrate communities can be found in
all habitats within the study area including rocky intertidal,
sand, and cobble. The most intensely studied invertebrate
communities are those on Tatoosh Island off Cape Flattery.

Significant historical and cultural resources within and
immediately adjacent to the Sanctuary include: Indian village
sites, ancient canoe runs, petroglyphs, Indian artifacts, and
numerous shipwrecks. Extensive archeological work oriented toward
late prehistoric culture has been completed along the Washington
coastline. A major archeological dig donducted at Ozette, near
Cape Alava, uncovered an ancient village thought to be 2,000 years
old. This excavation, which spanned 10 years, is considered to be
one of the most significant in North America.

The intertidal zone supports some of the most diverse
intertidal communities in the world. Tatoosh Island off Cape
Flattery is one-of the most intensely studied areas in the
Sanctuary with respect to invertebrates.

The Olympic Coast is one of the few regions of the U.S.
coastline that has remained undisturbed. Lack of roads, steep
rocky cliffs, andrestricted access by private owners and Indian
tribes make accessibility difficult, contributing to the lack of
shoreline development. Another special feature of the region is
the unusual geology found along the Quinault reservation south of
the Hoh River. An unusual mixture of rock types and formations,
called the Hoh Milange, has been recognized by the Geologic society
of America as one of the most important geological areas in
Washington state. In addition, the Washington State Shoreline
Management Act (SMA) recognizes the Olympic Coast for its natural
beauty and biological richness. The SMA states, "The outstanding
natural qualities of its rugged shoreline features have been
recognized as a national asset and will be managed in their natural
state."

1-13

C. Present and Potential Uses

The human population along the outer coast is concentrated
predominately on four Indian Reservations - the Makah, Quileute,
Hoh, and Quinault. Tribal members use the proposed Sanctuary area
for subsistence and commercial harvesting, and religious
ceremonies. The presence of Indian tribes along the coast adds
special cultural character and historical significance to the
proposed marine sanctuary. Uses of lands in the coastal watersheds
include commercial forestry, private development, and county and
state recreation areas. Tourism, and commercial, tribal and
recreational fishing and are important activities occurring in the
proposed Sanctuary.

1. Fishing
The diversity and abundance of fish species along the coast is
an important recreational and commercial resource for coastal
residents. Salmon, bottomfish, and razor clams are the primary
recreational fisheries. Commercial fisheries target primarily
salmon, bottomfish, halibut, dungeness crab and pink shrimp.
Recreational bottomfishing has increased in recent years. Black
rockfish, lingcod, and yellowtail or olive rockfish are the most
important bottomfish of the coastal area targeted by sport fishers.
Recreational bottomfishing is'concentrated primarily seaward of the
entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca and in the coastal areas off
Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. Razor clam digging is a very popular
recreational activity and many people travel to the coast
specifically to harvest clams. The Quinault Indian Tribe also
harvest razor clams on the beaches of the Quinault Reservation.

High concentrations of commercial fishing occur throughout the
Strait and near the approach to the Strait over Swiftsure Bank and
La Perouse Bank (commonly referred to as "the Plains"). Crab
fishing occurs nearshore within 30 fathoms between the Hoh and Raft
Rivers on the outer coast and between Pt. Grenville and the
Columbia River. Pink shrimp trawling areas occur between the 50
and 100 fathom isobaths of the outer coast.

Washington's local (as opposed to the distant water fleet
operating in Alaska) commercial fishing industry is important to
the state's economy. Fishery resources harvested include five
species of salmon, bottomfish, and shellfish (Dungeness crab and
pink shrimp). Currently, many specific salmon fisheries
(particularly the ocean troll fisheries for chinook and coho
salmon) are controlled an the basis of "weak stock management." In
weak stock management harvest limits are set to safeguard against
over-harvest of the least viable individual stocks. This
management regime has severely constrained harvest levels (NRC,
1988). Dungeness crab stocks have been historical 'ly unstable and
harvests from 1986-1988 have been under the most recent '16 year
average (NRC, 1988). The harvest of pink shrimp, also very
cyclical in nature, has increased since 1986. The harvest of

groundfish has declined considerably in 1988 from 1986 levels.
Salmonids are still the most important coastal tribal fishery
(Washington Department of Fisheries, in Butts, 1988); steelhead
trout is more important for commercial purposes than other salmonid
species for some of the coastal tribal communities.

Between 1985 and 1987 there was a decline of 375 fishing
vessels (tribal and non-tribal combined) in Washington's local
water fleet (including offshore waters, Columbia River and Puget
Sound) (NRC, 1988). The decline is due to the withdrawal of
approximately 372 salmon troll permits since 1985, permits which
under the limited entry system cannot be reinstated. This is
consistent with the long term trend in the fishery. Since 1975,
the number of trolling permits issued has dropped by over 2,000
(NRC, 1988). The local water fleet is typified by small-scale
operations with relatively small earnings per vessel. Between
1986-1988, ex-vessel revenues averaged between $54,000 and $69,000
per boat. salmon gillnet, purse seine, and groundfish trawls
earned the greatest ex-vessel value of all gear types in the local
fleet, earning $46.3 million, $21.7 million, and 11.6 million,
respectively.

2@ Recreation
The Olympic National Park borders a large portion of the
proposed sanctuary and is frequented by hikers and campers. Of the
estimated 3.5 million annual visits to the Park, approximately one
third visit the coastal area. Many people travel to the coast to
watch the annual migration of California gray whales. Beaches and
tide pools are used for research, educational, and interpretive
activities. The pristine quality of the region provides a truly
natural coastal and nearshore setting.

The proposed sanctuary offers the opportunity to coordinate
research and interpretive programs with the Olympic National Park
and the USFWS offshore National Wildlife Refuges. The Olympic
National Park sponsors nature walks and other educational
activities and also supports research projects on coastal habitats
within the Park. Research could also be coordinated with
universities which use a portion of the proposed sanctuary for
field study and gathering baseline information.

3. Marine Transportation
Next to fishing, the predominant use of waters off the Olympic
coast is commodities transportation to and from port facilities in
Puget Sound. Recent oil spills (in Alaska and off Grays Harbor)
have heightened public concern over vessel traffic along the
Washington coast. Contingency plans designed to respond to oil
spills resulting from tanker accidents are being formulated. Tug
boats with barges also carry hydrocarbon products along the coast.
These shallow draft vessels are able to transit nearer to the rocky
shoreline than tankers. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is
recommending to the International Maritime organization (IMO)

1-15

implementation of a 25 nautical mile Area To Be Avoided (ATBA) off
the outer coast for all vessels andbarges transporting -hazardous
materials.

4. Offshore Oil and Gas Development
,Outer continental shelf (OCS) oil and gas leasing within the
boundaries of the proposed sanctuary has been considered by the
U.S. Department of Interior's Mineral Management Service (MMS).
MMS had planned to conduct lease sale W132 in April, 1992 for
exploration and development off the Washington and Oregon coasts.
However, in June, 1990 President Bush.announced a policy on OCS oil
and gas activities which accepts the recommendation of the
Secretary of Interior to delay Lease Sale #132 until a series of
environmental studies are completed (expected to take 5 to 7
years); and direct that no leasing activity occur until after the
year 2000, and then, only if studies show that development can be
pursued in an environmentally safe manner. The 1992 Re-
authorization of Title III prohibits oil and gas leasing and
development within the boundaries of the Olympic Coast National
Marine Sanctuary (P.L. 102-587).

5. Discharges and Disposal Activities
There are no permitted discharges within the boundaries of the
proposed Sanctuary. Although theMakah Tribe have a permit to
discharge primary treated sewage into the Strait, the treatment
facility has been inoperable and the use of the discharge pipe has
been terminated for a number of years. The greatest threat to the
coastal resources of the Sanctuary from land-based discharges are
from non-point source pollution resulting from timber operations
within coastal watersheds.

The variety of human uses has not dramatically altered or
damaged the resources of the outer coast. However, increasing
development from tourism and other commercial enterprises has
increased the potential for adverse cumulative effects on Sanctuary
resources and water quality.

1-16

D. Adeguacy of Existing Authorities to Manage the Area

Much of the coastal area adjacent to the Sanctuary is
protected by Olympic National Park, the offshore wildlife refuges,
wilderness areas, biosphere reserves, wilderness areas designated
by the coastal tribes, state beach management plans, and county and
state parks. The need for economic development within the
watersheds draining into the Sanctuary will put increasing pressure
on coastal resources, in terms of point and non-point source
discharges, coastal development, increasing recreational pressures
and increasing overflights.

While all of these uses are managed by specific agencies and
authorities, there is no single authority charged with overseeing
the numerous uses affecting the ecosystem of the proposed
Sanctuary. There are no offshore areas designated to protect the
valuable fish, and marine bird and mammal populations. With
limited funding of existing programs, the coordination of resource
protection and management programs is essential. The Olympic Coast
National Marine Sanctuary could play an important role in such
coordination. It is not the intention of the Sanctuary to
duplicate existing regulations.

Currently, no institution addresses the range of significant
questions concerning the interaction of resources and uses in the
Sanctuary area. While a variety of organizations conduct research,
there is no systematic coordination to ensure that information
needs are properly addressed in a timely and adequate manner. Even
if information becomes available through research projects, no
institution is charged with applying that information to practical
management issues such as regulation. similarly, no agency '
attempts to monitor the health, stability and changing conditions
of this valuable marine ecosystem. Resource assessment through
gathering of baseline data and continued monitoring of
environmental conditions are essential to assess the adequacy of
the protection afforded these important resources. The status quo
alternative (no sanctuary designation) would leave the protection
of this area to the chance coordination of regulatory efforts of a
number of agencies, and would forego opportunities for
comprehensive management.

1-17

E. Benefits Derived From Sanctuary Status

The major benefit of the Sanctuary is the integration of
important nearshore and oceanic marine resource zones and
corresponding human activities into one management regime. Other
benefits of designation include: (1) enhancement of research and
monitoring; (2) promotion of public awareness of the marine
ecosystem; (3) assistance coordinating of initiatives implemented
by existing authorities; (4) formulation of long-range plans that
respond to currently unforeseen threats; and (5) regulation of
activities which either pose a current risk of causing significant
damage or may later prove harmful as use of the area increases.
Formal recognition of the species and habitat value of these water-.
should in itself focus additional attention on the resources of
this area and thus encourage direct special attention to any future
development plans.

Besides providing an ecologically diverse haven for many
significant concentrations of living resources, the waters also
support a number of socially beneficial human activities. These
range from fishing, subsistence harvesting of intertidal
invertebrates, nature observation, education, scientific research,
national defense, vessel traffic, and law enforcement. To date,
such activities have been pursued at low intensity levels.
However, these and other potential human activities, (e.g., oil and
gas development, possible dredge spoil disposal) are clearly
capable of generating conflicts which could harm Sanctuary
resources.

In short, the marine ecosystem's diverse resources and rich
productivity make it an area of regional and national significance.
The area deserves long-term protection to enhance and complement
the protection already provided for some of its resources onshore,
and for portions of the extreme nearshore zone. For example, the
Department of Interior has jurisdiction over much of the coastal
lands and offshore Islands. Additionally, the state has authorized
establishment of the Olympic Center to examine the ecological
linkages between terrestrial and marine ecosystems on the Olympic
Peninsula. The tribes manage the coastal intertidal habitats
adjacent to much of the Sanctuary.

Sanctuary designation can provide an excellent opportunity for
establishing not only a coordinated Federal/State/Tribal management
regime, but also would promote research and education efforts
through integration of existing facilities, resources and programs.
This type of coordination and focus, emphasizing land-sea
interactions, could serve as a model for other coastal areas of the
United States where local land issues and coastal zone problems
have traditionally been separated from offshore marine issues with
respect to management, and research and education efforts.

Sanctuary designation will improve resource protection by

1-18

instituting new regulatory measures and by supplementing present
surveillance and enforcement actions. The overall effect of these
regulations will be beneficial. Title III of the MPRSA
specifically provides in section 304(c) that NOAA may not terminate
valid leases, permits, licenses or rights of subsistence use or of
access existing as of the date of Sanctuary designation; but may
regulate the exercise of such authorizations and rights consistent
with the purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated.

Final regulations are proposed governing: hydrocarbon and
mineral activities; discharges and deposits (both from within and
outside of the Sanctuary boundary); overflights; alteration of or
construction on the seabed; historical resources; and marine
mammals, turtles and seabirds. Vessel traffic is in the scope of
regulations. NOAA has proposed conditioning the Navy's existing
permit from the Department of Interior to practice bomb Sealion
Rock by prohibiting bombing activities during the critical breeding
season - from March 1 through October 31. In addition, two final
regulations are proposed to aid the enforcement of the other
regulations: a prohibition on possession of resources which are
prohibited from "taking" from within the Sanctuary, and on
interference with enforcement operations. The exact regulations,
including procedures for applying for permits are found in Appendix
B.

1. Oil, Gas, and Mineral Activities

The resources and attributes of the Sanctuary - particularly
sea otters, sea birds, pinnipeds that use haul-out sites, kelp
forests and rocks along the outer coast, and the exceptional water
quality of the area - are especially vulnerable to oil and gas
activities. A prohibition on such activities within the Sanctuary
would provide partial protection for the area. only partial
protection would be provided due to the remaining threat from oil
and gas activities outside of the Sanctuary boundary and from
vessel traffic, particularly oil tankers, transiting through and
near the Sanctuary. See #5 below regarding mineral activities.

If oil and gas activities were allowed in the Sanctuary, such
development, and construction of man-made structures, would disrupt
the natural and aesthetic qualities of the area and be inconsistent
with the purposes of the Sanctuary. Although certain man-made
structures may be permissible in the future for limited purposes
such as research or natural resource protection, the threats from
oil and gas activities to Sanctuary resources and qualities warrant
an absolute prohibition of oil and gas activities within the
Sanctuary boundary. Threats include catastrophic events such as
oil spills associated with blow-outs, rupture of pipelines or
spills during the loading of tankers and long-term chronic events
such as discharge of drilling fluids, cuttings and air emissions.
Finally, due to the lack of offshore oil and gas activities thus
far, the area would suffer aesthetic disturbances including the

1-19

presence of offshore structures, the construction of shore
facilities, and the transportation of personnel and equipment to
P
and from the offshore rigs.

2. Discharges and Deposits into the Sanctuary and

3. Discharges and Deposits that Enter the Sanctuary and Injure a
Sanctuary Resource or Ouality

These prohibitions are necessary in order to protect the
sanctuary resources and attributes from the harmful effects of land
and sea-generated discharges from point sources from both within
and outside the Sanctuary boundary. This provision complements the
existing regulatory system, enhances the area's overall appeal, and
helps maintain the present water quality of the Sanctuary. The
regulations would prohibit disposal of dredge material within the
Sanctuary.

There are currently no point-source discharges entering
directly into the Sanctuary. Point source discharges (such as
discharges from municipal waste water treatment, power, or
industrial plants) into the Sanctuary require permits from
Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) or the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) depending upon whether the point source
originates from a non-tribal or tribal enterprise, respectively.
Discharges permitted after the date of Sanctuary designation would
be allowed provided the permit is certified by NOAA in accordance
with Section 925.11. Municipal treatment plants would be required
to have at least secondary treatment capabilities and tertiary or
greater as appropriate or necessary depending on the risk to
Sanctuary resources and qualities.

4. Moving, Removing, or Injuring Historical Resources

Historical resources in the marine environment are fragile,
finite and non-renewable. This prohibition is designed to protect
these resources so that they may be inventoried, researched and
information so derived be made available to the public. This
prohibition does not apply to moving, removing or injury resulting
incidentally from kelp harvesting, aquaculture or traditional
fishing operations.

5. Alteration of, or Construction on, the Seabed

The intent of this prohibition is to protect the resources and
attributes of the Sanctuary from harmful effects of activities that
may disrupt and/or destroy sensitive marine benthic habitats, such
as kelp beds, invertebrate populations, fish habitats, and
estuaries and marshes. Such activities include, but are not
limited to, archeological excavations, drilling into the seabed,
strip mining, laying of pipelines and outfalls, ocean mineral
extraction (including but not limited to sand mining), and offshore

1-20

commercial development.

.6. Taking Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, or Seabirds

The prohibition overlaps the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (MBTA) and empowers Sanctuary officials to enforce the
provisions of these Acts. This regulation extends protection for
Sanctuary resources by providing a greater deterrent by
establishing civil penalties of up to $100,000 per taking. It
includes all marine mammals, marine reptiles (turtles) and seabirds
in or above the Sanctuary. Activities authorized or permitted
pursuant to the MMPA, ESA, or MBTA are exempted from this
prohibition.

.7. Overflights

Flying motorized aircraft within one nautical miles seaward of
mean high water within the Sanctuary and at less than-2,000 feet
above the Sanctuary would be prohibited. This prohibition is
consistent with the 2000 foot advisory over the adjacent Olympic
National Park and USFWS refuges off the coast.

The area-specific prohibition on overflights below 2,000 feet
(305 m) within one nautical mile seaward of all land boundaries is
designed to limit the potential effects of noise, particularly as
it might affect hauled-out seals and sea lions, sea otters and
nesting birds along the shoreline and offshore rocks and islands of
the Sanctuary.

NOAA recognizes that overflights are regulated under the
Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). Unlike FARs, however,
sanctuary overflight regulations are intended to protect the living
marine resources of the Sanctuary from disturbance by low-flying
aircraft. The less-than-2000-foot overflight prohibition would not
apply if the low overflight is necessary to: 1) respond to an
emergency threatening life, property or the environment (this
exception is true for the most of the other prohibitions as well);
2) valid law enforcement purposes; or 3) certain national defense
activities.

a. Vessel Traffic

No Sanctuary vessel traffic regulations are planned at this
time. Vessel traffic, however, is within the scope of regulations.
The Strait of Juan de Fuca Cooperative Vessel Traffic Management
System (CVTMS), vessel traffic separation schemes in the Strait of
Juan de Fuca, and radar coverage from Tofino Vessel Traffic Service
(covering a range of 60 nautical miles from the entrance of the
Strait) already provide some safeguards for Sanctuary resources.
NOAA is currently working with the USCG, the primary agency
responsible for regulating vessel traffic, on the establishment of

1-21

an ATBA from the shoreline to 25 nautical miles off the Olympic
Peninsula. This would provide an additional measure to ensure
protection of the Sanctuary. This measure is based on a
determination of resources most at risk and vessel traffic
practices most threatening to Sanctuary resources.

Despite existing regulations and management, NOAA recognizes
the potential threat to the Sanctuary from vessel traffic. If the
promulgation of additional vessel traffic regulations is deemed
necessary, NOAA will pursue appropriate actions after consultation
with the USCG, State agencies, and the IMO. Coordination among
agencies is intended to focus ongoing efforts on the provision of
adequate protection of Sanctuary resources and qualities.

Fishing/Aguacultute/Kelp harvesting

No sanctuary fishing or aquaculture regulations are proposed
nor in the scope of regulations. Fish resources in the Sanctuary
are already extensively managed by existing authorities. Fisheries
management will remain under the jurisdiction of the WDF,
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Pacific Fisheries Management
Council (PFMC). Sanctuary prohibitions that may indirectly affect
fishing activities have been written to explicitly exempt
activities incidental to traditional fishing methods, aquaculture
and kelp harvesting activities. Kelp harvesting is within the
scope of regulations.

1-22

V. Socioeconomic Effects of Designation

The net environmental and socioeconomic effects of designating
the Sanctuary and implementing the Sanctuary Management Plan and
its regulations are anticipated to be positive. While such effects
are difficult to quantify, one goal of the Sanctuary will be to
maintain the high level of water quality, fisheries, aesthetics and
tourism without causing adverse effects.

The final sanctuary regulations pr ohibit a relatively narrow
range of activities. Under certain circumstances specific
activities, otherwise prohibited, may be allowed. For example,
prohibited activities may be allowed if: (1) the activity is done
pursuant to a National Marine sanctuary permit; (2) the activity
occurs pursuant to a valid permit existing on the effective date of
designation and the'permit for the activity was certified by NOAA,
or (3) a permit was applied for after Sanctuary designation and the
proposer of the activity notifies NOAA of the proposed activity in
within 90 days and NOAA approved the activity.

NOAA will keep additional administrative burdens to a minimum
by coordinating closely with state and Federal regulatory and
permitting agencies. Efforts will be made-to avoid duplication and
to review applications for a prohibited activity as quickly as
possible.

A. Oil, Gas and Minerals

Estimates of potential lost revenue from the prohibition on
oil, gas and mineral (e.g., sand and gravel) activities within the
Sanctuary boundary are presented in Part IV ("Environmental '
Consequences of Alternatives"). Prohibiting oil, gas and mineral
activities has positive socioeconomic effects that compensate for
lost revenue. For example, the potential for environmental damage
from oil spills or discharges will be reduced and the exceptional
aesthetic quality of the area will be maintained. In addition, the
proposed prohibition may alleviate or remove costs to local
communities for developing on-shore facilities, and political/legal
actions resulting from controversy regarding proposed oil, gas or
mineral activities.

Unfortunately, 'it is not possible to quantify accurately the
negative or positive socioeconomic effects of prohibiting OCS oil
and gas activities. A National Academy of Sciences study (1989) on
the "Adequacy of Environmental Information For Outer Continental
Shelf Oil and Gas Decisions: Florida and California" found that
"few data have been collected by MMS or anyone else to address the
social and economic impacts of OCS activities." This conclusion
has been reinforced by an MMS study (1991) entitled "Potential
Effects of OCS Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on Pacific
Northwest Indian Tribes: Final Technical Report", and an MMS study
(1991a) entitled "Inventory and Evaluation of Washington and Oregon

1-23

Coastal Recreation Resources: Assessing Economic Impacts to
Coastal Recreation and Tourism from oil and Gas Development in the
Oregon and Washington Outer Continental Shelf."

B. Discharges and Deposits

The regulation prohibiting discharges and deposits may require
applicants for discharge permits to seek other areas of disposal or
apply at least secondary treatment to discharges. All measures,
terms and conditions will be done in consultation with the affected
party and the appropriate management agency. The designation of
dredge disposal sites is prohibited within the Sanctuary.

overall, this regulation may impose additional costs by
requiring the use of more expensive dredge disposal methods or
dumpsites. Presently, the only planned dredging adjacent to the
Sanctuary is at the Makah and Quileute Reservations. Both Tribes
plan for upland disposal or beach or jetty nourishment using dredge
spoils. The regulation could also result in additional costs if it
were determined that a higher level of treatment or other, more
expensive sewage disposal methods were preferable to disposal in
the Sanctuary. It is difficult to predict accurately the economic
impact of this regulation without analyzing specific proposals.
This regulation adds further protection to Sanctuary resources
beyond that afforded by existing legislation. The requirement for
review and Sanctuary certification of permits will ensure that
potentially harmful activities receive special consideration from
the perspective of Sanctuary protection.

C. Alteration of or Construction on the Seabed

Dredging activities are not extensive within the sanctuary
boundary; nevertheless, unrestricted alteration of, construction
on, or drilling of the seabed represents a threat to marine
resources. Foremost among adverse effects are increased turbidity
levels, destruction, disruption or displacement of benthic and
intertidal communities, and human intrusion into areas of marine
bird and marine mammal population concentrations.

This.regulation would enhance resource protection by reducing
the presence and operation of large and noisy dredging machinery.
Thus human intrusion upon marine wildlife, along with potentially
adverse impacts on their food supplies, (e.g., benthic and pelagic
fish resources), would be minimized., No economic impacts upon
commercial firms are expected. Exemptions from the dredging
prohibition would allow for installation of navigation aids, and
harbor maintenance (although harbors are excluded from the
Sanctuary boundary, and construction, repair, replacement or
rehabilitation of docks and piers.

Mineral mining activities in the Sanctuary will be prohibited.
Studies have shown that this activity may cause, among other

1-24

impacts, acceleration of natural erosion of the seabed and adjacent
areas, increased turbidity, and changes in water circulation.
Mining activities also disturb benthic habitats that support whale
feeding grounds, seabird foraging habitats and fishery resources
(MMS, 1993).

D. Overflights

Overflights below 2000 feet are prohibited within one nautical
miles seaward from the coastal boundary of the Sanctuary and within
one nautical mile of each of the offshore wildlife refuges. The
intent of this prohibition is to protect sensitive Sanctuary
resources, such as nesting seabirds and mammals at haul out areas,
from the disturbance effects of low-flying aircraft. Access to
airports by commercial and recreational airplanes would not be
affected. Takeoff and landings at local airports at Sekiu,
Quileute, Neah Bay and Copalis Beach will be unaffected.

E. Vessel Traffic

There would be no economic effect on vessel traffic as a
result of Sanctuary designation since NOAA is proposing no vessel
traffic regulations. NOAA has considered vessel traffic regulation
and the preferred alternative is not to regulate vessel traffic at
the time of Sanctuary designation. Such regulation may include,
but is not limited to: (1) routing of all, or certain classes of
coast-wise domestic vessel traffic outside of the boundary of the
Sanctuary, (2) prohibiting domestic oil barge traffic within the
Sanctuary; (3) restriction of all large domestic vessels inbound
to, and outbound from, designated port access route(s); and (4)
designation of ATBA's for domestic vessels or other measures
designed to protect the marine environment. NOAA has requested the
USCG to submit a request for implementing an ATBA from the
shoreline to 25 nautical miles off the outer coast for
international and domestic vessels carrying hazardous materials.
The 25 nautical mile boundary poses minimal disturbance to vessels
as it is largely compatible with existing voluntary management
measures followed by the shipping industry. Discussion of economic
impacts of the ATBA proposed by the USCG to IMO are identified in
Part IV of this document.

NOAA will maintain close communication with the USCG to
evaluate the need for additional regulations regarding vessel
safety and/or emergency response plans and equipment.

F. Fishing/Aauaculture/Kelp Hagyesting

Implementation of the Sanctuary should have no adverse effects
on the fishing industry. Moreover, Sanctuary protection of habitat
and water quality by controlling both pollutants and disturbance of
the seabed should be positive for maintaining healthy and
productive fish stocks. Inclusion of kelp harvesting in the scope

1-25

of regulation will ensure that the integrity of the kelp habitat is
maintained. Protection of kelp beds will protect important fishery
habitat which will benefit the fishing industry.

1-26

VI Manageability of the Area

Sanctuary designation offers increased opportunities for
interpretation and coordination among programs due to the
availability of proposed satellite facilities and immediate
staffing. Full-time attention of the manager would be available
for resource protection due to the immediate availability of
research and education coordinators.

Management of the proposed Sanctuary would integrate and
utilize all aspects of the program to provide for protection of the
special values of this unique marine area. Research, education,
coordination, long-term planning and necessary regulations are
described in the enclosed management plan.

The management plan describes sanctuary goals and objectives
tailored to the specific resources and uses of the area. The goals
and*objectives will provide all Sanctuary users with a framework
for conserving resources and integrating uses compatible with the
goals of the management plan. These management goals are broad and
allow for flexible implementation of action plans to fulfill the
stated goals. Each objective of the management plan represents a
short-term measurable step towards achieving the broader management
goals.

The sanctuary manager will promote coordination among all
authorities concerned with sanctuary resources and will
particularly stress consideration of the special value of the
Sanctuary's living resources in the formulation of policies
affecting the area. NOAA's contribution to the policy-making
process of other agencies managing uses in the Sanctuary will be
enhanced by the Sanctuary's comprehensive research and monitoring
programs.

The management program for the Sanctuary will be developed and
implemented by the on-site manager. This will be accomplished in
conjunction with other Federal, state, local and tribal agencies in
order to benefit *from existing expertise and personnel, and to
promote state, Federal, and tribal interagency coordination and
cooperation. Existing agencies include, among others, the WDF;
Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW); Washington Department of
Community Development (WDCD); WDOE; WDNR; and Washington Department
of Agriculture (WDOA); and the Makah, Hoh, Quileute and Quinault
Tribes; Clallam, Jefferson and Grays Harbor Counties; the National
Park Service; USFWS; USCG, NMFS; PFMC; and Canadian authorities.

A particularly useful mechanism for coordination will be a
Sanctuary Advisory Committee (SAC). The SSC will include members
from Federal, state, local and tribal agencies, as well as
commercial and private interests, and the environmental community.
The SAC will ensure an exchange of information and will advise the
sanctuary manager on permit applications and certifications,

1-27

VII: Consultations

A. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):
This document is both a FEIS/MP for the Olympic Coast National
Marine Sanctuary. Some of the section headings, and their order,
are different from those frequently found in other environmental
impact statements. To assist NEPA reviewers, the following table
has been developed. Under the heading 11NEPA Requirements" are
listed those topics normally discussed in an EIS. The
corresponding section of this document and the page numbers are
provided in the other two columns.

NEPA Reauirement Management Plan Page

Purpose and Need for Action Part I: ............... 1

Alternatives
Preferred Alternative Part III: .............. 1

Preferred Boundary Alternatives Part III .............. 4

Other Alternatives Part III .............. 42

Affected Environment Part II ......- ...... 1

Environmental Consequences Part IV --.oo ...... 1

A. General and Specific Part ....... 5
Impacts

B. Unavoidable Adverse Part IV ....... oo.o..o.. 96
Environmental or
Socioeconomic Effects

C. Relationships between Part IV .... 97
Short-term Uses of the
Environment and the
Maintenance and
Enhancement of Long-term
Productivity

NEPA Reauirement Management Plan Page

List of Preparers Part VI... ...

List of Agencies, organizations, Part
and Persons Receiving Copies of
the FEIS/MP*

1-29

B. Endangered Species Act (ESA):

NOTE: An informal Section 7 consultation has been completed. The
following is the result of this consultation.

Pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, the USFWS of the Department
of the Interior, and the NMFS of the Department of Commerce, were
consulted in the performance of the biological assessment of
possible impacts on threatened or endangered species that might
result from the designation of a National Marine Sanctuary off the
Olympic Peninsula. The consultations confirmed that some 14
Federal Endangered (FE) and six Federal Threatened (FT) species are
known to occur in the area. In addition, one Washington State
Endangered Species (SE) and one Washington State Threatened Species
(ST) are known to inhabit the sanctuary ecosystem. Consultations
determined that Sanctuary designation is not likely to adversely
affect these species. The species identified are:

1. Aleutian Canada Goose ........ Branta canadensis leucopareia FE
2. American peregrine falcon ......... Falco peregrinus anatum FE
3. Bald Eagle.. .... Haliaeetus leucocephalus FT
4. Blue whale .......................... Balaenoptera musculus FE
5. Brown Pelican ...................... Pelicanus occidentalis FE
6. Fin whale ..................................... B. physalus FE
7. Gray whale .......................... Eschrichtius robustus FE
8. Harbor Porpoise ......................... Phocoena phocoena ST
9. Humpback whale ..................... Megantera novaeangliae FE
10. Steller Sea Lion ....................... Eumetopias jubatus FT
11. Right whale ........................... Eubalaena glacialis FE
12. Sei whale ..................................... B. borealis FE
13. Short-tailed albatross .................. Diomedea albatrus FE
14. Snowy Plover ...................... Charadrius alexandrinus SE
15. Sperm whale .............................. Physeter catodon FE
16. Leatherback Turtle .................... Dermochelys coriacea FE
17 Loggerhead Turtle ......................... Caretta caretta FT
18. Green Turtle ............................... Chelonia mydas FT
19. Olive ridley ........................ Lepidochelys olivacea FT
20. Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon.O. tshawvtscha FT
21. Snake River Sockeye Salmon ....................... 0. nerka FE
22. Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon ............ 0. tshalgytscha FE

1-30

Resource Assessment:

The MPRSA, as amended, requires a resource assessment report
documenting present and potential uses of the proposed Sanctuary
area, including uses subject to the primary jurisdiction of the
Department of the Interior. This requirement has been met in
consultation with the Department of the Interior and the assessment
report is contained in Part II.

D. Federal Consistency Determination:

Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
amended, requires that each Federal activity within or outside the
coastal zone that affects any land or water use or natural resource
of the coastal zone shall be carried out in a manner that is, to
the maximum extent practicable, consistent with the enforceable
policies of approved state management programs. This requirement
is being met through a Federal Consistency Determination made by
NOAA to the WDOE that the designation of the coastal and offshore
waters adjacent to the Olympic peninsula as a National Marine
Sanctuary is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with
Washington's Coastal Management Plan.

E. Fishery Regulations

Section 303 (b)(2)(D) of the MPRSA, as amended, requires
consultation with the PFMC. During consultation, NOAA requested
the PFMC to determine if additional fishery regulations were
necessary with Sanctuary designation in accordance with Section
304(b)(5). PFMC responded that no additional regulations were
necessary and that management responsibility regarding fishing
activities should remain with existing authorities.

F. Other Federal and State Agencies and the U.S. Congress

The Secretary has consulted with the Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate.
In September, 1991 the Designation Prospectus for the Olympic Coast
National Marine Sanctuary was provided to all members of each
committee. The results of these consultations have been
incorporated into the FEIS/MP.

The Secretaries of State, Defense, Transportation, and the
Interior, the Administrator of EPA, and the heads of other Federal
agencies were consulted and their comments were,addressed by the
FEIS/MP. Summaries of a '11 written comments and comments,made at
the hearings are provided in Appendix A of the FEIS/MP.

Appropriate Washington State and local government agencies
were consulted and their comments were addressed by the FEIS/MP.

1-31

Summaries of all written comments and comments made at the hearing
are provided in Appendix A of the FEIS/MP.

Appropriate Tribal organizations and Indian Tribes were
consulted and their comments were addressed by the FEIS/MP.
Summaries of all written comments and comments made at the hearings
are provided in Appendix A of the Feis/MP.

The comments of all other interested persons were addressed by
the FEIS/MP and summaries of all written comments and comments made
at the hearings are provided in Appendix A of the FEIS/MP.

1-32

PART II: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

Part Ii. The Affectgd Environment ......................... 1
A. Regional Context ............................ 3
1. Sanctuary Study Area Location .......... 3
2. Socio-Demographic Profile and Land Use. 7
a. Tribal Economies .................. 9
i. Makah Indian Nation .......... 10
ii. QuileUte Indian Tribe ........ 12
iii. Hoh Indian Tribe... 14
iv. Quinault Indian Nation ....... 14
b. Treaty Rights and Legal Status .... 17
C. Current and Future Activities ..... 19
B. Sanctuary Study Area Resources .............. 20
1. Environmental Conditions ............... 21
a. Geology ........................... 21
b. Meteorology ....................... 23
C. Waves and Currents ................ 25
d. Habitat Types ..................... 30
i. Beach Surf Zone .............. 32
ii. Rocky Surf Zone .............. 34
iii. Above Tide Rocky Shore Zone.. 40
iv. Pelagic Ocean Zone ........... 40
V. Benthic Ocean Zone ........... 45
2. Natural Resources ...................... 52
a. Plankton .......................... 56
b. Benthic Algae ..................... 57
C. Invertebrates ..................... 58
d. Fish Resources .................... 60
e. Marine Birds ...................... 61
i. Seabirds ..................... 66
ii. shorebirds ................... 78
iii. Waterfowl .................... 79
iv. Birds of Prey ................ 79
f. Marine Mammals .................... 80
g. Marine Turtles .................... 87
3. Cultural and Historical Resources ...... 89

C. Human Activities ............................ 90
1. Commercial Fishing and Aquaculture ..... 90
a. Commercial Non-Treaty Fishery ..... 95
b. Treaty Fisheries .................. 95
C. Aquaculture and Coastal
-Hatcheries ........................ 97
2. Oil and Gas Activities ................. 97
3. Commercial Shipping .................... 102
a. Routes and Areas of Vessel
Concentration ..................... 104
i. Tanker Traffic ............... 104
ii. Barges and Tug Boats ......... 107
iii. Foreign Product Carriers ..... 109

vi. Pleasure Boats ............... 110
b. Washington State Ports and Harbors. 111
i. Willapa Harbor ................ 111
ii. Grays Harbor .................. ill
iii. La Push ....................... 113
iv. Neah Bay ...................... 113
V. Port Angeles .................. 114
vi. Ports of Anacortes and
Ferndale .......... 115
C. Economic Contributions @f**V*essel
Activities ......................... 115
d. Vessel Management Regimes .......... 115
i. - Voluntary Management
Initiatives ................... 115
ii. Cooperative Vessel Traffic
Management Service ............ 116
e. Contingency Plans .................. 120
i. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 ..... 120
ii. State Framework for
Contingency Planning .......... 121
iii. Response Readiness for Oil
Spills ........................ 124
iv. Emergency Towing Response for
Vessels and Tugs/Barges
Adrift ........................ 127
4. Military Activities ..................... 128
5. Ocean Waste Disposal .................... 140
a. Point source Discharges ............ 141
b. Non-Point Source Discharges ........ 142
C. Ocean Dumping of Non-Dredge
Material ........................... 143
6. Hard Mineral Extraction ................. 144
7. Overflights ............................. 145
8. Research and Education .................. 145
9. Protected Areas ......................... 147
10. Recreational Activities and Tourism ..... 149

-11-2

PART II: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

A. Regional Context

1. Sanctuary Study Area Location

A Western Washington Outer Coast site was included on NOAA's
original Site Evaluation List (SEL) established in 1983 (48 FR
24296, May 31, 1983). This SEL consists of 29 marine sites with
high natural resource values that were identified and recommended
to NOAA by regional resource evaluation teams. The SEL Western
Washington Outer Coast site extends from Duntze Rock (north of
Tatoosh Island on the northwestern tip of the state of
Washington), 90 miles (145 km) southward along the coast to Point
Grenville. The offshore boundary is contiguous with the boundary
established for the Washington Islands National Wildlife Refuge,
2 to 3 miles (3.2-4.8 km) offshore. The Sanctuary study site
encompasses approximately 225 square miles (169 nM2, or 576 km2)
(Figure 3, p. I-11).

The 1988 amendments to the MPRSA (PL 100-627, November 7,
1988), direct the Secretary of Commerce to issue a notice of
designation with respect to the Western Washington Outer Coast
(proposed herein as the "Olympic Coast") National Marine
Sanctuary not later than June 30, 1990,(section 205). In report
language accompanying this legislation (H. Rep. No. 4210, 100th
Cong., 1st. Sess., 1988), Congress noted that the boundaries of
the area identified in the SEL may fail to provide an adequate
buffer, and directed NOAA to use the SEL boundaries only very
generally as a point from which to embark upon a more detailed
public review and comment process which would lead to the
development of various boundary options. NOAA was directed by
Congress to consult extensively with state agencies, local
government-officials, marine scientists, and the public in
carrying out the designation process and establishing specific
boundaries.

In response to the Congressional directive, NOAA met with
several government officials and marine scientists, and conducted
four public scoping meetings in Washington State during April
1989. NOAA was strongly urged by tribal, state and local
governments, other Federal agencies, private interest groups, and
citizens to expand the area to be evaluated for sanctuary
designation; specifically, areas south of Point Grenville to the
Columbia River, and offshore to the edge of the.continental shelf
(defined herein as the 100 fathom depth contour). The heads of
submarine canyons incising the shelf, and a highly productive
fishing area adjacent to the head of Juan de Fuca Canyon, known
as "the plain", were recommended for study. It was also
suggested that consideration be given to extending the northern
sanctuary boundary to the international boundary between Canada
and the United States to promote and facilitate a potential

11-3

"international sanctuary" at some future time. Some comments on
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan
(DEIS/MP) issued in September 1991, suggested that an'eastern
boundary be established within the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The
total study area for the proposed Sanctuary evaluated by NOAA is,
therefore, quite extensive compared to the original SEL site
description, and covers approximately 4,155 nM2 (14,249 kM2)
(Figure 4).

The Olympic coast extends for approximately 150 miles from
Cape Flattery in the north, southward to Cape Disappointment at
the mouth of the Columbia River. The southernmost portion of the
coastline is characterized by estuaries, wetlands, long sandy
beaches, and dunes. North of Point Grenville the coastline is
more rugged and rocky with high cliffs and sea stacks.

The area selected by NOAA for inclusion in the proposed
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (i.e., NOAA,1s "preferred
boundary option") is similar to that proposed in the DEIS/MP with
slight variations to the shoreward boundary (Figure 5). The
preferred boundary extends from Koitlah Point northward across
the Strait of Juan De Fuca to the U.S./Canada international
boundary where it continues seaward to the 100 fathom isobath,
and southward along the coast to the southern border of the
Copalis National Wildlife Refuge off of Copalis Beach, thus
incorporating the entire northern rugged, rocky coastline. This
sparsely populated 135 mile stretch of coast remains one of the
few relatively undeveloped and pristine coastlines in the United
States. In waters adjacent to Federally owned lands, t 'he
boundary of the proposed sanctuary extends landward to the higher
high water line, and across the mouths of rivers and streams.
When adjacent to Indian reservations and State lands, the
Sanctuary boundary extends to the lower low water line.

The seaward extent of the sanctuary boundary generally
follows the 100 fathom isobath except where it cuts across the
heads of the Juan de Fuca, Quinault and Nitnat Canyons. The
northern'boundary encompasses the productive fishing areas known
as "the plain," and Swiftsure Bank. The total surface area of
the sanctuary is approximately 2,500 nM2 (8577 kM2).

Characteristic of the coastal area of the.,proposed Sanctuary
are rugged headlands and cliffs; sea stacks and sea arches;
tidepools; hundreds of small offshore islands, rocks, and reefs;
and sand and cobble beaches. Nutrient-rich waters and diverse
habitat types result in an abundance and diversity of marine
species of algae, invertebrates, finfish, shellfishi birds, and
marine mammals. Commercial and recreational fisheries for
salmon, groundfish, razor clams, and dungeness crab within the
area contribute to the economy of Washington state and the
nation. Popular recreational di,-@,ring sites are located throughout

11-4

larmy 12rw 12VW 126*W 124-V 124,00, 123'30' 123*20'
49W
48o45'

4M
14
V3o'
to

50"
to

@300 0!
tic,

so__
@,-500 30
a
A.,

4M 48*W

BOUNDKR
ALTERNAtl-'
NO. 5

WIMP ON

3 47vrw IPA
4 47*0W =
, 4r4M lZrN'44r
6 47wor lww4r
7 47Tr1r aswir
8 49VrW 1251ww
10 49'14'4W 12V40W
aww 125iffir
11 4M4r iffilooor 4
12 aww lw5wlr
47W - is "I" tW50`4r
14 482M WA*4941' + 47'30'
15
497w IN-wir
16 4"'17W IpAlorar
17 4r14Vr 12ragvr
IS 49WW 12rww
C
C
YON

47*W - 47*00'
-,Mow

19 W-U@ &I
L
QD 0
4M -
46*30'
UNITED STATES -WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
NAUTICAL JC11=

'@7
4r ? !@-J,-, I @ 7;, 1@ 46*12'
1119wV10, @m- 126*W iu*w 12A*00' 123'30' 123'20'

Figure 4. Study Area for the Proposed Olympic Coast National Marine
Sanctuary.

201 126"' 401 20' 125" 401 201, '124'0

Q
20'
Soo -Q4 IVA 04

480

WASHING
TOW:

40,

1 CAPE EL!ZA ETH:
.. . . ...........
20
PT. GRE V IL L.E

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

:Ocean city.
470

Harbor

PT.
PACIFIC OCEAN

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

40'

DEPTHS IN FATHCMS

NAUTICAL MILES

3 10 20
CAP
STATUTE MILES DISAPPOIN.TME NT
sz5;5252!Q-w 20
0 10 20
100
L

Figure 5. NOAA's Preferred Boundary Alternative.

11-6

the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

2. Socio-demographic.Profile and Land Use

Most of the land area adjacent.to the sanctuary study area
is protected and sparsely populated. There are four Indian
Reservations from Neah Bay to Moclips and more populated non-
tribal communities bordering Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. The
land not encompassed by reservations or non-tribal communities on
the outer coast, and offshore rocks and islands are largely
protected by the NPS and the USFWS (both within the Department of
Interior). Olympic Coast de 'signations'of national significance
include migratory bird sanctuaries, wildlife refuges, wilderness
areas, a Biosphere Reserve, and a World Heritage Site (Figure 6).
Most of the remaining coastal lands along the outer coast not
managed under Federal authority or within reservations are state
public use areas (i.e., 74% of Clallam and Jefferson counties are
under public ownership).

Small residential communities dot the Strait of Juan de Fuca
between Neah Bay and Observatory Point including Joyce, Clallam
Bay, and Sekiu. Public beaches abutting privately-owned land
border much of the Strait resulting in few access points to the
Strait. Clallam County has developed a park at Tongue Point and
Observatory Point, and the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources has developed a park at the Lyre River.

Population density in the counties adjacent to the study
area is, and projected to remain low and relatively static
(Appendix C, Figure 8). While the population of the State of
Washington is expected to double from its 1960 level by the year
2010, the coastal counties in the northern extent of the study
area, Clallam and Jefferson counties, are expected to increase by
only 30 percent. Grays Harbor and Pacific counties, bordering
the southern portion of the study area, are projected to increase
even less, with some areas actually projected to experience a
population decline, from -20 to 14 percent. The overall
population density of the four coastal counties bordering the
sanctuary study area is projected to be only between 0-49 persons
per square mile by the year 2010 (Culliton et al., 1990).

The economy in the coastal region is inextricably linked to
its natural resources, based primarily upon seafood, timber
harvesting, pulp and paper production, and tourism. This is
reflected in a number of socioeconomic indicators including a
high reliance on manufacturing jobs compared to other coastal
communities, high unemployment, low property values compared to
those of the rest of the coastal U.S., and fewer construction
permits. The tourist industry generates approximately $560
million annually from visits to the Olympic National Park. Of
the estimated 3.5 million visits annually to the Park,
approximately one third are to the coastline (SAB, 1984).

11-7

Figure

ations
lRic Coast Design
REM 0. Rtiona! Significance

Migratory Bird Sanctuaries (1907)/
National Wildlife Refuges (1940)
7
@ccalls
rl@ttery Rocks
Quillayute Needles
Olympic National Park (1.953)
Washington Island Wilderness (1970)
OZ-17 LAY-- Biosphere Resezve (1976)
World Heritage Siteiwl9SI)

XATMAL
PARK

Washington

D.w-vj- T.UM NO

PACIFrC OCEAN

Q UL

0.
RESERVA11ON

National Wildlife Re!use

CIY--Pic National Park

CPA YS
HARBOR

Figure 6. Olympic Coast Designations of National Significance.
5
C@
HARBOR

Low population densities along the coast contribute to the
relatively pristine nature of the outer coast and Strait of Juan
de Fuca. Pollution sources such as agricultural and urban
runoff, and domestic and industrial point sources are minimal.
Likewise, a lack of shoreline development has enabled wildlife
habitats to remain largely undisturbed. However, there are
indications that excessive runoff resulting from timber
operations are stressing coastal habitats.

Because of the presence of the Olympic National Park, forest
lands dominate land use within all four coastal counties
(Appendix C, Figure 1). Agriculture and wetlands are the next
two most intensive land uses around Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor.
Freshwater inflow into the proposed sanctuary watershed is
relatively small compared to other areas of the contiguous West
Coast. However, volumes of freshwater flow per square mile of
drainage basin are high because the land, characterized by small
drainage basins and steep terrain, experiences high rainfall
(over 200 inches per year in some areas) (Rohmann, 1990).

Tribal Economies

Four Indian reservations are located on the outer coast of
Washington State: 1) the Makah, located on the northwestern tip
of the Olympic Peninsula; 2) the Quileute, located at La Push;
3) the Hoh, situated at the mouth of the Hoh River; and 4) the
Quinault, located between Queets and Moclips. These four tribes
are Federally recognized Indian Nations pursuant to the Steven's
Treaties of 1855 which include the Treaty of Neah Bay (January
31, 1855. 12 Stat. 939) with the Makah Indians and the Treaty of
Olympia (July 1, 1855. 12 Stat. 971) whose signatories include
the Quinault, Quileute and Hoh Tribes (Appendix D).

The Ozette Reservation is a separate reservation inhabited
historically by the Ozette Tribe. It is of cultural importance
to the Quileute, Hoh and Makah Tribes, each of which now
incorporate some Ozette ancestry, and each of which have
historically fished and traded with the Ozette. Both the
Quileute and Makah Tribes have asserted their right of access to
the Ozette Reservation (Penn, 1992).

The following discussion presents: 1) an overview of the
four Indian Tribes and their historical dependence on ocean
resources; 2) the legal status of Treaty Tribes and their treaty-
secured rights; and 3) current activities occurring on, or
proposed for, the four Indian reservations. 6escription of the
tribes and their legal status is extracted predominately from two
Minerals Management Service publications (MMS, 1990; 1991) and by
representatives of the respective tribes.

11-9

The Four Coastal Tribes and Historical Dependence on Marine
Resources

Makah Indian Nation

The Makah Trib6 differs from their Salish neighbors in that
they are of Nooktan origin. Their main settlements at Neah Bay
were set aside as a reservation pursuant to the Treaty of Neah
Bay and subsequent Executive Orders, and they are governed under
an Indian Reorganization Act constitution adopted in 1936. The
Makah reservation is located on the northwestern-most tip of the
Olympic Peninsula (Figure 7). It encompasses 44 square miles of
land bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the Strait of
Juan de Fuca to the north. The Ozette Reservation, 10 miles
south of Neah Bay is part of the Makah Reservation, with the
Olympic National Park managing the contiguous shoreline between
the two components of the Reservation.

Neah Bay is one of the largest and most accessible
communities on the Olympic Peninsula with a year-round population
of 1,400. It suffers from limited economic opportunities, and
chronic and seasonal unemployment of over 16% and 50%,
respectively (MMS, 1991). There has been a steady increase in
the on-reservation portion of the population from 1960-1980
attributed partly to a higher birth rate, and expanded on-
reservation economic opportunity subsequent to, and as a result
of the Court's decision in United. States-v. Washington, 384 F.
Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974), aff1d, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975),
commonly referred to as the "Boldt Decision". As a result, the
on-reservation Makah population age structure is younger than
that of.Washington State as a whole.

Historically, the Makah's relied on the marine resources for
approximately three fourths or more of their diet which was
comprised predominately of halibut and whale. Primary fishing
and whaling grounds extended up to 50 miles seaward of Cape
Flattery'over La Perouse Bay and Swiftsure Banks. Other food
fisheries included salmon, squid, skates, sea urchins, mussels,
barnacles, crabs, sea slugs, periwinkles and limpets. Gadoid
fish were consumed including true cod, lingcod, rockcod,
sablefish, sculpins and rockfish. Porpoises, seals, sea-lions,
otters, and seabirds were also hunted. Traditional salmon
fishing was concentrated in the Sekiu and Hoko rivers just to
the east of Neah Bay on the Strait.

. After the 18801s, the Makah Tribe experienced dramatic
changes in their economy.. Increased exploitation of seals and
halibut by American fishing fleets forced the Makah's to rely
more heavily on salmon and other nearshore fishery resources. By
1942, fishing (approximately 1/3 for halibut) accounted for only
a little more than 25 percent of the Makah's income. Today,
marine resources are vital to the Makah Tribe for commercial and

II-10

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

v4aateo
tv
C@

Makah Indian
Reservation

Makah Hatchery

.,V"T
Sekiu

lei

0
0

Elk Lake

MAKAH & OZETTE
Ozette Indian INDIAN RESERVATIONS
i Reservation

0 MILES 5

Figure 7. Makah Indian Reservation (MMS, 1991).

II-11

subsistence purposes. Over 60 percent of Tribal members actively
fish and 75 percent of Tribal households are directly or
indirectly dependant on fisheries for their economic survival.
Many tribal members continue to harvest other marine resourcest
including shellfish and marine mammals for subsistence (MMS,
1991). A more complete list of ocean and coastal resources
utilized by the Makah is presented in Appendix E.

Quileute Tribe

The Quileute Reservation is located approximately 36 miles
south of Cape Flattery (Figure 8). Their reservation encompasses
one square mile of land at La Push. Approximately 450 of the 723
persons enrolled in the Quileute Tribe in 1990 live on the
reservation. The unemployment rate on the reservation is
approximately 81 percent, with 92 percent of those employed
earning less than $7,000 annually.

The Quileute are ethnically and linguistically distinct from
their Tribal neighbors who are of Nooktan and Salish origin with
two exceptions: 1) the Hoh, part of the Quileute Tribe until
recent times, incorporates the same language and ethnic
characteristics; and 2) the recently extinct Chinacum. Tribe of
the Olympic Peninsula and Port Townsend Area, was also known to
have spoken essentially the same language as the Quileute Tribe
(Penn, 1992). The Quileute language is one of only five
languages in the world lacking nasal sounds. The Quileute and
Hoh Tribes are closely related aboriginally, but have functioned
increasingly as distinct legal entities since the early part of
the century. Although the Treaty of Olympia provided for a
single reservation for both the Quileute and-Hoh Tribes, two
small reservations were set aside for each by Executive orders of
September 11, 1893, and February 19, 1889, respectively. The
Quileute adopted an Indian Reorganization Act Constitution in
1936, and the Hoh in 1969.

The main Quileute winter village was historically located at
La Push. The Quileute harvested salmon, smelt, bass, ocean
perch, cod, rockcod, redcod, lingcod, halibut, flounder and other
flatfish, bullheads, rays, octopus, shark, herring, sardine, and
sturgeon. They hunted hair and fur seals, sea lions, sea otters,
porpoise, and whale, and gathered butter clams, razor clams, rock
oysters, mussels, acorn and goose-neck barnacles, sea urchins,
anemones, slipper-shells and crabs. Among the seabirds harvested
were ducks, geese, white-crested cormorant, brandt, gulls,
puffins, auklets, and loons.

As a result of increasingly restricted access to marine
mammals and terrestrial resources such as deer and elk by Federal
and state laws, the coastal tribes became more dependent upon
fishing for commercial and subsistence purposes. By 1944,
fishing accounted for approximately two thirds of the Quileute

11-12

1=39' 40* 39' 37 15*
477'W-)'30

OLYMPIC

JVFR NATIONAL

PARK

Little
Jam- I'land

Gunsi-ht
0,
Y LA
PUSH
Q)
James QUILEUTE INDIAN

RESERVATION

-54- 54'

OLYMPIC
QUILEUTE INDIAN A;;,.

RESERVATION
NATIONAL
LA PUSH, WASHINGTON Cmin 1.11dY
R)

PARK

47'.52
124'49'40' 39' 3S 124t3o'13'
Ca@@,es

Figure S. Location of the Quileute Indian Reservation (MMS,
1991).

11-13

Tribe's earned income, with the remainder derived from fur
trapping, crafts, some cattle-raising and wage work, chiefly in
logging and for the Forest Service. Resources currently
harvested by the Quileute are listed in Appendix E. Shellfish
and other shoreline resources play a year-round role in
sustaining the Quileute people (MMS, 1991).

Hoh Indian Tribe

The main Hoh village is located at the mouth of the Hoh
River on a small reservation encompassing approximately 480 acres
(Figure 9). The reservation extends along the coast for about
one mile. There is no protected harbor either at the river mouth
or elsewhere on the reservation. According to a 1989 report by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 94 of 120 persons enrolled in the
tribe live on or near the Reservation. Unemployment is
approximately 53 percent with 82 percent of employable persons
earning less than $7,000 annually'.

The Hoh historically harvested salmon halibut and black
bass, clams and smelt. They also harvested whales near
Destruction Island. Their current economic opportunities are
bleak with most Hoh families subsisting from oceanic and coastal
resources. Today, the Hoh consume more ocean and shoreline
resources per household than any other Washington coastal Tribe.
The resources upon which the Hoh depend are listed in Appendix E.
other economic activities occurring on the Hoh reservation
include the production of native crafts and a limited amount of
timbering.

Quinault Indian Nation

The Quinault Reservation was established by Executive Order
'in 1873. The Tribe functions under an Indian Reorganization Act
constitution adopted in 1965. The reservation, encompassing
approximately 200,000 acres extends 26 miles along the Pacific
Coast (Figure 10). The two principle villages are Taholah and
Queets. A third village on the reservation, Amanda Park, is
populated by non-Indians. The total population on the Quinault
reservation is approximately 2260 (MMS, 1991). The per capita
income on the Quinault Reservation in 1988 was $3,182 compared to
$7,446 in Grays Harbor County. Approximately 32.6 percent of
families on the Quinault reservation are below the poverty level
compared to 10.5 percent of families in Grays Harbor County (MMS,
1991).

The Quinault are speakers of Chinookan, Salish or Chemakuan.
The present Quinault Reservation contains the ancient lands of
two distinct tribes, the Quinault and the Queets. Historically,
marine resources harvested were salmon, smelt and candlefish,
halibut, cod, rock cod, sea bass, and soles, razor clams, mud
clams, rock oysters, black-shelled mussels, slipper-shells, sea

11-14

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

Lower
Hoh
Road
..............
. ....... .. ....

Bt LWm
Road
........ ........

Fish
Hatdwy
Road

OCY

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

.......... .

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

HOH RIVER
INDIAN RESERVATION

Reservation Boundary

Roads

0 1000 2000

FEET
. ...... . .
. ........ ..

Figure 9. Location of the Hoh Indian Reservation (MMS, 1991).

11-15

j
r
Olympic National Forest
mpic National Park
Washington Stale
r
Oueets Lands

Ve orasir at@,
unaay
North l3oundary
Restoration Area

r
r @vrt 00.!,.*i:i*;":: Ole .. .........
W.,
QUINAULT Amanda
Park
INDIAN
RESERVATION
A, r
Nw- r

J
9,

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

Taholah

.... .........
01

X..
Approx. 5 Miles

Figure 10. Location of the Quinault Indian Reservation (MMS, 1991).

11-16

anemones and crabs, flounders, herring, seals, sea lions, whales,
and sea otters. Birds harvested included ducks, geese, gulls,
and loons and their eggs. Seaweed was also harvested for food.

By the 1870's the Quinault were economically integrated into
European society. They were engaged in a variety of wage-earning
occupations such as seal hunting, and employed by oyster, fishing
and logging companies. Today, salmon has become the commercial
mainstay of Quinault fisheries, in addition to halibut, lingcod,
black bass, other rockfish, smelt, flounder, perch, sturgeon and
razor clams. A more complete list of ocean resources harvested
by the Quinault is provided in Appendix E. Virtually every
Quinault tribal member derives some benefit from the fishery
resources through participation in ceremonies, distribution of
fish within families, and sharing of fish among extended families
and friends. The Tribe is pursuing a strategy of vertical
integration to increase the benefit return from ocean resources.
A seafood processing facility at Taholah depends both upon tribal
catch and fish purchases from off-reservation suppliers.

Treaty Rights and Legal Status

The Tribes have a unique legal status under which they enjoy
a collective interest in lands and natural resources quite
different from the property rights accorded to others. By
entering into treaties with the tribes, the United States
accepted a fiduciary duty to protect all of the rights which the
treaty secured, including marine hunting and fishing rights.
There is "an extensive body of cases holding that when the
federal government enters into a treaty with an Indian tribe....
the Government commits itself to a guardian-ward relationship
with that tribe." Joint Tribal Council of Passamaquoddy v.
Morton, 528 F.2d 370, 379 (1st Cir. 1975). This fiduciary duty,
known as the federal trust responsibility, extends to all federal
agencies. Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. United States, 898 F.2d
1410, 1420 (9th Cir. 1990). In addition, it requires that
federal agencies seriously consider and protect Indian rights and
interests to the fullest extent possible. Northern Cheyenne
Tribe v. Hodel, 12 Ind. L. Rptr. 3065 (D. Mont. 1985).
The Federal government, however, is not obligated to provide
particular services or benefits, nor to undertake any specific
fiduciary responsibilities in the absence of a specific provision
in a treaty, agreement, executive order, or statute. Havasupai
Tribe v. U.S., 752 F. Supp. 1471 (D. Ariz. 1990), citing Vigil,
667 F.2d at 934; North Slope Borough v. Andrus, 642 F. 2d 589,
611 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community,
427 F.2d 1194, 190 Ct.Cl. 790 (1970).

The Treaty of Neah Bay and the Treaty of Olympia expressly
reserved, among other things, each Tribes' right to continue to
fish in its "usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations."
The Treaty of Neah Bay differs from the Treaty of Olympia in that

11-17

it secures for the Makah Indian Nation the "right of taking fish
and of whaling or sealing at usual and accustomed grounds and
stations... "(Article 4, Treaty of Neah Bay, 1855). The addition
of whaling in the Treaty of Neah Bay addresses the Makah's
historical dependence on whaling for subsistence, cultural and
ceremonial purposes.

In addition to reserving the right to fish and whale at
usual and accustomed fishing areas, the Treaties also secure the
-right of access to Tribal lands for the Treaty Tribes. Article 2
of each Treaty states that 11 ... said tract shall be set apart, and
so far as necessary surveyed and marked out for their exclusive
use; nor shall any white man be permitted to reside upon the same
without permission of the said tribe and of the superintendent or
agent... 11 Thus, access to Tatoosh Island and the Ozette site by
the Makah Tribe is secured by the Treaty of Neah Bay.

The post-treaty history of Northwest Indian fishing rights
has been contentious and complex. With increasing exploitation
of marine mammals, pinnipeds and fish by European settlers, the
Treaty Tribes fought to maintain their treaty-secured right of
access to marine resources in the courts. In 1905 the United
States Supreme Court interpreted the Treaties securing the right
of treaty tribes to fish to be "not a grant of rights to the
Indians, but a grant of rights from them,--a reservation of those
not granted." United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 384 (1905).

Aboriginal and treaty-secured rights can only be abrogated
if there is "clear evidence that Congress actually considered the
conflict between its intended action on the one hand and Indian
treaty rights on the other, and chose to resolve that conflict by
abrogating the treaty" United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734, 739-
40 (1986). Regulations which restrict the exercise of treaty-
secured hunting and fishing rights are lawful only if they: 1).
are "reasonable and necessary" to "prevent demonstrable harm" to
a.harvested species or stock; and 2) are the least restrictive
alternative for achieving this purpose. (United States v.
Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, 342, 415 (W.D. Wash. 1974), aff1d,
520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975).

Two significant legal decisions have addressed the extent to
which state and Federal regulatory measures were justifiable for
conservation purposes. In 1942 the United States Supreme Court
struck down license fees for tribal members as unrelated to the
conservation of fish, and hence contrary to the intent of the
treaties. Tulee v. Washington, 315 U.S. 681 (1942). In 1974,
the landmark "Boldt Decision" held that Indian tribes of Puget
Sound and coastal Washington have the right to an opportunit to
take up to 50 percent of the total number of harvestable
salmonids, as well as the right to regulate their own fishers.
United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974),
aff1d, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975). Non-salmonid fisheries may

11-18

eventually be brought within the same legal regime because Indian
tribes in Washington State have launched a challenge against the
State's shellfish harvesting regulations (MMS, 1991).

Current and Future Activities

Current activities occurring on and/or planned for the
reservations adjacent to the proposed study area include
timbering, harbor development and maintenance, an increased
emphasis on attracting tourism, and the preservation of
culturally significant and wilderness'areas. The tribes seek to
promote economic development on the reservations to alleviate
unemployment and poverty, enhance their ability to provide basic
public services and facilities, and further the joint tribal-
Federal goal of tribal self-sufficiency (MMS, 1991).

Timbering is an important economic activity on the Makah and
Quinault Reservations, and to a lesser extent on the Hoh
Reservation. The'Bureau of Indian Affairs manages, as trustees
for the Tribes, a substantial timber resource, under a sustained
yield operating plan approved by the Tribal Councils. Revenues
from sales of timber stands is an important component of the
Makah and Quinault tribal government income. Most of the
employment generated by the forestry resource is in logging and
transportation, since most of the timber harvested on the
reservation is transported to mills outside of the reservation
(Pacific Rim Planner, Inc., 1980).

Harbor development and maintenance activities occur on the
Makah and Quileute Reservations. The Makah Tribe undertakes
maintenance dredging of Neah Bay every 10 to 20 years. The Tribe
is also planning harbor improvements and expansion to develop a
commercial marina along the central portion of the south shore of
Neah Bay. The marina would accommodate 300 boats and would be
dredged to a minimum depth of 28 feet mean lower low water. The
volume of dredge spoil generated by the proposed marine expansion
is estimated to be approximately 154,000 cubic yards of sand.
Dredge spoil will be utilized -for beach nourishment projects with
excess spoils utilized or disposed of on land (Simmons, 1993).

Additionally, the mouth of the Quillayute River is dredged
to maintain the channel by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Pursuant to the Quileute Coastal Zone Management Plan (Hyas' Yal
Kollal, 1981) dredging of the navigation channel shall occur only
between January 1 and March 31 of any year. Dredge spoils are
routinely deposited on the north jetty and breakwater of the Port
of La Push. All dredging is timed, and measures are undertaken
to protect fish habitat of the Quileute Reservation. The port
facility is in need of significant repair and upgrading. The
Tribe has received a small grant from the state to assist in
strategic planning for port improvements including bulk fuel
storage, waste oil containment, solid waste removal and public

11-19

rest rooms (Schaftlein, 1992).

Scattered areas on and off the Reservations are culturally
significant to the Tribes. Property of cultural significance
have an important role in the current community, but also may
have historic significance to the Tribe's beliefs, customs and
practices as well. These sites may be important if culturally
significant events, activities or observances have occurred at
the location, or if the user group designated a name to that
particular place. These sites include ancient villages such as
Ozette, burial grounds, ceremonial places for prayer, preparation
and training, lookout places, etc... (Pascua, 1992). James Island
and First Beach are particularly important to the Quileute Tribe
as ancient burial grounds and areas of spiritual significance.
The Hoh shoreline is a burial area for ancestors of the Hoh
people. Destruction Island is also spiritually significant to
the Hoh Tribe. In addition to areas set aside as culturally
significant, the Makah Tribe has reserved over 1,000 acres of
reservation land bordering the Pacific Coast as a wilderness
area. The Quinault Tribe has set aside offshore rocks and
islands as bird and wildlife sanctuaries. In addition, the
estuarine habitats essential for salmon and wildlife are
protected from development by policies set forth in the Quinault
Coastal Zone Management Plan (Quinault Planning Commission,
1979).

Tourism holds future economic promise to the coastal tribes
and is being strategically targeted as a way to alleviate the
severe economic conditions prevailing on the reservations. The
Quileute Tribe has a strong interest in tourism. La Push Ocean
Park Resort provides a range of accommodations. Future efforts
to accommodate tourism will emphasize providing food service,
building additional tourist rental units, increasing winter
tourism visitation rates, providing charter fishing services, and
providing a museum/cultural center. During the tourist season,
the tourist enterprises on the Quileute Reservation may bring the
effective population of La Push to approximately 3,000 persons
(Penn, 1992). The Makah Tribe is also targeting tourism,
especially with their plans to expand and diversify the port of
Neah Bay. I

B. Sanctuary study Area Resources

The study area of the Olympic Coast National Marine
Sanctuary lies in the Oregonian biogeographic province (Figure 2,
p. I-10) which extends from Cape Mendocino, California, north to
Cape Flattery, Washington, including the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
This province is characterized by, a narrow continental shelf,
mountainous shoreline and steep rocky headlands, interspersed
with open sandy and pocket beaches, many small and few large
rivers, and small estuaries with bay-mouth barriers. Waters in
the Oregonian Province are cool and relatively clear with sea-

11-20

surface temperatures ranging between 90-11* in winter and 13*-150
in summer. ocean waters are dominated by the California Current.
This province is characterized by having the greatest volume of
upwelling in North America from February to September resulting
from the interaction of ocean currents, winds and the submarine
canyons that indent the shelf, most notably, the Juan de Fuca
Canyon. These environmental factors combine to produce highly
productive nutrient-rich waters and abundant marine resources
along the outer coast and in the estuaries of Grays Harbor,
Willapa Bay and the Columbia River.

The proposed marine sanctuary supports a multitude of
species of algae, invertebrates, birds, marine mammals, and
commercially important finfish and shellfish. Federally listed
endangered or threatened species such as the bald eagle,,
peregrine falcon, brown pelican, Aleutian Canada gbose, short-
tailed albatross (although not listed as endangered within the
United States), northern (Steller) sea lion, and gray, blue, and
humpback whales inhabit this coastal area and the adjacent
mainland. The rocky headlands along the coast north of Point
Grenville provide important habitat for a wide variety of seabird
populations, while the offshore islands and rocks of the Flattery
Rocks, Quileute Needles, and Copalis National Wildlife Refuges
are important as haulout areas for California sea lions and
northern sea lions, and roosting and nesting habitat for
seabirds. The western Strait of Juan de Fuca serves as an
important migration corridor for bird and fish species moving to
and from the San Juan Island archipelago and Puget Sound.
Salmon, groundfish (e.g., halibut, rockfish, cod, sablefish,
whiting), and shellfish (crabs, razor clams, oysters) are the
mainstays of commercial and recreational fisheries in the
sanctuary study area.

1. Environmental Conditions

(a) Geology

The Pacific margin of the United States is the tectonically
active edge of the North American crustal plate (composed mostly
of continental crust) that has collided with and is overriding
the sea floor of the Juan de Fuca oceanic crustal plate. The
coastal margin is characterized by a narrow continental shelf,
slope and rise, and is marked by earthquakes associated with
geological faulting and volcanism. (McGregor and Offield, 1986).
The area of the proposed sanctuary is subjected to tectonic
forces caused by the combined movements of the large Pacific and
North America Plates and the smaller Juan de Fuca Plate (Figure
11). The altered sedimentary rocks of the Olympic Mountains and
the volcanoes of the Cascade Range (Mount Saint Helens, for
example) are the result of the convergence of these plates
composed of oceanic and continental crusts.

11-21

Continental Slope
Continental Shelf

., N-2; If. - @1@0
R46
0

qj . ........

77i
Washington........

Sediments 'Contin ntal Crust./

eam Crust!,-,-
Mag
Mantle

agma

Figure 11. Plate Tectonic Structure of the Pacific Northwest
Continental and Oceanic Region (Strickland and
Chasan, 1989).

11-22

The continental shelf of the Washington coast is smooth and
narrow, ranging in width from eight to forty miles (Washington
State Dept. of Ecology, 1986). Submarine canyons incise the
continental shelf and slope along the entire coast, and the heads
of Juan de Fuca and Quinault Canyons are included within the
proposed sanctuary (Figure 12). The continental slope consists
of a steep and highly incised upper portion, and a more gently
sloping lower portion which grades into the Cascadia Basin (Baker
and Hickey, 1986). Although glacial deposits comprise the
underlying relic sediments of the continental shelf, the Columbia
River is the dominant source of modern sediments for the southern
Washington Shelf (Nittrouer, 1978 in Baker and Hickey, 1986).
The northern shelf is fed by sediments carried from the Strait of
Juan de Fuca. Year-round bottom currents and winter storms
transport much of this sediment north-northwest. The sediment
accumulates on the shelf as a band of sandy silt with the inner
shelf sandy and the outer shelf comprised primarily of silt and
clay (Carson, et al., 1986). Much of this sediment is
transported to and deposited in the Quinault Canyon where it
gradually works downhill into the Cascadia Basin (Cutshell, et
al., 1986). Overlying the bedrock along many areas of the coast
are deposits of sand and gravel laid down by glacial streams
during extensive glaciation of the Olympic Mountains during the
Pleistocene Epoch some 17,000 to 70,000 years ago (Rau, 1973).
Prominent gravel pockets lie off Cape Flattery, Grays Harbor, and
the mouth of the Quinault River (Moore and Luken, 1979).

The uplifted broad coastal plain that forms the coast of
Washington extends from Cape Flattery southward and includes two
tidal inlets, Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor (Weissenborn and
Snavely, 1968). Broad beaches, dunes, and ridges dominate the
coastline from Cape Disappointment on the north side of the
Columbia River mouth, to the Hoh River (Moore and Luken, 1979).
The plain rises eastward and merges with the foothills of the
Olympic Mountains. Wave action has eroded the plain through time
and formed steep cliffs along the coast, except at river mouths.
For most of the coast between Cape Flattery and Point Grenville
these cliffs rise abruptly 50 to 300 feet above a wave-cut
platform. This wave-cut platform, which normally extends about
half a mile from shorel is nearly two miles wide west of Ozette
Lake. Small islands, sea stacks, and rocks dot the
platform's surface. Islands can be found in all stages of
development from partially isolated promontories to true islands
several acres in extent (op. cit.). The largest, Destruction
Island, is 1.5 km long.

(b) Meteorology

The climate of western Washington is characterized by
relatively mild winters and moderately dry cool summers. Most
air masses reaching the coast originate over the Pacific Ocean
and exert a moderating influence throughout the year. The

11-23

201 1260 Q1 201 1250 4o, 20' 1240

v
U.
Ountze Rod

201
e A IVA PA
BARKLEY
CANYON
CAPE ALAVA:
N
111NAT
WYON
C
rM
W 480
UAN E
i
FUC
1:'. x HINGTOW
Push...2"
A
CANYON M
% IN
'-w
%
1&-.8
A

De!w@ t!'Jam @A 0
40'

Z
p

50-
Ram R.
Sealion'pl@ck
OM

QUIN ULT
CAN "M 20'
W
MP

Ocean city
m
A "be!r "4de n470
lay
Hafbor
'U,
PT. HAL15i.
GRAY'S
CANYON
PACIFIC OCEAN . .. ... Ap '41
CA J@
SHOALWAT.

4.01
N

DEPTHS IN FATHOMS

NAUTICAL MILES

0- -10 - 20

STATUTE MILES D1 P
Fp 20'
0 10 20 100,
@'N A
I;W T
CANYO@Nq,

Figure 12. Bathymetry of the Olympic Coast Offshore Area and
Submarine Canyons (Illustrations Unlimited, 1991).

11-24

climate is influenced by topography, location along the windward
coast, prevailing westerly winds, and the position and intensity
of high and low pressure centers over the North Pacific Ocean
(Phillips and Donaldson, 1972).

In late spring and summeri westerly to northwesterly winds
associated with the North Pacific high pressure system produce a
dry season. In late fall and winter, southwesterly and westerly
winds associated with the then dominant Aleutian low pressure
system provide ample moisture and cloud cover for the wet season
which begins in October. The rising and cooling of moist air
along the windward slopes of the Willapa Hills and Olympic
Mountains produces an area of heavy precipitation from the coast
to the crests. Annual amounts range from 70 to 100 inches over
the southern coastal plains and from 125 to 200 inches in the
"rain forest" area on the western slope of the Olympic Mountains
(op. cit.).

Afternoon temperatures near the coast during the summer are
generally in the upper 60's (OF). In an average winter, maximum
temperatures range from 38*F to 45*F and minimums from 280F to
35 OF (op. cit.). The highest wind speeds recorded on the
Washington coast reached 150 mph at North Head at the mouth of
the Columbia River in January 1941, and 94 mph at Tatoosh Island
in November 1942 (Oceanographic Institute of Washington, 1977, in
Strickland and Chasan, 1989).

Ocean surface water temperature near the coast averages
about 480F in February, 52*F in May, 570F in August, and 50OF in
November. The range of seawater temperature is greater in
shallow and protected bays along the coast. The temperature
range offshore is slight throughout the year, thus inshore-
offshore migrations of biota associated with seabed temperature
changes (common in other coastal areas such as the mid-Atlantic)
do not occur.

The Washington outer coast is known for its rough seas and
large waves. Extremes of wave height ranging from 15m to 29m
have been recorded on and beyond the continental shelf
(Strickland and Chasan, 1989). The height and direction of waves
vary seasonally. During summer, waves are lower in height,
predominately from the northwest, causing longshore currents and
sediment transport to the south. In winter, waves are generally
higher and from the southwest, causing northerly longshore
currents and sediment transport (Ballard, 1964 in Terich and
Levenseller, 1986). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) hindcast
data for a station off Grays Harbor show nearshore wave heights
to average about 4m during November through January with maximum
heights of almost 8m during October through December. Wave
heights on the outer shelf average almost 5m during December

11-25

through January with a maximum of 11m in January (U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, 1988). The most severe wave conditions are caused
by winter storms originating near Japan that move onto the U.S.
Pacific coast. Storm winds ahead of warm fronts generate waves
with significant wave heights up -to 6-7m; winds associated with
cold fronts generate waves of 8-10m significant height (Kachel
and Smith, in press). Tsunamis, long-period sea waves produced
by submarine earthquakes or volcanoes, occasionally strike the
Washington coast. The Alaskan earthquake of 1964 produced a
tsunami that reached a height of almost 4m at Seaview,
Washington.

The oceanic current system off the coast of Washington is
comprised of the California Current, Davidson Current, and
California Undercurrent (Figure 1:3). The seasonal variation in
the pattern of coastal circulation is the result of changes in
direction of the dominant winds associated with large-scale
atmospheric pressure cells over the Pacific Ocean.

The California Current flows southward beyond the
continental shelf throughout the year. This current is
approximately 1,000 km wide with a typical velocity of 10 cm/s.
It brings low temperature, low salinity, high oxygen, and high
phosphate subarctic water from high to low latitudes (Hickey, in
press). The California Current is strongest in July and August
in association with the dominant westerly to northwesterly winds.

The California Undercurrent, a narrow (20 km) subsurface
countercurrent, flows northward-along the upper continental slope
with its core at a depth of about 200m. This current is also
strongest in the summer with a mean velocity of about 10 cm/s.
It brings warmer, more saline, low oxygen, low phosphate
equatorial water from low to high latitudes (Hickey, 1979). A
southward flowing bottom current (the Washington Undercurrent)
flows deeper along the slope at about 400m depth during the
winter.

During winter, the California current either moves offshore
or is replaced by the near surface northward flowing Davidson
Current. The Davidson Current flows over the slope and outer
shelf during winter and early spring in association with the
dominant southerly or southwesterly winds. It flows at a mean
velocity of 20 cm/s and is associated with water masses with the
same characteristics as the California Undercurrent.

Currents over the continental shelf tend to follow the
seasonal pattern of the oceanic currents, but are also strongly
influenced by local winds, bottom and shoreline configuration,
and freshwater input (Strickland and Chasan, 1989) (Figure 14).
General circulation.over the shelf during winter is northward,
driven by the southerly or southwesterly winds that predominate
during that season. During the summer, northerly winds and

11-26

California Current
Davidson Current
(Winter)
California Undercurrent
Washington Undercurrent

Figure 13. Oceanic and Continental Slope Surface Currents
(Hicky, 1979).

11-27

N
W E
S

Winter Wind
Summer Wind
Winter Current
Summer Current
Ua

Figure 14. Simplified Mean Winter and Summer Current Patterns on
the Washington Shelf. Mean Flow along the bottom is
northward in all seasons. Mean surface flow is
southward in summer, accompanied by Coastal Upwelling
of Deeper Water. Mean Surface Flow is northward in
Winter, accompanied by Coastal Downwelling of Surface
Water ] (Strickland and Chasan, 1989).

11--28

associated upwelling produce a southward flow in the upper 100m.
Current meter data (Hopkins, 1971; Hickey et al., 1986, in Ridge
and Carson, 1987) show that, on the average, near-bottom currents
move northward and slightly offshore over the entire year.

Both the strength and direction of the currents over the
shelf are highly variable. maximum mean surface current speeds
of 17 to 20 cm/s in a southerly direction have been observed at
20-30m depth in mid-shelf between April and June. Local currents
in the surface layer may show complete reversals over the course
of a few days due to passing weather systems, or fluctuations
over weeks or months due to large-scale events such as
temperature/salinity anomalies or El Nifio.

As currents flow south along the coast during spring and
summer, a combination of northwesterly winds and the earth's
rotation causes the surface waters to be deflected offshore. As
these waters are moved offshore they are replaced with cold,
nutrient-rich waters from below. This process of upwelling
introduces the nitrates, phosphates, and silicates that are
essential for the high phytoplankton production that forms the
basis for the oceanic food chain. The majority of this upwelling
occurs within 10-20 km of the coast with the strongest offshore
flow in the upper lom of the water column. The submarine
canyons that indent the Washington shelf are sites of enhanced
upwelling (Parmenter and Bailey, 1985). Water upwelled from the
Astoria and Quinault canyons moves across the shelf and is
uplifted into the near-surface layers in the nearshore zone
(Hickey, in press). Water upwelled in the Juan de Fuca canyon
reaches close enough to the surface that it mixes into the
surface layer and provides a direct source of nutrients over the
canyon system (Freeland and Denman, 1982, in Hickey, in press).
Upwelling occurs into the Strait of Juan de Fuca via the eastern
head of the canyon. Downwelling, or sinking of surface waters,
occurs along the coast during winter when southwest winds cause
the onshore transport of surface waters. Downwelling produces
intrusions of offshore surface water into the Strait of Juan de
Fuca.

Tides on the Washington coast and Strait of Juan de Fuca
are semidiurnal mixed tides with two high and low tides each
tidal cycle characterized by inequalities in heights of
successive high and/or low tides. Tidal currents on the shelf
may reach 10 cm/s. Near shore, where tides are influenced by
flow in and out of estuaries, tidal currents may exceed the mean
wind-driven currents. Tidal ranges along the coast are large,
averaging about 3.5m, ensuring a rich intertidal community. At
Port San Juan (Port Renfrew) on Vancouver Island, for instance,
the highest tides reach a level of about 3.5m above mean lower
low water (Kozloff, 1983).

The Columbia River'is the largest river on the U.S. west

11-29

coast and its large input of freshwater to the ocean affects the
coastal waters of Washington and Oregon. A low-salinity surface
plume is directed northward along the Washington coast by the
prevailing currents in winter (Figure 15). The surface waters
moving toward the coast hold the river discharge from the
Columbia River near the shoreline and downwelling allows the
water to migrate into the Strait of Juan de Fuca along the
southern shore. Fresh water discharges from other rivers in the
sanctuary study area are shown in Appendix C (Figure 2).

(d) Habitat Types

A marine ecosystem is a very complex and interconnected
world with no hard lines of delineation between its various
parts. Physical changes often occur gradually. Changes may
include the shape and composition of the sea floor, depth, light
intensity, salinity, temperature, biota, etc... Different
combinations of these conditions form unique areas referred to as
"habitats." Marine habitats are functional associations between
places, water characteristics and living resources. The depth,
surroundings, and species of a given area largely define the
habitat for that area. A group of similar habitats forms an
ecological "zone" and a unique combination of one or more zones
forms an ecosystem.

A marine ecosystem has three broad regions that cut across
zones and habitats. These regions are referred to here as
"environments." The I'littoral" environment is simply the
tidelands or intertidal area. The 11subtidal" environment is the
sea floor from extreme low-tide to the edge of the continental
shelf. The "neretic" environment is the water column over the
continental shelf. These environments shape the form and
function of all living marine resources.

The littoral and sublittoral environments (tidelands and
floor of the continental shelf) are home to such invertebrate
groups as polychaete worms, molluscs, arthropods, echinoderms,
and crustaceans. In addition, these benthic environments harbor
a wealth of marine plant life to include many varieties of kelp,
surfgrass, and red, green, and brown algae. Marine vegetation is
dependent upon quality and quantity of sunlight for growth and
reproduction and is therefore confined to depths less than 55
fathoms (the euphotic zone). Therefore, non-planktonic species
are most abundant in the nearshore thinning out as the sea floor
progresses seaward to greater depth. Since the seaward limit of
the preferred sanctuary boundary generally follows the 100 fathom
isobath, all marine plant resources off the Olympic coast would
be within the sanctuary boundary.

organisms found in the neritic environment (the waters over
the continental shelf) include phytoplankton, zooplankton, and
most of the commercially important fish stocks (e.g., salmon,

11-30

20' 1260 4o, 20' 1250 4W 20' 1240
.......... X.
........ Surface salinity
eXXXX
(parts per thousand)
Sum xx
El 0-27 MJ 30-32.5
.0 20,

32.5
El 27-30

%%
0 .X"
480
x
WASHINGTON
X
............
...........
%
.k-M,
V
NX

%
......................
v vc-

................ . .... CAPE E E@
...... ... .
11 GR..@E

.-V...
U. Kxt:.

............
. ................ ... N%X-X-Xx 0.- MY
47

.. .........
.... ....... CNeMAUS
-X-:-:-:-:-PACIFIC CCEAh;--:-:%-x:-1x,-:-:-* 4
.... . ........ X - - -.%-.- .-.- -
X.. CArE
SPIO@WAIV
. ............ . ....... X
........... ......

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

Z. . ......

20'

20' 1260 40' 2o, 1250 40' 20, 124*
Surface salinity
Winter (parts perthousand)
L
E] 0-27 30-32.5
20'
M,32.5
27-30
CAPE

`X;
`-X 480
Kl@ ......
_X X
X ...... WASHINGTON

Q,
.. ..............

:-:N:.:X
...... ............
CAM ELWBE@
%

GRENMLE
.....................
X.,

0-
47*
.....................
. ..............
X
%
% .. ........
:':':':':-:-:PACIFIC OCEAN ........ .
X
SMO-AM
...........
40'
..........
F-
%

SIANTE @Es 20'
... . .........
Figure 15. Generalized Position and Extent Of Columbia River
Freshwater Plume in Winter and Summer (Strickland and
Chasan, 1989).

11-31

lingcod, sablefish, Pacific cod, and hake). Anadromous species
are most present in the study area during outward juvenile
migration and inland spawning migration. Marine birds such as
shearwaters, alcids, storm-petrels, jaegers, and phalaropes feed
throughout the study area. Marine mammals, including the
northern and California sea lions, harbor seal, sea otter,
California gray whale, harbor porpoise, and numerous other
species of cetaceans are found in these coastal and offshore
waters to varying degrees and at varying times.

As noted above, the littoral, subtidal and neretic
environments weave through a series of bio-geographical zones.
There are five 'such zones along the Washington coast: 1) the
beach surf zone; 2) the rocky surf zone; 3) the above tide rocky
shore zone; 4) the.pelagic oceanic zone; and 5) the benthic
oceanic zones. These zones run parallel to the shore and are
defined by depth, bathymetry and sediment composition. Habitats
within these zones are the basic marine communities discussed in
this section.

The five zones and twelve associated habitats of the
Washington coast extend seaward from the shore to the edge of the
continental shelf. They range from turbulent rocky intertidal to
deep and relatively placed sandy bottoms offshore. Each habitat
is described separately in the pages that follow. Species lists
for each habitat are arranged by trophic classification groupings
in Appendix F. The pictorial descriptions and species lists are
reprinted from a report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Procter, et al., 1980).

i. Beach Surf Zone

The beach surf zone is a dynamic environment with constantly
shifting sands caused by wave action and longshore transport
(Figure 16). The beach surf zone is characterized by two habitat
types: 1) beach surf-unprotected; and 2) beach surf-protected.
The sandy beaches of the northern. outer coast of Washington are
pocket beaches, nestled between resistant headlands. Beach surf
habitats have much lower productivity and diversity than rocky
habitats, but may be the sole support for certain species (eg.
razor clam, Dungeness crab, and spawning surf smelt). Most
organisms, such as polychaete worms, bivalve mollusks (including
razor clam), isopods, and amphipods, burrow in the sand. Sand
dollars, shrimps, purple olive snails, and Dungeness crabs live
on the sandy bottom. Fishes found in this habitat include the
staghorn sculpin, flounder, sand lance, and various species of
sole and surfperch. Shorebirds and some terrestrial birds also
forage in these areas.

Beach Surf-Unprotected Habitat

Unprotected beach habitat areas are interspersed along the

11-32

BEACH SURF ZONE
Extensive beach/dune complexes occur from the Southern Washington coast southward along the
0regon Coast to Cape Blanco: Smaller beaches and strand communities are associated with head-
GENERAL land complexes all along the coast. The Beach Surf Zone Is a high energy area with shifting
COMMENTS substrate and limited species diversity. The Above Tide Beach and Dune Zone are unstable' and
subject to water and wind erosion as well as flooding.

There are only small changes in elevation within the zone but the changes are very important
due to cycle changes in the beaches and water table relationships In the dunes. Predominant
TOPOGRAPHY dune soils include the Westport and Metart series. Westport soils are typically found in re-
AND cently stabilized slightly weathered sand. They are a poorly developed soil and are a member
SOILS of the mixed mesic family on Typic Udipsommerts (U.S.D.A.. 1975A). Soils are nutrients poor
and become saline near the beach (Ramwell, 1972).
Marine influences strongly modify climatic conditions, especially on the immediate coastal strip.
The climate is mild with small variations in temperature. Mean temperature for January ranges
CLIMATE between 5 to 8' C (41 to 47 0F) and between 13 to l6 0C (55 to 610F ) for July. Snow and heavy freezes
are infrequent. Winters are wet and cool with occasional storms generating heavy precipita-
tion and strong winds (90-100 MPH winds can be expected to occur once every 100 years)
(U.S.D.A., 1975A). Microclimate changes are dramatic In dunes (Ranwell. 1972).
Precipitation averages between 200 to 300 cm (78 to 118 inches) with the bulk falling
between November and April. Frequent summer fogs and subsequent fogdrip compensate for
HYDROLOGY summer hydration stress. The soils are highly permeable. Recharge of ground water and
surficial waters Is directly from precipitation. The deflation plain and marshes are
subject to annual inundation during winter. The water table is usually very close to
the surface on the deflation plain but Is subject to seasonal variations. If ground
water removal is greater than recharge, salt water intrusion frequently occurs.
ZONE 8 HABITAT TYPES

Unprotected Protected

Figure 16. Beach Surf Zone Environment (Procter et. al, 1980).

II-33

Olympic coast as pocket beaches between rocky shores and
headlands (Figure 17). This habitat becomes distinctly more
prevalent south of Point Grenville. These beaches receive direct
wave energy that sometimes "armors" the beach with gravel,
cobbles or a mix of both. This armoring is often seasonal,
affected by changes in tide levels, winds, currents and other
oceanographic and atmospheric conditions. Changing conditions
may also simply add or subtract sand, altering the slope and
elevation of the beach. As the substrate sediments shift, flora
and fauna must be able to endure the alterations or move to new
areas to survive. Thus, species composition and dominance may
fluctuate at different times of the year.

Beach surf-Protected Habitat

Protected beach habitats occur along the Olympic coast as
pocket beaches between rocky shores and headlands (Figure 18).
These areas are shielded from direct wave force by close
proximity to headlands or protection behind offshore reefs, sea
stacks, or islands. Protected beaches.are more stable than
unprotected beaches and are more likely to retain a consistent
substrate composition. Less scouring from waves allows finer
sediments (sand and organic matter) to settle on the seafloor.

Boulderand cobble fields are often found lying on sandy
bottoms in the protected coves of the northern Olympic coast
(e.g. Cape Alava and Cedar Creek). They support a much greater
diversity of organisms than the sandy intertidal areas. These
unique conditions support rocky-shore organisms found on large
boulders, protected-shore organisms occurring in the lee of large
rocks, and soft-sediment organisros, living in the substrate
beneath cobbles and boulders (Dethier, 1988). Algae and many
invertebrates such as hardshell clams, crabs and other
crustaceans, polychaete worms, and sea squirts are found in this
habitat.

ii. Rocky Surf Zone

The rocky surf zone is found on rocky substrate between the
lowest tidal level and the highest tidal level (Figure 19).
organisms living in this zone must be able to withstand periodic
desiccation, high temperature and light, low salinities, and
strong wave action (Nybakken, 1982). In the northeastern
Pacific, intertidal zones of the most wave-beaten shores.receive
more energy from the breaking waves than from the sun (Leigh, et
al., 1987). High wave energy enhances the productivity of
intertidal organisms by providing space for habitation as species
are eroded away, and by increasing the capacity of algae to
acquire nutrients and use sunlight.

The rocky surf zone of the outer coast of the Olympic
Peninsula includes some of the most complex and diverse shores in

11-34

Beach Surf Zone
A Unprotected Beach

UNPROTECTED BEACH
Habitat Description Characteristic Flora
Open ocean beaches are exposed to surf action all year. Surf zone water column often dominated by one species
As a result of waves and associated currents, the sands of diatom. Chaetoceros armatum associated with Aster-
are continually in motion parallel to the coast and off- ionellia socialis (Lewin and Mackas, 1972).
shore or onshore depending on the season. Sumer move-
ment Is toward the south and onshore; winter movement Is Characteristic Fauna
to the north and offshore. Because of pounding waves and Invertebrates: razor clam, mole crab, purple olive
shifting sands this Is a rigorous environment as re- snail, nereld worms, blood worm, shrimp, mysids,
flected by the reduced standing crops and low diversity. amphipods, isopods.
Diatom community In surf zone water column is distinct Fish: surf perch, starry flounder.
from that beyond the breakers. Habitat extends from
driftwood an berm seaward to breaker depth and Includes Birds: gulls, sanderling.
the foreshore and nearshore. Logs and other debris are
stranded behind the berm.

Food Web
Lower beach macrofauna (burrowing in sand) depend pri-
marily on surf zone phytoplankton. Melofauna (living
on and between sand grains) depend mainly on dissolved
organic matter and microdetritus filtered from sea water
by sand. Beach wrack at and above high tide line is
food source for scavengers such as beach hoppers.

Figure 17. Beach Surf Zone Habitat-Unprotected (Procter et. al.,
1980).

II-35

Beach Surf Zone
B Protected Beach

HIGH TIDE

LOW TIDE

PR0TECTED BEACH
Habitat Description Characteristic Flora
Low energy beaches associated with headlands and behind No significant primary production occurs.
protective barriers (e.g. offshore reefs). More organic
material In sand than on the unprotected beaches. Characteristic Fauna
Beaches not as subject to erosion and hence provide a Invertebrates: isopods, amphipods, beach hopper,
more stable habitat for the more diverse fauna found on spionid worms, phoronids, Dungeness crab, hermit
protected beaches than an beaches subject to the crab.
pounding surf. Habitat includes foreshore and near-
shore. Driftwood and beach wrack are stranded behind Fish: surf perch, flatfish.
the berm. Birds: shorebirds and gulls.
Food Web
Detritus plays a major role In the food web. Additional
primary contributions come from the phytoplankton
complement of the ocean water. Detritivores and
omnivores are fed upon by several Invertebrate carni-
vores, which in turn are fed upon by birds.

Figure 18. Beach Surf Zone Habitat-Protected (Procter et. al.,
1980).

II-36

HEADLANDS & ROCKY ISLANDS

Headlands are marina/terrestrial ecotones typical of open rocky coasts. They are stressful, high
GENERAL energy environments. Coastal Islands occur all along the coast except in the vicinity of the
COMMENTS Columbia River mouth. Many support Important sea bird colonies and hauling areas for marine
mammals. Intertidal areas are subject to severe physical and chemical conditions. Some Oceanic
habitats (e.g. Surfgrass) overlap with the Rocky Surf Zone.

Headlands are typically steep and precipitous. Soils are generally local In origin and derived from
TOPOGRAPHY basalt north of Cape Blanco and of sedimentary material south of the Cape. Cliffs can drop directly
Into the marine system to moderate depths. Slumping of cliffs Is the sediment source for many
AND local beaches.
SOILS

Climate Is maritime with fluctuations of temperature and precipitation muted. Mean temperature
CLIMATE ranges between 5 0 and 8 O (41 to 46 0F) for January and between 14 0 and 16 OC (57 to 61 OF) for July.
Snow and heavy freeze are atypical. Winters are wet and cool with occasional storms generating
heavy precipitation, extreme tidal ranges, and strong winds. Strong winds frequently break off
trees and carry salt spray Inland which strongly influences the makeup of the habitat.

The three major water Inputs to the Above Tide area are winter precipitation, salt spray, and
summer fog drip. Fresh water aquatic habitats are uncommon. Discharge is usually directly Into
HYDROLOGY the ocean. Waves are concentrated on headlands, and local currents can be severe.

ZONE 8 HABITAT TYPES

A B A
Unprotected Protected Headlands & Rocky Islands
ROCKY SURF ZONE ABOVE TIDE ROCKY SHORE ZONE

Figure 19. Rocky Surf Zone (Procter et. al., 1980).

II-37

the United States (Dethier, 1988). Dethier estimates that the
rocky intertidal area of this section of coast contains at least
130 plant species (2 vascular plants, 5 or more lichens, and over
120 algae) and 180 animal species (mostly invertebrates)
(Appendix C). Two habitats are present in this zone,
distinguished from one another primarily by differences in wave
energy.

Variation in the degree of exposure to environmental factors
can create marked zonation patterns within rocky surf habitats
(Foster, et al., 1988). These visually distinctive bands of
organisms are the result of wave action intensity at varying tide
levels, tolerance of organisms to air and sunlight, and the
presence or absence of predators (Steelquist, 1987). Within each
rocky surf habitat are four vertical bands (or "zones"-this term
should not to be confused with ecological zones): a splash zone,
and upper, middle, and lower intertidal zones. The splash zone
receives the spray from the surf during high tide and is covered
with water only during storms. Algae, lichens, limpets, and
periwinkles are residents here. The upper intertidal area is
flooded during high tides. Barnacles, snails, mussels, seaweeds,
and crabs frequent the rocks while shrimp, sculpin, and other
fishes swim in the tidepools. The middle intertidal area is
inundated more regularly and contains more biota than the higher
zones. Predominant animals include mussels, sea stars, snails,
worms, crabs, whelks, chitons, and rock scallops. The lower
intertidal zone is exposed to the air only during the lowest
tidal stages. It has a greater biological diversity than the
other three zones. Typical organisms include starfish, anemones,
octopi, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, and nudibranchs.

Sand-impacted rocky areas occur where rocky outcrops lie
adjacent to or in the middle of high-energy sand beaches. Rocky
surfaces that are scoured or periodically buried by sand require
organisms living there to be tolerant of the burial and resistant
to the scouring. Tolerant animals include the cloning anemone
and several genera of chitons and tube worms.

Rocky Surf-Unprotected Habitat

Exposed rocky surf habitats vary from steep bedrock found on
promontories and sea-stacks, to flat benches dotted with
tidepools (Figure 20). Only the most wave-tolerant organisms
such as gooseneck barnacles and sea palms can survive on the
steep bedrock. These areas receive full, direct wave force that
produces a continuous erosional process. The sediment from this
scouring action is sorted and deposited on nearby pocket beaches.
Species in this environment are quite resilient and typically
find protection within hard shells cemented to the rocks or by
inhabiting available crevices.

11-38

Rocky Surf Zone
A Unprotected
Headlands &
Rocky Islands

ROCKY SURF - UNPR0TECTED
Habitat Description Characteristic Flora
This zone Is characterized as a high energy environment. Macroalgae are the most visible flora. Important

Both plant and animals living in this zone must be able genera include Ulva, Fucus Postella, Iridophycus,
to withstand the force of the pounding surf. Many of CorallIna, Lamanacia, and Lithothamnuia. A surfgrass
(Phyllospadix scoulari) is the principal vascular
the organisms must also be adapted to extreme tempera-
tures and salinity variability, as well as exposure to plant. Benthic diatoms are probably important.
fresh water rain conditions. This habitat is coinci- Distinct intertidal benthic zonations are found.
dent with part of the near-shore Kelp habitat
and of the Surfgrass habitat of the oceanic Characteristic Fauna
Vegetated Benthic Zone. The mussel, Nytilis californianus and the goose
barnacle, Mitella polymeris, are characteristic and
Food Web important species. These species form a biotic
The food chains are quite short (often with only substrate which provides the necessary habitat for
three traphic levels) and include at least the many other species. The predacious starfish,
following modes of feeding: planktonic foods Pisaster orchraceus, Is also characteristic.
extracted by filter feeders; sacroalgae harvested by
the grazing animals; bacteria and periphyton eaten
by other grazers. Predators are from both the
terrestrial and marine realms.

Figure 20. Rocky Surf Habitat-Unprotected (Procter et. al.,
1980).

II-39

Rocky Surf-Protected Habitat

The protected rocky surf habitat is a broad wave-cut terrace
or an area where the force of waves is reduced by offshore rocks
or sea stacks (Figure 21). Lower wave action and less spray
enable different species of plants and animals to live here than
on the exposed coast. Barnacles, turban snails, periwinkles, as
well as surfgrasses are abundant in this more protected habitat.

iii. Above Tide Rocky Shore Zone

Though this habitat is landward beyond the sanctuary
boundary, it is extremely important to the nearshore ecosystem
(Figure 22). It provides critical stationing and nesting areas
for marine birds as well as pupping and haulout sites for marine
mammals. Human modifications to this habitat can have drastic
effects on the local ecology by altering sediment loading or
creating conditions that allow predator access to previously
isolated areas. Most headlands and rocky islands of the outer
Olympic coast and western Strait of Juan de Fuca are protected
within Federal, state, or tribal lands.

iv. The Pelagic oceanic Zone

The oceanic zones in the Sanctuary study area are di vided
into two major categories: 1) the pelagic zone - comprising the
water column; and 2) the benthic zone - comprising the seafloor
and waters one meter above (Proctor, gt Al., 1980) (Figure 23).
The pelagic and benthic zones each have habitats that are
characterized by the presence or absence of light. The pelagic
zone can be divided into the euphotic and disphotic zones, and
the benthic zone intovegetated and non-vegetated zones.

The euphotic and disphotic habitats together comprise the
pelagic oceanic zone. These are the largest spatial habitats
within the marine ecosystem, and they support plankton (sea
drifters), and nekton (free swimmers). Seabirds thrive in the
euphotic habitat, and many dive to impressive depths for food.
Within the context of this report, the pelagic zone is synonymous
with the neritic environment discussed at the beginning of this
section.

Euphotic Pelagic Habitat

The depth of the euphotic layer is determined by the
distance that light penetrates the water column (Figure 24).
This boundary is continually in flux and is affected by factors
such as latitude, season, cloud cover, turbidity, sea state, and
time of day. This is the layer of the ocean where
phytoplanktonic production occurs and is a great feeding area for
many species.

11-40

Rocky Surf Zone
B Protected
Headlands and
Rocky Islands

ROCKY SURF - PROTECTED
Habitat Description Characteristic Flora
The wave energy in this region is lower than for unpro- Surfgrass (Phyllospadix torreyi and P. scouleri)
tected headlands, but is high enough so that almost no is important. Attached macroalgae are abundant
fine sediments and very little sand occurs. The organ- in this region.
isms must be adapted to the extremes in temperature and
salinity characteristic of this environment. Vertical Characteristic fauna
zonation Is very pronounced. Parts of two oceanic Vege- Most of the species found in the unprotected outer
tated Benthic Zone habitats coincide with this habitat; coast are also found in this region, but some added
they are Surfgrass and nearshore Kelp. forms are also apparent. The various sea anemones
(Auttroplewra spp.) are especially notable. Various
Food Web sea stars and brittle stars also occur.
The food web consists of three rather short and distinct
food chains, as were characteristic of the unprotected
coast. Surfgrass becomes much more prevalent in this
area and the associated community Is Important.

Figure 21. Rocky Surf Habitat-Protected (Procter et. al., 1980).

II-41

Above Tide Rocky
Shore Zone-
A Headlands and
Rocky Islands

ABOVE TIDE - HEADLNDS & ROCKY ISLANDS
Habitat Characteristic Flora
This habitat occurs on steep topography, shallow soils, Vegetation Is low lying, gradating from herbaclows
and non-erosive substrate above the previously de- plants nearest the coast (seaside plantain, red
scribed salt spray zone and seaward of the coastal fescue, thrift, seawatch, vetch) to shrubs (thimble-
forests. Islands are small and are usually within ten berry, salal, Suksdorf sage, Nootka rose) and finally
miles of shore. to inland forest typically dominated by Sitka spruce
and western hemlock.
Food Web
On terrestrial habitats, browsing components of the Characteristic Fauna
food web are typical. The food web on islands is Mammals: black-tailed deer, Townsend's mole, vagrant
limited. However, islands provide a base from shrew, California sea lion, northern sea lion, sea
which sea birds and marine mammals exploit marine otter, gray fox.
food sources.
Birds: storm-petrels, western gull, California gull,
common murre, pigeon guillemot, auklets, other
alcids, black oystercatcher, cormorants. Many of
the Islands are intensively used by colonial sea bird
nesters.

Figure 22. Above Tide Rocky Shore Zone (Procter et. al., 1980).

II-42

OCEANIC ZONES
In neritic zone (near shore, over continental shelf) Northeastern Pacific surface waters (upper

200m) mix with runoff and upwelling deeper ocean waters. Runoff recharges nutrient supply during
GENERAL winter. Spring diatom bloom rapidly depletes this supply, but upwelling continually replaces
COMMENTS limiting nutrient, chiefly nitiate, sometimes also silicate (Anderson,G. C.,1972). Annual rate
of production Is over 30 gC/m2, more than 6 times the average productivity of the whole ocean,
Including neritic zone (Curl, 1970).

Continental shelf relatively flat and featureless. Slopes steeper near shore and outer edge than
BYTRYMETRY in wider central area. Slopes steepen and shelf narrows from north to south. Recent sands lie
AND Inshore, muddy- sediments seaward. Relict sands exposed at places along outer edge. Rocky banks
SEDIMENTS occur Irregularly, often associated with headlands. Thickness of sediments is in dynamic equi-
librium, accreting in summer, eroding In winter (Bourke et al., 1971 ; Kulm et al.,1975).
Small seasonal variation in temperature means range only 4 0C (39 0F). Large differences in wind and
precipitation; prevailing winter winds are southwesterly, bringing storms to the coast; sweeter
winds are mostly from the northwest at speeds usually lower than In winter. About 80% of the
CLIMATE annual precipitation occurs from October to March. Shore station precipitation data overesti-
mates rainfall at sea by a factor of 2 to 4 (Elliott at al., 1971). Dense fogs, related to up-
welling of colder waters, occur most frequently from midsummer to fall , averaging 3 to 8 days
per month (OIW, 1977).
Salinity of Surface waters Varies widely, from 20 to 340/oo, altered by runoff and upwelling.
Runoff lowers surface salinity to ^32.5 /00. Upwelling increases surface water salinity to
HYDROGRAPHY '32.50/oo in summer. Water temperature varies from a mean high of 17.7 OF (640F) to a mean low of
7.60C (460F), but annual mean temperature range is only 50 C (41 0F), from 14 OC (570F) In summer to
90C (480F) in winter. Both highest and lowest temperatures occur in summer during upwelling
(Bourke et al., 1971).
ZONE & HABITAT TYPES

A A A B C D A B

Euphotic Disphotic ROCKY MUD MUDDY SAND SAND KELP SURFGRASS
EUPHOTIC DISPHOTIC
PELAGIC ZONE PELAGIC ZONE NON-VEGETATED BENTHIC ZONE VEGETATED BENTHIC ZONE
PELAGIC OCEANIC ZONES BENTHIC OCEANIC ZONES

Figure 23. Pelagic Oceanic Zone (Procter et al., 1980).

II-43

Pelagic Oceanic
Zones
Euphotic Pelagic
Zone

A Euphotic
EUPHOTIC
Habitat Description Food Web, continued
level (Pearcy, 1972). Suspended detrital material

This habitat is the upper layer of neritic ocean water
which is supplied with sunlight sufficient for the may enter food web through microplankton.
photosynthesis of plants, i.e. down to compensation
depth. All net production of organic matter in the Characteristic Flora
Oceanic pelagic environment occurs in this habitat. Phytoplankton: diatom are generally predominant in
Depth of this layer varies seasonally and locally, shelf waters, with dinoflagellates showing increased
generally ranging between 20 to 80 meters (60 to 260 ft) abundance in late summer and fall.
deep (Sverdrup et al., 1942; Small et al., 1972). In
winter, low primary production is balanced by grazing, Characteristic Fauna
maintaining dependent populations. In spring, diatom Zooplankton: copepods, euphausids, medusae, salps,
blooms indicate high primary production temporarily shrimps, chaetognaths, ctenophores, amphipods.
exceeding consumption. At night, many carnivores from
deeper waters (disphotic zone) invade this habitat to Nekton: lantern fish, anchovy, saury, squid, salmon.
food. Sea birds; common murre, western gull, sooty shear-
water, Cassin's auklet, cormorants.
Food Web Mammals: baleen whales (gray whale), killer whale,
Primary productivity Is provided by phytoplankton. porpoises, California sea lion, northern sea lion,
Grazing food chains are predominant. Herbivorous northern fur seal.
crustaceans, principally copepods and euphausids,
dominate the second trophic level; jellyfish, fishes,
and shrimp are important consumers at the third trophic

Figure 24. Euphotic Pelagic Habitat (Procter et. al., 1980).

II-44

Disphotic Pelagic Habitat

Below the euphotic layer is the dark sphere known as the
disphotic zone (Figure 25). The disphotic layer is the depth at
which photosynthesis ceases in marine plants due to insufficient
light energy. At night, the disphotic zone may extend from the
sea floor to the sea surface to encompass the entire water
column. As light penetrates through the water column, it is
absorbed and scattered by water properties, particles and
organisms (Duxbury and Duxbury, 1989). A twilight state exists
at the boundary of the euphotic and disphotic zones. Blue and
green wavelengths of light may penetrate into the disphotic zone
but quickly fade to darkness. Zooplankton inhabit this habitat
in large number during the day and migrate upward during the
night to feed on the abundant phytoplankton in the upper layer.

ve Benthic Ocean Zone

The benthic oceanic zone encompasses all submerged lands of
the continental shelf. It is divided into two sub-zones
distinguished by the presence or absence of light. The vegetated
benthic zone coincides with rocky habitats and exists where light
is sufficient for photosynthesis in attached marine plants. Two
habitats (kelp forests and surfgrasses) exist in this zone. The
non-vegetated benthic zone is completely devoid of plant life and
is classified by changes in the sediments on the sea floor. Four
different habitats are present in the non-vegetated benthic zone
including the rocky, mud, muddy sand, and sand (Figures 26-29).

Kelp Forests (Vegetated Benthic) Habitat

Kelps are large brown algae (Order Laminariales) that attach
to rocky substrates and grow to the surface in water depths from
about 2m to 20m (Figure 30). The floating portions of these
plants form dense canopies on the sea surface. Kelp forests form
one of the world's most productive habitats. They provide
critical habitat for encrusting animals such as sponges,
bryozoans, and tunicates, as well as for juvenile fish, algae,
abalone, and many other invertebrates. Fish associated with kelp
beds include lingcod, kelp greenling, cabezon, various rockfishes
and perch species, wolf eel, and red Irish lord. Kelp provides a
food resource for fish, and for grazing and detritus-feeding
invertebrates such as sea urchins and isopods. Sea otters depend
on kelp beds for both food and shelter. Kelp beds also serve as
resting areas for some birds such as gulls and herons. They also
reduce wave action and currents shoreward of the beds, creating a
sheltered environment for intertidal plants and animals, and
reducing inshore erosion on beaches (WDOE, 1980b).

11-45

Pelagic Oceanic
Zones
Disphotic Pelagic
Zone
A Disphotic
DISPHOTIC

Habitat Description Characteristic Flora
Deeper, dark, daytime location of pelagic carnivores None. Phytoplankton, sinking through this zone, are
that migrate vertically each day in response to light. very sparse and unproductive.
These animals form vertically compressed layers (called
scattering layers because of their effect on sonar Characteristic Fauna
transmissions) during daylight but rise toward the Zooplankton: euphausid (Euphausia pacifica), shrimp
surface, spreading out vertically to feed throughout (Sergestes similis .
the upper layer (euphotic zone) during the night. Nekton: lantern fishes (Diaphus theta, Stenobrachius
Food Web leucopsarus and Tarletonbeania crenulari).
Grazing and detrital food chains based on primary Mammals: baleen whales.
production in euphotic zone above. Local transfers
are primarily between third and fourth trophic level.

Figure 25. Disphotic Pelagic Habitat (Procter et. al., 1980).

II-46

Benthic Oceanic
Zones
Non-vegetated

Benthic Zone
A Rocky
ROCKY

Habitat Description Characteristic Flora
Rocky bottom, below compensation depth but often higher Only phytoplankton which sinks to the bottom from
than the surrounding shelf, occurs in scattered banks the photic zone. No primary production.
at various distances offshore all along the coast. The
rough, irregular terrain has more wave and current Characteristic Fauna
activity, little finer sediment. These areas are Attached Invertebrates: barnacles, sea anemones,
generally avoided by trawl fisheries. bryozoans, tube worms, hydroids, corals, and tunicates.
Food Web Unattached Invertebrates: starfish, crabs, shrimp,
Primarily detrital food chains based on production in hermit crabs, nereid worms, nudibranchs, and snails.
overlying waters. Some demersal fish also feed Fish: halibut, rockfish.
periodically in euphotic zone grazing food chains.

Figure 26. Rocky Non-Vegetated Benthic Habitat (Procter et. al.,
1980).

II-47

Benthic Oceanic
Zones
Non-vegetated
Benthic Zone
B Mud
MUD

Habitat Description Characteristic Flora
Marine soft bottom communities where most of the Due to a paucity of light, few plants are found in
sediment grains are less than 0.062 m in diameter this region.
form a major portion of the offshore region at depths
between 100 and 200m. These level bottom communities Characteristic Fauna
contain a much more abundant and diverse community Primarily infaunal and epifaunal invertebrates and
than the level bottom sandy substrates and can be demersal fish.
composed of fine grained silts and clays but most Infauna: sea urchin (Brisaster), bristleworms
often are mixed with either relict or terrigenous (Sternaspis), snails.
sands. They are thought to be very stable environments
with diverse benthic populations which serve as major Epifauna: shrimp (Pandalus), brittle stars (Ophlura),
feeding areas for demersal fish and shrimp. sea urchin (Allocentrotus).
Food Web Fish: Dover sole, arrowtooth flounder, sablefish.
The food web of this system is dependent on detritus
both from the production In overlying waters and to a
lesser extent from terrigenous sources. Detritivores,
scavengers, and carnivores are Important links In this
system.

Figure 27. Mud Non-Vegetated BenthiC Habitat (procter et. al.,
1980)

II-48

Benthic Oceanic
Zone
Non-vegetated
Benthic Zone
C Ruddy Sand
MUDDY SAND
Habitat Description Characteristic Flora
This habitat is intermediate between sand and mud Due to a paucity of light. there is no plant pro-
bottom (50-75% of grains greater than 0.0625 mm in duction in this habitat- Some heterotrophic diatoms
diameter). Ruddy (finer) sediments accumulated during may persist.
summer are mixed into the sandier substrate by the
burrow g-feeding activity of benthos before winter Characteristic Fauna
Storms resuspend them. There Is more organic matter In Infauna; clam (Macoma elimata), polychaetes
the sediment here than In the sandy bottom. less than in (Nephtys sp., Sternaspis fossor), and amphipods
a mud bottom. (Paraphoxus variatus).
Epifauna. sea cucumber (Stichopus), urchins
food Web (Allocentrotus). shrimp (Pandalus). starfish (Lurid&),'
The food web of this habitat Is dependent on detritus
both from the production In overlying waters and to snails (Polinices)
some extent gram terrigenous sources. Detritivores.
scavengers, and carnivores are Important.

Figure 28. Muddy Sand Non-Vegetated Benthic Habitat (Procter et.
al., 1980).

11-49

Benthic Oceanic

Zones
Mon-vegetated
Benthic Zone
D Sand
SAND
Habitat description Characteristic Flora
This is the smooth. relatively hard bottom area seaward There are no primary producers an the substrate
of the surf zone and beyond the immediate influence of because of the reduced light level over most of this
breaking waves and longshore currents. Current activity environment. Diatoms in the phytoplanktan enter from
Is regular and fairly strong. though not as strong as the emphotic zone. and my concentrate near the
in rocky areas. The bottom sediment Is sand (75% or bottom.
more of grains are larger than 0.0625 an In diameter)
similar to that on the beaches but significantly Characteristic Fauna
more stable. As a result of the greater stability, Invertebrates.: polychaete worms. gamneridian
lack of wave breaking action. and more organic material ampbipods. State's razor ciao, Dungeness crab,
than an beaches. populations are larger and there are gastropods, and sand dollars.
awe species than In the beach habitat. This habitat
gradually grades Into the muddy sand bottom habitat Fish: English sole. Pacific sandidab. butter sole.
as the water deepens to the west. Rellct sand patches skates. and dogfish.
occur along outer shelf.

Food Web
The energy for the habitat comes from phytoplankton
In the overlying waters and from the detrical material
which continually rains down from above or is Intro-
duced from nearby estuaries. Many of the' important
organisms are detrital feeders and components of the
food web are relatively simple.

Figure 29. Sand (Non-Vegetated) Benthic Habitat (Procter et.
al., 1980).

11-50

Benthic oceanic
Vegetated Benthic
zone
A Kelp
KELP

Habitat Description Characteristic flora
Kelps occur in what is called the Protected Outer The typical helphabitat Is maltileyered. being
Coast. They persist on rocky reefs subject to occa- Composed of Canopy. unstory. turf. and crustose layers.
sionally severe wave action and tidal currents. Kelps The canopy Is made up of Mereocystis luetkeana (bull
range from extreme low water (ELW) to a depth of about kelp). The understory is made up of several kelps.
40 feet (13 in). notably Pterygophora callfornica, Alaris marginata
Laminaria saccharina. Larsinarla set I. and Egregla
Food Web menzlesif The -turf layer Is made up of filamentous
Productivity Is dominated by the kelps and their and thallose red algae. The crustose layer Is largely
associated algal flora. The food web Is dorminated made up of kildenbrandtia and Lithophyllum.
by grazing organisms. Detrital components of the
food web are present, but of secondary importance. Characteristic Fauna
Invertebrates: a variety of sea urchins, limpets.
chitons, starfish, crabs. snails. ampbIpods. Isopods.
Fish: copper, brown, quillback. and black rackfishes,
lingcod, kelp greenling.

Figure 30. Kelp Habitat (Procter et. al., 1980).

II-51

Surfgrasses (Vegetated Benthic) Habitat
A common surfgrass species, phyllospadix scoulerf, ranges
from Vancouver Island to southern California (Figure 31). It
also appears on the exposed shores of the San Juan Islands.
Though not a true grass, phyllospadix does produce flowers and is
closely related to the grass family. Surfgrass does not root,
but attaches to rocks by tenacious fibers. It offers cover and
concealment for many organisms while releasing oxygen to
nearshore waters. Phy-1lospadix can survive low-tide exposure in
pools or channels with minimum water levels. It becomes a
valuable haven to invertebrates and other intertidal species
seeking shade from the sun during low tide (Kozloff, 1983).

2. Natural Resources

The natural resources of the Washington outer coast are the
result of the environmental conditions previously described. The
geology, winds and other meteorological factors, oceanic and
nearshore currents, and diversity of habitats all contribute to
the wealth of natural resources present. The living natural
resources which will be protected by sanctuary designation
include numerous species of plankton, algae, invertebrates,
fishes, seabirds, and marine mammals.

For comparative purposes, the entire sanctuary study area
was divided into seven subareas in the DEIS/MP to allow for the
analysis of the distribution of living marine resources (Figure
32). An eighth region (subarea la) has been included in this
FEIS/MP beyond the original seven due to evidence that the
coastal ecosystem continues several miles into the Strait of Juan
de Fuca. Coastal, geomorphological, oceanographic, and/or
political features were used to delineate these subareas.

*Subarea 1 encompasses a relatively shallow offshore plateau
known as "the plain", and the head of Juan de Fuca Canyon. The
eastern boundary extends due north from Koitlah Point to the
U.S./Canada international boundary. The northern edge follows
the international boundary westward to the 100 fathom isobath.
The western edge transects the head of Juan de Fuca Canyon and
then generally follows the'100 fathom isobath. The surface area
is approximately 753 nml (2583 k
,M12

*Subarea la includes an area within the Strait of Juan de
Fuca that exhibits decidedly oceanic characteristics by its
biological dynamics, oceanographic properties, bathymetry and
coastal geology. This area was studied in a separate review to
determine where oceanic properties of the outer coast cease to
dominate the marine environment in the Strait. The area
boundaries were established in accordance with the findings of
the*review. The analysis of the Strait of Juan de Fuca ecosystem
can be found in Appendix E. The western boundary of subarea 1A

11-52

Benthic Oceanic
Zan S
Vegetatcd Benthic
Zone
I Surfgross
SURFGRASS

Habitat Description Characteristic Flora
Surfgrass occurs on rocks on protected outer coast from Surfgrass (Phyll spadix spp.) predominates. Ulva (sea
Alas" to Baja California. it Is most common from Mon- lettacel. Iridaea Rhodoneela laux. Calliarthron
terey to southern Vancouver Island. It Is found from tuberculosa and Odonthalia floccoosa are common as
the Intertidal to 7 meters deep and is associated with understory )ants. Diatoms. Simthora (a red alga).
Fucus. and Petalonia (a brown alga) are found on the leaves.
Food Web Commonly associated kelps are. Alarla. Laminaria, and
Surfgrass along with several species of kelps are Egregia.
responsible for most of the primary productivity.
Scene coastlines have beaches dominated by surfgrass; Characteristic Fauna
others have a mixture of surfgrass and beathic algae. Invertebrates: nereid worms, Isopods. amphipods. snails:
Principal components of the food web are detrital. limpets. copepods. crabs. starfishes, and sea urchins.
Birds: black brant.
Fish: coho juveniles.

Figure 31. Surfgrass Benthic Zone (Procter et. al., 1980).

11-53

,Map Proposed Sanctuary Areas

1251000*w
1240DO-W

----------
------------------------

AREA I

00 fathoms CLALL AM COUNTY

............ . i 48000 N
AREA

isiisilifii isilisiss -iiii-t-q! ig

-iifi.
AREA 3 "N
..:its

AREA 4 ---ii@iifi!,JEFFERSON COUNTY
500 fathoms ji
"is ;its @tt`iliij;
Mii tjis titi!ijEjE
itil is -
i'!iiiis
it it ;is Y.", i i i i i i.: is
qi- if liiii!.: i.
iiiiii !!is Ej!ji:
'50 fathom iififsili@ii!iiii
at
20 fathom

if
iiiiiiti;@i
ililf1iiiiiiiiiiii is iit
............ i@iiil:
s::: E: i: 1: i is ii E:!: i@ i iii ii; i:i ii 1: ij:: s i
.......... ... . .....

siii.:i
ts t.:
it
ifi
s
it is
it
)R COUNTY qf.
GRAYS H ARB(
C
'o iji i i i: s
its !it
@iiisiiiilil
4700074 .................................. iiiii@ii@iiiii4 47000"

50 athoms
50
..... .....
ii: is if I
AREA 5 iiiiiiii:
AREA 6
AREA is it;!: is s@;! sE s: s i s i

100 athoms
fit
il ii ii it ifi11 i@ if if iiitisiiii is:
i2sislsi:i sit
300 i@thoms ......
it:
iiliiiisli
iii PACIFIC COUNTY ii!tiiiiiiiiiii
t

0 fathoms t:
it
!is
i is ii q
iti, its
lists
i is
iislit!iiiisl
gisiii!iiiill ::isiisii@iti: 4:'

OOV
125'@ 124';0
fr

Figure 32. Sanctuary Study Subareas (SAB, 1990).

11-54

is contiguous with subarea 1 and extends due north from Koitlah
Point to the U.S./Canada international boundary. The
international boundary in the Strait serves as the northern edge
of the subarea. The eastern boundary extends due north from
Observatory Point to the international boundary. The surface
area is approximately 255 nM2- (873 kM2).

*Subarea 2 lies above the outer edge of the continental
shelf, is generally bounded east and west by the 50 fathom and
100 fathom isobaths respectively, and includes the head of the
Quinault Canyon. The southern edge follows a line which extends
due west from the southern tip of Copalis National Wildlife
Refuge where coastal geomorphology changes from broad sandy
beaches, to a rugged, rocky coastline with pocket beaches. The
surface area is approximately 791 nM2 (2712 kM2).

*Subarea 3 represents the mid-shelf area, from the 50 fathom
isobath in the west to the state's limit of jurisdiction (3nm) in
the east. The southern edge follows a line which extends due
west from the southern tip of Copalis National Wildlife Refuge
where the coastal geomorphology changes from broad sandy beaches,
to a rugged, rocky coastline with pocket beaches. The northern
boundary encompasses the Juan de Fuca Canyon head to a point west
of Cape Flattery. The surface area is approximately 669 nM2
(2296 kM2).

*subarea 4 is equivalent to the sanctuary boundary proposed
in the original SEL. It generally extends from the mean high
water line to the seaward extent of the territorial sea (3 nm).
The northern boundary arcs around Cape Flattery and terminates at
Koitlah Point. The southern boundary is formed by an east/west
line at the southern tip of the Copalis National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR). The surface area is approximately 392 nM2 (1346 kM2).

*Subarea 5 represents the outer edge of the continental
shelf between the 50 fathom and 100 fathom isobaths; and
includes the head of Grays Canyon. The northern edge follows a
line that extends due west from the southern tip of Copalis NWR.
The southern boundary follows a line that extends due west from
Cape Disappointment at the mouth of the Columbia River. The
surface area is approximately 820 nM2 (2813 kM2).

*Subarea 6 represents the mid-shelf area, from the 50 fathom
isobath to the state's limit of jurisdiction (3nm). The northern
edge follows a line that extends due west from the southern tip
of Copalis NWR. The southern boundary follows a line that
extends due west from Cape Disappointment at the mouth of the
Columbia River. The surface area is approximately 690 nM2 (2366
kM2 ).

*Subarea 7 extends seaward to the state limit of
jurisdiction (3 nm). It includes the estuarine areas of Grays

11-55

Harbor and Willapa Bay. The northern edge follows a line that
extends due west from the southern tip of Copalis NWR. The
southern boundary follows a line that extends due west from Cape
Disappointment at the.mouth of the Columbia River. The surface
area is approximately 286 nM2 (981 kM2).

NOAA's Strategic Assessment Branch (SAB) analyzed each
subarea to determine its relative significance for selected
species of invertebrates, fishes, marine birds, and 'marine
mammals (subarea la was not included in this analysis).
Individual species were assigned scores for each subarea based on
their relative distribution and density. It was'not necessary to
assign special scoring points for endangered and threatened
species since distribution of each species within the study area
is scored relative to the entire population of that species for
the EEZ of the contiguous U.S. west coast. Thus, a subarea may
be significant to a species that is present only rarely, such as
the sperm whale. one or two sightings of a species with a small
population base would establish a high score.

The scores are presented in a series of tables (Appendix C,
Tables 3 through 9) that allow the reader to compare subareas
according to selected assemblages of marine fauna. While these
tables do not provide an exhaustive list of species for each
subarea, they do exemplify the general biological character of
each region. The results of this analysis are used in developing
and evaluating boundary options for the Sanctuary, as well as
assessing the potential impacts of human activities occurring in
the area.

(a) Plankton

Phytoplankton production on the Washington continental shelf
is high. The upwelling of nutrient-rich waters into the surface
layers, which is enhanced by the Juan de Fuca Canyon, supports
the production of these microscopic plants which form the basis
for the oceanic food chain. High productivity in the spring and
summer coincides with the periods of coastal upwelling. The
almost continual replenishment of nutrients (especially nitrogen)
into the surface waters during the time of year when solar
radiation is high, and days are long, is responsible for the
continually high phytoplankton standing stocks and rates of
production characteristic of this region (Perry, et al., in
press).

Diatoms are the primary component of the phytoplankton.
Dinoflagellates are also an important component and it is blooms
of these single-celled plants that cause the outbreak of red
tides in Washington. One of the dinoflagellates (Gonvaulax
catenella) contains a powerful neurotoxin that causes paralytic
shellfish poisoning and shellfish. bed closures. While most surf-
swept sandy beaches are areas of low phytoplankton occurrencel

11-56

the sand beaches of the southern portion of the outer coast have
such a large persistent population of diatoms in the surf that
the water is colored a conspicuous brown (Lewin, in press). The
razor clam relies on the surf-zone dwelling diatom (Chaetoceros
armatum) as its principal food source in area 4 and 7. The
population of razor clams is so abundant that it accounts for
over 70% of the recreational harvest of razor clams on the west
coast (Schink, et.al., 1983; SAB, 1590).

Unlike phytoplankton, which are limited to the euphotic zone
(approximately the upper 100m), zooplankton occur at all depths
and can undertake daily vertical migrations of up to several
hundred meters. A variety of zooplankton such as ciliates,
copepods, euphausiids, and pelagic tunicates feed upon
phytoplankton. In turn, zooplankton are an important food source
for fish and other organisms, including whales. A large standing
stock of zooplankton resides in an area from 5 nautical miles
(10km) to 16 nautical miles (30km) off the coast (primarily
within areas 3 and 6) during the summer. Copepods are the
dominant group of zooplankton in terms of biomass (Landry and
Lorenzen, in press). Euphausiids and copepods are the main food
source for adult pelagic fishes. Most marine fish and shellfish
species have planktonic eggs and larvae; these form an important
part of the zooplankton at certain times of the year.

(b) Benthic Algae

Both microalgae and macroalgae are abundant and diverse on
the outer coast. over 120 species of algae have been identified
in the rocky intertidal areas of the outer coast of the Olympic
National Park (Dethier, 1988). Microalgae are primarily composed
of benthic diatoms which are found as thin coatings on rocks or
living within the sediment. These diatoms are an important part
of the "algal film" forming diatom slicks on rocks and providing
a principal food source for many grazing animals such as
gastropods and chitons (McConnaughey, 1970). Marine lichens are
found as thin veneers on rocks in the highest intertidal areas on
exposed rocky areas.

Macroalgae are seaweeds that grow attached to a firm
substrate from the intertidal region down to as deep as 40m, thus
occurring primarily in areas 4 and 7. The seaweeds are composed
of three main phyla: red algae (Rhodophyta), brown algae
(Phaeophyta), and green algae (Chlorophyta). Kendrick and
Moorhead (1987) present a summary of the algal species found, or
expected to occur, at three intertidal sites along the coast of
the Olympic National Park. The authors also discuss using two
species of algae (Fucus distichus, and Endocladia muricata) as
potential indicators of recreational impact on the intertidal
communities of the National Park.

The red algae are the most diverse of the macroalgae in

11-57

terms of number of genera (about 115) and species (at least 265)
in the Pacific Northwest (Waaland, 1977). In intertidal and
shallow subtidal areas, red algae often occupy the understory of
the larger kelps. Less common in the exposed areas of the outer
coast, green algae inhabit the more protected marine and
estuarine areas in Washington. These algae reside primarily in
tidepools and rocky intertidal areas. Brown algae include the
largest marine plants and are probably the most important
macroalgal group in terms of primary productivity and direct
economic value (Gardner, 1981). Brown algae vary from the large
kelps to the less conspicuous forms that encrust rocks or form
filaments on other algae. The Pacific Northwest coast supports
the highest diversity of kelps in the world (Dayton, 1985). Two
species of brown algae dominate the extensive kelp forests of the
outer coast: the bull kelp (Nereocystis leutkeana) which is
found in relatively protected waters; and the giant kelp
(Macrocystis intergrifolia) which prefers more exposed areas
(Steelquist, 1987). Macrocystis beds extend into the Strait of
Juan de Fuca to Crescent Rock. Some of the most proliferous
macrocystis beds in the state are found in the Strait.

Algae play an important role in the functioning of the
entire coastal ecosystem. Beside being a direct food source for
animals, algae (especially kelps) produce large amounts of dead
plant material (detritus) which is the basis for the detrital
food web. Duggins et al. (1989) showed-that growth rates of
benthic suspension feeders are two to five times as high at kelp-
dominated islands as at those without kelp beds. Algae provide
important habitat for many animals and function as nursery and
spawning areas for small fish. Sea otters and many species of
fish closely associate with giant kelp forests.

Many factors determine the distribution, species
composition, and abundance of the invertebrate fauna. The
seafloor geology, types of rocky substrate or unconsolidated
sediments, offshore currents and circulation patterns, exposure
to waves, water depth, Columbia River low salinity plume, and
presence of mammal predators all influence the niches occupied by
the various species. The upwelling off the coast brings cold,
nutrient-rich water to the nearshore zone where it nourishes high
marine plant productivity. This provides food and habitat for
invertebrates that suspension feed or graze on algae (Dethier,
1988).

The rocky intertidal habitat supports the widest array of
invertebrate species (Ricketts et al., 1985). Invertebrate
species found during surveys along the coast of Olympic National
Park are listed in Appendix G. Representative invertebrates
include sponges, bivalves, isopods, ampfiipods, shrimp, barnacles,
bryozoans, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, and sea stars.

11-58

Invertebrates residing in the boulder and cobble areas are
diverse and consist of organisms living on and around the rocks
and the soft sediment beneath them. Different species dominate
in this habitat than in the rocky intertidal areas.
Invertebrates living in the sediment under the rocks include the
mud shrimp (Upogebia), mud dwelling brittle stars, and several
species of clams and polychaete worms. Invertebrates living on
or under boulders and cobbles include barnacles, limpets,
amphipods, isopods, sea snails (Lacuna and Tegula), several
species of crabs, the sea squirt Clavelina, and various species
of edible clams (butter clams, littleneck clams, and horse
clams).

Invertebrates found in sandy intertidal areas are less
diverse than in other habitats, but some species may be found in
large numbers. For example, Dethier (1988) discovered great
quantities of amphipod crustaceans and polychaete and nemertean
worms at several sites on the outer coast. The amphipod
Euhaustorius was found in densities up to 10,670 individualS/M2.
Densities of the bloodworm Euzonus reached almost 7, OOO/M2.
Other invertebrates present include razor clams (Siliqua),
isopods, mysids (opossum shrimp), sand dollars, purple olive
snails, several species of clam (eg. Macoma secta and Telling
bodegensis), and Dungeness and mole crabs.

Invertebrates associated with kelp beds include many
encrusting varieties such as sponges, bryozoans, and tunicates.
Other invertebrates include amphipods, copepods, euphausiids,
numerous species of crabs, sea urchins, shrimps, sea stars,
brittle stars, periwinkles, limpets, sea snails, sea slugs,
scallops, and abalone.

Squid, octopi, jellyfish, salps, heteropods, shrimp, and
euphausiids are some of the macro-invertebrates found in the
pelagic environment. Numerous larval invertebrates are also
found there during their planktonic stages of development.

Thus, both the coastal and offshore areas are important to
invertebrates depending on whether the invertebrates are
sedentary or pelagic. The significance of selected invertebrate
species to each of the 7 areas within the study area is shown in
Appendix C (Tables 3 and 4). Two observations are apparent:
areas 4 and 7 stand out as the most significant of all seven
zones; and four invertebrates are particularly significant
within the study area: 1) Pacific oyster, 2) ocean pink shrimp,
3) Dungeness crab, and 4) razor clam. Pacific oyster, Dungeness
crab, and ocean pink shrimp landings from the areas under
consideration for sanctuary status had combined landed values in
1987-88 of over $25 million (about 85% of the statewide totals
for harvests off Washington) (WDF, 1987; NMFS, 1989).
Decimation of razor clam populations due to pathogen infestations
and other natural calamities in the early 1980's has ended

11-59

commercial harvests, but recreational digging on Washington's
outer coast currently accounts for over 70% of the contiguous
U.S. coastal sport harvest.

Area 7 is particularly important for Pacific oysters because
of the significance of Grays Harbor and especially Willapa Bay to
oyster production (Appendix C, Figure 14). These two estuaries
account for over half of all oysters harvested along the entire
U.S. West Coast, and sometimes represent nearly 1/5 of the
nationwide harvests (NMFS, 1989a). Areas 4 and 7, and the
shallower portions of areas 3 and 6 (within 40 fathoms), are
locations where more than 75% of the state's Dungeness crab catch
is taken. Additionally, areas 4 and 7 are important for
juveniles of the Dungeness Crab. The areal distribution of the
ocean pink shrimp in the Washington outer coast occurs primarily
in areas 2 and 5.

(d) Fish Resources

The diverse and abundant fish fauna along the outer coast
are significant commercial and recreational resources. The same
environmental factors that determine distribution, abundance, and
species composition of other living resources of the area also
affect fish communities. The diverse habitats of Washington's
outer coast each claim their own characteristic assemblage of
fish.

Fish of the nearshore sublittoral habitat show the greatest
diversity and include many commercially important species.
Salmon are anadromous fish that spend most of their life in salt
water but return to fresh water to spawn at maturity. Five
species of Pacific salmon occur along the outer coast of
Washington: chinook, sockeye, pink, chum, and coho. Two other
salmon-related anadromous species, sea-run cutthroat trout and
steelhead, also inhabit offshore waters. Other species include
albacore tuna, Pacific halibut, flounder (starry and arrowtooth),
sole (petrale, Dover, English), numerous species of rockfish,
Pacific cod, Pacific hake, lingcod, sablefish, thresher shark,
Pacific herring, northern anchovy, jack mackerel, pollock, spiny
dogfish, green and white sturgeon.

Fishes associated with sandy intertidal areas include starry
flounder, staghorn sculpin, sand lance, sand sole, redtail
surfperch, and sanddab. Surf smelt spawn at high tide on sandy
beaches where surf action covers and aerates the eggs (Gardner,
1981).

Many of the finfish found in shallow rocky reefs are also
common in kelp beds. The kelp canopy, stipes, and holdfasts
increase the available habitat for pelagic and demersal species,
and offer protection to juvenile fish. The numerous species of
rockfish are the dominant fish. Other associated species include

11-60

lingcod, kelp greenling, cabezon, kelp perch, wolf eel, and red
Irish lord.

The rocky intertidal habitat is characterized by a rather
small and specialized group of fish adapted for life in tidepools
and wash areas. These fishes include tidepool sculpin, wolf eel,
juvenile lingcod and greenling, gunnels, eelpouts, pricklebacks,
cockcombs, and warbonnets.

The significance of the subareas to the distribution of
several selected fish species found in the study area is
summarized in Appendix C (Tables 5 and 6). Two observations are
noteworthy. First, the salmon and groundfish species assemblages
are the most significant species in the study area. The region
is not only important for those salmon that spawn in streams
adjacent to the study area, but potentially encompasses the
migration corridor of both juvenile and adult salmonids from
California, Oregon, and British Columbia as well. Second, the
analyses suggest that offshore and mid-shelf areas under
consideration for sanctuary status (areas 1,2,3,5, and 6)
generally are more significant for non-anadramous fishes than the
inshore areas.

Offshore areas 1 and 5 are the most important areas for
commercial harvests of groundfish. More than 2/3 of annual 1987-
88 outer coast harvests came from these areas for the following
species: Pacific ocean perch, lingcod, English sole, Dover sole,
Pacific cod, and sablefish. Area 5, produced the majority of
harvests of widow rockfish. It is important to note, however,
that four of the top ten fishes commercially harvested along the
outer coast of Washington (chinook, coho, and chum salmon, and
lingcod) are either estuarine-associated (i.e., they use
estuaries during some time in their lives) or estuarine-dependent
(i.e., they require estuaries to complete their life cycles).
Additionally, the top four recreational species for.Washington
(chinook and coho salmon, steelhead, and lingcod) all utilize
estuaries, at least as juveniles.

(e) Marine Birds

The rocky headlands, islands, and highly productive waters
of the Washington outer coast provide essential habitat for a
wide variety of both migratory and resident marine birds. Beyond
their common link to the sea, marine birds are a very diverse
group. They differ by size, shape, feeding habits, spatial
distribution, habitat requirements, sensitivities and a host of
other characteristics. The complex nature of many species makes
it difficult to group birds into neat categories and impossible
to apply sweeping characterizations about marine bird behavior.
There is nearly always an exception to every rule, even among
birds of the same species.

11-61

Bird surveys-can thus be quite tedious and results may,vary
according to the degree of difficulty in gathering information
and the resources available to researchers. For example,
gathering production statistics on colonial nesters that lay
their eggs on exposed, rocky surfaces (e.g. Common murre) is much
easier and more precise than collecting the same data on species
that scatter into coastal forests to nest in both old growth
trees and concealed burrows (e.g. Marbled murrelet). Due to such
differences, knowledge about some species is far more complete
than for others.

Nevertheless, information on marine birds of the Washington
coast has advanced dramatically over the past decade. The most
comprehensive reports have been commissioned by state and Federal
resource management-agencies. This discussion draws heavily on
those reports - particularly those by Strickland and Chasan,
1989; Speich & Wahl, 1989; Wahl, 1984; SAB, 1990; and MMS Study,
1992. These reports were produced through extensive literature
searches and the most current survey techniques. They represent
the best available information on Washington marine bird
populations. Therefore, portions of these texts have been
directly incorporated into this report. It should be noted that
the 1992 MMS Study (cited above) was the first attempt to-date to
describe offshore avifaunal distribution off Oregon and
Washington using repeated, systematic sampling. Coastal
nearshore populations have been tracked closely for two decades
by Terence Wahl, Ulrich Wilson, and other researchers.

Data compiled from various sources lists approximately 128
marine bird species present off the Washington coast. Speich et
al. (1987) reported a total of 87 species of birds observed or
known to occur in the area between Point Grenville and Sealion
Rock (Table 1). An additional 41 species known to occur in the
study area and are listed in Table 2. At least eleven of these
additional species occur regularly in the offshore waters along
the coast, some in large numbers: black-footed and Laysan
albatrosses, pink-footed, flesh-footed, Buller's and short-tailed
shearwaters, red phalarope, south polar skua, Sabine's and
glaucous gulls and Xantus' murrelet (Wahl, 1991).

Species composition and abundance of marine birds vary by
season in Washington coastal waters. While many species of birds
are year-round residents, others may be summer or winter
visitors, or migrants passing through on spring and/or fall
migrations.

Resident birds are present throughout the year. Breeding
residents nest in the coastal areas of Washington. Non-breeding
residents are represented by non-breeding individuals (juveniles
that do not migrate) during the spring and summer periods. The
glaucous-winged gull is a resident species that nests in coastal
Washington, and many individual birds live their entire life in

11-62

Table 1. Bird Species observed in Sealion Rock Study Area.
Source: Speich et. al., 1987.

Common Name Genus/Species Common Name Genus/Species
Loons Oystercatchen;
Red-throated loon Gavia stellate American black Haemaropus bachmani
Pacific loon Gavle pacifice oystercatcher
Common loon GaVia Immer Shorebirds
Grebes Wandering tattler Hateroscolus incanus
Horned grebe Podiceps auritUS Sported sandpiper ActIlls macularla
Red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegene WhImbrel Numenlus phaeopus
Western grebe Aechmophorus Long-billed curlew Numenfus americannus
occidentalls Ruddy turnstome Atenarie Interpies
Black turnsione Arenarle melenocephala
Tube Noses Surfbird Aphriza vigara
Northern fulmer Fulmerus glacialls Sanderlings Calldris alba
Sooty shearwater Puffinus griseus Western sandpiper Calldne mauni
Storm-Petrals Least sandpiper Calldris minutille
Fork-tailed storm-petrel Oceenodroma furcatat Rock sandpiper Calldris prilocnemis
Leach's storm-petrel Oceanadrome leucorhoa Dunlin Calidrus alpine
Red-necked phalarope Phalaropvs lobalus
Pelicans
Brown pelican Pelecanus occidenfalis Gulls and Terms
Pomarine Jaeger Stefccrarlus parnerinus
Cormorants Parasitic Jaeger Sterecrarlus parasiticus
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax surilus Long-tailed Jaeger Stercoredus longicaudus
Brandt's cormorant Phalacrocorax penIcillatus Bonaparte's gull Larus philadelphla
Pelagic cormorant Phatacrocorax pelagicus Heerman's gull Larus hearmanni
Herons Mew gull Latus canus
Great blue heron Ardea harodlas Ring-billed gull Lerus delawarensis
California gull Lsrus callibmicus
Swans, Geese Ducks Herring gull Larus argentatus
Tundra swan Cygnus columblennus Thayer's gull Larus theyed
Greater white-fronted Anser allifrons Western gull Larus occidentalis
goose Glauccus-winged gull Larus gloucescens
Snow goose Chen caerulescens Black-legged kittlwake Fissa tridacryla
Brant Brenta betnicla Caspian torn Sterna caspia
Canada goose Brenta canadensis Arctic tarn Stems paradisaea
Green-winged teal Ames crecca Common tern Sterna h1rundo
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos
Northern piniall Anes actua Alcids
Northern shoveler Anas clypeats Common murre Urla ealge
American wigeon Anas americana Pigeon guillemot Cepphus columba
Canvasback Aythya vallsinerle Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmaratus
Scaup species Aythya species Ancient murrelet Synthfiboramphus antlguus
Harlequin duck Hisfrionicus histrianicus Cassin's auklet PtyChoramphus, aleuricus
Black scoter Melanlits migra Rhinoceros auklet Cerorhinca monocerals
Surf scoter Malanitta perspIcIllsta Tufted puffln Fratercula clrrhata
Whlia-winged scoter Melanlita fusca Swallows
Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula Northern tough-winged Steigidopletyx
Bufflehead sucephala abeola swallow serripennis
Common merganser Mergus merganser Bam swallow Hirundo, rustica
Red-breasted merganser Mergus serraror Crows and Jays
Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensIs Northwestern crow Corvus caurinus
Common raven Corvus cotax
Hawks and Eagles
Osprey Pandlon haliaefus Starlings
Bald eagle Hallaearus laucocephalus European sterling Sfulnus Vulgafis
Falcons Songbirds
Merlin Falco columbadus Savannah sparrow Passerculus
Paregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Finches sandwichensis
Plovers American goldfInch Carduells trlstIs
Black-bellied plover Pivvialls squatarole
Semipalmaled plover Chafdrius semicalmetus

11-63

Table 2. Marine Bird Species Additional to those Listed

Table I occurring in or near Sanctuary Boundary.
Source: Speich et. al., 1987.

Common Name

Lords Gutic and Terps
Yellow-billed loan South Peter skus
Gavis adsmati COthatecto skue
Arctic Loan Laughing quit
Gavie inwr Larm stricilLe
Gisuccus gull
Tube Noses Larus hyperborsug
short-tailed albatross SLatey-backed gull
Diomedea albatrus Larus schistisagus
Laysan stbatross Ivory ult
Diomodes immutabilis Pasophits eburnam
BLack-foated albatross Red-lossed kittiwake
Diomedes nigripes Rise& brovirostrfs
Butter's shearwater Ross's suit
Puffinus bulleri Rhodostethf a rosea,
Flesh-footed shearwater Aleutian tern
Puffinue carnelpes Sterne steutIce
Pink-footed shearwater Vacant tern
Puffinus crestopue Sterne etegams
Manx shearwater Forster's tern
Puff1mus pufffnue Sterne forstori
Short-tatted shearmater Sabina's quit
Puffinus temuirestris Xeme sabint
storm-PeTrEls ALcids
Least storm-petreL Crested suklet
Halocyptems Microsoft Aethis crittetj
Wilson's stopm-Petral Least Mist
OcesnItes ocesmicus Aethis pusitts
Ashy storm-petreL Whiskered auktat
Oceanodrame homachroo Aethim pygmsee
Mottled petret KittLitz's murretst
Teredrome inexpectate Brechyramphus brevirostrfs
Sotander's petreL Mack guiLtemot
Teredramm soLardri Capphug gryLle
Murphyto petrel Parakeet auktot
Teradrams uLtfma CycLarrhynchus paittacuta
Xantus' murrelet
Pelicans Endomychurs hypolouca
American White Pelican Horned puffin
PoLecams ethrorhynchos Fraturcuts cornicuLato
Thick-bfILed murre
Urfa Lewis
Cormorants
Red-faced cormorant
Phatocroccrax urfle

Swans geese Ducks
Barrows GoLdeneye
BucephaLs clamgUts
OLdsquaw
CianguLe hyautis

Shorefirds
Nortern phatarope
Lobipas tobatue

11-64

the area. In fact, Puget Sound and the outer Washington coast
are the sole breeding areas for the glaucous-winged gull in the
contiguous U.S. (SAB, 1990). The surf scoter is a resident
species that does not nest in the area, but non-breeding young
birds remain here during the spring and summer months, while
adults go north to nest.

Summer visitors are present during the spring and/or summer
and usually absent during the winter. Summer residents may or
may not breed in the area. Summer resident species that nest in
the area include Leach's storm-petrel, osprey, snowy plover,
spotted sandpiper, and Caspian tern. Summer resident species
that do not nest in the area include sooty shearwater and
Heermann's gull.

winter visitors are present during the winter, and spring or
fall, or both, and usually absent during the summer. Examples
include the loons and grebes, swans, geese, brandt, most ducks,
scoters, most shorebirds, herring gull, Thayer's gull, and black-
legged kittiwake. Many species that are classified as winter
visitors could also be classified non-breeding resident species,
on the basis of small numbers of non-breeding individuals present
during the summer period. Non-breeding common loons, Pacific
loons, Western grebes, surf scoters, and black scoters are
present in Washington coastal waters during the summer.

migrants are generally only present during the spring or
fall migration periods, or both. Examples include white-fronted
geese, several shorebirds, phalaropes, pomarine and parasitic
jaegers, California gulls, Sabine's gulls, and Arctic terns.
Individual brown pelicans disperse up the Pacific coast from
breeding colonies in Baja California, Mexico, and southern
California, in late summer and fall, but by the end of the year
nearly all birds have departed coastal Washington for southern
waters. Heermann's gulls have an identical pattern, but it
occurs earlier, in the summer and early fall period.

Seven marine bird species present in Washington waters are
listed as threatened or endangered. The short-tailed albatross,
peregrine falcon, brown pelican, and Aleutian Canada goose are
all on the Federal endangered species list (although the short-
tailed albatross is not yet regarded as endangered within the
U.S.). The bald eagle is listed as a threatened species, and
Grays Harbor is one of two major adult concentrations on the west
coast. The State of Washington lists the snowy plover and
American white pelican as endangered species. The marbled
murrelet may soon be considered as an active candidate for

11-65

listing as a threatened or endangered species.

The marine birds of the Washington coast may be divided into
four groups, based loosely on their geographic distribution and
feeding habits:

Seabirds, such as alcids, shearwaters and gulls, which
feed in open waters from the shoreline and estuaries to
the open ocean. Some seabirds are strictly pelagic, while
others prefer the nearshore environment;
*.Shorebirds, such as sandpipers, which feed mainly along
the intertidal and nearshore marine environment;
* Waterfowl, such as ducks and geese, found near shore on
the open coast and in estuaries;
* Birds of prey, such as bald eagles and peregrine falcons,
which breed and roost on land near water bodies, and feed
in or near the water. (Strickland & Chasan, 1989)

As with the other living resources of the Sanctuary, marine
birds are often associated with specific habitats. In general,
seabird activity is most concentrated along the Olympic coast,
while shorebirds and waterfowl are found primarily in the bays
and shallow waters of the southern coast. All of the major
seabird colony sites (15 with >1000 birds) along the outer coast
are from Point Grenville to Cape Flattery. Alternately, Willapa
Bay and.Grays Harbor are critical as resting and foraging areas
for several million migratory shorebirds and over one hundred
thousand waterfowl. Birds of prey exist in very small numbers
compared to the other marine bird categories and, though found
throughout the study area, nest primarily on rugged terrain along
the Olympic coast and at the mouth of the Columbia River. To
determine bird species composition for specific habitats of the
Washington coast, consult the species lists in Appendix C. Note
that marine bird species interact. at several trophic levels of
the food web. This fact makes them a vital component of the
coastal ecosystem.

1. Seabirds

The seabird colonies of Washington's outer coast are among
the largest in population in the continental United States
(Cummins, in Strickland and Chasan, 1989). The category
"seabirds" refers to bird species that spend much of their
lifecycle at sea. These birds inhabit sanctuary waters in
greater number and frequency than any other marine birds. They
also constitute the largest population of nesting marine birds
within the proposed sanctuary boundaries.

Seabirds include those that are pelagic (i.e. generally
forage far offshore over the continental shelf, continental
slope, and in oceanic waters) and those that feed in nearshore
zones. Pelagic seabirds go ashore primarily to breed, and

11-66

otherwise rarely visit land. Pelagic species include the
northern fulmar, five species of shearwaters, black footed
albatross, arctic tern, pomarine jaeger, and fork-tailed and
Leach's storm-petrels. The sooty shearwater is by far the most
numerous. Huge flocks estimated to approach one million birds
have been observed at the entrance to the Strait of Juan De Fuca
during summer months (Strickland and Chasan, 1989). Nearshore
seabirds feed within sight of land and include Pacific and red-
throated loons, western grebes, brown pelicans, several species
of gulls and cormorants, tufted puffins, common murres, and red-
necked phalaropes.

A recent study for the US Department of Interior (MMS, 1992)
describes offshore seabird activity in the Northwest as follows:

Seabird populations were f ound to be most densely
concentrated over the continental shelf and least so
seaward of the continental slope (i.e., waters deeper
than 2,000 m). During late spring through late summer,
the shearwaters, storm-petrels, gulls, Common Murres and
Cassin's Auklets numerically dominated the fauna. All
these except the shearwaters nest in the study area.
With autumn migration, the importance of shearwaters and
petrels declined, but the number of phalaropes,
California Gulls, and fulmars increased. Phalaropes,
California Gulls, and fulmars, together with other gulls,
murres, auklets, and kittiwakes, constituted the major
elements of the winter fauna. Although total population
estimates have not been attempted in this report, there
is no doubt that peak populations in Oregon and
Washington reach into the millions of birds.
Every area over the shelf harbored dense
concentrations of birds during the year. However, a few
locations stood out prominently. The major colony
complexes were located in southern and northern Oregon
and along the Olympic Peninsula of Washington. offshore
of these sites, nesting birds foraged in dense
aggregations to about 50 km radius. Petrels,
shearwaters, and alcids heavily used the shelf-edge banks
off central Oregon and northern Washington. The broad
shelf area of northern Washington consistently harbored
large populations of shearwaters, gulls, murres, and
auklets.

The report findings demonstrate that foraging activity is
significant throughout the study area to the shelf break and
beyond. Swiftsure Bank and the Juan de Fuca Canyon stand out in
the data as intense foraging sites. The 50 km foraging range of
nesting birds extends, within the study area, from the
international border to the Grays Harbor/Willapa Bay area.
Strong topographically induced upwelling is known to occur along
the shelf of southwestern Vancouver Island, particularly at the

11-67

edge of the Juan de Fuca Canyon. Oceanic fronts, areas of strong
horizontal property gradients, often occur at the seaward edges
of coastal upwellings. These stratified water density layers
trap poorly mobile zooplankton upon which some seabird species
feed (MMS, 1992).

The coastal rocks and islands along the outer coast are
critical nesting and roosting sites for many seabird species (See
Appendix C, Figure 15 for ratings of significance to several
species). All major seabird nesting sites along the Washington
coast have been identified. Most, are located on headlands or
islands protected by the USFWS, the NPS, or native tribes.

The colony site is a very critical habitat for seabirds
because reproduction and thus continuation of species depend on
these sites. Here, the population will reach its annual low,
just before young are hatched, and its annual high, just after
hatching. At other times of the year, seabirds may be able to
avoid problems, such as disruption of food supplies and perhaps
even large oil spills, simply by flying elsewhere, but for
successful reproduction, they are: limited to the area in the
vicinity of the colony.

Colonial seabird populations in the study area are estimated
to range from 108,530 breeding pairs (Strickland and Chasan,
1989) to 240,000 individuals (Wahl, 1984). Approximately 75% of
the total estimated colonial seabird population in Washington
breed between Point Grenville and Neah Bay which is in, or
adjacent to, subarea 4 (Figure 33). The shoreline south of Point
Grenville, in or adjacent to subarea 7, has limited nesting
habitat available for colonial seabirds, except for accreted sand
islands in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay and the rock cliff face
at the mouth of the Columbia River (Speich and Wahl, 1989).

Figure 34 displays the location and density of breeding
seabirds along the Washington coast. This data reveals a
distinct difference in profile between the breeding seabird
populations along the Olympic coast and those of the southern
coast (Grays Harbor/Willapa Bay). The Olympic coast is dominated
by the more pelagic species and much higher numbers of nesters,
while the.southern coast is primarily nesting habitat for gulls
and terns. There is an obvious break in nesting activity between
Ocean Shores and Point Grenville that coincides with a distinct
change in habitat. These characteristics are also evident by the
distribution of individual nesting colonies in Figure 35.
The dominant species of breeding seabirds in Washington are
Cassin's auklets, rhinoceros auklets, common murres, Leach's
storm-petrels, glaucus-winged gulls and tufted puffins (Figure
36). Destruction Island is home to one of the seven major
colonies (18,000 pairs) of rhinoceros auklets in the world, and
only one of two*major colonies of greater than 20,000 birds along
the entire west coast (SAB, 1990). The rhinoceros auklet, Fork

11-68

6%
18
16%
.. .............................

..............
%. ................

54%

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

.............
.. ........... . .
Y., YIN
..............
5 V, X
...... ex N.
X
X ...

*Less, than I percent

Figure 33. Percentage of Breeding Seabirds along the Marine
Shorelines of Washington (Speich and Wahl, 1989).

11-69

09 0 0 E 0

(SOUCOA441) lp,je Gillpoo;g
-.410

94140JOWMD

21SA18d

Figure 34. Estimated Breeding Populations (numbers of
individuals) of Seabird Families (alcids, storm-
petrels, cormorants, and terms) by Region along
Coastal Washington (Strickland and Chasan, 1989 from
data in Speich and Wahl, 1989).

11--70

Cassin's Aukl*t Rhinoceros Auklet

Catalog Total Catalog Total
willhIriplon colonles 87,600 b.ldS WGIMAIlon. coloales 450.614 46fd.

7 a eclemy 01,66 a calarly Nile&

Tufted Puffin Pelagic Comorant

-Fee
Catalog Total
colo"lls 23.342 bifes

27M .001DAY M404

Figure 35. Distribution of Nesting Sites of the Washington
Species of seabirds (Speich and Wahl, 1989).

11-71

Double-crested Cormorant
Brandt's Cormorant

C61616% revel Ceialog Twel

*T" 0.0.

-20 _- so,*-. $.Its

Pigeon Ovillomof Marbled Murrelot

Figure 35. continued

11-72

Common Murre

C.lw W )GO

-1..

Fork-td;led Storm-Pelfol Loach's Storm Patrol

Cafelso Tolal C814190 total
GIs D-0 Calp"It, .1s.tao -d.

Figure 35. continued.

11-73

LEACH'S STORM-PETREL
3 6.7 00 (12 %)

GLAUCOUS-WINGED
...... WESTERN GULLS
3 9, 9 2 312 %
CASSIN'S AUKLET

8 7.6 00 (2 9 %)

...........

COMMON MURRE
3 0,7 80 (10%)

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

TUFTED PUFFIN
..............
23,342 (8%)
RHINOCEROS
AUKLET
60,814 (20%)
FORK-T AILED STORM-PETREL 3878
DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT 3296
BRANDT'S'CORMORANT 554
PELAGIC CORMORANT 4866
AMERICAN BLACK OYSTERCATCHER 334 9%
RING-BILLED GULL 10a

CASPIAN TERN 7918
PIGEON GUILLEMOT 4270
MARBLED MURRELET 2417)

Figure 36. Populations of Breeding Seabirds and Percentages of
Total Aggregate Population in Washington (Speich and
Wahl, 1989).

11-74

-tailed storm petrel, Brandt's cormorant, and caspian tern are
all restricted to very few nesting sites (Speich and Wahl, 1989).
other species that breed on these coastal rocks and islands
include terns, cormorants, black oystercatchers, ring-billed and
western gulls, pigeon guillemots, and ancient marbled murrelets.

Alcids are a distinctive family of seabirds present along
the Washington coast that includes the tufted puffin, rhinoceros
auklet, cassin's auklet, common murre ancient and marbled
murrelets, and pigeon guillemot. They are colonial nesters, live
long lives, and reproduce very slowly. Adults do not reach
sexual maturity for several years, and then produce only one to
two eggs per clutch. Also, breeding birds will not necessarily
mate each year. Most alcids are found in shallower nearshore
waters, especially in summer when birds are closely tied to
nesting sites. Large colonies of tufted puffins, rhinoceros
auklets, Cassin's auklets and common murres are present on the
nearshore islands of the Olympic coast. Except for Cassin's
auklets (nocturnal during breeding), birds are often seen
roosting and gathering about the colonies. Foraging areas differ
somewhat for each species. Cassin's auklets and tufted puffins
are commonly found foraging over the continental slope.
Rhinoceros auklets may forage in these areas but also regularly
forage in closer nearshore waters, and in Grays Harbor. Common
murres, like rhinoceros auklets, fly considerable distances to
foraging areas up and down the coast, and are also seen from
Grays Harbor south to the Columbia.

The traits and sensitivities of the common murre are in many
ways typical of species within the alcid family. Common murres
are among the most colonial species of seabirds. They nest on
open rock or dirt ledges of coastal islands and narrow ledges of
vertical cliffs. A pair of common murres will produce only one
egg per year. The oblong egg is layed on bare rock and is held
between the legs of the parent. Common murres nest at 18
locations alongthe Olympic outer coast and sometimes shift
colony sites. These birds are strong fliers and are capable of
foraging long distances from their colonies. They dive to
considerable depths to capture fish, crustaceans, and
cephalopods'. In late summer and fall, adult females of the
Washington coastal population fly into Puget Sound to molt and
winter. Meanwhile, adult males accompany their newly fledged
chicks to sea, staying with them and feeding them for several
weeks. The chicks fledge when small and are unable to fend for
themselves. While migrating, the adult murres undergo a complete
molt rendering them flightless. The males and their fledgling
chicks swim north and enter Puget Sound through the Strait of
Juan de Fuca.

common murres are highly vulnerable to oil contamination,
particularly.during the migration phase for males and chicks.
Since these birds are flightless and completely dependent upon

11-75

marine prey, they remain in the water where they can become
Ammobilized and encased by oil. Preening can lead to ingestion
of oil and toxic effects. Entire colonies could be devastated by
a local oil spill occurring at the time the birds are departing
nest sites for the water migration to Puget Sound. Nesting
murres are particularly sensitive to disturbance by boats, low-
flying aircraft, and humans on foot as well. When disturbed,
adults flush from the colonies and may inadvertently destroy.
chicks and eggs held between their legs. The remaining chicks
and eggs are subject to increased predation from gulls, ravens
and crows. Studies by B. Tschanz in 1959 concluded that murres
can lay a second or third egg if previous eggs are destroyed in a
given season. However, chicks hatching later in the season are
likely to have lower survival rates (Wilson, 1993).

There are many threats to the populations of breeding
seabirds in Washington. They include disturbance of nesting
areas by recreation, military operations, and domestic animals;
loss of habitat and/or decline in the population of prey species;
entanglement in fishing nets, particularly gill nets; and oil
pollution. A negative impact on seabird populations may not be
realized immediately for several reasons. One is that seabirds
have long life spans, commonly between 20 and 30 years. Some
more longer lived species may even have a breeding life of 50
years. Secondly, recruitment to breeding populations is slow and
delayed. Many seabirds spend at least two years, commonly three,
and up to 9 years as non-breeders. Thirdly, clutch size is small
(1-5), compared to land birds (7-15). Long breeding lives, low
recruitment rates, and delayed maturity mask the detection of
effects on successive breeding populations for several years.
This underscores the need to monitor seabird populations
regularly to detect impacts of chronic pollution, habitat loss,
oil spills, and other environmental disasters (Wahl, 1984).

The effects of disturbance are often subtle and easily
overlooked by the casual observer, yet are often devastating to
the birds. Impacts range from slight disruption of courtship
behavior, incubation, and feeding of nestlings by adults, to
outright mortality of nestlings from exposure to heat or cold,
and induced predation by rival adult birds or by other species
(Speich & Wahl, 1989). Each seabird species is sensitive to a
unique set of factors and the particular timing of any
disturbance. Some species have greater tolerance levels than
others.

Encroachment on seabird colonies by humans or domestic
animals (whether for recreational purposes or otherwise) can
cause prolonged disruption of nesting sites, resulting in
increased mortality rates. Dogs are particularly disruptive to
nesting,birds and can be disastrous to a colony. Marine
recreational activities can cause repeated disruptions that may
eventually lead to abandonment of nests or entire colony sites.

11-76

The intense activity (noise, motion, spotlights) surrounding
search and rescue operations can frighten adults from colonies
for several hours. The sudden loud noise of low-flying jet
aircraft panics nesting birds from nest sites and particularly
affects cormorants, common murres and tufted puffins.

The above disturbances can also impact birds at favored
foraging and roosting sites. Additional activities that may
directly or indirectly affect foraging seabirds are physical
alterations of the benthos (e.g. dredging, filling, dumping) and
fishing practices. Alteration of benthic habitat can reduce the
carrying capacity of the area for prey species important to
seabirds. Fishing can also deplete prey abundance and directly
damage birds that are caught in nets.

Seabirds, especially pelagic, are particularly sensitive to
impacts from marine oil spills. Clark (1989) effectively
describes the impacts of oil on seabirds:

Unlike most other organisms in the sea, sea birds
are harmed through the physical properties of floating
oil, and the toxicity of its constituents is of minor.
importance. If liquid oil (or any other surface-active
substance) contaminates a bird's plumage, its water-
repellant properties are lost. If the bird remains on
the sea, water penetrates the plumage and displaces the
air trapped between the feathers and the skin. This air
layer provides buoyancy and thermal insulation. With its
loss, the plumage becomes waterlogged and the birds may
sink and drown. Even if this does not happen, the loss
of thermal insulation results in a rapid exhaustion of
food reserves in an attempt to maintain body temperature,
followed by hypothermia and, commonly, death. Birds
attempt to free their plumage of contaminating oil by'
preening and they swallow quantities of it. Depending on
its toxicity, the oil may then cause intestinal disorders
and renal or liver failure. Quite small quantities of
oil ingested by birds during the breeding season depress
egg-laying, and of the eggs that are laid the proportion
that hatch successfully is reduced. If oil is
transferred from the plumage of an incubating bird to the
eggs, the embryos may be killed.
Indirect effects of oil pollution on reproduction
appears to be much less important than the direct
mortality of adult birds, and most attention has been
directed towards the latter problem. The species most
commonly a f f ected 'are auks: guillemots (murre),
razorbills and puffins; and some diving sea-ducks:
scoters, velvet scoters, long-tailed ducks (old squaw),
and eiders. These birds spend most of their time on the
surface of the water and go are particularly likely to
encounter floating oil, and because they dive rather than

11-77

f ly up when disturbed, they are as likely as riot to
resurface through the oil slick, so becoming completely
covered with oil. Furthermore, these ducks are extremely
gregarious except when ashore for breeding, and the auks
are gregarious at all times of the year. Thus, if there
are casualties they are likely to be numerous. Indeed
quite small oil slicks drifting through concentrations of
birds resting on the sea may inf lict heavy casualties
quite disproportionate to the quantity of oil. Thus,
when 230,000 t of crude oil was lost from the Amaco Cadiz
on the Brittany coast, the known sea bird casualties
numbered 4572; but the largest known kill of sea birds
from oil pollution was in the Skagerrak Can arm of the
North Sea between Denmark and Norway] in January 1981
when 30,000 oiled birds appeared on the beaches, and this
appears to have been caused by small amounts of oil
discharged by two vessels. Indeed, the estimated loss of
12,000 birds on the north-east coast of England in
January and February 1970 from oil slicks that were never
even identified, equals the estimated loss following the
wreck of the Torrey Canyon (the second largest tanker
spill to date - 860,000 barrels in 1967].

In total, over 500,000 seabirds (juveniles included) are
concentrated within Washington nesting colonies each year. Over
325,000 colonial seabirds are found in subarea 4 and about 45,000
are present in colonies in subarea 7. The remainder are found in
inland waters (SAB, 1990). Those species for which the study
area is particularly important are the black-legged kittiwake,
the rhinoceros auklet, and the tufted puffin. Additionally,
nesting colonies along the outer coast of Washington contain more
than 50% of contiguous U.S. west coast total populations for the
following species: Fork-tailed storm-petrel, Caspian tern,
Cassin's auklet, and tufted.puffin.

ii. Shorebirds

Shorebirds do not swim, but rather wade or probe at the
waters edge, feeding on shallow-water organisms or prey in the
intertidal mud or sand. Shorebirds such as western sandpipers,
sanderlings, dunlin, and semi-palmated and black-bellied plovers
roost and forage along coastal beaches and bays during their
annual migrations.

While most shorebirds tend -to feed on sandy beaches or
mudflats, several species prefer to forage on rock substrate and
are consistently found on rocks and islands of the Olympic
coastal region. Representatives of this group include ruddy and
black turnstones, wandering tattler, surfbird, and rock sandpiper
(see Trophic Level (9), Appendix F). They pass through during
migrations, but small numbers of three species winter in these
rocky surf areas of the coast (Strickland and Chasan, 1989).

11-78

Unlike seabirds, most shorebirds are not associated with the
marine environment during the breeding season, but nest on
coastal and interior wetlands. A few species nest in small
numbers in the Grays Harbor/Willapa Bay region. These include
the snowy plover, kildeer,,semi-palmated plover, and common
snipe.

Shorebirds depend upon critical staging sites along the
coast during migrations. Coastal bays and estuaries along the
Washington outer coast (i.e. GraysHarbor and Willapa Bay) are
important feeding and resting areas for large concentrations of
birds during migration and the winter season. These areas are
the last estuaries at which many birds stop during their
migration to Alaska. Over 12 species of shorebirds stage in the
spring with numbers greater than 1,000,000 in the Grays Harbor
area, and 750,000 in Willapa Bay. Approximately 30,000
shorebirds overwinter in Willapa Bay. These are also important
areas for the endangered peregrine falcons, which prey on many of
the shorebirds (McMinn, 1993).

iii. waterfowl

Waterfowl are flat-billed birds that spend the majority of
their lifecycle on the water. Like shorebirds, waterfowl
typically breed on freshwater habitats, but many species move to
shoreline and nearshore habitats when breeding is complete. Many
species of waterfowl stage and winter in Washington's protected
marine waters. Approximately 10,900 ducks and geese overwinter
in Willapa Bay, with numbers swelling during migrations to
greater than 100,000. Approximately 20,000 waterfowl migrate
through Grays Harbor (Atkinson, 1993). Very small numbers of
geese and ducks remain to nest in these two areas during the
spring and summer.

Other species, such'as scoter, harlequin, bufflehead,
merganser, goldeneye, oldsquaw, and scaup, winter in the
nearshore waters of the open coast. Scoters are by far the most
numerous species of sea ducks in nearshore waters. A small
number of sub-adult birds are found in the area during the
summer, soon joined by large numbers of adults from northern
continental nesting areas. The sub-adult birds pass through a
flightless period when they molt their feathers. At this time,
flocks numbering tens of thousands are found scattered along the
coast. At least 100,000 and possibly up to 300,000 birds molt in
the area between Point Grenville and Destruction Island. After
molting is completed, many birds may disperse down the Pacific
coast, but scoters are found in Washington coastal waters
throughout the winter (Strickland and Chasan, 1989).

iv. Birds of Prey

Peregrine falcons and bald eagles nest and feed extensively

11-79

along Washington's coastal waters. The Washington Department of
Wildlife (WDOW) Nongame Program counted 17 pairs of nesting
peregrine falcons in the state in i991. Nine of the 17 pairs
nested on the outer coast. Peregrines prefer steep cliffs for
nesting. Shorebirds are a favored food source for these birds of
prey. Large flocks of migrating shorebirds at Grays Harbor
attract peregrines from distant nesting sites along the coast.
Peregrine falcons continue a slow, steady recovery in Washington
and do not show evidence of serious biochemical contamination as
do populations in California and Oregon (WDW, 1991). Their low
numbers require that particular attention be given to preserving
habitat and minimizing disturbance. The peregrine falcon is
listed as an endangered species by Washington State as well as
the Federal government.

A continuous band of bald eagle nests have been established
along the entire shoreline of the study area, including the
shoreline of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The nesting territories
are contiguous to one another, with nests approximately 1 mile
apart (Taylor, 1992). The eagles patrol the coastline for fish,
waterfowl and prey of opportunity. The bald eagle population in
Washington appears to be in good health and is growing annually.
The WDOW Nongame Program counted 426 active nests along western
Washington waterways in 1991 (WDW, 1991). There are 51 breeding
territories along the coastal boundary of the Sanctuary between
Copalis Rock and Koitlah Point (WDW, 1993). The bald eagle in
Washington State is listed as threatened by both the Federal
government and the State of Washington.

A special report by the NOAA SAB (1990) analyzed marine
bird populations based on ecological considerations such as
breeding sites,. staging areas, and foraging areas (Appendix C,
Tables 7 and 8). Two observations are noteworthy. First,
subareas 4 and 7 are most significant to the overall distribution
of marine birds. This reflects the importance of colony sites
along the rocky headlands in subarea 4, and the staging areas
that serve as the last major stop-over on the Pacific flyway
before the seabirds fly to Alaska.

(f) Marine Mammals

A total of 30 species of marine mammals are reported to
occur in the coastal waters of Washington (Table 3). The
distribution of a selected species of marine mammals in the seven
subareas is shown in Appendix D, Table 9. Of these, seven are
considered common: California sea lions, northern sea lions
(although their numbers have decreased and they have become
listed as threatened species), harbor seals, harbor porpoises,
gray whales, Rissols dolphin, and Pacific white-sided dolphin.
The river otter, usually associated with freshwater rivers and
lakes, has adapted to the local marine environment. species
which are known to breed in the sanctuary study area include the

11-80

Table 3. Marine Mammal Species Reported From The Coastal Waters
of Washington (Source: Speich et. al., 1987;
Strickland and Chasan, 1989; and Schmitten, 1993).

Order Species Occurrence Legal Status

Carnivora Sea otter, Enhydra lutris R WAC, MMPA, ESA, WSE
Pinnipedia, Ca. sea lion, Zalophus californianus C WAC,MMPA
N. sea lion, EumetopJas jubatus C WAC MMPA
N. fur seai, Callorhinus ursinus R WAC, MMPA
Pacific harbor seal, Phoca vitulina C WAC, MMPA
N. elephant seal, Mirounga angusfirostris R WAC, MMPA
Cetacea Ca. gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus C WAC, MMPA, ESA
Right whale, Eubalaena glacialis A WAC, MMPA, ESA
Minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata A WAC, MMPA
Fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus A WAC, MMPA, ESA
Sei whale, Balaenoptera borealis A WAC, MMPA, ESA
Blue whale, Balaenoptera musculus A WAC, MMPA, ESA
Humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae R WAC, MMPA, ESA
Sperm whale, Physeter macrocephalus R WAC, MMPA, ESA
Pygmy sperm whale, Kogia breviceps A WAC, MMPA
N. Pacific beaked whale, Mesoploolon steinegeri A WAC, MMPA
Hubb's beaked whale, Mesoplodon carthubbsi A WAC,MMPA
Cuvier's beaked whale, Ziphius cavirostris A WAC, MMPA
Baird's beaked whale, Berardius bairdY A WAC, MMPA
Pilot whale, Globicephala macrorhynchus A WAC,MMPA
Risso's dolphin, Grampus griseus A WAC,MMPA
Killer whale, Orcinus orca R WAC,MMPA
False killer whale, Pseudorca crassidens A WAC, MMPA
Common dolphin, Delphinus delphis A WAC,MMPA
N. right whale dolphin, Lissodelphis borealis A WAC, MMPA
Striped dolphin, Stenella coeruleoalba A WAC, MMPA
Pacific white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhyncus obliquidens A WAC, MMPA
Dall's porpoise, Phocoenoides dalli R WAC,MMPA
Harbor porpoise, Phoccena phocoena C WAC, MMPA, WST
C Common R Rare A Accidental WAC - Washington Administrative Codes
MMPA - U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act
ESA - U.S. Endangered Species Act
WSE - Washington State Endangered Species
WST - Washington State Threatened Species

11-81

sea otter, harbor seal, and harbor porpoise. Four species, the
northern sea lion, California sea lion, northern fur seal, and
gray whale are regular seasonal migrants along the coast.

Marine mammals listed on the Federal threatened and
endangered species list include gray, right, fin, sei, blue,
humpback, and sperm whales, and the northern (Steller) sea lion
(listed as a threatened species under the ESA by final rule on
November 26, 1990). The sea otter is listed as a Washington
State endangered species; the harbor porpoise is listed as a
Washington State threatened species.

Some species of cetaceans (whales and porpoises) are found
along the Washington coast during the entire year. The most
frequently observed are the harbor porpoise, Pacific white-sided
dolphin, Rissols dolphin and California gray whale. The harbor
porpoise is a year-round resident that often inhabits bays and
inshore waters, however its shyness makes it difficult to acquire
accurate popul*ation data. Aerial and ship surveys conducted
between 1984 and 1986 estimated a population of about 45,000
animals along the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington
(Osmek, 1993).

The gray whale is primarily a coastal, nearshore species
usually found in water depths of less than 50 meters. Its range
extends from breeding grounds off' Baja.California to major
feeding areas in the Bering and Chuckchi Seas. They are most
abundant along the Washington outer coast during northward
migration from February through April, and southward migration
from October through December. The population of Eastern North
Pacific gray whale is estimated to be about 21,000 animals (Jones
et al., 1984; Reilly gt al., 1983). Annually, ten to fifteen
individuals remain as summer residents near Kalaloch, Cape Alava,
and Cape Flattery.

Other cetaceans regularly observed in coastal or offshore
waters include killer whales, Dall's porpoise and Minke whales.
Humpback, blue, and sperm whales are seen offshore during the
summer months, but these sightings are rare. The right whale is
an extremely endangered species with an estimated population of
only 200 in the entire North Pacific ocean.

Pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) found along the outer coast
include the California sea lion, northern sea lion, northern fur
sea, Pacific harbor seal, and the northern elephant seal. The
distribution of pinniped haulout sites is shown in Figure 37.
Harbor seals are the most abundant pinniped in coastal
Washington. They are year-round residents of both offshore and
inshore waters and the only pinnipeds that breed in Washington.

Harbor seals use nearshore rocks, reefs, and sand bars for
rookery and haulout sites. They frequent logs and floating

11-82

20f 1260 40F 20' .1250 40' 1 20' 1240
:X

Duntze Rock

20'
CANA
100 PA

E
48'

INdT6N
100

40'
Oestructl@m Istand ;ea@a

U ts

a
Sealion Roct
E ELI B
20'
6U*'m**'a*U1t'4
P F
I N ILLE
HAULOUT AREAS
Harbor Seal

13 California Sea Lion

A Northern Sea Lion
Ci
Ocean ity

C
47

H
PACIFIC OCEAN
p
SHOALWATER

40'
y
IFT
DEPTHS IN FATHOMS

NAUTICAL MILES
C

0 10 20
STATUTE MILES C E.,
DISAPPOINTMENT
0 10 20 20'
loo

*Columbia River

Figure 37. Distribution of Harbor Seal and Sealion Haulout Sites
Along the Washington Coast (S. Jeffries, WDW in
Strickland and Chasan, 1989).

11-83

structures, shallow bays, and tidal flats near abundant food
sources. The current harbor seal. population in Washington is
estimated to be approximately 32,688 animals (Huber et al, 1993),
with approximately 2,200 seals occurring from Point Grenville to
Cape Flattery (Speich and Whal, 2.989).

Both California sea lions and northern sea lions are present
on the Washington outer coast. Sea lions use open water for
feeding, and nearshore islands, reefs, and rocks for hauling out.
California sea lions breed on islands off the coast of California
and Mexico. After breeding, many adult and sub-adult males
migrate northward into British Columbia. They are found in
Washington waters from August through May. As many as 4,000-
5,000 individuals have been estimated to migrate through the
vicinity of Sealion Rock (Bigg, 1.985 in Speich et al., 1987).
California sea lions prefer isolated rocky areas of coarse sand
beaches free from human interference as haulout sites.

Northern (Stellar) sea lion population declines have been
documented in the core of their range in Alaska resulting in the
species being listed as threatened under the Endangered Species
Act. However, numbers of Stellar sea lions have remained stable
in British Columbia, Washington and Oregon. The range of the
northern sea lion extends around the Pacific rim from Hokkaido,
Japan, to the Channel Islands off' the coast of southern
California. The centers of abundance and distribution are the
Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands, respectively (Loughlin et
al., 1987). Loughlin, Perlov, and Vladimirov (1992) estimated
the current Stellar sea lion population range-wide at 39-48
percent of the population estimated by Kenyon and Rice in 1961.
The NMFS has placed the northern sea lion on the Federal list of
threatened species due to massive population declines (63% loss
between 1985-1989) in areas where they are most abundant such as
the Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska (NMFS, 1992).

While there are no known breeding areas in Washington,
northern sea lions are found along the coast throughout the year.
Primary haulout sites are located along the northern coast,
especially near Flattery Rocks, Cape Alava, and Split Rock.
Northern sea lion populations in Washington were estimated during
the 1970's to be about 450 in winter and 600 in summer
(Strickland and Chasan, 1989).

Northern fur seals breed primarily on the Pribilof Islands
in the Bering Sea. They migrate southward into the eastern North
Pacific Ocean during the late fal.1 and early winter, reaching
peak numbers of 86,000 off Washington in April (Antonelis and
Perez, 1984). Northward migration begins by early spring with
the fur seals mostly absent from the area from July through
December. Northern fur seals prefer the open waters of the
continental shelf and rarely come within 8 km of land.

11-84

The northern elephant seal is the largest of the pinnipeds
in the North Pacific. They breed between January and March on
island from central California south to Baja California. After
the breeding season, they move into coastal and offshore waters
with males traveling as far north as southeast Alaska. Elephant
seals can be seen year-round off Washington though sightings are
most common in the spring. They usually prefer waters well
offshore but have been sighted on Tatoosh Island (Calambokidis et
al., 1987) and are reported to occur in inland waters of
Washington (Everitt et al., 1979, 1@980)-

Sea otters along the Washington coast once ranged from the
mouth of the Columbia River to Point Grenville, with fewer
numbers found north to Cape Flattery, Neah Bay, and east into the
Strait of Juan De Fuca. Commercial hunting for its valuable pelt
had eliminated the species from Washington by the early 1900's.
The last known "resident" sea otters in Washington were taken in
Willapa Bay in 1910 (Scheffer, 1940). A total of 59 otters
transplanted from Alaska were released at Point Grenville,and La
Push in 1969 and 1970, forming the basis for the present
population estimated to be 300 individuals in 1992 (Bowlby,
1992). Sea otters currently range along 70 km of the coast from
Destruction Island north to Point of the Arches (Figure 38).
They prefer rocky habitats with extensive kelp beds common to the
northern portion of the sanctuary study area, and usually feed
within one mile of shore in waters less than 20m deep. The
population undergoes seasonal shifts in location. The Cape Alava
area is used all year with higher numbers there in winter and
early spring. By summer some of the population has shifted south
to the area of Cape Johnson (just north of La Push). These
otters eventually return north, and by September the main
population is back at Cape Alava. This area is probably
preferred for winter habitat because of the extensive Macrocystis
kelp beds, and the protection offered by Ozette and Bodelteh
Islands. The sea otter-is on the Washington State endangered
species list.

River otters are land mammals usually associated with
freshwater rivers and lakes, but have adapted to the marine
environment. They are often mistaken for sea otters and are
found in marine/estuarine areas along the outer coast, especially
in the vicinity of Cape Alava. Their diet includes marine prey
such as fishes, crabs, mussels, oysters, barnacles, and sea
stars. other land mammals such as black bear, deer, and raccoons
prowl the intertidal area for food.

An analysis of the distribution of marine mammals among the
seven subareas indicates that areas 1, 2 and 5 stand out as most
significant to the overall assemblage of marine mammals. These
are the areas that are furthest offshore. Also, the sanctuary
study area provides particularly significant habitat for seven
marine mammals: the harbor seal, harbor porpoise, killer whale,

11-85

20' 126'0 401 20' 1250 40' 20' 1240
fi

Duntze Rock

2C
500

4L
WAsk
P .ush. NGTON
.... ... ...

Destruci-F I@ 4C
Clearwar R.

S R

"'Raft A
Sealion R Ck
6@A
2C
DISTRIBUTION
ED Current
(1976-1987)
Historic
(Schefter, 1940)
.Ocean

41,
GrHay'
a
wwo
PACI IFIC OCEAN VPT. CHEk S
CAP
SHOALWATER

Wdlapa
A@ Bay 40

DEPTHS IN FATHOMS

NAUTICAL MILES

0 10 20
STATUTE MILES 'P
-5 DICS115OJNTM.
0 10 20 \-4p 1 20
1004

Columbia River
er

Figure 38. Historic and Current Distribution of Sea Otters in
Washington State (Strickland and Chasan, 1989).

11-86

Pacific white-side dolphin, gray whale, fin whale, and Risso's
dolphin. For these seven mammal species, the areas nearest to
the coast are significant to the harbor seal, harbor porpoise,
killer whale, and gray whale, while the other three species
depend on the outer shelf areas. Most of the region under
consideration for sanctuary status occurs within migration
pathways for several species. It is noteworthy that a major
adult summer area for the endangered fin whale occurs along the
continental slope seaward of the study area (SAB, 1988).

G. Sea Turtles

Studies of sea turtle distribution and abundance in the
North Pacific Ocean are progressing, but there are many gaps in
the knowledge base. Pacific sea turtles nest on beaches in the
tropics and subtropics but have been sighted in the eastern North
Pacific as far north as the Gulf of Alaska. Many species are
highly mobile and may migrate thousands of miles. Most sea
turtle information to-date has been collected at nesting sites.
Observation and study becomes much more difficult once the
turtles leave the shore. Subsequently, very little is known
about the life stages between hatchling and adult. Some evidence
suggests that post-hatchling and juvenile life stages occupy a
poorly known pelagic habitat (Eckert, 1991).

Sea turtles live very long lives. It is believed that some
species (e.g. loggerhead and hawksbill) require as many as 30
years or more to reach sexual maturity. Each individual female
will typically return to the same beach for each nesting cycle.
In addition, nesting usually occurs at multiple-year intervals
(often 2-4 years). Turtles are most vulnerable to predators
(e.g. humans, birds, crabs, mammals, fish, sharks, and reptiles)
while in the egg and hatchling stages. Adult leatherbacks are
preyed upon by killer whales in Mexican waters and presumably
larger sharks. Hard shell sea turtles are believed to have
decreasing mortality rates as they mature to adulthood due to
size and armoring. (Eckert, 1991)

Sea turtles frequent the Washington coast but have never
been found in the inland waters of the state. However, there was
an unconfirmed reported sighting of a live sea turtle from Skagit
Bay in August, 1992. The following description of sea turtle
status in Washington waters is the best and most concise summary
found among the available scientific literature:

Three state and federally listed species of sea
turtles - loggerhead, leatherback and green - visit
Washington waters, but rarely come ashore unless sick or
injured. The leatherback is classified as an endangered
species [Federal and state lists] and the loggerhead and
green sea turtles are threatened species (Federal and
state lists].

11-87

The most common sea turtle off Washington,' s coast is
the leatherback, a black f lexible-shelled turtle that can
be six feet in shell length. Their primary food is
jellyfish. They are the most wide-ranging of all living
reptiles and are more tolerant of cold waters than hard-
shelled sea turtles. Leatherbacks nest on beaches in
southern latitudes. The largest known nesting area is on
the Pacific coast of Mexico. Collection of its eggs for
food, primarily in the western Pacific ocean, is a major
threat to this species.
The green sea turtle is the most common hard shell
sea turtle found off Washington's coast. Like many other
tropical species, unusual warm ocean currents off our
coast (particularly El Nino events] can bring the green
sea turtle to our shores. Two live green sea turtles
(were] found beached on the Washington coast during
winter 1989-90... (Green sea turtles' have been sighted
as far north as Admiralty Island, Alaska.] This species
nests on many islands in the tropical Pacific Ocean,
including the Hawaiian and Marshall Islands, and the
Phillipines. While their eggs have long provided for
subsistence harvest, recently developed markets for skin
and other products from the turtles has led to near
collapse of some populations.
The loggerhead sea turtle- is rare in temperate
waters. Washington is as far north as this species has
ever been found. A juvenile loggerhead was found on the
beach at Ocean Shores in December 1990... Adults grow to
four feet in length. They feed on marine animals such as
crabs, snails, clams, and shrimp. The loggerhead nests
on beaches in the Pacific Ocean around Australia, China,
and Japan. Recently, thousands (>100,000] of juveniles
were discovered feeding on red crabs off Baja Mexico.
The causes of recently observed declines at Pacific Ocean
nesting beaches are not known.
The first Olive Ridley sea turtle ever found in
Washington washed ashore near Copalis in November 1989.
This carnivorous, hard-shelled sea turtle is abundant in
the tropical Pacific ocean and nests in. Mexico, Costa
Rica, Malaysia, and Thailand. Synchronized nesting may
occur and can involve as many as 150,000 females. Some
populations are on the verge of collapse, however,
because of massive egg collecting (WDW, 1991b).

Aerial surveys of California, Oregon, and Washington waters
have shown that most leatherbacks occur in slope waters, while
fewer occur over the continental shelf. Adult green turtles are
benthic herbivores, subsisting mainly on algae and sea grasses.
Their diet would seem to restrict them to the photic zones
surrounding islands and continents. Loggerheads inhabit
continental shelves, bays, estuaries and lagoons. They are
generally found feeding on benthic invertebrates in hard bottom

11-88

habitats. Olive Ridleys are widely distributed in the Pacific and
appear in both coastal and pelagic habitats. Foraging appears
confined mainly to tropical neritic waters, where individuals may
dive as deep as 300 meters to feed on benthic crustaceans. (Eckert,
1991).

Duxbury (1992) asserts that humans pose the greatest threat to
the survival of all sea turtles. Turtle eggs, meat, skins, and
shells are prized throughout the Pacific, and exploitation has been
severe in some areas. Habitat loss at nesting areas has also
contributed to the decline of some sea turtle populations.
However, turtles have never been an important component of local
economies or cultures on the western seaboard of the United States
(Eckert, 1991).

Human activities that could possibly impact sea turtles in
Washington waters are fishing operations and oil spills. Since sea
turtles frequent the Washington coast in dispersed, low numbers,
incidental catch by coastal fisheries poses a negligible threat to
Pacific species. A report by the NMFS (1990) states that, "The
incidental involvement of sea turtles with commercial fisheries on
the west coast is rare... No turtles have been reported taken in
groundf ish fisheries [of Washington, Oregon, and California]" (NMFS
Section 7 Biological Opinion, 1990). Leatherback turtles have been
taken in salmon seines in Alaska and experimental shark drift
gillnets (1986-88) off California, Oregon and Washington; however,
federal permits for the shark drift gillnet operations were not
renewed after 1988. Sea turtles have been a frequent bycatch in
high-seas driftnets, but United Nations action ended this fishery
on January 1, 1993.

The effects of oil spills on sea turtles is unclear due to
lack of research. Because the migration range of adult turtles is
wide, it is unusual to have large numbers of turtles directly
impacted by an oil spill. Spill related turtle impacts are mostly
anecdotal and poorly documented as to cause of death. Laboratory
studies, however, have indicated that oil contamination of eggs,
hatchlings and juveniles may cause morphological, physiological and
behavioral alterations or death in young sea turtles. Pelagic tar
also seems to be harmful to sea turtles, since it can seal the
mouths and nostrils of the animals. A review of world-wide sea
turtle decline by the National Research Council (1990) presents no
conclusive data regarding oil effects on sea turtles. The report
states that additional information is needed on the reaction of sea
turtles to petroleum ingestion, fouling, and toxicity (NRC, 1990;
(NMFS, 1991).

3. Cultural and Historical Resources

The earliest record of human life on the coast of Washington
is that of the coastal Indians (WDOE, 1986). Five native
American cultures occupied the coastal areas within the proposed

11-89

sanctuary: the Makah, Quileute, Hoh, Queets, and Quinault
(Figure 39). An archaeological survey conducted by
the University of Washington in 1.955 found a total of 19 sites in
the coastal area of Olympic National Park (National Park Service,
1976). A recent inventory re-located 10 shell midden sites and 2
rock art sites (Wessen, 1989).' The most important site is the
Ozette Archaeological Site located on Cape Alava (listed in the
National Register of Historic Places). Here, the Ozette Indian
Nation occupied the Ozette village into the early 1900's. Shell
midden deposits have yielded bones and artifacts as old as 2,600
years along with protohi'storic houses that were buried and
preserved by a mudslide (Huelsbeck, 1983). Other primary sites
include the Kahii Village Site at Toleak Point south of La Push,
White Rock Village located about two miles south of Cape Alava,
and the Sand Point site about three miles south of Cape Alava.
There may be more undiscovered archaeological and traditional
cultural properties in the area. Petroglyphs of unknown age are
found at Wedding Rock, about 1.3 miles south of Cape Alava
(listed in National Register of Historic Places).

There are two small memorials to the crews and passengers
that perished in shipwrecks along the coast. The Norwegian
Memorial, found 8 mile's south of Sand Point, commemorates the 18
people that died in the wreck of the Prince Arthur in 1903. The
Chilean Memorial, 4 miles to the south, commemorates the 20
people lost in the wreck of the P.J. Pirrie in 1920. Both
memorials are in the form of small stones with the names of the
victims, and are located just back from the beach in dense brush.
Other recorded shipwrecks include 9 ships wrecked between
Quillayute Rocks and Cape Alava, 5 at Destruction Island, and 4
in the vicinity of Hoh Head (Malin, 1984).

C. Human Activities

1. Commercial Fishing and Aquaculture

Washington's local water fleet is typified by small-scale
operations with relatively small earnings per vessel. In 1987,
ex-vessel revenues per boat averaged between $54,000 and $69,000.
Total employment by this fleet is estimated to be approximately
7,000 with an additional 500-700 fishermen associated with other
fleet components and tribal fisheries. The number of vessels in
the local water fisheries has been declining. Since 1975, troll
permits issued in the salmon fishery have declined by over 2,000
(NRC, 1988). These permits cannot be reinstated under the
limited entry system established in the 19701s., In 1987, there
were 3,525 boats participating in Washington's local fishery
(NRC, 1988). Over 350 boats have withdrawn from the fishery
between 1985-1987 due to the withdrawal of approximately 372
salmon troll permits.

11-90

201 1260 401 20' 1250 401 20' 1240

-w

Ounme Rock
MAKAH
INDIAN 'a 20'
R@@SERVATION
C-41VAOA
"@V
OZETTE SITE
WHITE ROCK WiLLA:dE
NO Pdl'N+ gl@E
.. ..... .
48
0

0
ILEUTE
IU . . . .. ...........
INDIAN R
@SERVATIO
d,
I IAN
FESERVATTIO
40'
Destrucdon Is!

Part R.
Sealion RoCk
QUINAULT CAPE ELIZA13ETH
INDIAN% Quinault..RV,11: 20'
RESERVATION PT. GRE. VILL

OC n

0
A e ee@
Gray'
Soo Harbor
PT. CHE ALI
PACIFIC OCEAN

wd a
40'

DEPTHS IN FATHOMS

NAUTICAL MILES

0 10 20
C kPE.
STATUTE MILES DISAPPOIKM@4f 20'
a 10 20
100
ri cw"Mbia Aver

Figure 39. Indian Reservations and Associated Archeological
sites along the Olympic coast (Illustrations,
Unlimited, 1991).

11-91

The fishery resources harvested by Washington's local water
fleet include five species of salmon (chinook, coho, sockeye,
chum, pink), bottomfish (including halibut, rockfish, cod,
flatfish, sablefish, hake, green and white sturgeon), and
shellfish (Dungeness crab, pink shrimp, clams and oysters).
Aquaculture and mariculture operations, conducted primarily in
Puget Sound and in estuarine areas off the coast contribute
significantly to the local waters harvest (NRC, 1988).

Fisheries for salmon which contribute the bulk of revenues
for the local fleet, are influenced by the cyclical abundance of
approximately 60 distinct stocks. Many specific salmon fisheries
are controlled on the basis of "weak stock management" in which
harvest limits are set to safeguard against over-harvest of the
least viable individual stocks. In the ocean troll fishery for
coho and chinook salmon, occurring in the oceanic waters of the
study area, this management regime has put severe constraints on
harvest levels. Washington's gillnet and seine salmon fisheries,
which occur in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and in the river mouths
entering the study area, are still highly dependent on sockeye
salmon from Canada's Fraser River. These Fraser River sockeye
runs are based on a four-year cycle (NRC, 1988).

Groundfish include bottomfish which are caught mainly on or
near the seafloor, and other marine species that are caught at
mid-water. The harvest of groundfish species is comprised of
over 35 varieties of rockfish, flatfish and roundfish. The
primary species caught include many species of rockfish (Pacific
ocean perch, widow rockfish, yellowtail rockfish, black
rockfish), flatfish (English sole, Dover sole, arrowtooth
flounder, Pacific halibut), and roundfish (Pacific cod, Pacific
hake, lingcod, and sablefish). The commercial coastal catch of
groundfish has risen from approximately 18 million pounds in 1970
to 42.1 million pounds in 1991 (PacFIN, 1992). Groundfish are
caught by bottom (otter) trawling, midwater trawling, longlining
or setlining, bottom trolling, fixed pots, and hand-line jigging.
Fishing may take place in depths ranging from 10 fathoms out to
the canyons at the edge of the continental shelf, and beyond.
Roundfish dominate the landed catch in this fishery. In recent
decline are the abundance and mean size of sablefish (black cod)
(Parks and Shaw, 1987). The most important commercial rockfish
in the eastern Pacific is the Pacific ocean perch. Because
stocks of this species have become severely depleted, the PFMC
has adopted a management strategy to rebuild them to previous
levels (Ito et al., 1987). Commercial interest has recently been
shown in the thresher shark which migrates into Washington
coastal waters in the spring. Both domestic and joint-venture
catches of Pacific hake (marketed as whiting) have increased
since the early 1980's and its stocks are currently fully
utilized (Hollowed et al., 1988; June, 1993). Surf smelt are
recreationally dipped as far north as the mouth of the Quillayute
River.

11-92

Dungeness crab and pink shrimp stocks have historically been
quite cyclical in nature. Razor clam stocks have declined
dramatically in recent years due to the outbreak of the NIX
virus, gill parasites and overharvesting. Only a small Indian
fishery and recreational fishery exist for razor clams.

The amount and value of the local catch is of great
importance to the state's economy. In 1992, the ex-vessel value
of the commercial landings approximated $152 million, up from the
1981-1985 average of $92.8 million (Table 4) (NRC, 1986; NMFS,
1992a). The salmon fishery was once the largest and most
valuable fishery in the coastal waters. The salmon catch is now
exceeded in tonnage by the groundfish catch; however, the yearly
harvest of salmon is nearly three times more valuable at the
fisherman level than the groundfish or shellfish catch (Natural
Resources Consultants, 1986; June, 1993). The values and volumes
for commercial harvests of selected species in Washington State,
and in the sanctuary study area are shown in Appendix C (Tables 1
and 2).

The salmon and groundfish species in the study area are
managed under Federal Fishery Management Plans (FMP's) drafted by
the PFMC. In the FMP's, the PFMC establishes catch limits for
groundfish and specifies the duration of the fishing season and
catch and size limits for salmon. Commercial and recreational
fishing gear restrictions are specified for both the groundfish
and salmon fisheries. The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MFCMA) provides for enforcement of FMP's prepared
by the PFMC and approved by the Secretary of Commerce after
review by the NMFS.

Fisheries for Pacific halibut are regulated by the NMFS
under a treaty with Canada. The Dungeness crab and pink shrimp
fisheries are managed by the Washington Department of Fisheries.
The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission is currently
developing interstate (Washington, Oregon, and California) plans
for the crab and shrimp fisheries under the Inter-jurisdictional
Fisheries Act (IJFA). NMFS is funding portions of the state
monitoring and management of these fisheries.

The tribes are co-managers of the fisheries resources and
are involved in plan development, monitoring, licensing and
enforcement. The tribes are guaranteed a portion of the salmon
and steelhead catch pursuant to the Boldt Decision of 1974 which
allocates a portion of the anadromous fish among tribal and non-
tribal fishers by region of origin. For the purposes of fish
stock allocation and record keeping, local or coastal commercial
fisheries are classified as the non-treaty commercial fishery and
the treaty fishery.

11-93

Table 4. Volume and Value of Washington State's Local Water
Catch by Fishery Type (1981-1985 average; 1990)

FISHERY POUNDS (Millions of lbs) VALUE (Millions of $)
1981-85 (avg) 1992 1981-85 (avg) 1992

Groundfish 78.2 33.6 13.9 10.8
Salmon 40.6 45.1 40.0 39.8
Shellfish 16.6 45.5 10.6 57.7

Source: Data supplied by Washington Department of Fisheries,
1993 and PacFin, 1992, Report #002.

11-94

(a) Commercial Non-Treaty Fishery

Salmon, bottomfish, crab, shrimp, oyster, and clams form the
basis of the coastal non-treaty commercial fishery (Figure 40).
Salmon caught off the Washington outer coast must be caught by
the trolling method. other methods, such as purse seines, drift
nets, or drift gillnets, are prohibited in ocean waters.
Commercial trollers mainly catch coho, pink and chinook salmon.
Since 1976, coastal trollers' salmon catch has fallen. For
example, average landings of chinook salmon declined from 262,000
fish in 1971-1975 to 183,000 fish in 1976-1980; only 54,600 were
caught in 1987 (PFMC, 1988). Most of the trolling for chinook
and coho salmon is centered around the Grays Harbor area. Pink
salmon, which are harvested only in odd-numbered years, are taken
primarily off the north coast from Cape Flattery to Quillayute.

The major commercially harvested shellfish in the sanctuary
study area and adjacent estuaries include Dungeness crabs, pink
shrimp, Pacific oysters, and several species of clams. Although
their abundance varies over and 8 to 10 year period, Dungeness
crabs are the most important commercial shellfish. Pink shrimp
are also subject to large variations in abundance. Production
areas for shrimp harvesting are found from Cape Elizabeth north
to Cape Flattery. The razor clam population, depleted in recent
years by the NIX virus, gill parasites, and perhaps over
harvesting, only supports a small restaurant trade and
recreational fishery. The most recent commercial harvest
occurred at offshore spits in Willapa Bay and the Quinault Indian
Reservation (Strickland and Chasan, 1989). There is also a
coastal commercial sea urchin harvest.

(b) Treaty Fisheries

The entire study area north of Willapa Bay can be considered
a usual and accustomed fishing area for treaty tribes. Salmon
and steelhead trout are the most important fishery resources
available to the coastal tribes. Salmon and steelhead trout are
harvested by either gillnets or troll gear. The treaty ocean
troll fishery operates throughout the summer. The fishing
activity is centered around the areas of Grays Harbor, Quillayute
and Cape Flattery. Coho, chinook, and pink salmon are the main
species taken by this fishery. The Makah Tribe conducts a marine
gillnet fishery along the shore near Cape Flattery and in the
Strait of Juan de Fuca for chinook and sockeye salmon. In-river
treaty gillnet fisheries harvest coho and chinook salmon in the
Queets, Hoh, and Quillayute Rivers; and chum, coho, sockeye, and
chinook salmon in the Quinault and Ozette Rivers. In addition,
treaty fisheries take steelhead trout in all the major rivers of
the Olympic Peninsula.

The coastal tribes, Makah, Quileute, Hoh, and Quinault,
participate in a variety of groundfish fisheries. Rockfish,

11-95

The Harves t
Volume of Washington's Local Water Catch by Fishery Type
(1981-1985 Annual Average)

SPECIES LANDINGS
(MILLIONS OF LBS.)

.............
...........
GROUNDFISH ................ 78.2

...... ... ...... .. . SALMON .................... 40.6
........ .................
..................
. .... ........................
--- ....................
SHELLFISH .................. 16.6
AQUACULTURE .............. 10.6

OTHER ...................... 4.7

TOTAL 150.7

Value to Harvesters
F-x-Vessel Value of Washington's Local Water Catch by Fishery Type
(1981-1985 Annual Average)

SPECIES VALUE OF LANDINGS
(MILLIONS OF Vs)

SALMON .................... 40.0

AQUACULTURE .............. 26.7

R UNDFISH ................ 13.9
SHELLFISH .................. 10.6
OTHER ...................... 1.6

TOTAL $92.8
. . . .. . . ...... ...
Value of Products
Wholesale Value of Products Processed from
Washington's Local Water Catch by Fishery Type
(1981-1985 Annual Average)

SPECIES VALUE OF PRODUCTS
(MILLIONS OF $'s)
. . . . . . . . . .
SALMON .................... 80.0

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SHELLFISH .................. 29.4
GROUNDFISH ................ 27.9
AQUACULTURE .............. 26.7
OTHER ...................... 4.0

$168.0
TOTAL

Figure 40. Commercial and Recreational Fishing Areas (Strickland
and Chasan, 1989; WDF, 1992).

11-96

sablefish and Pacific halibut are the targeted species and are
taken by longline and handline gear. These fisheries generally
occur in the fall and spring and are centered off the north coast
of the Olympic Peninsula. The coastal tribes have recognized
treaty rights for halibut, and since 1986 the tribes have
received a direct halibut allocation from the International
Pacific Halibut Commission. In addition, the Makah and Quileute
tribes receive a set aside of sablefish from the PFMC.

The coastal tribes conduct a variety of fisheries in the
nearshore area. Sea urchin, mussels, ocean clams, gooseneck
barnacles, Dungeness crab, salmon, steelhead, rockfishes, cod,
and smelt are harvested for subsistence and ceremonial purposes
by the various tribes. The Quinault Tribe harvests razor clam
for commercial purposes from beaches within their reservation.
The Quileute Tribe conducts a small commercial fishery for smelt
harvested from within the estuary reaches of the Quillayute
River.

Aquaculture and hatchery operations in areas adjacent to the
sanctuary study area produce salmon, oysters, mussels, and clams
for commercial purposes or for augmenting natural stocks. The
importance of fish and shellfish farming to Washington's seafood
industry is shown by the fact that fewer than 200 oyster, salmon,
and clam farms produce 16 percent of the wholesale value of the
state's local seafood harvest (Natural Resources Consultants,
1986). Most of the aquaculture operations are in Puget Sound or
Grays Harbor and Willapa Harbor. Coastal hatchery facilities
closest to the sanctuary study area include four tribal salmon
hatcheries located on the Makah, Quileute, Hoh, and Quinault
Reservations. These hatcheries released approximately 8.5
million fish in 1986, including 2 million steelhead trout (Butts,
1988). The WDF operates *the Soleduck, Bear Springs, Kalawa River
Ponds, and Snyder Creek (in cooperation with a steelhead guide
operation) hatcheries in the Quillayute drainage system. WDF
also operates the Canyon Springs acclimation pond on the Hoh
River in cooperation with the Hoh Tribe, and the Shale Creek
hatchery on the Queets River. A proposed WDF facility on the
Mathaney River is expected to be competed within a year. The
USFWS and Quinault Tribe operate a facility on Cook Creek.

2. Oil and Gas Activities

The State of Washington and the Federal government have both
conducted oil and gas lease sales in Washington's offshore
waters. The state conducted a series of lease sales in the
1960's in state waters in the vicinity of Grays Harbor. Union
Oil Company drilled three exploratory wells several miles west of
Ocean Shores. Only one well was successfully drilled, but no
commercial quantities of oil or gas were found. The Federal

11-97

government conducted a lease sale in 1964 (Lease Sale P-2) off
Washington and Oregon. Forty seven of the 196 tracts offered for
lease were located off Washington. Only 27 of these tracts were
actually leased. The highest bid off Washington was $1,785,888
($310.05/acre) for a tract in the Copalis Beach area between
Gray's Harbor and Willapa Bay. Four wells (three original and
one redrill) were drilled off the Washington coast from 1966 to
1967: 1) nine miles west of Destruction Island; 2) nine miles
west of Westport; and, 3) nine miles west of the northern
entrance to Willapa Bay. While oil and gas were found, in two of
the wells (near Westport and Willapa Bay), quantities were not
sufficient for commercial production.

Since the early 1900-'s, onshore exploratory wells have been
drilled along the Washington coast. The discovery of a natural
oil seep in the vicinity of Hoh Head at Oil City, just north of
the mouth of the Hoh River, led to several attempts at drilling
for oil. An attempt in 1913 was abandoned because commercial
quantities were not found. In 1936, drilling in the same area
led to the discovery of Washington"s first oil well that went
into production. Production could not be sustained and the site
was abandoned. Currently, there is no onshore production of oil
or gas in the State of Washington.

MMS, within the U.S. Department of the Interior, is the
Federal agency with authority over all minerals development on
the OCS outside of the three-mile limit of state jurisdiction.
MMS is responsible for preparing and implementing 5-year plans
which identify the-federal waters to be opened for offshore oil
and gas leasing.

MMS's current 5-year plan is entitled Outer Continental
Shelf Natural Gas and Oil Resource Management Comprehensive
Program and covers the years from 1992-1997. According to the
plan, Washington and Oregon are not scheduled for any lease sales
and will not be until after the year 2000. However, before any
leasing activities can take place, a series of environmental
studies must be preformed to determine whether or not oil and gas
development can take place in an environmentally sound manner.
This position is based on Federal executive policy developed in
1990 which canceled a number of lease sales around the country,
including Lease-Sale 132 (Washington/Oregon Planning Area)
(Figure 41). Figures 42 show "highlighted areas" which
correspond to areas that the Governors of Washington and Oregon
requested be deleted from the former Lease Sale #132; and areas
within the Oregon/Washington planning area, referred to as
"subarea deferrals", that MMS has deleted from sale #132."
Leasing and exploration for oil and gas is not permitted in
Washington state waters; Washington HB 2242 establishes a
moratorium on oil and gas exploration and development in state
waters until 1995.

11-98

WASHINGTON-DRE80K PLANKIKG AREA

1300 1280 12ee 1240 1122s

U.S. Department of tm Inoww
Minerals Mwwoement Servits
Mrs Pacific OCS Region

ap .4.
484
Flattery
0,
go Ica miles
EAG NORTH
X
th PARALLEL

xx =M. - - K.
btrdeem
It NAUTICAL MILE BUFFER laws
FOR GRAY-$ HARBOR. WILLAPA
DAY AND COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY Wanh.

MouTm OF COLUMBIA RIVER'AND 0-MIL BUFFER
I
f
X storia 41'
on ON ISLAND NATIONAL
WILDLIFE AKFUOE AND I MILE SUFFER Illamook
1//////// //
CASCADE HEAD AND &ALMON AIVZX Ile
13TUARY SCENIC F ESEARCH AREA AND 4 MILE BUFFER LlKcoin
City
VAQUINA SAY AND 0 ILE BUFFER
Ore.

[OITA I N
STONEWALL. PE %PETUA AND HICITA I
449 - fi. Florence
COOS BAY AND I MILg BUFFER
1111111A p COOS say
C UJI. AN 3

Gold Beach
420 42
DEFERRAL DEEPER THAN 600 METERS Calif.
I I I I I a 1
1300 1280 128* 124*
EM SUBAREA DEFERRALS

HIGHLIGHTED AREAS

Figure 41. washington/Oregon Planning Area.

11-99

20' 1260 40f 20' 1250 401 20' 1240
77 1 1
Cv

20'
100

. . . . . . .. . . . . .
E

480
HINGTO:N

401

20'
Ouinauft
NIVILLE

Highlighted Area
ro Subarea Deferral

Oc
Washington State Waters
47

500-(
PT. C

40'
4

DE 'I IN FA HON

NAUTICAL MILES

0 10 20
CAPE
STATUTE MILES
I.SAPIPOINTMN 01
2
o to 20
100

Figure 42. MMS Planning Area for Lease Sale #132 off Washington
(Strickland and Chasan, 1989).

II-100

MMS has evaluated the oil and gas potential of the study
area for the proposed sanctuary. By first making an assumption
that past geologic conditions were conducive to the formation and
entrapment of oil and gas, it is then possible to evaluate
existing seismic data to estimate the location and volume of
subsurface sedimentary structures that would contain the oil and
gas reserves. Using the limited data available, MMS has
estimated that production resulting from the former Lease Sale
#132 would total 58 million barrels of oil and 1.0 trillion cubic
feet of gas over a 35 year period. The entire sanctuary study
area (i.e., the entire continental shelf off Washington) would
include 20% of the total estimated reserves of the Lease Sale 132
area (MMS, 1990a). Of that 20%, 15% would be located in the area
south of Copalis National Wildlife Refuge (which is not within
the sanctuary boundary), with the remaining 5% distributed across
the northern portion of the continental shelf which NOAA proposes
to include within the Sanctuary (1.5% in zone 1, 2.5% in zone 2,
1.0% in zone 3). Zone 4 is entirely within Washington State
waters, and is therefore not included in these estimates (Martin,
1990a).

Under the previous 5-year plan (1987-1992), the Washington
and Oregon coasts had been scheduled for a lease sale in 1992.
In order to resolve issues surrounding the proposed lease sale,
the states of Washington and Oregon, the Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission, the Columbia River Intertribal Fish
Commission and the Department of Interior established the Pacific
Northwest Outer Continental Shelf OCS Task Force.

The Task Force's technical subcommittee recommended, through
a resolution to the Secretary of Interior, a series of
environmental studies to be completed prior to any leasing
activities. The studies consist of the following:

1. Nearshore Ecosystems

2. Physical oceanography
a) Estuary/coastal ocean exchange and Columbia River plume
dynamics
b) Interannual Variability
c) Support of nearshore ecosystem
d) Cape Flattery
e) Heceta Bank

3. Marine Mammal/Seabirds
a) Supplementation of existing survey program
b) Seabird colony research program
c) Seabird life history research
d) Northern fur seals
e) Northern Sea Lion

II-101

4) socioeconomic
a) Expand scope of existing recreation and tourism survey
b) Coastal community impacts
c) Extension of basic analysis of Indian tribal
dependencies on coastal resources and activities
potentially affected by OCS development
d) Causes and consequences of cumulative ecosystem impacts
relative to lease sale 132

5. Air Ouality

Included in the Pacific Northwest OCS Task Force,'s
resolution was a policy statement that precluded any leasing
activities until after the above studies are completed. The
Federal policy discussed above was a result of the resolution.

In 1992, the Marine Research, Protection, and Sanctuaries
Act was amended to prohibit any oil and gas development
activities inside the Olympic Coast Sanctuary.

B. State Waters

in 1989, the Washington State Legislature passed the Ocean
Resources Management Act (ORMA). The Act placed a moratorium on
the leasing of state waters for the purpose of oil and gas
development. The moratorium will be reviewed during the 1995
Washington State Legislative session to determine whether it
should be continued or lifted.

3. Commercial Shipping

Due to the linkages between vessel traffic patterns along
the outer coast, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Puget Sound,
this section addresses shipping issues which span all of these
areas. Vessel traffic along the Washington Coast, in the Strait
of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound includes tankers transporting
crude oil and refined petroleum products, bulk carriers
transporting non-petroleum products, barges, ferries, fishing
boats, and pleasure craft. The general profile of vessel
activities in the study area are that ferries and tank barge
movements, including bunkering activities, account for the
greatest number of vessel transits, and tanker traffic accounts
for the greatest volume of petroleum products shipped (Chadbourne
and Leschine, 1989). According to the Port Needs Study conducted
by the USCG (1991), by 2010 there is expected to be a 555% and-
81% increase in ferry/tank barge movements and tanker traffic
transits through the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Northern Puget
Sound, respectively (Table 5). Washington ports and harbors
serving these vessels include the Port of Willapa Harbor, Port of
Grays Harbor, La Push, Neah Bay, Port Angeles, the Ports of
Tacoma and Seattle, Port of Everett, Port of Anacortes, and Port
of Bellingham. These ports and harbors, all which are located in

11-102

Table 5. Current and-Projected Vessel Transits in the Study
Area.

Strait of Juan de Fuca N. Puget Sound
1987 2010 1987 2010
change change

Passenger 3,888 4,451 14% 18,380 21,374 16%
Dry Cargo 102,808 621,309 504% 288,309 552,087 91%
Tanker 1,056 1,568 48% 1,009 1,498 48%
Dry Cargo Barge Tow 796 20,859 2520% 12,574 19,636 56%
Tanker Barge Tow 557 9,745 1649% 6,544 8,998 37%
Tug/Tow Boat 4,855 89,261 1738% 51,455 81,503 58%

Total 113,960 747,193 555% 378,271 685,096 81%

Source: United States Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast
Guard, Office of Navigation Safety and Waterway Services.
August, 1991. Port Needs Study (Vessel Traffic Service's
Benefits), Volume II: Appendices, Part 1. DOT-CG-N-01-91-1-3,
Pt.1; DOT-VNTSC-CG-91-2-11, Pt. 1.

11-103

the study areas for the proposed Olympic Coast and Northwest
Straits marine sanctuaries (except for the Port of Tacoma) handle
predominately petroleum and wood products, and many of the ports
and harbors have berths for fishing and pleasure crafts as well.
While the overall density of traffic along the coast, in the
Strait of Juan de Fuca, and throughout Puget Sound is low
compared to other U.S. waterways, there are areas of high vessel
concentration and restricted passageways which present risks of
collisions and groundings. These conditions also exist outside
the opening of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, beyond the
jurisdiction of the Vessel Traffic Service. The sinking of the
Tenyo Maru is the most recent example of such risk. Recent
Federal, state, and international. management regimes and
legislation have been developed to address these risks while
facilitating vessel traffic.

This section will discuss the: 1) routes and areas of vessel
concentration; 2) nature of current and planned port-related
activities; 3) economic significance of vessel traffic and port
activities to Washington State; 4) vessel management regimes; and
5) vessel contingency plans and capabilities.

a. Routes and Areas of Vessel Concentration

i. Tanker Traffic

Tankers entering the Strait of Juan de Fuca or transiting
along the Washington coast follow four major routes: 1) Valdez,
Alaska to Washington State; 2) Valdez, Alaska to San Francisco,
California and Panama; 3) the coastal tank vessel trade; and 4)
foreign tanker routes (Figure 43).

Tankers transiting through the Strait of Juan de Fuca are
predominately domestic vessels carrying North Slope crude oil to
the refineries in Northern Puget Sound. These vessels approach
the Strait of Juan de Fuca from the north remaining outside of
Canada's Tanker Exclusion Zone (TEZ). The TEZ parallels the
Canadian coastline at 60 nautical. miles narrowing to 35 miles in
the proximity of the international border (Figure 44). This
zone, applicable only to U.S. vessels transiting from Valdez,
Alaska to Puget Sound, has been mutually agreed upon by the
American Institute of Merchant Shipping (AIMS), and the U.S. and
Canadian Coast Guards. The southernmost point of the TEZ brings
tankers into the Strait of Juan de Fuca on the United States side
of the international-boundary. Compliance with this agreement
has resulted in little or no reported violations (Pokeda, 1992).

As North Slope oil supplies dwindle, the profile of tankers
visiting Washington is predicted to shift to one dominated by
foreign tankers. Since the Strait of Juan de Fuca includes
internal waters of both the U.S. and Canada, and vessels
transiting through the Strait are bound for both Canadian and

11-104

1700W 1600W 1501W 140 OW 1300W 1200W

SOON 600.4

50ON SOON

4 0 ON 40ON

170OW 160*W 1501W 140*W 130OW

Figure 43. Tank Vessel Traffic Outer Coast (Wolferstan, W.H.
Oil Tanker Traffic: Assessing the Risks for the
Southern Coast of British Columbia. Victoria,
B.C.: ADP Bulletin 9. July, 1981).

11-105

PRINC-
S4ij-X- -Wl RUpE@
A T

(P
C
HARLOTq
r

Off

cl
ZA

-.77

-VAtIC LIV
L4NO

PACfpjc
OCEA,V

90
RA DAR

Pigure 44.
Tanke-,, Bcoju8lon Zon,
1989). (Canadian Coast Cuard

U.S. ports, both countries have coordinated their environmental
regulations.

Tankers transiting from Valdez, Alaska to California or
Panama.remain well offshore. The route is approximately 340
miles offshore of the United States/Canadian border narrowing to
approximately 125 miles from the shoreline at the
Washington/Oregon border (Pokeda, 1992). Pursuant to a policy of
the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), tankers engaged
in offshore coastal traffic carrying North Slope crude or other
persistent oils, voluntarily remain at least 50 nautical miles
off the U.S. coastline when not entering ports.

Foreign tanker routes passing through the study area include
vessels inbound from the Far East and Central and South America.
The former remain well offshore until their approach to the
Strait, however the latter usually operate between 10 and 40
miles off the Washington coast.

Tank vessels entering and transiting Puget Sound are limited
by regulation to not larger than 125,000 dead weight tons (DWT)
east of Port Angeles (Title 33, CFR 161.143). The average
inbound tanker holds approximately 322,000 barrels of crude oil,
and the average outgoing tanker carries approximately 123,000
barrels of refined products (Chadbourne and Leschine, 1989).
Tanker traffic accounts for most of the volume of petroleum
shipped through the Strait of Juan de Fuca and into Puget Sound
(77% volume; 17% transits), while barge traffic accounts for the
greater number of transits (23% volume; 79% transits). In 1991,
there was an average of 4.7 tanker transits/day (petroleum,
chemical, LPG/LNG) through the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Tofino
Traffic Service, 1991). There is no large seasonal variation of
traffic throughout the year (Chadbourne. and Leschine. 1989).

ii. Barges and Tug Boats

.There are innumerable tug and barge movements along the
coast between Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay and Puget Sound ports.
Barges are used mainly to transport lumber and wood chips from
Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay, and chemicals, petroleum products
and bulk cargos from the Puget Sound area. Barges operate close
to the shoreline when transiting through the study area,
remaining between 3 and 15 miles offshore. However, some
companies require their tows stay a minimum of 20-25 miles
offshore when towing loaded petroleum barges (Scalzo, 1992).

Barges are also used to transport decommissioned, defueled
Naval submarine reactor plants from the Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard to the Hanford Site on the Columbia River for disposal.
The normal commercial shipping lanes from Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard are used, via Rich Passage, past Restoration Point,
northerly through Puget Sound, westerly through the Straits of

11-107

Juan de Fuca, past Cape Flattery and in a southerly direction
down the Washington Coast to the mouth of the Columbia River
(U.S. Department of the Navy, 1984). Barges used to transport
the decommissioned reactor plants travel close to shore so that
in the unlikely event that a barge carrying the reactor plants
were to sink it can be easily recovered.

Extensive precautions are taken to ensure that these barge
shipments are made safely. The reactor compartment packages meet
stringent U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Department of
Transportation regulations for transportation of radioactive
material, including being able to withstand such unlikely and
unrealistic accidents as a 30 foot drop onto an unyielding
surface. The transport barges are used solely for these
shipments and are designed to remain stable in an upright
position even with any two adjacent watertight compartments
flooded. The barges would remain afloat even with over half of
their compartments flooded, and the reactor compartment package
is welded to the barge deck so that it would remain attached even
if the barge capsized. A fully capable backup tugboat and an
escort vessel accompany each bargre shipment. Reactor compartment
shipments are not made during the, winter months or during any
times when unfavorable weather is; forecast.

Conflicts between barge traffic and crab fishermen have
resulted in a "gentleman's agreement" reached in 1971 which
identifies towing lanes for tugs and barges along a major portion
of the West Coast, including most of the Washington coast (NOS,
1990). The location of the lanes; are determined on a yearly
basis. According to the agreement, crab fishermen refrain from
putting their pots in lanes designated for tugs and barges. If
pots are placed in designated lanes, crabbers forfeit their right
to complain if pots are destroyed by a tug or barge. In turn,
towboaters agree to stay within designated lanes, as weather"and
ship safety allow. The agreement: has saved millions of dollars
for both the fishing and towing industries. An annual meeting,
and publication and distribution of charts depicting the agreed
upon lanes, is organized by the Northwest Towboat Association
(Northwest Towboat Association, 3.991). This function has been
assumed by the Oregon State University, Extension Sea Grant
Program.

Barges account for the greatest number of vessel transits
along the Washington coast and through the Strait of Juan de Fuca
and Northern Puget Sound. Barges and tug boats accounted for 33%
of the petroleum shipped and 79% of transits throughout Puget
Sound and along the Washington Coast to Grays Harbor and Willapa
Bay in-1988. This represents approximately 8.1 (81%) of the
average 10 petroleum-related transits in the Strait of Juan de
Fuca and Puget Sound (Chadbourne and Leschine, 1989). The number
of transits of barge-direct activity, (i.e., barges that make
direct passage in and out of the Strait without significant

11-108

movement within the Sound itself) varies substantially from
month-to-month in both volume and number of transits (Chadbourne
and Leschine, 1989). The average volume on any barge is
approximately 22,000 barrels per transit.

iii. Foreign Product Carriers

Many of the vessels transiting the Washington coast are
engaged in foreign trade. There are also many foreign flagged
vessels that run coastal routes along the coasts of Washington
and Oregon. The usual route for this traffic extends from Cape
Flattery, Washington to Southern California and is concentrated
between 3-20 miles offshore (Pokeda, 1992). These vessels are
not subject to the voluntary policy of the WSPA that applies to
oil tankers. However, all vessels, foreign or domestic, must
comply with OMS' prevention and contingency plan regulations.
Foreign vessels, while not forced to comply with some voluntary
vessel regulations, are required to submit prevention and
contingency plans to OMS.

IV. Ferries

Ferry traffic is used extensively throughout the year to
transport passengers and vehicles to numerous destinations
throughout Puget Sound and represents the greatest source of
total vessel movement in the Sound (including petroleum and non-
petroleum vessels transits). According to statistics kept by VTS
Seattle, approximately 73% of the nearly 600 vessel transits per
day within Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, are
ferries along scheduled routes (USCG, 1991).

Two ferries cross several times per day between Port Angeles
and Victoria, B.C. Direct ferry service also exists between
Seattle and Victoria. Scheduled ferry service from Anacortes
westward to the San Juan islands and to British Columbia transits
Rosario Strait on a frequent basis. Another ferry route connects
Kingston, on Bainbridge Island, and Edmonds and another connects
Port Townsend and Whidbey Island (USCG, 1991). Other ferry
routes traverse the Sound south of the boundaries suggested for
the proposed Northwest Straits National Marine Sanctuary. All
ferries in the Northwest Straits study area (with the exception
of the Port Angeles-Victoria route which is privately owned) are
operated by the Washington State Department of Transportation.

V. Fishing Vgssels .

Washington's fishing vessels harvest a wide variety of fish
and shellfish including bottomfish, shellfish, and five species
of salmon. The fishing vessels are operated by commercial non-
treaty, treaty, and recreational fishermen. Salmon landed by
non-treaty commercial fishermen are harvested using the trolling
method. Purse seines, drift nets and gill nets are prohibited in

11-109

ocean waters. Most trolling for chinook and coho is centered off
Grays Harbor. Trolling for pink salmon (harvested in odd-
numbered years) occurs off the northern Peninsula between Cape
Flattery and Quillayute. A major fishing area for salmon also
exists at the entrance of the Strait of Juan de Fuca on Swiftsure
Bank. Particularly hazardous vessel traffic conditions exist
over Swiftsure bank during periods of low visibility, when
commercial vessel traffic must exercise extreme caution to avoid
collision with fishing boats which tend to defy radar detection.
Commercial and recreational seasons for the salmon fisheries are
set between May 1 and October 31 (PFMC, 1984).

Bot 'tomfish are harvested by bottom and midwater trawling,
longlining, bottom trolling, and hand-line jigging. Fishing may
take place in depths ranging from 10 fathoms out to the canyons
at the edge of the continental shelf, and beyond. The Pacific
coast domestic trawl fisheries are conducted by vessels ranging
from 30-110 feet in length, weighing under 200 gross tons.
Trawlers based in northern Washington generally make trips of 6-
10 days due to the greater distance to their fishing grounds.
Vessels in the groundfish fishery operate year-round (PFMC,
1989). While bottomfishing occurs throughout the Washington
coast, Swiftsure Bank, off the mouth of the Strait of Juan de
Fuca is a popular bottomfish harvesting area. Some bottomfish
fisheries such as the hake, which are migratory in nature,
incorporate many, much larger trawling vessels, as well as large
processing ships operating on the fishing grounds.

Gillnets and troll gear are used by the tribes to harvest
salmon and steelhead trout. The Makah Tribe conducts a marine
gillnet fishery along the shore near Cape Flattery and in the
Strait of Juan de Fuca for chinook and sockeye salmon. The four
coastal tribes also participate in the bottomfish fishery using
longline and handline gear. These fisheries occur in the spring
and fall and are centered off the north coast of the Olympic
Peninsula.

In summary, vessels fishing for salmon operate from May 1 to
October 31 throughout the study area, with heavier concentrations
in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, especially when the Treaty gillnet
fishery is in effect, off of Grays Harbor, and on Swiftsure Bank.
The bottornfish fishery occurs throughout the study area during
the entire year, with concentrations over Swiftsure bank as well.

vi. Pleasure Boats

Pleasure boating represents a large and expanding use of
Puget Sound waters. The highest concentrations are centered
around the San Juan Islands. In 1989, there were an estimated
160,000 boats registered in Washington, with over half of them
remaining in Puget Sound (Washington Department of Health, 1989).
There are 63 marinas located in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and

II-110

Puget Sound north of, and including, Port Townsend. By far, the
largest concentration of marinas (44) are located in the San Juan
Islands (WDNR, 1990).

b. Washington State Ports and Harbors

i. WillaRa Harbor

Willapa Bay is bounded on the south by a low sandy peninsula
known as Leadbetter Point, and on the north by the sandy
peninsula of Cape Shoalwater. Willapa River and Harbor are used
primarily by fishing boats engaged in the salmon, shrimp, crab
and bottomfish fisheries, and also by barges transporting wood
chips from Willapa Harbor *to Longview on the Columbia River.
There is an average of one barge per week entering and exiting
Willapa Harbor (Littlejohn, 1992). There are no petroleum
products transported by vessel into or out of Willapa Harbor.

The COE ceased dredging the Channel in 1976, at which time
the depth was 26 feet over the bar at the mouth of Willapa Bay,
and 24 feet from deep water in Willapa Bay to both forks of
Willapa River at Raymond. No deep draft vessels have entered
Willapa Bay since 1976 (US Department of Commerce, 1988).

Willapa Bar extends about three miles beyond a line joining
Willapa Bay Light and Leadbetter Point. The bar channel is
continually shifting, and depths over the bar vary seasonally.
As a result, depths have consistently been less than the 26-foot
project depth (US Department of Commerce, 1988). Today, the
minimum depth of the channel over Willapa Bar is 21 feet (U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1988).

An interim dredge disposal site is located approximately
three and a half miles off the mouth of Willapa Harbor. The
site has been used for disposal of dredge spoil from the bar at
the opening of Willapa Bay. Although the site has not been used
since 1976, the COE plans to utilize the site for three years,
and then, due to the rate of shoaling, not for approximately
another ten years. The site is currently being evaluated by EPA
and the COE and is expected to be designated by 1994 (Findley,
1992).

ii. Grays Harbor

The entrance to Grays Harbor is approximately two miles
wide, but shoals extending south from Point Brown narrow the
navigable channel to a width of 0.7 miles (US Department of
Commerce, 1988). From its entrance, the bay extends eastward for
15 miles to the mouth of the Chehalis River. The bay has many
shoals and flats that are exposed at low water and cut by
numerous channels. Pilotage is compulsory for all registered
vessels (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1988).

II-111

Grays Harbor is an important outlet for the Washington State
timber industry and represents an important lumber port in the
foreign and domestic trade. A large number of vessels servicing
Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay are engaged in coastwise service
between ports in Washington, Oregon and California.

The Port of Grays Harbor operates three marine terminals.
They include berthing space for three ocean-going vessels and one
shallow draft vessel or barge (Port of Grays Harbor, 1988). In
addition to the port-operated facilities, there are more than
seven private deep draft piers and wharves in the Hoquiam,
Aberdeen, and Cosmopolis area. Westport Marina is a modern
fishing boat harbor in Grays Harbor with space for 800 boats.
The Marina supports commercial fishing, seafood processing,
recreational fishing and tourism, and ship building and repair
industries. Two major railroads and two major highways service
Grays Harbor. Bowerman Airport is owned and operated by the Port
of Grays Harbor (US Department of Commerce, 1988).

The Port of Grays Harbor, the fifth largest deep water port
in the State of Washington, is the only deep water port on the
outer coast of Washington capable of handling vessels of up to a
36 foot draft. There have been over 2,500 bar crossings in Grays
Harbor between 1980 and 1990 representing an average of 250
vessel crossings each year (Stevens, 19-91). In 1988, harborwide
trade of logs, lumber, wood chips, lignin and petroleum products
handled by the Port and private terminals (Weyerhauser, ITT
Rayonier, and Citifor) amounted to 5.million tons (Port of Grays
Harbor, 1988). Refined petroleum products are barged into Grays
Harbor from refineries in Northern Puget Sound.

In recent years there has been an aggressive effort to make
the Port of Grays Harbor better prepared to handle an
increasingly diversified mix of non-log cargo such as steel and'
aluminum products, paper products, wood products, machinery,
granite and seafood products (Barkstrom, 1992). The COE, EPA and
the Port of Grays Harbor have invested $75 million in expanding
and enhancing maritime activities in Grays Harbor through
waterway dredging and port terminal development programs. This
effort now enables the port to handle the largest ships that can
pass through the Panama Canal. In 19911 approximately 31% of the
cargo handled by the Port of Grays Harbor was non-log cargo. By
1992, the amount of non-log cargo handled by the port is expected
to reach 50%.

Bunkering activities documented in 1988 included 14 transits
from Tacoma to Grays Harbor by way of the Strait of Juan de Fuca
transporting 465,658 barrels of bunker fuel. Within Grays
Harbor, a total of 120 bunkering operations took place,
transferring a total of 479,000 barrels of bunker fuel. The
marketing terminal at Grays Harbor holds an inventory that
accounts for the difference between inflow and outflow

11-112

(Chadbourne and Leschine, 1989).

Dredge spoil disposal is deposited at three EPA designated
dumpsites outside the mouth of Grays Harbor. The dumping of
dredged material helps control erosion occurring at the mouth of
the harbor (Tipton, 1991). Regulated dumping of dredge materials
into ocean waters falls under Sections 102 and 103 of the MPRSA.
The designation of dredge disposal sites is delegated to the EPA.
The COE is the permitting authority for dredged material. Two
ocean dredge spoil disposal sites outside of Grays Harbor
recently received final designation by EPA Region 10 (Federal
Register Vol. 55, No. 129, July 5, 1990). These include the 3.9
mile site and an 8 mile site. The former site is used for
disposal from the Corps' maintenance dredging program in Grays
Harbor. It also received material from the Corps/Port of Grays
Harbor Navigation Improvement Project (NIP) accomplished in 1990.
The latter site only received material from the NIP in 1990, and
has since been de-designated by EPA (Ploudre, 1991).

iii. La Push

La Push is a Quileute Indian village approximately one half
mile north of the entrance of the Quillayute River. It is an
important recreational and Indian fishing center. The river
channel, maintained by-the Corps of Engineers, leads from the sea
to a small-craft basin at La Push. Approximately 200 berths are
provided in the harbor of La Push (U.S. Department of Commerce,
1988). Dredge disposal material from the harbor at La Push is'
deposited on land.

iv. Neah Bay

Neah Bay, located on the Makah Indian Reservation, is
located about five miles east of Cape Flattery just inside the
Strait of Juan de Fuca. The existing Federal project constructed
by the COE at Neah Bay consists of: 1) an 8,000 ft. long
rubblemound breakwater between Waadah Island and the westerly
shore of Neah Bay; 2) reinforcement of the existing rock
revetment extending approximately 2,200 feet west from Baadah
Point; and 3) an 800 ft. extension of the revetment westward.
The breakwater was developed to provide a harbor of refuge. The
rock revetment protects US Coast Guard facilities and Makah
Tribal headquarters.

Neah Bay is used extensively by small vessels as a harbor
of refuge in foul weather, and as a sport fishing site. There
are also two cooperative fishing piers which have facilities for
icing and supplying fishing boats, and a sea urchin processing
plant. Neah Bay is a customs port of entry and customs officers
also perform immigration duties (US Department of Commerce,
1989).

11-113

The Makah Tribe plans to develop the harbor at Neah Bay to
provide a protected marina to support a changing commercial
Indian and non-Indian fishery from a one-season, one species
activity to a multi-species, year-round endeavor. The
preliminary project plans aim to develop a marina that
accommodates 275 boats. The harbor would be dredged to a minimum
depth of 15 feet below mean lower low water. Dredge spoil will
be used to nourish reservation beaches with the remainder
deposited on land (Simmons, 1993). An emergency response towing
vessel stationed at Neah Bay has been recommended to OMS by the
Regional Marine Safety Committees.

v. Port Angeles

The Port Angeles harbor, located 56 miles east of Cape
Flattery, is bounded by a long narrow spit of sand known as Ediz
Hook. Logs, lumber, plywood, newsprint, pulp, shakes and
shingles, and petroleum products are the principal commodities
handled (US Department of Commerce, 1988). The port currently
owns and operates two deep-water terminals with a total capacity
of five vessels. Port Angeles haLrbor has the capacity to handle
2 million tons of export logs per year under existing conditions
without significant additional costs to shippers for multiple
shift working or vessel delays (Port of Port Angeles, 1992). In
1988, 51 bunkering operations took place. Approximately, 10,803
barrels of bunkering fuel was transferred per operation. Total.
bunker fuel transported in Port Angeles amounted to 550,951
barrels (Chadbourne and Leschine, 1989).

A ferry terminal supports ferry traffic that transits
between Port Angeles and Victoria, B.C. A small craft basin
supports a fleet of 563 fishing boats and pleasure craft, with
pleasure craft accounting for 60% of the boats. A marina in
Sequim Bay provides 272 permanent moorage slips and an additional
22 transient slips. The moorage will be expanded, as demand
dictates, to a maximum capacity of 355 slips (Port of Port
Angeles, 1992). The Port also owns and operates two airports,
one at Port Angeles and one at Sekiu.

A pilot is required for all vessels greater than 1600 gross
tons transiting east of Port Angeles. Some vessels require a
state licensed pilot, while others require a federally licensed
pilot (See RCW 88.16.070 and 46 USC 8501). The state may grant
an exemption to pilotage requirements to smaller passenger
vessels and yachts under 500 gross tons or 200 feet or less in
length. Tugs in excess of 1200 horsepower are stationed in Port
Angeles and tugs to 7200 horsepower are available in North Puget
Sound and from Seattle with advance notice. Port Angeles is also
a customs port of entry (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1988). The
Port Angeles Coast Guard Air Station is located on Ediz Hook, in
addition to a Coast Guard VTS radar tower and radio beacon and
fog signal (US Coast Pilot, 1988).

11-114

vi. Ports of Anacortes and Ferndale

Large volumes of crude oil are transported to refineries in
Anacortes and Ferndale. Refined products and petroleum coke are
then transported by pipeline, truck, vessel and barge. In 1989,
Anacortes and Ferndale received 41.9% and 51%, respectively, of
the tanker transits transporting petroleum products into and out
of Puget Sound (Chadbourne and Leschine, 1989). In 1988, nine
bunkering operations were documented, averaging 30,662 barrels
per operation. In Anacortes, five bunkering operations took
place, averaging 30,251 barrels per operation (Chadbourne and
Leschine, 1989).

c. Economic Contribution of Vessel Activities

Vessel traffic is intricately linked to the economy of
Washington State, with an estimated one out of every six jobs in
the state attributable to international trade (Kapp, 1987). On a
local and regional level, the significance of vessel traffic to
local economies is more profound. It was demonstrated that in
1988, port related activities in Grays Harbor generated 7,886
jobs (representing approximately 35% of the jobs in Grays Harbor
County), and contributed over $21 million in county tax revenues.
The jobs created by port activities include trucking, logging,
yard handling, and vessel stevedoring. The average annual wage
for these jobs is $21,085, 33% higher than the county average
(Port of Grays Harbor, 1988).

In 1991, approximately 165 million board feet were handled
at the Port of Port Angeles, generating 505 direct jobs, and
indirect employment for over 1,388 people (Port of Port Angeles,
1992).

The economic contribution of the Ports of Anacortes and
Ferndale to the Pacific Northwest is highly significant. Without
the refineries, there would be no infrastructure to supply the
Northwest fuel demand (Weiss, 1992).

d. Vessel Management Regimes

i. Voluntary Managenent Initiatives

Four voluntary management regimes address vessel traffic in
U.S. waters of the Pacific Coast: 1) a WSPA agreement to keep
coast-wise tanker traffic more than 50 nautical miles offshore
when not entering port (Tomasovic, 1992); 2) a crabber-tugboat
agreement to designate lanes for tugs and barges during crabbing
season (Northwest Towboat Association, 1991); 3) the use of the
Mukkaw Bay anchorage site off of the MaXah Indian Reservation;
and 4) the Cooperative Vessel Traffic Management System (CVTMS).
The first two agreements have been discussed in the sections

11-115

The Mukkaw Bay anchorage, a mutually agreed upon site by
both Canadian and U.S. Coast Guards, is used to minimize
haphazard movements of vessels that are either waiting for a
pilot in Port Angeles, or directions from home ports (Pokeda,
1992). The anchorage is not a designated anchorage and therefore
not enforced nor maintained by the Coast Guard. However, it's
use is monitored by Tofino Vessel Traffic Service. It is located
just outside of the 3 mile limit of state jurisdiction, and thus
convenient for ships to await orders, or available pilots without
having to go through U.S. customs. The use of the Mukkaw Bay
anchorage is monitored by Tofino Vessel Traffic Service (VTS)
monitoring station. According to data provided by the Tofino
VTS, approximately 35 vessels used the anchorage between May of
1989 and May of 1990. The average duration of stay at this site
was 3.8 days per vessel.

The use of Mukkaw Bay as an anchorage site has created some
management problems. One'such problem involved the recent
presence of the Asian gypsy moths; on Washington and Vancouver
Island beaches which has subsequently threatened coastal forests.
It is presumed that the moth has been introduced by ships
infested with larvae. Also, trash and low level oiling has been
identified as a problem in the past, presumably'due to vessel
activities at the anchorage site. These nuisances have been
reduced in recent years with the passage of MARPOL and more
attention by the U.S./Canadian CVTMS.

ii. Cooperative Vessel Traffic Management Service

There are four aspects to the CVTMS: 1) required reporting
by all vessels inbound to the Strait of Juan de Fuca greater than
500 gross tons; 2) a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) in the
Strait of Juan de Fuca; 3) a vessel movement reporting system
(VMRS): and 4) radar surveillance. To reduce the conflicts
between fishing vessels operating at the mouth of the Strait of
Juan de Fuca and commercial vessel traffic, Tofino Traffic
Control Center in.Canada and OMS have established a mandatory
reporting regime where vessels greater than 500 gross tons bound
for the Strait of Juan de Fuca report to Tofino Traffic Service
when: 1) they are within 24 hours, of either country's territorial
sea (vessels greater than 300 gross tons are required to report
to OMS); and 2) when approaching 50 nautical miles of Vancouver,
or when crossing latitude 480N inbound from the south, and
longitude 127*00 W from the west (Figure 45). This reporting
initiative allows enough time fox, Tofino VTS to assess language
problems and deal with the vessels accordingly. If, during a
pending emergency, a vessel captain can not speak english, Tofino
is afforded enough time to explore other avenues to facilitate
communications with the ship.

In addition, the Coast Guard and OMS have initiated an
educational campaign to encourage vessel companies to ensure that

11-116

NOTE

ADVANCE REPORT
24 EM
PWOR TO ARRrVAL
TIMLITOIRIAT WATERS

TOFINO
7
CVTM ZONE]

C@ VANCOUVER MAND
N
127*W

CAMMIAM
pu=VrAIM IIA
TOFINO RANOMPIM
CVIMS ZONE
VHF 74 CAKAJM
C" TELTITORIAL SMEAMU MDTIrAn=
SU m7nm UJL
xmmnxA VWSA IrA"M
48 ON VMUT
WASHINGTON STATE

Figure 45. Vessel Traffic Management Service off the Strait
of Juan de Fuca (CVTMS Offshore Traffic
Management Task Force, 1991)

11-117

captains and/or at least one Deck Officer can speak adequate
english. A monitoring effort is documenting the success of this
campaign (Motekaitis, 1992).

The IMO sanctioned a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS)
consisting of all navigable waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca
and its offshore approaches (Figure 46). The US and Canada
jointly operate the system within the waters of the Juan de Fuca
region. The TSS is comprised of a network of one-way traffic
lanes, and precautionary areas at the end points or where vessels
normally join, leave, or cross the TSS. The traffic lanes are
each 1,000 yards wide, and are separated by 500 yard wide
separation zones. Most traffic lanes have a minimum depth of 60
feet.

Voluntary traffic separation schemes exist in southern
Georgia Strait, the San Juan Archipelagos, Rosario Strait,
Boundary Pass and Haro Strait. Two restricted areas are present
within Puget Sound: Rosario Strait and Guemes Channel. No
vessel over 20,000 DWT may enter these areas without VTC approval
(33 CFR Part 161.37- Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water),
Telecommunications, Vessels, Waterways). Rosario Strait
represents for large ships, the most difficult transit within the
Puget Sound area. Rosario Strait is the site of the 13th Coast
Guard District's "worst case" pollution scenario which envisions
� tanker grounding, with subsequent cargo tank rupture, involving
� major spill of crude oil. Rosario Strait is used by many small
craft and ferries. When this type of traffic is combined with
navigational factors such as strong tidal currents, the resulting
hazard warrants imposition of the "one-way" Rosario Strait VTS
rule. Hence, tankers moving through Rosario Strait are
accompanied by an escorting tug, voluntary speed restrictions
apply, and the Strait is regulated as a one-way channel for large
ships (U.S. Coast Guard, 1991).

According to conclusions reached by the Port Needs Study
conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard in 1991, the priority for the
existing VTS system in Puget Sound is to modernize the present
vessel traffic control center. The surveillance and
communications workload created by the repetitive ferry crossings
and the channel interference caused by commercial fishing boats
must be reduced through enforced regulation and VTS automation.
There are a number of improvements/upgrades occurring at VTS
Puget Sound including a Tacoma extension, a new Vessel Traffic
Center, closed circuit TV cameras in Seattle and Tacoma,
direction finders/weather monitors at radar sites, communications
improvements, a new voice hotline with the Canadian VTSIs and a
new computer data link with the Canadian VTS's (Norman, 1992).
The Joint Coordinating Group (JCG) is the Canadian/U.S. body
which oversees the CVTS in the Pacific Northwest. Recent issues
addressed by the JCG,include: l)-communication problems with non-

E
:5 R, U R I T 1 5 11

uFr=
C 0 L U W 0 1
STRAIT OF GEORGIA

OF JUAN VE FUCA
S

o
V

t
v
':7

L 7
C 0
V@a "i"A @i
'60 e'@" M
M
J'

S, lr"@
Z. If
W4.,
'0-

T.-

Figure 46. Traffic Separation Scheme in the Strait of Juan de
Fuca and Puget Sound (U.S. Coast Guard, 1987).

11-119

procedures; 3) vessel routing schemes in the offshore approaches
to minimize conflicts with fishing vessels; and 4) shortcomings
in mariner awareness of available services. The JCG commissioned
a task force to address these problems and initiatives have been
developed which are now being implemented.

60 Contingency Plans

i. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90)

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 creates a comprehensive
prevention, response, liability, and compensation regime for
addressing vessel and facility-caused oil pollution. It
substantially increases Federal oversight of oil transportation
by setting new requirements for vessel construction, crew
licensing and manning; mandates contingency planning; enhances
Federal response capability; broadens enforcement authority;
increases penalties; and creates a new research and development
program. A one 'billion dollar trust fund is available to cover
cleanup costs and damages not compensated by the spiller, whose
financial responsibility requirements are significantly
increased.

Six Titles apply directly to the proposed Olympic Coast
marine Sanctuary. Title I creates a liability and compensation
regime for tank vessel and facility-source oil'pollution. Any
party responsible for the discharge, or the substantial threat of
discharge, of oil into navigable waters or adjoining shorelines
is liable for the removal costs and damages for injury,
destruction, loss or loss of use of natural resources, including
assessment costs, real or personal property damages, subsistence
use, lost government revenues, and lost profits and earning
capacity. NOAA has the responsibility of promulgating damage
assessment regulations. Sums recovered by a trustee for natural
resource damage will be retained in a revolving trust account to
reimburse or pay costs incurred by the trustee with respect to
those resources.

Title II makes numerous amendments mandating that other
Federal statutes conform to the provisions of the Oil Pollution
Act.

Title III encourages the establishment of an international
inventory of spill removal equipment and personnel.

Title IV is divided into three subtitles: A) Prevention; B)
Removal and C) Penalties and Miscellaneous. Subtitle A gives
added responsibility to the Coast Guard regarding merchant marine
personnel, including the review of alcohol and drug abuse and
review of criminal records prior to issuance and renewal of
documentation. It also increases the responsibility of the Coast
Guard to regulate the conduct of tankers by requiring some

11-120

vessels to participate in vessel traffic service systems, and
authorize the expansion, construction, improvement and operation
of vessel traffic systems in U.S. ports.

More specifically, Subtitle A establishes double hull
requirements for tank vessels. Most tank vessels over 5,000
gross tons will be required to have double hulls by 2010, while
vessels under 5,000 gross tons will be required to have double
hulls or double containment systems by 2015. All newly
constructed tankers must contain a double hull (or double
containment system if under 5,000 gross tons), while existing
vessels are phased out over a period of years.

Subtitle B amends subsection 311 (c) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA), requiring the Federal government to ensure immediate
removal from navigable waters or adjoining shorelines of any oil
or hazardous substance that threatens to affect natural
resources. It also requires a revision and republication of the
National Contingency Plan within one year which will include,
among other things, a fish and wildlife response plan developed
in consultation with NOAA and USFWS. Nothing in Subtitle B
preempts the rights of States to require stricter standards for
removal actions.

Subtitle C alters and increases civil and administrative
penalties for discharges and violations of regulations under the
Clean Water Act. As well as criminal penalties, other penalties
are included for negligent operations and failure to comply with
Federal law on carriage of liquid bulk dangerous cargoes, load
lines, manning,m and crew complements and requirements.
Financial responsibility and civil penalties may be assessed up
to $25,000 per day. All penalties are to be paid into the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund.

Title V11 authorizes oil pollution research and technology
development, including the establishment of an Interagency
Coordinating Committee, that is chaired by Department of
Transportation and comprised of representatives from the
Departments of Energy, Interior, Commerce (NOAA), EPA, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and the U.S. Fire Administration.

Title XX amends the oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and
increases from $500 million to $1 billion the amount that can be
spent on any single oil spill incident, of which no more than
$500 million may be spent on natural resource damages.

ii. State Framework for Contingency Planning

After the spill from the Nestucca barge in 1988 off of Grays
Harbor, Washington, the Governor of Washington and the Premier of
British Columbia created the B.C./Washington Task Force on oil

11-121

Spills. The mission of the task force was fourfold: 1) to seek
ways to prevent oil spills; 2) to review oil spill response
procedures; 3) to study methods of determining compensation
claims; and 4) to develop a coordinated plan for preventing and
responding to spills. Following the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989,
Alaska, Oregon and California joined the task force and it was
renamed the B.C./States Task Force. In its final report, the
Task Force made 46 joint recommendations involving issues of
vessel traffic,.vessel design, personnel, enforcement, regulatory
oversight, education, interstate cooperation, and future studies.
The State of Washington proposed an additional nine
recommendations for state action including efforts to reduce
navigation conflicts (Final Report of the States/B.C. Oil Spill
Task Force, 1990).

The Washington State Legislature adopted several provisions
recommended by the States/B.C. Task Force. In 1991, the State
Legislature passed Washington ESHB 1027 which establishes the
infrastructure for marine spill response. Included in this
infrastructure are the WDOE, the newly created Office of Marine
Safety (OMS), the Maritime Commission, Regional Marine Safety
Committees, the Board of Pilotage Commissioners, University of
Washington Sea Grant, the Marine Oversight Board (MOB), and
existing state agencies including Washington Parks and Recreation
Commission, WDNR, WDW, WDF, and Department of Revenue.

The USCG (the Federal on-scene coordinator in coastal and
tidal waters) has ultimate authority to coordinate and direct all
Federal, state and private cleanup operations when discharges
pose a substantial threat to the public health or welfare.

WDOE has primary responsibility for oil and hazardous
substance spill response and clean-up on land and water. It
focuses, however, on land-based oil storage operations.

The primary focus and jurisdiction of OMS is vessel oil
spill prevention. OMS also has responsibility to ensure adequate
spill response planning. The OMS has undertaken five initiatives
to fulfill its responsibilities: 1) the establishment of four
regional marine safety committees including one for the North
Puget Sound/Strait of Juan de Fuca and one for the Outer Coast to
address vessel operations and regional traffic patterns; 2) the
adoption of tank vessel oil spill prevention plan rules to insure
that individual vessels operations provide the best achievable
protection from oil spills; 3) the adoption of cargo and
passenger vessel screening rules to ensure that individual
vessels do not pose a substantial risk of harm to public health,
safety, and the environment; 4) a vessel monitoring program; and
5) education and technical outreach programs.

The regional committees were charged with preparing plans
addressing the safe navigation and operation of tankers, barges,

11-122

and other vessel traffic within its specific region. The plans
must consider tug escort requirements, speed limits, anchorage
designations, communication systems, congestion in shipping
lanes, navigation aids, channel design plans, routings from port
construction and dredging projects, routing vessels during
emergencies, management requirements for vessel control bridges,
environmentally sensitive areas, enforcement mechanisms, and
adequacy of the Coast Guard VTS. The plans were submitted to OMS
in May, 1993. OMS is currently reviewing the plans and will
submit its recommendation by December, 1993. OMS will then
implement the recommendations over which the agency has
jurisdiction and will pass the recommendations for issues over
whichit does not have jurisdiction to the appropriate federal or
state agency. The work of the committee has been ongoing and it
will continue to make recommendations and update existing ones.

The OMS will be establishing an emergency response system
for the Strait of Juan de Fuca after receiving recommendations
from the regional marine safety committee. The emergency
response system will address emergency towing and firefighting
capabilities, and emergency response availability. The
subcommittee recommendations have been submitted to the regional
committees for review as of February 10, 1993. OMS' Vessel
Screening Program will be used to select cargo and passenger
vessels that pose a risk to the safety of Washington waters.
These vessels will be boarded and inspected as a part of the
Vessel Monitoring Program. Submitted Tanker Prevention Plans
will be used by the Vessel Monitoring Program to select and board
the tank vessels that pose a risk to the safety of Washington
waters.

The Oil Spill Prevention Plan rules, effective in September,
1993, will require tankers and tank barges transiting Washington
waters to file an oil spill prevention plan with the OMS. The
plan must ensure that tank vessels demonstrate the "best
achievable protection" from oil spills. The prevention plans
must demonstrate minimum compliance with respect to staffing,
vessel inspection programs, spill prevention training, prevention
technology on board, English language proficiency by at least one
bridge officer through procedures adopted by the vessel owner or
operator. The Oil Spill Prevention Plan program will be
implemented in three phases involving: 1) establishment of
standards for interim prevention plans; 2) adoption of plans
requiring detailed comprehensive information about a vessel and
its operations to aid in defining "best achievable protection";
and 3) establishment of standards for achieving the best
achievable protection. The best achievable protection standards
are scheduled to be implemented by July, 1995. The 1993
Prevention Plans will be effective for five years. New plans
will be required in 1998 and best achievable protection standards
will be revised as required.

11-123

Commercial Vessel Screening rules, addressing cargo and
passenger vessels over 300 gross tons will result in a, data base
of all vessels transiting Washington waters including information
on the vessels cargo characteristics, the vessels operating
characteristics, and operating environment, past incidents and
human factors. All vessels are required to give 24 hour advanced
notification of their arrival and include a safety report.

The vessel screening data base and submitted prevention
plans will be used by the Vessel Inspection Program to select
vessels that pose the greatest risk to the safety of Washington
waters. These vessels will be boarded and inspected for
compliance with state and federal regulations. OMS is studying
the use of tax credits and other financial incentives to
encourage industry compliance with safe marine transportation
practices. I

The Maritime Commission, established by the Legislature in
1990, is charged with: 1) developing first response oil spill
contingency plans for covered vessels; 2) providing emergency oil.
spill response services for up to 24 hours of an oil spill
incident; and 3) providing a 24-hour communication network for
spill response notifications. Both of these functions have been
contracted-the former to Foss Environmental and the latter to the
Marine Exchange of Puget Sound. The Commission develops vessel
contingency plans and is planning to maintain a database of
vessel accidents.

Numerous state agencies provide spill response assistance
and planning information related to resources that may be
impacted by a spill. Education and outreach efforts are provided
by the University of Washington Sea Grant and Washington Parks
and Recreation Commission. The MOB provides independent
oversight of the actions of the federal government, industry, the
Department of Ecology, OMS, and other state agencies with respect
to oil spill prevention and response for covered vessels and
facilities. The MOB is comprised of five gubernatorial
appointees, who, acting in an advisory role report to the
Governor, and make recommendations to agencies and the State
legislature.

iii. Response Readiness for Oil Spills

Many of the provisions established by Washington ESHB 1027
are similar to those promulgated by OPA90, including the
requirement for vessels to have their own contingency plans
approved by OMS before they are allowed to enter state waters.
To meet the stringent contingency plan requirements of OPA90 and
State legislation, many vessel owner/operators contract with an
oil spill response contractor in the State which has the
necessary equipment and trained personnel to respond to a "worst-
case scenario" identified for their particular vessel.

11-124

While the USCG has ultimate authority over a marine
incident, there are numerous response mechanisms and capabilities
in the private, non-profit and government sectors to address a
spill incident involving oil. If, at any time, the clean-up
response effort is deemed to be inadequate, the USCG can step in
and contract with a local resource, or call out the strike team
in San Francisco which has large ocean lightering and pumping
equipment and aircraft. The USCG can also call upon the
resources of the Navy which has mobile skimmers, and pumping and
lightering equipment. If the responsible party is taking proper
action, the USCG and the state will monitor the events.

When a spill occurs, the Maritime Commission is called upon
to respond during the first 24 hours unless the vessel has its
own contingency plan and primary response contractor, after which
the designated responder assumes control over the incident (House
Bill Report ESHB 102.7). Among the responders in the study area
are one large cooperative (Clean Sound Cooperative), private
contractors (Foss Environmental, Global Diving and Salvage Inc.,
and the Maritime Corporation - a division of Crowley
Environmental Services), and the soon-to-be-established Marine
Spill Response Corporation. A worst probable case scenario/plan
is in place to enable all area agencies dedicated to oil spill
response to combat a spill in Puget Sound of approximately
1,322,000 barrels.

Clean Sound Cooperative, organized in 1971, is a non-profit,
regional oil spill response organization funded by its industry
members including oil, oil pipelines and transportation
companies. They focus on the containment of spills in open water
up to 20 miles from shore. Clean Sound owns, maintains and
operates a fleet of specialized oil spill response equipment and
cleanup vessels stationed throughout Puget Sound at
Bellingham/Ferndale, Anacortes, Edmonds, Seattle, Tacoma and Port
Angeles. The cooperative also maintains more than 30 crew
members and@backup contractor crews. Its crews and equipment are
prepared for immediate response, regardless of the location, time
of day or weather conditions. Clean Sound plans to involve
commercial fishermen in their response efforts by equipping
vessels with oil containment barriers designed to fit their
existing fishing net reels (McCartan, 1992).

Foss Environmental Services has contracted with Washington
State's Maritime Commission to provide a first response system to
a spill. This division also provides standby response services
to several facilities and emergency oil spill response services
to other potential spillers. Foss Environmental is a division of
the tug and barge company of Foss Maritime. Foss maritime has
approximately 65 tugs and 65 barges, although these tugs and
barges are not dedicated vessels. Among these, there are
approximately 15 tank barges in use in Puget Sound at any one
time that can be called upon to assist a spill in inland waters

11-125

(Felton, 1992).

Foss Environmental has equipment pre-staged at eight
locations around Washington State covering all of Puget Sound,
the Strait of Juan de Fuca and offshore waters. This equipment
is dedicated to marine spill response incidents. Pre-staging
locations are Bellingham, Anacortes, Everett, Seattle, Tacoma,
Willapa Bay, Aberdeen, and Port Angeles. The equipment is pre-
staged to respond to a spill in all State waters navigable by
vessels 300 tons and greater (with the exception of the Columbia
River) within two hours. Their equipment includes nine fast
response vessels capable of speeds in excess of 30 knots and
equipped with 1000 ft. of boom; :34,000 ft. of boom aboard fast
response vessels for rapid deployment with recovery capacity of
over 20,000 bbls. per 24-hr. period at a 20% efficiency rating
(1000 feet aboard each fast response vessel and the balance
containerized for rapid deployment over land or by air); over 100
OSHA/HAZwoper trained response personnel and 30 standby personnel
on-call 24 hrs./day 365 days/yr (Barton, 1992).

Global Diving and Salvage, Inc. is a private contractor
speciali'zing in salvage operations, and the cleanup of beaches,
coastal and inland waterways, and rivers. They respond on a
daily or weekly basis to incidents in harbors, ship canals and
along the coast. Their inventory includes small coastwise tug-
boats including a 70 ft. tug, a fleet of work boats, several
thousand ft. of containment boom, a variety of skimmers, and a 40
ft. barge. They have no ocean-going vessels and no ocean-going
equipment except high-capacity lightering systems which pump up
to 300 gallons per minute (Craig, 1992).

The Crowley Environmental Service is a division of Crowley
Maritime Corporation, the largest tug and barge company in the
world. The Maritime Corporation, when approved, will concentrate
on marine response efforts as opposed to beach clean up efforts.
They have access to numerous barges and tugs, salvage operations,
and are amassing booms and skimmers to operate in the marine
environment. Due to the mandates of OPA90 and State Legislation,
they will concentrate on Puget Sound and Washington State Waters.
Expecting to be fully operational by the end of 1992, Maritime
Corporation will preposition equipment in high risk areas yet to
be determined (G. Douglas, 1992)

The Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC) will be in
operation in 1993 to address catastrophic spills of over 25,000
barrels in open seas and 40,000 barrels in protected waters.
Under MSRC's charter, the decision as to whether the spill
exceeds local response capabilities will be determined by the
USCG. MSRC is a not-for-profit organization funded by the Marine
Preservation Association (MPA). MPA collects dues from oil,
pipeline, and tug and barge companies. Both MPA and MSRC were
formed on the recommendation of a task force organized after the

11-126

Exxon Valdez spill to examine existing resources for responding
to catastrophic oil spills. MSRC is the response to the OPA90
provisions mandating that by 1993 vessels must be able to respond
to catastrophic spills. MSRC has five regional centers
throughout the United States and, if needed, they can call on
personnel and equipment from other regions to assist. This
ability will make it the largest oil response agency in the
world. MSRC is not intended to replace existing oil spill
cooperatives and independent response contractors. Rather, it
will respond when the existing infrastructure does not have
sufficient resources to respond to a large spill (Patterson,
1992).

There will be three pre-staging areas where MSRC's
equipment, and, at times, vessels and personnel will be located.
Pre-staging areas are planned for Everett, Bellingham and Port
Angeles, WA as well as Astoria, Oregon. MSRC will provide a
best-effort response to major spills of persistent oil (oils that
do not evaporate or degrade quickly) in U.S. coastal and tidal
waters (out to the limits of the U.S. EEZ) that are beyond the
capacity of local response organizations. In addition to its own
equipment and personnel, a variety of subcontractors will provide
support.

Among the equipment inventory planned for the Seattle area
is a 208 foot offshore response vessel, numerous smaller work
boats, booms, skimmers and pumping equipment. A second response
vessel will be moored at the Astoria site. Onshore facilities
will include an 80,000 sq. ft. warehouse including administrative
offices, a training center, test tank and a 24 hr. manned
response center (Patterson, 1992).

As a result of OPA90 and Washington State legislation, all
state waters are covered by numerous vessel contingency plans.
In Washington State, there are currently no tugs and only two
barges exclusively dedicated to oil spill response although the
Marine Spill Response Corporation plans to dedicate two barges
for oil spill response. These two barges are owned and operated
by Clean Sound Cooperative. Supporting the barges dedicated,to
spill response, are a large number of tugs and barges in constant
operation within Puget Sound which are available in the event of
an emergency (Felton, 1992).

iv. Emergency Towing Response for Vessels and
Tugs/Tows Adrift

While management of vessels into and through the Strait of
Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound is well coordinated, and contingency
planning has, and is, being addressed through a number of
Federal, State, regional, private and nQn-profit initiatives, the
very real possibility of a vessel or tug and tow losing power
near the sensitive offshore habitats of the outer coast and

11-127

Strait has not been adequately addressed. There have been well
publicized instances when barges and vessels have lost power
causing, or threatening to cause, damage to coastal resources.
Some examples in recent history include the grounding of the
Nestucca barge in 1988 off of Grays Harbor involving a spill of
over 200,000 gallons of oil, in addition to the Exxon
Philadelphia and Exxon San Francisco which lost power off Cape
Flattery in 1989.

Although there are contingency plans in place, no response
strategies exist to respond to such occurrences off the
Washington Coast and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. No vessels
are specifically designated to respond to an emergency in which a
vessel or tug and.tow loses power in these areas. While there
are several major towing and salvage companies in the area, the
time of response to an emergency occurring off the outer coast
requiring towing would depend on both vessel availability and
distance from the scene of the incident. Emergency response
could be significantly delayed due to prior assignment of
response vessels to other towing, docking, or salvage operations,
or the remote location of an incident from available vessels.

The United States Navy has several tugs in the Puget Sound
area, however all are yard craft rather than ocean going vessels.,
Further, none are dedicated, nor readily available for emergency
response. In addition, the U.S. Coast Guard has no tugs in the
area (COMSUBGRU 9, 1992). The initial USCG response to a
drifting vessel or tug and tow are primarily Search and Rescue
missions aimed at protecting human life. The Canadian Coast
Guard operating from Victoria has five vessels: two are assigned
primarily to search and rescue missions, and three are buoy
tenders. In an emergency, one of these vessels might be able to
render assistance to a small disabled commercial vessel or
drifting tug and tow (Cheng, 1992).

The OMS, with the benefit of recommendations from, and in
coordination with the regional marine safety committees and the
Marine Oversight Board, and in consultation with the province of
British Colombia, is mandated by the legislature to establish an
Emergency Response System for the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The
system will address emergency towing capability for vessels in
these waters.

4. Military Activities

Military activities in the-area of the Sanctuary consist of
subsurface, offshore surface, and aerial operations. Navy
submarines homeported in Puget Sound conduct three types of
operations within the sanctuary study area: 1) transit between
Puget Sound and the undersea operating areas; 2) hull integrity
tests and other deep water tests of 1 to 2 weeks duration, which
are performed in a rectangular area between 7 to 30 miles off

11-128

Cape Johnson; 3) in-water testing of non-explosive torpedoes, 6-
8 times per year, lasting from I to 4 days, in a rectangular area
5 to 14 miles off Kalaloch; and 4) the barging of defueled
nucleau reactor compartments from Puget Sound to the Columbia
River.

ongoing operations near the entrance to the Strait of Juan
de Fuca include surveys for hidden obstacles by Navy minesweepers
to ensure that in the event of hostilities or other incidents
affecting national security, Navy ships would be able to pass
safely to sea. The details of these operations are classified,
however, they are generally limited to passive surveying and do
not involve active sweeping or clearing. The Navy also operates
an acoustical net off Washington, with its operations base
located at NAS Whidbey Island.

The Seattle Sectional Aeronautical Chart shows two Warning
Areas (W-237A and W-237B) which are designated training and
operating areas for the Pacific Fleet air and surface forces, two
Military Operation Areas (MOA Olympic A and B), and Restricted
Area R-6707 (Figure 47).

The two Warning Areas extend from three miles off the coast
out to a distance well beyond the sanctuary study area, from
approximately 480091N latitude due south to approximately
46*551N latitude. Air operations in W-237A (the southern half of
the study area) include air combat maneuvering, air intercept,
air refueling, air-to-air gunnery and rocketing, air-to-surface
gunnery and missile exercises, anti-submarine warfare training,
and other training evolutions, at altitudes from the surface to
50,000 feet above mean sea level. In W-237B area, air operations
are basically the same. In W-237A, ordnance is expended under
controlled conditions that attempt to minimize threats to the
living environment and to ensure the safety of other ships and
aircraft that may be operating in the area. Anti-submarine
warfare operations require the expenditure of sound receiving and
transmitting buoys, called sonobuoys, as well as marine smoke
markers from aircraft. Sonobuoys eventually flood and sink to
the bottom after use.

Surface operations in W-237 consist primarily of routine
transit, single and multiple platform maneuvering, as well as
live firings of guns, missiles, torpedoes, and chaff. Any vessel
or aircraft requiring exclusive use of W-237 schedules the area
with NAS Whidbey Island. For calendar year 1991, W-237 was
scheduled for 2,572 hours out of a possible 8,760 hours. During
this time frame there were a total of 575 events. According to
Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration, these events were
distributed as follows: 156 Navy aircraft, 224 Air Force
aircraft, 131 Coast Guard aircraft, 10 Navy ships, 27 coast guard
ships, and 27 civilian aircraft.

11-129

00,

VANCOUVER

-4900014 CANADA
TATEs
---T--
NANOOSE LTNITED

W-801 NAS YMIDBEY

R-6701

R-671 CHINOOK A
W-2378 MOA
CHINOOK 8
MOA 7rLE
OLYMPIC
K40A

W-237A

R-6707

--I@@W-460B

\-CAST NORTH
PORTLAND

4500074 a::
b

0 36.7 NMI 04

Figure 47. Zones of Military Activity off Washington Coast,
(Whidbey Island Complex, West).

11-130

The Navy operates and maintains an undersea test range
located in Navy Operations Area W-237-B (Figure 48). This range
is known as the Quinault Range, and is instrumented to track air
craft, surface vessels, submarines, and various undersea vehicles
(non-explosive torpedoes, mines, counter-measures, etc... ) for
both the Navy and private industry. The range is available for
operation year round, and test operations are typically conducted
8-15 times per year, each operation lasting from 1-7 days. In
all cases, only non-explosive testing is conducted.

The typical test scenario in the Quinault range involves:
1) oceanographic measurements prior to a test exercise; 2) test
vehicle launching; 3) underwater and above water tracking of
participating craft and test vehicles during the test; and 4)
recovery of all test vehicles from the water surface by vessel or
aircraft or from the seabed by vessel and remote controlled
recovery vehicle.at the conclusion of the test exercise. The
above-water tracking instrumentation uses standard Global
Positioning System and radio telemetry equipment and covers the
range and surrounding area as required to conduct operations.
The undersea instrumentation, all located on the ocean floor,
consists of tracking sensors connected by coaxial cable to
junction boxes. The junction boxes are connected by fiber optic
and coaxial cables to the range's shore termination sites at
Kalaloch and Pacific Beach.

The range is located approximately 7.5 miles off the
Washington coast at Kalaloch within Military Operating Area W-237
and its area is approximately 30 square nautical miles, centered
at latitude 470301N and longitude 1240371W. The location and/or
size of the undersea tracking area is adjusted from time to time
to support specific Navy testing requirements, but it remains
within W-237.

There are a variety of activities that take place within the
sanctuary area in support of Quinault Range use and maintenance.
Testing operations are supported by a variety of surface and air
craft. Vessels transit to the range, position and temporarily
moor throughout the test areas, and launch and recover test
vehicles as required to meet test objectives. Navy aircraft are
periodically used to launch test vehicles and helicopters provide
range surveillance and may be used for test vehicle recovery.
Helicopter operations include staging at shore sites, typically
Forks or Pacific Beach, and transit to.and from test areas, at
altitudes from the surface to approximately 1,000 feet above mean
sea level. Testing of autonomous and acoustic homing vehicles
involve sonar searches and sonar target size measurements.
Maintenance requires replacement of underwater instrumentation
and cabling in the identified range area and along paths to shore
termination sites. Maintenance activity involves using
temporarily anchored surface vessels to support retrieval and
placement of underwater sensors, junction boxes and cable laying

11-131

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

NAVY IESTRU
OPERA77ONS IS
SLA,
ARE4

QUINAULT
RAN

CABLES

LENGTH:7MILES 0 10 -
YAM: 4.5 MILES 0 10 20
DEPTH: 200 FEET SM

4'
4'

2-D TRACKING CABLE JUNCTION
SENSOR PLATFORMS (32) BOX

130'
310' 160, CABLE RUN TO
2iO' KALALOCH DATA
RELAY STATION
TRACKING AREA CENTERED AT.
I LATITUDE 47*3(r N
LONGITUDE 12C 3r W

41 LEGEND:
0 0 49 = 2.0 TRACKING SENSOR
PLATFORM
so 1 0 0 1 [3 = JUNCTION BOX
TYPICAL CABLE
0 0 RUNFROM
to I SENSOR
0 PLATFORM

Figure 48. Quinault Range Tracking Area and Bottom-Mounted
Instrumentation.

11-132

on the seabed.

Navy ranging activities primarily produce the type and level
of discharges associated with normal surface vessel traffic. On
rare occasions some of these activities are conducted outside W-
237 due to unique conditions or requirements such as lost/sunken
vessels or equipment, requests for assistance by other groups,
and classified operations. For example, the Ex-BUGARA (sunken
submarine located off Cape Flattery) is used for Naval undersea
test tracking operations.

The Navy regards W-237 to be a key part of the Pacific Fleet
offshore training complex in the northeast Pacific, which is
essential to unit training, and overall Fleet readiness. For air
operations, W-237 is particularly desirable from a cost
standpoint because it is close to the coast and therefore
requires fewer flying hours and steaming hours to reach. The
importance of these areas is expected to increase by the mid-
1990's with the addition of a carrier battle group at a new
homeport in Everett, Washington. Puget Sound will become home to
several additional Navy warships and support vessels, and the
relatively few surface operations currently conducted off the
Washington coast should increase, although the exact number of
the increase is unknown. operating costs will drive the need to
conduct routine battle group training in'W-237 and the
surrounding operating areas.

The Olympic MOA A and B, which are primarily over land, also
extend three miles offshore throughout much of the sanctuary
study area. Air operations within the Olympic MOA's include
combat tactics, flight training, intercepts, instrument training,
tanking, and formation at altitudes from 6,000 to 35,000 feet
above mean sea level; but this is not to be below.1,200 feet
above the ground. No ordnance is allowed. The MOA is scheduled
for approximately 1,300 hours of a possible 8,760 hours per year.

A restricted air space (R-6707) extends from the coast out
four miles just south of Queets and north of Taholah (Figure 49).
The following described actions conducted in this training area
were, until recently, considered vital to national defense. With
the downsizing of the Navy, however, this training site is no
longer considered as vital to Fleet readiness.

Sealion Rock, a 801 by 301 uninhabited volcanic rock, awash
at high tide, was historically the sole target within R-6707. it
is located at 47* 271 N latitude and 1240 241 W longitude,
approximately 2.7 nautical miles off the coastline. This site
was used exclusively as an alternate practice bombing range for
Navy A-6 aircraft from NAS Whidbey Island, and from aircraft
carriers in the North Pacific during Fleet exercises. only inert
ordnance was dropped, and only in accordance with established
flight procedures detailed in an approved operations Plan.

11-133

201 1260 401 20' 1250 40' 20' 1240

o-4
20'
Soo Ai qA-N-4 DA

CAPE ALAVA
E @-eae L ake
C
48

L@Push WASHINGTON

i
.44
qoh

40'
Destruction Isiano C.ear-afer Q.

R 6707 OPERATING AREA Ueers R..

part "I
SEALION ROCIk
CAPE ELIZABETH,
ou,nault R. 20'
SPLIT ROCK
" t I PT. GReNviLLE
WILLOUGHBY ROCK.

ocean CitY
Aberdee 470
r5fay's;

500
PT, CHEHALIS
EAN
C!AH.ALWATER

"lapa 40'

DEPTHS IN FATHOMS
E
c
NAUTICAL MILES

CAPE
NI NT
STATUTE MILES ISAPPOiNT, 20'

loo
Co;@,,t;ia Awer

Figure 49. Restricted Airspace R-6707.

11-134

Procedures in the flight'operations plan dictated a north to
south pass from Destruction Island to Sealion Rock. Aircraft
were not to descend below 3,000 feet until they were two miles
south of Destruction Island. All exit turns were to the west,
away from the coast. Prior to practice bombing runs, a clearing
pass was undertaken over Sealion Rock to clear the rock of marine
mammals. If any marine mammals remained on the rock, an
additional clearing pass was required. All clearing passes were
below 500 feet.

The primary and alternate routes by which Navy planes
arrived at R-6707 is depicted in Figure 50. Prior to entry into
the Olympic MOA, aircraft operated on instrument flight rules
(IFR) under positive control of the Seattle Center aircraft
traffic control at altitudes of between 6,000 and 23,000 feet
above ground level. Within the MOA, the aircraft operated on
visual flight rules (VFR) at altitudes ranging from surface to
6,000 feet. Aircraft continued to fly as VFR traffic at
altitudes ranging from SFC to 6,000 feet into R-6707 (Munsell,
1992).

Statistics on the number of days per month and days per year
that A-6 aircraft originating from Whidbey Island and the Pacific
Fleet used Sealion Rock from 1986 through 1992 is presented in
Figures 51 and 52, respectively. Usage of Sealion Rock has
declined from 18 to 5 days per year from 1986 to 1992. Likewise,
the number of hours in which A-6 bombers have maneuvered over
Sealion Rock has declined from 31.35 hours in 1986 to 9 hours in
1992. The number of aircraft from the Pacific Fleet carriers
that actually dropped inert ordnance on Sea Lion Rock is unknown.

Permission to use Sealion Rock and three other coastal
islands and rocks located in each of the three National Wildlife
Refuges was granted to the Navy by the Secretary of the Interior
in May, 1944. The Navy was denied permission to use a fifth
rock, Carroll Island, because of nesting activity. The Navy's
use of the islands was to cease six months after the end of World
War II. In July, 1949, the permission was amended to allow the
Navy to use Sealion Rock indefinitely, while permission to use
the other three coastal islands and rocks was rescinded.

The Navy funded a study conducted by the Washington
Department of Game during 1984-85, to evaluate the impact of
inert bombing activities on wildlife in the Sea Lion Rock study
area which extended from near Pt. Grenville north to Destruction
Island. It was bounded on the east by the shoreline and extended
out to the west approximately seven kilometers. The primary
study area was located between Pt. Grenville and Tunnel Island.

As a result of the study, existing flight patterns were
changed to limit all departures to the west to minimize any
flights over adjacent islands and rocks (e.g. the flight pattern

11-135

DOD
AREA PLANNING AP/ I B CHART
MILITARY TRAINING ROUTES - WESTERN US 0,
EFFECTIVE o9ol 19 SEP 1991
TO 0901 Z 14 NOV 1991
SCALE: V= 30 NM
01FIMI MAMIG AGIWV Af%M?ACI CIMIN ?
ftwW t'
�R 11 OcIt-61,7ir
1762 PLAN AP1001" %

Oj%1,04 '-Fts
vp t'
c'

cj- 13
0
a 0

0
pwd
0

c Id
'9
C4.#@
OR
'4'\. V 'k o". 0 4,'
.1. 0
ti 0 (D oo 1_4,
J. @.
ji B s-4,
0 0 0

34
o",
s-To Q

j, 'R

.b
b

Figure 50. Flight Paths by Aircraft Transiting from Whidbey
Island Naval Airforce Base to R-6707 (Whidbey
Island Naval Air station, 1992)
'\U IS'

11-136

NAVY USE OF SEALION ROCK FROM 1986-1992 (DAYS/MONTH)

1986
5
El 1987

4 1988

U)
1989

3 E] 1990

2
1992

L U1 A I I
0

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D

Source: Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, 1992

Figure 51. Number of Days/Month Navy has Used Sealion Rock
n
From 1986-1990 (Whidbey Isla d Naval Air Station,
@ I I i I I - 1 1

1992).

11-137

NAVY USE OF SEALION ROCK FROM 1986-1.992 (DAYSMAR)

2 5T

2 0

cn
Im

IC-86 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

YEAFi
SOURCE: Data provided by V;h!dbe-V Island 1991

Figure 52. Number of Days/Year Navy has Used Sealion Rock
from-1986-1991 (Whidbey Island Naval Air Station,
1992).

11--138

was altered to reduce noise levels reaching wildlife habitats on
rocks 3.5 miles away). The study also confirmed that nearby
Split Rock and Willoughby Rock wildlife habitat areas, 3.5 miles
to the South of Sealion Rock, had been mistaken for the target
sometime in the past. The study concluded that 11A-6 activities
conducted in accordance with the Operations Plan (i.e., all
departures are to be to the west) result in minimal, and
apparently insignificant, impacts on wildlife."

The study's conclusions and methodology, however, have been
widely criticized because: 1) the study was conducted during an
El Nino year; 2) the study should have conducted population
studies of birds and mammals for a much longer period of time to
account for variation in environmental conditions; 3) the study
did not include an examination of a "no-use" alternative, and
thus comparative analysis was absent; and 4) the researchers were
unaware of all military overflights in the area during the study,
and therefore total impacts of military overflights were not
accounted for (Troutman, 1993). The environmental impact of
bombing activities under the revised flight operations plan has
not been investigated.

Although the Navy agreed to certain mitigating measures
requested by USFWS to reduce the impacts of practice bombing
activities (increased pilot education, radar monitoring,
consultation with the NMFS for purposes of obtaining "incidental
takei, authorization under the MMPA and the ESA), it would not
agree to a seasonal cessation, i.e., during the breeding season,
of its bombing activities.

The regional office of the USFWS and the Marine Mammal
Commission requested that the Department of Interior either
rescind or modify the Navy's permit to prevent bombing during the
breeding season for seabirds. The regional office of the USFWS,
pursuant to its responsibilities under the Refuge Administration
Act, performed a compatibility determination and found that the
Navy's use of Sealion Rock was incompatible with the purposes for
which the refuge was established. Notwithstanding the regional
USFWS office's determination of incompatibility and the Navy's
refusal to cease bombing practice during the breeding season, the
Director of the USFWS did not rescind the Navy's permit because
of national defense considerations.

On October 22, 1992, several environmental groups (Defenders
of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense council, Inc., National
Audubon Society, American Oceans Campaign, the Wilderness society
and Washington Environmental Council) filed suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington against the
Department of Interior, USFWS and the Navy to enjoin the Navy's
practice bombing activities over Sealion Rock. Thereafter, the
Navy announced that it would no longer use Sea Lion Rock for
aerial target practice. On August 18, 1993 the Secretary of the

11-139

Interior rescinded the permit issued in July, 1949 authorizing
Navy access to Sea Lion Rock for practice bombing activities. As
a result of the Secretary of Interior's action, the Navy can no
longer use Sea Lion Rock for practice bombing excercises.

The Navy regards Pacific Fleet operations off the northern
coast of Washington as essential to Fleet readiness. Navy
environmental protection policy precludes discharge of fuel oil,
medical wastes, plastics, and other pollutants into the water,
and prescribes immediate containment and clean up procedures in
the event of accidental discharge. Fuel dumping by aircraft is
also precluded except as necessary for safety of flight, and then
only above 6000 feet.

5. Ocean Waste Disposal

Regulation of dumping of materials, including dredged
material, into ocean waters falls under sections 102 and 103 of
the MPRSA. These sections of the law are jointly administered by
the EPA and COE. Responsibility for designation of sites and
permitting of disposal other than dredged material has been
delegated to EPA Region 10. The COE, in consultation with Region
10, is the permitting authority for dredged material.

Management of ocean dredged material disposal sites,
including necessary monitoring, is a shared responsibility
between the appropriate Corps district (Portland or Seattle) and
EPA Region 10. Dredged material proposed for ocean disposal must
comply with criteria in 40 CFR 220-228. In February 1991, the
COE and EPA released Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for
Ocean Disposal: Testing Manual (the Green Book) which provides a
framework for testing of dredged material. Many of the
techniques described in the Green Book have been standard
practices in Region 10 for several years. Based-on past and
current testings of dredged material disposed in open water and
monitoring at open water sites, no significant adverse
environmental effects have resulted from past or ongoing disposal
(Findley, 1991).

The regulation of point source discharges in Washington
through EPA NPDES permits is the responsibility of the WDOE.
NPDES permits for tribes, however, are granted directly from EPA.
WDOE classifies the waters of the state into different
categories. Washington's coastal waters are classified class AA
which is the highest water quality rating. The waters in the
estuaries of,Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay are classified class A,
a slightly lower water quality rating.

Because of the undeveloped nature of land adjacent to the
sanctuary study area, it is a relatively unspoiled area.
Pollution from traditional sources (e.g., wastewater treatment
plants, industry and urban runoff) is very low. Drainage areas

11-140

which eventually feed into the sanctuary study area are shown in
Appendix C (Map 3). There are no major industrial dischargers
within the study area.. There are seven major dischargers that
discharge adjacent to study area 7 including two pulp mills, two
sewerage systems, and three seafood processing plants (Appendix
C, Figure 3, Tables CI-C4). Pesticide use is very low relative
to other areas of the U.S. west coast (Appendix C, Figure 4).
Except for inputs of "total suspended solids" from paper mills,
the greatest source of suspended solids in the sanctuary
watershed is from non-point source runoff from forest land.

(a) Point-Source Discharges

Based on information collected in 1985 by NOAA's National
Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory Program, there are 72 point
source discharges in the watersheds draining into the sanctuary
study area (Appendix C, Table CI). Fifty-six of these are
industrial or commercial dischargers; sixteen are wastewater
treatment plants (WWTS). Five of the fifty-six
industrial/commercial dischargers are classified as major
dischargers. Two are large pulp and paper mills discharging to
the Grays Harbor estuary, and three are seafood processing and
canning plants. Two of the seafood processors discharge to
Willapa Bay, while the other discharges to Grays Harbor.

The two pulp mills discharging near the study area rank in
the top half of the 21 major pulp, paper and. paperboard mills on
the west coast with respect to pollutant discharges. They rank
seventh and ninth out of 21 facilities with respect to volume of
wastewater discharged, and fourth and sixth out of 21 plants with
respect to discharge of oxygen demanding materials.

of the nine major seafood processors discharging to the U.S.
west coast, the plants discharging near the study area are the
top three in terms of volume of flow and oxygen demanding
materials discharged. The DOMSEA Farms plant in Rochester is the
most important seafood processor on the West Coast in terms of
discharges.

only two of the fourteen WWTPs are classified as major
facilities. Both discharge into the Grays Harbor watershed.
Relative to other major WWTPs on the west coast, these are very
small dischargers.

A tribal sewage treatment plant on the Makah Reservation
presently discharges primary treated wastewater into the Waatch
River. The National Fish Hatchery discharges recycled water into
the Tso-Yess River. The Makah are planning to upgrade their
treatment facilities by either creating a lagoonal treatment
system on land which would achieve at a minimum secondary
treatment, and during low usage times of the year, tertiary
treatment or.repairing their discharge pipe and discharging into

11-141

the Strait of Juan de Fuca just east of Koitlah Point.

The sewage system at Taholah on the Quinault reservation is
.near capacity utilization. Sewage lagoons at Queets are
threatened with erosion from the nearby Queets River.

Sewage disposal on the Hoh reservation is via septic tank
and is considered inadequate. The Tribe is evaluating a more
systematized treatment process. Solid waste is now transported
to Sequim, east of Port Angeles. This procedure is considered
expensive and alternatives are being sought.

The sewage system on the Quileute Reservation is in
desperate need of repair. The collection system consists of
approximately 12,100 ft. of gravity sewer, 3,900 ft. of
forcemain, and three pump stations. The treatment system is
biological and consists of three mechanically aerated concrete
cell/lagoons, a gas chlorination contact chamber, and discharge
to a beach drainfield. The community sewer system is operational
even though many of.the system components are no longer
functional. The system is presently being operated manually as
many of the automatic controls are non-functional. The system
has a history of failures due to malfunctioning equipment and/or
deterioration from salt air corrosion. Overflows have occurred
to the boat basin and in the street. High water and rough ocean
wave action has caused exposure of pipes in the drain field. It
is postulated that the beach drainfield has damaged the once
existing razor clam beds (Schaftlein, 1992).

The Quileute Tribe is in the process of hiring a consulting
firm to develop a wastewater facility plan. The plan will
analyze the existing sewage system and provide recommendations
and cost estimates for improvements to the sewage collection,
sewage treatment, and sewage disposal systems. Particular areas
of concern include; sludge handling and disposal, identification
of the most appropriate sewage treatment and disposal methods,
and reduction of present operations and management burdens.

(b) Non-Point Source Discharges

The greatest source of non-point source discharge is runoff.
from forest lands (Appendix C, Figures 5-7). The coastal
counties adjacent to the proposed sanctuary study area (areas 4
and 7) may be characterized as having relatively minor
agricultural activity, with an average agricultural acreage by
county of only 3.6%. The major crops, excluding pasture/range,
are alfalfa, barley, corn, wheat, and peas. According to NOAA's
National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory, which maintains a
data base of estimates of pesticide use for 28 commonly applied
agricultural pesticides, the highest application of pesticides by
county for areas 4 and 7 occurs in Grays Harbor county, with
6,836 pounds (base year of 1982). This is a relatively low

11-142

amount compared to a major agricultural area such as San Joaquin
county in California (98 percent agricultural), where an
estimated 658,000 pounds of the 28 agricultural pesticides were
applied. As is typical with most pesticide application,
herbicides make up the majority of the amount applied in the
sanctuary area. It should also be noted that Clallam and
Jefferson counties extend inland to Puget Sound, thus the total
amount of agricultural pesticides applied in drainage areas
feeding the waters of the sanctuary study area is probably less
than the estimates above which use whole county figures.

Although no ocean dumping currently takes place within the
proposed sanctuary, the coastal and offshore waters of Washington
have been used for the disposal of various materials. Low-level
radioactive wastes were disposed of prior to 1970 at several
sites over 300 miles northwest of Cape Flattery, well outside of
the proposed sanctuary study area. This dumping was discontinued
in 1970. Explosives and toxic chemical munitions have been
dumped in the past at one site 66 miles and another site 34 miles
west of Cape Flattery.

Industrial wastes have been dumped at two sites off Cape
Flattery. One site, located within the boundaries of the
proposed Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, was only 5
.miles from shore; the other, located outside the boundaries, was
75 miles offshore. An exhaustive search of the literature and
records of the EPA and COE to determine exactly when and what
materials were dumped at these sites yielded nothing more
definitive than information included in a report prepared for EPA
by a private contractor entitled Ocean Disposal of Barge and
Solid Wasteg From U.S. Coastal gities (Smith and Brown, 1971).
Although the report does not specify the types and quantities of
wastes dumped at the site, it indicates that the wastes were
classified as industrial, which could include refinery wastes,
spent acids, pulp and paper mill wastes, chemical wastes, oil
drilling wastes, and waste oil and sewage sludge. There is no
indication as to when the wastes were dumped. However, given
that the report only includes sites active during the period 1951
to 1971, it can be assumed that industrial wastes were dumped
sometime during that period.

Information on these dumpsites from NOAA Hazmat, EPA and the
COE is limited because much of the documentation the Corps
maintained on marine waste dump sites in the Pacific Region was
lost/destroyed during the transfer of the ocean dumping program
from the COE to EPA in the early 1970s. The regional COE office
has indicated that it is unaware of any dumping activity
occurring off the Washington Coast between the years 1971 and
1988.

11-143

Dredged material is the only material currently being dumped
in coastal waters. Spoils from the maintenance dredging of Grays
Harbor are deposited near the entrance to the harbor where they
are flushed out by tidal currents. Spoils from dredging of the
Columbia River are dumped at the mouth of the river and at three
sites located two to four miles offshore. The annual average
amount of dredged material disposed off the mouth of the Columbia
River exceeded 5 million cubic yards per year between 1974 and
1987. The dredged spoils from a proposed major channel deepening
project at Grays Harbor are proposed to be deposited at three
sites: the current maintenance site near the harbor entrance, a
site 3.9 nautical miles offshore and to the southwest west of the
harbor entrance (Southwest Navigation site), and a site 7.1
nautical miles offshore and west.-northwest of the harbor (Eight-
Mile site). These latter two sites were officially designated by
EPA Region 10 as ocean disposal sites for dredged materials,
effective August 6, 1990 (FR, Vol. 55. No. 129, July 5, 1990, pp.
27635-8cv).

6. Hard Mineral Extraction

Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1982, as
amended, the Department of the Interior is charged with
administering the mineral development of the OCS. The Secretary
of Interior is authorized to lease any minerals, other than oil,
gas, and sulphur, on the OCS on the basis of competitive bonus
bidding. The Secretary also has the responsibility for the
design, implementation, and management of OCS minerals
development. In the U.S., industry interest in OCS mining has
been focused on eight heavy metal placers, strategic minerals,
sand and gravel, and phosphorate. Furthermore, gold is being
recovered in State waters near Nome, Alaska, and sand and gravel
in New York State Waters.

Marine mineral resources known to exist along the outer
coast of Washington include gravel and titaniferous black sands.
To date, there has been no production of these offshore minerals
in either state or federal waters.

Gravel deposits are found in Federal waters from Cape
Flattery to Grays Harbor, with large deposits concentrated off
Cape Flattery and offshore from -the Hoh, Quinault, and Chehalis
Rivers. Gravel at depths of less than 50 meters can be mined
with a suction dredge. Lasmanis (1988) estimates that at least
144 million cubic yards of gravel exist at this depth or
shallower, and these deposits have the highest potential of any
offshore minerals for exploitation by the year 2000.

Titanium and iron-rich black sand deposits are found south
of the proposed sanctuary. Large deposits have been found from
the intertidal areas out to two miles from shore near the mouth
of the Columbia River and off of Willapa Bay. Sands have also

11--144

been found at Copalis and Moclips that contains minor amounts of
gold. It is unl 'ikely that mining these sand deposits will be
economically viable in Washington waters within the next 20
years.

The only mineral-related activities that have taken place in
state waters have been the exploration for and attempted
development of the black sands. Five companies have been
involved in commercial activities: National Lead Company
explored in Grays Harbor in 1949; NARECO, Inc. explored near the
mouth of the Columbia River in 1959; Washington Mineral
Products, Inc. and Beach Mining, Inc. explored in the Cape
Disappointment area; and Columbia Ocean Minerals, Inc. explored
off Benson Beach and Ilwaco in 1986.

onshore production of gold from beach sands did occur from
about 1894 to 1908 on a strip of beach from 10 miles south of
Cape Flattery to 6 miles south of the mouth of the Ozette River
(Weissenborn and Snavely, 1968). Presently, no onshore mining is
occurring in these counties except at Twin River quarry on the
Strait of Juan de Fuca.

7. overflights

All aircraft flying over the Sanctuary can legally fly
unrestricted. When there are military operations within the MOA
over the Peninsula, non-military airplanes stay below 1,200 feet.
Most aircraft that land at airports on the Peninsula (Sekiu,
Quileute, Copalis) are small recreational airtaxi or commuter
planes.

The 1992 statistics compiled by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) indicate that the total number of operations
(landings and takeoffs) at the Quileute Airport for a 12 month
period ending July 18,1992 totalled 4,800. Included in this
statistic is one scheduled cargo plane per day 5 days per week.
There were.2,600 operations recorded at the Sekiu airport for the
12 months ending March 20, 1991. Copalis Airport, located on*the
beach is accessible only at low tide and could be closed due to
obstruction from drift wood. There are an estimated 300
operations at Copalis Beach per year with most planes
recreational or chartered flights that land on the beach for
short periods of time.

Other overflight activity over the Sanctuary include those
engaged in enforcement activities (USCG) and marine mammal and
seabird monitoring efforts conducted by the NMFS and the USFWS.

8. Research and Education

Although the diverse habitats and pristine nature of the
outer coast provide outstanding opportunities for scientific

11-145

research and education, much of the area has not been studied in
detail. The 60 mile stretch of shoreline within Olympic National
Park is virtually unstudied despite its relative accessibility
(Dethier, 1988). Research programs have been and are being
conducted by several universities, the USFWS, NPS, NOAA's NMFS,
and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). This
research has provided valuable baseline data on the resources
present and on the impacts associated with recreational uses and
potential offshore oil and gas development.

Researchers with the NPS surveyed the invertebrate and algal
species associated with intertidal zones, and monitored the
recreational impacts on intertidal biotic communities at three
sites along the Pacific Coastal Area of the Olympic National Park
(Kendrick and Moorhead, 1986). The University of Washington has
conducted research on the biological and oceanographic
characteristics of the coastal and offshore waters of the outer
coast. Dethier (1988) studied and classified the marine habitats'
along the Pacific coastline of Olympic National Park and gathered
baseline data on abundances and diversities of the biota in these
habitats. Permanent transects were set up across four intertidal
areas to allow for periodic monitoring. Landry and Hickey (1989)
present the results of research sponsored by the Department of
Energy (Washington Sea Grant is sponsoring the publication of
results) on the physical, chemical, geological, and biological
processes occurring on the continental shelf off of these two
states.

Western Washington University (Terich and McKay, 1988)
researchers studied transport along the coastline of Olympic
National Park. Using a sediment budget approach, the researchers
studied the shoreline as a sediment system, with sediment
sources, sinks, and exchanges.

In anticipation of the planned Federal oil and gas lease
sale 132, the State of Washington appropriated $400,000 to
Washington Sea Grant and requested that they conduct studies that
would enable the State to be better able to address the issues
associated with potential oil and gas development off its shores.
The resulting Ocean Resources Assessment Program (ORAP)
synthesized existing information from past and current studies,
including the research mentioned above. Projects funded under
ORAP provide information on data gaps and research needs, state
and local influence over offshore oil decisions, the oil and gas
potential of the Washington OCS, and a conceptual framework for
guiding future OCS research.

The NWIFC provides technical and coordination support to the
Washington Indian tribes in the management and preservation of
fishery resources. The NWIFC conducts a salmon and steelhead
tagging program, and conducts annual and long-range fish harvest
planning and catch monitoring programs.

11-146

NPS interpreters conduct guided walks to the numerous
tidepools at several locations in Olympic National Park,
including Starfish Point near Kalaloch, and Hole-in-the Wall near
Rialto Beach.

MMS, Pacific OCS Region, has contracted for numerous studies
to support the Environmental Studies Program. Some of the most
recent studies, and their current status as of June,1990 are:

Monitoring of Olympic National Park Beaches to Determine
Fate and Effects of Spilled Bunker C Fuel Oil; Dept. of
Energy; Active.

Inventory and Evaluation of Washington and Oregon Coastal
Recreation; NPS; Active.

An Evaluation of Spawning and Recruitment Patterns of Fishes
off N. CA, Oregon, and Washington; IA-NOAA; Active.

Biological Impacts of Translocated Sea Otters; Univ. of
Minnesota; Active.

Effects of OCS Oil and Gas Production Platforms on Rocky
Reef Fishes and Fisheries; Marine Research Specialist;
Active.

Potential Social and Economic Effects of OCS Oil and Gas
Activities on Oregon and Washington Indian Tribes; Central
Washington University; Active.

Conference/Workshop on Recommendations for Studies in
Washington and Oregon Relative to Offshore Oil and Gas
Development; Bio/Tech Communications; Completed.

Coastal Circulation Along Oregon and Washington;
Envirosphere Company; Completed.

Summary and Analysis of Environmental Information of the
Oregon and Washington Coastal Zone and Offshore Areas;
Univ. of Washington; Completed.

Workshop: Recommendation for Baseline Research in
Washington/Oregon Relative to offshore Resource Development;
Research Triangle Institute; Completed.

9. Protected Areas

Most of the offshore rocks and islands are included in three
National Wildlife Refuges: Quillayute Needles, Flattery Rocks,
and Copalis. All three refuges, established by Theodore
Roosevelt on October 23, 1907 by Executive Order 704, are managed
and maintained by the USFWS. They were established as a place

11-147

... reserved and set aside for the use of the Department of
Agriculture (now Interior) as a preserve and breeding ground for
native birds and animals.11(Executive Order 704, October 23,'
1907). Refuge system goals are fivefold:

1) To preserve, restore, and enhance in their natural
ecosystem (when practicable) all species of animals and
plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming
endangered;
2) To perpetuate the migratory bird resource;
3) To preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna
and flora on Refuge lands;
4) To provide an understanding and appreciation of fish and
wildlife ecology and humankind's'role in the environment,
and to provide Refuge visitors with high quality, safe,
wholesome, and enjoyable recreational experience oriented
toward wildlife to the extent these activities are
compatible with the purposes for which the Refuges were
established; and
5) To support the Regional Resource Plan and Regional Marine
Bird Policy.

Pursuant to the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Act of September 3,
1964; P.L. 88-577, 78 Stat.. 890, 16 U.S.C. 1131, et seq.) the
Refuges were designated as Wilderness areas on October 23, 1970,
except for Destruction Island which was excluded because of Coast
Guard facilities on the island. Additionally, most of the
coastline within the Olympic National Park and north of the Hoh
River was designated as Olympic Park Wilderness in 1988. The
Quinault Indian Nation has designated most of the coastal area
within the reservation as a Wilderness Area, which includes a
prohibition on the development of land. Classification of areas
as "wilderness" results from individual Acts of Congress to
roadless lands managed by the Departments of Agriculture or
Interior. Wilderness is the most protective form of designation
that can be applied to Federal resource lands. The Wilderness Act
stipulates that management of designated areas should be such as
to "leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as
wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these
areas.... go To this end, the Act generally prohibits any
construction of roads or facilities, any use of motorized
vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats. The Act recognizes
that "(a) Wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and
his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an
area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by
man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." The
definition lists as one of an area's attributes that it "has
outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and
unconfined type of recreation." (Siehl, 1991).

Except for the USCG, only those who have a permit from the
USFWS may visit the offshore-islands. Pursuant to an MOU between

11-148

the USFWS and the USCG, the USCG may visit Destruction Island to
service and maintain the lighthouse and buildings during the non-
nesting season. Other than the USCG activities, use of the
islands is limited to wildlife surveys conducted by the USFWS.

Olympic National Park includes much of,the shoreline, the
offshore refuge islands in the Flattery Rocks and Quillayute
Needles including adjacent intertidal habitat to the lower low
tide, rain forests, and mountains of the'Olympic Peninsula. It
is managed by the Department of the Interior, NPS. The Park was
designated a Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO in 1976 and as a World
Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1981 based upon an evaluation by the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The
objectives of Biosphere Reserves are:

1) to conserve for present and future use, the diversity and
integrity of biotic communities of plants and animals
within natural ecosystems, and to safeguard the genetic
diversity of species upon which their continuing
evolution depends;

2) to provide for ecological and environmental research
including baseline studies, both in and adjacent to
these reserves, such research to be consistent with
objective (1) above; and

3) to provide facilities for education and training.

10. Recreational Activities and Tourism

The rugged, pristine environment and variety of habitats
found along the Olympic Coast with its abundant natural resources
provides ample opportunity for recreation for both residents and
tourists. The Washington outer coast is an isolated area that
has always depended on its natural resources for its economy,
including tourism. Recreational activities include fishing,
clamming, camping, hiking, whale-watching, boating, sightseeing,
beachcombing, and diving.

In 1984, there were 95 public recreation areas in Clallam,
and Jefferson counties and 78 in Grays Harbor and Pacific
counties. Most of these areas are small areas managed by local
governments, but the Federal government manages most of the
acreage because of the large national parks, forests, and
wildlife refuges. In 1984 there were over 1.2 million acres of
public recreation land in Clallam and Jefferson counties and over
185,000 acres in Grays Harbor and Pacific counties. over 99.6%
of the acreage in Clallam and Jefferson counties and 92.6% of the
acreage in Grays Harbor and Pacific counties was managed by the
Federal government.

Recreational fishing takes place from charter boats, skiffs,

11-149

jetties, sandy beaches, and rocky shores. Figure 41 (p. 95)
shows the more intensively fished offshore recreational fishing
areas for salmon and bottomfish. The ocean recreational fishery
for salmon operates primarily out of Westport, Ilwaco, La Push,
and Neah Bay. The charter boat industry is centered at these
ports with Westport being the most popular location for ocean
salmon fishing north of the Columbia River (Squire and Smith,
1978). In 1986, the NMFS estimated that 295,000 recreational
fishermen did saltwater fishing in the state of Washington.
About 16% of the recreational fishing trips were taken in
Washington, resulting in recreational harvest of over 9 million
fish. About 11% of all trips and, 22% of all catch in Washington,
Oregon and California takes place in Washington. Over 60% of all
trips and catch are by boat modes.

The decline of the salmon stocks in recent years has also
caused a major decline in the charter fishing business. The
number of charter fishermen has dropped from half a million in
1977 to a low of 40,000 in 1984, while the number of charter
boats has dropped from 228 to 60 (Strickland and Chasan, 1989).
The charter boats remaining now emphasize bottomfishing and
whalewatching in addition to trolling for salmon. Black rockfish
and lingcod are the main species caught, with other species of
rockfish, cod, halibut, and flounder also of importance. Charter
trips for bottomfish in 1987 totalled 1,686 from Ilwaco,* 21,381
from Westport, 452 from La Push, and 21,058 from Neah Bay
(ibid.). The reduction in charter boat fishing is corroborated
by the reduction if fishing trips for party/charterboats
reported by the NMFS for all of Washington. From 1979 to 1986
party/charter boat trips in Washington dropped about 42% (45,000
trips in 1979 to 26,000 trips in 1986). However, total saltwater
recreational fishing trips increased over 23% from 1979 to 1986.
Trips by private/rental boats increased over 55%, while shore
based fishing trips increased over 26%.

Facilities at La Push and Westport rent skiffs and boat-
launching facilities. La Push is the only small-boat harbor
along the coast between Grays Harbor and Neah Bay. Additionally,
the harbor is the only place in the area where offshore small-
boat fishing is possible with some degree of safety. Chinook,
coho, and pink salmon, as well as rockfish, lingcod, greenling,
flounder, halibut, and jack mackerel are all caught off La Push.
The area north of La Push to near Cape Alava experiences little
ocean and shore recreational fishing because of its remoteness
from any small-boat harbor and lack of shore access roads.
However'boats from Neah Bay frequent the area off Cape Alava and
northward to reap the benefits of the coastal salmon resources.

Sandy beach and rocky shore fishing is popular at many sites
where access to shore is possible. Surf fishing on sandy beaches
at places like Mukkaw Bay yield redtail and striped surfperch,
flounder, and halibut. Surf smelt and night smelt are caught

11-150

with dip nets along the shore between Kalaloch and the Hoh River
during the summer months. Shore fishing from rocky areas is
excellent for rockfish, lingcod, and kelp greenling. Fishing
from the jetties at La Push and Westport produces redtail surf
perch, starry flounder, black rockfish, greenling, lingcod, and
cabezon. Large numbers of coho and chinook salmon are caught
from the south jetty at Westport (Haw and Buckley, 1971).

Razor clams are the most important shellfish harvested
recreationally on the outer coast. Their harvest, however, has
dropped dramatically in recent years. An average of about ten
million razor clams was harvested annually from 1950 to 1980.
The harvest averaged only four million clams annually between
1981 and 1987, with the season being closed entirely because of
NIX virus during 1984 and 1985 (Butts, 1988). Hardshell clams
(native littleneck and manila clams) are harvested from Willapa
Bay, Grays Harbor, and Hoh Head. Oysters and mussels are also
harvested: oysters from Grays Harbor, and mussels from rocky
areas north of Moclips (WDF, 1983). Dungeness crab are taken
recreationally by wading in intertidal lagoons along the coast,
and by ring nets and crab pots in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor.

Recreational divers, primarily using SCUBA, harvest both
shellfish and finfish. Dungeness and red rock crab are the main
shellfish taken, while black rockfish and lingcod are the
favorites for spearfishing (Bargmann, 1984).

Because many of the wilderness beaches on the outer coast
are accessible only by foot, they have become increasingly
popular for hiking, camping, and beachcombing. The three most
popular areas for beach hikes are between the Hoh River and La
Push;-north of La Push to the Ozette Ranger Station above Cape
Alava; and from Cape Alava to Shi Shi beach just south of the
Makah Indian Reservation (Washington Public Shore Guide, 1986).

Olympic National Park is a major tourist attraction of the
Pacific Northwest. There were 3.36 million visits to the Park in
1988 (Strickland and Chasan, 1989). The 60 miles of wilderness
coast within the National Park have approximately 800,000 visits
each year (NPS, 1989). A summer 1989 survey of the coastal areas
of Olympic National Park (Leeworthy, Schruefer, and Wiley, 1990)
found that 46% of the visitors to the park were out-of-state
visitors. on average, visitors to Olympic National Park
travelled 1,050 miles from their homes to visit the park compared
to 452 miles for all other sites surveyed on the west coast. Per
person trip expenditures were over $700 resulting in a direct
economic impact associated with trips to the coastal areas of
Olympic National Park of over $560 million in 1989.

A major visitor/interpretive center is planned by the NPS at
Kalaloch. The center will provide exhibits and audio/visual and
interpretive programs that will emphasize the wilderness nature

11-151

of the coastal beaches and serve as a learning center for
visitors and students.

The WDNR manages beaches on the outer coast that are open to
the public. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
manages state parks on the coast that include public camping and
picnic areas. Public beaches and campgrounds between Grays
Harbor and Cape Flattery are shown in Figure 25. Islands within
the National Wildlife Refuges are closed to the'public.

The Strait of Juan de Fuca offers popular recreational
diving areas. A wreck located off Tongue Point is accessed by
Clallam County Park facilities at Observatory and Tongue Points.
Recreational divers can access the Strait directly from shore
from these parks. The Washington Department of Natural Resources
supports a park at the Lyre and Pyscht Rivers. Boating and
fishing are popular recreational activities in the Strait as
well. There are very few access points to the public beaches
along the Strait by boat or shore.

11-152

PART III: Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative

Table of Contents PAGE

Section: Boundary Alternatives ......................... 4
A. Introduction ....................................... 4

B. Boundary Alternative 1 ............................. 7
1. Geographic Scope ............................. 7
2. Distinguishing Characteristics ................ 7

C. Boundary Alternative 2 ............................ 7
1. Geographic Scope ............................. 7
2. Distinguishing Characteristics ............... 10

D. Boundary Alternative 3 ............................ 10
1. Geographic Scope ............................. 10
2. Distinguishing Characteristics ............... 10

E. Boundary Alternative 4 ............................ 12
1. Geographic Scope ............................... 12
a. Pillar Point ....................... 12
b. Low Point .......................... 14
C. Observatory Point .................. 14
2. Distinguishing Characteristics ............... 14

F. Boundary Alternative 5 ...... ; ..................... 15
1. Geographic Scope ............................. 15
2. Distinguishing Characteristics ............... 15

Section: Regulatory Alternatives ...................... 17

A. Introduction ...................................... 17

B. Oil, Gas, and Mineral Activities .................. 20
1. Status Quo ................................... 20
a. Existing Regulatory Framework ........... 20
b. Impact to Resources ..................... 20
C. Impact to Uses .......................... 21
2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) ..... oo ..... 23
a. Sanctuary Action. ...... o_ ........ 23
bo Impact to Resources .... o-o-o ...o 23
C. Impact to Uses ..... o ............ ... 23

Co Discharges or Deposits....... ............ o .... 23
1. Status Quo... ..... oo ... ooo ...... __ ....... 23
a. Existing Regulatory Framework... oo .... oo 23
(1) Point Source Discharges... ... o 24
(2) Non-Point Source Discharges ... 25
(3) Hazardous waste, oil and trash
disposal.......... ........ oo.. 26
(4) Ocean Dumping. ... oo-o-oo ... 26
b. Impact to Resources.... .... .... ... 26
co Impact to Uses.... .... 27

III-1

2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) ............ 27
a. Sanctuary Action...... .o... 27
b. Impact to Resources ... o ....... 28
C. Impact to Uses.. ....o .... .... ooooo.ooo. 28
(1) Vessels ....... 29
(2) Dredge Disposal Activities.... 29
(3) Point Source Discharges.... o.. 29
(4) Non-Point Source Discharges... 30

D. Historical Resources. ............ 31
1. Status Quo-o-o-o ... ooo_ ...... 31
a. Existing Regulatory Framework... 31
b. Impact to Resources...... ..... o-oo.- 31
C. Impact to Uses.... ..... ooo.oo ... _oooo. 32
2o Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred).... ... 0.oo. 32
a. Sanctuary Action... ... -oo.- ..... o.o. 32
bo Impact to Resources................. .... 32
co Impact to Uses..... .... 33

E. Alteration of, or Construction on, the Seabed. .... 34
1. Status Quo.o ... o ... oo.oo. 34
a. Existing Regulatory Framework..... ..... o .34
bo Impact to Resources......... .....o..... o 34
C. Impact to Uses..... ... o .... o.oo.o..o.- 34
2o Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) ....... __ 34
a. Sanctuary Action... oo__ ... ooooo..o.. 34
bo Impact to Resources .... 35
C. Impact to Uses.... ....... ... 35

F. Taking Marine Mammals, Turtles, and Seabirds...... 35
1. Status Quo........, .... o.oooo.o ... oo.o ...o.... 35
a. Existing Regulatory Framework.. ...o.... o 35
b. Impact to Resources............. ....o ... 35
C. Impact to Uses......... ..... o..... o.o ... 36
2o Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred).. .......... 36
a. Sanctuary Action... ................. o ... 36
b. Impact to Resources ............ o........ 37
C. Impact to Uses .....o.................... 37

G. Overflights .......... o ........................... o 37
1. Status Quo. ............ o................ oo..o. 37
a. Existing Regulatory Framework ........... 37
b. Impact to Resources. ............... __ 38
C. Impact to Uses.... - ....o............ o. 38
2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred).. .......... 38
a. Sanctuary Action. .... o.................. 38
b. Impact to Resources. ..... o ...o.......... 38
C. Impact to Uses..... .................... o. 49

H. Vessel Traffic... .............. o ............. o..... 39
1. Status Quo (Preferred) .... ....... 39
a. Existing Regulatory Framework .... o...... 39

111-2

b. Impact to Resources ..................... 40
C. Impact to Uses .......................... 41
2. Sanctuary Alternative ........................ 41
a. Sanctuary Action ........................ 41
b. Impact to Resources ..................... 41
C. Impact to Uses .......................... 41

I. Fishing, Kelp Harvesting, and Aquaculture ......... 42
1. Status Quo (Preferred) ....................... 42
a. Existing Regulatory Framework ........... 42
b. Impact to Resources ..................... 42
C. Impact to Uses .......................... 44
2. Sanctuary Alternative ........................ 46
a. Sanctuary Action ........................ 46
b. Impact to Resources ..................... 46
C. Impact to Uses .......................... 46

J. Naval Inert Bombing Practice at Sealion Rock ...... 47
1. Status Quo ................................... 47
a. Existing Regulatory Framework ........... 47
b. Impact to Resources .......... o ...... o... 47
C. Impact to Uses .......................... 47
2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) ............ 47
a) Sanctuary Action ... ... o.............. o. 47
b) Impact to Resources ............. o ...o... 47
C) Impact to Uses ............... o .......... 49

III. Section: Management Alternative.. ............ oo ....... 50
A. Introduction.... o ............ o...... o ...... ... 50
B. Alternatives.... .......... o .......o ....... o ... 50
1. Status Quo ............. o....o................ 50
2. Sanctuary Management Alternative 1 ...o ..... o. 50
3.. Sanctuary Management Alternative 2... ... o.... 50

111-3

PART III. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Part of the process for designating a portion of the Olympic
Coast as a National Marine Sanctuary involves the analysis of
institutional, boundary, management, and regulatory alternatives.
These alternatives have been considered in terms of achieving
optimum protection of the ecosystem, improving scientific
knowledge of the area, and promoting public [email protected] of the
value of Olympic Coast resources. The following describes and
analyzes the major alternatives considered in the evaluation
process.

The fundamental choice is between two institutional
alternatives: (1) no action, or continuing the status guo; and
2) the preferred alternative of sanctuary designation as a
complementary measure to existing programs. Boundary,
management, and regulatory options for the Sanctuary are
-evaluated within the sanctuary designation alternative.

I. Section: Boundary Alternatives
A. Introduction

Figure 53 shows the study area of the Olympic Coast National
Marine Sanctuary considered in both the DEIS/MP released in July,
1991 and as modified in this FEIS/MP. The study area generally
follows the 100 fathom isobath at. the edge of the continental
shelf, extending from the U.S./Canada international boundary to
the-mouth of the Columbia River. The boundary of the study area,
as proposed in the DEIS/MP, extended into the Strait of Juan de
Fuca to a line drawn due north from Koitlah Point to the
international border. The study area proposed in this FEIS/MP
extends to a line drawn due north from Observatory Point to the
international border. The landward boundary proposed in the
DEIS/MP extended to the mean higher high water line, up rivers
and streams to the point-of tidal influence, except when adjacent
to Indian Reservations in which case the boundary was at the mean
lower low tide line, cutting across the mouths of any rivers.
Harbors were excluded and estuaries included in the study area.
The landward boundary of the study area has been modified to be
at the lower low water line when adjacent to State lands. The
boundary remains at the lower low water line when adjacent to
Tribal lands, and at the mean higher high water line when
adjacent to lands under the jurisdiction of the NPS or the USFWS.
The study area has been further modified to cut across the mouths
of all rivets and streams. Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay are not
included within the study area since NOAA's National Estuarine
Research Reserve System (NERRS) or EPA's National Estuary Program
(EPA) would be better tailored to meet the needs of these
estuarine habitats.

The most significant amendment to the DEIS/NP was the
addition of the Strait of Juan de Fuca in the study area of the

111-4

lww L2S-Z M5,00, 124*V 124'00' 1=30' 123'V
41M. ZZ@@, 4IMS'

x c 0 a 9

I L A 4 D
4mv 48*W

4-,0' 7 4-,@o

4-,00.

Boundary identified
in DEIS/MP

46-W 46.0'
UNITED STATES- WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONALMARINE SANCTUARY

10' 12trow 12M 124'30 124W 1=20

Figure 53. Study area Proposed in the DE IS/MP and FEIS/MP.

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. The inclusion of the
Strait to Observatory Point resulted from comments on the DEIS/MP
and an analysis of resources and uses occurring in the Strait.
NOAA has analyzed, but rejected, -the Strait of Juan de Fuca as
part of the preferred alternative because: 1) the public has not
had an adequate opportunity to comment on the addition of the
Strait in the preferred alternative; and 2) further analysis
considering the Strait for Sanctuary status will be included in
the DEIS/MP for the proposed Northwest Straits National Marine
Sanctuary. If, through the fulfillment of either of these
processes, Washington State and NOAA agree that the Strait should
be included within the boundaries of the Olympic Coast National
Marine Sanctuary, the Sanctuary boundaries may be amended
accordingly.

NOAA has developed five boundary options based upon an
evaluation of several factors including: 1) the distribution of
living resources and habitats; 2) geological, chemical, and
physical oceanographic parameters; 3) human uses; 4) land use
practices along the adjacent coastline; 5) prior site
evaluations (e.g., NOAA1's 1983 Site Evaluation List); and 6)
management logistics. NOAA found during its analysis of these
factors that it was useful to consider the entire study area as
being subdivided into eight separate areas. Each area may be
characterized by its living resources, human uses, or any
other factors analyzed. NOAA's Strategic and Environmental
Assessment Branch (currently referred to as the Strategic
Assessment Branch (SAB) analyzed each subarea to determine its
relative significance for selected invertebrates, fish,
invertebrates, mammals, and seabirds with respect to the
contiguous U.S. west coast (subarea la which encompasses the
Strait of Juan de Fuca was not included in this analysis).

The scores are presented inAppendix C in a series of tables
(Tables 3 through 9) that allow the reader to compare sub-areas
according to selected assemblages of marine fauna. While these
tables do not provide an exhaustive list of species for each
subareal they do exemplify the general biological profile of each
region. The results of this analysis are used in developing and
evaluating boundary options for the Sanctuary, as well as
assessing the potential impacts of human activities occurring in
the area.

Various combinations of these sub-areas result in the five
boundary alternatives considered by NOAA. The resources and uses
associated with each area are described in "Part II:
Environmental Setting and Human Uses". Following is a
description of the five boundary alternatives which are derived
from various combinations of the sub-areas.

111-6

B. Boundary Alternative 1
1. Geographic Scope

This boundary alternative generally corresponds to the
boundary of the "Western Washington Outer Coast" site described
in NOAA's 1983 SEL (Figure 54). This alternative represents the
smallest.area that would be considered for sanctuary status,
encompassing approximately 315 nml (1,082.kml). It extends
seaward from Koitlah Point to the edge of Washington State waters
(3 nautical miles from shore) south from Koitlah Point to Point
Grenville. This boundary alternative includes the nearshore
coastal waters adjacent to Olympic National Park, and surrounding
the Quillayute Needles, Flattery Rocks,. and Copalis National
Wildlife Refuges and Wilderness Areas.

2. Distinguishing Characteristics

This boundary alternative includes significant intertidal
and subtidal resources around Tatoosh Island and Cape Flattery,
and birds and mammals which depend on the offshore rocks and
islands. Over 60% of the colonial seabirds in Washington use the
offshore islands and coastal cliffs in this region as nesting
areas. This boundary, however, excludes the important seabird
foraging areas. The boundary alternative encompasses significant
habitat for several species of marine mammals including the sea
otter, California sea lion, northern elephant seal, harbor seal,
killer whale, gray whale, Right whale, Dall's porpoise, and the
endangered Stellar sealion. Most of the sport fishery areas for
salmon and groundfish, a portion of the razor clam beds,
concentrations of giant octopus, spot shrimp, and fat gapers, and
some of the commercial crabbing areas are included within this
boundary option.

Recreational fishing, clamming, kayaking, beach hiking, and
nature viewing are the major human uses which are conducted
within this sanctuary boundary option. Vessel transits within
this boundary are primarily from ships traversing the northwest
corner of the boundary when entering the Strait of Juan de Fuca
from the south, and tugs and barges traversing within
three nautical miles of the coast. The planning area for former
Lease Sale #132 does.not include the area within three nautical
miles of the coastline, and Washington State has placed a five
year moratorium on oil and gas activities occurring within state
waters (Washington State House Bill No. 2242, Section 9).

C. Boundary Alternative
1. Geographic Scope

Boundary alternative 2 is essentially an expansion of the
first alternative to the 50 fathom isobath, encompassing
approximately 1100 nM2 (3,770 kM2 ), and extending seaward from 7
to 19 nautical miles from.the coastline (Figure 55).

111-7

126* 10' 126*W 125'30' 125*00' 124'30' 124'00' 123030' 123o 20'
48'45' 4845'
Z

,ow,
48*30'

AP,
z@ 50,

00-/
0
500",
30

I C,

4WOO' wool
BOUNDARY'
ALTERN IV
NO. 1

47*30'
47'30'

NYON
00

4700' 47W

AV)

46*30' @c < 46'30'
UNITED STATES -WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
NAUTIfAL MUM

46*12'
46*12'
- 126*10' 126*00' 125'30' 125*00' 124*30' 124*00' 123*30' 123'20'

Figure 54. Boundary Alternative 1.

126'10' 126*00' 125*30' 125*00' 124*30' 124'00' 123*30' 123*20!
48*45' -
48*45!

jl@

50
48'30'
0 48*30'

bw
200 ,OC4
;300.
4zV
500
30--
Alk
00

5
48'00' 48*00'
BOUNDARY,
ALTERNATV@E_
NO. 2
LATITUn LoBc

4,
2
347*22 IN'39'26'
44745@: 124-W 49' 4
5 14 124*57'00'
648-14'41 124*54'
48*03
7 '26:
848'M'17' 124'W13'

47*30'
-4
47*30'

47*00'
47'00'

46'30' -
'46'30'
UNITED STATES -WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST X_
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

'=H
46*12' N A Ri 46*12'
126*10' 126*00' 125'30' 125*00' 124'30' 123'30' 12321Y

Figure 55. Boundary Alternative 2.

111-9

2. Distinguishing Characteristics

This seaward extension encompasses not only the large
concentrations of marine resources near the coastline and
offshore islands, sea stacks, and rocks, but also incorporates
the commercial crab fishing grounds, migration routes for Gray
whales and juvenile salmonids, and a large portion of the
important commercial groundfish, salmon, and pink shrimp fishing
grounds. It is estimated that only 5% of the potential
hydrocarbon resources in the Sanctuary study area (or 1% of the
total resources in the entire former Lease Sale #132) would be
located within this boundary alternative (Martin, 1990). This
boundary would encompass most of the routes transited by barge
traffic and foreign product carriers.

This boundary alternative encompasses more of the important
foraging habitat for colonial seabirds and pinnipeds using the
offshore Islands than does boundary alternative 1. However, the
boundary does not extend seaward to the edge of the continental
shelf which is the generally recognized geographic range of
significant foraging habitat.

D. Boundary Alternative 3
1. Geographic Scope

Boundary alternative 3 represents an extension of the first
two alternatives seaward to the edge of the continental shelf
(100 fathom isobath), including the heads of submarine canyons
which incise the shelf, and establishes a sanctuary area of
approximately 1,805 nM2 (6,182 kM2) (Figure 56).

2. Distinguishing Characteristics

The resulting area is a homogeneous and clearly identifiable
Sanctuary linking the nearly pristine, rugged, rocky coastal
ecosystem with the nutrient rich offshore waters. The boundary
includes areas of intensified upwelling occurring along the edge
of the continental shelf, especially at heads of submarine
canyons. The.upwelling of nutrient enriched bottom waters result
in increased biological productivity, especially when combined
with periods of high solar radiation.

This boundary alternative, however, does not include the
Juan de Fuca Canyon, nor the shallow banks bordering the
northwest edge of the canyon known'as Swiftsure bank and "the
Plains.". These areas are extremely productive areas and support
intensive commercial salmon and groundfishing and millions of
foraging seabirds.

Many species of marine birds and mammals forage along
upwelling fronts which occur along the edge of the shelf. The
area over the outer edge of the shelf included in this boundary

III-10

126* IV 126'00' 125*30' 125*W 12M, 124*00' 123'30' 123*20'
48*45! 48*45'

48*30' W30'

73
2)
-30

7 8

W00,
49'W -
BOUNDARY@
ALTERN AE
NO. 3
LATITUnE
I 47V745' 12ellOT
2 7*0T4fr ww
8 47*35'05
4 47*WO5 : 124*04'"W
6 47-W I' 1?Z*WW
6 49WO 125,19,05,
7 4M'52: M*14'38* IJ
4r"w 12SW501
4M'26' 1244964 :
10 4r&17' 124*38'13 3

4r3O'- 47*30'

NyoN
,01

47*0V - 47*00'

A
%

4M' - 46W
UNITED STATES -WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
,NAUTICAL MILES
r;T'R

46*1Z
46*12'
126*10' 126*00' 125*30' 125*00' 124'30' 124*00' 1W30' 12S'20'

Figure 56. Boundary Alternative 3.

III-11

option is significant to pink shrimp, several seabirds (e.g.,
northern fulmar, black-legged kittiwake, common murre, and
rhinoceros auklet), and several species of fish (e.g., spiny
dogfish, steelhead, Pacific cod, walleye.pollock, Pacific Ocean
perch, widow rockfish, sablefish, lingcod, Pacific halibut,
English sole, flathead sole, Petrale sole, Dover sole, and
arrowtooth flounder) and mammals (e.g., northern sea lion,
California sea lion, northern elephant seal, killer whale,
Pacific white-sid dolphin, Baird"s beaked whale, gray whale,
Right whale, fin whale, Risso's whale and Dall's porpoise).
Approximately 17% of the potential hydrocarbon resources of the
Sanctuary study area (or 3.5% of the former Lease Sale #132) are
estimated to lie within this boundary alternative.

E. Boundary Alternative 4 (Preferred)
1. Geographic Scope

Boundary alternative 4 encompasses the areas described in
boundary alternatives 1-3 with the addition of the head of Juan
de Fuca Canyon and the relatively shallow banks (50-80 fathoms)
surrounding the submarine canyon and the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
This area extends seaward approximately 35-40 nautical miles from
the shoreline. Boundary alternative 4 as proposed in the DEIS/MP
extends into the Strait to Koitlah Point, approximatldy five
miles from the entrance of the Strait. This original alternative
focused completely on open ocean environments. The surface area
of this alternative with a boundary at Koitlah Point is
approximately 2,500 nM2 (8,577 kn2). Various- modifications to
the easternmost boundary in the Strait of Juan de Fuca are
examined including establishing the boundary slightly east of
Pillar Point, Low Point, and Observatory Point (Figure 57).
These alternative boundaries in the Strait encompass the
tranisitional environment from a marine to an estuarine
ecosystem.

a. Pillar Point (Pyscht River Estuary)

Pillar Point is the easternmost point of the headland just
east of Neah Bay. It is located approximately 20 miles into the
Strait and concentrates most of the energy from the open ocean
waves entering the Strait. At the base of Pillar Point, the
Pyscht River enters the Strait of Juan de Fuca forming the most
extensive estuary and largest saltmarsh in the Strait. There is
access to the saltmarsh and a small park supported by the WDNR
along the banks of the Strait. A boat ramp provides access to
the Strait. This alternative excludes the prolific kelp beds
that lie off the Lyre and Twin rivers and the extensive subtidal
rocky habitat between Pillar Point and observatory Point. With
this extension into the Strait, the area encompassed by boundary
alternative 4A is approximately 2,635 sq. nautical miles (9,029
sq. kilometers).

111-12

126* 16 126*W 125*30' 125*00' 124*30' 124*00' 123*30' 123'20'
48o45' - W45'

48-30' 50
+ W30'
14

200 8
00 '4A
(400-1@O@ 4B
500@,
_@7_ 40- 4c
_j 30

WOO' -
.BOUNDARY'.
ALTERNAT
NO. 4
LATITUM
147-0745 IWII'02'
247ff45: 124WIT
47`35 125*WOO
447'40'W I
'@6 Z5'W'44'
647'WOI: 125'05'4r
647'5713' 125-29-13
749'OTW JM ZV 4
849'14'46' 125'40'59' C
948WI2: '25-W591
10 4M49 2YO6,04,
4M691
I
11 124
12 WW19- 124-W42'
47*30' - 4MW 124.4"1*
*W r
114 48TTW* VA 47*30'
5OWN' 124*Wla'
1`3 124. 05
17 49'11'S7' I
WIT04'
24 W
is 48616'W M*49'U'
19 "1". IWO NYO
20 48*14'09' 123*88`07
21 48*0wor 123*WM'

47*00' -
47*00'
lm

46*30' - 46*30'
UNITED STATES-WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
.NAUTICAL MILES

46*12' 46*12'
126* iol 126*00' 126*30' 125'00' 12@-30' 124'00' 123'30' 123*20'

Figure 57. Boundary Alternative 4 with Alternative Boundaries.

111-13

b. Low Point

The macrocystis kelp beds off the Lyre River are the densest
kelp beds in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Inclusion of this area
would encompass some of the most significant kelp beds in the
Pacific Northwest. This boundary extends to the head of the Juan
de Fuca Canyon although the effects of canyon'upwelling extend
the entire length of the Strait. This boundary alternative
excludes the extent of subtidal rocky habitat and the historic
shipwreck that lies between Low Point and Observatory Point.
With this extension into the Strait, the area encompassed by
boundary alternative 4B is approximately 2,710 sq. nautical miles
(9,293 sq. kilometers).'

There is a park supported by the WDNR at the mouth of the
Lyre River which is included in this alternative. There are
remarkable intertidal habitats along this stretch of the Strait
supporting, among others, shorebirds, bald eagles, and colonies
of cormorants..

C. Observatory Point

This boundary extends eastward to Observatory Point, located
approximately 60 miles into the Strait. The boundary includes
the easternmost extent of the functioning community
representative of open ocean environments, characterized by
macrocystis kelp beds, green anenone, gooseneck barnacles and
California mussels. These organisms cease to exist eastward of
Observatory Point as a functioning community indicating that
Observatory Point represents the inland extent of the transition
from open ocean to estuarine environments. Observatory Point is
the eastern point on the most inland headland on the Strait of
Juan. With this extension into the Strait, boundary alternative
4C encompasses 2,750 sq. nautical miles (9,434 sq. kilometers).

There is a county park at Tongue and Observatory Point.
These Clallam County parks are well developed with picnic areas
and boat ramps. The ramps are utilized by recreational SCUBA
Divers, among others, who dive at the wreck of an historic ship
wreck located in approximately 130 feet of water off Tongue
Point. The subtidal rocky and kelp habitats of the entire Strait
provide exceptional environments for recreational SCUBA Divers.

2. Distinguishing Characteristics of Boundary
Alternative 4 Including the Strait of Juan de
Fuca to Observatory Point

oceanographic conditions, including the upwelling of
nutrient-rich water at the head of Juan de Fuca Canyon, result in
enhanced biological productivity over "the plains" and Swiftsure
banks which are considered by local fishermen to be extremely
productive groundfish and salmon fishing areas. The Strait also

111-14

serves as a transit and migration corridor for marine birds,
mammals and ocean organisms entering from the outer coast., Up to
300,000 common murres may enter northern Puget Sound in any given
year during the molting season. since molting birds are mostly
flightless, they use the Strait to swim to their overwintering
grounds. Changes in biota, geology, and topography all seem to
coalesce between Crescent Rock and Observatory Point.

The Pyscht River estuary and saltmarsh support one of the
richest juvenile salmon habitats in the Strait. Further, the
kelp habitats in the Strait, particularly off the Lyre and Twin
Rivers are some of the densest and most diverse in the Pacific
Northwest.

This alternative includes about 25% of the estimated
potential hydrocarbons in the Sanctuary study area (or 5%
predicted to be in formerLease Sale #132). The Strait is a
corridor for fishing vessels and larger product carriers and tank
vessels entering and exiting Puget Sound. There is a very well
coordinated Vessel Traffic System established in the Strait and
its approaches which is operated by the U.S. and Canadian Coast
Guards. Radar coverage from Tofino Coast Guard Station covers
all waters north of approximately Cape Alava and seaward 60
nautical miles.

F. Boundary Alternative 5
1. Geographic Scope

Boundary alternative 5 includes the entire sanctuary study
area, encompassing approximately 4,155 nM2 (14,249 kM2) (Figure
58). This alternative essentially spans the entire coastline and
continental shelf of Washington State. This alternative expands
upon the preferred alternative to include the large area
(approximately 1,655 nM2, or 5,672 km2) south of Copalis National
Wildlife Refuge extending seaward to the edge of the continental
shelf, and south to the mouth of the Columbia River.

2. Distinguishing Characteristics

This southern area is characterized by a coastal
geomorphology that is clearly distinct from the area to the
north. The shoreline consists of sandy beaches and estuaries
(Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay) in contrast to the northern rugged,
rocky coastline with high bluffs, pocket beaches, and rock
islands. Land use in the southern area is more heavily developed
than in the nearly pristine northern area. Living resources
include oyster beds in the estuarine areas, razor 'clams along the
sandy beaches, pink shrimp and Dungeness crab fishing areas, Gray
whale migration routes, and commercial, tribal, and sport fishing
areas for numerous finfish species (including the major sport
salmon fishing areas). The coastal waters lying adjacent to
Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay are enriched by these extremely

111-15

126* 10' 126'00' 125*30' 125o00' 124'30' 124'00' 123*30' 123*20'
48*45! 48'45'

48-30'
-50 4
AV 48*30'

)n
Z@

00
10

4rOO' -
ww
BOUNDAR
ALTERNAt
NO. 5
6
1 46115100. 12AW201
2 46'15'00 12A*WZ4*
3 47Vr45: 12cs9w
4 47*WO5 125*woor
6 47'40'm'
125*04'44'
6 4TWoi 26*06'4r
7 4r5713'
125-W13'
8 41W 125'W20r
9 48'14' 125'40'59'
10 481XL@ 125-&59'
11 48*27 9- 125'WO4'
12 49W ' 1w59,1r
13 124*W42'
47*W - 14 44S9WW319W' tW4341' 4MO'
15 4SW6W 124'WI3!
16 WIT30- 124*01'sw
17 49-14'W 12rw071
is 48WO2' 12rWOT'

47*00' -
4M'

G@ H.@

@J'

A
A

4M 46'30'
UNITED STATES
-WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
r
r
NATIONAL MARINE SAN, PUARY
C
[email protected] KIIS@,

46*12' 46*1Z
& 1W 126*W 126*30' 125W 124*30' 124'00' 123*30' 123*20'

Figure 58. Boundary Alternative 5.

productive estuarine environments. Estuaries are important
breeding grounds for numerous species of aquatic plants and
animals and provide food for these plants and animals either
directly or indirectly through a complex food web.

It is estimated by MMS that this area encompasses 20% of the
potential hydrocarbon reserves in the entire former Lease Sale
#132 (MMS, 1990a). Most of this hydrocarbon potential (15% of
the total lease sale area) lies within the sedimentary basins
south of Copalis National Wildlife Refuge which extend seaward
from Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay estuaries.

II. Section: Regulatory Alternatives
A. Introduction

Regulatory alternatives governing different types of
potential or current uses of the Sanctuary (oil, gas and mineral
activities; discharges and deposits; moving, removing or injury
of historical resources; alteration of, or construction on, the
seabed; taking of marine mammals, turtles and seabirds;
overflights; and vessel traffic; and fishing, kelp harvesting and
aquaculture) were evaluated in terms of need and effectiveness
for resource protection.

In formulating the sanctuary regulatory regime, NOAA
analyzed the study area with respect to: 1) the resources and
human activities; 2) the existing regulatory regime with regard
to protection of the resources and qualities from possible
harmful human activities; 3) proposed alternative regulatory
regimes, including relying on the existing regulatory regime, to
protect the sanctuary's resources and qualities; 4) the
environmental consequences of each regulatory alternative on
sanctuary resources, including no additional regulatory action;
and 5) proposed regulations based on the preferred course of
action deemed necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and
qualities.

The choice of proposed regulations is based on environmental
consequences of each action and constraints set by the MPRSA,
which states in Section 304(c):

(1) Nothing in this title shall be construed as terminating or
granting to the Secretary the right to terminate any valid lease,
permit, license, or right of subsistence use or of access if the
lease, permit, license, or right-
(A) was in existence on the date of enactment of the Marine
Sanctuary Amendments of 1992, with respect to any national marine
sanctuary designated before that date; or
(B) is in existence on the date of designation of any
national marine sanctuary, with respect to any national marine
sanctuary designated after the date of enactment of the Marine
Sanctuaries Amendments of 1992.

111-17

(2) The exercise of a lease, permit, license, or right is
subject to regulation by the Secretary consistent with the
purpose for which the sanctuary is designated.

The prohibitions set forth in the Sanctuary regulations
would not apply to (see the regulations themselves for the exact
provisions):

1) Any activity authorized by any valid lease, permit,
license, approval, or other authorization in existence on the
effective date of Sanctuary designation and issued by any
Federal, State, local or tribal -kutho*rity of competent
jurisdiction, or by any valid right of subsistence use or access
in existence on the effective date of Sanctuary designation,
provided that the holder of such authorization or right complies
with sanctuary regulations regarding the certification of such
authorizations and rights (e.g., notifies the Secretary or
designee of the existence of, requests certification of, and
provides requested information regarding such authorization or
right) and complies with any terms and conditions on the exercise
of such authorization or right imposed as a condition of
certification by the Secretary or designee as he or she deems
necessary to achieve the purposes for which the Sanctuary was
designated.

Pending final agency action on the certification request,
such holder may exercise such authorization or right without
being in violation of any prohibitions set forth in the Sanctuary
regulations, provided the holder is in compliance with sanctuary
regulations regarding certifications.

2) Any activity authorized by any valid lease, permit,
license, approval or other authorization issued after the
effective date of Sanctuary designation by any Federal, State or
local authority of competent jurisdiction, provided that the
applicant complies with Sanctuary regulations regarding
notification and review of applications (e.g., notifies the
Secretary or designee of information regarding the application),
the Secretary or designee notifies the applicant and authorizing
agency that he or she does not object to issuance of the
authorization, and the applicant complies with any terms and
conditions the Secretary or designee deems necessary to protect
Sanctuary resources and qualities. Amendments, renewals and
extensions of authorizations in existence on the effective date
of Sanctuary designation constitute authorizations issued after
the effective date.

The authority granted the Director to object to or impose
terms or conditions on the exercise of any valid lease, permit,
license, approval or other authorization issued after the
effective date of Sanctuary designation may not be delegated or
otherwise assigned to other Federal official below his or her

level.

3) Any activity conducted in accordance with the scope,
purpose, terms, and conditions of a National Marine Sanctuary
permit issued by the Secretary or his or her designee in
accordance with the Sanctuary regulations. Such permits may only
be issued if the Secretary or designee finds that the activity
for which the permit is applied will have only negligible, short-
term adverse effects on Sanctuary resources and qualities and
will: further research related to Sanctuary resources; further
the educational, natural or historical resource value of the
Sanctuary; further salvage or recovery operations in or near the
Sanctuary in connection with a recent air or marine casualty;
assist in managing the Sanctuary; or further salvage or recovery
operations in connection with an abandoned shipwreck in the
Sanctuary title to which is held by the State of Washington.

4) Any activity conducted in accordance with the scope,
purpose, terms, and conditions of a Special Use permit issued by
the Secretary or designee in accordance with Sec. 310 of the Act.

When the preferred Sanctuary action is to rely on the status
quo to govern the activity either by including the activity in
the scope of regulations by not regulating with designation (i.e.
kelp harvesting, aquaculture and vessel traffic), or by excluding
the activity from the scope or regulations entirely (i.e.,
fishing), the activity would continue to be subject to
regulations of other authorities.

5) Any activity necessary to respond to emergencies
threatening life, property or the environment.

6) With regard to Department of Defense activities: All
Department of Defense activities shall be carried out in a manner
that avoids to the maximum extent practicable any adverse impacts
on Sanctuary resources and qualities. The prohibitions in
paragraphs (a)(2)-(9) of � 925.5 of the regulations do not apply
to existing military activities carried out by the Department of
Defense, as specifically identified in this FEIS/MP for the
proposed Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. New activities
may be exempted from the prohibitions in paragraphs (a)(2)-(9) of
that section by the Director of the office of ocean and Coastal
Resource Management or designee after consultation between the
Director or designee and the Department of Defense.

Notwithstanding the above, in no event under the Sanctuary
regulations, would the Secretary or designee be allowed to issue
a permit authorizing, or otherwise approve, (1) the exploration,
development or production of oil, gas or minerals within the
Sanctuary, (2) the discharge of primary-treated sewage within the
Sanctuary (except for certification, pursuant to section 925.10
of valid authorizations in existence on the effective date of

111-19

Sanctuary designation and issued by other authorities of
competent jurisdiction), or (3) -the disposal of dredge material
within the Sanctuary. Any purported authorizations issued by
other authorities after the effective date of Sanctuary
designation for any of these activities within the Sanctuary
would be invalid.

Each type of activity proposed to be regulated by the
Sanctuary is stated below and described in terms of its impact to
resources and uses. The status quo is also given in terms of
existing laws, regulations and their impacts to the resources and
uses of the waters off the Olympic Peninsula.

B. Oil, Gas and Mineral Activities
1. Status Ouo
a. Existing Regulatory Framework

Pursuant to the 1992 reauthorization of the MPRSA (P.L. 102-
587), no oil or gas leasing or pre-leasing activity shall be
conducted within the area designated as the Olympic Coast
National Marine Sanctuary. Thus, the preferred alternative
regarding the regulation of oil and gas activities has been
statutorily mandated.

b. Impact to Resources

The existing regulatory framework protects the Sanctuary
resources from the harmful effects of oil and gas activities. It
has been concluded that many uncertainties regarding potential
impacts from OCS activities still exist, even in marine areas for
which there is far more information than for the Olympic Coast
(NAS, 1989; EPA, 1985; and NAS, 1985). However, some potential
risks to the Olympic Coast from OCS oil and gas activities, and
the transportation of hydrocarbon products can be evaluated.

Offshore hydrocarbon exploration, developmenti and
production activities, including the transshipment of crude oil
to the mainland, may cause unforeseen and potentially substantial
discharges of oil, both chronic and catastrophic, into the marine
environment. The sensitive marine resources of the Olympic Coast
may be threatened by: (1) well "blow-outs" caused by equipment
failure or damage, or geologic hazards; (2) oil spills and
pipeline leaks; (3) noise and visual disturbances caused by
drilling, the presence of drill rigs or platforms, work crews,
supply boats, and helicopters; (4) pollution associated with
aquatic discharges; and (5) short-term pipeline construction
upheaval. The impacts of oil and gas on the coastal and offshore
environment may be intensified because of the remoteness of the
area. There are very few access points along the coast.
Further, most of the coastline is characterized by rocky
intertidal habitat which, when impacted by oil and gas, does not
recover for many years.

111-20

Normal hydrocarbon operations can result in unintentional,
chronic, or small oil spillage. Since the Olympic Coast area has
had little history of hydrocarbon production, direct evidence
does not exist to illustrate the effects of exploration,
development, and production spills in these waters. Petroleum
products are, however, transported along the coast and through
the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Two oil spills, one from the General
M.C. Meiggs and the other from the Nestucca, have occurred
recently in coastal waters off Washington State. Oil spilled
from the barge Nestucca oiled beaches found within the boundary
of the Sanctuary. The reports of damages from these incidents,
as well as data from spills in other marine waters, serve as
examples of the types of impacts that can result from oil related
accidents. Known threats to marine organisms that may result
from offshore oil and gas exploration, development, and
production are presented in Table 6.

OCS oil and gas activities that would take place offshore in
Federal waters can negatively effect state territorial waters and
coastal environments. In addition to affecting marine organisms,
these activities can disrupt human uses of the marine environment
and the socioeconomic structure of coastal communities (MMS,
1990). Potential negative impacts to nearshore and coastal areas
include: the presence of processing facilities which also
involves problems of air pollution and disposal of processing
wastes; interference with port operations and stress on existing
port facility space and services; conflict with shore-based
operations which use offshore waters (e.g., commercial and
recreational fishing, whale-watching operations); and
socioeconomic impacts on affected coastal communities (Mead and
Sorenson, 1970; Cican-Sain, 1985; Freeman, 1985, MMS, 1990).

Further, the activities associated with oil and gas
exploration and development would introduce into the viewshed of
the Olympic Peninsula an interference with what is known and
valued as a nearly pristine undeveloped coastline. This value is
what makes the Olympic Peninsula aesthetically one of the most
magnificent natural environments remaining in the continental
U.S.

C. Impact to Uses

The status quo prevents offshore development of the outer
continental shelf within the Sanctuary and the introduction of I-
2 offshore platforms into the area for the first time.
Associated with this direct development would be numerous
indirect increases in human activities such as increase in vessel
traffic, either servicing the platforms or transporting oil
(unless pipelines are used to offload the discovered resources),
increases in overflights from helicopters, increasing levels of
discharges, and increased urban development. Prevention of this
development will have a positive impact on fishing, and

111-21

Table 6. Known Threats to Marine organisms from oil and Gas
Exploration and Development.

Activit,@/Facility Chronic Hazzard Episodic/catastrophic Events

Exploration
Seismic Noise, Sub-surface noise,
Profiling "startle effect" concussion
Drilling Siltation,
Turbidity increase
Boat Traffic Sub-surface noise and
propeller hits

Operation
Offshore facilities
Platforms Intrusion
Well head Leakage/seepage Blow-out
Surmort
Supply boats Sub-surface noise and
propeller hits
Aircraft Noise in the air

Transport
Pipelines Leakage Rupture
Pumping buoys Leakage
Barges/Tankers Bilge oil intrusion Collision or grounding

Clean-u-P
Oil on water Intrusion
Skimmers
Burn-off Pollution--air
Chemicals Toxicity of Chemical Pollution--water
Grounded oil Pollution--sediments
Booms Dispersants Disturbance to sensitive
bird and mammal
populations on beaches by
human intrusion and
aircraft activity
Straw
Chemicals
Presence of crew Habitat destruction
and equipment

111-22

recreational and tourist activities in the area.

Exploration and development of oil, gas and mineral
resources involves extensive study of the offshore ecology and
geology.@ These studies will need to be undertaken by other
institutions.

2. Sanctuary Alternative
a. Sanctuary Action (Preferred Alternativel

Exploring for, developing or producing oil, gas or minerals
within the Sanctuary is prohibited.

b. Impact to Resources

The resources and qualities of the Sanctuary, particularly
the sea otters, pinnipeds and seabirds, kelp forests, rocky
shores and offshore islands, and the high water quality of the
area, are especially vulnerable to oil and gas activities. Only
partial protection would be provided due to the remaining threat
from potential oil and gas development outside of the Sanctuary
boundary and from vessel traffic, particularly oil tankers,
transiting through and near the Sanctuary. However, NOAA is
working with the Coast Guard to address the threats from vessel
traffic. A prohibition on oil and gas activities within the
proposed Sanctuary is consistent with the prohibition on
alteration of, or construction on, the seabed as discussed below.

The prohibition will prevent activities in the Sanctuary
which could result in discharges associated with petroleum and
other mineral development potentially harmful to wildlife
(including many endangered species) in the area. This
alternative adds further protection than P.L 102-587 by
prohibiting mineral development (e.g., sand and gravel
development) which can have detrimental impacts to the benthic
and aquatic environments.

C. Impact to Uses

There is presently no oil and gas development taking place
in the study area. Lease Sale #132 has been canceled and no
additional Lease Sale activity is proposed through the year 2000.
The Sanctuary prohibition will eliminate all potential future
direct and indirect oil, gas and mineral activities in the area.
Activities such as tourism and fishing should benefit by the
prohibition.

C. Discharges or Deposits
1. Status Ouo
a. Existing Regulatory Framework

Numerous laws and regulations administered by many local,

111-23

state and Federal agencies exist governing the contamination of
coastal and ocean waters by discharges and deposits from a
variety of sources including point and non-point source
discharges, discharges of oil and hazardous substances (e.g., oil
from vessel bilges and toxic chemicals), overboard trash disposal
(e.g., discarded fishing nets and plastic trash), and ocean
dumping of dredge material.

The primary Federal, state and local laws, policies and
plans governing discharges include but are not limited to: the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the "Clean Water Act", CWA);
Title I of the MPRSA; the Coastal Zone Management Act; the Rivers
and Harbors Act; the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, (which
implements MARPOL 73/78, Annexes I and II); the Marine Plastic
Pollution Research and Control Act (MPPRCA) (which amends the Act
to Prevent Pollution from Ships and implements Annex V of MARPOL
73/78); the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90); the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCIA)
(which, together with section 311. of the CWA, provides for the
National Contingency Plan); EPA,*s Administrative Regulations; the
Washington State Forest Practices Act (FPA) (RCW Chapter 76.09)
(which addresses the environmental impacts of forestry on the
coastal zone); and the State Water Pollution Control Act of 1973
(RCW Chapter 90.48) which implements the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act at the state level (Many of these authorities are
discussed in more detail in Appendix I).

Responsible agencies for implementing appropriate
regulations and plans include, but are not limited to, the NOAA,
the EPA, COE, USCG, WDOE, and WDNR.

i. Point Source Discharges

NPDES permits are required by all municipal and industrial
dischargers that discharge pollutants from a point source into
navigable waters of the U.S., the waters of the contiguous zone,
or ocean waters. The WDOE is responsible for the protection of
the quality of the state's waters through the development of
water quality control plans and the issuance of waste discharge
permits. The coastal tribes receive their NPDES permits directly
from EPA and do not network through the State agency.

The State of Washington is also responsible for ensuring
that dischargers of water pollutants comply with the conditions
of the issued NPDES permits. Thus, the WDOE works with EPA in a
program commonly referred to as the "Compliance Assurance
Program." Pursuant to an MOA between EPA and WDOE, each agency's
policies and responsibilities directed to enforcing effluent
limitations and compliance schedules for NPDES were delineated.
The MOA sets forth the manner and extent to which the program
elements of inspections, tracking, enforcement, and evaluation
are carried out.

111-24

ii. Non-Point Source Discharges

EPA has provided Washington State guidance on implementing
the provisions of EPA's Anti-degradation Policy (40 CFR 131.12)
which is applicable to non-point source pollution as well as
point source pollution. Specifically, "where high quality waters
constitute an outstanding National resource, such as waters of
National and State Parks and wildlife refuges and waters of
exceptional recreational or ecological significance, that water
quality shall be maintained and protected" (40 CFR 131.12
(a)(3)). The non-point source provisions of the CWA 205(j), 208,
303(e) and 319 are subject to the anti-degradation policy and EPA
is developing additional guidance in this area.

Washington State manages non-point source pollution through
the FPA. The WDNR is the state agency with primary
responsibility to implement the Act. The FPA declares that it is
in the public interest for public and private commercial forest
lands to be managed consistent with sound policies of natural
resource protection and that coincident with the maintenance of a
viable forest products industry, it is important to afford
protection to forest soils, fisheries, wildlife, water quantity
and quality, air quality, recreation, and scenic beauty.

The FPA created the Forest Practices Board to adopt rules
and regulations governing the details of forest practices
management consistent with the provisions of the Act and the
Forest Practices Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee
appointed two regional advisory committees to recommend region-
specific rules and regulations.

The FPA establishes a permit process governing forest
practices on private and public forest lands in the state, except
on Federal lands. The FPA gave counties in which forest
practices are proposed a significant role in the process. DNR
may not approve portions of applications concerning conversion to
another use to which counties object, though the Department may
appeal the county's objection to the Forest Practices Appeals
Board which was created by FPA to hear such disputes. Both
Clallam and Jefferson Counties have waived their right to review
forest practices not involving conversion to another use under
the FPA in an effort to streamline'the process.

In terms of coastal zone management, the FPA supersedes the
Shoreline Management Act in some cases. FPA specifies that in
relation to "shorelines", the forest practice regulations to be
adopted by the Forest Practices Board 11 ... shall be the sole rules
applicable to the performance of forest practices, and
enforcement thereof shall be solely as provided... 11 in the FPA.
It is further stipulated that no substantial development permit
11 ... shall be required under chapter 90.58 RCW for the
construction of up to five hundred feet of one... road or segment

111-25

of a road provided such road does not enter the shoreline more
than once," and except under unusual conditions. And finally,
FPA provides that 11(a]ny powers granted by chapter 90.58 RCW
pertaining to forest practices ... are expressly limited to lands
located within 'shorelines of the state' as defined in RCW
90.58.030. DNR and DOE (for water quality) are empowered to make
an inspection after any forest practice.

iii. Hazardous waste, oil and trash disposal

Discharges of oil and hazardous substances are regulated
under the CWA, OPA 90 and CERCLA, with discharges by seagoing
ships of oil, oily mixtures and noxious liquid substances also
regulated under the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships. The CWA
and CERCLA provide for the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part
300), under which the Coast Guard serves as the lead agency for
responding to discharges of oil and hazardous substances.

Discharges by ships of plastics and other garbage is
regulated under MARPOL by the USCG (regulations appear at 33 �
CFR 151.51 to 151.77.

iv Ocean Dumping

The COE has permitting authority, with EPA review and
approval, over dumping of dredged material in waters lying
seaward of the baseline from which the territorial sea is
measured pursuant to Title I, section 103 of the MPRSA. COE also
issues permits for discharge of dredged material into navigable
waters in internal waters pursuant to section 404 of the CWA.
EPA has permitting authority for ocean dumping of materials other
than dredged materials pursuant to Title I, section 102 of the
MPRSA.

The regulations under Title I of the MPRSA provide for
special recognition of nationally significant marine areas, such
as marine sanctuaries established pursuant to Title III of the
MPRSA.

b. Impact to Resources

Although water quality off the Olympic Peninsula is
considered to be good, there is evidence of potential water
quality problems in limited parts of the Sanctuary. There is
also pressure to develop the coastline of the sanctuary. Faced
with severe economic hardships and limited development
alternatives, the populations in -the coastal watersheds are
seeking ways to diversify their timber-based economies. This
includes plans to expand harbors, build casinos, restaurants,
hotels and other recreational facilities as well as promote eco-
tourism. With this development comes the associated need for
dredging and dredge disposal activities, and expanded point and

111--26

non-point source pollution.

Further, there are some efforts to manage non-point source
pollution from upland uses in portions of coastal watershed
pursuant to the FPA. However, there is little associated coastal
monitoring of the health of the kelp and eel grass beds of the
,Strait and coastal areas to assess the effectiveness of the
management initiatives. There also lacks sediment standards for
streams entering the proposed sanctuary.

ocean dumping, municipal outfalls, and dredged material
disposal can smother benthic biota and introduce substances into
the marine environment, which may affect fish, bird, mammal, and
algae resources. In addition to reducing overall water quality
and lessening the aesthetic appeal of the area, the discharge of
litter may harm marine mammals that sometimes ingest or become
entangled in such litter.

Thus, under the existing regulatory regime, the coastal
ecosystem will continue to receive little attention due to the
multi-jurisdictional nature of the coastal watersheds, the low
priority assigned to it by state and Federal agencies due to its
remoteness and assumed pristine quality, and the immediate need
for economic development. Management efforts will continue in a
piece-meal fashion with no coordinated comprehensive planning and
regulatory watershed initiatives.

C. Impact to Uses

The status quo alternative would continue to provide for
increasing development in the watersheds adjacent to the
Sanctuary with no overall plan to minimize the impacts on the
coastal ecosystem. Although the population is expected to grow
very slowly, efforts are underway to diversify the economy and
attract increased tourism to the coast.

2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred)
a. Sanctuary Action

Discharging or depositing, from within the boundary of the
Sanctuary, any material or other matter is prohibited except:

(i) fish, fish parts, chumming materials or bait used in
or resulting from traditional fishing operations in the
Sanctuary;
(ii) biodegradable effluent incidental to vessel use and
generated by marine sanitation devices approved in
accordance with Section 312 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, (FWPCA) 33 U.S.C. 1322 et sea.;
(iii) water generated by routine vessel operations (e.g.,
cooling water, deck wash down and graywater as defined by
Section 312 of the FWPCA) excluding oily wastes from bilge

111-27

pumping;
(iv) engine exhaust;

Discharging or depositing, from beyond the boundary of the
Sanctuary, any material or other matter that subsequently enters
the Sanctuary and injures a Sanctuary resource or quality is
prohibited except those listed in (i-iv) above.

b. ImRact to Resources

The intent of this prohibition is to protect the Sanctuary
resources and qualities from the harmful effects of land and sea-
generated point and non-point source pollution, such as, but not
limited to, trash and oil disposal by vessels and pollutant.
loading from adjacent land use practices.
By maintaining the high water quality of the ecosystem off
the Olympic Peninsula, the organisms responsible for primary
productivity at the base of the food chain, the coastal wetlands
and estuarine habitats will be protected from the direct effects
of pollutant loadings. Benthic biota will be protected
especially from smothering and turbidity increases from the
dumping of dredge material. Fish, seabirds, turtles, and marine
mammals will be protected from direct negative impacts such as
entanglement in discarded trash and infection from degraded water
quality, and will benefit from the indirect effects of protected
habitats and enhanced prey abundance.

C. Impact to Uses

overall, the impact of this regulation on human uses as well
as the Sanctuary resources and qualities is expected to be
beneficial. No existing human uses will be terminated with
designation and in the long-term, many activities such as fishing
and tourism will continue to benefit from the maintenance of the
high water quality of the area.

In accordance with section 304(c)(1) of the MPRSA, 16 U.S.C.
1434(c)(1), NOAA may regulate existing permits through
certification which may include imposition of terms and
conditions consistent with the purposes for which the Sanctuary
is designated. Permits issued after the date of designation are
subject to a review process which may include added terms and
conditions or objection to issuance, as necessary to protect
Sanctuary resources and qualities. Any application for an
amendment, renewal or extension to an existing permit is
considered a new permit in which case NOAA must approve of the
issuance of the permit.

NOAA will work within the existing process, rather than
create an entirely new regulatory review and approval procedure,
governing discharge activities in the Sanctuary and coastal

111--28

watersheds. NOAA intends to minimize any additional
administrative burden on those dischargers that are required to
obtain a NPDES permit for discharges that affect, or may affect
the Sanctuary, while at the same time, ensure that the existing
process addresses the special concerns of the Sanctuary and it's
resources and qualities. In addition, a close working
relationship between the Sanctuary and existing authorities and
affected users will necessitate the identification and exchange
of information relevant to the maintenance of the area's high
water quality, and the protection and conservation of resources
and qualities of the Sanctuary.

Consistent with the MPRSA primary objective of protecting
the Sanctuary and its resources, (Section 301(b)(5) of the MPRSA,
16 U.S.C. � 1431(b)(5)), the Sanctuary regulations address
discharges within the Sanctuary boundary (15 CFR 925.5(a)(2)) as
well as those discharges outside of the Sanctuary boundary that
enter and injure Sanctuary resources and qualities (15 CFR
925(a)(3)).

Specific impacts to uses of the area that involve discharge
into the Sanctuary are discussed in more detail below.

i. Vessels

The impact of this regulation on vessel operations is
expected to be minor. Oil discharges are presently regulated
under, e.g., the CWA, OPA 90 and MARPOL. The disposal of non-
biodegradable and other potentially harmful trash is already
regulated by MARPOL. The exemptions from this regulation are
designed to allow continued use of the Sanctuary by vessels that
do not appear to threaten Sanctuary resources and qualities.
Thus, fish, fish parts, chumming materials and bait used in, or
resulting from, traditional fishing operations within the
Sanctuary (exhaust, vessel cooling waters, and approved marine
sanitation wastes) are specifically exempted from the
prohibition.

ii. Dredge Disposal Activities

There are no dredge disposal activities occurring in, or
near the Sanctuary at the time of designation. The regulation
would prohibit the designation and use of any new dredged
material disposal sites within the Sanctuary. Dredge disposal
activities outside the boundaries of the Sanctuary that enter and
injure Sanctuary resources and qualities are prohibited.

iii. Point Source Discharges

There are no point-source discharges entering directly into
the Sanctuary. Discharges and deposits from point sources
entering indirectly into the Sanctuary, pursuant to any valid

111-29

permit existing on the effective date of these regulations, are
allowed subject to all prohibitions, restrictions and conditions
validly imposed by any other authority of competent jurisdiction,
provided, however, that NOAA may regulate the exercise of these
existing permits as necessary to achieve the purposes for which
the Sanctuary was designated.

In consultation with scientific institutions and local,
State, Tribal and Federal governments, NOAA will consult with the
permittees and the relevant permitting authorities to determine
means of achieving the Sanctuary 'purposes. If additional
constraints are necessary, NOAA will work with the permittees and
permitting authorities to determine the necessary level of terms
and conditions to provide adequate protection of the Sanctuary's
resources and qualities.

The requirement of NOAA certification of existing permits
for, e.g., municipal and industrial sewage, will ensure NOAA
consideration of potential impacts on Sanctuary resources and
qualities.

New proposals for permits, licenses, or other authorizations
after the effective date of Sanctuary designation, e.g., allowing
the discharge of municipal and industrial sewage would be subject
to Sanctuary review to ensure that Sanctuary resources and
qualities are protected from injury.

when existing permits are submitted for renewal, they would
be reviewed as a new permit. NO&N will evaluate the activity to
determine whether there would be any negative effects to water
quality or resources, whether the permittee has complied with
permit standards, and, if necessary, decreased discharges and/or
increased treatment standards due-td the presence of the
Sanctuary.

This regulation could thus result in additional costs to
existing and future dischargers if the Sanctuary were to
determine that a higher level of -treatment or other, more
expensive disposal methods were preferable in order to ensure
Sanctuary resources and qualities are protected. The requirement
of Sanctuary certification or approval of permits for point
source dischargers will ensure that these potentially harmful
activities receive special consideration from the Sanctuary's
perspective.

iv. Non-Point Source Discharges

Land-based non-point source discharges within watersheds
adjacent to the Sanctuary that drain into the Sanctuary will be
monitored to ensure the activity is consistent with the goals of
the Sanctuary and that Sanctuary resources and qualities are
protected. If evidence arises that Sanctuary resources and

111-30

qualities are threatened, NOAA intends to work with existing
regulatory agencies and responsible parties to determine
appropriate measures to prevent the threat of injury to Sanctuary
resources and qualities.

D. Historical Resources
1. Status Ouo
a. Existing Regulatory Framework

Under this alternative any historical resources (as defined
by Sanctuary Program and Sanctuary regulations to include, inter
alia, archeological, paleontological, or cultural resources) will
remain subject to the existing management regime. The existing
Federal regulatory regime includes the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470 et geq., the
.Archeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974, 16 U.S.C.
469 et sea., the Abandoned Shipwreck Act (ASA) of 1987, 43 U.S.C.
2101 Pt peg., and the Archeological Resources Protection Act of
1979 (ARPA), 16 U.S.C. 470aa et secr. Permits are issued by the
State Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, within the
WDCD, for those historic resources in State waters pursuant to
the State Historical Societies-Heritage Council-Archeology and
Historic Preservation Act (Chapter 25-48 WAC and Title 27 RCW).

Before any archeological excavation of a site of tribal
significance, the State Office of Archeology and Historic
Preservation consults with the Tribe regarding mitigation
measures to be incorporated into the permit. Title 43 CFR Part 7
of the ARPA requires that before issuing a permit a Federal land
manager shall provide notice to the interested tribes, and within
a 30-day period discuss tribal interests, including ways to avoid
or mitigate potential harm or destruction such as excluding sites
from the permit area. Such agreed upon mitigation measures shall
be incorporated into the terms of the permit. The Federal land
manager may enter into agreements with an Indian tribe to
determine locations for which the tribe wishes to receive notice
of permits.

Within the framework of the status quo, any historical
resources known to be within the proposed sanctuary, especially
those that are on the National Register listing under the NHPA,
will be carefully monitored by Sanctuary staff. In addition, any
activity that could lead to the discovery of historical resources
will be carefully monitored. The Sanctuary manager will try to
ensure that adequate information is available regarding the
national significance of these resources and appropriate
management measures are in place.

b. Impact to Resources

Existing regulatory authorities provide some protection for
underwater historical resources in the Sanctuary. Guidelines

111-31

published by the NPS assist the states and Federal agencies in
developing legislation and regulations to carry out their
management responsibilities regarding shipwrecks in accordance
with the provisions of the ASA.

The NHPA mandates that Federal agencies consult with the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation before engaging in any
undertaking that could affect historic resources. Consultation
with the expertise of this Council provides Federal agencies with
an opportunity to ensure their proposed activities are
technically adequate and that any plans to salvage historical
resources take into account preservation requirements for the
long-term protection of the resources.

Under the state permitting process, archeological and
historical/cultural resources can be excavated and as much as 90%
of the value of the salvaged objects may remain in private
ownership. The State has priority in determining which of the
10% of the artifacts are to remain in the public domain. This
regime provides the public access to the historical resources for
educational or research purposes before being turned over to
private ownership. Further, guidelines in permits granted to
permitees ensure that the marine benthic environment is protected
during salvage or research activities on historical resources
within State waters pursuant to the State Environmental
Protection Act (SEPA).

C. Impact to Uses

Salvage operations in State 'waters are subject to permits by
the WDCD as described above. Salvors are required to obtain a
permit after consulting with the coastal tribes (if excavations
involved artifacts of tribal interest) and assessing the impacts
to resources in the vicinity of the operation. The salvor may
retain up to 90% of the value/artifacts salvaged following
inspection by the State Archeologist. There is no coordination
in policy for salvage operations occurring in State and Federal
waters.

2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred)
a. Sanctuary Action

Moving, removing or injuring, or attempting to move, remove
or injure, a Sanctuary historical resource is prohibited.
This prohibition does not apply to moving, removing or
inj'.ury resulting incidentally from traditional fishing
operations.

b. Impact to Resources

Under this alternative, moving, removing or injuring or
attempting to move, remove, or injure a Sanctuary historical

111-32

resources without NOAA approval will be prohibited (see the
introduction to Part III). Sanctuary management of historical
resources under the authority of the MPRSA shall be consistent,
to the extent practicable, with the Federal archeological program
by consulting the Uniform Regulations, ARPA (43 CFR Part 7), the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for
Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 CFR 44716, Sept. 29,
1983) and other relevant Federal regulations. NOAA also intends
to work closely with the WDCD and the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) regarding approval to move or remove abandoned
shipwrecks, title which is held by Washington State.

Management of historical and cultural resources of
significance to the tribes will be managed so as to protect other
Sanctuary resources and the interests of the governing body of an
Indian tribe(s) in such historical resources. If an Indian tribe
determines that a historical resource of tribal significance
should be researched, excavated or salvaged, the Sanctuary
manager may issue a Sanctuary permit if the criteria for issuance
have been met. The terms and conditions of the permit will
ensure that the Sanctuary program has access to artifacts and
research results for education purposes and that the artifacts
are placed in a location agreed upon by the interested Indian
tribes.

This regulation is necessary in order to protect these
valuable resources for research and interpretation. In addition,
during its review of a request for a Sanctuary permit, NOAA would
consider the impacts of the proposed activity on adjacent
Sanctuary resources and qualities such as benthic communities and
associated fish populations.

C. Impact to Uses

Human activities that "take" a historical resource would
require Sanctuary approval (however, see exception in regulation
for certain fishery activities).. Such approval would only be
given under specific circumstances such as for research or
education purposes. Where this responsibility overlaps with
other state and Federal agencies the Sanctuary would coordinate
its review with the appropriate agency. Most archeological work
being conducted is related to the culture and history of the
coastal tribes. Shipwrecks that have occurred along the coast
have disintegrated due to the high energy environment that
characterizes the Pacific Northwest. As only a few uses "take"
historical resources, the impact of this regulation on uses is
expected to be minor.

111-33

E. Alteration of or Construction on the Seabed
1. Status Ouo
a. Existing Regulatory Framework

The-most relevant legislation pertaining to the alteration
of, or construction on, the seabed includes Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act; Section 404 of the CWA; Title I of the
MPRSA; the Submerged Lands Act; the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act; and the Washington State Submerged Lands Act.

The primary Federal agencies affected include, but are not
limited to, the COE and EPA. The WDNR is the primary state
agency.

b. Impact to Resources

Under this alternative, the benthic resources and the
various substrates of the Sanctuary will continue to be protected
by the existing management regime and existing state and Federal
regulations governing activities on the seabed will still apply.
There will be no special consideration of the seabed as an
environment that provides a variety of habitats that, in turn,
support the rich colonies of kelp and other algae, benthic
invertebrates and associated organisms dependent upon these
habitat assemblages. .

Activities such as sand and gravel mining and dredge
disposal may cause loss of sediment and associated disruptions in
benthic, kelp and algae communities from erosion of habitat and
smothering of organisms from increased turbidity and particle
deposition. The benthic communities off the northern Olympic
Peninsula are rich feeding grounds for marine mammals and
seabirds and development activities could seriously interfere
with marine mammal and seabird ecology.

C. Impact to Uses

Harbor maintenance activities are predicted to increase,
particularly at Neah Bay and La Push including dredging. The
alternatives for dredge disposal sites may include ocean
disposal. There is also interest in mining gravel deposits off
of Cape Flattery which may result in loss of fish habitat and
fishing grounds. These activities may diminish the ecological
and aesthetic value of the Sanctuary.

2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred)
a. Sanctuary Act-ion

Drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of
the Sanctuary; or constructing, placing or abandoning any
structure, material or other matter on the seabed of the
Sanctuary, is prohibited except as an incidental result of:

111--34

(i) Anchoring vessels;
(ii) Traditional fishing operations;
(iii)Installation of navigation aids;
(iv) Harbor maintenance in the areas necessarily associated
with Federal projects in existence on the effective
date of Sanctuary designation, including dredging of
entrance channels and repair, replacement or
rehabilitation of breakwaters and jetties; or
(v) Construction, repair, replacement or rehabilitation of
docks or piers.

b. Impact to Resources

The intent of this prohibition is to protect the resources
and qualities of the Sanctuary from the harmful effects of
activities such as, but not limited to, archeological
excavations, drilling into the seabed, strip mining, laying of
pipelines and outfalls, ocean mineral extraction (including but
not limited to sand mining), and dumping of dredge spoils and
offshore commercial development that may disrupt and/or destroy
sensitive marine benthic habitats.

C. Impact to Uses

New activities, for example, development of new breakwaters,
new applications or requests for offshore commercial development
projects such as, but not limited to, placement of artificial
reefs, gravel mining and dredge disposal would be prohibited. No
new dredge disposal sites will be allowed within the Sanctuary.

Since harbors are excluded from the Sanctuary boundary, all
harbor activities within the exclusion zones would be excluded
from the scope of regulations. The construction of new docks and
boat ramps in the Sanctuary will require NOAA approval.

F. Taking Marine Mammals, Turtles, and Seabirds
1. Status Ouo
a. Existing Management Regime

The MMPA, ESA, and the MBTA are the principal Federal
authorities, and the Wildlife Code (RCW 77), the Fisheries Code
(RCW 75), and the Hydraulic Code (RCW 75.20) are the Washington
State authorities for the protection and conservation of marine
wildlife. Agencies involved in the administration of these
measures include the NMFS, the USFWS, WDF, and WDW.

b. Impact to Resources

Under this alternative the.MMPA and the ESA would provide
protection to the marine mammals, turtles and seabirds of the
Sanctuary--both prohibit the taking of specific species protected
under those Acts. Taking is defined as meaning: 1) for any sea

111-35

turtle, marine mammal or seabird listed as either endangered or
threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, to harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect or
injure, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct; and 2) for
any other sea turtle, marine mammal or seabird, the term means to
harass, hunt, capture, kill, collect or injure, or to attempt to
engage in any such conduct.

The MBTA codifies a series of conventions between the U.S.
and Great Britain, Mexico, Japan and the states that comprised
the former USSR providing protection of the migratory birds, and
their nests and eggs from taking, killing, possessing, selling
and other specified forms of exploitation. Such acts are allowed
only via permits (regarding marine mammals except sea otters, see
the discussion of fishing for information on the five year
incidental take exemption for commercial fishermen established by
the 1988 amendments to the MMPA due to expire in October of
1993). These resources will continue to be protected on a
species basis but not under the special purview of the Sanctuary
management regime which provides the authority to manage uses for
the protection of the ecosystem.

C. Impact to Uses

All users of the Sanctuary are prohibited from taking any
marine mammal or endangered or threatened seabirds and turtles
unless in possession of a permit. For instance, incidental
taking of an endangered species in the course of fishing is
prohibited except under special circumstances. All taking of
migratorybirds is prohibited by the MBTA without a permit, and
permits are not granted for taking in the course of fishing.

2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred)
a. Sanctuary Action

Taking any marine mammal, turtle or seabird in or above the
Sanctuary is prohibited, except as authorized by the
National Marine Fisheries service or the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service under the authority of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act, as amended, (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361
et geq., the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA), 16
U.S.C.' 1531 gt geq., and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as
amended, (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703 et seg., or pursuant to any
treaty with an Indian tribe Ito which the United States is a
party, provided that the treaty right is exercised in
accordance with the MMPA, ESA and MBTA.

Taking is defined as meaning: 1) for any sea turtle, marine
mammal or seabird listed as either endangered or threatened
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, to harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect or
injure, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct; and 2)

111-36

for any other sea turtle, marine mammal or seabird, the term
means to harass, hunt, capture, kill, collect or injure, or
to attempt to engage in any such conduct.

b. Impact to Resources

The proposed prohibition would overlap with the MMPA, MBTA
and ESA but strengthen protection by imposing Sanctuary fines for
violations of the provisions of the Acts. This regulation
includes all marine mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds in or
above the Sanctuary.

This regulation would not affect any users other than those
already regulated. However, upon violation of this Sanctuary
regulation the MPRSA (Section 307) allows NOAA to assess civil
penalties as'high as $100,000 for each violation. The status quo
sets maximum sanctions as follows: The MBTA sets maximum
criminal fines at either $500 or $2,000 per violation, depending
on the violation. The MMPA sets maximum civil penalties at
$10,000 and maximum criminal penalties at $20,000. The ESA sets
maximum civil penalties at $500, $12,000, or $25,000 per
violation, depending on the violation and maximum criminal fines
at $50,000 (the statutes also provide for imprisonment for
criminal violations). Thus this Sanctuary regulation may further
deter violations. In addition, since civil penalties received
for violation of Sanctuary regulations go back into the Marine
Sanctuary Program, more directed efforts can be implemented to
protect these valuable natural resources.

C. Impact to Uses

As indicated above, this regulation will not affect any uses
other than those already regulated which include fishing, whale
watching, overflights and commercial development that may take
marine mammals, seabirds or turtles.

G. Overflights
1. Status Ouo
a. Existing Regulatory Framework

Overflights are regulated by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). Current FAA regulations specify minimum
altitudes over open water, unpopulated and populated areas which
are codified in 14 CFR Parts 91-95. The only restrictions for
aircraft flying over the Sanctuary are minimum altitudes of 500
feet from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure. Helicopters
may be operated less than 500 feet from the ground if the
operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on
the surface. Each person operating a helicopter must comply with
any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters
by the Administrator of the FAA. The FAA has established a 2000
ft. advisory for aircraft flying over National Parks, Wildlife

111-37

Refuges and Wilderness Areas.

Thus, all aircraft flying over the Sanctuary can legally fly
unrestricted. When there are military operations within the
MOA's over the Peninsula, non-military airplanes stay below 1200
ft. Most aircraft that land at airports on the Peninsula (Sekiu,
Quileute, Copalis-) are small recreational airtaxi or commuter
planes.

b. ImRact To Resources

Compared to areas around more congested population centers,
the air traffic patterns above the Sanctuary are light. However,
the minimum altitude requirements do not prevent aircraft from
disturbing the marine mammal, pinniped and particularly sensitive
seabird colonies of the Sanctuary. Low level overflights of
ecologically sensitive coastal areas are know to cause
disturbance and even fatalities of marine wildlife. Nesting
colonial seabirds are especially vulnerable to noise disturbance
from overflights in that a startle reaction may result in egg
destruction, or vulnerability of chicks to prey. Migrating and
foraging cetaceans are also known to change their behavior
patterns when approached by aircraft flying at low levels.

C. Impact To Uses

Under the status quo, recreational and commuter aircraft
will continue to fly over the Peninsula and the Sanctuary. There
will be no regulations of overflights that protect the
ecologically sensitive habitats of the Sanctuary.

2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred)
a. Sanctuary Action

Flying motorized aircraft at less than 2,000 feet above the
Sanctuary and within one nautical mile of the Flattery Rocks,
Quillayute Needles, or Copalis National Wildlife Refuges or at
less than 2,000 feet above the Sanctuary within one nautical mile
seaward from the coastal boundary of the Sanctuary is prohibited,
except as necessary for valid law enforcement purposes, for
activities related to tribal timber operations conducted on
reservation lands, or to transport persons or supplies to or from
reservation lands as authorized by a governing body of an Indian
tribe.

b. Impact to Resources

The prohibition on overflights below 2000 feet (610 m) is
designed to limit potential noise impacts, particularly those
that might startle hauled-out seals and sea lions, sea otters or
birds nesting along the shoreline margins of the Sanctuary.
Intrusive overflights during sensitive biological periods will

111-38

therefore be minimized. The 2000 foot minimum was chosen to be
consistent with the already existing FAA advisory over the
National Park and Wildlife Refuge areas adjacent to the
Sanctuary.

C. ImRact to Uses

overflights over the Sanctuary within one nautical mile
seaward of the offshore islands and the coastal boundary will be
required to remain at least 2000 ft. above ground level.
Exceptions will be allowed, if necessary, to respond to an
emergency threatening life, property, or the environment,
landings or takeoffs from Copalis, Quileute, or Sekiu airports,
or for valid law enforcement purposes. Further, tribal
operations that involve overflights to facilitate access to
tribal lands are exempt from the regulation pursuant to treaty
rights of access to reservation lands.

H. Vessel Traffic
1. Status Ouo
a. Existing Regulatory Regime (Preferred)

NOAA does not propose to promulgate vessel traffic
regulations. Vessel traffic, however, will be placed in the
scope of regulations. This preferred alternative, to give NOAA
the authority to regulate vessel traffic in the future, but to
work within the existing management framework with designation,
will enable NOAA to work with the USCG, Washington State OMS, and
WDOE on appropriate action to protect the resources of the
Sanctuary.

The principal legislation and conventions governing vessel
traffic include: OPA 90 (P.L. 101-380); MARPOL 73/78 and its
Annexes I, II, and V; Ports and Waterways Safety Act; .
International Convention to Prevent Collisions at Sea; and the
Washington State Oil and Hazardous Substance Spill Prevention and
Response Act (RCW 90.56, RCW 43.211, and RCW 88.46). The
responsible agencies are the USCG, Canadian Coast Guard, IMO,
Washington State OMS, and WDOE (Appendix I). The resource
assessment discusses the roles and authorities of each agency in
greater depth.

There is a CVTMS in the Strait of Juan de Fuca with
designated inbound and outbound lanes on the U.S. and Canadian
sides of the international border, respectively. No vessel
greater than 125,000 dead weight tons may pass east of Port
Angeles and all tankers passing into Puget Sound must be
accompanied by a pilot and one (and soon to be two) escort tugs.

Outside of the Strait of Juan de Fuca there are voluntary
agreements by maritime associations to coordinate the movement of
coastwise tanker traffic and tank barge traffic. Under these

111-39

agreements, tankers transiting along the coast remain at least 50
nautical miles from shore.unless entering a port of call. Barges
follow agreed upon lanes within 5 and 10 miles from shore
pursuant to the crabber-tugboat agreements negotiated yearly.
The future of these agreed upon lanes, however, is uncertain.

There are no tugs specifically dedicated for emergency
response in Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca or Grays
-Harbor. There have been a number of near misses when vessels
have lost power either off the coast or in the Straits.
Likewise, there have been collisions off the Strait of Juan de
Fuca (Tenyo Maru in 1991) and barg.es punctured off the coast
(Nestucca, 1988) which have resulted in oil spills. However, the
Strait of Juan de Fuca Emergency Towing Vessel Task Force has
been formed and is charged with the mission of establishing,
maintaining, and operating an emergency towing vessel in the
Strait of Juan de Fuca.

NOAA has been working closely with the USCG on
recommendations to the IMO to designate an area from the
shoreward boundary of the Sanctuary to 25 nautical miles off the
outer coast as an Area to be Avoided (ATBA). This ATBA will
ensure enough time, in the event of an engine failure aboard a
vessel or other disabling accident, for a tug to intercept the
possibly eastwardly drifting vessel during a worst-case storm
before it grounds on the shoreline of the Sanctuary.

The USCG will recommend to the IMO in June, 1994 that an
ATBA be established off the western Washington coast. ATBAIs are
areas within defined limits in which either navigation is
particularly hazardous or in which it is exceptionally important
to avoid casualties, and which should be avoided by all ships, or
certain classes of ships (IMO, 1991). Should the request to
establish an ATBA not be forwarded to the IMO, or not approved by
the IMO, NOAA will reconsider it0s options to address vessel
traffic issues at that time.

The ATBA would, in effect, create a "buffer zone". This
zone would provide sufficient time for response vessels to arrive
on the scene of a maritime emergency. Additionally, creation of
such a zone would provide time for emergency teams ashore to be
notified, contingency plans to be activated, and should there be
a spill, some weathering to occur which would reduce the risk of
damage to the shoreline.

b. Impact to Resources

With the projected increase in the number of vessels
approaching the Strait of Juan de Fuca, it is only a matter of
time before the coast experiences another vessel related
accident. Such an event, either collision or a grounding due to
loss of power or steering control or human error, would likely

111-40

result in a spill of hazardous material. The rocky intertidal
areas and the productive food chain off the Pacific coast are
extremely sensitive to damage by oil or other pollutants. This
is an area with little coastal access and most booms are
ineffective during common winter storms.

C. Impact to Uses

Under the Status Quo, uses will be subject to the outcome of
the contingency and response planning initiatives by Regional
Marine Safety Committees of the OMS, WDOE and the USCG. There
will continue to be no restriction on vessel traffic movement
along the coast, and barges and foreign vessels will be able to
transit as close to shore as they choose. However, OMS requires
all vessels to comply with contingency and prevention plan
requirements. If a spill occurs, as it has in the past, there
will be serious consequences to the region. Spills interfere
with subsistence gathering of intertidal biota, as well as treaty
and non-treaty fisheries for salmon, groundfish, halibut, and
shellfish. There are substantial impacts to shore birds,
seabirds' and marine mammals. Tourism to the coast will also be
affected.

The USCG and the OMS are studying various prevention and
response proposals to increase marine safety in both inshore and
offshore waters. Escort tugs for tanker traffic inside the
Strait of Juan de Fuca, tanker free zones, contingency plans,
etc., have all been considered and regulations have been
implemented.

2. Sanctuary Alternative
a. Sanctuary Action

NOAA will regulate vessel traffic either by prohibiting all
vessels, or vessels carrying hazardous substances, from
transiting the Sanctuary, or by creating defined vessel traffic
lanes for vessels to follow when transiting along the coast.

b. Impact to Resources

Sanctuary regulations would ensure that Sanctuary resources
are protected from vessel related incidences occurring as a
result of domestic vessel traffic. Regulations would likely
apply to ships carrying hazardous cargo, appropriate distances
from shore, contingency plans, and vessel and crew standards.
However, Sanctuary regulations would have no applicability to
foreign vessels.

C. Impact to Uses

A prohibition on vessel traffic within the Sanctuary, or the
regulation of vessel traffic within the Sanctuary, can seriously

111-41

undermine the ongoing efforts to address vessel safety, cause
undue economic hardship to a point where the costs outweigh the
benefits, or increase the risk of collisions at sea. Further,
another management layer will cause added confusion to an already
complicated but well coordinated vessel management regime.

This is an alternative that highlights the delicate balance
between too much and too little vessel traffic regulation. The
entrance to the Strait is a highly congested area due to the
presence of tankers, freighters, tugs and barges, and fishing
vessels. Any regulations or management actions that further
restrict vessel traffic on the approaches to the Strait,
especially if promulgated by multiple authorities, will cause
greater risk of an accident, especially given the multilingual
profile of mariners entering the Strait.

A prohibition on vessel traffic, or establishment of
specific lanes along the coast will also minimize the flexibility
of barges to negotiate the area in various weather conditions.
At a certain point, decreasing flexibility among mariners, and
complicating the management regime increases the risk of an
accident and consequent damage to Sanctuary resources.

I. Fishing, Kelp Harvesting, Aguaculture
1. Status Quo (Preferred)
a. Existing Regulatory Framework

Fishing and aquaculture are not listed in the scope of
regulations. Principal fishing legislation and regulations
include: Washington Fish and Game Code, Fishery Management Plans
(FMP's) promulgated pursuant to the MFCMA (16 U.S.C. �� 1801 et
geg (Groundfish Management Plan, Salmon Management Plan),
International Pacific-Salmon Treaty, and the International
Halibut Treaty, and the Boldt Decision. The implementing
authorities include the NMFS, the PFMC, the WDF, the WDNR, and
the International Halibut Commission. (Appendix I). Kelp
harvesting, however, is in the scope of regulations.

b. Impact to Resources

The fishery management regime is highly coordinated and
extremely complex. The harvest of fish stocks are coordinated
between Oregon, California, Alaska, Canada, and within Washington
State, between treaty (among 23 -tribes along the outer coast,
Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound) and non-treaty fishers
(sport and commercial). The management regime for salmon
allocates harvest by fish originating from specific watersheds.
Management coordinates hatchery production and monitors the
status of the weakest.natural runs originating from specific
river systems.

Currently, there is no salmon or shellfish aquaculture

111-42

occurring within the Sanctuary. However, there are numerous
tribal and state operated hatcheries that release salmon into
streams entering the Sanctuary.

There is very limited kelp harvesting occurring within the
Sanctuary. The Lummi and Klallam Tribes harvest small amounts of
Kelp near Neah Bay for a limited herring-roe-on-kelp fishery.
There is interest in commercially harvesting kelp in the Strait
of Juan de Fuca and the WDNR is working on a kelp harvesting
management plan. Sea grasses and kelp resources are under the
jurisdiction of the WDNR.

Fishing activities in the Sanctuary are extensive in the
Strait of Juan de Fuca and its approaches. Commercial and
recreational salmon and halibut fishing occurs along the coast
and in the approaches of the Strait. Sport fishing is
concentrated around Neah Bay, Pillar Point at the mouth of the
Pyscht River and off Freshwater Bay at Observatory Point. Salmon
are harvested off the coast using the trolling method and in the
Strait of Juan de Fuca by gillnets and purse seines. Halibut are
harvested by hook and line. Significant halibut grounds are
located in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The halibut quota
established by the International Halibut Commission is divided
among treaty and non-treaty recreational fishers. Groundfish are
harvested by trawling.

Invertebrates are harvested in the Strait of Juan de Fuca
and along the outer coast in the intertidal and subtidal areas.
Treaty members harvest barnacles, chitons, sea urchins, sea
cucumbers and other invertebrates as part of their subsistence
economies. sea urchins are harvested by non-treaty commercial
divers around Neah Bay and managed by WDF through rotation of
beds. Sea cucumbers are harvested in the Strait in the
commercial dive, limited beam trawl, and treaty subsistence
fisheries. Sea cucumbers are also managed through the rotation
of beds in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. octopus are harvested
from the Strait subtidally by recreational divers, tribal
subsistence fishers and incidental to other dive fisheries.
Harvests are only permitted if done by hand, or with instruments
that do not penetrate the skin.

The FMP's are drafted by the PFMC. The FMP's establish
catch limits for groundfish and specifies the duration of the
fishing season and catch and size limits for salmon. Commercial
fishing-gear restrictions are specified for both the groundfish
and salmon fisheries. Trolling and trawling are the only
permissible gear on the outer coast for salmon and groundfish and
set nets, gill nets, trolling and purse seines are permissible in
the Strait of Juan de Fuca for salmon, and trawling for
groundfish. Research has shown that the impacts of these gears
on the benthic communities is minimal since trawls are designed
to be used on soft bottom habitats, and to roll over rocky

111-43

substrate. Pots are used to harvest crab.

The MFCMA provides for enforcement of FMP's prepared by the
PFMC and approved by the Secretary of Commerce after review by
the NMFS. Fishery regulations are enforced by the USCG, NMFS and
WDF.

The.1988 Amendments to the MMPA established a five year
exemption for commercial fishermen to take marine mammals (except
sea otters) incidental to their fishing activities. Marine
mammals, except sea otters, may be taken incidentally to
commercial fishing pursuant to 16 U.S.C. � 1383a until October
1993, after which rulemaking pursuant to 16 U.S.C. �� 1371, 1373,
and 1374 may be required. The amendments require the NMFS to
establish an exemption, observer, and reporting system to
document incidental captures of marine mammals by fishermen that
are expected to take marine mammals. Based on reports of the
fishermen, the NMFS is to submit to Congress its recommendations
to manage.commercial fishing activities in a way that reduces
adverse impacts to marine mammals. The interim exemptions will
expire in October, 1993. NMFS, the fishing industry and
environmental groups are currently developing a permanent
management plan. The revised management plan will address the
Makah Tribe's treaty' right to hunt whales and marine mammals.

The taking of sea otters was specifically excluded from the
five year interim incidental take exemption for commercial
fishing operations. During the interim period, intentional
lethal taking is prohibited for Alaskan sea otters (which is the
stock off Washington) rather than a total prohibition (which only
applies to southern (California) sea otters) (50 CFR 229.4(b)(2)
and 50 CFR 229.6(c)(6)).

In general, fishing activit- is extensively regulated to
Y
ensure continuous production of fish stocks for long-term harvest
and to reduce potential conflict with marine mammals, seabirds,
and the benthic communities.

C. Impact to Uses

Fishing in the Sanctuary would be regulated other than under
the Sanctuary regulatory regime by Federal and state authorities
of competent jurisdiction. ("Fishing regulation" means a
regulations that is directed specifically at fishing activities
or fishing vessels. This does not include a regulation that is
applicable to all types of vessels or activities.')

Under the status quo fishing would continue without any
additional regulation under the Sanctuary regulatory regime. As
a result of other sanctuary regulations aimed at improving water
quality and fish habitat it is expected that the Sanctuary would
have a positive impact on fishing activities.

111-44

The Sanctuary regulations include four regulations that (if
written without the exemption) could potentially have an indirect
effect on fishing activities. However, each of the four
regulations specifically exempts traditional fishing activities
from the scope of the prohibitions to the extent consistent with
other existing state and Federal regulations.

The four regulations are: (1) discharges and deposits
(including those from fishing vessels) are prohibited except for
stated discharges and deposits including ones intended to allow
traditional fishing activities; (2) moving, removing, or injuring
or attempting to move, remove, or injure a Sanctuary historical
resource is prohibited, except resulting incidentally from
traditional fishing operations; (3) drilling through, dredging or
otherwise altering the seabed or the Sanctuary or constructing,
placing or abandoning any structure, material or other matter on
the seabed of the Sanctuary is prohibited, except resulting
incidentally from traditional fishing operations i.e., the use of
traps and bottom trawls, and gear recovery; and (4) taking of
marine mammals, reptiles, and seabirds is prohibited, except as
permitted by regulations promulgated under the MMPA, the ESA, and
the MBTA. Thus, each regulation otherwise potentially affecting
traditional fishing activities is specifically designed to
exclude such activities from the effect of the regulation.
However, if in the future NOAA determines that these exemptions
are resulting in injury to Sanctuary resources or qualities from
aquaculture, kelp harvesting or traditional fishing activities,
changes to the Sanctuary regulations may be undertaken pursuant
to the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) notice-and-comment
rulemaking process and the applicable requirements of NEPA and
the MPRSA.

Aquaculture activities would also be unaffected by the
regulatory regime. NOAA will work with the WDF and DNR and kelp
harvesting and aquaculture user groups if new activities are
proposed or increases in current levels to determine the impacts,
if any, of the activity on the resources and qualities of the
Sanctuary.

There are many existing regulations and restrictions on
fishing activities in the Sanctuary designed to protect the long-
term health of fisheries and other resources and qualities of the
region. Therefore, NOAA does not believe it is necessary to
promulgate any additional regulations.

In its evaluation of the issue, NOAA considered whether,
under the present regulatory structure, sufficient protection for
Sanctuary resources existed. NOAA has determined, after
consultation with the USFWS, NMFS, PFMC, WDF, and DNR that
fishing in the Sanctuary, including fishing for shellfish and
invertebrates, shall not be regulated as part of the Sanctuary
management regime. Fish resources of the Sanctuary are already

111-45

extensively managed by existing authorities and NOAA does not
envision a fishery management role for the Sanctuary at this
time. Instead the Sanctuary will provide research results and
recommendations to existing fishery management agencies in order
to enhance the protection of fishery and other Sanctuary
resources.

Furthermore, in its decision advising NOAA to proceed with
the preparation of a DEIS/MP for the Sanctuary, the PFMC also
recommended that the regulation of fishery resources remain under
the jurisdiction of the State of Washington, the NMFS, the
Tribes, and the PFMC.

2. Sanctuary Alternative
a. Sanctuary Action

If NOAA were to consider regulating fishing in the Sanctuary
it would first provide the PFMC with an opportunity to prepare
draft regulations for fisheries within the EEZ should the need
arise to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities from specific
fishing activities. Any changes to Sanctuary regulations would
be undertaken pursuant to the APA's notice-and comment rulemaking
process and the applicable requirements of the NEPA and MPRSA.
In the future the Sanctuary will work with fishermen and
management agencies including the WDF, the PFMC, and the coastal
tribes to determine any additional management measures that may
.be necessary to protect the resources and qualities of the
Sanctuary. Such actions will be submitted in draft for public
review and comment on any specific measures taken to address
threats from fishing to Sanctuary resources and qualities.
Finally an MOA has been prepared between NMFS and NOS regarding
fisheries and protection of Sanctuary resources (Appendix J).

b. Imgact to Resources

Actions promulgated under this authority will be targeted at
protecting specific resources, qualities and habitats shown to be
injured by fishing activities, aquaculture or kelp harvesting.
Such injury could include, but is not limited to, destruction of
benthic habitat from bottom trawling, incidental take of marine
mammals and seabirds from gill nets, evidence of reductions in
fish stock size,.degradation in water quality and disruption of
the seabed from aquaculture and negative impacts to sea otter
habitat during kelp harvesting operations.

C. Impact to Uses

Under this alternative NOAA will work with affected fishing,
aquaculture and kelp harvesting entities to assess the level of
impact of their activities. Actions will be taken to minimize
negative consequences while at the same time addressing any
threat to Sanctuary resources and qualities.

111-46

J. Naval Inert Bombing Practice at Sealion Roc
1. Status Ouo
a. Existing-Regulatory Framework

The Navy voluntarily ceased practice bombing activities over
Sealion Rock. On August 18, 1993, the Secretary of Interior
rescinded the permit authorizing the Navy to use Sealion Rock as
an alternate practice bombing site. Therefore, the Navy may not
use Sealion Rock for practice bombing exercises unless it
receives a new authorization from the Secretary of the Interior.

b. Impact to Resources

The Navy's past bombing activities over Sealion Rock had
the greatest impact on seabirds and marine mammals. seabirds and
marine mammals exhibit startle reactions to the loud noise of the
A6 bombers. When seabirds flush from their nests in a startle
reaction they often knock their chicks from nests, leave them
vulnerable to prey by other birds such as gulls, or in the case
of common murres which hold their egg in their feet, drop their
eggs. All three reactions are extremely detrimental to seabird
populations which are vulnerable to population impacts because
they are colonial, mature late in their development, and produce
only a few offspring at a time. Most of the colonial seabird
populations in the Sanctuary are showing signs of serious decline
due to a variety of factors. Perhaps most indicative of this
decline are the common murres, whose population has plummeted
from approximately 30,000 in 1980 to approximately 3,000 in 1992
(Table 7).

Marine mammals also react in a startle response in such a
way as to endanger the young. When startled, pinnipeds stampede
into the water often crushing the young in the process.

C. Impact to Uses

Under this alternative the Navy may not use Sealion Rock
without a new authorization for the Secretary of the Interior.

2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred)
a. Sanctuary Action

The Navy's use of Sealion Rock as a practice bombing target
is determined to be incompatible with Sanctuary designation.
Therefore, the Sanctuary will prohibit all bombing activities
within the Sanctuary. Further, the regulations will provide that
no exemption from this prohibition may be issued.

b. Impact to Resources

This prohibition will provide maximum protection to the
seabirds and marine mammals by ensuring that they are undisturbed

111-47

0 q
0 su
rt-V
m 1-i
m

0
0)
EQ
Y E A R rt, z
COLONY -
0
LOCATION 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1-t
(D

White Rock 120 630 55 -- -- 450 195 En0

Jagged Isl. -- -- 155 -- -- -- 655 -- -800 450 480 250 2S 2S70
jo0
Petrel Isl. 480 1600 -- .855 1200 620 -- 350 1480 -- -- rt
0
:j0
Quillayute . z
Needles 1555 1590 300 900 30 -- 175 450 2370 2-650 1870 2210 jq50 A120 H 9
Rounded
Isl. 2130 3435 850 2180 200 a00 300 -- -- %0
I (D
I middle Etock -- -- -- -- -- 1800 450
ko
00 Willoughby tj rt
Isl. 5300 3115 3800 5270 850 -- 40 -- 35 200 15 119'

Split Rock 9150 3075 8350 10450 -- 100 -- 450 50 75 -- ISO J.
0
Point
Grenville
Isla. 3800 3595 1650 3640 910 1050 300 1600 450 50 75 125 qZ5' SOO
(D
m
Grenville a
Arch 8985 5825 3250 5015 -- -- 50 15 5050 250 75 850 Z5 50 H-
ts
TOTALS 3.1520 22235 18355 28940 3190 2470 3380 2905 10655 3895 3675 3900
A
rHCf -
rt
m
w

rt
@r
m

during the most sensitive time in their ecology.

C. Impact to Uses

This alternative.could place an operational inconvenience on
the Navy. The prohibition on bombing activities within the
Sanctuary will provide a more positive experience for those
individuals living on the Peninsula or visiting the Olympic
National Park, and Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.

111-49

III Section: Management Alternatives
A. Introduction

Three management alternatives were identified and considered
in terms of (l) resource protection, research, and education
requirements, and (2) cost-effectiveness. The Management Plan
(Part V) includes a detailed discussion of the proposed Sanctuary
management regime regarding resource protection, research,
education and administration.

B. Alternatives
1. Status Ouo

Under this alternative protection and management of the
Sanctuary will remain entirely under the existing regime of
Federal, state and local authorities, and existing research and
education facilities and programs with no NOAA presence.

2 Sanctuary Management Alternative 1 (Preferred)

Under this alternative, NOAA would establish an independent
management and administrative system for the Sanctuary in a
headquarters that is managed and.operated directly by NOAA. The
location of the headquarters will initially be in Seattle at
NOAA's Sand Point Facility. Staffing will initially include a
NOAA Sanctuary and operations manager and phase in an assistant
manager, research and education coordinator and a joint position
of an interpreter/enforcement official.

The office would coordinate directly and actively with other
state and local agencies in decision making and implementation of
Sanctuary regulations. The priority in the first two years would
be to establish the Sanctuary Steering Committee and initiate a
comprehensive planning initiative to identify research, education
and administrative priorities and siting of offices on the
Olympic Peninsula.

3. Sanctuary Management Alternative 2

This alternative establishes Sanctuary headquarters on the
Peninsula soon after designation (within six months) and
immediately provides full-staffing in the positions described for
Sanctuary management alternative 1. The priority of this
alternative is immediate full staffing and siting of headquarters
and satellite offices immediatel- after designation rather than
Y
immediate investment in a watershed planning initiative. The
feasibility of this alternative depends upon the availability of
funding.

111-50

PART IV: Environmental Consecuences of Alternatives

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Section: Boundary Alternatives ........................... 5
A. Introduction ......................................... 5
B. Boundary Alternative I ............................... 5
C. Boundary Alternative 2 ............................... 8
D. Boundary Alternative 3 .............................. 14
E. Boundary Alternative 4 .............................. 19
F. Boundary Alternative 5 ............................... 31

Section: ReOulatory Alternatives ........................ 42
A. Introduction ........................................ 42
B. Oil, Gas, and Mineral Activities .................... 43
1. Status Quo ..................................... 43
a. Consequence of Impact to Resources ........ 43
b. Consequence of Impact to Uses ............. 60
2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) .............. 61
a. Consequence of Impact to Resources ........ 61
b. Consequence of Impact to Uses ............. 61
C. Discharges or Deposits .............................. 62
1. Status Quo ..................................... 62
a. Consequence of Impact to Resources ........ 62
(1) Discharges from Point Sources ........ 63
(2) Discharges from Non-Point Sources .... 63
(3) Hazardous Waste, oil and trash
disposal ............................. 63
(4) ocean Dumping ........................ 64
b. Consequence of Impact to Uses ............. 65
2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) .............. 65
a. Consequence of Impact to Resources ........ 65
b. Consequence of Impact to Uses ............. 65
D. Historical Resources ................................ 67
1. Status Quo ..................................... 67
a. Consequence of Impact to Resources ........ 67
b. Consequence of Impact to Uses ............. 68
2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) .............. 68
a. Consequence of Impact to Resources ........ 68
b. Consequence of Impact to Uses ............. 69
E. Alteration of, or Construction on, the Seabed ....... 70
1. Status Quo ..................................... 70
a. Consequence of Impact to Resources ........ 70
b. Consequence of Impact to Uses ............. 70
2. Sanctuary Alternative .......................... 70
a. Consequence of Impact to Resources ........ 70
b. Consequence of Impact to Uses ............. 70
F. Taking Marine Mammals,Turtles and Seabirds ......... 76
1. Status Quo ..................................... 76
a. Consequence of Impact to Resources ........ 76
b. Consequence of Impact to Uses ............. 77
2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) .............. 77
a. Consequence of Impact to Resources ..... o..77

IV-1

b. Consequence of Impact to Uses ............. 77
G. Overflights .......................................... 78
1. Status Quo ...................................... 78
a. Consequence of Impact to Resources ........ 78
b. Consequence of Impact to Uses ............. 78
2. Sanctuary Alternative .......................... 79
a. Consequence of Impact to Resources ........ 79
b. Consequence of Impact to Uses ............. 79
H. Vessel Traffic ....................................... 79
1. Status Quo (Preferred) ......................... 79
a. Consequence of Impact to Resources ........ 79
b. Consequence of Impact to Uses ............. 79
2. Sanctuary Alternative .......................... 89
a. Consequence of Impact to Resources ........ 89
b. Consequence of Impact to Uses ............. 89
I. Fishing, Kelp harvesting and Aquaculture ............ 89
1. Status Quo (Preferred) ......................... 89
a. Consequence of Impact to Resources ........ 89
b. Consequence of Impact to Uses ............. 89
2. Sanctuary Alternative .......................... 90
a. Consequence of Impact to Resources ........ 90
b. Consequence of Impact to Uses ............. 90
J. Navy Bombing of Sealion Rock ........................ 91
1. Status Quo ...................................... 91
a. Consequence of Impact to Resources ........ 91
b. Consequence of Impact to Uses ............. 91
2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) .............. 91
a. Consequence of Impact to Resources ........ 91
b. Consequence of Impact to Uses ............. 91

III. Section Management Alternative Consequences ....... ..91
A. Consequences of Status Quo .......................... 91
1. Enforcement .................................... 91
2. Research and Education ......................... 94
B. Consequences of Sanctuary Alternative 1 ............. 94
1. Enforcement ...... .............................. 95
2. Research and Education ......................... 95
C. Consequences of Sanctuary Alternative 2 ............. 95
1. Enforcement ..................................... 95
2. Research and Education ......................... 95
IV. Section: Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or
Socioeconomic Effects .......................... 96

V. Section: Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the
Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement
of Long-term Productivity ...................... 97

IV-2

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES

This section evaluates the environmental consequences of
each boundary, regulatory and management alternatives for the
Sanctuary including the status quo (no action). The consequences
of each action are discussed in the context of the predicted
impacts to the affected activities and existing jurisdictions,
and resources and qualities of the Sanctuary.

Appendix C evaluates each boundary alternative with respect
to the distribution of colonial seabirds, marine mammals,
invertebrates and fish. Because the study conducted by the
Strategic Environmental Assessment Branch of NOAA was undertaken
prior to the publication of the DEIS/MP, the Strait of Juan de
Fuca is not part of the analysis presented in Appendix C.
Pursuant to comments on the DEIS/MP, NOAA has undertaken a
comprehensive analysis of the resources and uses of the Strait of
Juan de Fuca. This analysis is presented in the following
discussion of boundary alternative 4.

IV-3

I. Section: Boundary Alternatives
A. Introduction

The five boundary alternatives analyzed will protect
resources and attributes of the ecosystem off the Olympic Coast
to varying degrees of aerial extent. Each boundary alternative
is described on the basis of the resources and human uses
encompassed by the alternative. The environmental consequences
of each boundary alternative are discussed in the context of the
preferred resource protection and management regime.

B. Boundary Alternative 1.

Boundary alternative 1 extends from Koitlah Point just west
of Neah Bay to Pt. Grenville and seaward to the three nautical
mile limit of state jurisdiction. This boundary encompasses an
area of 315 sq. nautical miles. This boundary alternative focuses
primarily on land/sea interactions and the protection of seabird
colonies and pinniped haul-out sites. Most of the coast between
Cape Flattery and Point Grenville is dominated by steep cliffs
rising abruptly from shore 50 to 300 feet above a wave-cut
platform. Interspersed among these cliffs are pocket beaches.
Small islands, sea stacks, and rocks dot the coastal and offshore
waters. Most of the rocks and islands are included within the
boundary of the National Wildlife Refuges and Olympic National
Park.

There is very little human development along this coastal
boundary. The Makah, Quileute, Hoh and Quinault Tribes have
reservations adjacent to the coastline and the remainder of the
coastline is under the jurisdiction of the Olympic National Park
and Washington State (between Pt. Grenville and Copalis Beach).
The coastal area of the Makah and Quinault Reservations encompass
the largest coastal areas of all four tribes, and their coastal
regions adjacent to this boundary alternative are dedicated
wilderness areas. Within the watersheds that drain into this
coastal boundary, the two principal land uses are recreation
associated with the Olympic Nationa*1 Park) and timbering
operations. There is anecdotal evidence that upland forest
practices are pressuring coastal resources such as kelp beds and
estuarine areas. The largest sources of freshwater discharges
are the Quinault, Queets, Hoh and Soleduck rivers.

Many tourists visiting the Olympic National Park travel to
the coastal areas to participate in sports fishing, birding,
hiking, kayaking, and razor clam digging. Tourism is
economically important to the tribes. The tribes also depend on
the coastal and intertidal resources for subsistence hunting and
gathering. Degradation of the coastal environments would
severely impact tribal economies.

Treaty and non-treaty fisheries are important human

IV-4

activities in this boundary. Treaty fishers use gillnets in the
mouths of the coastal streams to harvest salmon returning to
their spawning grounds. Treaty and non treaty fisheries for
salmon, groundfi.sh and shellfish occur offshore.

There are numerous archeological resources within this
boundary which are significant to the coastal tribes. These
include burial grounds, and other areas of cultural and spiritual
significance. The Makah Archeological Museum documents some of
the tribal archeological history of the area. Many artifacts
recovered from the recently excavated Ozette Village are
preserved and displayed at the museum. There have been numerous
shipwrecks on the rocks and islands, however most have
disintegrated from the high wave energy in this region. There is
evidence that during the period of the last glaciation, there
were human settlements seaward of the present day coastline.
However, boundary alternative 1 excludes much of the region
believed to contain offshore archeological resources.

Boundary alternative 1 includes Sealion Rock. The Navy has
permission from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to use Sealion
Rock as a practice bombing target. Whidbey Island and Pacific
Naval Fleet A6 bombers drop inert bombs on the island. While the
Navy has voluntarily ceased their practice bombing activities
over Sealion Rock, their ability to use Sealion Rock in the
future depends upon the outcome of a lawsuit brought against the
Navy and the USFWS. The lawsuit addresses the legality of the
permit issued by the Department of Interior under which the Navy
is authorized to use Sealion Rock.

There is minimal vessel traffic in this region due to the
rocky nature of the shoreline and strong wave action. There may
be an occasional tug and barge transiting the coast close to
shore where there are few rocks, but most are likely to traverse
seaward of the refuges. This boundary precludes the Sanctuary
from addressing vessel traffic which, although predominately
outside of 3 miles, threatens the coastal ecosystem.

The benthos off the coast is predominately sand which
originates north of Point Grenville from sediments transported by
the Strait of Juan de Fuca and upland drainage basins. South of
Pt. Grenville sediments originate from drainage basins emptying
into the Columbia River. Overlaying the bedrock along many areas
of the coast are gravel deposits laid down by glacial streams
during glaciation of the Olympic Mountains. The most extensive
gravel deposits are found off Cape Flattery and just north of the
Quinault River. Boundary alternative 1 would encompass the
deposits off the Quinault River, but exclude those off Cape
Flattery.

Extensive macrocystis kelp beds extend from Koitlah Point to
Cape Alava and into the Strait of Juan de Fuca to observatory

IV-5

Point and boundary alternative I encompasses that portion of kelp
on the outer coast. There is anecdotal evidence that in the
recent past the kelp beds extended further south than Cape Alava.
High sedimentation is believed among some to be the cause of the
decline in kelp biomass. A lack of monitoring activities along
the outer coast makes it difficult to substantiate this
observation. Boundary alternative 1 includes the kelp resources
along the outer coast, but excludes the extensive and diverse
kelp beds located in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

NOAA's analysis demonstrates that boundary alternative 1 is
one of the least significant areas in the study are with respect
to total aggregate fish resources (see Appendix C). Some
commercial salmon, crab, and recreational groundfish fisheries
occurs in this boundary, however significant fish resources and
harvesting areas are excluded. Boundary alternative 1 includes
much of the recreational fishing areas for bottomfish, some of
the recreational areas for salmon, and excludes most of the
halibut fishing grounds. This boundary alternative also excludes
the seaward extent of the commercial salmon fishing grounds.

Boundary alternative 1 rates most significant with respect
to invertebrates (Appendix C). This analysis, however, does not
include the Strait of Juan de Fuca which has remarkable subtidal
invertebrate communities. In fact, the intertidal areas of the
Olympic Peninsula represents some of the most diverse intertidal
habitats in the world. The intertidal habitats have been studied
extensively at Tatoosh Island by researchers from several
Universities.

When compared to the other boundary alternatives, Boundary
alternative I is significant for offering haul out sites and
rookery areas for pinnipeds, but, excludes many of the haulout
sites in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. It is, however, one of the
least significant boundary alternatives for marine cetaceans.
This boundary does not encompass the foraging habitats or
migration routes of,the marine mammals and thus is incomplete
from an ecosystem perspective.

This boundary alternative includes most of the colonial
seabird nesting sites in the study area, and some of the largest
number of seabird colonies in the contiguous United States. A
small number of colonies exist slightly east of Koitlah Point
outside of this boundary alternative. Boundary alternative 1 is
limited in that it does not include the foraging areas of the
seabirds. Seabirds such as the storm petrel forage for days at
the shelf edge during the nesting season. Other seabirds forage
at varying distances from the nesting sites. Thus, this boundary
alternative offers no protection for these critical foraging and
nesting habitats from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and
development, or vessel traffic accidents. The coastal area of
this boundary alternative is remote with few access points. This

IV@-6

remoteness, coupled with the extreme sensitivity of rocky
intertidal habitat, pinnipeds, and colonial seabirds, makes this
coastal region particularly vulnerable to impacts from offshore
development.

The few airstrips along the coastal boundaries of the
Sanctuary include the Copalis Beach air strip (accessible at low
tide when landings and takeoffs are not obstructed by driftwood),
and an unstaffed airstrip at Quileute. One cargo plane daily
uses the Quileute airstrip Monday through Friday. There are 40
additional operations per week at the Quileute airport. There is
no radar coverage below 3000 ft and therefore no statistics
available on the number of aircraft flying over the Sanctuary.
Most aircraft are recreational craft or small air taxis which are
believed to observe a 2000 ft. advisory over the National Park
and National Wildlife Refuges., There are no altitude
restrictions over the Sanctuary waters. During the nesting and
breeding season, low flying aircraft present a threat to
Sanctuary resources. This boundary alternative will protect the
colonial seabirds and mammals of the Sanctuary by prohibiting
overflights less than 2000 ft.

In summary, boundary alternative I surrounds some of the
significant features that one can see from the shore, i.e.,
seabird nesting colonies, pinniped haul-out sites, part of the
cetacean migration corridor, some of the kelp habitat, much of
the rocky intertidal habitats and pocket beaches. It is,
however, severely limited in encompassing the entire ecosystem in
that is does not protect the extent of these resources, including
those that exist further offshore and into the Strait of Juan de
Fuca. This larger ecosystem supports the biological features
visible from shore. This boundary alternative also provides no
buffer against activities that could seriously impact the coastal
resources.

Figures 59-62 depict boundary alternative 1 in relation to
fisheries, marine mammal haulout sites, kelp habitat, seabird
colonies and foraging areas, and human uses other than shipping.

C. Boundary Alternative 2

Boundary alternative 2 extends the seaward boundary of
Boundary alternative 1 to the 50 fathom isobath and the southern
boundary to Copalis Beach. It encompasses an area of
approximately 1100 square nautical miles. It has all the
features of boundary alternative 1 but includes more fishing
grounds including all the crab fishing areas, and more of the
commercial salmon and groundfish fishing grounds. When
considering the relative density of fish species in the study
area, based on commercial and recreational harvests, boundary
alternative 2 contains approximately 27% of the density of fish
in the study area (Appendix D). There is active vessel traffic

IV-7

126*10' 126*0(Y 126W 125*00, 124*30' 124*00' 123o3W 123*20'
48*45' W45'
It 11 t
J

48W - 48'30'
0 -4.

00
@_'Oo
4
Sao---

A
48*00' -
4eW
BOUN
ALTERN T'IVE
NO. 1

-s

4730' -
47*30'

(,NyoN
uu'%%O@ ov@

LEGEND -
FISHING AREAS

Commercia] Finfish

Sport Finfish

47*W -
09 Razor Clam Beaches 47W
Pink Shrimp T@awhng ri-,r

Crabbing

Sh.Ufh Aq.a(!.It.,,.

46W - 46'30'
UNITED STATES-WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
1 0 NAUUQI@ Kall@'
P -
46* 12' 46'1V
126*1V 121r00' 125*00' 124*30' 1?,4'00' 123*30' 123*20'

Figure 59. Boundary Alternative 1 in Relation to Fisheries.

IV--8

126* 1V 1WW 125*W ww 1?W30' 124*W 123*30' 128*W
,045' -777
045'

f,-

J @/'
48'X 50 48o3O'

ZW 10,
lee.

20o
3oc
140o
soo- 5o

P",

ww
48OW
BOUNDARY'
A
'RNAT VE
LTE
NO.1

47*30'
47030' -
C@' "JO GANYO@
,00

MARINE MAMMALS
AND KELP BEDS
it

Kelp Beds
4

Distribution of Se Otters
47*00' - (1976-1987) so 47000'
ooo-k-
so
HAULOUT AREAS 4, so 6

o Harbor Sea]

0 CaUfornia Sea Lion

0 Northern Sea Lion

46*30'
46'30'
UNITED STATES -WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
NAUTICAL VILE8
I H H 1_@ F
Ri
460 Ix 46*12'
3
126* IV @00 126*w 126*W 124*W 124*00' 123*30' 123020'

Figure 60. Boundary Alternative 1 in Relation to Marine Mammal
Haulout Sites and Distribution of Kelp Habitat.

IV-9

126* 10' 126*W 125*W m*w 124o3O' 124*00' 123'W 123*W
4W45' 48*45'
7,

50
V, 48*W

so
x - -z:=

48*W - + 4WW
UNDARY',
A ERN
NO. 1

47'30'
47*W - +
@0 r1t
CANYON
,00

SEABIRD

47*W
41MY BREEDING COLONIES
71, P +
(Ordered by Sim of Colony)

Less Than 100 Birds ?

0
100-1000 Birds

1000-10,000 Birds
0
0 Over 10,000 B
irds
ka\
Bay
V

46'W UNITED STATES -WEST COAST 46*W
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY j
.NAUTICAL MUM
10 1@
46'12' L-7 46*1Z
W10, 1ww m1w UAW M.00, 12r3O' 123*W

Figure 61. Boundary Alternative I in Relation to Seabird Colonies
.and Seabird Foraging Range.

IV_-10

126* 10' 126*W 125*30, 125000' 124*30' 124*00' 123*30' 123* W
48*45' 4845'

48-30' - 50 W30'

A131
so,

500- _____50_
30 - --:z@

48-00' 48*00'

A
NO. 1

47*30' 47'30'

-LEGEND-
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES

Dredged Material
47*00' Disposal Sites 47*00'

Gravel Deposits

Highlighted Areas

j wl
AS
46*30' - L 46*30'
UNITED STATES-WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUAR4
NAU11CAL MILF
s'
H H

46*12" _j A n 46'12'
126*1V 126*00' 126'30' 125*00' 124*30' 124*00' 123*30' 123*2W

Figure 62. Boundary Alternative 1 in Relation to Vessel Traffic
Management Regimes, Dredge Disposal Sites, Oil and Gas
Resources and Gravel Deposits.

IV-11

through this boundary including most of the tug and barge
traffic, and foreign product carriers and foreign tankers. There
are estimated to be oil and gas reserves under the Federal OCS.

Boundary alternative 2 contains approximately 30% of the
density of invertebrates within the entire study area (excluding
the Strait of Juan de Fuca). Dungeness Crab, ocean pink shrimp
and giant octopus account for the majority of invertebrates
within this boundary alternative.

With respect to marine mammals, boundary alternative 2 is
only slightly more significant than boundary alternative 1.
While it increases the area encompassing the whale migration
routes, it fails to include the significant marine mammal
foraging habitats and migration routes found near the edge of the
continental shelf.

This boundary alternative encompasses more seabird foraging
area as well. However, as with 'mammals, this boundary excludes
the rich neretic zone environments near the shelf and canyon
edges significant to seabird ecology. The boundary also excludes
the intense foraging area right outside the Strait of Juan de
Fuca over the Juan de Fuca canyon where millions of seabirds are
found foraging during the summer months.

There are more vessels (tugs and barges and foreign product
carriers) that transit the waters encompassed by boundary
alternative 2 than boundary alternative 1. While domestic
tankers transporting petroleum products in coastwise transit
remain offshore well outside boundary alternative 2 pursuant to
the voluntary agreement of the WSPA, many domestic barges engaged
in coastwise traffic transit within boundary alternative 2. The
Mukkaw Bay anchorage, where vessels anchor awaiting either
available pilots in Port Angeles for entry into Puget Sound, or
directions from home ports, is also located within boundary
alternative 2. The Sanctuary would work with the Canadian and
U.S. Coast Guards to undertake an educational campaign to inform
mariners of Sanctuary status and the applicable regulations.
This boundary alternative does not completely allow the Sanctuary
program to address the impacts from vessel traffic since vessels
including many tugs and barges transit further than the seaward
extent of this boundary.

With respect to oil and gas development, boundary
alternative 2 adds Sanctuary control over an additional
percentage of the estimated oil and gas reserves in Federal
water. Since there is a prohibition on oil and gas within the
boundaries of the Sanctuary, this boundary provides a buffer for
the coastal resources. But it does not encompass the reserves
that extend seaward to the continental shelf.

In summary, boundary alternative 2 adds more resources and

IV-12

uses within the Sanctuary boundary than are encompassed by
boundary alternative 1. Boundary alternative 2, however,
excludes a significant amount of the coastal ecosystem and areas
that support uses which threaten the integrity of the Sanctuary.
The relationship of boundary alternative 2 with respect to the
extent of resources and uses is depicted in Figures 63-66.

D. Boundary Alternative 3

Boundary alternative 3 expands upon boundary alternatives 1
and,2 by extending the seaward boundary to the continental shelf.
It encompasses an area of approximately 1805 square nautical
miles. While it cuts across the head of the Quinault Canyon, it
excludes the more significant Juan de Fuca Canyon. As such, it
is an area enriched by enhanced upwelling from the edge of the
continental shelf and the Juan de Fuca Canyon which fuels the
rich ecosystem over the shelf and near the shelf edge. This area
encompasses significantly more fishing grounds including salmon
trolling areas and groundfish trawling areas. It includes the
productive banks that surround the Juan de Fuca Canyon along its
southern edge. This alternative also encompasses the pink shrimp
trawling areas near the shelf edge.

Boundary alternative 3 includes approximately 42% of the
fish resources (Appendix C).' Lingcod, rockfish, sablefish and
salmon are common fish resources within this boundary
alternative. This boundary alternative encompasses a
significantly increased portion of the fishing grounds for sole,
rockfish, halibut, sablefish, lingcod, hake, Pacific cod, and
includes the entire pink shrimp trawling areas north of Point
Grenville. It also encompasses more commercial salmon harvesting
areas.

Invertebrate densities (of commercial and recreational
significance) included by the seaward extension of boundary
alternative 3 are dominated by pink shrimp concentrations found
closer to the shelf edge and also added Dungeness crab
populations. This boundary alternative includes approximately
42% of the total invertebrate density calculated by NOAA
(excluding the Strait of Juan de Fuca).

The seaward portion of the study area added by boundary
alternative 3 is one of the most significant with respect to
marine mammals. Not only does it encompass significantly more of
the cetacean migration corridor, but it also adds an area where
there have been sitings of such rare whales that inhabit deeper
ocean environments such as the sperm whale and right whale, the
latter which is the most endangered of all whales.

Boundary alternative 3 adds significantly more colonial
seabird foraging areas at the shelf edge, especially for the
Leach's Storm Petrel. It also encompasses the mid-shelf and

IV-13

126o 10' 126000' 125'30' 125*00' 124*30' 124*00' 123*30' 123* 20'
48*45' &45'
$1, S_-
C

50
48-30' \+
48*30'
SEE

(200

(1500,

a
'J9

48*00' - 48*00'
BOUNDARY
ALTERNATFk_
NO. 2

147W45 iWii,
247W45' IV
347&48' 124*W25
447-45' : 124'W49'
3.03,06
5 14 124 001
64.'1443 124*54'22'
74nW26 124*48'54' Vt
4M17' IPA-&13' WA.

4rr3O' 47'30'
P@

CANYON

LEGEND -
FISHING AREAS 0@44

Commercial Finfish

Sport Finfish

47*00' -
4, 00'
Razor Clain Beaches

Pink Shrimp IYawling
Fs@

Crabbing M.-
ur

Shellfish Aq.ae.1t.r,

R
A6V k
QW,
46'30'
46*30' -
UNITED STATES -WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
NAU71CAL MILES

Rn-
46* 12' 46*12'
126* 10' 126*00' li@30' 125'00' 124 1?AoW' 123*30' 123*20'
1 A"@117

Figure 63. Boundary Alternative 2 with Respect to Fisheries.

iv-. 14

126* 10' 126*00' 125*30' 125*00' M'30' 124*00' 123'30' 123*20'
48*45' - - 48*45'

49*30'
48*30'

< ptjcq
200
300, ob,
$0
500, 0'
30
T-,@ ,

V00,
48'00'

BOUNDARY
ALTERNATIVE
NO. 2 V V"
LATITUDF, LONGITUD
I
47W45 IW11'02'
247*0745' ffww 'k
a47-&4r 24W 4
4r45'06' IW501"@
4 49
54
648'W14' 12V5T 2W
48*14'43' 124*64' 2
6
74M26' 124*4g64
84r&17' 1241&13

4rr3O' -
7 t 47o3O'
7,

CA11'0"
W,

MARINE MAMMALS
AND KELP BEDS

Kelp Beds

Distribution of Sea Otters
47*00' - (1976-1987)
47oOO'

HAULOUT AREAS

Harbor Seal

0 California Sea Lion

(3 Northern Sea Lion

46*30' 46-30'
UNITED STATES-WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
i-6W
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
NAU11CAL MILE'

46* IV 46*12!
126*10' 126*00' 125'30' 125*00' 124'30' 124*00' 123'30' 123'20'

Figure 64. Boundary Alternative 2 with Respect to Marine Mammal
Haulout Sites and Kelp Habitat.

IV-15

126'10' 126'00' 125*30' 125*W 124o3O' 124'00' 123*30' 123*20'
48*45' (0 4946!

48-M
48*30'

16
ucA
io .0-,
oo--"),
-3o-
61
u
00
6
6
48*00'r
48*00'

-R,
OUN ' @ \ .
A TER \o.
N 2

I 7W45' IWII'02'
tu'39w
7W45'
4 4K 124 25'
1 4 'w 124 w5O' - 4
14' IU*57W
49'1'43- t24*542r
7 124.1
4m

47*30' -
47*3Y
7'

ANYON'

SEABIR
D
47'00' - BREEDING COLONIES
(Ord@ by Size of Colmy) 6 N' 4'rOO'
'7

Less Than 100 Birds

o
100-1000 Birds 'I
0 1000-10,000 Birds
0 Over 10,000 Bird.,

WWWBay
Aqp)

46*3(
UNITED STATES
- WEST COAST j 4M'
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
NAIJT[Q@@ MILES,,
\4 3ri
121V10' 126-W li@30' 125*00' 46*12'
124*30' 124W 12a*30' 123*W

Figure 65. Boundary Alternative 2 with Respect to Seabird Colony
Sites and Foraging Range.

IV-16

126* 10' 126*00' 125*30' 125*00' 124*30' 124'00' 123'30' 123* 20'
48'45' 48*45'

48'30' 48*30'

'100
('200-
&e4
300-
L400
so
500,
30
U.& rht su@

woo, - WOO'

B
ALTERN
NO
LATITunp.
147ff45'
2

4"1". 124*5W49'
548'"14' 124 700'
64TI4'43' 12454'22'
74M'
N: M'48'54' rX,
48'21'17 I24'ffIr

47'30'
47o3O'

-LEGEND-
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES

Dredged Material
47oOO' Disposal Sites
47'00'
Gravel Deposits

Highlighted Areas

Wa-

46'30' -
46*30'
UNITED STATES -WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUAR4
NAUTICAL MILES
25

46* 12 146*12'
126*10' 12@00' 125'30' 125*00' 124'30' 124oOO' 123'30' 123'20'

Figure 66. Boundary Alternative 2 in Relation to Vessel Traffic
Management Regimes, Dredged Disposal Sites, oil and Gas
Resources and Gravel Deposits.

IV-17

nearshore foraging areas. However, it still excludes those
areas over the Juan de Fuca Canyon seaward from the entrance to
the Strait of Juan de Fuca where one is most likely to see the
densest concentrations of foraging seabirds. This area was
recognized by the most recent and comprehensive seabird study of
the West Coast, conducted by MMS, as one of the most significant
seabird habitats off the west coast of the contiguous U.S.

From a human-use perspective, this boundary would encompass
an increasing aerial extent of the former Lease Sale #132 which
adds a greater buffer from impacts of coastal development. This
will protect the viewshed off the Sanctuary by maintaining its
pristine quality. This boundary alternative also encompasses
more of the vessel traffic corridor. Radar coverage from Tofino
extends 15 miles into this boundary alternative. Figures 67-70
depict boundary alternative 3 with respect to the areal extent of
fisheries, marine mammal haul out sites, kelp distribution, and
human uses other than fishing.

E. Boundary Alternative 4

Boundary alternative 4 was the preferred boundary in the
DEIS/MP for the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.
Pursuant to comments on the DEIS/MP, NOAA has undertaken an
analysis of the resources, uses, and coastal development patterns
in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Boundary alternative 4, as it
appeared in the DEIS/MP, includes the area of boundary
alternative 3 and the addition of the head of the Juan de Fuca
Canyon. The boundary includes the key fishing areas off the
Strait, the most significant bird foraging areas, additional
ocean pink shrimp, squid, salmon, and groundfish harvesting
areas. This is also the area where vessels converge as they
enter and exit the Strait of Juan de Fuca. It is a complex area
in terms of managing human uses due to the variety of uses,
vessel types, cargo and languages spoken by mariners. This
complexity was most recently evidenced by the sinking of the
Tenyo Maru which resulted in an oil slick along the coast killing
numerous pinnipeds, birds and fish.

NOAA's analysis of the resources and uses in the Strait
demonstrate that the Strait is ecologically contiguous with the
outer coast environment. The Strait of Juan de Fuca is widely
recognized as a transition zone between the open ocean
characteristics of the outer Washington Coast and the inner sea
dynamics of Puget Sound proper. These characteristics include
beach profiles, sediment types, bathymetry, salinity, currents,
wave force, and biological resources. No study has been
identified that specifically defines a boundary between the outer
coast ecosystem and that of the inner sea. In any event, such a
boundary would hardly exist in nature as a fixed line of
demarkation but rather a band or zone where open ocean processes
cease to predominate and inner sea processes (hereafter referred

IV-18

126'10! 126'00, 125*30' 126*00' 124*30' 124'00' 123'30' 123'20'
48*45' - 48*45'

48-30' so 48*30'

.30
'DR 10,

200
1400 @00 @019
500, -V

48*00! wool

BOUNDARY
ALTERNAtIVP,--@@-
NO. 3
LATITUDE LONUITUD
1 47W45- Iwifor
2 47W46' IWWIT
4M'05'
3 "'Zoo'
4 47*4WO5' 12A*04
6 V50'01' I?ZW'4r
6 49'W001 1W 9!051
7 49*04'6r iwiew
8 4M52" mlw'T
9 @11 124*49m,
10 4M'17' im-wir

47*30'
4rr3O'

z
NyON

LEGEND -
FISHING AREAS

Commercial Finfish

Sport Finfish

47'00'
Razor Clain Beaches Avl, 47'00'
FS I Pink Shrimp T@awling N-@@-

Crabbing

Shellfish Aquacult.r.

46'30' -
49*30'
UNITED STATES-WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
0 NAUTICAL MILES
e,
46* 12' 14TIT
10' 126'*00' 125*30' 125*00' 1?A'30' 1?A*00' lV30' 123'20'

Figure 67. Boundary Alternative 3 with Respect to Fisheries.

IV-19

126* 10' 126'00' 125*30' 125000, 124'30' 124*00' 123'30' 123*20'
48*45' r 1 48*45'

10
Mo30' 48-30'

@,J
V.,

700
'200 0 @2
-00
r
400-'
@@500 So

7 8
I
N,

,0001 48*00'
BOUNDARY
ALTER NATIVE
NO. 3
LA,77TIlDF, LONGITUD
47W45- :24'11
2 VOT46' IW5811V
3 47*WO5* 26,00,00, W
4 4r4VO5' 124*04 44'
5 47*WOI' @25*05'42
6 48WW' IzV 9105,
7 4M52' 1 38'
125'14'
8 48'"52' 25.00"0:
9 49W26' 1M'48'u
10 4r&17' 124-&13'
3
4730' - +/ @j 47*30'
A
j,g
c NyON
0
,010p,
ip

X4
MARINE MAMMALS
AND KELP BEDS
7

Kelp Beds
;A",
V

Distribution of Sea Otters
(1976-1987) 00 r"-
4rrOO' - 4700'

HAULOUT AREAS
goo

Harbor Seal
g@j,

0 California Sea Lion

0 Northern Sea Lion

IMME11,
C@
46'30! - 46*30'
UNITED STATES-WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCT
UARY
NALJTICI@@ MILES"
9,
46* 12'1 46*12'
1?6*10' 126*00' 125*30' 125' 00, 124*30' 124*00' 123o3O' 123*20'

Figure 68. Boundary Alternative 3 with Respect to Marine Mammal
Haulout Sites and Kelp Habitat.

iv.-20

126*10' 126*00' 125*30' M*001 124'30' 124*00' 123'30' 123*20'
48*45' 48*45'

48*30' so 48*30'

A
Z@

C
200
300
00
20 "v'
30
4010

7 8

48*00' q 48*W
OUNDARY 0,
A ERNATI'@-E
NO.
LONCITUDE
7-0745- 'Wil":
1261woo
44 40'05' 124-04
54 '01' 12V"
648* 'N' I
'52' lW26'194'05'
7
I
148'04' 25'138'

10 4M" 124W'13'

47*30' 47*30'

G, 0yoN
ado'

SEABIRD
47'00' BREEDING COLONIES 47'00'
(Ordered by Size of Colony)

Less Than 100 Birds

0100-1000 Birds

01000-10,000 Birds
0Over 10,000 Bi
rds

Aj-
S
46o3O' 46*30'
UNITED STATES -WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
NAtMCAL MILES
X
46'12'. 46*12'
126*10' 126'00' 125*30' 125oOO' 124*30' I?A'00' 123'30' 123W
4

Figure 69. Boundary Alternative 3 with Respect to Seabird Colonies
and Seabird Foraging Range.

IV-21

126'10' 126'00' 125*30' 125*00' 124*3Y 124oW 123*30' 123*2V
48*45' r 48*45'

'0
48-30' so 48W
ov,

00
200
300-
@_500-
__@30
U
4@

48-W wool

ALTERN@,
NO. 7
,'All= L4
I 4rCT45'
2 4rO745'
' "W"' Iwoo 'W
4 4r401061 124*04'4C
6 47'50'01' 125W42'
6 4SWO01 125"11.
7 4M5r .438'
8 4M'5r 12MM
9 4M26' 124*48'54'
10 QW17' 124WtS*

47'30' -
47'30'

-LEGEND-
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES

Dredged aterial
Disposal Sites
47oOO' - 163M_1_1 '?), " : @... 47*00'
Gravel Deposits -b@

Highlighted Areas

46*3W - 46W
UNITED STATES -WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
NAUTICAL MILES

46*12'1 46*12'
126*10' 126*00' 125*00' 124*00' 123*30' 123'20'

Figure 70. Boundary Alternative 3 in Relation to Vessel Traffic
Management Regimes, Dredge Disposal Sites, Oil and Gas
Resources and Gravel Deposits.

IV-22

to as "estuarine") become more common. Once such a zone is
identified, a fixed boundary may be drawn that will include the
furthest inland approach of oceanic processes in any given
season.

The entire Strait of Juan de Fuca east to the San Juan
Islands is decidedly marine in character with water salinity
approaching that of the Pacific Ocean (29 to 21 ppt). Salinity
is often lowest

in the eastern and northern portions of the Strait due to the
influence of the Fraser River and other freshwater sources.
Surface temperatures range between 8* C and 11* C; the west
portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca is warmest due to the
influence of*Pacific Ocean Water" (Long, 1983). The water column
in the San Juan Island area is more stratified due to a large
volume of freshwater inflow from the Fraser River. Water density
in the Strait of Juan de Fuca is fairly homogeneous at all
depths. The salinity and temperature regime of the Strait does
not shift or change in any manner that would distinguish oceanic
from estuarine processes (Duxberry, p.c., 1992).

The center channel of the Strait exceeds 100 fathoms from
the western entrance to the head of the Juan de Fuca subsea
canyon (offshore of the Twin River estuary). The westward limit
of the Juan de Fuca Canyon extends several miles off the
Washington coast. Though upwelled water travels up the canyon,
upwelling occurs across the width of the Strait. However, the
distribution and density of upwelled nutrients in the Strait has
not been systematically identified (Duxbery, p.c., 1992).

Studies in the late 1970's conclude "that year-round net
circulation in the Strait consists of a rigorous two-layer
estuarine (current] pattern with seaward flowing near-surface
currents of 20-40 cm/S and landward flowing deeper currents of -
10 cm/S. The level of no net motion is typically between 40 and
60 m. These studies also have shown that during non-summer
months, the near surface (upper 15 m) circulation in the western
Strait is dominated by the sub-tidal motions with periods of 5-30
days which induce reversals in the estuarine flow of up to 60
cm/S. Such sub-tidal fluctuations are strongly correlated with
local winds, atmospheric pressure, and sea level. During a later
winter experiment in the eastern strait, seven such current
reversals lasting from 2-6 days with maximum upstrait velocities
of 20 cm/s were found to depend upon the direction, strength, and
duration of winds associated with coastal cyclonic storms.
During current reversals, coastal water, which can be fresher
owing to Columbia River discharge and warmer owing to summer
heating, has been observed to intrude up to 135 km into the
strait (vicinity of Dungeness Spit)" (Frisch et al., 1981).
Studies have "also found evidence for the reversals to intrude
along the southern half of the western strait first ... Details of

IV-23

the flow at the'interface between inflow and outflow were mapped
with an HF current-mapping radar and reveal complex mixing
circulation with diversion to the south" (Frisch et al., 1981).
This area of mixing is located between Victoria BC, Dungeness
Spit and Port Angeles. In addition to these surface and deep-
water current flows, longshore flows between Cape Flattery and
Dungeness Spit are not appreciable for the most part, but when
existing (usually in pocket beach areas) flow in an easterly
direction (Schwartz, 1991).

The coastline west of the Elwha delta is composed
predominately of bedrock. It is characterized by rocky exposed
shorelines and intertidal areas, small estuaries, short pocket
beaches, and high steep backshores. The armored shoreline is
stable with a minimum of longshore sediment transport (net shore-
drift). The coastline east of the Elwha Delta is primarily
composed of eroded and compacted glacial till. It is
characterized by sand spits, protected bays, gradually sloped
beaches and mudflats (Shipman, 1992).

The geological break at the Elwha Delta between western and
eastern features of the Strait coincides with biological
distinctions in the same area. West of the Elwha River delta are
the most proliferous macrocystis kelp beds in the state (located
near the Twin River delta). Macrocystis is described as *
"strictly an open coast species" (Kyte, 1992) and extends into
the Strait eastward to Crescent Rock where it abruptly ends.

The macrocystis beds are accompanied by other organisms
endemic to the outer coast. Three species. of oceanic sea anemone
are found inland to Tongue Point. These are Urticina Lofotensis
(White Spotted Tillia), Urticina Piscivora (Fish Eating Tillia),
and Anthopleura Xanthogrammica (giant green anemone). Giant
green anemone range eastward beyond Tongue Point but only to
Observatory Point where their concentrations end. Though some
are found sporadically in the San Juan Islands, no significant
populations exist east of Observatory Point (Kyte, 1992).

The Purple Urchin (Stronglocentrotus Purpuratus) is a grazer
that moves among the rocks in search of kelp. Purple Urchin
populations do not extend east of Tongue Point except for
scattered numbers in the San Juan Islands.

Two common oceanic invertebrates, California Mussels
(Mytilus Californianus) and Gooseneck Barnacles (Pollicipes
Polymerus), also share the exposed rocky habitat of the north
Olympic Peninsula. These species are commonly found on the outer
Washington coast. A cursory survey from the Elwha River to Slip
Point identified mixed populations of these species between
Observatory Point and Tongue Point in the east and between Pillar
Point and Slip Point to the west (Goodwin, 1992). Both species
form dense beds in the intertidal zone where wave action is

IV-24

strong. Gooseneck Barnacles are only found on vertical to near-
vertical surfaces. Giant green anemones settle into these
colonies during their early life stages. As the anemones mature,
they move into the lower intertidal and subtidal zones where wave
action makes prey available to this passive predator. Giant
green anemones may live from 50 to 100 years and grow up to a
foot in circumference. Also associated with the mussels and
barnacles is the Purple or Ocher Sea Star (Pisaster Ochraceus), a
predator to both species.

An important element to any ecosystem is the relationships
between the organisms found there. The organisms listed above
interact with each other to form one example of biological
interdependence along the shores of the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
The rocky substrate and strong wave action from the Pacific Ocean
create the conditions necessary for the proliferation of the
California mussels and gooseneck barnacles. These residents feed
on plankton that is washed in by the surf. Another resident, the
purple urchin, grazes on the nearby kelp. As the mussels and
barnacles colonize into dense beds, the green anemone moves in
and waits for urchins and other organisms to be scoured from the
rocks by strong waves and delivered into it's tentacles. This
set of interactions has been documented by Dr. Robert Paine
(Professor of Zoology at the University of Washington). Though
some of the species involved may be found individually in areas
of the San Juan Islands, these species are never found together
as a functioning community east of Observatory Point. Since the
community is common to the outer coastal regions of the Pacific
Northwest, its presence in the Strait provides an indicator that
the coastal ecosystem extends into the Strait as far east as
Observatory Point.

Macrocystis, as an individual species, is decidedly an open
coast oriented kelp. The fact that rocky habitat extends east of
Crescent Rock - Macrocystis does not - indicates that factors
beyond mere topography are necessary for its survival beyond that
point. Since Macrocystis thrives on the coast, some significant
property of the coastal environment must end at Crescent Rock.
This indicates a break between the oceanic processes of the outer
coast and the estuarine processes of inner Puget Sound. It
should be noted that Crescent Rock is within six miles of the
point where the community in the previous paragraph ceases to
function. Macrocystis also serves as a food source for sea
urchin which in turn serve as prey for sea otters (Enhydra
Lutris) . Macrocystis beds are a common habitat feature where
sea otters are present.

Sea otters have been identified inside the strait as far as
First Beach on the eastern side of Neah Bay. "The sea otter is
on the list of Washington State Endangered Species. The federal
government considers the California sea otter a threatened
species, but not the Alaskan sea otter (the source stock of sea

IV-25

otters in Washington)" (Calambokidis et al., 1987). The Strait
contains the greatest percentage of Washington shoreline occupied
by kelp (Thom and Hallum, 1990). As the Washington Coast sea
otter population expands, it is expected that otters will move
into these prime habitat areas of the strait (Strickland and
Chasan, 1989).

The Strait of Juan de Fuca serves as a transit and migration
corridor for marine birds, mammals and ocean organisms entering
from the outer coast. Up to 300,000 common murres may enter
northern Puget Sound in any given. year during the molting season.
Since the birds are mostly flightless, they must use the Strait
to access the inland waterways (Strickland and Chasan, 1989).
Drift studies have identified oceanic species in significant
quantities as far east as Dungeness Spit. Curt Ebbesmeypr has
been studying currents and drift patterns in the Strait for 15
years and estimates that 1 of every 1000 organisms on the
Washington Coast enters the Strait of'juan de Fuca on eastward
current flows and migrates along the north shore of the Olympic
Peninsula. Such transfers of outer coast resources are
.indicative of an inland extension of the coastal ecosystem.
(Note: The 1/1000 transfer capacity of the currents is also
Ebbesmeyer's estimate for the rate at which oil spilled at the
Strait entrance would travel inland.)

There is evidence that up to 15 gray whales spend the summer
near Cape Flattery. Gray whales have often been sighted well
inside the Strait of Juan de Fuca. "Unlike most cetaceans, gray
whales feed on bottom animals; in Northwest 'waters, these prey
include amphipod and mysid crustaceans near kelp beds"
(Strickland and Chasan, 1989). A 1985-86 survey of gray whale
presence between Cape Flattery and Pillar Point tracked a
continuous presence of the species from December through the
summer. Gray whales were often seen foraging in kelp beds
between Koitlah Point and the Sekiu River (Calambokidis et al.,
1987).

In the above survey conducted between Cape Flattery and
Pillar Point, "two species of small cetaceans were frequently
seeni..Harbor porpoise were the most abundant cetacean and were
seen primarily from 0.5 to 1.5 nm offshore. Sighting frequency
of harbor porpoise varied by region with the greatest numbers
seen off the Sekiu River and Kyadaka Point. Harbor Porpoise were
present in all seasons but were most numerous in fall. Dall's
porpoise were seen less often than Harbor Porpoise and tended to
occur farther offshore. Dall's porpoise were seen in all
seasons" (Calambokidis et al., 1987). A report prepared for the
National Marine Mammal Laboratory in April, 1992 estimates harbor
porpoise abundance for the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Swiftsure
Bank at 2,226 animals. It is the first comprehensive report of
harbor porpoise in the Strait. The report also listed direct
sightings of 100 Dall's porpoise in the same*area (Calambokidis

IV--26

et al., 1992).

California sea lions are present in the Strait and appear in
a small concentration at Neah Bay. Harbor seals are the most
common marine mammal in the Strait and have many haul-out sites
between Cape Flattery and Observatory Point (Calambokidis et al.,
1987). Migrations have been observed from the outer coast and
eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca into the western Strait
(Strickland and Chasan, 1989).

The majority of strictly pelagic birds (e.g., albatrosses,
cassin's auklets, shearwaters, storm petrels), however, do not
enter and reside inside the Strait for any appreciable length of
time or in large numbers. Most only appear at Tatoosh Island and
seaward. Swiftsure Bank, at the entrance of the Strait, is a
critical feeding area for birds (Wahl, 1992). "Huge feeding
flocks estimated to approach one million birds (have been)
observed at the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca" where
oceanic fronts converge (Strickland and Chasan, 1989). It should
be noted however that no comprehensive bird studies have been
conducted exclusively for the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Nor has
any research been conducted to analyze bird populations within
the Strait in the context of ecosystem dynamics.

This analysis suggests that the ecosystem of the outer
Washington coast extends into the Strait of Juan de Fuca as far
eastward as Observatory Point. Changes in biota, geology, and
topography all appear to coalesce between Crescent Rock and
Observatory Point. The constant eastward drift and migration of
coastal organic matter resupplies the area with new colonists and
prey organisms. Coastal water is transported into the Strait by
currents that break and mix north of Dungeness Spit. The dense
kelp beds are a central factor to the productivity in the Straits
and Macrocystis serves as a particularly strong indicator for the
inland extent of the coastal environment.

The human uses in the Strait include vessel traffic,
commercial, recreational and tribal fishing, recreational boating
and SCUBA Diving. The Strait is a heavily used corridor for
barges, larger commercial vessels and fishing boats transiting
between the outer coast and Puget Sound. There is a carefully
coordinated vessel traffic system operated jointly by the U.S and
Canadian Coast Guards to manage vessel traffic (see Part II for
further discussion). Clallam Bay and Neah Bay are central
locations for the charter boat industry and recreational fishing
in the Strait is concentrated off Pillar Point, Slip Point'and
Neah Bay. Although various types of clams are present throughout
the Strait, recreational clam digging in the Strait is prohibited
from April 1 through October 31 due to Paralytic Shellfish
Poisoning. The Strait is a Usual and Accustomed fishing area for
some of the Tribes. Gillnets are used by Tribal fishers in the
Strait to harvest salmon.

IV-27

The kelp beds, subtidal communities, and a shipwreck off
Tongue Point offer spectacular diving throughout the Strait.
Most of the beaches (i.e., tidelands) in the Strait are publicly
owned (Figure 71). Access to thesebeaches is severely
restricted because the back beach environment is characterized by
steep bluffs in private ownership to the extent of high tide.
There are approximately seven access points along the entire
Strait between observatory Point and Neah Bay. Most of the
beaches are accessible only by boat, and then under mostly
dangerous conditions because of submerged rocks and strong tidal
currents. The beaches are predominately sand, gravel, cobble and
hardpan and submerged at mean high water. Boat access ramps are
limited to Freshwater Bay, Silver King Resort and Pillar Point
Recreation Area.

Clallam County has developed county parks at Observatory Pt.
(Freshwater Bay Recreation Area) and Tongue Pt. (Salt Creek
Recreation Area) which provide boat access ramps, shoreside
access for SCUBA Divers, sport fishing, picnic tables and other
outdoor recreation. The WDNR has developed a state park at the
Lyre River with-many of the same accommodations. The Twin River
and Pyscht River have undeveloped recreation areas. Clallam Bay
has a harbor supporting a popula3: charter boat industry.

Coastal land ownership patterns in the Strait adjacent to
the beaches include reservation 'Lands (the Makah Tribe), private
landowners (including timber companies), and county and state
protected lands. The towns of Joyce, Clallam. Bay, Sekiu, and
Neah Bay are the population centers along the Strait. Their
economies are influenced by recreational and commercial
activities occurring in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Boundary alternative 4 with a southern boundary extending to
Copalis Beach, and eastward into the Strait to observatory Point
encompasses what can be considered a distinct ecological system
with intertidal communities, rookeries and haul out sites,
foraging areas, rich fishing grounds and fish concentrations, and
proliferous kelp beds continuous throughout this boundary.
Vessel traffic, oil and gas exploration, fishing, minerals
mining, and overflights, are all uses that can potentially
threaten the resources of this still relatively pristine area.

An extension into the Strait to Observatory Point would
afford maximum protection and monitoring of the coastal resources
within an identifiable ecological system. The Strait is where
much of the population and uses are concentrated. Protection and
monitoring of the resources would be beneficial. Further,
coordination of Sanctuary research and education programs would
enhance the efforts of the State, local and tribal initiatives in
the Strait. When further opportunity is provided for public
-comment NOAA will re-consider adding the Strait into the
boundaries of the Olympic Coast or the proposed Northwest Straits

IV-28

A, 7
...... ... .

f Juan de
Strait.
F
uca
Beach
429 Beac
Bay 9
'Nea 429A
Nea
Beach
428 0: each
Beac@ Ym
1427'. Beach 22
Bea,ch
4
Beac
B h
eac
42
42 5
ch
Bea
Beach
Beach
424 1 421
Pillar Pt. 419
Reach
423A
Rec. Area
416
Silver Ing
Resort S It Creek
Clallam CountY R c- Area Freshwater
Park Land ,,,.F3ay
Boat Launct

Public Beach Map
Legend

Public Beach .....
Boat Launch Site --,71
State Park
Meander Line.

5 10 15
0

Miles

Figure 71. BeacheS Along the Strait of Juan de Fuca (WDNR,
1984).

IV-29

Marine Sanctuaries.

Boundary alternative 4 excluding the Strait, therefore, is
NOAA's preferred alternative. The boundary encompasses the most
sensitive and vulnerable habitats along the outer coast and,
although excludes the transition corridor into the estuarine
environment of Puget Sound, includes an ecologically identifiable
oceanic ecosystem. The boundary will facilitate close
coordination with Tribal, Federal, International, State and local
initiatives. Through this coordination, the Sanctuary will
afford greater protection to the nearly pristine environment off
the outer Coast. Boundary alternative 4 with Respect to the
fisheries, marine mammal haul out sites, kelp distribution,
seabird colonies and foraging range, and human uses other than
fisheries are depicted in Figures 72-75.

F.- Boundary Alternativq 5

Boundary alternative 5 encompasses the entire study area
from the Washington/Oregon Border to the Canadian Border and into
the Strait of Juan de Fuca to Observatory Point. This
alternative adds to boundary alternative 4 the sandy beach
environments of the southern coast. Many commenters supported
inclusion of the estuaries of Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay within
the boundaries. However, upon further consideration, NOAA '
believes that the estuary of Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay are
more appropriate candidates for estuarine management regimes such
as NOAA's National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) or
EPA's National Estuary Program (NEP) and thus the estuaries are
not included in the Sanctuary study area of the Final EIS/MP.
Therefore, the coastal boundary of alternative 5 cuts across the
mouths of Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay.

Further, the southern portion of the study area abuts more
populated areas and encompasses more marine development. The
southern portion of the study area is clearly the most developed
and populated regions of the Washington outer coast. Major
population centers of Grays Harbor, Raymond, and Ocean Shores
support fishing and logging industries, pulp and paper mills,
port activities, and tourism.

Consequently, a large.concentration of uses occur within the
southern portion of the study area. This southern boundary
encompasses valuable groundfish, salmon, ocean pink shrimp and
dungeness crab fishing areas. It is'also transited by tankers
engaged in coastwise traffic, and tugs and barges entering and
exiting the Ports of Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay, and the Columbia
River. The tugs and barges transport, among other things,
refined petroleum products, chemicals and logs and wood chips.
There has been an ongoing $75 million Federal/State/local
partnership to diversify the Port of Grays Harbor which has
involved the dredging of Grays Harbor channel to enable larger

INF-30

126* 10' 126*00' 125*30' 125*00' 1?4*30' 1?4*00' 128*3V =*20'
48*45! 48*45'

12
49*30' 50
W30'
14 OR

50'

Aq@
Z
200
3011

500,

48-00' wool
BOUNDARY
ALTERNATIVE.--
NO.
TATITUDV@ LONGITUDE
1 47W45' 124.11'W
2 47Vr45' 124-6912'
8 4MI' 125'WOO
4 CNOW 12M"'
6 41wo" 12VW42'
6 47'5718' MWIS,
7 49W33' 1WN2W
8 48*14!46' 126-40,59,
9 48*W'1r 126'WG9'
4SW49' WW04'
11 49W69' IW5913! d
12 49W19' IW50'4-
48'29' : 124'4841:
47o3O' 1@4 48W6&0B 12413FIS
Is 4M'17' 124-01T 47W
16 V19'04' JW051301
17 49'11'37' 124'aSO'
is W16601 12r4934'
4,01
20 48*14'0V 12r3810'r
21 48`0902' 12MO7'

- LEGEND -
FISHING AREAS

Commercial Finfish

Sport Finfish

47*00' -
Razor Clam Beaches Z@' 47'00'

Pink ShrimpTrawling

Crabbing

A Shellfish Aquaculture

AW-)
ENO

46*30'-
46o3O'
UNITED STATES -WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
NILIMCAL 111LIS

46'12' 46*12!
126*10' 126'00' 125*30' IP5.001 124'30' 124oOO' 123*30' 123*20'

---------------

Figure 72. Boundary Alternative 4 with Respect to Fisheries.

IV-31

126* 10' 126W 125*30' 125*00' 124'30' 1?4'W 123'80' 123*2(Y
48*4 5' 4845'

71
13
48*W 14 48o3O'

'joo
4

61
7 0-
4e
wool + wool
BOL N RX,
ALTERN
NO. 4
TATITuny,
I 47Vr45 124'11'02'
2 47Vr45 12emlir
3 47WO5 125'WOV
4 4r4O'O5 125W44'
5 47bWO1 : us"
6 47*57'lr 12MIT
7 41ml. 12m 4
8 49'14'46' IW4015V
9 49W1T
10 49'Zr49' 1WW04
11 48WW IPAWIT a
12 48W19' 124W4r
18 48'" lW4341'
47W - 14 IW,. IMMIX
15 48*Wl'r 12rmir + 47W
16 48`1 04* 124IW301
17 124'WBV
18 01"50, 12r49'
19 4BW401 1231914' Yo
123*WO,r
2D 01091
21 49WO2* 12rwar

MARINE RA4MALS
AND KELP BEDS

Kelp Beds 2

Distribution of Se Otters
47-00' - (1976-1987)
47*W

HAULOUT AREAS

Harbor Seal

0 California Sea Lion

0 Northern Sea Lion
\u@
46W - Q174-1
46*30'
UNITED STATES-WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
NAIMCAL MIIE@,

12'
1'2'6'* 10! i@600' 12@30' 125*00' 124*30' 124*00' 123*30' 12V

Figure,73. Boundary Alternative 4 with Respect to Marine Mam-al
Haulout Sites and Kelp Habitat.

IV-32

126* 10' 126*00' 125,30, 125*00' 124*30' 124*00' 123*30' 123'20'
48'45' 48'45'
?

4nO' 12
0, V30'

5V
6 Ae
'(200 Cl 00 00'
300-

00,

48*00'
OUNDARY,, 6 0.
A ERNALT-
NO, 4

1 76MV 124*11'02'
2 1.". 1w5gir
'06' 12SWOO'
4 4 40'05' 125*"44'
5 401' 25'W42-
6 4r 18:
7 Ir 4
2,1'W
8 49*14' ' 25*40'59 @4
9 49W I.,
10 4M4 25'WO4'
11 4MB91 2e6vl3, a I
12 48WI91 WW
18 48WW WaZl
47*30' 14 49'ZT501 *Wl 47*30'
16 49WI7' -W,
6
7
18 48*1650' 12r49 NyON
19 411411 IW49'
20 48*14'091 12rwm
21 49WO2' 123'WO7'

SEABIRD
VOW BREEDING COLONIES V00'
(Ordered by Size of Colony)

Less Than 100 Birds

o 100-1000 Birds

0 1000-10,000 Birds
0 0wr 10,000 Birds

46*30! - 46*30'
UNITED STATES -WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
NAU]71C_',@ MUM,

R,
46*12'
126*10' 126*W 125*W 124'30' 124'00' 123*30' 123*20'

Figure 74. Boundary Alternative 4 with Respect to Seabird Colonies
and Seabird Foraging Range.

IV-33

1260 10' 126oOO' 126*30' 125*00' 124*30' 124'00' 123030' 123020'
,045' 48*45'

W30'
O'@ 48*30,

-'Pj-

300-

50
30---
U
21 U S@

'0001
48*00' +
66 **'@

ALTERN
NO*

2
3 47oW '00
4 4r4O'O5 125*04!"'
47*W01: 125*W42'
47*5713' 125WI3
7 497r3r 125*WBD:
8 49*144T 125*4O'B9
9 4MW IMW691
11 W2-1411 '04
@j 4MW 2e6w13*
12 49W19' 12eW42*
13 4rS 124*4341'
1.
47*3W - 14 48WS" 124-W13' 47o3O'
15 4M17' 124'Z13
16 dr1q, 04' 12A*W30
17 48'1 1'87' IWWSo- -9
@8 49*16'50* 12r47W 6@
19 48W40 1 034'
2D 4T14'09: 12MO'r
21 4swor 12MOr

-LEGEND-
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES

Dredged Material
47*W - 1*1 Disposal Sites 47oW
FT71
Gravel Deposits

Highlighted Areas

JA&
mww r 46o3O'
46*30'
UNITED STATES-WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUAR4
[email protected] MILE@,
rt
46*12'
46'12
12'6* 10' 12@00' 125*30' 125*00' 124*30' 124*00' 123*3Y 1?3G20'

Figure 75. Boundary Alternative 4 in Relation to Vessel Traffic
Management Regimes, Dredge Disposal Sites, Oil and Gas
Resources and Gravel De-osits.
P

IV-34

vessels to enter the port. Clean dredge spoil from the dredging
project are dumped at three EPA/COE permitted dumpsites located
off the mouth of Grays Harbor. There is also an interim dumpsite
off the mouth of Willapa Bay and three others off the Columbia
River all receiving dredge spoils from maintenance dredging of
the respective ship channels. These dredge disposal sites and
port activities would conflict with the Sanctuary regulations
prohibiting alteration of, or construction on the seabed, and
discharges.

The southern addition adds approximately 46% of the relative
density of'invertebrates harvested by commercial and recreational
fishers in the total study area. The largest significance is
attributed to the presence of Pacific oysters in Willapa Bay, and
the Dungeness crab and ocean pink shrimp stocks offshore. This
is reflected in the tables comparing the relative abundance and
importance of selected invertebrates off Washington (Appendix C).

The southern addition also is significant in that it
represents approximately 43% of the relative abundance of fish
species in the study area. Salmon, steelhead, lingcod and
Pacific cod account for the greatest density indexes. The salmon
and steelhead accounted for in these areas are migrating through
from the Columbia River, Chehalis, tributaries of Willapa Bay, as
well as from river and stream systems located in Oregon. The
significance of this addition is skewed by the importance of
estuaries for marine fish. During the spring when freshwater
inflow into the estuaries is greatest, and the predominant
currents originate from the north, the Columbia River fresh water
plume is kept south of Point Grenville dominating a large area of
the marine environment off southern Washington. This essentially
extends the Columbia River estuary well offshore. The boundaries
of the water masses support rich fishing grounds.

The seaward portion of the southern addition is weighted as
being very significant for marine mammals (Appendix C). This is
due to the inclusion of the migration corridor for the right,
minke, and humpback whales, Dall's porpoise and while-sided
dolphins. The migration of these marine mammals are most heavily
concentrated at the edge of the continental shelf. Gray whales
migrate through the study area within approximately 12 nautical
miles from shore. Appendix C reflects that the most seaward
portions of the entire study area is significant for marine
mammals. Hence, the extension of boundary alternative 5 adds
little difference. The tables in Appendix C also reflect the
significance of boundary alternative 5 because the estuaries are
critical haulout sites for pinnipeds.

The table comparing the estimates of seab ird populations
within the study area indicates that only 12% of the population
was counted in the southern boundary. The largest bird
populations in the southern portion of the study are juvenile

IV-35

rhinoceros auklets feeding off the mouth of Grays Harbor,
Glaucous-winged gulls and caspian, terns. Approximately four
small colonies of pigeon guillemots are located in the jettys of
Grays Harbor in driftwood debris at the opening of the Colombia
River and Willapa Bay (Speich and. Wahl, 1989). The estuaries
provide valuable habitat for migrating shorebirds whose
populations swell in the spring and fall.

While the resources in the southern portion of the study
area are significant to the marine ecology of the Pacific
Northwest, the analysis of resources and uses indicates that
there are two separate but related ecosystems. To the north of
Copalis Beach, the marine environment is dominated by rocky
intertidal habitats, kelp forest subtidal habitats, and
ecologically rich neretic zones all of which are fueled by
upwelling from the Juan de Fuca Canyon coupled with the presence
of the shallow offshore banks in the photic zone. This portion
of the study area provides rich foraging areas and haul out sites
for colonial seabirds and marine mammals. Sediments nourishing
the benthic environment originate: predominately from the Strait
of Juan de Fuca. The coastal environment is sparsely populated,
with the greatest immediate threats to the resources runoff from
timber activities in the adjacent. watersheds, and offshore
development (vessel traffic, and potential offshore development
of oil and gas and gravel deposits). The ability to respond to
potential spills from offshore development are hampered by
limited coastal access and the high energy marine environment.

By contrast, the sandy environments south of Copalis Beach
are much less diverse (with the exception of the estuaries) and
are capable of rebounding from an oil spill relatively quickly
compared to communities of rocky intertidal habitats. The
southern boundary has already experienced heavy development and
there are a number of point and non-point source discharges and
dumpsites. Consequently, the southern portion of the study area
does not have the pristine qualities of the northern areas.

The benthic sediments in the southern portion of the study
area originate from the Columbia River Basin reflecting the
aerial extent and influence of the Columbia River Plume. The
ecosystem that dominates the southern portion of the study area
in fact extends well into Oregon and state boundaries present an
arbitrary delineation. Thus, while there are significant
ecological qualities to both the northern and southern regions of
the study area, there are notable differences in their ecology
and human-uses that characterize these regions as distinct.
Figures 76-79 depict boundary alternative 5 with respect to
fisheries, marine mammal haul out. sites, kelp distribution,
seabird colonies and foraging range, and human uses other than
fishing.

IV-36

126* 10' 126*W 125*30' 125*00' 124*30' 124*00' 123*30! 123*20'
48*45' - 48*4V

48*30' 50 121@ 14
+1 15 48*W

PVC
00 0
o'
3
7
400
500,

48*00' '001),
BOUNDARY
ALTERNATIVVE
NO. 5
I.ATITUny, LONGITUDE
1 49' 15:W 124U'20-
2 49*15 001 124*36 '24'
3 47V746' I. 'W12'
4 4MI' 125'WOO
5 4'111' 125'04'44
6 4rW01' 126IW42
7 V5713! I26*N13'
8 48WBr JWWW
9 4W14'46' 125-40' 59.
10 4rW12* 125*ZV59
11 49W49' 125'06'14
JW6g]31
49W19 124*50'4-
4730' - 14 4r&88 IW43'41' 4730'
1: 0271": 124'W18*
4T rW IWO113W
17 49'14! ' IM'WO7'
I
8 WW02' 123-A'07*
C @yoN

LEGEND
FISHING AREAS
7

Commercial Finfish

Sport 1@infish
47'00' - Razor Clam Beaches 4'rOO'

Pink Shrimp Ti-awling
IS

Crabbing

Shellfish Aquacult..
@e svl@
112KI
00
46*W -
46o3O'
UNITED STATES -WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
NAUrIC@,L MILEs,

46*12" 46*12'
126* 10' 126*00' 125t3O' 125'00' 124*30' 124'00' 123'30! 1?3'W

Figure 76. Boundary Alternative 5 with Respect to Fisheries.

IV-37

126*10' 1WOO' 125'00' 1?A*30' 124*00' 123'30' 123*20'
48*45' r 48*45'

48*30' 13
34
16

to Z@ A

7
100,
00

48*00' -

BOUNDARY!
7
7
7
ALTERNA,@
NO.
6
LATMIDE LONG
1 46*1' IWW20@
2 49616'00* 124'MW
a JW68,w
4 47WO6' Wwool
6 4r41Y()6' IW'04'44r
6 4rW01, 12M4r
7 4r5T1W I25W13`
WSS'2V
8 4RVT3r
9 wbrlw IW40'W
10 49WIr 12=69' 4
11 4SW491 m.W04'
,6V
12 48WW I?A Ir
47*W - 48W19* 124-W
1134 49-29W 124*434WI
48WW 124.W 47*30'
16 18
16 4S* 7W L24TI'MY
I
7 48*14'091 12rWO'r
18 4SWOr 12rWOr
Nyu

MARINE MAMMALS
AND KELP BEDS

Kelp Beds

Distribution of Sea Otters
47*W - (1976-1987)
47*00'

HAULOUT AREAS
*so .0

Harbor Seal

0 Califomia Sea Lion

0 Northern Sea Lion

46*30'
UNITED STATES -WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC CO
AST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
NAU71CAL MILES J,
rR-R-P===r-
'j-

46* 12'l 46*1@
126*1V 126*00' 125*30' 126*W 124*3W 124*00' 12*30' 123*20'

Figure 77. Boundary Alternative 5 with Respect to Marine Marrmal
Haulout Sites and Kelp Habitat.

IV- 3 8

126* 10' 126*W 125*30' 125'00' 1?4*30' 124*00' 12a'8V 123*20'
48465'

48*30' 50 15
48*W

10 50'

P"C4
-,sp
300
0 so
00
30-

48*00' + WW
OUNDARY 7 0.
AERNATIV-.F,--
NO. 5
6
6.15,00. LONGITUD
I 124'W20:
216,00, 1
24W24
8445 1N*68'12'
44'n" 126'WOD'
547' 0'05 IW04'44'
647' 0' 126*W42'
747*67 :125-018- "15
V07' 26*38`20'
948' 4' 6W40' 9'
10W 25V 591 4
11 N4
49' 25'06'W.
48: _\@@
120 24*59'13'
I48.W19
47'30' - 134
+ 47*30'
1'30
11 4EA"'W 123 17'
IS I., C. Nyo-

SEABIRD
47'00' BREEDING COLONIES V00'
(O,de,,d by Si,e of Colony)

Less Than 100 Birds

0100-1000 Birds

01000-10,000 Birds
00@er 10,000 Birds

46*30' - 46*30'
UNITED STATES-WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
NAUTICAL MILES
I F-i H F-------I

46* 12 46*1Z
126"* 10' 12@1)0' 125*30' 124*30' 124*00' 1V30' 123*20'

Figure 78. Boundary'Alternative 5 with Respect to Seabird Colonies
and Seabird Foraging Range.

IV-39

126* 10! 126'00' 125'30' 125OW 124*30' 124*00' 123*30' 123*20'
48*45'
48*45!

4nO' '50 7V IZ@
+ _@j
B@ 49*30'

2-00
'(300 q
400
500- 30-

wool + W001
B
ALTERN
NO.
LATITUDE
1 49' WOW
2 W151
3 47*07' 124
4 4rWO5 125WOO*
5 47*40'05 '44
6 4r5W01' '42
7 47*5713' 125`W13
8 W0733' 12VW20
9 411' - 125'4C'591
10 48-Xlr 125-&59
11 48*2749' 125*WN
12 49W591 12ASWI3,
13 4EW19, tWW42*
4MO' 14 49WW 12rIW11' 47*30!
IS '5@. 124*WIS'
" 4S'ITSD' 114'01'
17 41..' 123*39
18 4SW02' 12M0O7r

-LEGEND-
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES

Dredged Material
47'00' Disposal Sites 47*00'
Gravel Deposits
Ln

Highlighted Areas

A!. ft-61

46*30' 46'30'
UNITED STATES-WEST COAST
WASHINGTON
PROPOSED OLYMPIC COAST
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUAR4
NAUTICAL MILES
0 5 '0

46'10 46*1V
126*10' li6*00' 126*W 124*30' 124'W M*30' 123*20'

Figure 79. Boundary Alternative 5 in Relation to Vessel Traffic
Management Regimes, Dredge Disposal Sites, Oil and Gas
Resources and Gravel Deposits.

IV-40

Section II: Regulatory Alternatives
A. Introduction

This section analyzes the environmental consequences of the
eight activities included within the scope of the Sanctuary
regulations. For each activity the preferred Sanctuary
regulatory action is identified along with an analysis of the
impact to natural resources and human uses of both the Sanctuary
regulatory alternative and the status quo. There are also two
regulations proposed (preferred Sanctuary action) whose purpose
is to facilitate enforcement of the other Sanctuary regulations:
the regulations prohibiting possession of resources and
interference with enforcement.

Overall, the proposed final regulations and designation are
intended to: (1) improve resource protection by instituting new
regulatory measures and by supplementing present surveillance and
enforcement actions; (2) minimize negative impacts to human uses,
particularly to those deemed consistent with the purposes of the
Sanctuary and; (3) provide for a manageable area including such
factors as its size, its ability to be defined as a discrete
ecological unit, its accessibility, and its suitability for
monitoring and enforcement activities.

It is important to note that in promulgating these
regulations, NOAA must work within the constraints of Title III
of the MPRSA. Specifically, section 304(c) states that while
NOAA cannot terminate valid leases, permits, licenses or rights
of subsistence use or access existing as of the date of Sanctuary
designation, NOAA can regulate the exercise of such
authorizations and rights consistent with the purposes for which
the Sanctuary was designated.

IV-41

B. oil, Gas and Mineral Activities
1. Status Ouo
a. Consecruence of Impact to Resources

There is presently no oil and gas development taking place
in the study area. Under the most recent Five-Year Plan for OCS
oil and gas leasing activities developed by the MMS, an OCS lease
sale on the Washington OCS was scheduled for the spring of 1992.
However, the reauthorization of the MPRSA (P.L. 102-587) mandates
a permanent prohibition on oil and gas pre-leasing or leasing
activities within the Sanctuary.

Currently, state law prohibits oil and gas activities in
state waters. Also, Washington state has requested that MMS
delete from any lease sale the portion of its planning area that
lies north of the 47th parallel, and the area within 12 nautical
miles of the Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay, and Columbia River
estuaries.

Scientific evidence concerning the potential impacts of oil
and gas activities on the.natural resources of the Olympic Coast
is not conclusive, and the studies planned by MMS and the Pacific
Northwest OCS Task Force will address several critical questions.
A recent National Academy of Sciences study (NAS, 1989) as well
as past EPA (1985) and NAS (1985) studies, have examined whether
there is adequate information available to determine the effects
of oil and gas activities on the marine environment. It has been
concluded that many uncertainties still exist, even in marine
areas for which there exists far more information than exists for
the Olympic Coast. However, it is still possible to evaluate
some of the potential risks to the Olympic Coast from OCS oil and
gas activities, and the transportation of hydrocarbon products.

Offshore hydrocarbon exploration, development, and.
production activities, including the transshipment of crude oil
to the mainland, may cause unforeseen and potentially substantial
discharges of oil, both chronic and catastrophic, into the marine
environment. The sensitive marine resources of the Olympic Coast
may be threatened by: (1) well "blow-outs" caused by equipment
failure or damage, or geologic hazards; (2) oil spills and
pipeline leaks; (3) noise and visual disturbances caused by
drilling, the presence of drill rigs or platform, work crews,
supply boats, and helicopters; (4) pollution associated with
aquatic discharges; and (5) short-term pipeline construction
upheaval.

Normal hydrocarbon operation can result in unintentional,
chronic, or small oil spillage. since the Olympic Coast area has
had little history of hydrocarbon production, direct evidence
does not exist to illustrate the effects of exploration,
development, and production spills in these waters. Petroleum
products are, however, transported along the coast and in and out

IV-42

of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Two oil spills, the General M.C.
Meiggs and the -Nestucca, have occurred recently in coastal waters
off Washington State. Oil spilled from the barge Nestucca
soiled beaches found within the boundary of the Sanctuary. The
reports of damages from these incidents, as well as data from
spills in other marine waters, serve as examples of the types of
impacts that can result from oil related accidents. Known
threats to marine organisms that may result from offshore oil and
gas exploration, development, and production are presented in
Table 6 (page III@19).

Even though OCS oil and gas activities may take place
offshore in Federal waters, the activities can negatively effect
state territorial waters and coastal environments. In addition
to effecting marine organisms, these activities can disrupt human
uses of the marine environment and the socioeconomic structure of
coastal communities. Potential negative impacts to nearshore and
coastal areas include: the presence of processing facilities
which also involves the problems of air pollution and the
disposal of processing wastes; interference with port operations
and stress on existing port facility space and services;
conflict with shore-based operations which use the offshore
waters (e.g., commercial and recreational fishing, whale-watching
operations); and socioeconomic impacts on the affected coastal
communities (Mead and Sorenson, 1970; Cican-Sain, 1985;
Freeman, 1985; MMS, 1990a).

(a) Sources of Oil Spills and Potential Impacts

Inputs of petroleum into the marine environment come from a
variety of sources. Less then 2% (50,000 tons of a total
estimated 3.2 million metric tons) of the annual input of oil
into the world oceans is from offshore production activities.
The largest input, accounting for approximately 45%, is from
transportation related incidents including tanker operations,
.spills at terminals and dry docks, bilge and fuel oil flushing,
tanker and other ship or barge accidents. Municipal and
industrial wastes, and runoff account for 36.5% of the oil
entering the world oceans. other sources include natural seeps
(7.7%), and atmospheric deposition (9.2%) (NRC, 1985; Boesch and
Rabalis, 1987). Due to the near absence of industrial and
municipal discharges along the Olympic Coast, it is clear that
the major threat of oil contamination in this area currently is
from tanker and barge operations.

Accidents, natural disasters, and human error can lead to
situations which result in the release of oil into the marine
environment. Chronic discharges, well blowouts, barge and tanker
accidents, pipeline breaks and leaks, and equipment failures
cause spills. The large majority of spills involve relatively
small amounts of oil, usually less than 1000 gallons (24 barrels)
(MMS, 1986; 1987). Small spills, defined by MMS as less than

IV-43

1,000 barrels, account for almost all spill incidents in U.S.
waters, but only 28% of the total volume of spilled oil. One to
two barrels, on average, are spilled during routine operation for
every million barrels of oil produced from offshore platforms
(MMS, 1986). The cumulative long-term impact of many small
spills and chronic discharges is not well understood and requires
further study.

Well blowouts and tanker accidents can result in large,
acute oil spills (greater than 1,000 barrels) that may have
severe, long-term impacts on marine environments (MMS, 1984). In
addition to blowouts, platform spills can result from leaks and
small releases of fuels and lubricants. Offshore production also
carries with it the risk of spills from pipelines; 95% of oil and
gas produced offshore is transported by pipeline. For both
Federal and state waters, the loss of oil from major spills
ranges from 0.15-1 barrel of oil spilled for every million
barrels produced (MMS, 1986) (note: these figures were calculated
prior to the Exxon Valdez spill and other spills occurring in
1987-88).

Blowouts were the cause of sixty-five percent of oil spills
associated with drilling and production from 1964 through 1980.
During these 17 years, a total of 102,382 barrels were discharged
into marine waters as a result of blowouts at offshore wells in
the Gulf of Mexico, while about half that amount, 55,213 barrels,
was spilled as a result of non-blowout associated incidents (The
Futures Group, 1982). Massive spills caused by well blowouts
have been highly publicized, but such spills are rare. The OCS
spill-rate for platform spills of more than 1,000 barrels is one
per billion barrels produced (MMS, 1986).

Most blowouts have been relatively minor, especially in
recent years. From 1964 to 1981, 99.5% of the spill volume
caused by blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico was spilled in the years
1964 through 1971. After 1971 the volume of blowout-produced
spills was negligible, yet there was no reduction in the number
of blowout spills (The Futures Group, 1982). The OCS spill-rate
for small platform or pipeline spills is 379 spills per billion
barrels produced or transported. Ninety-nine percent of these
spills are less than 50 barrels, and 89% are less than one barrel
(MMS, 1986).

Although the offshore oil.industry has been successful in
reducing the volume of oil spills, the record indicates that if
oil development were to take place in the area of the Olympic
coast, spills from blowouts, platform accidents, and
transportation of crude oil to shore are likely to occur. MMS
(1'986) has estimated that during the 35 year life span of lease
sale #132 a total hydrocarbon equivalent of 243 million barrels
of oil (58 million barrels of oil and 1.043 billion cubic feet of
gas) would be retrieved by a single platform drilling 30 wells.

IV-44

Using a high-case and low-case production scenario, MMS has
estimated rates of oil spillage off the Washington/Oregon coast
should the lease sale #132 area be developed. Employing the low
case scenario (58 million barrels produced) with tanker
transhipment, MMS projects that 0.23 large spills would occur,
with a 11% probability of a large spill occurring. The high case
scenario (180 million barrels produced) estimates are 0.51 large
spills projected and 16% probability of one or more large spills
occurring. A cumulative scenario, which adds in the effects of
oil transhipment along our coast of oil produced elsewhere
changes the projected figures to 3.16 spills over the life of the
field, with a 96% probability of occurring.

These MMS projections indicate that OCS oil and gas
activities would increase the risk of hydrocarbon contamination
along the Olympic Coast, but that the major threat is from tanker
or barge oil spills. From 1974 to 1981, there were 81 tanker or
barge related oil spills of more than 1,000 barrels in U.S.
waters. Only six of these were on the West Coast--three in port
and three at sea (The Futures Group, 1982). In 1988 and 1989
there were six significant oil spills resulting from tanker or
barge accidents. Three of these tanker oil spills occurred on
the east coast and three on the west coast.

The largest of the three east coast spills occurred on June
24, 1989 when Uruguayan oil tanker Presidente Rivera ran aground
near Philadelphia, releasing 800,000 gallons of oil into the
Delaware River. On June 23, 1989, the Greek-registered World
Prodigy grounded on Brenton Reef near Newport in Narragansett
Bay, Rhode Island dumping 300,000 gallons of oil. Also on June
23, 1989, the tanker Rachel B. collided with a barge resulting in
6,000 gallons of oil spilling into the Houston Ship Channel.

Other spills occurred off the west coast: the tanker Puerto
Rican near San Francisco in 1984, the Oil barge Nestucca off
Grays Harbor, Washington in 1988, the General M.C. Meiggs off
Cape Flattery, Washington, and the Exxon Valdez near Valdez,
Alaska in March 1989. The Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef
off of Valdez, Alaska and spilled 242,000 barrels (over
10,100,0000 gallons) of crude oil onto the shores of Prince
William Sound. This was the largest oil spill to date in U.S.
waters. The Exxon Valdez disaster has received much publicity
and scientific investigations are currently underway
investigating the long-term effects of the spill and possible
future management measures (CMC, 1989).

The tanker 'Puerto Rican broke apart approximately eight miles
seaward of the Golden Gate Bridge after becoming disabled by on-
board explosions. The tanker released 48,000 barrels of
hydrocarbons into the ocean and of this amount, only 1,460
barrels were recovered during cleanup operations (USCG, 1985).
This spill killed an estimated 2,874 seabirds, and caused

IV-45

additional damage to water quality, fishery resources, marine
mammals, and human uses. For comparison, in February, 1986,'the
tanker barge Apex Houston spilled some 600 barrels of oil along
the central California coast killing an estimated 9,817 seabirds
within the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine sanctuary.

The Nestucca and Meiggs spills occurred off the Washington
coastline, and the oil spilled affected coastal areas found
within the boundaries of the proposed sanctuary. These accidents
demonstrate the seriousness of potential hazards to the proposed
sanctuary resources and environment from spilled oil, regardless
of its source.

On December 22, 1988 the barge Nestucca was struck by its
tug the ocean Service. The barge released 231,000 gallons of NO.
6 fuel oil into Grays Harbor and coastal waters polluting the
shoreline from-Grays Harbor to Cape Flattery. In addition, oil
polluted beaches inside Grays Harbor and along the western
shoreline of Vancouver Island, in British Columbia, Canada. The
resulting oil slick covered over 800 square miles and more than
110 miles of the Washington coastline. Cleanup response was
started immediately and actual cleanup efforts were underway by
December 23, 1988. As of August 1989, very little visual
evidence of the spill remains on the beaches, though long-term
impacts to marine biota are not known.

An assessment of damage resulting from the oil spill has not
yet been completed, although short-term impacts are known. Over
10,300 oiled waterfowl (mostly murres and grebes) were collected
(WDOE, 1989). Although No. 6'fuel is a relatively low toxicity
oil, it is highly viscous, maintains large slicks on the water
surface, weathers slowly, and kills by physical contact and
smothering.

Of the 10,300 birds collected after the Nestucca spill,
approximately 9,300 were dead or died at the bird rescue center.
It is likely that this number of dead birds represents only a
small portion of those birds affected because many oiled birds
were not collected because of sinking, predation, hiding, and
burying.

Another example of an oil spill accident in the vicinity of
the proposed Olympic coast sanctuary is the General M.C. Meiggs.
While under tow, the unmanned troopship broke loose and grounded
10 miles south of Cape Flattery in January, 1972 spilling
approximately 55,000 barrels of Navy special fuel oil.
Prevailing winds blew oil globules onto beaches where the oil
became incorporated into the sediment. For the period of a five-
year study, oil persisted in the intertidal area of a
contaminated cove, causing the intertidal organisms to be
continuously exposed to the oil. Some primary observations of
the study were that hydrocarbons taken up by mussels persisted in

IV-46

their systems for five years after the spill, and 70% of
surviving sea urchins lost their spines (Clark et al., 1978).

These oil spill events demonstrate a number of concerns
related to oil spills in general:

1. The size of the spill does not necessarily correlate with
the resulting damage to the environment.

2. For many oil spill incidents, exemplified primarily by the
two spills in California and the Valdez disaster, the
existing capability to contain and clean up the spill is not
sufficient. The areas affected are coastal marine waters,
and to be effective clean-up equipment requires less
turbulent conditions than normally encountered in the waters
off the Olympic Coast.

3. Mitigating measures alone may not be sufficient to ensure
adequate protection of sanctuary resources.

These oil spill incidents, especially those occurring off
the Washington coast, illustrate the vulnerability of the
Sanctuary environment and resources to the potential impacts from
oil and gas activities and hydrocarbon transportation. Lack of
sufficient baseline information collected on the Olympic Coast
makes it impossible to determine or predict the full extent of
potential impacts. Some research in the Olympic Coast area has,
however, shown that negative impacts from oil and gas activities
(including seismic surveys and exploratory drilling) on the
highly valued fisheries; vulnerable stocks of sea otters, fur
seals, and seabirds; and other coastal marine resources are
potentially great (Wahl, 1984; EPA, 1985; Felleman, 1985;
Battelle, 1987; Bowlby et al., 1988; Grader and Laychack, 1989).

Seasonal sensitivity of certain species to a possible oil
spill must also be considered. In the Olympic Coast area certain
species of marine mammals and birds are seasonally present in
numbers representing an ecologically significant percentage of
their entire population (as discussed in Part II Section 2).
Potential harm to marine organisms would be magnified if an oil
spill were to occur during a period of high density or during a
breeding season. The concept of seasonal susceptibility has been
highlighted by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (1979) in
regard to the marine resources surrounding the Northern Channel
Islandst off Santa Barbara, California.

Consideration of the physical oceanographic dynamics is
important in protecting sanctuary resources from possible
contaminants transported by currents and eddies. oil spill
trajectory models have not been developed for the Washington
coast primarily due to the limited amount of detailed current and
wind data that is available. Studies recommended by MMS and the

IV-47

Pacific Northwest OCS Task Force would allow for the development
of trajectory models. Available data for mean wind, wave, and
currents, however, indicate that the sanctuary area is vulnerable
to spills occurring outside the proposed boundaries. On the
average, surface currents over the shelf travel northward and
shoreward in the winter months and southward.and seaward in the
summer, with transitional periods in the spring and fall.
Coastal upwelling occurs during the summer months, bringing deep
water to the surface, while downwelling occurs in the winter.
Prevailing wind direction is northward in the winter, and
southward in the summer with a strong shoreward component during
all seasons. Wave directions are shoreward over the entire year,
and mean flow along the bottom is northward during all seasons.

(b) Effects of.Hydrocarbons on Living Marine Organisms

Although most spilled crude oil initially floats,
approximately 1% - 5% of the volume of a surface slick will occur
in the water column as a result of dissolution, dispersion,
sinking, or sedimentation in the vicinity of the spill.
Additional oil may be retained in the water as the result of a
lesser known mechanism, the formation of a subsurface oil plume.
Because the oil in such a plume remains below the surface it may
have a different chemistry than the surface slick and be more
toxic to marine organisms. In the case of the IXTOC blowout,
which occurred in June, 1979 in Mexican waters of the Gulf 'of
Mexico, it was found that a subsurface plume of oil droplets,
extending from the wellhead and generally aligned with the
surface slick, contained high concentrations of low molecular
weight aromatics, alkyl benzenes and naphthalene compounds which
are acutely toxic to marine organisms (MMS, 1986).

The toxic effect of oil on organisms can be short-term,
long-term, lethal or sublethal. Toxic effects on different
organisms vary and depend on a number of factors including:
chemical composition of the oil; environmental factors such as
temperature, salinity, and viscosity; the level of feeding and
reproductive activity by the organism; and differences in
susceptibility among species,and among life cycle stages within
the species. The sublethal effects of hydrocarbons on marine
organisms include: the disruption of normal feeding behavior,
breeding, and locomotion; interference with thermo-regulation;
reduced resistance to stress; and diseases caused by the intake
of carcinogenic or potentially metagenic chemicals (MMS, 1986).
At the tissue level, lesions may develop on the skin, gills, or
intestine (Hawkes, 1977). Some organisms, however, may have the
ability to compensate for minor toxic stress and may thus be able
to tolerate low concentrations of toxic hydrocarbons.

A large amount of research has been com pleted showing the
sensitivity of commercially important fish, shellfish and non-

IV-48

commercial invertebrates. Effects to these organisms are
summarized by Strickland and Chasan (1989).

Sublethal and long-term hydrocarbon impacts on ecosystems
are associated with low oil concentrations in marine environments
which may result from the evaporation, degradation, and
dispersion of hydrocarbons following a large spill or from
chronic, low-level, small spills (less than 1,000 barrels). Of
the two, chronic small spills may pose a greater hazard to marine
ecosystems than isolated large spills. The damage resulting from
the Nestucca, Apex Houston and Puerto Rican spills illustrate
that even small spills, in the short term, can kill a large
number of individual birds or other marine organisms. oil can
directly affect living marine organisms biochemically or
physically (see, for instance, Boesch et,al. 1973; Michael, 1977;
National Research Council, 1985; EPA, 1985; MMS, 1987; Boesch &
Rabalais, 1987).

The greatest damage to the marine environment occurs under
any of the following circumstances: (1) The oil is spilled into
or reaches a confined, shallow body of water, such as an estuary;
(2) the oil is refined oil, such as home heating oil or diesel
oil; (3) storms or heavy surf cause the oil to be churned into
the bottom sediments. In many instances, it does appear that the
marine ecosystem can recover from the damage occasioned by oil
spills although the rate and completeness of recovery remain
subject to dispute.

Petroleum hydrocarbons can also have sublethal or indirect
lethal effects on marine organisms through the destruction or
alteration of food supply, through chemical interference with
reproductive success, synergistic effects which may reduce
resistance to disease, and other stresses which alter behavioral
patterns such as feeding. The physical damage resulting from the
coating of marine organisms (e.g., feathers of marine birds, fur
of marine mammals, and respiratory apparatus of fish) with oil is
well documented (see, for instance, U.S. Bureau of Land
Management, 1979). Below is a summary of the impacts of oil
spills on the biological resources and uses of the Olympic coast
and offshore waters.

Oil Spill Impact on Pinnipeds and Sea Otters:

Floating oil can foul the fur or skin, and irritate the eyes
and membranes of pinnipeds and sea otters, and cause harm when
the oil is ingested or inhaled (U.S. Bureau of Land Management,
1980; Geraci and Smith, 1977). Oil contamination can cause loss
of buoyancy, and impairment of normal thermal regulation. Of the
two, impairment of the body's insulation properties is probably
more damaging, particularly for fur seals and sea otters which
depend primarily on the fur for insulation (U.S. Bureau of Land
Management, 1980).

IV-49

Although northern fur seals depend only partially on their
fur for thermal protection, oiling could depress their
thermoregulatory abilities, which could lead to hypothermia and
death (Kooyman, gt al., 1977). Studies by Kooyman, et al.,
(1977) indicate that among sea mammals, the most proTou-nd effects
of oiling may be on the sea otter pup: its thermal conductance
increased by 2.1 times after oiling, indicating a significant
loss of insulation capacity. The results of Kooyman's later
studies confirm that even a light oiling could have marked
detrimental effects on the thermoregulatory abilities of otters
(Kooyman and Costa, 1979). The limited migratory abilities and
lack of a blubber layer make sea otters even more vulnerable to
oiling (Strickland and Chasan, 1989).

The sea otters which inhabit the nearshore areas within the
proposed sanctuar.y are a Washington state endangered species and
their distribution is localized to a specific stretch of the
coastline. The sea otters were reintroduced to the area in the
1970's after being hunted to extinction before 1910. The
localized distribution of this sea otter population makes them
even more vulnerable to the effects of spilled oil than other
more established sea otter populations. one oil spill could
.eliminate the entire population.

Phocid seals rely on blubber and vascular mechanisms for
thermal regulation and are thus more resistant to thermal loss
caused by contact with oil (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1980). Phocid
seals of the Olympic Coast include the northern elephant seal and
harbor seal.

The ingestion of oil by pinnipeds is most likely to occur
during feeding or as the animals clean their coats. The impact
of such ingestion depends upon the amount ingested, its toxicity,
and the physical condition of the pinnipeds. The long-term
effects on pinnipeds of various levels of hydrocarbon
bioaccumulation are largely unknown. Longer-term effects may
result from subtle changes in habitat and intrinsic stressors
within the environment rather than direct mortality (Boesch &
Rabalais, 1987).

Oil Spill Impacts on Cetaceans:

Effects of oil on cetaceans include: damage to skin or eyes
upon contact, the fouling of baleens, and physiological effects
of ingestion, and inhalation. Because the skin of cetaceans is
smooth and furless, oil is unlikely to adhere to it, although it
may adhere to the callosities that occur on right and humpback
whales. In a study of bottlenose dolphins to determine the
effects of direct skin contact with spilled oil, it was found
that exposure to crude oil for periods of up to 45 minutes
produced short-term, morphological, and biochemical changes to
the skin. Recovery appeared to be rapid following the oil

IV-50

exposure (Geraci and St. Aubin,.1982). Since whales depend on
blubber rather than fur for thermal regulation, oil would
generally not affect their ability to thermoregulate. How
cetaceans react to an oil spill on many variables including the
species type, time of year, and severity of the oil spill.

Although the effects of oil on cetaceans have not been
carefully investigated, scientists hypothesize that oil could
cause short-term and long-term harm. Scientists hypothesize that
cetaceans may suffer eye irritation as the result of contact with
oil, and that Baleen whales, such as the gray whale which migrate
through Olympic coast waters, are subject to baleen fouling as a
result of exposure to spilled oil. The southern migration
includes pregnant females, and the return migration to arctic
waters includes females accompanied by calves. Both pregnant
females and calves may be more susceptible to oil pollution than
male adults.

The bioaccumulation of oil in both baleen and toothed
cetaceans can occur as the result of eating contaminated food
supplies. There is little likelihood that oil would be inhaled
through the blow-hole, although it is possible the whales might
inhale small quantities of toxic fumes (Geraci and St. Aubin,
1980). Although the effects of hydrocarbon accumulation in
cetaceans are unknown, one can assume that the longer an animal
is exposed to spilled oil, the more likely it is to suffer
adverse effects. Prolonged exposure is most apt to occur when
feeding grounds are contaminated. For example, because baleen
whales are filter feeders, they may ingest oil or oil-tainted
substances. Gray whales that migrate through the sanctuary area
are susceptible to contamination since they feed on nearshore
bottom organisms.

Oil can destroy fish eggs which in turn can upset the
delicate balance of the food web, and thereby diminish an
important local food source for some species. In addition, oil
effects may reduce a mammalls.ability to find food, flee from
predators, and care adequately for their young. Although
bioaccumulation can occur, there currently is no data available
showing that accumulation of oil through the food chain will
result in a biomagnification effect on cetaceans.

In general, little is known about the ability of cetaceans
to avoid oil spills. Humpback whales, however, have been
observed feeding in oil-slicks without apparent immediate ill
effects (NOAA, 1979). Other cetaceans such as the bottlenose
dolphins can detect and will avoid thick oil accumulations, but
not thin oil sheens (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1982, 1983).
Experiments have also shown that dolphins can detect oil and,
under certain circumstances, will avoid oil (Boesch & Rabalais,
1987). The likelihood of prolonged exposure is diminished if the
slicks are avoided and even if certain species move through at

IV-51

normal speeds.

Oil Spill Impact on Marine Birds:

Oil spills can seriously harm or kill seabirds, which are
one of the most vulnerable animals to oil spills. The impacts on
seabirds from the Nestucca spill clearly demonstrated this fact.
Over 10,000 seabirds were killed in the days and weeks following
the Nestucca spill. The major cause of immediate mortality among
seabirds contaminated by oil is fouling of the feathers, which
reduces flying and swimming ability and results in a loss of
buoyancy and thermal insulation. It is generally assumed that
most birds that are oiled as a result of a major spill will die
(Hunt in MMS, 1989). The ingestion of toxic hydrocarbons,
sometimes by preening contaminated feathers, can produce
physiological stress which may eventually result in death. If
non-fatal contamination occurs during the breeding season it may
lead to reproductive abnormalities and failures. Birds that have
ingested toxic elements may produce inviable eggs, and birds
whose feathers are contaminated may transfer oil to eggs or
chicks, thus reducing hatching or fledgling success. Other
laboratory and field studies have shown that the ingestion of
petroleum products can cause physiological damage and potential
disruption of reproductive function (Hunt 1987; Fry 1987 in MMS,
1989).

A number of factors influence the vulnerability of different
species of birds to contact with spilled oil. Species which have
a tendency to form large, dense flocks on the water, spend
considerable time swimming on the water, or dive when alarmed are
extremely vulnerable, as are species which exist in small,
isolated populations (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1980).

Diving birds and species that spend a considerable amount of
time resting on the water are especially vulnerable to contact
with spilled oil. The alcid seabirds, which dominate the
population of seabirds on the Olympic coast (e.g., compose 86% of
the nesting seabird populations), are also vulnerable due to
their concentration in dense colonies. Dominant species in this
group are Cassin's auklets, common murres, rhinoceros auklets,
and tufted puffins. Destruction Island hosts one of the seven
major colonies of rhinoceros auklets in the world. The Copalis
Rocks Refuge contains 82% of the Brandt's cormorants, 77% of the
common murres, and 39% of the rhinoceros auklets breeding in the
state of Washington.

Local populations of cormorants and waterfowl are vulnerable
because they represent a large portion of the local total
population, the populations are low, and they would most likely
recover slowly (Strickland and Chasan, 1989). Shearwaters and
terns are also vulnerable but less so than diving birds. Marbled
murrelets (which are being considered by USFWS for inclusion on

IV-52

the threatened species list) have the highes t oil/bird
vulnerability index of any seabird because they feed in local
concentrations close to shore.

Catastrophic oil spills, like the 1971 Golden Gate spill,
generally result in extremely high marine bird mortality. Other
major oil spills, such as England's Torrey Canyon incident in
1967, have affected far larger numbers of birds than did the
Golden Gate spill and have resulted in very high bird mortality
(Holmes and Cronshaw, 1977) Attempts to clean oiled birds often
prove unsuccessful and may occasionally cause even more stress
than light oiling.

oil pollution threatens bird populations beyond immediate
mortality from ingestion of oil or fouling of feathers. Because
of their direct dependence on nearshore food sources, long-term
contamination of foraging grounds could cause major alterations
in marine reproductive capabilities. As with marine mammals,
birds may be adversely affected by the ingestion of oiled
invertebrates. The potential long-term, cumulative impacts of
nearby oil and gas development on marine bird habitat areas and
feeding grounds in the Olympic coast area remain largely unknown.

oil spill treatment and cleanup operations (including the
adverse effects of human intrusion) can also have serious impacts
on marine birds and marine mammals. Often the emulsifiers used
and the associated human activity during cleanup procedures have
been more harmful than the oil (MMS, 1987). Because many new
generation dispersants, which are supposed to be no more toxic
than oil, have not yet been fully evaluated, their environmental
effects remain largely unknown (MMS, 1987). Mechanical cleanup
and containment devices, such as booms, pose no toxic threat to
marine birds, however, the extensive human activity associated
with deployment can cause social disturbances within the marine
bird and mammal populations. As with oil spills themselves, the
impacts of cleanup operations would be particularly severe at
times when marine birds and mammals were highly concentrated,
e.g., during breeding or feeding activities.

Oil Spill Impact on Fish, Planktonic and Benthic Biota:

Oil spill impacts on the fish stocks and benthic fauna of
the Olympic Coast waters would depend largely upon the type of
oil involved (solubility, toxicity, etc.), the timing of the
spill with respect to reproduction and larval development,
migration patterns, and prevailing weather conditions.

Both lethal and sublethal effects of petrochemical pollution
have been noted in fish (Hawkes, 1977; Patten, 1977; Sniderman,
1979, 1982). Observed sublethal effects range from visible
physical abnormalities to subcellular defects. Some fish exhibit
severe anatomical deformities such as curvature of the spine. At

IV-53

the tissue level, lesions may develop on the skin, gills, or
intestine (Hawkes, 1977; Sinderman, 1982). In addition to any
possible health hazards from the consumption of contaminated fish
by humans, these sublethal effects are aesthetically displeasing
and increase the difficulty of marketing fish for human
consumption.

Patten (1977) and Sinderman (1978) discuss changes in
behavior, metabolism, locomotor and activity patterns, growth,
feeding and reproduction. Laboratory research, for example, has
demonstrated deleterious effects on the survival and growth of
.eggs and larvae during spawning conditions due to short, low-
level hydrocarbon exposures (Whipple et al., 1978). These
laboratory results do not necessarily predict the effects of open
ocean exposure to hydrocarbon discharges, where levels of
contaminants may differ.

The lethal toxicity of oil ranges from .1 to 100 parts per
million of soluble aromatics for adult marine organisms. Larvae
are usually 10 to 100 times more sensitive than adults.
Sublethal effects have been demonstrated with aromatic compounds
in concentrations as low as 10 to 1,000 parts per billion
(Johnston, 1979). The impact of a spill is thus apt to depend on
the magnitude of egg and larval mortality. Because the early
life stages are often pelagic, they are more susceptible to the
effects of a surface slick. Heavier hydrocarbon elements are
characterized by aromatics of higher molecular weight and lower
water solubility. These elements may.be avoided by adult
finfish, but benthic organisms are highly susceptible to the
lethal effects.

Although offshore production in general may be compatible
with healthy fisheries in some areas, studies following past oil-
tanker spills demonstrate some long-term damage from crude oil in
the near shore area. Studies plaice, centered on breeding
grounds and estuarine habitat, show 27 months after the spill,
recovery of the fishery, although improved, was still not
complete (Neff and Haensl , 1982).

A large oil spill in, or close to, valuable fishing areas
poses a potentially serious threat to Washington State's valuable
sport and commercial fisheries, including aquaculture. Oil
spills or chronic exposure can affect fisheries through loss of
fishing time or gear, tainting of fish, and direct destruction of
the fishery. The most serious long-term effect is lingering
tainting of stocks (Michael, 1977). Although direct toxic
effects on an entire fishery of finfish whose populations cover
large areas are not probable, smaller fishery segments can.be
seriously harmed. Generally, fisheries are most vulnerable
during the reproductive and juvenile stages. Many species
concentrate in small geographic areas during these stages
increasing the potential for serious ecological consequences as a

IV-54

result of contaminant concentrations.

In the waters of the Olympic coast, salmonids are very
important to both the commercial and recreational fishery. They
are susceptible to spills which could occur near estuaries and
river mouths. Some lethal and sublethal effects of adult salmon
exposed to oil in laboratories include tissue damage, narcosis,
and reduction in the ability to sense "home" waters. Tainting of
the salmon flesh, which can spoil the catch's marketability,
poses a serious threat to the commercial fisheries. A large
potential risk from spilled oil exists for juvenile salmon during
their migration into salt water from rivers and estuaries.
Groundfish are also vulnerable to spilled oil at all life cycle
stages; the groundfish catch off the Washington coast has
exceeded that of salmon (Strickland and Chasan, 1989).

Shellfish, particularly Dungeness crab, pink shrimp, razor
clams and oysters are also important fisheries of the Olympic
coast region. Crab and shrimp eggs and larvae float in the water
and are extremely sensitive to lethal and sublethal effects from
hydrocarbon exposure. Razor clams and oysters are particularly
susceptible to the effects of oil because they are immobile
filter feeders (Strickland and Chasan, 1989). A major oil spill
could cause significant long-lasting damage to the production of
clams and oysters along the Washington coast.

The effects of oil and gas activities on kelp are serious
particularly because kelp is a critical habitat for many species
of fish. It is generally believed that the susceptibility of
kelp and other plants to oil pollution varies with life stage,
and that the adult kelp generation has an outer mucilage covering
which appears to protect it against oil toxicity (U.S. Bureau of
Land Management, 1979). While there appears to be little
evidence to indicate that kelp is harmed by oil, the fish and
fauna which live in the kelp may be harmed by ingesting, or
coming into contact with,'the oil trapped in the fronds.

Drilling and production platforms may form an artificial
reef environment which could have short-term benefits for some
fishery species. 'The fishery habitat remains in existence only
during the life of the field and disappears once the platform is
removed. This limited enhancement must be balanced against
threats posed by oil and gas production.

Oil Spill Impacts on Estuaries, Wetlands, and other Critical
Coastal Habitats:

The intertidal area is an important breeding, spawning and
feeding ground for many marine organisms; the area also provides
substrate and suitable habitat for many other species. oil in
the intertidal zone can affect the benthic biota by smothering,
fouling, or directly poisoning organisms (Michael, 1977). As a

IV-55

result of the Valdez and Nestucca spills, for example, a
significant amount of oil washed up on beaches, rocky shorelines
and bays. A tanker collision spill, which occurred at the
Golden Gate Bridge in 1971, provides an example of oil
contamination in mussel beds located on the high rocks at
Duxberry reef. Although comparison of pre-oil and post-oil
transects showed a significant short-term decrease in marine life
after the oil spill, the visible signs of oil passed rather
quickly with no long term damage documented (Chan, 1977). Oil
spills, however, pervaded the upper tidepool waters almost a year
following the accident and there was selective evidence of
marginal organism recruitment.

Wetlands and estuaries are critical coastal habitats for a
number of the species discussed in Part II. These areas are
highly productive'areas that are important in sustaining offshore
oceanic biota with nutrient resources as well as habitat for part
of their life-cycles. Estuaries are critical rearing areas for
juvenile flatfish and other groundfish, salmonids, crab and other
significant species.

The estuaries of the Washington coast are poorly flushed
soft-bottom embayments which can retain harmful oil residues and
delay biological productivity. Once in the sediments of an
estuary, oil can remain for years and destroy the entire
ecosystem (MMS, 1987). If the substrate is heavily oiled,
erosion can increase by 24 times (MMS, 1987) and thereby
permanently alter the morphology and physical fluid dynamics of
the estuary. Finally, according to MMS (1987) it is extremely
difficult to protect estuary mouths by sealing them off if they
are larger than 100 m. The openings to both Grays Harbor'and
Willapa Bay are greater than 100 meters in width and are
therefore especially vulnerable to oil spills.

A wide variety of pollutant discharges are normally
associated with OCS oil and gas development: drill cuttings and
muds, sewage and trash, formation (or produced) waters, marine
corrosion products, and air pollutants (e.g. petroleum aerosols
and exhausts). Hazards to living resources from oil development
operations can result from the on-site discharge of drill
cuttings and drilling muds. These materials may adversely affect
benthic biota as well as fishery resources, seabirds, and marine
mammals. Drilling muds consist of naturally occurring minerals
such as barite, simple chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and
potassium chloride, and complex organic compounds such as
lignosulfonates and formaldehydes. Department of the Interior
OCS Order Number 7 forbids the discharge of drilling muds
containing toxic substances into ocean waters.

In 1983, the Marine Board of the National Research Council

IV-56

conducted a study of drilling discharges. The study found that
these discharges present minimal risk to the marine environment.
The Marine Board did note, however, that drilling discharges do
have an impact on the immediate benthic environment (National
Research Council, 1983). However, more recent research (EPA,
1985) has shown significant benthic impacts from platform
discharges up to two miles from a drilling site. Rocky reefs and
hard-bottom areas off the Washington coast are susceptible to
impacts from drilling fluids and muds.

Fluids and the lighter elements in drilling discharges
rapidly disperse in the water column. The heavier elements, over
90 percent of the discharged material, settle to the bottom,
usually in a plume extending in the direction of prevailing
bottom currents. The potential impacts on marine organisms
resulting from the discharge of drilling muds and cuttings are:
1) decreased primary production caused by increased turbidity
which reduces light levels; 2) interference with filter feeding
caused by high particulate loads; 3) burial of benthic
communities; and 4) injury resulting from the acute or chronic
toxic effects of drilling mud constituents.

Air pollution discharges normally associated with
hydrocarbon activities (e.g. nitrogen and sulfur dioxides, carbon
monoxide, particles, and organic fumes) can affect and
potentially degrade local air quality. The discharged gases
originate from a number of activities directly associated with
oil and gas development including: flaring of excess gas, motor
emissions from the platform, vessel traffic, onshore facilities,
and petroleum fume releases from normal operational spills.
Impacts on air quality from these gases depends on local
meteorology and wind conditions. MMS projects possible impacts
to the Puget Sound area, and minor impacts to the coastal area.

(d) Acoustic and Visual Disturbances

Oil and gas platforms, rigs, and related activities create
both a visual intrusion on the scenic qualities of the area's
seascape, and disturbances from construction activities and the
sound and movement of boats and helicopters (U. S. Bureau of Land
Management, 1979). Seismic survey equipment can interfere with
fishing activities. In December, 1980 more than 1200 crab pots
were caught in the airgun array of a vessel conducting a
geophysical survey in Federal waters off Washington, causing in
excess of $100,000 damage to fishing gear alone. As these pots
were rendered irretrievable, they continued to catch crab. The
Washington Department of Fisheries estimated a 5% loss of the
offshore crab resource and untold opportunity costs as a
consequence of this incident alone. The acoustic signals used
during surveys have been shown to decrease catches of some
rockfish species, kill fish eggs and larvae that are present near
the generating apparatus, and alter swimming behavior in gray

IV-57

whales. The continuous human activity associated with oil and gas
development and the steady stream of crew and supply boats create
visual impacts and noise which may disturb marine birds and
marine mammals, particularly during sensitive nesting, pupping,
and migration seasons. Pinniped stampeding or sudden flights by
nesting birds can occur if these disturbances occur very close to
shore (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1979). During critical
breeding periods, such reactions could result in increased
mortality rates in young marine birds and marine mammals (U.S.
Bureau of Land Management, 1979). The Washington Department of
Ecology is funding an analysis of probable biological impacts
from seismic testing to be completed in the summer of 1990.

Due to the undeveloped nature of the Olympic Coast area, the
presence of an oil rig offshore would detract from the wilderness
experience derived from visiting the beaches along the sanctuary
shoreline. MMS (1989) stated that platform construction will
create unavoidable adverse impacts to the visual resources, and
that these impacts would last the life of the projected OCS,
activity.

(e) Socioeconomic Impacts

The socioeconomic consequences of prohibiting oil and gas
activities within the sanctuary include effects on local
communities and industries such as tourism and fishing.
Prohibiting oil and gas development wit'hin the sanctuary will
result in net positive effects on the local communities by
reducing threats to the natural resource based economies.

Most of the revenues produced from oil and gas development
would flow to the oil industry, while most of the impacts would
be borne by the local communities and state government. If oil
and gas development were to proceed, local communities might
experience the short and long term effects of the boom-bust
phenomenon.. The local communities'along the Olympic coast have
traditionally relied on natural resources (e.g., timber, pulp,
and fish) for the basis of their economy. The economy of these
communities is chronically-depressed and unemployment has been
higher than the Washington state average. The expected
employment benefits for the local communities is minimal. MMS's
low case'scenario predicts that 1,176 jobs would be created at
the development stage. Estimates indicate that at the
development stage a platform would employ 105 people per 12 hour
shift and 175 people per 7 hour shift. Most of the skilled jobs
located on the drilling rigs would be filled by non-local
workers. The influx of outside workers could produce some
problems in small communities. Past experiences dictate that
increased population could increase: housing prices, certain
types of crimes, traffic, demand for social services, and need
for government spending.

IV-58

Construction work might be made available to the local
residents, although there is no guarantee that the lessee would
hire locally. Even though a very small amount of jobs may be
created, the minimal employment might have a significant short
term benefit to the smaller communities. After the production
stage the work force would rapidly decrease and eventually
diminish completely.

Offshore oil and gas activities may also significantly
affect fishing activities with or without consideration of a
major oil spill. The impacts on fish populations following a
major spill have already been addressed above. It must also be
recognized that OCS oil and gas exploration and development may
create spatial conflicts with fishermen, both offshore and at
dockside. At the exploration stage, the gear employed during
seismic surveys could become entangled with crab pots and other
fixed gear, and have in the past off Washington. Placement of a
platform could cause similar but more severe space use conflicts
since the platforms would remain offshore for the life of the
lease. While platforms can serve as artificial reefs, which
could enhance the fishing from charter or privately owned fishing
boats, commercial trawlers may suffer economic losses by having
to avoid the platforms. This, of course, would depend on whether
the rig was placed within a popular fishing area. There is also
potential for conflicts between supply boats and fishing vessels
over harbor space for docking or anchoring. This dockside
spatial conflict has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico where oil
companies and the fishing industry compete for dockside
facilities.

b. Conseauences of Impact to Uses

Under the status quo, no oil or gas will be developed within
the Sanctuary. This action adds further protection to the
coastal resources and fishing and tourist industries-from the
potential impacts of oil and gas development. This action also
maintains the undeveloped viewshed. Further, there will be no
social impacts of oil and gas development on coastal communities.
The impacts of the industry on coastal communities may be both
positive and negative. Development would bring economic
development to coastal communities suffering from unemployment
and seeking new opportunities for economic growth. The oil and
gas industry, however, tends to employ individuals with
specialized skills and would likely import labor. The
importation of labor to develop oil and gas resources off the
coast may result in cultural conflicts with the existing
population, and overly stress the existing community
infrastructure which is insufficient to handle such growth (MMS,
1990).

IV-59

2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred)
a Conseauence of Impact to Resources

NOAA is implementing through Sanctuary regulations the
Congressionally mandated prohibition on oil and gas exploration
and development within the boundary of the Olympic Coast National
Marine Sanctuary. Further, the Sanctuary regulations prohibit
all mineral development and exploration within the Sanctuary.
This prohibition will protect the significant natural resources
and qualities that are especially sensitive to potential impacts
from outer continental shelf oil and gas activities. In
particular, the sea otters, sea birds, and pinnipeds that use the
haul-out sites, kelp forests, and rocks along the Olympic
Peninsula and the Sanctuary's high water quality are especially
vulnerable to oil and gas activities in the area. MMS rates the
Washington/region planning area as the area of the continental
U.S. (outside of Alaska) in the current Five Year Leasing Plan
that is highest in rank on a broad index of marine productivity
and environmental sensitivity. It has a higher environmental
productivity and sensitivity ranking, and lower hydrocarbon
potential, than the Monterey Bay, California Sanctuary planning
area which was recently closed off to OCS oil and gas activities
by Presidential Proclamation. A prohibition on oil and gas
activities within the Sanctuary boundary will help protect
Sanctuary resources and qualities.

This prohibition does not completely protect the Sanctuary
from the potential impacts from oil and gas development.
Development activities can occur south of the Sanctuary boundary,
and if an accident were to occur during the winter months, the
spill would be carried by the currents northward into the
Sanctuary. NOAA will have some control over any future
exploration or development activity through the Sanctuary
prohibition on discharges that enter and injure Sanctuary
resources from outside Sanctuary boundaries.

b. Conseguences of Impact to Uses

NOAA's prohibition on oil and gas exploration and
development within the Sanctuary boundary will eliminate the
potential for increased noise and human activity in coastal and
offshore waters. It will also eliminate the need for additional
supply boats to enter the nearshore waters and overflights of
helicopters that may incidentally approach nesting or resting
marine mammals or birds. This prohibition will eliminate the
development pressures on shore to support such activities.

Given the wealth of sensitive renewable natural resources
within the proposed Sanctuary, the high tourism and commercial
fishery value of the area, and the present indications of low
national oil and gas resource potential, it is NOAA's judgement
that the net economic effect resulting from a restriction on

IV-60

hydrocarbon operations is most likely positive. The net economic
effect of the regulation depends largely on the amount of
hydrocarbon reserves foregonel dollar value of the oil, the
estimated value of the renewable resources, and the economic
value of the tourist industry.

NOAA believes that the regulation will have positive long-
term economic impacts by contributing to the preservation and
health of renewable sources of income, such as fishing and
recreation, due to the long term protection of such activities
from potential oil spills, discharges and visual and acoustical
disturbance. In addition, the Sanctuary research and education
programs would have long term benefits by enabling natural
resource managers to make better informed decisions regarding the
preservation, enhancement and possible additional economic
benefits of the areas's natural resources and uses. This
regulation will however eliminate any use of the area by the oil
and gas industry.

Boundary alternative 4 encompasses an estimated 5%.of the
reserves estimated to be in former Lease Sale #132. Since the
exploratory activities have been cursory, there is no accurate
indication of the amount of oil and gas reserves within this
Lease Block. Therefore, it is impossible to determine the exact
economic impact of the prohibition on oil and gas development
within the Sanctuary.

It is possible that the proposed prohibition would reduce
U.S. Treasury income from offshore lease sales and leasing
royalties. The total amount of lost revenue estimated by MMS
from these conditional resource estimates may be modified by the
results of petroleum development pursuant to actual drilling
associated with some future Lease Sale, as well as an analysis of
economic feasibility and environmental and regulatory
constraints. Economic feasibility is determined solely by the
oil industry based on lease sale costs at the time of sale,
current oil prices, proposed project costs, and environmental
reviews and mitigation costs. oil development costs and expected
returns per investment are considered confidential information by
the oil industry. Once again, environmental and regulatory
constraints are impossible to identify due to the lack of
experience of the Washington/Oregon planning area with offshore
oil and gas development.

C. Discharges or Deposits
1. Status Quo
a. Consequence of Impact to Resource

with increasing human uses in the ocean and adjacent
watersheds, discharges and deposits into the proposed Sanctuary
can be predicted to increase, further threatening the resources
and qualities of the area, particularly in the coastal zone, and

IV-61

human uses such as fishing and recreation that depend upon high
water quality.

Under the status quo, discharges will continue to pressure
the resources of the coastal zone. It is believed that the
cumulative impacts of point and non-point source pollution has
already begun affecting the quality of the kelp beds and benthic
communities along the Strait and outer coast. Without a
coordinated approach and goal for protecting the coastal
resources, the impacts may continue to degrade under the pressure
of coastal development.

i. Discharges from Point Sources

The Tribes receive their NPDES permits directly from EPA
rather than obtaining them through the WDOE.

The only point source discharges from the U.S. along the
outer coast and Strait of Juan de Fuca occur from Tribal
treatment plants. The Makah and the Quileute Tribes are the only
Tribes that are permitted by EPA to discharge wastewater into the
marine environment. The Makah's have an inadequate sewage
treatment plant and are in the process of upgrading their
treatment system. Under consideration is restoration of an ocean
outfall pipe which has not been in use for years, but is
permitted by EPA. This ocean outfall would discharge into the
Strait of Juan de Fuca sewage having received primary treatment.
To rehabilitate the outfall would require a Clean Water Act
(Section 301(h)) waiver from EPA. The Makah's are considering
building a lagoon to treat their wastes which-would achieve the
equivalent of secondary treatment during peak season and tertiary
treatment during the off season.

The Quileute Tribe have been plagued with costly mechanical
failures and erosion of the drainage field which drains their
treatment plant. They too are planning to upgrade their
treatment plant.
ii. Non-Point Source Discharges

Non-point source discharges result mainly as a consequence
of timber practices in the coastal drainage basins. There is
anecdotal evidence that the kelp beds have been negatively
impacted by increasing sedimentation over the past 20 years. The
Pyscht River estuary, supporting the largest saltwater marsh in
the Strait of Juan de Fuca, has experienced severe sedimentation
which is degrading important juvenile salmonid habitat and is
likely representative of other small estuarine environments
adjacent to the boundaries of the study area.

iii. Hazardous waste, oil and trash disposal

There is an unknown quantity of pollutants and trash which

IV-62

enters the Olympic Coast area from the open ocean. These
discharges and deposits may have been transported far distances
by ocean currents or may have come from vessels. In addition to
reducing overall water quality and lessening the aesthetic appeal
of the area, the discharge of litter may harm marine mammals that
sometimes ingest or become entangled in such litter. In areas of
the northern Pacific Ocean as many as 8,000 fur seals become
entangled in such debris annually (Haley, 1978). The incidence
of the mortality associated with this type of mammal disturbance
remains unclear.

The MPPRCA of 1987 amends MARPOL, by prohibiting the
disposal by ships of plastics, such as fishing lines and bags..
This protects marine animals and seabirds from ingesting these
wastes while foraging, or becoming entangled in them, possibly
leading to illness or death. The MPPRCA regulations also
prohibit, for example, the disposal by ships of paper, rags,
glass, metal bottles, crockery and similar refuse less than 12
nautical miles from the nearest land; the disposal of dunnage
lining and packing materials that float less than 25 nautical
miles from the nearest land; and the disposal of victual waste
less than 12 nautical miles from land (if ground, 3 nautical
miles).

Discharges, such as cooling waters from boat engines and
fish wastes, used in, or resulting from, fishing vessels during
traditional fishing operations are unlikely to harm the resources
of the Sanctuary. Discharges resulting from military activities
in the area, such as smoke markers, sonobuoys and ordinance, are
slight and do not appear to pose a threat to the resources and
qualities of the proposed Sanctuary. In addition, Department of
Defense vessels are required to be equipped with oil-water
separators. The water effluent from these devises must meet
standards of 20 parts per million (ppm) oil within 12 nautical
miles from land, or 100 ppm beyond 12 nautical miles from land.
The oil portion is retained on board for shore disposal.

iv. ocean pumping

Ocean dumping, municipal outfalls, and dredged material
disposal can smother benthic biota and introduce substances into
the marine environment, which may affect fish, bird, and mammal
resources. However, all ocean dumping need not meet the
standards established by Title I of the MPRSA.

Currently, the dredge disposal sites in Washington are
located off Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay and the Columbia River. No
dredge disposal sites are located north of Grays Harbor. There
are plans to expand the marina at Neah Bay and dredge disposal is
planned to be used for beach nourishment near the marina and
disposed at upland sites.

IV-63

b. Conseguence of Impact to Uses

Most regulatory decisions pertaining to dischargers are
determined on a case-by-case basis with the primary intent of
facilitating the use rather than protecting the environment. The
Juan de Fuca Canyon and important benthic habitats would not be.
given special consideration when deciding upon permits.
Therefore from the Sanctuary's perspective, certain gaps remain
in the regulatory framework.

2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred)
a. Conseauence of Impact to Resources

The proposed final regulations prohibiting discharge or
deposit of materials or other matter (with certain limited
exceptions) without NOAA approval complements the existing
regulatory system'. and would enhance the area's overall
recreational and aesthetic appeal, maintain the present good
water quality in the Sanctuary, and help protect Sanctuary
resources. By maintaining high water quality off the Olympic
Peninsula and regulating discharge and deposit activities from an
ecosystem-wide perspective the impact of this regulation is
predicted to protect the resources and qualities of the Sanctuary
above that of the status quo.

Although the Sanctuary would not be terminating any existing
uses that discharge or deposit into the Sanctuary, it is expected
that this discharge prohibition would have a positive impact on
Sanctuary resources through the restriction and possible
prohibition of future discharges that threaten the resources and
qualities of the Sanctuary. By serving as the steward for
Sanctuary resources, the Sanctuary intends to monitor the status
of coastal resources and impacts from point and non-point source
discharges. There is currently, no comprehensive protection and
monitoring of those resources, despite the fact that they
represent some of the most diverse and prolific intertidal and
subtidal communities in the Pacific Northwest, and indeed, the
.world. Protection of these resources from point and non-point
source discharges will ensure continued use of the resources for
subsistence harvest, recreational diving, and recreational,
commercial, and treaty fisheries. @The Sanctuary program will
coordinate with watershed management initiatives and agencies
with management jurisdiction in the coastal watersheds to monitor
and protect the coastal resources.

b. Conseauence of Impact to Uses

The impact of these regulations is expected to be beneficial
to the users of the Sanctuary. The requirement of Sanctuary
review of permits for municipal outfall disposal ensures that
these potentially harmful activities receive special
consideration from the Sanctuary's perspective. The Sanctuary

IV-64

will ensure the continued use from such activities as
recreational diving, fishing, tourism, research, aquaculture and
others that depend on high water quality.

Another positive effect of the regulations would be that by
working within the existing regulatory process NOAA will provide
and coordinate data from existing studies that can be used to
make better informed management decisions by all agencies
including the Sanctuary. For example, there are a few site-
specific watershed planning initiatives that are underway on the
Peninsula to minimize point source pollution in the coastal
watersheds. Yet, because there is little or no monitoring of the
coastal resources, it will be difficult to evaluate the
effectiveness of watershed plans and the means by which to fine-
tune them if necessary. NOAA can facilitate the process by
coordinating these initiatives and helping to set standards for
discharges that will ensure the future protection of the coastal
resources.

Those that discharge into the Sanctuary would not be
prohibited from, pursuant to existing permits, conducting their
activities following designation. Discharges and deposits are
subject to all prohibitions, restrictions and conditions validly
imposed by any other authority of competent jurisdiction. NOAA
may regulate the exercise of existing permits or other
authorizations (but not terminate them) to achieve the purposes
for which the Sanctuary was designated.

NOAA will also review applications for new permits and other
authorizations. Applicants must provide timely notice of the
filing of the applications and any additional information NOAA
deems necessary. NOAA will either approve them, approve them
with terms and conditions, or disapprove them to ensure Sanctuary
resources and qualities are protected.

Activities conducted by Tribes pursuant to an existing
treaty shall not be terminated by the Sanctuary program. Tribal
activities authorized by an existing Treaty may only be regulated
if all other possible alternatives have been exhausted with no
resulting benefits to the resources, or in emergency situations.

NOAA intends to consult with scientific institutions and
local, State and regional organizations, as well as with the
holders of, or applicants for, any authorization or right and the
relevant permitting authorities of these activities to determine
means of achieving the Sanctuary purposes. If additional
conditions are necessary, NOAA will work with the permittees and
permitting authorities to determine the necessary level of
conditions to provide adequate protection of Sanctuary resources.
Procedures to ensure efficient administration of NOAA
certification and other processes are explained in the proposed
final Sanctuary regulations. In general, NOAA intends to work

IV-65

with existing authorities to formalize the oversight and
management role of the Sanctuary and increase Federal, state,
tribal and local cooperative efforts to achieve the agencies
mutual goals.

For example, the requirement of NOAA certification of
existing permits for municipal sewage outfalls will ensure,NOAA
consideration of potential impacts on Sanctuary resources and
qualities. The NOAA certification process will be coordinated
with EPA, the state and tribal governments. NOAA approval of
future permits for municipal sewage outfalls is necessary to
exempt such outfalls from Sanctuary regulatory prohibitions.
NOAA participation in the permitting process will ensure
protection of Sanctuary resources and qualities.

The requirement for new permits of secondary treatment or
greater, as necessary depending on the risk to Sanctuary
resources and qualities, is expected to minimally impact the
coastal economy. The Quileute Tribe is currently planning
improvements to their wastewater treatment facility and the Makah
are planning upgrades of their facility as well. Both are
currently discharging primary treated effluents; however, their
improvements are expected to attain secondary treatment.

In reviewing existing or future permits, licenses,
approvals, or other authorizations, NOAA intends to encourage
best available management practices to minimize non-point source
pollution entering the Sanctuary. Sanctuary review of discharge
activities will be done in coordination with EPA, the state and
the tribes. No disposal sites may be permitted within the
Sanctuary.

D. Historical Resources
1. Status Ouo
a. Conseauence of Impact to Resources

The most significant cultural resources are tribal areas of
cultural and/or historical significance. The tribes have
inventoried the sites that are significant. Many are rocks,
paths, islands with burial grounds, etc.. that dot the entire
Washington Coast. There have also been numerous shipwrecks along
the coast, most have been a result of groundings on the offshore
rocks. The wave energy, however, has resulted in the
disintegration of most of the shipwrecks. There are records of
shipwrecks further offshore but none have been excavated due to
the low economic value of the cargo transported by these vessels,
and the technical difficulty in accessing the shipwrecks. There
is one shipwreck in.130 feet of water off Tongue Point in the
Strait of Juan de Fuca which is a popular dive spot. The mast of
this ship, located in-130 feet of water, reaches to a depth of 80
ft.

IV-66

A recent MMS study of the geologic makeup of the offshore
continental shelf indicates that there were probably human
settlements along the submerged continental shelf dating back to
the last glaciation. studies using satellites and radar imagery
are needed to locate artifacts submerged in the offshore
continental shelf.

The Washington State Office of Archeology in the WDCD is
responsible for maintaining an inventory of marine archeological
resources in Washington State waters. The tribes are consulted
during the permitting process for activities resulting in the
excavation or disturbance of tribal archeological resources in
state waters. Pursuant to the State Environmental Protection
Act, the process for permitting research activities accounts for
ecological impacts on the marine environment.

b. Conseauence of Impact to Uses

Current activities will continue under the status quo
without any special protection to historical sites beyond state
waters There would be no special requirements for private sector
uses such as treasure salvors and recreational divers or public
sector agencies such as the Navy, to consider the historic value
and ecological consequences of their uses from a Sanctuary
perspective.

2. Sanctuary Alterngtive (Preferred)
a. Consequence of Impact to Resources

Historical resources are defined as resources possessing
historical, cultural, archaeological or paleontological
significance, including sites, structures, districts, and objects
significantly associated with or representative of earlier
people, cultures, human -activities and events. Thus any
inundated prehistoric aboriginal sites and associated artifacts,
as well as shipwrecks would be included in the resource
protection regime of the proposed Sanctuary.

This regulation is aimed at protecting historical resources
NOAA's policy regarding historical resources is fairly congruent
with existing state policy. NOAA intends to extend this policy
to Federal waters. The regulations provide for the issuance of a
NOAA permit for various reasons, e.g., research or to further
salvage or recovery operations in connection with an abandoned
shipwreck in the Sanctuary (title to which is held by Washington
State).

NOAA will thus be able to ensure that all parties affecting
historical resources within the Sanctuary conduct their
activities according to recognized archeological procedures.
NOAA will also be able to ensure that the activity is conducted
consistent with the NHPA and that the proposed user consult with

IV-67

the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer.

As part of the Sanctuary management regime NOAA intends to
research the number and type of historical resources within the
boundaries of the Sanctuary, building on the research of others
in the area, and at other Sanctuary sites along the west coast.
This research will further our understanding of human
populations, their use of the marine environment, and how to
protect these resources so that they are available to future
generations.

NOAA will also seek National Register listing of appropriate
identified resources located'in the Sanctuary under the NHPA.
Listing would make available grant and survey funds from the
Secretary of the*Interior (Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service) to be'used to identify resource distributions and assess
their significance. Placement on the National Register also
ensures careful review of proposed Federal activities which could
adversely affect identified resources. However, listing does not
prevent removal or damage of the resource by non-Federal
entities.

Historical resources in the marine environment are fragile,
finite and non-renewable. This prohibition is designed to
protect these resources so that they may be researched and
information about their contents and type are made available to
the public.

b. Consequence of Impact to Uses

The proposed final regulation is not likely to significantly
affect existing activities within the Sanctuary. Users such as
Navy salvage operations, recreational divers and treasure salvors
would have to obtain a Sanctuary permit if their proposed
activity would violate the Sanctuary prohibition.

The current management regime for excavating archeological
resources allocates up to 10% of the value (economic value or
artifacts) of an excavation after having an opportunity to
examine all of the resources prior to falling into private
ownership. The Sanctuary will require that the sanctuary program
has access to all archeological resources for educational
purposes, including those ultimately destined for personal
possession pursuant to state law.

NOAA can also impose penalties of up to $100,000/violation
for infractions of the Sanctuary regulation addressing
historic/cultural resources. This regulation does not apply to
moving, removing or injury to historical resources resulting
incidentally from aquaculture or traditional fishing operations.

IV-68

E. Alteration of, or Construction on the Seabed
1. Status Ouo
a. Conseauence-of Impact to Resources

Currently, the only activities that involve altering or
constructing on the seabed are the placement of hydroacoustic
sonobouys and cable by the Navy within a 25 square nautical mile
subsurface torpedo range off of Kalaloch. However, commercially
valuable sand and gravel deposits off of Cape Flattery and the
Quinault River have the potential of being commercially
developed. This mining could potentially have severe impacts on
the benthic environment disrupting habitat for the valuable crab
and groundfish fisheries, and gray whale foraging areas (Table
8).

b. Conseguence-of Impacts to Uses

The status quo will allow dump sites to be established
within the Sanctuary pursuant to EPA and COE permits. Also,
gravel deposits will be available for development. These
activities will be pursued without protection from a Sanctuary
perspective.

2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred)
a. Conseauence of Impact to Resources

The Sanctuary prohibition on alteration of, or construction
on the seabed will ensure the continued integrity of the benthic
habitat which is critical to the support the marine fish, mammal
and seabird populations. Effects of marine mining include
emissions of gaseous or particulate matter to the atmosphere,
changes in water quality such as red tides, increased turbidity,
and storm induced slides, major geologic impacts in the coastal
zone where wave energy is a dominant force, changes in current
patterns inducing erosion or deposition, and introduction of new
habitats which may cause the loss of feeding areas for marine
mammals and other organisms in the food web.

b. Conseguence of Impact to Uses

The Sanctuary regulation ensures that the integrity of the
entire-ecosystem of the Sanctuary does not degrade through the
cumulative impacts of development projects. These impacts
threaten to diminish the value of the region for fisheries,
recreation, wildlife, and spiritual benefits.

. Currently, dredging of harbors within the preferred boundary
(La Push and Neah Bay) occurs rarely and clean dredge spoils are
deposited to renourish beaches and stabilize jetties. These
harbor maintenance activities will not be impacted by the
Sanctuary since harbors are excluded from sanctuary boundaries.
The planned expansion of the marina at Neah Bay will necessitate

IV-69

1-3

Resource and
Environment
Significant Findings Salient References'

AIR OLIALITY
Emissions of gaseous or particulate matter to the atmosphere are of greatest potential concern. Principle LISDOI. MMS (1988b) 0
emissions are nitrous oxides and residual (reactive) organic compounds. During exploration and test mining. OTEC publications
emissions are expected to have little effect on onshore air quality except offshore California where high
0
background pollution already exists. Emissions from marine mining sources are expected to be qualitatively (D
and quantitatively similar to oil and gas related sources. In the deep ocean, some gases might be released (n 0
from seawater brought to the surface from the seabed via hydraulic dredging; information on this effect is
sparse. Noise from non-explosive seismic exploration activity is generally dismissed as insignificanL In terms
of global or regional effects of marine mining, there is only limited literature on this subject. Effects are M
generally examined on a she-specific level. No significant problems or priority areas for research are rioted. 0
M <
WATER QUAL17Y 0 H-

(D 0
Natural Effects In general, the natural effects of environmental change are easily recognized. Phenomena such as red tides,
mega-plumes resulting from seabed hydrothermal activity. and storm- or eadhquake-induced slides may
result in Significant but temporary changes in water quality. M
H Z
Induced Effects Induced effects (e.g.. turbidity. nutrient or trace metal endchment) may result in secondary effects throughout 471"
-C@ U) IV
I the trophic web. @.J
0 Deep Ocean and OCS Impacts are difficult lo assess. The capacity for assimilation of plumes increases in deep water. however Aurand and Mamontav (1982)
other factors (e.g.. presence of a thermoctine, low velocity benthic currents) may prolong the effects of Cruickshank et al. (1987)
plumes compared to shallow coastal waters. Effects should be examined on a site-specific basis. Dilution of de Groot -(I 979b)
Li M
a discharge to low concentrations is rapid (i.e.. reduced to 1,000 ppm within 2 min of discharge; to 10 ppm Drinnan and Bli3s (1986) C
within I h). The affected zone typically extends 1.000 to 2.000 m down current Field studies of drilling muds ECOMAR (1963) Ct
and other discharges indicate that pollutants are rapidly reduced to background levels. Long-term, chronic Evans et al. (1982)
effects of these discharges have not been observed. Mining discharges we subject to the same settling and Gillis and IO* (1980)
dilution factors as oil and gas related discharges. Turbidity from resuspended sediments may be detected Hirsch et al. (1978) 0
down current over many km: direct effects and indirect effects (e.g., nutrient or trace metal enrichment Middleditch (t981)
increased biological or chemical oxygen demand) are limited to Om immediate area of operations. Petroleum Neff (1981. 1985)
spills from marine mining activities would be limited to fuels (during transfer) and tanker loss. U.S. Congress. Office of
Technol. Assess. (1987)
Zippin (1988)
Coastal and Marine mining would affect water circulation and water quality proportionally to the level of activity, Large U.S. Congress. Office of
Onshore stockpiles of marine minerals or mining wastes could be usefully maintained or disposed of at convenient Technol. Assess. (1987)
sites near to shore: impacts from these activities can only be assessed by analysis of she-specific conditions.
The shallow and confined nature of many coastal waters makes them susceptible to perturbation or
pollutants. Turbidity is generally not considered a problem (e.g., sand and gravel mining operations are
discontinuous; deposits rarely contain large amounts of silt-sized material). Good management practices are
critical to eliminate potential impacts. A very low potential exists for release of chemicals normally associated LQ
with harbor and channef dredging (e.g.. PCBs. trace metals).

Resource and
Environment Significant Findings Salient References'
Terrestrial Sites Impacts on water quality at shoreside facilities are attributed to gaseous, liquid, of solid waste emissions. Ellis (1987, 1988, 1989)
Potentially serious problems include the dumping of mined tailings and processing wastes into adjacent Ellis and Hoover (1990)
waterways. The nature of the effect will be influenced by the characteristics of the dumped material, the
nature of the waterway, and its ecosystem.
GEOLOGICAL The primary effect Is the removal of the ofe: additional secondary effects may include alteration of the value of
.RESOURCES remaining mineral resources (grade depletion) and alteration of the seabed.
Mineral Mineral deposits removed by mining result in an irretrievable transfer of the mineral from a resource base to a
consumptive use.
Other Major geologic Impacts of marine mining result from activities in the coastal zone where wave energy is a Chansang (1968)
prime factor. The effects of large excavations or shoaling resulting. for example, from the mining of mineral
sands will depend on location. Changes in wave or current patterns induced by altered conditions can cause
changes in shoreline equilibrium. causing erosion or deposition. Possible effects from sub-seabed fracturing
_,4 ing conventional or other type explosives are not well discussed in the literature; di s y
us ad tional tud and
I observation Q.e.. in offshore areas susceptible to stumping. in deep water) was suggested. Coral reef growth
-4 may be severely affected by siltation. altering the supply of coral sands to adjacent beaches.
BIOLOGICAL Most biological impacts are secondary. attributed to some alteration in existing physical, chemical. or trophic Cruickshank etaL (1987)
RESOURCES equilibria. Impacts In the coastal zone have a greater tendency to be significant because of higher energy
levels. Physical changes which may induce biological effects include changes in temperature. current
patterns, amount of particulates present. nature of the substrate, and introduction of new habitats. Significant
chemical changes include changes in the presence of nutrients, trace elements, or toxics. Trophic changes
Include removal or alteration of indigenous species. Biological impacts are the major enigma of impact
assessment Criteria upon which significant biological changes we based are typically arbitrary.
Generalizations rarely allow meaningful prediction of the effects of specific mining operations. Biological
studies should be directed on a case-by-case basis to respond to specific needs. Effects of turbidity,
sedimentation. explosives. light and noise on marine biota have been reviewed. Other data sources were
noted from deep seabed mining, OCS oil and gas. and academic research.
Birds Large oil spills which have the potential to kill numerous sea birds and shore birds we not anticipated from USDO1. MMS (1983b. 1991)
marine mining operations. Effects of small spills tend to be localized and short-lived.
Mammals Effects of operations may include loss of feeding areas. uptake of heavy metals. and noise. Oil spills we not Gales (1962)
considered significant because of the low risk. Mining activities located away from known migratory pathways Geraci and SL Aubin (1980)
and calving or leeding grounds are unlikely to adversely affect marine mammal populations although USDOC. NOAA (1981)
individual transient animals near mining shes may be startled or show avoidance behavior. Limited research USDOI. MMS (1983a.b)
suggests habituation to low-level noise.

Resource and
Environment
Salient References,
Marine and Both adverse and beneficial impacts have been noted. Beneficial impacts include the attraction of fish to Aurand and Mamontov (1982)
Aquatic Fauna offshore structures: enhancement of substrate habitats by alteration of the texture; enhancement of substrate Bigham et al. (1982)
habitats by the presentation of new surface nutrients by mixing and replacement of the benthos; thermal Blaxter (1980)
stimulation of growth; and introduction of nutrients by mixing of water masses and enhancement of California Department of Fish
phytoplankton growth. Adverse effects include direct lethal toxic effects (e.g., abnormal growth, reduced adult and Game (1977)
fecundity, behavioral changes, etc.) and disruption of community and ecosystem structure (e.g.. changes in Chan and Anderson (1981)
diversity aM abundance via food web disruption, changes in predator-prey relationships, etc.). Analyses of Clark (1988)
potentlail impacts requires a knowledge of the pre-operating populations ancl their natural cycles, allowing a Cfessard (1981)
differentiation between natural fluctuations and impact response. Adequate knowledge of pre-operating Cressard and Augri3 (1982)
conditions (baseline) is debatable. Difficulties arise in the selection of indicator species. Effects of marine Cruickshank (1974a,b, 1987)
mining operations occur from turbidity, smothering, and pollutants (from mined formations). Turbidity effects Dawson (1984)
may not be a concern if dilution rates are high and sensitive communities are not proximal to the mining site. de Groot (1979a,b)
Numerous studies have been conducted regarding the effects of turbidity on indigenous fauna, especially Drinnan and Bliss (1986)
fishes. The exposure of free-floating organisms (e.g.. plankton) to high turbidity concentrabons will be limited. Ellis and Hoover (1990)
Turbidity impacts from aggregate dredging operations on sensidve benthic organisms will be far less #= Gillis and lrjrk (1980)
placer mining. Smothering of bottom dwelling organisms is due to the settlement of suspended sediments Glasby (1985)
and associated depletion of oxygen in surrounding waters. Coral reefs and seagrass beds are particularly Hanson et al. (1982)
sensitive. Smothering is perceived as being of greatest concern in placer mining operations. Pollutants may Hirota (1981)
affect growth and reproductive rates. The effects of pollutants on the physiology of marine fauna has Hu (1981)
received only limited study. Effects on marine phytoplankton are observed in response to decreased ICES (1979)
illumination in the laboratory. but these shading effects are not expected to be a problem in open waters. In Kawamura wW Hera (1980)
the benthos. some species will likely be more affected than others because of feeding mods (filter feeders), Levin (1984)
life habit (surface dwellers), degree of mobility (tube dwellers). or sensitivity of life stage (larvae). Areas that Lunz at M. (1984)
may not be able to withstand slight increases in sediment deposition include cotal reefs and ar"s used by Matsumoto (1984)
bottom spawning fish. In cases where a majority of the banthic community has been adversely affected. NRC (1965)
recolonization will occur from populations outside the disturbed area. Benthic organisms may serve as Pfitzenmeyer (1970)
indicators of pollutants and the structure of the benthk: community may be Indicative of a stressed or U.S. Army Engineer District
disturbed environment. (1974)
U.S. Congress. Office of
Technol. Assess. (1987)
United Nations (1981)
USDOC. NOAA (1981)
USDOI, MMS (1988b)

Flora Effects on flora are not regarded as a major concern.
Sensitive In sensitive arem (e.g.. Arctic waters). particulwly in shallow water. or in the deep seabeds, slow regrowth of Dunton et al. (1982)
Habitats affected communities is expected. Areas of hydrodwmal venting along mid-ocean ridge crests support USDOC. NOAA (1981)
unusual benthic colonies. Draft regulations have provided for avoidance of such environments. USDOI. MMS (1983a)

Resource and
Environment Significant Findings Salient References'
Threatened and Impacts were discussed under respective biotic resource categories., Impacts are associated with noise
Endangered (marine mammals, birds). accidental oil or fuel spills. and increased turbidity.
Species

SOCIAL AND Most actions resulting in environmental query are triggered on the basis of some social or economic need.
ECONOMIC Such aspects are built into the scoping process for respective environmental documents. The literature is
RESOURCES voluminous and scattered.

Human Resources Effects on human resources include health. employment. and infrastructural needs. For processing plants USDOI. MMS (1988a.b)
and mining operations conducted from platforms or seabed mining operations carried out in the hard rock.
extended periods of relative isolation create impacts on mining personnel. The social environment is
extremely variable and widely described, but not specifically for marine mining. Disturbances must be
weighed against beriefirs. The ranking of multiple uses is potentially highly subjective. From a legal
perspective. national laws are not adequate for many minerals and international laws regarding the mining of
the seafloor are still not well-defined. In many instances. national and international laws have lagged behind
rapid social change. Several aspects have a significant effect on planning and conduct of operations,
including the exhaustible nature of mineral resources. resource conservation, and multiple uses of mineralized
areas.

W Commercial and Literature from Europe is more extensive on this subject than in the U.S. Modern European prospecting Nunny and Chillin�worth
Recreational operations cause little disturbance to the marine environment and do not interfere with other activities at sea; (I 9W)
Fisheries no formal government consultations procedure exists for a prospecting license, however. the permitting Pasho (1986)
process is substantive. As a resource. standing fishery stocks are affected by various factors (e.g.. turbidity, Zippin (1988)
pollutant loading. physical disturbance). Direct effects of oil or turbidity are limited due to the mobility of fish.
Indirect effects include damage to eggs, larvae. and juveniles; sublethal uptake of hydrocarbons and
pollutants: loss of prey: loss of habitat; and reduced reproductive success. Marine mineral activities may
interfere with fishing activities and compete for space at sea and in port Space use conflicts between
fishermen and vessel operators have occurred with entanglement or severing of net and trap lines.
Coordination efforts between the two industries have helped avoid most vessel conflicts. Recent research
interest has included assessment of the potential for marine geophysical surveys to reduce catchability of fish
and damage to fish eggs and larvae. Long duration. spatially concentrated use of seismic energy sources
can disturb the spatial distribution of fish in the water column and reduce catchability. It is expected that
there has been some loss of individual income through lost catch opportunity or gear loss and increased cost
of port space.

Regional Impacts from resource disturbance will be measurable on the economy. The extent of the economic impact Sorensen and Mead (1969)
Economies resulting from a given acfion is affected by varkxis factors. A determination of a prospect's feasibility must
consider the net rate of return on the investment.

Local Economies Local economies are site-specific. driven by many factors.

Resource and
Environment Significant Findings Salient References,
Cultural Effects are particularly difficult to quantity because intangible cultural systems are subject to the historical and Cruickshank (1974a)
Resources contemporary changes induced by all human activities. A comparison of alternatives using serni-quantitative
methods of factcw analysis might be valid. Archeological resources may be significant and should be
protected.
Technical Major impacts on technology appear In the form of disturbances to the system due to materials failure
Resources ptimarily effected by motion. pressure. corrosion. and biological fouling. Impacts on the environment we
relatively small.
Salient references indicate key sources: several reference listings (e.g.. Marine and Aquatic Fauna) have been pared, given tabular space constraints.

the disposal of dredged material outside sanctuary boundaries.
Inside the Sanctuary, activities associated with harbor
maintenance including the installation of navigation aids are
exempted from the Sanctuary regulatory prohibition. The
Sanctuary program is supportive of the marina expansion and will
work with the Makah Tribe to pursue appropriate disposal
alternatives. The Makah Tribe plans to use the dredge spoil for
beach nourishment and upland projects.

Commercial mining of sand and gravel deposits off the coast
is prohibited within the Sanctuary. This prevents the public
from receiving economic benefits from these potential commercial
endeavors.

The regulation prohibits placement of any structure or other
matter on the seabed, such as, but not limited to, artificial
reefs, pipelines and outfalls, unless relevant permits are
reviewed and certified or approved by NOAA. The prohibition also
includes placement or abandonment of any structure or other
matter on the seabed, which includes vessels. that run aground.
This helps ensure that owners and operators are responsible for
the removal of their vessels.

The activities exempted from this regulation would be
monitored by the Sanctuary manager, based on information supplied
by the EPA, COE and the WDNR. If the data collected demonstrate
that a greater degree of Sanctuary oversight is appropriate,
amendments to the regulations could be proposed.

F. Taking Marine Mammals, Turtles and Seabirds
1. Status Ouo
a. Conseauences of Impact to Resources

The current regulatory regime under the U.S. Departments of
the Interior and Commerce gives each Department the authority to
designate and protect oceanic habitats if found to be "critical"
for species listed as "endangered" under the ESA (ESA). The MMPA
and the ESA prohibit the "taking" of marine mammals and
threatened or endangered species. The MBTA prohibits the taking,
killing, possessing, selling and other specified forms of
exploitation or migratory birds. The term "taking" is defined
broadly under the ESA and MMPA and has been interpreted by the
administering agencies, so that the ESA and MMPA provide
considerable protection. However, the potential threats to
marine mammals and endangered species range from direct injuries
to a specific animal or population to indirect or cumulative
degradation of their habitats. Neither the MMPA nor the ESA
fully prevent such degradation of habitats. Section 7(a) of the
ESA does provide protection against actions which jeopardize
endangered species or their critical habitats, but this section
applies only to activities authorized, funded or carried out by
Federal agencies, not to private or state actions. There is'no

IV-75

explicit provision for the designation or protection of marine
mammal habitats under the MMPA. Thus the MMPA, ESA and'MBTA
together provide considerable protection to the marine mammals,
turtles and seabirds of the Sanctuary by prohibiting the taking
of specific species protected under those acts, but fail to focus
particular attention on the habitats of the species covered by
the Acts.

Further, no Federal authority currently exists to identify
and protect localized marine habitats of exceptional importance
to non-endangered species. While the MMPA and the MBTA proscribe
the hunting and taking of marine mammals and migratory birds,
they do not protect their habitats from potentially adverse uses.
Such program deficiencies have left certain valuable marine
habitats largely unprotected. If current uses intensify and
seriously threaten resources, the lack of suitable management
authority to intervene could allow undesirable environmental
impacts to the seabirds, marine mammals and turtles of the area.

b. Consequence of Impact to Uses

Currently the status quo addresses the taking of marine
mammals and seabirds under relevant legislation. Marine mammals
(except sea otters) may be taken incidentally to commercial
fishing pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1383a until October 1993, after
which rulemaking pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1371, 1373 and 1374 may be
required. Fishing activities that potentially take marine
mammals are required to have observers and/-or logbooks on board
to monitor the extent of takings. Researchers studying marine
mammals are required under the MMPA to obtain a permit for their
activities.

2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred)
a. Conseauencg of Impact to Resources

The proposed regulation would overlap with the MMPA, MBTA
and ESA, extending protection consistent with the intent of the
MPRSA to protect the Sanctuary resources on an environmentally
holistic basis. The proposed regulation would include all marine
mammals, sea turtles and seabirds in or above the Sanctuary. The
Sanctuary regulation would also allow for the imposition of
greater penalties, i.e., $100,000 per violation.

b. Consequence of Impact to Uses

The regulation would not preclude a number of current
activities from continuing. For example, scientific research on
marine mammals and seabirds that aKe Sanctuary resources is
encouraged as part of the*Sanctuary mandate. To facilitate this
research the proposed final regulations allow the issuance of
Sanctuary permits for research. If the research is on Federal or
state designated endangered species or on marine mammals, the

IV-76

researchers are already required to obtain permits from the
relevant management agency and would not have to obtain a
Sanctuary permit or other approval under the proposed final
regulation.

As another example, NOAA will work with existing fisheries
management agencies as well as National and local fishery
organizations including the PFMC to ensure that the incidental
taking of seabirds, sea turtles and marine mammals in commercial
fishing nets is minimized.

Finally, rehabilitation of injured seabirds, and studies on
dead seabirds and marine mammals,-would be permitted under these
Sanctuary regulations in response to an emergency threatening
life, property, or the environment or pursuant to a research
permit.

G. Overflights
1. Status Ouo
a. Conseguence of Impact to Resources

There are a few small airports and-landing strips along the
coastal portions of the Sanctuary including a beach landing strip
at Copalis, an unstaffed airport at Quileute, an airport at Sekiu
and one at Port Angeles. Most of the airplanes utilizing these
airports are recreational aircraft or airtaxis. There is a cargo
plane that lands daily at Quileute Monday through Friday.
Airtaxis to Sekiu are used largely to taxi sports fishermen to
Neah Bay for recreational fishing excursions. A radar tower on
the peninsula monitors air traffic above 3000 feet above ground
level (AGL). A military operating area extends over the Olympic
Peninsula and Sanctuary waters above 1200 feet AGL. When in use,
other planes must stay below this altitude.

Over Sanctuary waters, there are no restrictions on
aircraft with respect to the altitude they may fly,. There is a
2000 ft. advisory over the Olympic National Park and USFWS
offshore refuges. Most aircraft are believed to observe these
advisories, but compliance is not mandatory.

Low flying aircraft threaten the safety of the seabirds and
mammals that use the offshore islands and coastal habitats. The
noise startles birds and mammals resulting in egg destruction,
vulnerability of chicks to predation by raptors and gulls, and
stampedes of pinnipeds causing the crushing of young mammals.

. b. Conseguence of ImDact to Use

Although only a few charter airplanes fly over the
Sanctuary, the uses may intensify as tourism increases
potentially as a result of the expansion of the Neah Bay marina
and the presence of the marine Sanctuary.

IV-77

2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred)
a. Consequence of Impact to Resources

This prohibition is intended to protect marine birds and
mammals from the disturbance and harassment of low-flying
aircraft and to be consistent with the'FAA's 2000 ft. advisory
adjacent over protected areas adjacent to the Sanctuary.

b. Consequence of ImRact to Uses

This regulation will require aircraft to remain above 2000
feet AGL within one mile seaward of the coastal boundary of the
Sanctuary unless responding to an emergency threatening life,
property, or the environment or necessary for valid law
enforcement purposes. Department of Defense practice bombing of
Sealion Rock will be prohibited from March 1 through October 31.
Helicopters involved in timbering operations on-tribal lands, and
transporting researchers and tribal members to tribal lands will
be exempted from this prohibition as well to be consistent with
treaty-secured rights of access of tribal members to tribal
lands.

Aircraft flying below 2000 ft. within the regulated zones
for research purposes would need to obtain a Sanctuary research
permit. The application would be processed expeditiously to
ensure that while Sanctuary resources and qualities are
protected, there would only be a minimal administrative burden on
the applicant..

H. Vessel Traffic
1. Status Quo (Preferred)
a. Impact to Resources

With the projected increasing number of vessels approaching
the Strait of Juan de Fuca (see Part II) it is likely that there
will'be a vessel related accident. Such an event, either by
collision or grounding due to loss of power or steering control
or human error would likely result in a spill of hazardous
material. The rocky intertidal areas and the productive food
chain off the Pacific coast are extremely sensitive to damage
from oil or other pollut*ants. This is an area with little
coastal access, and most booms are ineffective during common
winter storms.

The implementation of an ATBA will offer significantly
increased levels of protection by building in a safety net of
time -:o allow emergency response vessels to respond to an
emerg,tncy off the outer coast.

b. Impact to Uses

NOAA will rely on the existing management regime to manage

IV-78

vessel traffic rather than promulgate regulations. However, NOAA
will work closely with the USCG, the Washington State OMS and the
vessel traffic industry on matters relating to vessel traffic
through the Sanctuary. Vessel traffic will remain in the scope
of the Sanctuary's regulations.

There is a Coordinated Vessel Traffic Management System in
the Strait of Juan de Fuca with designated inbound and outbound
lanes on the U.S. and Canadian sides of the international border,
respectively. No vessel greater than 125,000 dead weight tons
may pass east of Port Angeles and all vessels greater than 300
gross tons passing into Puget Sound must be accompanied by a
pilot. All tankers must be accompanied by one (and soon to be
two) escort tugs.

Outside of the Strait of Juan de Fuca there are voluntary
agreements by maritime associations to coordinate the movement of
coastwise vessel and barge traffic. Under these agreements,
tankers transiting along the coast remain at least 50 nautical
miles from shore unless entering a port of call. Barges follow
agreed upon lanes within 5 and 10 miles from shore pursuant to
the crabber-tugboat agreements negotiated yearly. The future of
these agreed upon lanes, however, is uncertain.

There are no tugs specifically dedicated for emergency
response in Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca or Grays
Harbor. There have been a number of near misses when vessels
have lost power either off the coast or in the Straits.
Likewise, there have been collisions off the Strait of Juan de
Fuca (Tenyo Maru in 1991) and barges ho led/damaged off the coast
(Nestucca, 1988). However, the Strait of Juan de Fuca Emergency
Towing Vessel Task Force has been formed and is charged with the
mission of establishing, maintaining, and operating an emergency
towing vessel in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

NOAA has worked with the USCG and maritime industries in
Washington State to analyze the time it would take for a vessel
or barge travelling along the outer coast to ground once power
was lost. This analysis was used to recommend preventative
measures to minimize the chance of a spill of hazardous material.
Following is the analysis upon which NOAA has recommended a
strategy for addressing the risks presented by vessel traffic in
the Sanctuary. -

ANALYSIS OF VESSEL/BARGE BUFFER AREA OFF
THE NORTHERN WASHINGTON COAST

The following are three actual incidents that occurred in-
Washington state waters. Two resulted in spills of contaminants.
While the third did not result in a spill, it illustrates that
response time is critical in order to avert an accident.

IV-79

1. On December 22, 1988 the barge Nestucca was struck and
punctured by its tug, the ocean Service while attempting to
retrieve the barge following the parting of the towline. The
barge released 231,000 gallons of fuel oil into Grays Harbor and
the surrounding coastal waters, polluting the coastline from
Grays Harbor to as far north as Vancouver Island.

2. In January, 1972 the General M.C. Meigs broke free from
its tow during a winter storm and went adrift approximately 9.5
nautical miles (nm) west of Cape Flattery. The tug was unable to
retrieve the ship. Eight hours later, the ship grounded near
Portage Head, just south of Cape Flattery. The incident resulted
in a major oil spill.

3. A recent.near-miss was reported by The USCG's Puget
Sound Vessel Traffic Service (PSVTS) as follows:

"A 13,946 DWT tanker, loaded with caustic soda and other
chemicals, lost all power off Cape Flattery and requested
immediate assistance. Within minutes, PSVTS located the nearest
lite tugs, and had them underway to the scene at top speed.
PSVTS kept local, national, and Canadian interests informed with
real time information throughout the incident. The tanker was
retrieved and towed safely to anchorage for repairs."

What follows is a hypothetical scenario describing a
maritime emergency off the western Washington coast. Its purpose
is to assess current emergency response capability to a drifting
barge or a disabled and drifting vessel in waters along the
western Washington coast.

This scenario was developed by a former commanding officer
after consultation with members of the commercial towing
community, local meteorologists and weather forecasters, members
of the USCG and the United States Navy, and personnel with
experience in oil spill trajectory analysis. It graphically
depicts the fact that response time is critical in the event of a
maritime emergency.

Estimates for times of arrival of assistance tugs were
obtained from the Emergency Response subcommittee of the Strait
of Juan de Fuca/Northern Puget Sound Regional Marine Safety
Committee.

The meteorological conditions described in the scenario
colild occur at any time during the period October through March.
Th..s specific scenario was developed by a veteran forecaster from
NO,A's National Weather Service Forecast Office in Seattle,
Wa!;hington.

The United States Coast Pilot for the Pacific Coast:
California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii (26th edition) makes

IV-80

the following note about weather in the vicinity of the western
Washington coast near La Push, WA: "In the late fall and winter,
the low pressure center in the Gulf of Alaska intensifies and is
of major importance in controlling weather systems entering the
Pacific Northwest. At this season of the year, storm systems
crossing the Pacific follow a more S path striking the coast at
frequent intervals... Gale force winds are not unusual."

The hypothetical incident involves a tug and petroleum barge
on a December transit from a refinery in Anacortes to a port on
the Columbia River. During this month, the following average
weather can be expected (Director, Naval Oceanography and
Meteorology, 1976):

1) Visibility of less than 1 nm along the Washington coast
can be expected for approximately 1.7% of the time or 0.5
days.

2) Winds in excess of 34 knots (kts) can be expected for
approximately 7.7% of the time or 2.4 days.

3) A westerly wind component with an average speed of 18
kts can be expected for approximately 10% of the time or 3.1
days.

4) Wave heights averaging 10-12 feet can be expected for
11.9% of the time or 3.7 days.

5) A current with an average speed of 1.0 knot setting to
the north along shore can also be expected.

These are average conditions. In severe conditions,
sustained winds in excess of 40-45 kts can be expected with
accompanying seas of over 20-25 feet (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1990). .

THE SCENARIO

Wednesday A.M (1000 Local Mean Time (LMT))

The ocean-going, twin-screw tug, North Wind (fictitious
name) has just taken in tow a petroleum barge loaded with 30,000
barrels of Marine fuel oil. The tug and tow are bound from
Anacortes to a port on the Columbia River. Anticipated speed
over ground is 8.0 kts. Estimated time of arrival at the
Columbia River bar is approximately 30 hours.

Current weather is moderate. A slight chop covers Puget
Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Visibility is 3-4 nm. The
sky is overcast with occasional drizzle. Winds in the Strait are
easterly at 10-15 kts. The forecast is for an offshore,
deepening 1000 Millibar (Mb) low pressure system to move onto

IV-81

northern Vancouver Island during the next 24 to 36 hours. Winds
along the western Washington coast are currently SE at 15-20 kts.
Seas are reported 6-8 feet and building due to the approaching
storm.

The captain of the tug considers all factors and decides he
can clear Cape Flattery and be well southbound before the system
comes ashore. Further, he concludes that conditions at the mouth
of the Columbia River in 30 hours will be moderate enough to
safely cross the bar upon arrival.

The tug and tow clear Anacortes and proceed outbound.

Wednesday P.M. (2200 IMT)

Twelve hours after departure from Anacortes, North Wind and
its barge round buoy "J" at the entrance to the Strait of Juan de
Fuca. The trip through the Strait has been uneventful. The
weather, however, has begun to deteriorate. The barometer is
falling. Wind speed is now a steady 20-25 kts SSE with
occasional gusts to 30-35 kts. Wave height is increasing rapidly
with the increasing wind.

To save time and in an attempt to beat the approaching
system, North Wind takes up a southbound course using the
published "Towboat-Crabber" traffic lane. This lane is a
north/south route passing approximately 7 nm west of Cape Alava.

Although the North Wind's parent company has established a
policy of voluntary adherence to a trackline 10-30 nm offshore
when towing a loaded petroleum barge, this practice will not be
followed today due to unfavorable weather conditions offshore.
Further, due to sea state and wind being encountered, North Wind
slows to 6 kts to reduce the beating on both tug and tow.

Thursday A.M. (0230 IMT)

North Wind's position is approximately 6-7 nm SW of Cape
Alava, in the "Towboat-Crabber Lane," proceeding southbound.
NOAA weather radio reports that the low pressure system is still
moving toward Vancouver Island but is "rapidly deepening" at a
rate of I Mb/hour. Pressure at the-center of the low is now 980
Mb. Frontal passage is expected shortly. Winds are steady SSE
at 30 kts with gusts to 40 kts. Seas are 12-15 and building.
The barometer is falling. North Wind slows to 4.0 kts.

Thursday A.M. (0300 LMT)

With the front rapidly approaching the coast, winds
accelerate to SSE 50 kts, with gusts to 65 kts. Seas are now 20
feet with some exceeding 30 feet. During a period of

IV-82

exceptionally high sea and swell combinations, the towline parts.
The petroleum barge is now adrift. Recognizing the danger, the
captain notifies the Coast Guard of the situation and begins
attempts to recover the barge.

After frontal passage, the wind begins veering to SW 30 kts
with gusts to 50 kts. The result is a confused sea with 20 foot
swells from the SSE and building 15 foot waves from the SW. The
barge is drifting generally NE at approximately 0.9 kts (USCG,
1991a).

Initial efforts at recovering the barge are thwarted by the
fact that the insurance wire (an emergency pick up line) from the
barge is fouled and laying along the lee side of the barge.

The tug begins attempts to retrieve the tow by using the
emergency barge retrieval system (a second backup retrieval
device). During one attempt at retrieval, the tug passes too
close to the barge and a collision occurs. The North Wind
sustains damage to its hull and begins taking water in its engine
room. on further inspection, one rudder is also found to be
damaged. No further attempts can be made at retrieving the barge
and the crew begins efforts to control the flooding and repair
the rudder.

Thursday A.M. (0400 IMT)

North Wind immediately issues a Mayday call and notifies the
Coast Guard that she is drifting and taking on water. The
captain reports that he will be able to control the flooding and
remain afloat. However, the petroleum barge is adrift and North
Wind will be unable to regain control of it. In the darkness,
with high winds and seas and poor visibility, the tug loses sight
of the barge and is no longer able to identify it on the radar
screen among the sea and rain clutter. The barge is, in effect,
lost.

There are no vessels of opportunity in the area able to
respond to the Mayday call. The Coast Guard initiates a search
and rescue operation but has no vessels capable of taking either
the tug or barge under tow. There are,however, two tugs in
Anacortes. The Mayday call has been relayed to them and they
have notified the Coast Guard and North Wind that they will
respond. A smaller, twin screw tug in Grays Harbor has also
heard the call and will respond.

Thursday A.M. (0500 LMT)

The responding tugs from Anacortes were conducting a docking
evolution but concluded operations within an hour and were
underway at 0500 LMT to render assistance. Estimated time of
arrival at buoy "Jig is 1300 IMT. Arrival on scene is estimated

IV-83

to be 1500 LMT, Thursday afternoon - 12 hours after the incident.

The tug from Grays Harbor was also underway within an hour
but will only be able to make 8-10 kts in the heavy weather.
Estimated time of arrival for the Grays Harbor tug is between
1330 - 1400 LMT. The forecast for the scene at time of arrival
of the responding tugs is for westerly winds at approximately 20
kts with gusts to 30 kts.

The tug and barge began drifting while approximately 6.5 nm
WSW of Cape Alava. The tug is able to maintain steerageway and
hold position but is still taking on water. The barge, however,
is being affected by the wind (i.e., drift downwind at 3% of the
wind speed) and a 1.0 kt (approximate) northerly current
(Director, Naval Oceanography and Meteorology, 1976).

Although conditions aboard the North Wind are uncomfortable,
the crew is making repairs, staying ahead of the water and the
tug is not in danger of foundering. Due to sea state, wind,
visibility, and low ceiling, the Coast Guard decides that the
safest course of action to preserve human life will be for its
rescue vessels to remain on scene and also attempt to locate the
drifting barge. Coast Guard helicopters and rescue vessels will,
however, react immediately should rescue of the tug's personnel
be required.

The petroleum barge continues to drift. The responding tugs
are 8.5-10 hours away. Using data obtained from Landry and
Hickey (1989) to predict the combined effects of wind and
current, personnel from NOAA's Office of Ocean Resources
Conservation and Assessment in Seattle estimate that the barge
will probably ground in the area of Waatch Point in 6-7 hours
(1000 LMT). The barge, however, could go aground near Portage
Head in 4 hours (0700 LMT) or near Cape Flattery in 8 hours (1100
LMT) due to local variations in wind and current.

Thursday P.M. (1400-1500 LMT)

Responding tugs arrive on scene. North Wind is taken in
tow. The barge is aground and breaking up. Over 30,000 barrels
of marine fuel oil are now at risk of being spilled.

SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS

As noted earlier in this FEIS/MP there are now no
specifically designated emergency response towing vessels in the
Strait of Juan de Fuca, along the western Washington coast, or in
Puget Sound. There are several major towing and salvage
companies in this area but, in the event of an emergency that
requires towing, time of response would be based on both vessel
availability and distance from the scene of the incident.
Emergency response could be significantly delayed due to prior

IV-84

assignment of response vessels to other towing, docking, or
salvage operations, or the remote location of an incident or
emergency from available vessels (Knight, 1992). Further, severe
weather might prevent an emergency response vessel from leaving
the Strait of Juan de Fuca or, if it did, prevent operations from
commencing when it arrived on scene.

In a separate scenario developed by members of the Strait of
Juan de Fuca/North Puget Sound Regional Marine Safety Committee,
vessels responding to an emergency near the entrance of the
Strait of Juan de Fuca would depart from Cherry Point,
approximately 2.5 nm north of Lummi Bay. From there, they
estimated it would take approximately 8 to 9 hours to reach Buoy
"J" at the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

NOAA has been working closely with the USCG on
recommendations to the IMO to designate an area within 25
nautical miles off the outer coast as an ATBA. This 25 nautical
mile ATBA will extend from the southern boundary of the Sanctuary
north a line directly seaward from the designated lane entering
the Strait of Juan de Fuca. This 25 nautical mile ATBA will buy
enough time, in the event of an engine failure aboard a vessel,
for a tug to intercept the eastwakdly drifting vessel during a
worst-case storm event before it grounds on the shoreline of the
Sanctuary.

The USCG will recommend to the IMO that an ATBA be
established off the western Washington coast. ATBA's are areas
within defined limits in which either navigation is particularly
hazardous or in which it is exceptionally important to avoid
casualties, and which should be avoided by all ships, or certain
classes of ships (IMO, 1991).

This action would, in effect, create a "buffer zone". This
zone would provide sufficient time for responding vessels to
arrive on the scene of a maritime emergency. Additionally,
creation of such a zone would provide time for emergency teams
ashore to be notified, contingency plans to be activated, and
should there be a spill, some weathering to occur which would
reduce the risk of damage to the shoreline.

The idea of establishing an ATBA is consistent with already
existing voluntary vessel management practices. U.S tankers
approaching the Strait of Juan de Fuca from the south are now
voluntarily remaining 40-50 nm offshore until turning inbound to
enter the Strait. Additionally, Canada has instituted a tanker
exclusion zone affecting all U.S. tankers engaged in the
transportation of crude and processed oil originating from
Alaska. Several towing companies based in the Northwest region
currently adhere to self-imposed plans requiring their captains
to remain anywhere from 10-30 nm offshore while transporting
petroleum products.

IV-85

In the worst case scenario described above, the fictitious
tug, North Wind, chose to use the "Towboat-Crabber Lane." As
exemplified in the scenario, the distance offshore provided by
this lane was insufficient in the face of conditions described to
allow sufficient time for response vessels to arrive on scene.

Using the drift rate for wind (3% of wind speed) previously
cited, the weather conditions of our scenario, and the abetting
1.0 kt. near shore current, the average direction and speed of a
disabled and drifting vessel or barge would be approximately NNE
at 1.3-1.8 kts. With this, if tanker free zone limits were set
at 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 nm offshore, times to grounding would be
as follows (Time of grounding = Distance offshore/speed of
drifting vessel):

Distance Offshore (nm) Time to Grounding Mrs)
10 5.5-7.7
15 8.3-11.6
20 11.1-15.4
25 13.9-19.2
30 16.6-23.1

Due to the shape of the Washington coastline and the
unpredictable variables of weather and current, the calculations
shown are approximations. For example, using data from Landry
and Hickey (1989) personnel from NOAA's Office of Ocean Resources
Conservation and Assessment Group estimate that in the conditions
described, if an incident occurred further south, 20 nm west of
La Push, it might be 24 hours before the barge or vessel came
ashore north of Cape Alava, near Portage Head, WA.

The establishment of a 20-30 nm buffer zone within the
sanctuary would alter the most direct route from the Straits of
Juan de Fuca to ports such as Grays Harbor or those along the
Columbia River. Five tracklines from Buoy "J" at the entrance to
the Strait of Juan de Fuca to the entrance of Grays Harbor were
examined to determine the extent of these differences. The
tracklines were as follows:

1. Direct Route-a nearshore route covering the minimum
distance possible between Grays Harbor and the Strait
of Juan de Fuca.

2. 10 nm offshore utilizing the existing traffic lanes
into and out of the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

3., 20 nm offshore utilizing the existing traffic lanes
into and out of the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

4. 30 nm offshore utilizing existing traffic lanes into
and out of the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

IV-86

5. "Towboat-Crabber Lane"-established by agreement.

The following tables illustrate the difference in using these
lanes. The variability in distance between the routes to and
from Grays harbor is due to the use of the already established
traffic lanes at the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Grays Harbor to Buoy 11J11

Route Distance (nm) Additional
Direct Route 102
10 nm Offshore 105 3
Towboat-Crabber 109.5 7.5
20 nm Offshore 114.5 12.5
30 nm Offshore 123.5 21.5

Buoy 11J11 to Grays Harbor

Direct Route 105.5 -----
10 nm Offshore 110 4.5
Towboat-Crabber 113 7.5
20 nm Offshore 120 14.5
30 nm Offshore 133 27.5

The above tables demonstrate that the establishment of a
tanker free zone 20 nm offshore would add 12.5 nm to a transit
from Grays Harbor to Buoy "J" and 14.5 nm to a transit from Buoy
"J" to Grays Harbor. If the distances travelled by transiting 20
nm offshore are compared to the already existing "Towboat-
Crabber Lane", the differences are even smaller, i.e., 5 and 7
nm, respectively. The additional time and distances required by
using a 30 nm zone are greater but offer the option of having all
petroleum and hazardous material barges remain completely outside
of the sanctuary boundaries until taking up a course inbound to
the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

It would not be wise to have a traffic lane further out than
30 nm as the conflict with larger and faster tanker traffic would
increase the risks of collision between vessels.

From the foregoing analysis, NOAA has requested that the
USCG establish a zone requiring vessels or barges transporting
petroleum or other hazardous materials to remain a minimum of 20-
30 nm offshore and also to begin the process for establishing an
ATBA off the western Washington coast.

If the ATBA is adopted by the IMO, the impact to uses will
be minimal. The 25 nautical mile zone is fairly consistent with
customary barges and vessel traffic routes. According to the
analysis above, the proposed ATBA will add approximately 17
nautical miles on a vessel or barge's northbound transit, and
approximately 21 nautical miles on the southward transit. The

IV-87

increased protection of coastal resources will benefit the tribes
who depend on coastal resources for their subsistence, and the
entire local economy which depends largely on tourism.

2. Sanctuary Alternative-Regulation of Vessel Traffic
a. Conseauence of Impact to Resources

Regulation of vessel traffic at the present time would
undermine existing management initiatives that are well
coordinated between the State of Washington, and the U.S. and
Canadian Coast Guards. A well coordinated management and
regulatory environment for vessels entering and exiting the
Strait of Juan de Fuca offers a safer environment for mariners.
This minimizes the chance for vessel accidents that can harm the
environment. Therefore, NOAA believes that the Sanctuary is best
served by working within the existing management framework.

b. Consequence of ImRact to Uses

Additional regulation of vessel traffic will create
confusion among mariners in a very congested and complex
environment. Further, regulations promulgated by NOAA without
the approval of IMO will have no effect on foreign vessels.
Exclusion of foreign vessels from a vessel traffic management
regime does little to minimize the risk of a vessel traffic
accident and may result in competitive disadvantage for the
domestic shipping industry.

I. Fishing, Kelp Harvegting and Aquaculture
1. Status Quo (Prgferred)
a. Consequenge of Impact to Resources

What little data exists shows that there are some impacts to
the benthic resources from roller trawling depending on the
substrate (Loverich, 1990; WDF, 1985). Impacts of trawling on
soft bottom include an increase in turbidity within a 24 hour
period, a depression in the substrate 2-3 inches deep, and
crushing of shellfish beneath the otter boards. When trawling
occurs on hard bottom, there are no noticeable impacts on the
benthos. The greatest impacts of trawling are noticed when
trawling occurs in kelp and eelgrass beds. There is no
commercial kelp harvesting occurring within the Sanctuary. A
small herring-roe-on-kelp fishery is pursued by the Lummi and
S'Klallam Tribes and kelp from near Neah Bay is harvested for
this fishery. The Department of Natural Resources is currently
working on a kelp harvesting management plan for the Strait of
Juan de Fuca.

b. Consequenge of Impact to Uses

Fishing activities are predicted to benefit from designation
of the Sanctuary. Fishing in general has benefitted from

IV-88

Sanctuary status at other sanctuaries in the program due to the
protection provided to the industry and fish stocks from the
impacts of ocean dumping, offshore oil and gas development,
seabed mining and water pollution. Fishing in the Sanctuary is
heavily regulated by other Federal and State authorities.

NOAA evaluated the possibility of proposing some additional
Sanctuary regulation of fishing. However, the existing
management authorities, the WDF, WDNR, NMFS, PFMC, and the Tribes
have comprehensive management authority of these resources. The
management regime is highly complex and well coordinated with
Canada and other west coast states through the International
Pacific Halibut Convention and the Pacific Salmon Treaty.
Sanctuary regulation of fishing would undermine the existing
international and regional regime. The species are highly
migratory and direct Sanctuary management of fishing would have
no foreseeable ecological benefits.

Notwithstanding the above, the absence of specific fishing
regulations does not absolve fishermen from obeying not only
existing State and Federal regulations but also Sanctuary
regulations of general application, which are designed to protect
Sanctuary resources and qualities.

NOAA may support research on the Sanctuary's marine finfish,
shellfish, and algae resources, and strengthening the present
enforcement capabilities of the WDF and other enforcement
entities including the NNFS and the USCG.

2. Sanctuary Alternative
a. Consequence of Impact to Resources

Sanctuary regulations at the time of designation would be
intended to protect identified resources at risk from the threat
of fishing activities. Such regulations would require extensive
consultation with affected parties and agencies. Furthermore, no
major threat has yet been identified. There does not appear that
any major benefit to the environment would arrive with
promulgation of Sanctuary regulations on fishing with
designation.

b. Conseauences of Impact to Uses

Sanctuary regulations would add another set of restrictions
on the currently complicated, intricately coordinated and heavily
regulated fishing industry. Aquaculture and kelp harvesting
remain unregulated by the Sanctuary. Any future action would be
done in cooperation with relevant Federal and state agencies,
particularly the WDW, the WDNR and the WDOA.

IV-89

J. Navy Bombing of Sealion Rock
1. Status Ouo
a. Conseauence of Impact to Resources

Figure 80 compares the Navy's use of Sealion Rock from 1986
through 1992 with the use of offshore rocks and islands by
nesting colonial seabirds. It is evident that the Navy's use of
Sealion Rock coincides with the particularly sensitive colonial
seabird breeding events. Under the status quo, the Navy will not
be permitted to use Sealion Rock as a practice bombing target for
A6 jets unless the Secretary of the Interior issues a new
authorization.

b. Conseauence of Impact to Uses

Under the status quo, there will be no impact from Sanctuary
regulations on the Navy's use of Sealion Rock.

2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred)
a. Conseauence of Impact to Resources

By prohibiting practice bombing exercises, NOAA is extending
maximum protection under the authority of the MPRSA to seabirds
and mammals in the Sanctuary.

b. Conseguence of Impact to Uses

This alternative will have no impact on the Navy since the
authorization to use Sealion Rock for bombing practice exercises
has been rescinded.

III. Section: Management Alternative Consecruences
A. Conseguences of Status Ouo

Under the status quo alternative, protection and management
of the proposed Sanctuary area will remain entirely under the
existing regime of Federal, state, tribal and local authorities.
No single agency will be the steward for the marine resources and
ensure that all users and agencies are coordinated to protect the
resources of the Sanctuary area.

1. Enforcement

A reliable and effective enforcement capability by both the
Federal Government, the State of Washington, and the tribes is
necessary to ensure that regulations are observed. The WDF has a
total of 14 officers available to patrol offshore waters, with
five actively assigned to the Olympic Coast (Westport-two; Port
Angeles-two; and Clallam Bay-one). During the razor clam season,
all 14 are likely to be patrolling the Olympic Coast beaches.
WDF operates a 55 ft. patrol boat that enforces fishery
regulations in state and Federal waters off the Olympic Coast

IV-90

BREEDING CHRONOLOGY OF COLONIAL SEABIRDS NESTING
IN THE MARINE WATERS OF WASHINGTON

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D

Pelagic Cormorants .. .......
7779

Double-crested Cormorants

Brandt's Cormorants

Rhinoceros Auklets .7".77.7., 77
177 7777 1 Adults present F
Tufted Puffins Egg-layingED
Common Murres Fledging
Pigeon Guillemots Egg-laying /
fledging

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D

NAVY USE OF SEALION ROCK FROM 1986-1992 (DAYS/MONTH)

5 01986
EJ 1987

4 1988

cc 01989

3 1990

EJ 1991

1992

J F M A M j J A S 0 N D

Source: Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, 1992

Figure 80. Analysis of Navy overflights and.Breeding seabird
ACtiVity.

IV-91

during the commercial fishing season, and is on call during the
rest of the year. There is also a 45 ft. patrol boat patrolling
the Strait of Juan de Fuca which is available to patrol offshore
if the need arises. WDF officers are deputized to enforce NMFS
regulations in the exclusive economic zone.

The WDW does not routinely patrol in the area of the
proposed Sanctuary; however, six officers are available to assist
WDF in emergencies or when no WDF officers are available.

The USCG has primary enforcement and Search and Search and
Rescue presence (personnel, boats and aircraft in the area of the
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. Station offices
(employing between 25-50 personnel on call to respond to
emergencies) are located at Quileute River, Cape Disappointment
Grays Harbor, Neah Bay and Seattle. Group offices (with over @;o
personnel offering administrative support services relevant to
the area of the proposed Sanctuary) are located in Seattle, Port
Angeles and Astoria, Oregon. The district office is located in
Seattle, Wa.

The USCG has six large patrol boats, two large buoy tenders,
three helicopters and two jets available for search and rescue
and law enforcement operations. One medium endurance cutter with
helicopter capability is patrolling the waters off the coastlines
of Northern California, Oregon and Washington at all times. The
locations of the six patrol boats stationed in the vicinity of
the proposed National Marine Sanctuary are: 1) Port Angeles (210
ft. and 110 ft.); 2) Astoria (210 ft.); 3) Anacortes (82 ft.); 4)
Port Townsend (82 ft.); and 5) Everett (82 ft.). The tow ocean
going buoy tenders are located in Seattle (175 ft.), and Astoria
(180 ft.). There are 14 smaller boats, between 40-45 ft., on
call for search and rescue (three at Quileute River, five at Cape
Disappointment, four at Grays Harbor and two at neah Bay). These
smaller boats proceed at a maximum of 10 knots and have 50 mile
offshore capability. There are three helicopters at both Port
Angeles and Astoria with over 120 mile offshore capability, and
two jets stationed at Astoria.

The Makah, Quileute, Hoh and Quinault Tribes have an
enforcement presence within the boundaries of the Olympic Coast
National Marine Sanctuary. There are 12 Tribal fishery officers
in total (Hoh-1; Quinault-4; Quileute-4; and Makah-3). In
addition, the Tribes operate five patrol boats in the area
(Quinault-23 ft. patrol boat with radar; Quileute-23 ft. and 19
ft. boat; and Makah-44 ft. and 24 ft. boat).

The NPS employs seven full time employees to patrol the
beaches along the Olympic Coast (one at Ozette; tow at Marra; two
at Kalaloch; and two assistants from the Hoh Tribe). During the
summer, there are five additional rangers patrolling the coastal
beaches. The NPS has one zodiac available for search and rescue

IV-92

missions.

The USFWS undertakes aerial surveys approximately five times
per year during the spring and summer. In addition, a biologist
conducts surveys in a 19 ft. zodiac three or four times per year
to gather information and undertake surveillance. The USFWS and
the NPS have entered into a cooperative agreement enabling the
NPS rangers to provide the USFWS with information concerning
violations of USFWS regulations.

The NMFS has no enforcement personnel, boats nor aircraft
patrolling waters in the vicinity of the proposed Sanctuary.
Enforcement of their regulations have been deputized to the WDF.

Upon consideration of available State, Federal and Tribal
enforcement staff it appears that enforcement of Sanctuary
regulations can be adequately addressed by the existing
enforcement presence.

2. Research and Education

The existing management system contains no mechanism for
maximizing the areas research value, e.g., by means of a
comprehensive or extended program framework. A variety of
organizations conduct significant research in the nearshore
waters of the Olympic Coast. The establishment of the Olympic
Center linking the terrestrial and marine ecosystems of the
Olympic Peninsula has been authorized by the legislature. The
National Park, USFWS and the University of Washington continue to
conduct resource studies along the coast. To date, however, no
coordinating entity exists to identify regional research
information needs or to design strategies for filling them.

There are no marine oriented information centers on the
outer coast. Thus, tourists, recreational fishermen and nature
enthusiasts who visit the area have little or no knowledge of its
geology or of the complex communities of biota that inhabit the
canyon and surrounding waters and the intertidal habitats. Nor
do they realize the value of the oceanic waters to the mammals
and birds that feed there or pass through in transit.

B. -Conseauence of Sanctuary Alternative I

This alternative slowly phases in the necessary management
structure in parallel to the growing presence of the Sanctuary
and the demands of its users. Pursuit of this alternative will
not capitalize on the present momentum of the local community in
support of the Sanctuary. Further, fewer staff will be able to
network and coordinate research, education, monitoring and
management policies programs.

IV-93

1. Enforcement

Gradually NOAA would provide an enhanced enforcement regime
by providing additional boats, personnel and equipment for on the
water surveillance and enforcement. See the Management Plan for
possible additional enforcement measures provided by the.
Sanctuary.

2. Research and Education

Research and education programs would not develop to their
fullest potential for many years due to the lack of staff.
Therefore, this alternative would not facilitate resource
protection and management because the research and education
components of resource protection will not be realized.

C. Conseguences of Sanctuary Alternative 2 (Preferred)

This alternative supports full time staffing and immediate
NOAA presence with siting of an office on the Peninsula. Given
the limited NOAA budget in FY93, this would occur at the expense
of specific projects. The emphasis of the staff would focus on
coordination and planning with other agencies, programs and
governments on the peninsula. NOAA believes that a fully staffed
Sanctuary would facilitate coordination with other programs in a
more rapid manner than if staffing were phased in over time.

1. Enforcement

The impact of enhanced surveillance and enforcement efforts
focused on Sanctuary resources would be unnecessary at the
present time. Given the extensive Federal, State and Tribal
enforcement presence along the coast, and the minimal human uses,
added enforcement is not the highest priority within the first
year of the Sanctuary's existence.

Eventually, NOAA envisions a State-Federal-Tribal
cooperative enforcement system involving the WDF, WDW, the four
coastal Tribes, the USCG, the USFWS, the National Park Service
and the NMFS. Since the proposed Sanctuary would include both
State and Federal waters, and adjacent to Indian Reservations,
close coordination between State and Federal authorities would be
required.

2. Research and Education

This alternative provides full staffing, including a
manager, education coordinator and research coordinator. The
manager would oversee the establishment and operations of the
Sanctuary Advisory Committee. The research and education
coordinators would benefit from the direction provided by the
Sanctuary Advisory Committee. Implementation of interpretive and

IV-94

research projects and coordination with the many agencies with
programs in the area would commence fairly rapidly.
Establishment of a strong and complete infrastructure will
provide positive momentum to the program.

IV. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or Socioeconomic Effects

Specific environmental and socioeconomic effects of each
proposed regulation are included throughout the environmental
consequences section of the preferred alternative and in Part I
of the FEIS/MP. The net environmental and socioeconomic effects
of designating the Sanctuary and implementing the Sanctuary
Management Plan and regulations are estimated to be positive.
While such effects are difficult to quantify, the goals of the
Sanctuary in part will be to maintain water quality, fisheries,
aesthetics and tourism without causing any adverse effects.

The final Sanctuary regulations would allow all activities
to be conducted in the Sanctuary except for a relatively narrow
range of prohibited activities (subject to all prohibitions,
restrictions and conditions validly imposed by any other
authority of competent jurisdiction, and subject to the liability
established by Section 312 of the Act). The procedures proposed
in these regulations for applying for National Marine Sanctuary
permits to conduct otherwise prohibited activities, for
requesting certifications for existing licenses, permits, other
authorizations or rights authorizing the prohibited activity, and
for notifying NOAA of applications for authorizations to conduct
a prohibited activity, would impose a cost in time and effort on
the part of applicants for such permits or certifications.
However, NOAA will keep such costs to a minimum by working
closely with State and Federal regulatory and permitting agencies
to avoid any duplication of effort and setting guidelines for
expeditious review of applications.

The regulations prohibiting discharges and deposits and
alteration of or construction on the seabed may require permit
holders or applicants for such activities to seek other areas of
disposal or apply higher levels of treatment. All measures,
terms and conditions applied to existing activities will be done
in consultation with the affected party and the appropriate'
management agency.

Estimates of revenue foregone by the prohibition of oil, gas
and mineral activities within the Sanctuary boundary has been
presented in detail under the socioeconomic consequences for this
proposed final regulation. Balancing the foregone revenue would
be the adverse environmental and socioeconomic effects avoided by
the proposed prohibition. For example, the proposed prohibition
may alleviate or remove matters ranging from costs to local
communities for developing on-shore facilities to political and
legal action resulting from public controversy and apprehension

IV-95

concerning proposed oil and gas activities.

It is not possible to quantify the positive socioeconomic
effects of prohibiting OCS oil and gas activities. The recent
NAS study (1989) on the Adequacy of Environmental Information For
Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Decisions: Florida and
California found that "few data have been collected by MMS or
anyone else to address the social and economic impacts of OCS
activities."

V. Section: Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the
Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement
of Long-term Productivit

Sanctuary designation emphasizes the importance of the
natural and historical resources on the Olympic Coast area. The
marine waters off the Olympic Coast is relatively pristine and
the healthy and diverse natural ecosystem is relatively
unaltered. Designation will-enhance public awareness of the area
and provide long-term assurance that its resources will be
available for future generations. Implementation of the
preferred alternative ensures that changes in use patterns evolve
in a manner that protects the quality of the natural environment.

The education, research, and resource protection programs
will provide information, management and protection that develops
a foundation for wise public use of the area and results in long-
term productivity. Similarly, information collected in the
research program will assist marine resource managers in making
better management decisions that will result in mitigation of use
conflicts and adverse effects of human activities.

IV-96

PART V MANAGEMENT PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

I: Introduction ................................ 1

II: Resource Protection ......................... 3
A. Introduction ........................... 3
B. Goals .................................. 3
C. Sanctuary Regulations .................. 4
Do Contingency Plans .............. o..... o. 4
1. Existing Capabilities ... o.:..o... .. 5
2o Sanctuary Action ..... o.o .. ....... 6
Eo Compatible Uses of the Sanctuary ....... 7
F. Surveillance and Enforcement, ......... o 8
1. Sanctuary Action and Coordination
With Existing Agencies ...... o..... 8
2. Public Education and Information.. 10
3. Planning and Modifying
Enforcement Program ....o o .... 10

III: Research .............. o ..................... 11
A. Introduction ...... o ...... o............. 11
B. Goals .................................. 12
C. Framework for Research ... o.......... o.. 13
1. Baseline Studies ... o.............. 13
2. monitoring ........................ 15
3. Analytical/Predictive Studies ..... 15
Do Selection and Management of Research
Projects ................ o......... o..o. 16
1. Preparing an Annual Plan .......... 16
2. Monitoring Progress ....o.......... 17
3. Information Exchange .............. 17

IV. Education .................. o ................ 18
A. Introduction ................. o ......... 18
B. Goals ................ o.............. o.. 18
C. Educational Opportunities .....o ........ 19
lo Site Visitor Programs ....... o..o.. 19
2o Information Center Programs .... o.. 20
3. Outreach Programs... o ............. 21

V. 22
A. Administrative Framework .........o...... 22
1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division. 22
2. Sanctuary Advisory Committee .... o. 23
3. Federal Agencies ............ o..... 23
a. United States Coast Guard .... 23
b. United States Fish and
Wildlife Service ............. 24
C. National Park Service ........ 24
do Environmental Protection
Agency ....................... 24
e. Army corps of Engineers ..... o 24

V-i

f. Department of the Navy ....... 25
4. International, Tribal, State and
Local Agencies .................... 25
B. Resource Protection: Roles and
Responsibilities ....................... 25
1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division. 25
2. Sanctuary Manager ................. 26
3. United States Coast Guard ......... 26
4. Washington State .................. 26
C: Research: Roles and Responsibilities.. 27
1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division. 27
2. Sanctuary Manager ................. 28
3. Sanctuary Advisory Committee ...... 28
D. Education/Interpretation: Roles and
Responsibilities ....................... 28
1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division. 28
2. Sanctuary Manager ................. 29
3. Sanctuary Advisory Committee ...... 29
E. General Administration .................. 29
1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division. 29
2. Sanctuary Manager ................. 30
3. Washington State .................. 30
4. Sanctuary Advisoriy Committee ..... 30
F. Staffing Levels ........................ 31
G. Headquarter and Visitor Center
Facilities ............................. 31
1. Port Angeles ...................... 31
2. Neah Bay .......................... 32
3. La Push ........................... 32
4. Forks ............................. 33

Section I: Introduction

The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1972, as amended, and its implementing regulations (15 CFR Part
922) require that a management plan be prepared for each proposed
Sanctuary. Once the Sanctuary is designated, the plan will be
implemented. The management plan focuses on Sanctuary goals and
objectives, management responsibilities and guidelines for the
resource protection, research, education and administration
programs.

The plan establishes an administrative framework which
addresses the need for cooperation and coordination to ensure
effective management. The Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
(SRD), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is
responsible for management of the site. Variable funding for
staff and program development over the next several years may
affect specific aspects of Sanctuary management described in this
plan. Modifications to the scope and scale of the programs may
have to be made because of such unforeseeable changes in the
level of funding. The goals and objectives of the plan will,
however, remain unchanged.

Sanctuary goals and objectives provide the framework for
developing the management strategies. The goals and objectives
direct Sanctuary activities towards the dual purposes of resource
protection and compatible public use and are consistent with the
intent of the National program. No actions taken by NOAA in
administering the sanctuary shall infringe upon Native American
treaty rights unless the action is absolutely necessary to
protect the resources from extinction and no other protective
measures are available.

The management strategies planned for the proposed Olympic
Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) are directed to the goals
and objectives outlined below. The management plan is designed
to address the first five years following sanctuary designation,
after which time it will be revised. Although the plan offers
guidelines for the sanctuary manager, there are four important
tasks identified as having high priority immediately following
designation which, when completed, will set in motion progress
towards fulfilling the objectives of the plan. These four tasks
are:

(1) Establish liaisons with the appropriate agencies to
ensure-the Sanctuary mandate can be carried out through a
cooperative management strategy. Sanctuary staff will meet
with other agencies and institutions operating in the area
to familiarize them with the Sanctuary mandate and staff,
and determine appropriate working relationships and mutual
agendas. These meetings will include, among others, the
Washington Departments of Ecology, Natural Resources,

V-1

Fisheries, Agriculture, and Wildlife, th e.U.S. Coast Guard,
Canadian Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Park Service, the four coastal Tribes, local
businesses, towns, counties, timber and fishing
representatives, and research and education institutions.

(2) Create an Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary
Advisory Committee (SAC) which will be proactive and
reactive in its service to the sanctuary manager. It is
intended that the SAC will: a) create subcommittees to
assist in developing programs in research, education,
resource protection and administration for the Sanctuary;
and b) advise the manager on policy issues. Thus the SAC
will play a key role in advising on what the management
priorities should be, and coordinating Sanctuary actions
with those of other agencies. The SAC will consist of
appointed representatives of government agencies, research
and education groups, and commercial and environmental
interests.

(3) Coordinate with the U.S. Coast Guard to Conduct an
emergency response drill to assess the state of preparedness
to respond to an emergency within, or in close proximity to
the sanctuary, and generate a plan to address inadequacies.

(4) If the IMO reject's the U.S. Coast Guard's request for
an Area To Be Avoided, the sanctuary manager should work
with the Canadian and U.S. Coast Guards to generate a vessel
traffic management plan for the sanctuary.

Besides the four priority tasks which should be revisited
with every management plan revision, the management plan calls
for on-going resource management, research, and education
initiatives. The manager will review development or management
proposals that will impact upon the marine resources, provide
policy advice to other agencies working in the proposed Sanctuary
area, and make presentations to appropriate levels of government.

The sanctuary will support management-related research and
monitoring through funding, staffing, and other means that may be
available and appropriate. It is the highest priority of the
research agenda to complete a site profile within the first five
years following designation. Completion of the site profile will
be critical to refining the sanctuary contingency plan.

The-eduication-program. calls for coordination with, and
support of, existing interpretive and education programs, such as
those of the National Park Service and the Seattle Aquarium. The
general public and interested organizations on the Olympic
Peninsula and in Washington State, will play important roles in
attaining resource protection goals in the Sanctuary.
Interpretive p7rograms fostering public understanding and, hence,

V-2

support for management objectives, are inherent in the plan's
concept. High priority communication tools will include
publications, exhibits, school curriculum, and special events
that convey the significance of the Sanctuary's resources to both
the in-state and out-of-state public. The management plan will
highlight the linkages between the health of the Sanctuary
resources and upland uses and habitats.

Information exchange, sharing of facilities and staff, and
the coordination of policies and procedures for resource
protection will be features of all programs, including research
and education. The sanctuary management plan is designed to
guide management of the proposed Sanctuary for the first five
years after implementation. During this period, management
initiatives will generally fall into four basic programs:
(1) Resource Protection; (2) Research; (3) Education; and (4)
Administration. The remainder of this section describes goals,
guidelines and initiatives for each program.

II. Resource Protection

A. Introduction

The Sanctuary resource and quality protection program
includes: (1) a statement of Sanctuary resource and quality
protection goals; (2) Sanctuary regulations, including procedures
for working with existing regulatory authorities in cases of
overlapping jurisdiction; (3) contingency and emergency response
plans; (4) encouragement of compatible use in the Sanctuary; and
(5) identification of surveillance and enforcement plans.

B. Goals

The highest priority management goal for the Sanctuary is
the protection of the marine environment, resources and qualities
of the Sanctuary. Sanctuary goals are therefore designed to:

1. Reduce threats to Sanctuary resource and qualities;

2. Ensure that the water quality of the Sanctuary is
maintained at a level consonant with Sanctuary
designation;

3. Promote public awareness of, and voluntary compliance
with, Sanctuary regulations and objectives, through
education-and interpretive programs stressing resource
sensitivity and wise use;

4. Encourage participation by interested agencies, tribes,
and organizations in the development of procedures to
address specific management concerns (e.g., monitoring
and emergency-response programs);

V-3

5. Ensure that research results and scientific data are
made available to management agencies.to improve
resource protection strategies;

6. coordinate activities of management and regulatory
agencies to resolve conflicting or duplicative
regulations, policies and enforcement procedures.

C Sanctuary Regulations

Existing regulations and proposed Sanctuary regulations are
presented in Part III of this document. The proposed Designation
Document (Appendix _) includes the consolidated Sanctuary
regulations and activities subject to regulation now or in the
future.

To ensure protection of Sanctuary resources and qualities
and conservation of its valuable habitat, NOAA proposes seven
regulations that govern: (1) oil, gas and mineral activities;
(2) discharges and deposits from within Sanctuary boundaries;
(3) discharges and deposits from outside Sanctuary boundaries;
(4) uses that may injure historical resources; (5) alteration of
or construction on the seabed; (6) uses that may injure marine
mammals, sea turtles and seabirds; and (7) overflights. Two
additional regulations are proposed to aid-faciliEate enforcement
of Sanctuary regulations: 1) a prohibition on possession of
Sanctuary resources not exempted by pre-existing treaties; and 2)
a prohibition on interference with enforcement operations.
Vessel traffic may be regulated in the future if consultation
between SRD and the U.S. 'Coast Guard reveal a significant threat
to Sanctuary resources from current vessel traffic conditions.
SRD and the U.S. Coast Guard are working toward the establishment
of an Area to Be Avoided (ATBA) off the northern Olympic
Peninsula, extending 25 nautical miles from the shoreline, for
all vessels transporting hazardous materials. Implementation of
this ATBA is pending IMO approval. For details.on the proposed
ATBA, see Part III of the FEIS.

Kelp harvesting has also been included within,the scope of
possible future regulation. While very little kelp harvesting is
occurring at the present time, inclusion of kelp harvesting
within the scope of future regulation is necessary to preclude
overharvesting of kelp in the future. overharvesting of kelp
could threaten the integrity of the kelp habitat so important to
the entire coastal ecosystem.

D. Contingency Plans

The resources of the Sanctuary are susceptible to natural
and human-related changes. Many of these changes are gradual and
can be detected only through long-term monitoring of
environmental and biological indicators. However, certain sudden

V-4

and catastrophic changes in conditions (due to an accidental oil
spill or vessel grounding, for example) could seriously damage
resources and present severe health and safety hazards.

1. Existing capabilities

In 1991, the State Legislature passed Washington ESHB 1027,
pursuant to the recommendations of the BC/States Task Force,
which identified the response parties for marine spill prevention
and response at the state level. The 1991 and subsequent
legislation has established a network of agencies for marine
spill prevention and response that includes the Washington
Department of Ecology (WDOE), newly created Office of Marine
Safety (OMS), Maritime commission, Regional Marine Safety
Committees, Board of Pilotage Commissioners, University of
Washington Sea Grant, marine oversight Board, and existing State
agencies including Washington Parks and Recreation Commission,
Department of Natural Resources, Department of Wildlife,
Department of Fisheries, and Department of Revenue.

The Coast Guard (the federal on-scene coordinator in coastal
and tidal waters) has ultimate authority to coordinate and direct
all federal, state and private cleanup operations when discharges
into the marine environment pose a substantial threat to the
public health or welfare.

WDOE is the state agency with primary responsibility for oil
and hazardous substance spill response and clean-up on land and
water. However, the agency is more familiar with land-based
spills. The OMS has responsibility for vessel response plans,
barge cable standards, bunkering and lightering operations, and
review of federal vessel inspection programs. The OMS has
established three regional marine safety committees including one
for the North Puget Sound/Strait of Juan de Fuca and one for the
Outer Coast. The committees will prepare regional plans
governing vessel traffic, including consideration of tug escort
requirements, speed limits, navigation aids, vessel conflicts,
environmentally sensitive areas, and the Coast Guard VTS.

The OMS will review the plans and implement those
recommendations over which the state has authority. By the end
of 1993, the OMS plans to implement an extensive Tanker
Prevention Plan and Commercial Vessel Screening Requirements.
The plan will require tankers and barges transiting Washington
-waters to file a spill prevention plan verifying that they pose
no risk to-State waters. The prevention plan will address issues
related to vessel quality, procedures and crew training
standards. Commercial Vessel Screening Plans, will require all
cargo vessels over 300 gross tons and commercial passenger
vessels to give OMS advanced notification of their vessel
characteristics and cargo prior to arrival in state waters. The
OMS is mandated to establish an emergency response system for the

V-5

Strait of Juan de Fuca based on recommendations from the regional
marine safety committees. The OMS is currently reviewing the
recommendations submitted by the committees.

The Maritime Commission, established by the Legislature in
1990, is charged with: 1) developing first response oil spill
contingency plans for covered vessels; 2) providing emergency oil
spill response services for up to 24 hours following an oil spill
incident; and 3) providing a 24-hour communication network for
spill response notifications. The latter two of these functions
have been contracted to private companies-the former to Foss
Environmental and the latter to the Marine Exchange of Puget
Sound. The Commission develops vessel contingency plans and
maintains a database of vessel accidents.

Numerous State agencies-provide spill response assistance
and planning information related to resources that may be
impacted by a spill. Education and outreach efforts are provided
by the University of Washington Sea Grant and Washington Parks
and Recreation Commission. The Department of Revenue is charged
with studying tax incentives for spill risk reduction through
coordination with WDOE and the Department of Trade and Economic
Development. The Marine Oversight Board is an independent
citizen review of Federal, State and industry actions. The Board
is comprised of five gubernatorial appointees, who, acting in an
advisory role report to the Governor, and make recommendations to
agencies and the State legislature.

A detailed description concerning equipment and procedures
for emergency response can be found in Part II of the FEIS.

2. Sanctuary Action

one of the first-management actions of the Sanctuary will be
to conduct an emergency response exercise for an oil spill in the
Sanctuary boundary. The intent of this exercise will be not only
to test the adequacy of existing plans and*the availability and
effectiveness of the equipment allocated but also to provide an
opportunity for existing emergency response agencies and
personnel to work with the Sanctuary and to define roles and
responsibilities.

The Sanctuary program is preparing a National Plan with
additional site specific plans, such as for the Olympic Coast,
that will address needs for Sanctuary staff training, appropriate
equipment necessary to respond to a large-scale emergency
requiring long-term response and clean-up capabilities, and NOAA
policies regarding use of dispersants.

To provide further protection to the Sanctuary resources and
qualities, the Sanctuary-staff will assess the state of

V-6

preparedness of the relevant parts of the contingency plans as
they relate to the Sanctuary. This action will entail exchanging
information with government and industry response teams and
seeking their support in assessing detection and clean-up
capabilities that can be used to protect Sanctuary resources. In
addition, and consistent with the National Marine Sanctuary
Program Regulations (15 CFR Part 22), NOAA will provide the
necessary resources and impetus to develop and implement a site-
specific contingency and emergency-response plan designed to
protect the Olympic Peninsula's offshore resources. The plan
shall contain alert procedures and actions to be taken in the
event of an emergency such as a shipwreck or an oil spill. The
plan will specify the role of the Sanctuary and the action items
with which the Sanctuary has lead responsibility versus providing
assistance when requested by another lead agency.

An SRD-level contingency and emergency-response plan has
been prepared for the Channel Islands and Key Largo National
Marine Sanctuaries. A similar plan for the proposed Olympic
Coast National Marine Sanctuary will be created that will:

Describe emergency-response procedures and coordination
requirements for SRD and Sanctuary staff;

Define SRD policy regarding use of dispersants;

Provide a geographic information system depicting
resources at risk which will build upon the GIS
developed by the State Department of Natural Resources;

Outline procedures for emergency research; and

Provide damage assessment guidelines.

In conjunction with this plan, agreements may be formulated
to improve spill detection programs and augment containment
capabilities (i.e., with additional equipment, staff, and
deployment plans).

E. Compatible Use of the Sanctuary

An important aspect of the resource program is to encourage
the private and public uses of the Sanctuary, not prohibited
pursuant to other authorities, in ways that are compatible with
the primary objective of resource protection. Thus the Sanctuary
will:

1. Develop educational Materials and programs aimed at
enhancing public awareness of the Sanctuary's resources and
characteristics and their need for protection.

2. Provide relevant information about Sanctuary

V-7

regulations and use policies;

3. Collaborate with public and private organizations in
promoting compatible use of the Sanctuary;

4. Monitor and assess the levels of use to identify and
control potential degradation of resources and minimize
potential user conflicts; and

5. Consult with other agencies on policies and proposals
for the management of activities which may affect protection
of Sanctuary resources and qualities;

Monitoring and information exchange programs are discussed
under research (Section III). The development of materials is
discussed under education (Section IV).

F. Surveillance and Enforcement

1. Sanctuary Action and Coordination with Existing
Agencies

A primary feature of the resource protection program is the
surveillance of sanctuary waters and enforcement of applicable
regulations. Although a detailed enforcement plan has not been
developed, NOAA currently envisions a State-Federal-Tribal
cooperative enforcement system involving the State of Washington,
U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine
Fisheries Service, National Park Service, and coastal American
Indian Tribes. Because the proposed sanctuary includes tribal,
state, and federal waters, close coordination between tribal,
state, and federal authorities is required.

cooperative agreements between state and federal authorities
exist at other sanctuary sites. For example, under a cooperative
agreement with SRD, the California Department of Fish and Game
(and other federal agencies including NPS, NMFS, and USFWS)
enforces living marine resource regulations within the Gulf of
the Farallones Sanctuary and state enforcement officers are
deputized to enforce sanctuary regulations. As discussed below,
the Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF), through an
agreement with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), enforces
fishing related laws and regulations in state and federal waters
off the coast of Washington State. opportunities exist to
coordinate enforcement efforts between SRD and WDF. The current
regime for'enforcing-relevant laws and regulations within the
boundaries of the proposed sanctuary is summarized below.

The USCG has broad responsibility for enforcing all federal
laws in navigable waters under U.S. jurisdiction. Where these
laws regulate fishing harvests, the USCG works closely with the
NMFS and WDF.

V-8

Sanctuary designation would have the effect of broadening
USCG enforcement responsibilities to include the enforcement of
sanctuary regulations. Neither NOAA nor the USCG has the fiscal
resources to conduct systematic surveillance and enforcement
operations to ensure compliance with sanctuary regulations.
However, both the USCG and the state conduct operations in the
area. The USCGwould provide limited surveillance in conjunction
with multi-mission, surface, or aerial operations.

WDF is the state agency with primary enforcement
capabilities in the area of the proposed sanctuary. With the
exception of traffic laws, WDF fisheries patrol officers have
full police power permitting them to enforce all criminal laws of
the state of Washington. There are currently nine Fisheries
Patrol Officers who could be available for sanctuary enforcement
(a sergeant at Montesano; two officers at Westport; two
officers at Ocean Shores; one officer at Forks; one sergeant and
one officer at Port Angeles; and one officer at Clallam Bay).
WDF officers are cross-deputized with NMFS, and enforce
Washington fishing regulations in state territorial waters (0-3
miles offshore), and federal fishing regulations in the Exclusive
Economic Zone (3-200 miles offshore). WDF conducts no
enforcement patrols on the sixty miles of shoreline in Olympic
National Park between Queets and Neah Bay.

Five permanent NPS law enforcement rangers with full federal
commissions are stationed along the coastal strip of the Olympic
National Park year around: 2 at Kalaloch, 2 at Mora, and 1 at
Ozette. During the summer, 5 more seasonal law enforcement
rangers are stationed on the coast. In addition, 18 full time,
commissioned rangers are stationed in other parts of the Park
with 13 more commissioned seasonal rangers on duty in summer.
These numbers fluctuate somewhat from year to year. Enforcement
of federal regulations within the portion of the sanctuary that
overlaps the Park can be performed by these rangers. Authority
for law enforcement in other portions of the sanctuary would have
to be specifically granted to the Park by NOAA.

USFWS staff make occasional visits to the Refuges along the
coast for biological surveys. Enforcement authority is limited
to the islands. Incidental observation can be made of the
surrounding waters.

Each of the four coastal tribes is an independent, self-
governing, sovereign entity, with administrative and management
authority-6Ver their'own lands. In addition, as federally
recognized co-managers of the fishery resources tribal
enforcement authority extends out into the adjacent waters of the
north coast region. In aggregate, the four coastal tribes and
North West Indian Fisheries Commission employ more natural
resource management personnel to work on environmental
protection, habitat enhancement, and fishery management issues in

V-9

the north coast area than do the corresponding state or federal
agencies.

NOAA plans to rely on such observers from other agencies And
cooperating organizations, including excursion and service boat
operators, to provide the surveillance information needed for the
enforcement program. Suspected violations will be reported to
the sanctuary manager, who will investigate the reports and take
appropriate action. The enforcement program is expected to be
sufficiently strong to deter widespread violation of sanctuary
regulations.

In the event that analyses of use patterns after sanctuary
designation indicate that additional surveillance is required,
NOAA will provide for more intensive enforcement to protect
sanctuary resources. The effectiveness of sanctuary enforcement
operations will be evaluated two years after sanctuary
designation, and annually thereafter.

2. Public Education and Information

An emphasis will also be placed on public education efforts
to preclude the need for a large-scale enforcement program.
Interpretation and education programs will therefore be important
for gaining voluntary compliance with sanctuary regulations.
Because the most effective enforcement is prevention, the
sanctuary interpretive program will make every effort to inform
people about wise sanctuary,use and enjoyment. It is essential
that all users of the sanctuary be provided with easily
understood materials which explain the regulations, their
rationale, and the shared government responsibility for their
enforcement.

Some first step actions directed toward this effort include:
(1) developing and distributing brochures explaining sanctuary
regulations and their intent; (2) posting sanctuary regulations
at appropriate locations (e.g., marinas, sailing clubs, public
docks, waterfront recreation sites and restaurants); and (3)
establishing contact with industry, and recreational and
commercial groups (e.g., fishing and shipping industry) to
present and explain the regulations. Discussions with various
groups will help determine appropriate educational materials for
promoting compatible use of the sanctuary.

3. Planning and Modifying Enforcement Program

Information obtained from the research program and from
surveillance-enforcement activities on Sanctuary visitor use
patterns, frequently occurring violations, and potentially
sensitive resources, will be reviewed in periodic meetings
between the Sanctuary Manager, the Sanctuary Advisory Committee
and enforcement agency personnel to determine the adequacy of

V-10

surveillance levels and methods.

Section III: Research

A. Introduction

Effective management of the Olympic Coast National Marine
sanctuary requires the development of a coordinated and focused
research program. Research conducted within marine sanctuaries
is designed to improve knowledge of the sanctuary's environment
and resources and provide data and information that is most
useful to the sanctuary manager and decision-makers. The
research conducted within sanctuaries contributes to the general
body of scientific knowledge, and the management-specific focus
of the research provides useful information for application in
other marine and coastal areas. Sanctuary researchers, managers
and education directors should coordinate their efforts to ensure
a strong link between management/education needs and research
projects. The research agenda should also be coordinated with
the research agendas of the other marine sanctuary's on the west
coast to maximize the benefits of research results.

Research conducted within the sanctuary will focus
specifically on those management issues that relate to the
protection of significant sanctuary resources. The highest
priority for research is generation of a "site profile" which
will form the foundation for the contingency plan, regulatory
regime, and education and research programs on natural resource
abundance, characteristics, and processes for the area. Past
resource data will be utilized as well as ongoing monitoring and
research results. The monitoring program should be both species
specific as well as examine questions involving communities and
the entire local ecosystem. Management directed research will
address practical, use-oriented or "cause-and effect" studies.
Long-term monitoring and the resultant data base will provide the
foundation for interpreting or predicting natural or human-
induced events in the sanctuary and adjacent areas. General
directions and priorities for additional research are provided in
this section as a guide for identifying and selecting future
appropriate research projects.

The sanctuary will work cooperatively with other
institutions whenever possible in conducting research. Federal,
tribal, state, and local agencies, and universities in Washington
State, have important capabilities that could aid in meeting
sanctuary objectives-. In particular, the Washington legislature
established a new Olympic Natural Resources Center, to be located
on the western side of the Olympic Peninsula, to conduct research
and education in forestry and ocean management. This new Center,
a unit of the University of Washington, would be an ideal partner
to work with sanctuary staff on ocean issues and educational
programs.

V-11

B. Goals

The purpose of Sanctuary research activities is to improve
understanding of the resources and characteristics of the marine
environment off the Olympic Peninsula to resolve specific
management problems, and to coordinate and facilitate information
flow between the various research institutions, agencies and
organizations. A major emphasis of the research program will be
to encourage studies that investigate the natural processes at
the land-sea interface. Research results will be used in
education programs for visitors and others interested in the
Sanctuary, as well as for resource protection. The strategies to
be employed in the research program are to:

Establish a framework and procedures for administering
research to ensure that research projects are responsive to
management concerns and that results contribute to improved
management of the Sanctuary;

Incorporate research results into the interpretive/education
program in a format useful for the general public;

Focus and coordinate data collection efforts on the
physical, chemical, geological and biological oceanography
of the Sanctuary;

Encourage research that examines biodiversity within the
habitats of the Sanctuary;

Encourage studies that integrate nearshore and open ocean
research findings for a more complete understanding of
processes affecting both zones;

Initiate a monitoring program to assess environmental
changes as they occur due to natural and human processes;

Identify the range of effects on the environment that would
result from predicted changes in human activity or natural
phenomena;

Assure that research activities do not harm or diminish
Sanctuary resources;
Encourage information exchange among all the organizations
and agencies undertaking management-related research in the
Sanctuary to promote more informed management;

Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the research
program and its integration with resource protection and
education objectives.

V-12

C. Framework for Research

Research projects will be directed to three basic management
questions.

Baseline studies to determine the features and processes of
the natural environment; the abundance, distribution, and
interaction of the living resources; the distribution and
status of historical resources and the pattern of human
activity in the Sanctuary from prehistoric times to the
future;

Monitoring to document changes in environmental quality, in
ecology, and in human activity; and

Predictive studies to assess the causes and effects of
environmental and ecological changes.

Each of these categories is described in more detail below.

(a) Baseline-Studies

Baseline studies will be designed to obtain a better
understanding of the physical oceanography and ecology of the
Sanctuary. They generally refer to studies of abundance,
distribution, and movement of species, and selected chemical,
physical, and geological parameters. In the area of the proposed
Olympic Coast sanctuary, the basic characteristics of many
important species populations and habitats are not known.
However, there is an indication that there has been a loss of
habitat and species in recent years. Inventories of selected
species, particularly threatened or vulnerable species within
these populations, represent an important direction for research.
Some baseline studies will focus on the inventory and description
of sanctuary habitats. over the long term, there may be a need
for a detailed inventory of the intertidal and subtidal habitats
of the sanctuary that build on previously conducted surveys, and
personal observations.

Since there are barges and vessels carrying hazardous
substances through and near the Sanctuary, the Sanctuary manager
will need sound information on water circulation. This
information would be used to improve understanding of the
dispersion pattern of possible oil spills and land-source and
ocean-source discharges in the waters within or adjacent to the
Sanctuary,--and as part of the Sanctuary's contingency planning
efforts.

Basic physical oceanographic studies should focus on local
circulation patterns offshore and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca,
upwelling processes, and the interchange of water masses such as
the Columbia River Plume and more saline open ocean water masses.

V-13

To accomplish-this goal of understanding regional.circulation the
Sanctuary could assist with the development and dissemination of
information from.existing monitoring stations such as NOAA tide
gauges, current meters, thermistor chains and satellites (i.e.,
the NOAA polar orbiting satellites with Advanced Very High
Resolution Radiometer instruments that can image sea surface
temperature). Process oriented studies can use resident,
indicator species to identify local water mass movement and
elucidate key productivity areas or areas of high diversity.
Results can then be incorporated into an understanding of food
web relationships and predator-prey foraging dynamics.

Comprehensive knowledge of the distribution of organisms and
their dependence on environmental factors is needed for
interpretation as well as for resource protection. At
representative depths and locations, the environment should be
characterized by the collection of additional baseline data on
water temperature and salinity, light penetration, upwelling
circulation and nutrient-load. This information should be
correlated with data on the abundance and distribution, by depth
zone and location of species populations living within and
transiting the Sanctuary. Data of this type have been collected
at particular points along the shoreline by the numerous research
institutions in Washington State, but due to the remoteness of
the area and limited access points, there are many gaps in our
knowledge of the marine ecology off the Olympic Peninsula,
particularly land-sea interactions.

The interaction of physical oceanography with biological
studies will assist in developing an understanding of the ecology
of the region and the general health and productivity of the
Sanctuary. The research and education programs in general will
emphasize a multi-disciplinary approach to basic and applied
scientific issues. The geographic location of th .e proposed
Sanctuary.provides an excellent opportunity to integrate research
on the effects that human uses in the watershed and in the marine
environment have on marine resources. This data would be
invaluable in estimating the effects, if any, of present and
future land-use practices on the marine environment.

Additionally, a historical context study, including a
general literature search building on existing work, will be
conducted to identify probable historical sites (including
cultural, archeological and paleontological sites) within the
Sanctuary. This research will be followed by a field
reconnaissa'-nce-type remote sensing survey and archeological
assessment to locate and evaluate the extent to which historical
resources are based in the Sanctuary. These baseline historical
resource studies will provide the fundamental information
necessary for developing a historical resource management
strategy and education/interpretation program for the Sanctuary.

V-14

The recently developed Maritime History Museum will provide
a new maritime museum in Seattle. Coordination with facilities
adjacent to the Sanctuary and in larger population centers will
enhance public awareness of Sanctuary efforts to protect and
research important historical resources.

2. MonitoK "n

Effective management requires an understanding of long-term
changes to the status of the resources and human uses effecting
those resources. Monitoring activities provide for the planned
systematic collection of data on selected parameters to detect
trends in ecosystem populations, communities, habitats, and
processes. A well designed monitoring program can help detect
natural cycles and trends, as well as unusual changes, and then
relate them to one or more sources of probable disturbance. A
monitoring program may help to distinguish between trends related
to natural and human-induced activities. Over the long term, a
monitoring program should indicate the health of the sanctuary
ecosystem and its important resources.

Marine resource monitoring programs can be costly and
complex. For these reasons, the selection of parameters to
monitor is an important scientific and management question. SRD
will continue to seek advice from and coordinate with other
agencies and scientists who conduct marine monitoring, and
provide technical and other support where possible. Additional
programs may also be initiated for important species or habitats
of special concern not covered by existing programs. The
research subcommittee of the SAC will be instrumental in
directing the monitoring program.

Overall, the monitoring program will assist in our
understanding of the general health of the Olympic Coast and
surrounding waters. The program could help discover sources of
pollutants and assist in the establishment of cause and effect
relationships as part of long-term toxicological evaluations.
Monitoring could also elucidate any problems or changing patterns
that had not been previously identified. Ultimately, the
monitoring program will address the application of the findings
to basic science as well as applied management purposes.

Sanctuary staff will also monitor vessel traffic in
coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard to assess the needs of
additional preventative strategies.

3. Analytical/Predictive Studies

In addition to baseline research and monitoring, the
Sanctuary research program will continue studies, as needed, to
analyze the causes and consequences of ecosystem changes and
predict their effects on new and more intense human activity in

V-15

the area. Unlike the monitoring program these predictive studies
are envisioned to be more short-term and directly targeted to an
immediate management issue. Studies could be made to determine
the effects on marine mammals of possible increases in boating
activity if heightened interest in whale watching and fishing
excursions results from Sanctuary establishment. A knowledge of
these effects would enable management to provide information to
Sanctuary users to avoid disturbing these animals unnecessarily.

Other studies of whales, pinnipeds and seabirds in the
Sanctuary could be initiated to determine their range, their
migration patterns, and their dependance on the food resources of
the Sanctuary. One such study, for example, might be an
investigation to determine (1) whether the decrease in Stellar
sea lions can be attributed to a decline in prey availability
and compare the results to a similar study on the relatively
stable-Stellar sea lion population on Ano Nuevo; and (2) the
importance of the fish stocks in sustaining the Stellar sea lion
population and (3) the interaction of fishing on pinniped,
mammal, and seabird populations and vice-versa.

D. Selection and Management of Research Projects

Projects considered for funding by the SRD should be
directed to the resolution of sanctuary management issues and
.concerns. The sanctuary manager, Sanctuary Advisory Committee,
and SRD will follow procedures developed by SRD to ensure that
each sanctuary's research program is consistent with the national
program policies and directions. These procedures include
preparing an annual Sanctuary Research Plan (SRP), and monitoring
the progress of research in the sanctuary.

1. Preparing an Annual Operating Plan (AOP)

Eachyear the sanctuary manager will prepare a Sanctuary
Research Plan (SRP) with support by the SAC. The AOP is a brief
description of the goals for each fiscal year and a justification
of how these goals fit into the guidelines of the approved
management plan. SRD will then incorporate the SRP into a
national plan that includes annual plans for each sanctuary.
Steps involved in the annual planning process include:
* Identifying management concerns for the sanctuary with
supporting evidence or rationales.

* Thd-sanctuary manager, in cooperation with the SAC and
SRD, establishes research priorities based on the
identification of management concerns. The most important
factors to be considered in establishing annual research
priorities will be:

(1) Immediate or evolving management issues that may be

V-16

resolved through directed research projects;

(2) The prospects of research already in progress; and

(3) The availability of funds, equipment, and
instruments for research support.

Research workshops are held on an occasional basis to
facilitate the identification of research problems. After.
the management issues and research priorities are developed,
a draft SRP is prepared.

* An SRP is prepared that includes documentation of how
each project meets the national selection criteria. The
final SRP is then incorporated by the research coordinator
at program headquarters into a National Sanctuary Research
Plan. The highest ranking research projects are selected
from the national plan and a procurement schedule is
prepared.

A research announcement and request for proposals (RFP)
is prepared. The announcement discusses management concerns
and summarizes past and on-going research. Its purpose is
to solicit proposals from the scientific community that
satisfy the criteria specified in the SRP.

Occasionally, research proposals may include activities that
are prohibited by sanctuary regulations (e.g., taking of marine
mammals). In such cases NOAA may review the proposal and issue a
permit allowing the activity to proceed. The permit review
process for research is outlined in Appendix _ ). NOAA may
also determine that all or part of the research should be
conducted outside of sanctuary boundaries. Research focusing on
protected or endangered species may require additional research
permits from other agencies.

2. Monitoring Progress

The sanctuary manager will monitor the performance of
research projects and keep records of ongoing research, equipment
being used on site, frequency of researchers' visits, and project
progress. In order to ensure conformance to schedules outlined
under the terms of the research contract, the researchers must
prepare progress reports and final reports for review by SRD and
the sanctuary manager. Scientists and resource managers may
review final reports*before approval by SRD. Additionally, SRD
will publish outstanding project reports in its Technical Report
Series.

3. Information Exchange

Direct SRD funding for research is limited. To augment

V-17

directly funded research, SRD will encourage other funding
sources to support research that complements sanctuary management
goals. In the process of soliciting research projects from other
agencies and private institutions, SRD will make available
current sanctuary resource data obtained from past and ongoing
projects.

Section IV. Education

A. Introduction

The interpretive program for the Olympic Coast National
Marine Sanctuary will focus on improving public awareness of the
sanctuary program and providing information about the Olympic
Coast sanctuary resources, ecological linkages with terrestrial
habitats, and regulations. The program will target, among
others, local governments, businesses, citizen groups, the
tribes, the timber industry, fishermen, tourists and educational
institutions. The program is designed to promote understanding
of the natural and human resource values of the Olympic Coast
sanctuary, to enhance the stewardship responsibilities of the
users in the coastal watersheds. Where possible, these programs
will be coordinated with already existing programs and
facilities, such as the local school systems in the watersheds
bordering the sanctuary.

B. Goals

The education program will be directed at improving public
awareness and understanding of the significance of the Sanctuary
and the need to protect its resources and attributes. The
management objectives designed to meet this goal are to:

Provide the public with information on the Sanctuary and its
goals and objectives, with an emphasis on the need to use these
resources wisely to ensure their long-term viability;

troaden support for the Sanctuary and Sanctuary management
by offering programs suited to visitors with a range of diverse
interests;

Provide for public involvement by encouraging feedback on
the effectiveness of education programs and collaborate with
other organizations to provide interpretive services, including
extension and outreach programs and other volunteer projects
complementAry-to the"Sanctuary program;

* Establish extension and outreach services through
collaborative efforts with school and volunteer programs;

Incorporate research results into the interpretive/education
program in a format useful for the general public;

V-18

Use research opportunities as an educational tool by
establishing research assistantship and citizens monitoring
programs; and

Create public awareness of the entire Nation-wide Sanctuary
Program, its purposes and intent and the role of the Olympic
Coast NMS as part of a regional and national system.

C. Educational Opportunities

opportunities for interpreting the Olympic Coast NMS fall
into two broad categories; 1) education for local residents and
visitors, and potential users of the Sanctuary, including
schools, fishermen, hikers, campers, nature viewers , etc., as
well as visitors at local information centers and at the
Sanctuary headquarters; and 2) interested groups not visiting the
site but who desire to learn more about the Sanctuary's resources
and unique characteristics. Below is a description of the
educational programs that the Sanctuary will develop to maximize
these opportunities.

1. site visitor Programs

The Olympic Coast includes intertidal areas that can be
readily observed from land. At Kalaloch, Highway 101 parallels
the shoreline for approximately 10 miles allowing access to the
coastline and enabling disabled or less active visitors to view
the sanctuary area from scenic overlooks. Access by road also
exists at La Push, Mora Campground, a point south of Neah Bay,
and at Lake Ozette where a three mile trail leads to the coast.
The unique wilderness setting and the diversity of habitats along
the Olympic shoreline present excellent opportunities for school
field trips, field seminars, local community programs (e.g. beach
clean ups, whale and bird watching), and university level
research projects. visitors and users of the offshore area
include kayakers, fishermen and viewers on whale-watching boats.
Brochures and interpretive materials will be available to provide
information about sanctuary regulations, wildlife, and the
sanctuary environment.

The proximity of the proposed sanctuary to the shoreline
enables visitors to have a field experience either by walking
along the shoreline or by going out on the water. The intertidal
areas of the proposed sanctuary are also part of the Olympic
National Park and are managed by the National Park Service (NPS).
NPS conducts beach-walks, sponsors nature seminars, and maintains
interpretive signs at beach overlooks. SRD plans to establish a
cooperative program with the Park Service to reach those visitors
who go to the coastal area of the marine sanctuary. The beach
overlooks are also excellent locations to establish signs and
displays describing the proposed sanctuary. These interpretive
signs will provide visitors, residents, and users of the

V-19

sanctuary with a brief description of the sanctuary's resources
and uses. On-site educational materials will consist largely of
written and visual materials describing the sanctuary and
explaining its regulations. This information will be available
to the wide variety of recreational users and tourists that visit
the area.

2. Information Center Programs

Many people who would not normally walk the beaches or go
for an open-water cruise will be able to visit sanctuary
headquarters and other visitor and information centers in the
state. The educational exhibits and brochures available at the
centers enable visitors to learn about the Olympic Coast area,
and gain a greater appreciation of the marine environment.
There are a number of other educational/interpretive centers
around the Peninsula and in western Washington cities that may be
willing to host sanctuary exhibits and coordinate educational
programs. These include:

Olympic National Park: The Olympic National Park recently
obtained Congressional approval to build a Visitor Center at
Kalaloch, but construction is not expected to begin for
several years. The Olympic Park Superintendent has offered
the National Marine Sanctuary Program exhibit space in the
new facility. Since Kalaloch is located on the coastline,
visitors can combine an on-site beach walk with an
educational experience at the visitors center. The Olympic
Park operates a number of.ranger/informational centers on
the Olympic Peninsula. An agreement may be reached by which
SRD can distribute brochures and other interpretive
information at these locations. The Park also hosts
"Olympic Field Seminars" sponsored by the Olympic Park
Institute.. Arrangements can be made to hold a seminar on
the sanctuary environment and resources. The Olympic
National Park also organizes programs for schools and
community groups. Designation of a marine sanctuary
provides the opportunity to organize cooperative programs
with the Park, schools, local community groups, and coastal
tribes.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Headauarters. Olympia: USFWS
distributes a brochure on the Refuges, has created visual
panels on the*coast in conjunction with the NPS, and is
interested in developing additional cooperative projects
with NOAA and-NPS.

Arthur D. Feiro Marine Laboratory, Port Angeles: Owned by
the City of Port Angeles and located on the City Pier, the.
lab is operated by Peninsula College both as a center for
marine interpretation (largely for tourists) and as a center
for teaching and research.

V-20

Olympic Natural Resources Center (ONRC). University of
Washington: The 1989 Washington legislature established the
Center as a unit of the University of Washington with a
broad mandate for research and education regarding forestry
and ocean resources. A development plan is now being
written and will be submitted to the legislature in 1991.
The ONRC will be based at U.W. in Seattle but the law
requires that a facility be built on the western side of the
Olympic Peninsula; planning for that facility is now
underway.

Sea Grant Extension Officeg. Montesano: There is a Sea
Grant Extension Office at Montesano, Washington.
Informational brochures and other materials about the
sanctuary may be distributed from this office.

Seattle Acruarium, Seattle: It is anticipated that several
cooperative projects involving exhibits and field excursions
will be developed with the Education and Exhibits division
of the Aquarium.

New Maritime Center, Seattle: A maritime center combining
features of an interpretive center, science and technology
museum, and cultural institution is being proposed for
Seattle's central waterfront on Elliott Bay. It is
estimated that the Center will not be completed for at least
seven years.

Grays Harbor Historical SegDort Authority, Aberdeen:
Written materials concerning sanctuary resources could be
made available at the Seaport, and cooperative efforts to
develop exhibits may be appropriate.

Makah Museum, Neah bay: The Makah Museum, home to 500-year-
old Ozette artifacts, is managed by the Makah Cultural and
Research Center which has become a focal point for Makah
tribal culture since it was founded'in 1979. It contains
the world's single-largest collection'of Northwest coast
artifacts dating back to before the times of the non-Indian
explorers.

Aside from Port Angeles, the major population centers on the
Peninsula (Aberdeen, Forks) do not operate.marine oriented
information centers. These communities, which are suffering from
a declining economy, may benefit from sanctuary designation.
Establishmdht-of a-sanctuary may increase tourist traffic to the
region and thereby benefit the local economy through direct
expenditures within the tourist related industries.

3. Outreach Programs

The OCNMS educational/interpretation program will try to

V-21

reach persons.who are unable to visit the Olympic Coast area, as
well as those living in the watershed. outreach programs may
benefit groups with a specific interest in the coastal region and
groups that are not aware of the importance of the marine
environment. The outreach agenda will identify and contact
specific groups and school systems and target the needs for
marine education and outreach programs. Efforts will then focus
on providing educational materials, curriculum and programs about
the sanctuary and the marine environment. If interest is strong
enough, a slide presentation, mobile exhibit, documentaries and
other media may be developed for use with schools and private
groups.

Section V. Administration

A. Administrative Frame-work

This section of the management plan describes the
administrative roles of the agencies that will be involved in
Sanctuary management, proposes strategies to coordinate their
activities, and provides for periodic evaluation of the
effectiveness of the management plan. Administration oversees
all other functions of sanctuary management including resource
protection, research, and education, and establishes the roles of
the relevant players in implementing specific programs. The
administrative framework ensures that all management activities
are coordinated.

The Sanctuary and Reserves Division (SRD) is responsible for
the overall management of the proposed Sanctuary. The SRD will
coordinate on-site activities through cooperative agreements with
the State of Washington, NPS, USFWS, USCG, EPA, and NMFS.

1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division

The National Marine Sanctuary Program is managed by SRD.
SRD prepares a site-specific management plan for each sanctuary
to ensure that on-site activities in resource protection,
research, and education/interpretation are coordinated and
consistent with sanctuary goals and objectives. SRD is
responsible for implementing this plan through interagency
agreements and funding of on-site operations.

SRD, in collaboration with the sanctuary manager, develops a
general budget projecting expenditures for program development,
operations,--and staffing. Funding priorities will be reviewed
and adjusted annually to reflect evolving conditions in SRD's
budget, the sanctuary, and the priorities and requirements of the
National Marine Sanctuary Program. SRD also establishes policies
and procedures in response to specific issues in each sanctuary.
Detailed SRD responsibilities are listed under the resource
protection, research, and education sections which follow.

V-22

The Sanctuary manager serves as the primary spokesperson for
the OCNMS, and reports directly to, and represents, the SRD. The
manager's headquarters will preferably be located on the west
side of the Olympic Peninsula, in close proximity to the
sanctuary site. The final decision regarding the location of
headquarters and satellite offices will be made after
consultation with the SAC.

2. Sanctuary Advisory Committee

A Sanctuary Advisory Committee (SAC) will be established to
enable agencies, interested groups, and individuals to actively
contribute to the management of the OCNMS. The SAC will consist
of representatives ,of those groups affected by sanctuary
designation, and include federal, state, local, and tribal
government authorities, users of the area such as vessel
operators and fishermen, and local community, and tribal members.
These groups will be consulted to ensure that their ideas and
concerns are made available to and considered by the sanctuary
manager.

The SAC will serve in both a proactive and reactive manner.
It will be instrumental in producing annual operating plans by
identifying education/outreach, research, and resource protection
priorities. The SAC will keep the manager informed about issues
of concern, offer suggestions on solutions to conflicts, and
assist the manager in achieving the goals of the sanctuary
program. The SAC will also be solicited to comment on ideas and
approaches to issues that the sanctuary manager raises.

The structure, composition, and role of the SAC will be
determined by SRD in conjunction with representatives of the
State of Washington. In addition, SRD will appoint members to
the committee and define the roles between the manager, the SAC,
and SRD headquarters. A broad based constituency will be sought
to ensure that a range of views and expertise are made available
to the sanctuary manager. The experience and expertise of the
SAC will be available to the manager on an ad hoc basis and
during regularly scheduled meetings. In order to function
efficiently in an advisory capacity it may be beneficial to
subdivide the SAC into subcommittees that correspond to the
resource protection, research, education and general
administration issues. Detailed SAC responsibilities are listed
under the resource protection, research, education and general
administration sections which follow.

3. Federal Agencies

A. United States Coast Guard (USCGI

The USCG is responsible for enforcing Federal laws in waters
under U.S. jurisdiction. This mission includes the enforcement

V-23

of sanctuary regulations promulgated for the sanctuary. The USCG
also manages operations for the control or removal of oil and
hazardous substances resulting from offshore spills. In addition
to enforcing fishing and vessel discharge regulations, the USCG
is also responsible for regulating vessel traffic, maintaining
boater safety, and coordinating search and rescue operations.

B. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

The USFWS maintains enforcement jurisdiction over the
Flattery Rocks, Quillayute Needles, and Copalis National Wildlife
Refuges. Because the boundary of these three island refuges is
from mean high water landward, there is no overlapping
jurisdiction between the USFWS and SRD. The refuges do, however,
lie within the waters of the proposed sanctuary. It is
anticipated that an interagency agreement will be developed to
establish-a method for joint management of the resources.

C. National Park Service (NPS)

The NPS is responsible for managing the Olympic National
Park. Sixty miles of coastline and the offshore rocks and
islands (including the intertidal zones) are included within the
boundary of the Olympic National Park. The landward boundary of
the proposed marine sanctuary extends to mean high water, cutting
across the mouths of streams and rivers, except along Indian
reservations where the boundary extends to the lower low water
mark. NPS and SRD share jurisdiction over the intertidal zone in
those areas where the landward boundary of the proposed Sanctuary
extends to mean high water, and around the offshore rocks and
islands. Existing National Park Service standards and policies
cannot be diminished or diluted by any "shared" jurisdiction with
SRD. For example, the large majority of the intertidal area of
the park is Congressionally designated Wilderness and must be
managed to that standard. SRD and NPS will develop an
interagency cooperative agreement to ensure the most efficient
use of program funding and manpower in achieving the goals of the
sanctuary,and park.

D. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The EPA has regulatory responsibilities with regard to
sewage outfalls, ocean dumping, and non-point source pollution.
While EPA has delegated permitting authority to the State
government, the tribes receive their permits directly from EPA.

E. Corps of Engineers (COE)

The COE grant permits that are based on EPA guidelines for
the discharge of dredged materials into State waters and the
waters beyond. The Corps also issues permits for construction,
excavation or fill in any navigable waters of the United States.

V-24

F. Department of the Navy

The Department of the Navy conducts military training and
surveillanceactivities in the proposed Sanctuary area.

4. International, Tribal, State, and local agencies

A large portion of Washington State waters is included
within the boundary of the proposed sanctuary. The Washington
State Departments of Ecology, Natural Resources, Fisheries, and
Wildlife have management responsibilities within state waters off
the Olympic Peninsula. Ecology also administers the Washington
State Coastal Zone Management Program. The state has an
efficient infrastructure for coastal resource management and
enforcement.

It is NOAA's intent to work closely with the state to ensure
full federal-state cooperation, and to coordinate the sanctuary
program with the existing local, state and regional management
framework. This cooperation will involve the establishment of
Cooperative Agreements, Memoranda of Understanding and
deputization of officials for enforcement purposes.

NOAA will work closely with the Makah, Quileute, Hoh and
Quinault tribes and the other tribes with treaty rights within
the sanctuary, Clallam and Jefferson Counties, the City of Forks,
and Canadian authorities such as the Canadian Coast Guard and
Canadian Park Service to coordinate research, education,
monitoring and resource protection initiatives.

To facilitate the administrative procedures regarding
certification/approval of leases, licenses, permits, approvals,
rights or other authorizations (as described above, Part II,
Section III, B.2. Designation Document and Regulations), NOAA
will work closely with the owners or holders of, or applicants
for, leases, licenses, permits, approvals, rights or agencies.

B. Resource Protection: Roles and Rel2onsibilities

1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division

(a) Approves priorities for funding for resource
protection;

(b) Monitors the effectiveness of interagency agreements
fo*r-surveillance and enforcement and negotiates changes
where required;

(c) Develops contingency and emergency-response plans and,
based on these plans, negotiates applicable interagency
agreements;

V-25

(d) Monitors the effectiveness of existing sanctuary
regulations, and manages the process to implement
changes in regulations where necessary; and

(e) Coordinates efforts to protect and manage sanctuary
resources with other federal agencies, tribal
governments, and other public and private
organizations.

2. Sanctuary Manager

(a) Recommends to SRD priorities for allocating funds
annually for resource protection;

(b) Assists in the coordination of surveillance and
enforcement activities by providing liaison with the
USCG and other agencies;

(d) Provides information for use in training sanctuary
enforcement officials;

(e) Monitors and evaluates the adequacy of emergency-
response plans and procedures in the sanctuary;

(f) Maintains a record of emergency events (e.g., oil
spills) in and around the sanctuary;

(g) Evaluates overall progress toward the resource
protection objectives of the sanctuary program, and
prepares semi-annual and bi-monthly progress reports
highlighting activities for SRD; and

(h) Establishes the Sanctuary Advisory Committee.

3. U.S. Coast Guard

(a) Holds broad responsibility for enforcing all federal
laws throughout the sanctuary waters;

(b) Ensures enforcement of sanctuary regulations; and

(c) Provides on-scene coordination and Regional Response
Center facilities under the National Contingency Plan
for the removal of oil and hazardous substances in the
event of a spill that threatens the sanctuary.

4. State of Washington

(a) Owns and manages aquatic lands, manages living

V-26

resources, and enforces state laws and regulations
within state waters of the sanctuary;

(b) State enforcement personnel may be deputized to enforce
specific federal laws throughout the sanctuary (e.g.,
the Endangered Species Act);

(d) Monitors the effectiveness of state regulations within
the sanctuary and considers recommended changes to
state regulations through the State Legislature and
Governor's Office;

(e) Monitoring and surveillance of fisheries resources;

(f) Provides on-scene coordination of state clean-up
response in the event of an accidental spill of oil or
hazardous materials, which threaten the state's fish
and wildlife resources.

(g) Regulates recreational and commercial fishing
activities in state waters.

C. Research: Roles and Responsibilities

1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division

(a) Prepares annual Sanctuary Research Plans (SRP's) for
each sanctuary;

(b) Prepares an annual National Research Plan (NRP) and
budget, based on the SRP's of individual sanctuaries
and in accordance with priorities determined at the
national level;

(e) Reviews all interim and final research reports
submitted by the sanctuary manager; and

(f) Reviews permits for research activities, considering
the recommendations of the sanctuary manager, to ensure
consistency with sanctuary regulations and provide
additional technical review where necessary.

V-27

2. Sanctuary-Manager

(a) Recommends broad areas of research to resolve
management issues;

(b) Develops the Sanctuary Research Plan;

(d) Prepares assessments of research needs and priorities
based on management requirements and research
continuity;

(e) Prepares recommendations for SRP's;

(f) Implements the SRP's;

(g) Coordinates research'and monitoring activities with
other federal, state, tribal, and local agencies in the
sanctuary in consultation with SRD, the Sanctuary
Advisory Committee and other interested parties; and

(h) Coordinates an on-site process for reviewing and
evaluating research proposals and permit requests,
considering the views of SRD, the Sanctuary Advisory
Committee, concerned individuals and interest groups.

3. Sanctuary Advisory Committee

(a) Provides advice to the sanctuary manager on review of
research proposals, interim, and final reports;

(b) Provides advice to the sanctuary manager on approval of
.proposals for research in the sanctuary; and

D. Education/Interpretation: Roles And RgsRonsibilities

1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division

(a) Reviews and approves the list of annual priorities for
education and the annual education budget prepared by
the-sanctuary manager;

(b) Reviews and approves design proposals for all
educational facilities; and

V-28

2. Sanctuary Manager

(a) Recommends annually to SRD a list of priorities and an
annual budget for education;

(b) Prepares and circulates as required Request for
Proposals (RFP's) for educational projects;

(d) Provides training for staff assigned to the sanctuary;

(e) Encourages local and regional organizations to
participate in sanctuary education;

(f) Disseminates information about the National Marine
Sanctuary Program and the OCNMS; and

(g) oversees the development of any education facilities
constructed for the sanctuary, reviews site analyses
and design specifications, awards construction and
maintenance contracts.

3. Sanctuary Advisory Committee

(a) Provides advice to the sanctuary manager and education
coordinator on raising public awareness of the
sanctuary and advises on the development of a local
constituency by means of brochures, presentations,
structured events articles for publication, and other
activities consistent with the management plan.

E. General Administration: Roles and ResDonsibilities

1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division

(a) Ensures that the sanctuary is operated in a manner
consistent with established national program policies
and with applicable national and international laws and
provides guidance to the sanctuary manager;

(b) Identifies, analyzes, and resolves sanctuary management
problems and issues;

(d) Directs and assists the sanctuary manager in the
implementation of the management plan;

V-29

(e) Coordinates sanctuary management with other federal and
state agencies, tribal governments, and private
organizations;

(f) Evaluates the effectiveness of sanctuary management and
regulatory measures;

(g) Prepares a program budget for the sanctuary; and

(h) Provides funding for overall sanctuary management and
administration.

2. Sanctuary Manager

(a) Coordinates on-site efforts of all parties involved in
sanctuary activities;

(b) Reviews the management plan periodically and recommends
changes to SRD as needed;

(d) oversees day-to-day operation of the sanctuary,
including administrative functions such as bookkeeping,
purchasing and keeping records of visitor activities;

(e) Supervises sanctuary staff and other personnel,
including enforcement and interpretive employees
assigned to the sanctuary; and

(f) Represents the sanctuary viewpoint on local issues and
at public forums.

3. State of Washington

(a) Assists in the preparation and implementation of a
comprehensive, long-term management plan for the
sanctuary; and

(b) Assists in the periodic review of the management plan.

4. Sanctuary Advisory Committee

(a) Provides advice on the specific plans for sanctuary
developments;

(b) Provides advice on all proposals for activities within
the sanctuary;

V-30

and-projects in areas adjacent to, or affecting the
sanctuary;

(d) Enhances communication and cooperation among all
interests involved in the sanctuary;

(e) Advises on rules and conditions for all forms of public
recreation; and

(f) Advises on an overall plan for the use, development and
maintenance of sanctuary lands and buildings.

F. Staffing Levels

Due to limited funding, the sanctuary will begin with a NOAA
manager, and an operations coordinator. The sanctuary staff will
work closely with the USCG, NPS, FWS, and other state, tribal,
and federal agencies in providing enforcement and surveillance in
the area of the sanctuary. The SAC will be established during
the first year and planning will begin to identify research,
education, resource management and administrative priorities for
the first five years following designation. The priorities for
further staffing will be determined as a result of the planning
initiative.

G. Headauarters and Visitor Center Facilities

Sanctuary headquarters and administrative offices will be
established at a suitable location on the Olympic Peninsula.
NOAA has undertaken a preliminary assessment of alternatives for
a main office and satellite offices. However, the final
decisions on the siting of administrative offices will be made
during the sanctuary planning initiative when the priorities for
the first five years after designation for education, research,
and resource management are clarified. Thiswill also allow time
for the mission and programs of the Olympic Center and the soon
to be established Willapa Science Center to be identified.
Siting considerations will be contingent upon available funding.

NOAA explored options for siting of offices in Port Angeles,
Forks, Neah Bay and La Push. Following is an analysis of
locations identifying some of the advantages and disadvantages of
each alternative.

1. Port Angeles

The advantages of locating an office in Port Angeles are
that: 1) it is the center of communications and transportation on
the Olympic Peninsula where regional offices of the Coast Guard,
National Park Service and other federal and state offices are
located; and 2) should the Northwest Straits National Marine
Sanctuary become designated, this location would be convenient in

V-31

coordinating the operations of both sanctuaries.

The main disadvantage of siting the administrative office in
Port Angeles is that it is removed from the population centers on
the Olympic Peninsula and it may promote the perception and/or
reality that the program is out of touch with the needs and
interests of the population living adjacent to the Sanctuary.

2. Neah'Bay

Neah Bay offers many opportunities with respect to
facilities, research, and education. It is located adjacent to
both the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Olympic Peninsula, and as
such, is centrally located adjacent to the entire sanctuary.
Facilities exist to support a research vessel and tug. The Coast
Guard station has a 600 foot dock with lift and launch
capability, and is planning to upgrade the dock and its
facilities which is expected to be completed by 1995-96. This
may present an opportunity for cooperative funding by NOAA to
provide fixed, permanent space for SRD vessels. The station
would be a natural place to store a vessel ashore because there
is a heavy lift crane which can lift vessels of up to twenty tons
from the water. There is also an enclosed maintenance shed which
may be available to SRD as well. Both security and maintenance
would be much simpler if SRD were able to use the Coast Guard
facility.

From the standpoint of research, much research has been
occurring at Tatoosh Island by the University of Washington's
Friday Harbor Lab. The presence,of the Sanctuary in Neah Bay can
support and augment this research.

From the standpoint of education/outreach, and research on
cultural and historic resources, Neah Bay offers the Makah
Archeological Museum and draws a large number of tourists which
can be targeted by the Sanctuary program. The Makah Tribe is
making long-range plans to improve the harbor at Neah Bay, add on
to the museum, construct a marina and convention center and build
an adjacent shopping center. In addition., because it is located
on a tribal reservation, the education program can become more
directly involved with the education needs of the coastal tribes.

3. La Push

There is a small port at La Push which supports the fishing
fleet of-the Quileute Tribe. However, there is a bar that must
be negotiated at the entrance and in heavy weather is dangerous
and, at times, impassible. Therefore from the perspective of
facilities such as access to the sanctuary by vessels, this is an
undesirable location. However because of its coastal location,
it is a site where the Sanctuary would ensure that there is
adequate contingency planning equipment, and bird and mammal

V-32

rescue facilities. There is a Coast Guard station at La Push.

There is also a small village that supports a tribal school
and recreational opportunities in the summer. Siting an office
in this location will enable the sanctuary program to become
integrated in the educational program of the tribe and research
linkages between upland uses and the health of the coastal
environment.

4. For s

Forks is the center of the timber industry and the
commercial center for the Olympic Peninsula. It is located
approximately 12 miles from the coast. It will be the location
of the Olympic Center which will offer an opportunity to
coordinate research focusing on the linkages between upland uses
and the coastal ecosystem. The location offers access to
tourists and upland users of the watershed and a central location
for the entire population on the Olympic Peninsula. A main
office of the National Forest Service and an office of the state
Department of Natural Resources are also located in the Forks
area.

V-33

PART VI: List of Preparers and Acknowledgements

PART VI: LIST OF PREPARERS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Mr. Joseph Flanagan - Environmental Protection Specialist, ocean
Minerals and Energy Division, NOAA. Mr. Flanagan contributed to
the synthesis of information and narrative for Part II which
describes the resources and uses of the Olympic Coast area. His
academic background includes a Bachelors Degree in Geology and
Chemistry from the University of Miami, Florida; and a Master's
Degree in Environmental Systems Management from American
University, Washington D.C.

Ms. Nina Garfield - Program Specialist, Sanctuaries and Reserves
Division, NOAA. Ms. Garfield was responsible for assisting in
the final data analysis, writing, editing, and preparation of the
draft EIS/MP, and the overall supervision and preparation of the
Final EIS/MP and regulations. Her academic background includes a
Bachelors Degree in Sociology and Psychology from Kalamazoo
College in Kalamazoo, MI; a Masters Degree in Marine Affairs at
the University of Rhode Island; course work in Chemistry and
Physics at the University of Pittsburgh and Mariculture at the
Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Ma.

Ms. Karen Holtz - Sea Grant Fellow serving as a Program
Specialist for the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, NOAA. Ms.
Holtz was responsible for collecting information and making many
of the Federal, tribal, state, and other individual contacts
necessary for the preparation of this document. Ms. Holtz wrote
the first complete draft of the DEIS/MP and developed the initial
regulatory alternatives for this project. Her academic
background includes a Bachelor's Degree from Colby College,
Maine', and a Masters Degree in Marine Policy from the Institute
for Marine Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Mr. Scott Kathey - Graduate Intern, Sanctuaries and Reserves
Division, NOAA. Mr. Kathey has significantly modified the
natural resources section for Part II of the FEIS, contributed to
preparation of response to comments, and prepared Appendix F and
J of the FEIS/MP. Mr. Kathey is a senior graduate student at the
Graduate School of Marine Affairs of the University of Washington
in Seattle. He received a Bachelors Degree in International
Affairs from the George Washington University, Washington, D.C.

Mr. Rafael Lopez - Pacific Regional Manager, Sanctuaries and
Reserves Division, NOAA. Mr. Lopez was responsible for
overseeing the Sanctuary designation process following the
release of the DEIS/MP. Mr. Lopez received his Bachelors of
Science Degree in Physical Oceanography from the Florida
Institute of Technology in Melbourne, Florida.

Ms. Linda Maxson - On-site Liaison for the Sanctuaries and
Reserves Division, NOAA. Ms. Maxson has served as the SRD
contact person for the Olympic Coast project, offered policy

VI-1

guidance on the project, contributed to the preparation of the
response to comments and management plan, and edited the FEIS/MP.
Ms. Maxson received a Bachelors Degree from the University of
California, Davis and a Masters of Science Degree from the
University of New Hampshire in Education.

Mr. Chris Ostrom - Senior Project Manager, Sanctuaries and
Reserves Division, NOAA. Mr. Ostrom was responsible for the
preparation of the DEIS/MP and regulations. His academic
background includes a Bachelor's Degree from the University of
California at Santa Barbara, and a Master's Degree in Biological
oceanography from the Florida State University Graduate School of
Oceanography, Tallahassee, Florida.

CDR. Larry Simoneaux - NOAA Corps Officer, Sanctuaries and
Reserves Division, NOAA. CDR. Simoneaux spearheaded the
development of the analysis for NOAA's proposal to the Coast
Guard of an Area to be Avoided in Part V of the FEIS/MP. In
addition, CDR. Simoneaux served in a liaison capacity with the
vessel traffic industry and Washington State in matters related
to vessel traffic, and contributed to preparation of response to
comments. CDR Simoneaux received a Bachelors of Science Degree
from the United States Naval Academy and a Masters of Science
Degree in Fisheries Biology and Statistics from Louisiana State
University in Baton Rouge, IA.

Mr. Glen Tallia - Legal Counsel, General Counsel, Office of
Coastal Resource Management, NOAA. Mr. Tallia provided legal
guidance and support throughout the development of the DEIS/MP
and FEIS/MP. Mr. Tallia received a Bachelors of

Acknowledgements

The preparers would like to offer special thanks to the
office of oceanography and Marine Assessment (now called the
strategic Environmental Assessments Division, ORCA/NOS/NOAA),
headed by Mr. Daniel Basta and directed by Eric Slaughter (Ron
Wolitera, Peter Wiley, Anthony Pait, Dan Farrow, Samuel Orlando,
Diane Bowen, Elizabeth Archer, Marilyn King, Tom LaPointe, Tim
Goodspeed, Tom Culliton and Tracey Gill) for preparing Appendix 2
of the DEIS/MP: "A Proposal for the Olympic Coast National
Marine Sanctuary: Site Evaluation Report."

In addition the preparers would like to thank Paul Crawford
(National Park Service) Bill Hesselbart (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service), Craig Bowhay (Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission),
and Dave McCraney, Terry Swanson, and Pam Miller (Governor's
Ocean Policy Work Group), Bill Simmons, Shari Schaftlein, and
Christian Penn for providing invaluable input into the
development of the sanctuary proposal and preparation of this
document. Rob McMahon, Ocean Issues Coordinator for the
Washington State Coastal Counties, kept us in touch with local

VI-2

concerns. Tom Peeling, Ben West, Lt. Kirby Nelson, Elsie
Munsell, and Chris Nelson of the Navy provided information on
Naval activities for the FEIS/MP. Special thanks is extended to
Margie Hegy of the U.S. Coast Guard, Margie Smitch of the
Washington State Office of Marine Safety, CDR. Stan Norman of the
U.S Coast Guard and CDR. Ken Lilly of the NOAA Corps (retired),
and Dick Lauer of Sause Brothers Marine, Inc. for their support
in the analysis for the proposal of the Area to be Avoided to the
Coast Guard. Our gratitude is also offered to Fred Felleman and
Rick Malsed for enthusiastically supporting our efforts.

Further acknowledgement is extended to George Galasso for
his research on industrial dumpsites; Enid, Tina, Jennifer and
Lauren Berger, and Brady Phillips for their editorial and
secretarial support.

VI-3

PART VII: List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons
Receiving Copies

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

Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation - U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Marine Mammal Commission
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Pacific Fishery Management Council

Congressional
Members of the U.S. House Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries
Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation
Honorable Slade Gorton, United States Senate
Honorable Patty Murray, United States Senate
Honorable Maria Cantwell, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Norman D. Dicks, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Thomas S. Foley, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Jay Inslee, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Mike Kreidler, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable James A. McDermott, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Al Swift, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Jolene Unsoeld, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Jennifer Dunn, U.S. House of Representatives

Washington State Government and Agencies
Clallam County Commissioners
City of Aberdeen
City of Hoquiam
City of ocean Shores
Department of Agriculture
Department of Ecology
Department of Fisheries
Department of Community Development, Office of Archeology and
Historic Preservation
Department of Natural Resources
Parks and Recreation
Department of Treasury
Department of Trade and Economic Development

VII-1

Department of Wildlife
Energy Office
Grays Harbor County Commissioners
Island County Commissioners
Jefferson County Commissioners
Pacific County Commissioners
Parks and Recreation Commission
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
San Juan County Planning Department
Washington Coast Chamber of Commerce
Whatcom County Planning Department

Tribal Governments and Agencies
Quinault Indian Nation
Hoh Indian Nation
Quileute Indian Nation
Makah Indian Nation
Point No Point Treaty Council
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

National, Regional and Local Interests
Admiralty Audubon
American Association of University Women
American Bureau of Shipping
American Cetacean Society
American Fisheries Society
American Gas Association
American Littoral Society
American Petroleum Institute
American Oceans Campaign
Amoco Production Company
Arthur Farrell Marine Lab
Atlantic Richfield Company
Bay Watchers
Black Hills Audubon Society
Boating Industry Association
BP Oil Company
Bullet Foundation
Cascadia Research Collective
Coastal Washington Marine Research
Center for Law and Social Policy
Center for Marine Conservation.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
Citizens Against Litter
citizen's Organized Rally Against Leasing (CORAL)
Clean Air Now
Clean Water Action
Coalition of Washington ocean Fishermen
Coast Alliance
Columbia-Pacific Resource Conservation Development Council
Columbia River Crab Fisherman's Association
Conservation Foundation

VII-2

Continental Oil Company
The Cousteau Society
CZM Newsletter
Defenders of Wildlife

East Lake Washington Audubon Society
Edison Electric Institute
El Paso Natural Gas Company
Elma Chamber of Commerce
Environmental Policy Center
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
Environmental Law Institute
Exxon Company, U.S.A.
Fisherman's Marketing Association
Friends of the Coast
Friends of the Earth
Friends of the San Juans
Friends of the Sea Otter
Grays Harbor Chamber of Commerce
Grays Harbor Economic Development Council
Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission
Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce
Greenpeace, U.S.A.
Gulf Oil Company
The Human Race
Inland Waters Coalition
Inverness Association
Kitsap Audubon Society
Lake Sammish Community Association
Lakewood Junior Women's Club
Marine Technology Society
The Marine Wilderness Society
Mayr Bros. Logging Co., Inc.
Mobil oil,Corporation
mountaineers
National Association of Counties
National Audubon Society
National Campers and Hikers Association
National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc.
National Federation of Fishermen
National Fisheries Institute
National Ocean Industries Association
National Recreation and Park Association
National Research Council
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Natural Resources Law Institute
No Oilport!
North Pacific Fishing Vessel Owner's Association
North River Protection Association
North Sound Sea Kayaking Association
Ocean Park Chamber of Commerce

VII-3

Olympic Environmental Council
Olympic Park Associates
Olympic Peninsula Economic Research Association
Olympic Waters
Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Associations, Inc.
Pacific Conservation District
Pacific States Marine Fisheries commission
Pacific Salmon Sportfishing Commission
People for Puget Sound
Port of Grays Harbor
Port of Ilwaco
Port of Port Angeles
Port of South Bend
Port of Raymond
Port of Tacoma
Port of Port Townsend
Port of Willapa Harbor
Port Townsend Marine Science Center
Protect the Peninsula's Future
Puget Sound Alliance
Puget Sound Steamship Operators Association, Inc.
San Juan Marina
Seattle Audubon Society
Sierra Club-Cascade Chapter
Sierra Club-Willapa Bay Chapter
Soundwatch
Southwest Washington Anglers
Sport Fishing Institute
Tahoma Audubon
TESC/Environmental Resource Center
Texaco USA
To Protect the Peninsula's Future
Trout Unlimited
Union Oil Company
United States Naval Institute
University of Washington Law Society
Vancouver Audubon
Washington Contract Loggers Association
Washington Dungeness Crab Fishermen's Association
Washington Environmental Council
Washington Public Ports
Washington Trollers Association
Washington Wilderness Coalition
Water Pollution Control Federation
Westport Charters, Inc.
The Whale Museum
Whatcom County Planning Department
The Wilderness Society
Willapa Bay Water Resources coordination Council
World Wildlife Fund-U.S.
'Yakima. Audubon

VII-4

Part VIII: References

REFERENCES

Antonelis, G.A. and M.A. Perez. 1984. Estimated Annual Food
Consumption by Northern Fur Seals in the California Current.
Calif. Coop. Oceanic Fish. Invest. Report, Vol. XXV, 1984.

Baker, E.T. and B.M. Hickey. 1986. Contemporary Sedimentation
Processes In and Around An Active West Coast Submarine
Canyon. Marine Geology, 71 (1986) 15-34.

Ballard, R.L. 1964. Distribution of Beach Sediment Near the
Columbia River. University of Washington Department of
oceanography, Technical Report No. 98, 82p.

Battelle 1987. Effects of Sounds From A Geophysical Survey
Device on Fishing Success. Pacific 6CS region of the
Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Los Angeles, CA. Contract No. 14-12-0001-30273.

Bargmann, Gregory G. 1984. Recreational Diving in the State of
Washington and the Associated Harvest of Food Fish and
Shellfish. Washington Department of Fisheries, Technical
Report No. 82.

Barlow, Jay. 1988. Harbor Porpoise, Phocogna Rhocoena, Abundance
Estimation for California, Oregon, and Washington: I. Ship
Surveys. Fishery Bulletin, Vol. 86, No. 3, 1988.

Barton, Stephanie. 1992. Manager, Marketing and Sales, Foss
Environmental Services. Seattle, WA. Personal
communication.

Beach, R.J., A.C. Geiger, S.J. Jefferies, S.D. Treacy, and B.L.
Troutman. 1985. Marine Mammals and their Interactions with
Fisheries of the Columbia River and Adjacent Waters, 1980-
1982. Washington Department of Game, Wildlife Management
Division, report to National Marine Mammal Laboratory, NMFS,
Seattle, Wash.

Bigg., M.A. 1985. Status of the Stellar Sea Lion (Eumetopias
jubatus) and California Sea Lion (ZalORhus californianus) in
British Columbia. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
77:20 p.

Boesch, D.F., et al. 1973. Oil Spills and the Marine Environment.

Boesch, D.F. and Rabalais, N.N., 1987. Long Term Environmental
Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development. Elsevier
Applied Science, London and New York.

Bowlby, E.C., B.L. Troutman, and S.J. Jefferies. 1988. Sea
Otters in Washington: Distribution, Abundance, and Activity

VIII-1

Patterns. Final Report Prepared for National Coastal
Resources Research and Development Institute. Newport, OR,
133 pp.

Briggs, J.C. 1979. Marine Zoogeography. McGraw-Hill Series in
Population Biology. I

Bureau of the Census. 1988. County and city data book, 1988.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office. 797 pp. + appendices.

Bureau of the Census. 1989. Current population reports,
population estimates, and projections. Series p-26, No. 88-
a. County population estimates: July 1, 1988, 1987, and
1986. U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office. 45 pp.

Bureau of the Census. 1990. Building permit data ordering
information package (data base]. Prepared by the
Construction Statistics Division, Building Permit Branch.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C.

Bureau of Land Management. 1979. Final Environmental Statement
OCS Sale 48. Vols 1-5. U.S. DOI, BLM, Pacific OCS office,
Los Angeles, CA.

Bureau of Land Management. 1980. Final Environmental Impact
Statement, OCS Lease Sale No. 53, Vol. 1.

Butts, Robert. 1988. Management of the Marine and Ocean
Resources of the Washington Coast: An Interim Report to the
Washington State Legislature, December, 1988.

Calambokidis, J., G. Steiger. J. Cubbage. 1987. Marine Mammals
in the Southwestern Strait of Juan De Fuca: -Natural History
and Potential Impacts of Harbor Development in Neah Bay.
Final Report for Seattle District Army Corps. of Engineers,
January 1987.

Carson, B., E.T. Baker, B.M. Hickey, C.A. Nittrouer, D.J.
DeMaster, K.W. Thorbjarnarson, and G.W. Snyder. 1986.
Modern Sediment Dispersal and Accumulation In Quinault
Submarine Canyon - a Summary. Marine Geology, 71 (1986) 1-
13.

Carter, E.R... D.L. Jacques, C.S. Strong, G.J. McChesney, M.W.
Parker, and J.E. Takekawa. In prep. Survey of seabrid
colonies in northern and central California. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Dixon, CA.

Center for Marine Conservation. 1989. The Exxon Valdez Oil
Spill: A Management Analysis. Washington, D.C.

VIII-2

Chan. G.L. 1977. The five-year recruitment of Marine Life after
the 1971 San Francisco Oil Spill. Proceedings of the 1977
Joint Conference on prevention and Control of Oil Spills.
New Orleans, Louisiana. March 1977.

Chelsea International Corporation. 1983. National Marine
Sanctuary Site Evaluations: Recommendations and Final
Reports. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
office of ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Sanctuary
Programs Division.

Cheng, Cecil. 1992. Fleet Control and Coordination, Canadian
Coast Guard. Victoria, B.C. Personal Communication.

Cicin-Sain, B. 1985. Offshore Oil Development in California:
Challenges to Governments and to the Public Interest.
Department of Political Science and Marine Policy Program,
Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa
Barbara, August 1985.

Clark, R.C. Jr., D.B. Houston, D.L. Cole, W.J. Scorlett (ms).
Ecology of Dead Salmon: Retention and Consumption of Coho
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) Carcasses in Spawning Streams.

Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington. 1980a. Land Cover/Land Use
Narratives, Volume I: Urban, Agriculture, Non-forested
Uplands, Forest, Water. State of Washington, Department of
Ecology, June 1980.

Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington. 1980b. Land Cover/Land Use
Narratives, Volume II: Wetlands, Exposed and other Lands,
Appendices, Glossary, Index. State of Washington,
Department of Ecology, June 1980.

COMSUBGRU 9 (Staff, Commander Submarine Group 9), August 1992.

Coordinated Vessel Traffic Management Service (CVTMS). October,
1991. Action Plan. Joint Coordinating Group, United-
States-Canada. Seattle, Washington.

Craig, Michael. 1992. Global Diving and Salvage, Inc. Seattle,
Wa. Personal Communication.

Culliton, T.J., M. A. Warren, T.R. Goodspeed, D.G. Remer, C.M.
Blackwell, and J.J. McDonough, III. Fifty years of
population along the Nation's coasts, 1960-2010. Coastal
trends series, report #2. NOAA, Natl. Ocean Serv.,
Strategic Assessment Branch, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite
220, Rockville, MD. 52 pp.

Cutshell, N.H., I.L. Larsen, C.R. Olsen, C.A. Nittrouer, and D.J.
DeMaster. 1986. Columbia River Sediment In Quinault Canyon,

VIII-3

Washington - Evidence From Artificial Radionuclides. Marine
Geology, 71(1986) 125-136.

Dayton, P.K. 1985. Ecology of Kelp Communities. Ann. Rev. Ecol.
Syst. 16:215-245.

Director, Naval Oceanography and Meteorology. 1976. climatic
Study of the Near Coastal Zone, West Coast of the United
States. 1976. Naval Weather Services Detachment, Ashville,
NC.

Dethier, M.N. 1988. A Survey of Intertidal Communities of the
Pacific Coastal Area of Olympic National Park, Washington.
Prepared for the Use of The National Park Service and
Cooperating Agencies, October 1988.

Douglas, George. 1992. Maritime Corporation. Seattle, WA.
Personal Communication.

Duggins, D.O., C.A. Simenstad, J.A. Estes. 1989. Magnification
of Secondary Production of Kelp Detritus in Coastal Marine
Ecosystems. Science, Vol. 245, pp. 170-173, 14 July 1989.

Duxbury, Alyn C. Oceanographer, University of Washington. 1992.
Personal Communication.

Duxbury, Alyn C. and Alison B. Duxbury. 1989. An Introduction
to the World's Oceans, 3rd ed. Wm. C. Brown Publishers.
Dubuque, IA, 446 pp.

EPA 1985. Environmental Assessment of Drilling Fluids and
Cuttings Released onto the OCS. EPA 440/4-85/002.

Everitt, R.D., C.H. Fiscus, and R.L. DeLong. 1979. Marine
Mammals of Northern Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de
Fuca - A Report on Investigations November 1, 1977 - October
31, 1978. NOAA Tech. Mem. ERL MESA-41. 191 pp.

Everitt, R.D., C.H. Fiscus, and R.L. DeLong. 1980. Northern Puget
Sound Marine Mammals. DOC/EPA Interagency Energy/Environ.
R&D Program. EPA-600/7-80-139, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency

Felleman, F.L. 1985. Global Distribution of Marine Mammals and
the Potential Impact of Offshore Scientific Drilling as it
Relates to Life History Requirements. Appendix A of
Final Environmental Impact Statement by Tetra Tech Inc., for
the National Science Foundation's Ocean Drilling Program.
Contract No. OCE84-18886.

Fred Felleman. 1988. "Draft Evaluation" Western Washington Outer
Coast National Marine Sanctuary. Center For Environmental

VIII-4

Education.

Felton, John. 1992. Foss Maritime. Personal Communication.

Final Report of the States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force.
October, 1990. Province of British Columbia, State of
Washington, State of Oregon, State of Alaska, State of
California.

Foster, M.S.i A.P. De Vogelaere, C. Harrold, J.S. Pearse, and
A.B. Thurm. 1988. Causes of Spatial and Temporal Patterns in
Rocky Intertidal Communities of Central and Northern
California. Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences,
No. 9.

Freeland, H.J. and K.L. Denman. 1982. A Topographically
Controlled Upwelling Center Off Southern Vancouver Island.
Journal of Marine Research 4(4): 1069-1093.

Freeman, Rai L. 1985. Measuring the Impact of the Ixtoc I oil
spills on Visitation at Three Texas Public Coastal Parks.
Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2.

Frisch, A.S., J. Holbrook, and A.B. Ages. 1981. Observations of
a Summertime Reversal in Circulation in the Strait of Juan
de Fuca. Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 86, no. C3, pp.
2044-2048.

Fry. 1987. In Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of
Interior. 1989. Federal offshore Statistics: 1988, OCS
Report 89-0082.

Futures Group. 1982. Final Technical Report, Outer Continental
Shelf Oil Spill Probability Assessment. Prepared by The
Futures Group, Glastonberry, Connecticut, for the Bureau of
Land Management, Department of the Interior.

Gardner, Fred, Ed. 1981. Washington Coastal Areas of Major
Biological Significance. Washington Department of Ecology.

Grader, Jr. W.F. and E. Laychak 1989. The Effects of Seismic
Exploration on Fisheries. Paper presented at the AAAS
Annual Meeting on Oil Exploration on the Continental Shelf,
Impacts on Fisheries, Policy, and the Mediation Process.
San Francisco, CA 15 pp.

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1980. "Offshore Petroleum
Resource Development and Marine Mammals: a Review and
Research Recommendations." Marine Fisheries Review, Nov.
1980.

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1982. Study of the Effects

VIII-5

of Oil on Cetaceans. Prepared for-the Department of
Interior: cited in MMS, 1984. Final Environmental Impact
Statement, OCS Sale No. 90. Minerals Management Service,
Atlantic OCS Region, Vienna, VA.

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1983. "Fifth Interim Report-
Study of the Effects.of Oil on Marine Mammals." Prepared
for MMS and cited in MMS, 1984. Final Environmental Impact
Statement, OCS Sale No. 90. Minerals Management Service,
Atlantic OCS Region, Vienna, VA.

Geraci, J.R. and T.G. Smith. 1977. Conseguences of Oil Fouling
on Marine Mammals. In: D.C. Malins (ed.) Effects of
Petroleum on Arctic and Subarctic Marine Environments on
Organisms. Volume II. Biological Effects. Academic Press.
New York, NY. pp. 399-409.

Goodwin, Lynn. 1992. Biologist, Washington Department of
Fisheries. Personal Communication.

Haley, D. 1978. Marine Mammals. Pacific Search Press, Seattle,
WA.

Haw, Frank and R.M. Buckley. 1971. Saltwater Fishing in
Washington. Published by Stanley N. Jones, Seattle.

Hawkes, J. 1977. Morphological Abnormalities Produced by
Hydrocarbon Exposure. In D.A. Wolfe (Ed.) Fate and Effects
of Petroleum Hydrocarbon in Marine Ecosystems and
Organisms. Pergamon Press. New York, NY.

Hickey, B.M. 1979. The California Current System - Hypothesis and
Facts. Prog. Oceanog. 8:191-279.

Hickey, B.M. In press. Patterns and Process of Circulation Over
the Shelf and Slope. In Coastal Oceanography of Washington
and Oregon, ed. M.R. Landry and B.M. Hickey (Elsevier
Applied Science, London and New York).

Hickey, B.M., E. Baker and N. Kachel. 1986. Suspended Particle
Movement In and Around Quinault Submarine Canyon. Marine
Geology, 71, 85-105.

Hollowed, A.B., S.A. Alderstein, R.C. Francis, M.Saunders, N.J.
Williamson, and T.A. Dark. 1988. Status of the Pacific
whiting Resource in 1987, and Recommendations to Management
in 1988. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS, F/NWC-138.

Hopkins, T.S. 1971. On the Circulation Over the Continental
Shelf Off Washington, Ph.D. Dissertation, Washington,
Seattle, 204pp.

VIII-6

Huelsbeck, David R. 1983. Mammals and Fish in the Subsistence
Economy of Ozette. Doctoral Dissertation, Washington State
University.

Hunt. 1987. In Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of
Interior. 1989. Federal Offshore Statistics: 1988, OCS
Report 89-0082.

Hyas' Yal Kolla', 1981. Quileute Coastal Zone Management Plan.

Illustrations Unlimited, 1991. Silver Spring, MD.

IMO (International Maritime Organization), 1991. Ships Routing,
Sixth Edition. IMO, London, England.

Ito D.H., D.K. Kimura, and M.E. Wilkins. 1987. Status and Future
Prospects for the Pacific Ocean Perch Resource in Waters Off
Washington and Oregon As Assessed in 1986. NOAA Technical
Memorandum, NMFS, F/NWC-113.

Jones, L. (personal communication). Research Director, National
Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, Washington.

Johnston, C.S. 1979. "Sources and Effects of Hydrocarbons.in
the Marine Environment." The Marine Environment and oil
Facilities. Inst. of Civil Engrs., London.

Jones, M.L., S.L. Swartz, S. Leatherwood, Eds. 1984. The Gray
Whale (Eschrichtius robustus). Academic Press, Inc.,
Orlando, Fla. 600 pp.

Kachel, N. and J.D. Smith. In press. Sediment Transport and
Deposition on the Washington Continental Shelf. In Coastal
Oceanography of Washington and Oregon, ed. M.R. Landry and
B.M. Hickey (Elsevier Applied Science, London and New York).

Kendrick, G.A. and B.B. Moorhead. 1987. Monitoring Recreational
Impact on Intertidal Biotic Communities, Pacific Coast Area,
Olympic National Park. 1986 Progress Report. Prepared for
the Use of The National Park Service and Cooperating
Agencies, July 1987.

Knight, Julie. Sept. 1992. Chairwoman, Emergency Towing Working
Group, Emergency Response System Subcommittee, Strait of
Juan de Fuca/Northern Puget Sound Regional Marine safety
Committee. Personal Communication.

Kooyman, G.L., R.W. Davis, and M.A. Castellini. 1977. Thermal
Conductance of Immersed Pinniped and Sea Otter Pelts Before
and After Oiling with Prudhoe Bay Crude. In: D.A. Wolfe
(ed.). Fateand Effects of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Marine
Ecosystems and Organisms. Perrgamon Press. New York, NY.

VIII-7

pp. 151-157.

Kooyman, G.L. and D.P. Costa. 1979. Effects of Oiling and
Temperature Regulation in Sea Otters.

Kozloff, Eugene N. 1983. Seashore Life of the Northern Pacific
Coast. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 370 pp.

Kyte, Michael. 1992. Biologist, Washington Department of
Wildlife. Personal Communication.

Landry, M.R. and B.M. Hickey (Ed.1s). 1989. Coastal
OceanograRhy of Washington and Oregon. Elsevier Science
Publishing Company, Inc., New York, NY.

Landry, M.R. and C.J. Lorenzen. In Press. Utilization and
Transformation of Primary Production by Zooplankton. In
Coastal Oceanography of Washington and Oregon, ed. M.R.
Landry and B.M. Hickey (Elsevier Applied Science, London and
New York).

Lasmanis, Raymond. 1988. Washington Offshore Mineral Resources.
.Washington Geologic Newsletter. Volume 16, No. 3,' July
1988.

Leigh, E., R. Paine, J. Quinn, T. Suchanek. 1987. Wave Energy and
Intertidal Productivity. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences. Vol. 84, No. 5, pp. 1314-1318, March 1987.

Lewin, J., C.T. Schaefer and D.F. Winter.'In Press. Surf-Zone
Ecology and Dynamics. In Coastal Oceanography of Washington
and Oregon, ed. M.R. Landry and B.M. Hickey (Elsevier
Applied Science, London and New York).

Lily, K. Jr. Sept. 1992. Meteorologist/oceanographer, C2HM Hill
Co., Bellvue, Wa.

Loverich, Gary. 1990. Brief Comments on the Potential Damage to
Bottom Terrain and Benthic Plants/Animals due to Bottom
Trawling. Research and Development, NMFS. Seattle, Wa.

Lowe, R. . for Oregon information on seabird populations.
Personal Communication.

Malin, R.O. 1984. The Northwest Coast Southern Portion Map. Sobay
Company, Olympia, Washington.

Massey, B.W. 1988. California least tern field study, 1988
breeding season. Cal. Dept. Fish and Game Contract FG 7660,
Cal State Univ., Long Beach, CA.

McAllister, K.R., T.E. Owens, L. Leschner, and E. Cummins. 1986.

VIII-8

Distribution and Productivity of Nesting Bald Eagles in
Washington, 1981-1985. Murrelet 67: 45-50.

McCartan, Chris. 1992. Administrator for Clean Sound
Cooperative, Inc. Edmonds, Wa. Personal Communication.

McConnaughey, B.H. 1970. Introduction to Marine Biology. The
C.V. Mosby Company, St. Louis.

McGregor, B.A. and T.W. Offield. 1986. The Exclusive Economic
Zone: An Exciting New Frontier. U.S. Department of the
Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

Mead, W.J. and P.E. Sorensen. 1970. The Economic Cost of the
Santa Barbara.Oil Spill. In Santa Barbara Oil Symposium,
December 17, p. 225.

Michael, A.D. 1977. The Effects of Petroleum Hydrocarbons on
Marine Populations and Communities. In D. Wolfe (Ed.).
Fate and Effects of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Marine
Organisms and Ecosystems. Pergamon Press. New York, N.Y.
pp.129-237.

Minerals Management Service,, U.S. Department of the Interior.
1986. Proposed 5-year Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas
Leasing Program. January 1987-December 1991: Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. Minerals Management Service,
Washington, D.C.

Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
1987. 5-year Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing
Program. Mid-1987 to Mid-1992: Final Environmental Impact
Statement. Minerals Management Service, Washington, D.C.

Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of Interior. 1989.
Fourth Information Transfer Meeting Conference Proceedings;
offshore oil and Gas: Risks and Benefits. June 1989 Costa
Mesa, CA MMS# 89-0069.

mineral Management Service, U.S. Department of Interior. 1990.
Potential Effects of OCS Oil and Gas Activities on Oregon
and Washington Indian Tribes: Description of Overall Legal
Environment and Legal Status of 16 Specified Tribes. OCS
Study MMS 90-0034.

Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of Interior. June
20, 1990(a). Briefing Memo on Washington OCS transmitted by
the Chief, Offshore Resource Evaluation Division (contact:
Paul Martin) to the Deputy Associate Director for Offshore
Leasing. Washington, D.C.

Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of Interior. 1991.

VIII-9

Potential Effects of OCS Oil and Gas Exploration and
Development on Pacific Northwest Indian Tribes: Final
Technical Report. OCS Study MMS 91-0056.

.Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of Interior. 1992.
Oregon and Washington Marine Mammal and Seabird Surveys,
Final Report. OCS Study MMS 91-0093.

Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of Interior. 1993.
Final Report (and Executive Summary): Synthesis and
Analysis of Existing Information Regarding Environmental
Effects of Marine Mining. OCS Study MMS 93-0005 and MMS 93-
0006.

Moore, George W., and Michael D. Luken. 1979. Offshore sand and
gravel resources of the Pacific Northwest: Oregon Geology,
v. 41, no. 9, p. 143-151. In Raymond Lasmanis, 1988.
"Washington Offshore Mineral Resources": Washington
Geologic Newsletter, Washington State Department of Natural
Resources, v. 12(3).

Motekaitis,-Chet. 1992. U.S. Coast Guard. Seattle, Washington.
Personal Communication.

Munsell, Elsie. Aug. 1992. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Navy (Environment and Safety). Washington, D.C. Personal
communication.

National Academy of Sciences. 1989. The Adequacy of Information
for Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Decisions: Florida and
California. Washington, D.C.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), 1989. 1988 Fisheries
Statistics of the United States. NOAA, NMFS.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1979.
"Georges Bank Marine Issue Paper." Office of Coastal Zone
Management. Washington, D.C. July 27, 1979.

National Park Service. 1976. Final Environmental Statement on the
Proposed Master Plan, Olympic National Park, Washington.

National Park Service. 1989. Study of Requirements for Proposed
Kalaloch Visitor Center, Olympic National Park/Washington.

National Planning Association and Data Services, Inc. 1988.
Key indicators of county growth, 1970-2010 (data base].
Washington, D.C.: National Planning Association data
Services, Inc.

National Research Council, 1983. Drilling Discharges in the
Marine Environment. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

VIII-10

National Research Council, 1985. Oil in the Sea: Inputs, Fates,
and Effects. National Academy Press Washington, D.C.

Natural Resources Consultants. 1986. Commercial Fishing and the
State of Washington, A Contemporary Economic Overview of
Local and Distant Water Commercial Fisheries. Seattle, WA.

Natural Resources Consultants. 1988. "Commercial Fishing and
the State of Washington: A Brief Overview of Recent and
Future Growth in the Washington Seafood Industry." Seattle,
Washington.

Nittrouer, C.A. 1978. The Process of Detrital Sediments
Accumulation in a Continental Shelf Environment: An
Examination of the Washington Shelf. Ph.D. Diss.,
University of Washington, Seattle, 243 pp.

Norman, Stan. 1992. United States Coast Guard, Seattle Wa.
Personal Communication.

Nybakken, J.W. 1982. Marine Biology. Harper and Row, New York,
446 pp.

Oceanographic Institute of Washington (OIW). 1977. A Summary of
Knowledge of the Oregon and Washington Coastal Zone and
Offshore Areas. Oceanographic Commission of Washington,
Seattle, Washington.

office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States.
1987. Marine minerals: Exploring our new Ocean Frontier.

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 1988. Review of 1987
Ocean Salmon Fisheries. Report PFMC, Portland, Oregon.

Pacific Rim Planners, Inc. 1978. Makah Coastal Zone Management
Program, Prepared for the Makah Tribal Council. Seattle,
Washington.

Parks, N.B. and F.R. Shaw. 1987. Changes in Relative Abundance
and Size Composition of Sablefish in Coastal Waters of
Washington and Oregon, 1979-85. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS, F/NWC-124.

Parmanter, T. and Bailey, R. 1985. The Oregon Ocean Book: an
Introduction to the Pacific Ocean off Oregon Including its
Physical Setting and Living Marine Resources. State of
Oregon, Department of Land Conservation and Development.
Salem, Oregon.

Pascua, Maria Parker. 1992. Language Research Specialist.
Makah Cultural and Research Center. Written correspondence
on Makah Traditional Cultural Properties in Relation to the

VIII-11

Proposed Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. Neah Bay,
Washington.

Patten, B.G. 1977. Sublethal Biological Effects of Petroleum
Hydrocarbon Exposures: Fish. In: D.C. Malins (ed.) Effects
of Petroleum of Arctic and Subarctic Marine Environments and
Organisms. Academic Press. New York, NY, pp. 319-332.

Patterson, Pat. 1992. Manager, External Affairs. Marine Spill
Response Corporation, Northwest Region (Region V). Edmonds,
WA. Personal Communication.

Penn, Christian. 1992. Chairman, Quileute Indian Tribe. La
Push, Washington. Personal Communication.

Perry, M.J., J.P. Bolger and D.C. English. In Press. Primary
Production in Washington Coastal Waters. In Coastal
Oceanography of Washington and Oregon, ed. M.R. Landry and
B.M. Hickey (Elsevier Applied science, London and New York).

Phillips, E.L. and W.R. Donaldson. 1972. Washington Climate for
These Counties: Clallam, Grays' Harbor, Jefferson, Pacific,
and Watcom. Cooperative Extension Service, College of
Agriculture, Washington State University, Pullman, WA.

Proctor, C.M., John Garcia, David V. Galvin, Timothy Joyner, Gary
Lewis, Lincoln Loehr, and Alison M. Massa. 1980. An
Ecological Characterization of the Pacific Northwest Coastal
Region. Vol. 5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological
Services Program. FWS/OBS-79/11 through 79/15.

Quinault Planning Commission. 1979. Quinault Coastal Zone
Management Plan. Taholah, Washington.

Rau, W.W. 1973. Geology of the Washington Coast Between Point
Grenville and the Hoh River. Bulletin No. 66, Washington
Department of Natural Resources, Geology and Earth Resources
Division, Olympia, Washington.

Rau, W.W. 1980. Washington Coastal Geology Between the Hoh and
Quillayute Rivers. Bulletin No. 72, Washington Department
of Natural Resources, Geology and Earth Resources Division,
Olympia, Washington.

Reilly, S. B., D.W. Rice, A.A. Wolman. 1983. Population
Assessment of the Gray Whale, Eschrichtius robustus, from
California'Shore Censuses, 1967-1980. Fish. Bull. 81:267-
281.

Ricketts, E., J. Calvin, and J. Hedgpeth. 1985. Between Pacific
Tides. 5th ed. Stanford University Press. 652 p.

VIII-12

Ridge, M.H. and B. Carson. 1987. Sediment Transport on the
Washington Continental Shelf: Estimates of Dispersal Rates
From Mount St. Helens Ash. Continental Shelf Research, Vol.
7, No.7, pp 759-772.

Rohmann, Steve. 1990. Strategic Assessment Branch, OMA/NOAA,
Rockville, MD. Personal Communication.

SAB (Strategic Assessment Branch). 1984. Inventory of public
recreation areas and facilities. NOAA, Natl. Ocean Serv.,
Strategic Assessment Branch, 6001 Executive BLVD., Suite
220, Rockville, MD.

SAB. 1986. West coast land use data for NCPDI counties (data
base]. NOAA, NOS, SAB, 6001 Executive BLVD., Suite 220,
Rockville, MD.

SAB. 1988. West coast of North America coastal and ocean zones
strategic assessment: Data atlas, marine mammal
prepublication volume. NOAA, NOS, SAB, 6001 Executive
BLVD., Suite 220, Rockville, MD.

SAB. 1990. Cmas (Computer Mapping and Analysis System) analysis
of seabird colonies for the west coast of North America.
NOAA, NOS, SAB, 6001 Executive BLVD., Suite 220, Rockville,
MD.

Schaftlein, Shari, 1992. Environmental Planner, Quileute Tribe.
Personal Communication.

Schink, T.J., K.A. McGraw, and K.K. Chew. 1983. Pacific coast
clam fisheries. Washington State Sea Grant Tech. Rep. 83-1.
Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA. 72 pp.

Scholl, David W., Arthur Grantz, and John G. Vedder (ed's).
Geology and resource potential of the continental margin of
western North America and adjacent ocean basins-Beaufort Sea
to Baja California. Circum-Pacific Council for Energy and
Mineral Resources, Earth Science Series, Volume 6. U.S.
Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California.

Schwartz, Maurice L., et al. 1991. Net Shore Drift in
Washington State: Volume 1, Pacific Ocean and Strait of
Juan de Fuca. Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management
Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia Wa.

Shipman, Hugh. 1992. Geologist, Washington Department of
Ecology. Personal Communication.

Siehl. George. 1991. Natural Resource Issues in National Defense
Programs. Congressional Research Service, The Library of
Congress, 91-781 ENR.

VIII-13

Simmons Bill.. 1993. Planner, Makah Tribe. Personal
Co;m@nicat'ion.

Simons, Doug. . Washington Dept. of Fisheries, Montasano, WA.
Personal Communication.

Smith, David D . and Robert P. Brown. 1971. Ocean Disposal of
Barge-Delivered Liquid and Solid Wastes from U. S. Coastal
Cities. Prepared for U.S. EPA Solid Waste Management
Office. Contract PH 86-68-203. Publication SW-19c, P.
viii.

Sniderman, C.J. 1979. Pollution-Associated Diseases and
Abnormalities of Fish and Shellfish: A Review. Fish. Bull:
Vol. 76, No. 4. 717-748o

Sniderman, C.J. 1982. Implications of Oil Pollution in
Production of Disease in Marine Organisms. Phil. Trans. R.
Soc. Lond. B 297, pp. 385-399.

Soike, Henry E. 1985. Coastal Ports of the Pacific Northwest.
Bulletin of the Permanent International Association of
Navigation Congresses. No. 51, 1985.

Sones, David. Sept. 1992. Makah Tribal Council. Personal
Communication.

Sowls, A.L., A.R. DeGange, J.W. Nelson, and G.S. Lester. 1980.
Catalogue of California seabird colonies. U.S. Fish and
Wildl. Serv., Biol. Serv. Program. FWS/OBS 80/37.

Speich, S.M., B.L. Troutman, A.C. Geiger, P.J. Meehan-Martin, and,
S.J. Jefferies. 1987. Evaluation of Military Flight
Operations on Wildlife of the Copalis National Wildlife
Refuge, 1984-1985. Washington Department of Game, Olympia,
WA. 181pp.

Speich, Steven M. and Terrence R. Wahl. 1989. Catalog of
Washington Seabird Colonies. United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, Minerals Management Service, United States
Department of Interior. Biological Report 88(6); OCS Study
MMS 89-0054.

Squire, J.L. and Susan E. Smith. 1978. Anglers' Guide to the
United States Pacific Coast, Marine Fish, Fishing Grounds,
and Facilities. NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service.

Steelquist, R. 1987. Washington's Coast. American Geographic
Publishing: Helena, Montana.

Stohler, J.J. 1989.

VIII-14

Strickland R. and D.J. Chasan. 1989. Coastal Washington, A
Synthesis of Information. Washington State and Offshore Oil
and Gas, Washington Sea Grant, University of Washington,
Seattle.

Terich, T.A. and P. McKay. 1988. Olympic National Park Coastal
Inventory and Monitoring. Preliminary Report to National
Park Service, Western Washington University, Department of
Geography and Regional Planning.

Terich, T. and T. Levenseller. 1986. The Severe Erosion of Cape
Shoalwater, Washington. Journal of Coastal Research, 2(4),
465-477.

Thom, Ronald M., and LoAnn Hallum. 1990. Long-Term Changes in
the Areal Extent of Tidal Marshes, Eel Grass Meadows and
Kelp Forests of Puget Sound. Fisheries Institute, School of
Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Final
Report to Office of Puget Sound, EPA Region 10.

Tillet G. 1989. WDW, Personal Communication. In Strickland,
Richard and Daniel J. Chasan. Coastal Washington: A
Synthesis of Information. Washington Sea Grant Program,
University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1986. Waterborne Commerce of the
United States. Party 4, Waterways and Harbors, Pacific
Coast, Alaska, Hawaii. Waterborne Commerce Statistics
Center, New Orleans.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1988. Grays Harbor, Washington
Navigation Improvement Project, Chehalis and Hoquiam Rivers.
Draft General Design Memo.

U.S. Coast Guard. 1985. On Scene Coordinators Report - Tank
Vessel Puerto Rican Explosion and Oil Pollution Incident,
San Francisco CA-31 October 1984. Marine Safety Office San
Francisco Bay, San Francisco.

U.S. Coast Guard. 1987. Vessel Traffic Service, Puget Sound
Users Manual. Seattle, Washington.

U.S. Coast Guard. Aug. 1991. Port Needs Study (Vessel Traffic
Services Benefits) Vol. 2: Appendices, Part 1. John Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, WA.
PB92-107713.

U.S. Coast Guard. 1991a. National Search and Rescue Manual,
National Search and Rescue System, Vol.1, p.5-6 thru 5-7.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1990. Climatic Summaries for NDBC

VIII-15

Buoys and Stations Update 1. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service,
National Data Buoy Center, NSTL, Mississippi.

U.S. Department of the Navy. 1984. Final Environmental Impact
Statement on the Disposal of Decommissioned, Defueled Naval
Submarine Reactor Plants, Vol. 1 of 3. Office of the Chief
of Naval Operations (OPNAV-45), Department of the Navy,
Washington, D.C.

U.S.G.S. Land Use/Land Cover data base as processed by the
National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory Program,
1985.

Waaland, J.R. 1977. Common Seaweeds of the Pacific Coast.
Pacific Search Press, Seattle, Washington. 120pp.

Wahl, T.R. 1984. Distribution and Abundance of Seabirds Over the
Continental Shelf Off Washington. Washington Department of
Ecology, Olympia, WA. 92 pp.

WDF (Washington Department of Fisheries). 1983. 1982 Fisheries
Statistical report for the state of Washington. Compiled
and edited by W.D. Ward and L.J. Hoines. Wash. Dept. Fish.,
Olympia, WA. 77 pp.

WDF. 1983. Location, Harvest, and Economic Values of Salmon,
Baitfish, Groundfish, and Shellfish Resources, Summarized
From the WDF-Sponsored Testimony in the Northern Tier
Pipeline Case (Proposed Cross Sound Route) with Updated
Figures For 1979 and 1980. Technical Report No. 76.

WDF. 1985 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the
Continued Harvest of Bottomfish in Puget Sound by Commercial
Otter Trawl Gears. Olympia, Wa.

WDF. 1987. 1986 Fisheries statistical report for the state of
Washington. Compiled and edited by W.D. Ward and L.J.
Hoines. Wash. Dept. Fish., Olympia, WA. 89. pp.
WDF. 1989. Commercial catches for fish and shellfish species
by statistical subarea and month for the State of
Washington, 1987 and 1988. Computer printout provided by D.
Ward, Wash. Dept. Fish., Olympia, WA.

WDNR. 1984. Your Public Beaches: Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Olympia, Wa.

Washington Geologic Newsletter, 1988. The mineral industry in
Washington, 1987. Washington State Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources. Vol.
16, No. 2.

VIII-16

Washington Public Shore Guide - Marine Water. 1986. Department
of Ecology, University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Washington State Department of Ecology. 1986. Handbook for
Geophysical Survey Operators, For Washington's Offshore and
Inland Marine Waters. Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management
Program. Olympia, Washington.

Washington Department of Ecology, 1989. Nestucca Oil Spill:
On-Scene Coordinator's Report, Aug. 1989, Olympia,
Washington.

Washington Department of Ecology, 1988. Contingency Plan for
Response to Spills of Oil and Hazardous Substances.

Weisenborn, A.E. and P.D. Snavely, Jr. 1968. Summary Report On
the Geology and Mineral Resources of Flattery Rocks,
Quillayute Needles, and Copalis National Wildlife Refuges,
Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1260-F.

Wessen, G.D., 1989. Historic Cultural Resources of the Coastal
Strip of the Olympic National Park, Washington. Wessen and
Associates.

Whidbey Island Naval Air Station. 1992. Information provided on
use of Sealion Rock and Flight Paths followed on the
approach to Sealion Rock through personal communication.

Whipple, J.A., T. Yocum, D.R. Smart and M. Cohen. 1978. Effects
of Chronic Concentrations of Petroleum Hydrocarbons on
Gonadal Maturation in Starry Flounder. Proceedings of
Conference on Assessment of Ecological Impacts of oil
Spills, Keystone, Colorado, A.I.B.S. 1978.

Wolteira, Robert. 1992. Chief, Biogeographic Characterization
Branch, Strategic and Environmental Assessment Branch,
Office of Ocean Resources, Conservation and Assessment,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. silver
Spring, MD.

VIII-17

*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1993-300-566/84099

----I

I
1 1

3 6668 00000 5530