Environmental Impact of a Submarine Cable:
Case Study of the ATOC/Pioneer Seamount Cable

In recent years there has been an explosion of activity and interest in installing offshore cables for telecommunication and scientific purposes. Cables that are only one to two inches in diameter are able to transmit power and large amounts of data over long distances. The telecommunications industry is in the process of building an extensive undersea global network that connects continents and large urban centers. Scientists also want to use the power and data transmission capability of underwater cables, but for the purpose of studying coastal and marine environments. Whereas the traditional mode of marine data collection consists of sporadic shipboard surveys, cables allow scientists to set up instruments and experiments that collect and transmit data continuously. Constant monitoring promises to improve our understanding of the ocean and could lead to major new discoveries regarding marine systems.

A variety of organisms living on or near the ATOC/Pioneer Seamount cable: basket star (Gorgonocephalidae), anemone (Metridium farcimen), rockfish (Sebastes sp.) and urchins (Allocentrotus fragilis) Photo 2003 MBARI/NOAA

Due to the high degree of interest in installing cables in marine environments, there is also a need to understand the environmental impacts of cables on the seabed better. For this purpose, two National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) divisions, Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and the National Ocean Service, teamed up with the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) to study the environmental impacts of the ATOC (Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate)/Pioneer Seamount cable.

The majority of the ninety-five kilometer-long ATOC/Pioneer Seamount cable lies within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary off Half Moon Bay and was placed on top of the seafloor during installation. The cable was used to transmit data from a passive hydrophone listening array on Pioneer Seamount to shore (see Ecosystem Observations 2002) and is currently broken. In order to investigate the environmental impacts of the cable scientifically and address National Marine Sanctuaries Program permit requirements, MBARI and NOAA scientists collected data from selected sites during three research cruises in 2002 and 2003 using MBARI’s vessels and remotely operated vehicles.

One survey objective was to describe the physical state of the cable and observe its effect on the seafloor. The cable has become mostly buried in continental shelf sediments in water depths of less than 120 meters, whereas much of the cable remains exposed on the seafloor at deeper depths and on rocky terrain. The cable and the rocks were damaged in the nearshore area, where wave energy is greatest. Here, researchers found frayed and unraveled cable armor and vertical grooves in the rock apparently cut by the cable. Kelp was intertwined with frayed cable. Suspensions were seen throughout the survey in areas of irregular topography. Short (approximately ten centimeters high) suspensions were common over low spots in sediment substrates. However, the tallest suspensions (up to forty meters long and two meters high) were seen in rocky regions. Unlike in the nearshore rocky region, neither the rocks nor the cable appeared damaged on Pioneer Seamount. Multiple loops of slack cable, added during a 1997 cable repair operation, were found lying flat on the seafloor. Several sharp kinks in the cable were seen in an area subjected to intense trawling activity. Two crossings with other cables were also documented.

The main biological differences observed between cable and control areas were the number of organisms attached or adjacent to the cable. Anemones colonized the cable and were more abundant in cable transects at most soft sediment sites. Data extrapolation suggests that more than 50,000 anemones may live in the modified habitat created by the cable. Echinoderms and sponges were also seen living on the cable. Flatfishes and rockfishes congregated near the cable at some sites. Approx-imately 500,000 organisms may live on or near the cable. The cable may also have the subtle impact of concentrating shell hash and minor amounts of drift kelp. It has had no apparent effect on organisms living in the sediments.

Results and observations from this survey will aid decision makers regarding the ATOC/Pioneer Seamount cable’s future and provide scientific data for shaping cable policy within sanctuaries.

Irina Kogan
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute

“Beach Closed”: What Does It Mean?

Imagine – it’s a sunny day and with kids and surfboards in tow, you march in the flip-flop parade down to the beach. But when the toes finally hit the sand, you encounter the dreaded “beach closed” sign. Despite the concern generated from such experiences, the general public doesn’t have a firm understanding of why these signs are posted, what they mean to human or marine health, or what actions we can take to eliminate such events.

With respect to bacterial contamination, local jurisdictions can issue three distinct notifications: beach warnings, beach closures, or rain advisories. State law requires beach warnings when monitoring reveals that indicator organisms (bacteria that do not cause disease, but indicate that water may be contaminated with human or animal waste) have exceeded specified standards. Beach closures result from a sewage spill, and rain advisories are issued when significant rainfall has the potential to affect bacterial levels in the ocean. Bacteria detected in monitoring are most often the result of non-point source pollution – numerous, small diffuse sources including cracked main or lateral sewer lines, domestic pets, wildlife, homeless camps, septic systems, and even babies in diapers. In our region, warnings occur far more frequently than closures, indicating the importance of controlling non-point source pollution in addition to reducing the occurrence of sewage spills.

It’s important to note that, even considering several shortcomings that are discussed below, nowhere are beaches more vigilantly tested for pollution than in California. State law requires weekly monitoring of heavily used beaches between April and October, and many health agencies go beyond state law to monitor these beaches throughout the year.

Unfortunately, limited testing methods and the complexity of the nearshore ocean environment reduce our ability to evaluate water quality and determine the specific sources of bacterial contamination. Sample analysis takes anywhere from one to three days to confirm the presence of indicator bacteria, and as a result the public may unknowingly swim in contaminated waters during this time. Conversely, when samples return from the lab indicating contamination, water may be posted as unhealthy even though by then it is clean. Further, the indicators cannot distinguish between human or animal bacteria, and the difference is important because people are more likely to become ill from human viruses and other pathogens than from those associated with animal waste. To respond to these concerns, health officials spend millions of dollars monitoring, posting, and performing sophisticated genetic analyses to determine where the bacteria originate.

Fortunately, the majority of illnesses associated with swimming in contaminated water are relatively minor. Gastroenteritis is the most common, and other minor complaints include ear, eye, skin, nose, and throat infections. Now consider the human health effects in terms of the animals that spend their entire lives in these occasionally contaminated waters. Studies have shown that filter feeders such as mussels, clams, and oysters can convey virtually all water-borne pathogens to animals that prey upon them, such as sea otters. Recent research into mortality among the threatened southern sea otter population suggests that a significant number of deaths may be attributed to protozoa found in cat feces that find their way to the ocean via urban runoff.

A lot of resources are used to evaluate water quality, reduce sewage spills, and reduce non-point source pollution. Health officials continue to monitor beaches and use the best available methods to characterize beach water quality and identify the sources of contamination so that public works agencies use their limited dollars effectively. But the bacterial contamination problem cannot be solved by public works agencies alone; it’s going to require everyone’s involvement. We are all part of the sanctuary and, as responsible citizens and oceangoers, we should all play an active role in preventing its contamination. (See p. 23 for volunteer opportunities of all kinds.)

Chris Coburn
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

Socio-Economics of the Moss Landing Commercial Fishing Industry

Moss Landing is a vital part of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary’s human environment. Moss Landing Harbor (MLH) recently ranked third in pounds landed and fourth in ex-vessel (dockside, before processing) revenues among commercial fishing ports in California. In addition, it hosts tourism and scientific research. Understanding the human dimensions of these activities as they interact with one another and the sanctuary is key to effective management. Our recent study of the MLH commercial fishing industry documented its social and economic characteristics, and the issues, needs, and concerns of its participants to inform Monterey County decision making about efforts to enhance the industry’s economic vitality.

The commercial fishing industry at MLH includes about 125 resident and 175 non-resident fishing operations, 7 resident and dozens of non-resident fish buyers, and 9 local and many non-local fishery-support businesses. Total employment of the 38 commercial fishing operations, 4 resident buyers, and 3 resident support businesses we surveyed plus the harbor was more than 1,200. We estimated the direct economic value of commercial fishing at MLH to be $18-$25 million per year (real values, 2000 $), based on estimates for fishing operations ($6.7 million), buyers ($7.5 million), support businesses ($0.2 million) and the harbor ($10.1 million).

Moss Landing Harbor is a vital part of the sanctuary’s human environment. photo Brad Damitz for NOAA/MBNMS

MLH’s commercial fishing operations vary considerably in terms of vessel characteristics, fishing patterns, permits, and personnel. Most fish multiple locations and fisheries along the West Coast, Alaska, and/or the Western Pacific to adapt to environmental, economic, and regulatory variability and uncer- tainty. Major MLH fisheries include salmon and albacore troll, groundfish hook-and-line and trawl, coastal pelagic species (CPS, e.g., anchovy, sardine, squid) purse seine, and multiple species long-line and gillnet.

MLH’s resident fish buyers include one live fish buyer, three CPS receiver/processors, and three multi-species buyers. In addition to receiving fish at MLH, many also process, wholesale, distribute, and/or retail seafood products (primarily) at other locations where necessary space and infrastructure are available.

Fishery-support businesses provide a range of goods and services to, and depend upon, the commercial fishing industry at MLH. In addition, the harbor provides amenities and essential services such as dredging.

Over the past twenty years, MLH’s most important fisheries (by ex-vessel value) have been salmon, groundfish, and highly migratory species. More recently, environmental, regulatory, and economic factors have led to declines in vessels, landings, and ex-vessel revenues in these fisheries (although the number of salmon vessels landing at MLH has increased). In contrast, the CPS fishery has experienced a boom at MLH, driven largely by increased sardine landings.

Three sets of interdependent issues confront the MLH commercial fishing industry and related businesses. Regulatory constraints include fishery management actions such as increasingly stringent groundfish regulations as well as multiple and sometimes conflicting coastal management regulations and permitting procedures. Short- and long-term economic challenges include decreases in allowable catches for some species coupled with stagnant or declining prices, which together result in reduced revenues to support businesses and the harbor and limit those businesses’ ability to provide goods and services to the community. Although fishery participants have adapted to many of these challenges, adaptation to their cumulative, persistent effects may be more problematic. Infrastructure maintenance and development are essential to safe and efficient harbor use, but are costly. Our report provides recommendations to the county for ways to help address these issues.

This study was funded by the Monterey County Office of Economic Development (OED). We gratefully acknowledge the cooperation and support of the OED, study participants, research assistants, and others who made this work possible. The report is available at http://www.montereycountybusiness.net/. Click on “Current Projects and Reports,” then scroll down to “2003 Socio-Economic Impacts of the Moss Landing Commercial Fishing Industry.”

Caroline Pomeroy(1) and Michael Dalton(2)
(1)Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California Santa Cruz
(2)Institute for Earth Systems Science & Policy, California State University Monterey Bay

Human Interactions
Visitors to State Parks and Beaches Contiguous to the Sanctuary1	San Mateo County coast – 934,126 visitors Fitzgerald Marine Reserve – 100,000 visitors Santa Cruz County coast – 13,497,816 visitors Monterey County coast – 5,746,146 visitors San Luis Obispo County coast, north of the sanctuary boundary – 444,229 visitors
Recreational Activities2
Customers served Whale watch Sailing charters Fishing charters Number of boats Kayak Shops Monterey Bay Kayaks Monterey 19,200         Surf Shops           On the Beach Surf Shop Monterey 950         Santa Cruz Surf Shop Inc. Santa Cruz 4,600         Dive Shops             Diver Dan’s Santa Clara 6,503         Anderson’s SCUBA Pacifica 200         Blue Water Divers Sunnyvale 525         Recreational Boat Charters         Santa Cruz Boat Rentals Santa Cruz 4,500   4,500 36   Original Stagnaro’s Fishing Santa Cruz 4,300 800 1,500 2,000 1 Team O’Neill Santa Cruz 4,350 4,000* 350 0 1 Monterey Bay Whale Watch Monterey 24,300 24,300     3 New Capt. Pete El Granada 1,650 150   1,500 1 Captain John’s Deep Sea Fishing Half Moon Bay 3,800 57   3,743 2 *educational trips
Fishing Licenses by County3
Commercial fishing licenses: Charter boat licenses (recreational fishing) Marin 135 5 San Mateo 173 4 Santa Clara 123 2 Santa Cruz 121 3 Monterey 421 5 San Luis Obispo 306 2
2003 Coastal Cleanup4
Coastal Cleanup debris collected, by county: Marin – 7,019 lbs. trash; 1,231 lbs. recyclables; 603 volunteers San Mateo – 20,977 lbs. trash; 4,694 lbs. recyclables; 1,293 volunteers Santa Cruz – 8,572 lbs. trash; 4,492 lbs. recyclables; 2,741 volunteers Monterey – 8,385 lbs. trash; 1,878 lbs. recyclables; 1,539 volunteers San Luis Obispo – 6,900 lbs. trash; 2,000 lbs. recyclables; 1,400 volunteers
Volunteers5
Año Nuevo State Reserve: 215 volunteers; 14,479 hours BAY NET Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Volunteer Network: 27 volunteers; 2,000 hours California State Parks, Monterey District: 431 volunteers; 54,320 hours California State Parks, San Mateo Coast Sector: 1,929 volunteers; 13,915 hours California State Parks, Santa Cruz District: 800 volunteers; 45,000 hours Coastal Watershed Council: 125 volunteers; 3,720 hours Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve: 111 volunteers; 6,510 hours Fitzgerald Marine Reserve: 100 volunteers; 5,329 hours Friends of the Elephant Seal: 80 volunteers; 11,300 hours Friends of the Sea Otter: 11 volunteers; 1,500 hours Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Beach Watch (south of Golden Gate only): 50 volunteers; 6,000 hours Maritime Museum of Monterey: 55 volunteers; 4,125 hours Monterey Bay Aquarium: 914 volunteers; 133,146 hours Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Beach COMBERS: 76 volunteers; 1,248 hours Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary TeamOCEAN: 25 volunteers; 332 hours Monterey Bay Sanctuary Citizen Watershed Monitoring Network: 240 volunteers; 4,100 hours Pigeon Point Lighthouse: 30 volunteers; 2,142 hours Return of the Natives Restoration Education Project of the Watershed Institute, CSUMB: 3,131 volunteers; 10,323 hours San Gregorio Environmental Resource Center: 20 volunteers; 700 hours Save Our Shores, San Mateo: 606 volunteers; 2,554 hours; Santa Cruz: 55 volunteers; 800 hours Seymour Center at Long Marine Lab, UCSC: 285 volunteers; 18,000 hours Surfrider San Mateo County Chapter: 12 volunteers; 494 hours The Marine Mammal Center: Monterey: 51 volunteers; 4,660 hours; Santa Cruz: 47 volunteers; 4,910 hours; San Mateo: 58 volunteers, hours not available Total number of volunteers: 9,484 Total hours donated: 351,607 Total value of volunteer services (calculated at $15.00/hour): $5,274,105
Days of Sanctuary Beach Warnings and Closures by County 2000-2003(6)
Beach Closures Sources – San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties6
Vessel Incidents with Sanctuary Response(7)
Incident Type Date Reported Location Cost to NOAA Sinking (R/V) 1/23/2003 Monterey Bay $50 Grounding (C/V) 2/1/2003 Creek mouth at Hidden Beach, Aptos $950 Grounding (R/V) 3/26/2003 Pajaro River mouth, Zmudowski State Beach $60 Grounding (R/V) 4/12/2003 Capitola Beach $60 Grounding (R/V) 4/12/2003 Capitola Beach $125 Grounding (R/V) 4/12/2003 200 yards east of Capitola Wharf $60 Grounding (R/V) 4/12/2003 Capitola Beach $60 Grounding (R/V) 4/12/2003 Capitola Beach $60 Sinking (R/V) 4/14/2003 300 yards north of seaward tip of Monterey USCG breakwater $125 Sinking (C/V) 4/20/2003 Near Cape San Martin $300 Grounding (R/V) 4/22/2003 New Brighton State Beach $0 Grounding (C/V), Discharge, Seabed Disturbance 6/2/2003 Half Moon Bay immediately south of the Pillar Point Harbor entrance $450 Grounding (R/V) 7/5/2003 Moss Landing State Beach $6,000 Grounding (R/V) 8/18/2003 Asilomar State Beach $7,000 Sinking (R/V) 8/26/2003 Seaward of Santa Cruz boardwalk $250 Sinking (R/V) 9/15/2003 Vicinity of Santa Cruz Small Craft Harbor mouth - seaward $75 Grounding (R/V) 9/22/2003 Colorado Reef off Montara Beach near the Moss Beach Distiller .5-.75 miles offshore $150 Sinking (R/V) 9/23/2003 Mooring field approximately 500 yards east of Capitola Wharf $425 Grounding (R/V) 10/13/2003 Salinas River State Beach - 1 nm south of Moss Landing Harbor entrance $150 Grounding (C/V) 10/30/2003 Del Monte Beach at the south end of Tide Avenue, Monterey $600     Total $16,950 R/V-Recreational vessel C/V-Commercial vessel
Enforcement Actions under the Marine Sanctuaries Act8
Profile of Documented Enforcement Cases, March-September 2003 These data represent only 52 formally documented cases by the NOAA Office for Law Enforcement and do not reflect all investigative actions or patrol contacts by NOAA enforcement personnel or enforcement actions by partner agencies. The data do not reflect total reported incidents or number of convictions within the sanctuary. It simply provides a relative comparison of the type of violations occurring within the sanctuary. Marine mammal take cases were processed as actions under the Marine Mammal Protection Act instead of the NMSA Vessel groundings and sinkings are counted only as seabed alteration cases, though some also involved discharges