VENTURA PORT DISTRICT BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS

Everard Ashworth, Chairman

Brian Brennan, Vice Chairman Jim Friedman, Secretary

Nikos Valance, Commissioner Chris Stephens, Commissioner

Oscar Peña, General Manager Roland Trinh, Legal Counsel

Jessica Rauch, Clerk of the Board

PORT COMMISSION AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2017 AT 7:00PM

VENTURA PORT DISTRICT OFFICE 1603 ANCHORS WAY DRIVE

VENTURA, CA 93001

A Closed Session of the Board will be held at 5:30PM at the Port District Office located at 1603 Anchors Way Drive, Ventura, CA,

to discuss the items on the Attachment to Agenda- Closed Session Conference with Legal Counsel.

The Board will convene in Open Session at the Port District Office

located at 1603 Anchors Way Drive for its Regular Meeting at 7:00PM.

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA:

CALL TO ORDER: By Chair Everard Ashworth.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: By Chair Everard Ashworth.

ROLL CALL: By the Clerk of the Board.

ADOPTION OF AGENDA (3 minutes) Consider and approve, by majority vote, minor revisions to agenda items and/or attachments and any item added to, or removed/continued from the Port Commission’s agenda. Administrative Reports relating to this agenda and materials related to an item on this agenda submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public review at the Port District’s office located at 1603 Anchors Way Drive, Ventura, CA during business hours as well as on the District’s website - www.venturaharbor.com (Port District Business-Port Commission & Meeting Schedule). Each item on the agenda shall be deemed to include action by an appropriate motion, resolution or ordinance to take action on any item.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES (3 minutes) The Minutes of the September 13, 2017 Regular Meeting will be considered for approval. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS (3 minutes) The Public Communications period is set aside to allow public testimony on items not on today’s agenda. Each person may address the Commission for up to three minutes or at the discretion of the Chair.

1

Ventura Port District – Regular Meeting Agenda September 27, 2017 CLOSED SESSION REPORT (3 minutes) Closed Sessions are not open to the public pursuant to the Brown Act. Any reportable actions taken by the Commission during Closed Session will be announced at this time. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (5 minutes) Port Commissioner’s may present brief reports on port issues, seminars, meetings and literature that would be of interest to the public and/or Commission, as a whole. In addition, Port Commissioners should provide a brief summary and disclose any discussions he or she may have had with any Port District Tenants related to Port District business.

DEPARTMENTAL AND GENERAL MANAGERS REPORTS (5 minutes) Ventura Port District Staff and General Manager will give the Commission reports on their Department and items of general interest to the Port Commission and members of the public. LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT (5 minutes) CONSENT AGENDA: (3 minutes) Matters appearing on the Consent Calendar are expected to be non-controversial and will be acted upon by the Board at one time, without discussion, unless a member of the Board or the public requests an opportunity to address any given item. Approval by the Board of Consent Items means that the recommendation is approved along with the terms set forth in the applicable staff reports. A) Approval of Out of Town Travel Requests Recommended Action: Voice Vote. That the Board of Port Commissioners approve the out of town travel request for Electrician, John Collins and Harbormaster, John Higgins. STANDARD AGENDA: 1) Phase II Ventura Harbor Village Reroofing Project Contract Award Recommended Action: Voice Vote. That the Board of Port Commissioners award the Phase II Ventura Harbor Village Reroofing Project to The Garland Company, Inc. in the amount of $638,849.00. 2) Assignment and Assumption of the Lease Agreement for Coffee Dock & Post Recommended Action: Voice Vote. That the Board of Port Commissioners approve the proposed Assignment and Assumption of Lease between Sandra Aiken, Ashley Hwang, Janice Hwang, and Priscilla Levy dba Coffee Dock & Post and Josefina Aguilar for the premises located at 1575 Spinnaker Drive #105 A&B, Ventura, California 93001. 3) Continuation of General Manager’s Employment Recommended Action: Voice Vote. That the Board of Port Commissioners approve Amendment No. 5 to the General Manager’s Restated Employment Agreement. 4) Ventura Shellfish Enterprise Site Selection Alternatives Recommended Action: Informational. That the Board of Port Commissioners receive a report on the Ventura Shellfish Enterprise Site Selection Alternatives.

2

Ventura Port District – Regular Meeting Agenda September 27, 2017 AGENDA PLANNING GUIDE AND REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT

This agenda was posted on Friday, September 22, 2017 by 5:00 p.m. at the Port District Office and on the Internet –

www.venturaharbor.com (Port District Business-Port Commission & Meeting Schedule).

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Ventura Port District at (805) 642-8538. Notification 48 hours before the

meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. (28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II)

3

Ventura Port District – Regular Meeting Agenda September 27, 2017

ATTACHMENT TO PORT COMMISSION AGENDA CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2017

1. Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Per Government Code Section 54956.8:

a) Property: Negotiating Parties: Under Negotiation:

1575 Spinnaker Drive #105 A/B Oscar Peña, Brian Pendleton, Roland Trinh Assignment and Assumption of Lease for Coffee Dock & Post

b) Property: Negotiating Parties: Under Negotiation:

Parcel 5 and Parcel 8 Oscar Peña, Brian Pendleton, Roland Trinh Lease Negotiations with H. Parker Hospitality

c) Property: Negotiating Parties: Under Negotiation:

State Authorized Sea Bottom Oscar Peña, Brian Pendleton, Roland Trinh Leasing for Aquaculture Purposes

2. Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation per Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4): One case. 3. Conference with Legal Counsel – Per Government Code Section 54957(b)(1): To consider the continued employment of the General Manager, and the terms thereof [excluding compensation]. 4. Conference with Legal Counsel – Per Government Code Section 54957(b)(1): To consider the continued employment of the Business Operations Manager, and the terms thereof [excluding compensation].

4

BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS

SEPTEMBER 27, 2017

APPROVAL OF MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 MEETING

5

VENTURA PORT DISTRICT BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2017

The Regular Meeting of the Ventura Board of Port Commissioners was called to order by Chairman Everard Ashworth at 7:10PM at the Ventura Port District Office located 1603 Anchors Way Drive, Ventura, CA 93001. Commissioners Present: Everard Ashworth, Chairman Brian Brennan, Vice Chairman Jim Friedman, Secretary Nikos Valance Chris Stephens Commissioners Absent: None. Port District Staff: Oscar Pena, General Manager Brian Pendleton, Business Operations Manager John Higgins, Harbormaster Gloria Adkins, Accounting Manager Robin Baer, Property Manager Jessica Rauch, Clerk of the Board Legal Counsel: Timothy Gosney Roland Trinh AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: By Chairman Everard Ashworth at 7:10PM. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: By Commissioner Friedman. ROLL CALL: All Commissioners were present. ADOPTION OF AGENDA ACTON: Commissioner Brennan moved, seconded by Commissioner Friedman and

carried by a vote of 5-0 to adopt the September 13, 2017 agenda, pulling Items A and E from the Consent Agenda.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes of July 26, 2017 Regular meeting were considered as follows: ACTION: Commissioner Stephens moved, seconded by Commissioner Brennan and

carried by a vote of 5-0 to approve the minutes of the July 26, 2017 regular meeting.

6

Ventura Port District Board of Port Commissioners September 13, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS: Josefina Aguilar spoke to the Commission about her interest in purchasing Coffee Dock & Post. CLOSED SESSION REPORT: Mr. Gosney stated that the Board met in closed session; discussed and reviewed all items on the closed session agenda. Staff was given instructions on how to proceed as appropriate and there was no action taken that is reportable under The Brown Act. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: Commissioner Ashworth reported that he and staff met with Colonel Gibbs from the Army Corps last week. He also announced that the VSE did not qualify for the sea grant extension. Commissioner Brennan commented on how busy the Beaches have been and also how well done all the events have been. He also commended Robin and staff for holding the homeless meeting. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Peña thanked Commissioner Brennan for mentioning the events. It takes a lot of effort from staff to put them together. Mr. Peña also agreed with Commissioner Valance on the monitoring of the Village’s homeless problem. LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT: Mr. Gosney reported that the Monthly Report was sent out today and that his office has finished the initial draft of the Master Lease documents for Parcels 5 and 8 and delivered them to staff. CONSENT AGENDA: A) Approval of Out of Town Travel Requests Recommended Action: Voice Vote. That the Board of Port Commissioners approve the out of town travel request for Business Operations Manager, Brian Pendleton, Property Manager, Robin Baer, and Clerk, Jessica Rauch. This item got pulled from the Consent Agenda. ACTION: Commissioner Brennan moved, seconded by Commissioner Friedman and

carried by a vote of 5-0 to approve the out of town travel request for Business Operations Manager, Brian Pendleton, Property Manager, Robin Baer, and Clerk, Jessica Rauch, as revised. (See attached)

B) Approval of Pre-Option Agreement for Parcel 5 and 8 Development Recommended Action: Voice Vote. That the Board of Port Commissioners approve the pre-option agreement between the Ventura Port District and H. Parker Hospitality for the development of Parcels 5 and 8. ACTION: Commissioner Friedman moved, seconded by Commissioner Stephens and

carried by a vote of 5-0 to approve the pre-option agreement between the Ventura Port District and H. Parker Hospitality for the development of Parcels 5 and 8.

C) Approval of Third Amendment of Professional Services Agreement with Dudek Recommended Action: Voice Vote. That the Board of Port Commissioners approve the Third Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Dudek in the amount of $2,505 for completion of the Task 1 Strategic Permitting Plan for the Ventura Shellfish Enterprise (VSE) project.

7

Ventura Port District Board of Port Commissioners September 13, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 ACTION: Commissioner Friedman moved, seconded by Commissioner Stephens and

carried by a vote of 5-0 to approve the Third Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Dudek in the amount of $2,505 for completion of the Task 1 Strategic Permitting Plan for the Ventura Shellfish Enterprise (VSE) project.

D) Consideration of Rejection of Claim by Rosemary Lazard Recommended Action: Vote Voice. That the Board of Port Commissioners approve the rejection of a claim filed against the Ventura Port District on March 3, 2017 by Rosemary Lazard and authorize the General Manager to execute and mail a Notice of Rejection. ACTION: Commissioner Friedman moved, seconded by Commissioner Stephens and

carried by a vote of 5-0 to approve the rejection of a claim filed against the Ventura Port District on March 3, 2017 by Rosemary Lazard and authorize the General Manager to execute and mail a Notice of Rejection.

E) Pavement Repairs and Slurry Seal Project Bid Award Recommended Action: Voice Vote. That the Board of Port Commissioners award the 2017 Ventura Port District Pavement Repair and Slurry Seal Project to Toro Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of $344,444.00. This item was pulled from the Consent Agenda. ACTION: Commissioner Brennan moved, seconded by Commissioner Valance and

carried by a unanimous vote of 5-0 to reject NPG Corporation’s bid protest letter, dated September 12, 2017.

ACTION: Commissioner Brennan moved, seconded by Commissioner Stephens and

carried by a vote of 5-0 to award the 2017 Ventura Port District Pavement Repair and Slurry Seal Project to Toro Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of $344,444.00.

F) Approval of New Office Lease Agreement for Center for Contract Compliance Recommended Action: Voice Vote. That the Board of Port Commissioners approve a new Office Lease Agreement between the Ventura Port District dba Ventura Harbor Village and Center for Contract Compliance for the premises located at 1559 Spinnaker Drive #202A consisting of a total of 437 interior square feet for a two-year term. ACTION: Commissioner Friedman moved, seconded by Commissioner Stephens and

carried by a vote of 5-0 to approve a new Office Lease Agreement between the Ventura Port District dba Ventura Harbor Village and Center for Contract Compliance for the premises located at 1559 Spinnaker Drive #202A consisting of a total of 437 interior square feet for a two-year term.

G) Approval of New Office Lease Agreement for Ahmad Vahedian, Ph.D. Recommended Action: Voice Vote. That the Board of Port Commissioners approve a new Office Lease Agreement between the Ventura Port District dba Ventura Harbor Village and Ahmad Vahedian, Ph.D for the premises located at 1575 Spinnaker Drive #204C, consisting of a total of 275 square feet for a two year term.

8

Ventura Port District Board of Port Commissioners September 13, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 ACTION: Commissioner Friedman moved, seconded by Commissioner Stephens and

carried by a vote of 5-0 to approve a new Office Lease Agreement between the Ventura Port District dba Ventura Harbor Village and Ahmad Vahedian, Ph.D for the premises located at 1575 Spinnaker Drive #204C, consisting of a total of 275 square feet for a two year term.

H) Acceptance of 10-Month No-Cost Extension to 2015 Shellfish Grant Recommended Action: Voice Vote. That the Board of Port Commissioners authorize the General Manager to execute a 10-month extension to the Cost Reimbursement Research Subaward Agreement for the Ventura Shellfish Enterprise (VSE) project. ACTION: Commissioner Friedman moved, seconded by Commissioner Stephens and

carried by a vote of 5-0 to authorize the General Manager to execute a 10-month extension to the Cost Reimbursement Research Subaward Agreement for the Ventura Shellfish Enterprise (VSE) project.

STANDARD AGENDA: 1) Approval of Financial Statements and Checks Recommended Action: Roll Call Vote. That the Board of Port Commissioners adopts Resolution No. 3339 to:

a) Accept the following DRAFT financial statements for the Quarter ending June 30, 2017, pending year-end accruals, reconciliations and audit adjustments; and

b) Review the payroll and regular checks for April through June 2017. ACTION: Commissioner Brennan moved, seconded by Commissioner Valance and

carried by a vote of 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 3339 to accept the following DRAFT financial statements for the Quarter ending June 30, 2017, pending year-end accruals, reconciliations and audit adjustments; and review the payroll and regular checks for April through June 2017.

2) Ventura Shellfish Enterprise Site Selection Workshops Recommended Action: Informational. That the Board of Port Commissioners receive a report on the Ventura Shellfish Enterprise Site Selection Workshops. ACTION: The Board of Port Commissioners received a report on the Ventura

Shellfish Enterprise Site Selection Workshops. AGENDA PLANNING GUIDE AND REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: 1) Homelessness; 2) Painting/Signage; 3) Traffic; 4) Project Schedules (key dates). ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:58PM.

________________________________ Secretary

9

VENTURA PORT DISTRICT CONSENT AGENDA ITEM A BOARD COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: September 13, 2017 TO: Board of Port Commissioners FROM: Oscar F. Peña, General Manager SUBJECT: Out of Town Travel Requests RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Port Commissioners approve by motion the following out of town travel requests for:

A) Business Operations Manager, Brian Pendleton to travel to Los Angeles, California to participate in the International Council of Shopping Centers 2017 Western Conference & Deal Making on October 2 – 4, 2017. Attending this conference will allow our Business Operations Manager to market our vacant spaces, meet new contacts and vendors and keep up-to-date on new and ongoing trends. The $675.00 is for the deal making booth. Estimated cost for the travel is as follows:

Registration $350.0095.00 Lodging $645.56 Meals $220.00 Mileage $81.43 Miscellaneous $675.00 TOTAL $1,971.991,716.99

B) Property Manager, Robin Baer to travel to Los Angeles, California to participate in the

International Council of Shopping Centers 2017 Western Conference & Deal Making on October 2 – 4, 2017. Attending this conference will allow our Property Manager to market our vacant spaces, meet new contacts and vendors and keep up-to-date on new and ongoing trends. Estimated cost for the travel is as follows:

Registration $350.0095.00 Lodging $645.56 Meals $220.00 Mileage $81.43 Miscellaneous $100.00 TOTAL $1,396.991,141.99

C) Board Clerk, Jessica Rauch to travel to Los Angeles, California to participate in the

International Council of Shopping Centers 2017 Western Conference & Deal Making on October 2 – 4, 2017. Attending this conference will allow Ms. Rauch to help market our vacant spaces at the deal making booth, while Ms. Baer is meetings with brokers and Mr. Pendleton is attending workshops. Estimated cost for the travel is as follows:

Registration $5750.00 (Free for

first time) Lodging N/A Meals $220.00 Mileage N/A Miscellaneous $100.00150.00 ($50

affiliate membership)

TOTAL $895.00370.00

ATTACHMENT

10

 

  

 

BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS SEPTEMBER 27, 2017 

 DEPARTMENTAL STAFF REPORTS 

DREDGING FACILITIES 

HARBOR PATROL MARINA 

MARKETING PROPERTY TREASURER 

11

RWP DREDGING MANAGEMENT Richard W. Parsons

2271 Los Encinos Road Ojai, California 93023

Phone/Fax (805) 649-9759 September 27, 2017 Board of Port Commissioners Ventura Port District 1603 Anchors Way Drive Ventura, CA 93001 Subject: August 2017 Dredging Activities and Special Projects Report The Dredging Program Manager’s activities for the August/September 2017 period are reviewed below: FY2018 Federal Dredging Appropriations In early September the Congress passed and the President signed a Continuing Resolution (CR) that will fund government operations until December 8, 2017. The Corps of Engineers has advised that the CR will enable the Corps to exercise the option in Manson Construction’s contract for the maintenance dredging of Ventura Harbor for work to be accomplished in the first quarter of 2018. The $5,163,000 provided in the CR for Ventura coupled with $800,000 of Work Plan funds carried over from FY17 will enable Manson to remove about 640,000 cu.yds. of material from the harbor entrance area. Current indications are that that volume of material will assure quite adequate entrance conditions. Corps of Engineers Dredging Permit The Corps of Engineers is in the process of renewing the Port District’s permit for the District’s dredging program. Attached is a letter dated August 24, 2017 to the Corps’ Regulatory Division commenting on one of the proposed special conditions in the Corps Public Notice for the permit renewal. The Regulatory Division has indicated that the District requested revision will be accepted. Harbor Village Phase III Viola Contractors, the Phase III construction contractor, has essentially completed the project with the relatively minor exception of the stairway to the second floor office above the Hat Shop and the glass wall at the Dive Shop. Additionally, we are still waiting for the gas company to install a meter for the fire pit. Respectfully submitted, Richard Parsons Dredging and Special Projects Consultant Attachment.

12

ATTACHMENT 1

13

1

Federal Update September 2017

Overview

After the long August recess, Congress returned to Washington, DC and immediately got to work on several "must pass” items. With disaster assistance for Hurricane Harvey fueling an urgency for these efforts, Congress managed to pass a relief package that incorporated both a continuing resolution (CR) and increase in the debt ceiling until December 8th. To achieve this, President cut a deal with House and Senate democratic leaders leaving republicans feeling alienated. Now with Hurricane Irma making its way up the gulf coast of Florida and into Georgia Congress is already contemplating another emergency measure for disaster aid. Prior to passing the three-month CR, the House had managed to clear all twelve appropriations bills. They did this in a two-step process by first passing a mini-bus (which included the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill) at the end of July and secondarily packaging together the remaining eight appropriations bills into an omnibus bill which passed the House by a 316-90 vote on September 8th. In addition, when the omnibus got to the floor republican leadership tacked on the previously approved mini-bus to create a complete twelve-bill funding package. This means that the full House has already approved the Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) Energy and Water appropriations bill twice. This maneuver was highly unusual and the Senate has already made clear that they will not take a similar approach. But with the government safely funded at FY17 levels until December 8th, Congress has some time to sort of the details of a final FY18 funding plan. Even before the rain started falling in Houston, the federal legislative calendar predicted a very hectic fall. Now with two national disasters and several remaining deadlines for the end of September (National Flood Insurance Program, Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Federal Aviation Administration) Congress has its work cut out for them. Against this backdrop, the President continues to call for Congress to prioritize tax reform followed by an infrastructure package. With this much on the agenda, one of the biggest questions out there is, how will we pay for it all? For the time being, a shutdown has been averted. But keep a close eye on House republicans, and in particular the Freedom Caucus, as Congress considers

14

2

additional emergency relief for Texas and the first package for Florida. The next deadline for this all to come to a head is December 8th. Legislative Effort to Soften the Earmark Ban Congressman Tom Rooney (R-FL) reintroduced his legislation, the Responsible Environmental Preservation and American Infrastructure Act (REPAIR Act, H. Res 313) to help restore congressional earmarks for water infrastructure projects. The limited rules changed proposed by the legislation would apply solely to projects within the jurisdiction of the Corps and Bureau of Reclamation. Congress instituted a ban on earmarks in 2010. White House Hosts Infrastructure Session Seven months into his administration, President Trump has yet to release details of his long-promised infrastructure plan. However, on August 30th, the White House hosted 150 state, local, and tribal leaders to hear suggestions and float more ideas about a plan that is expected by the end of September. Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, and DJ Gribbin, a special adviser to the President on infrastructure, were the Administration principals who held the meeting. While none promised that the President would release a detailed legislative proposal, they reiterated the President’s strong support for improving infrastructure in the nation. Participants came away with a clear impression that the President remains committed to the idea that federal funding should be the “last dollar,” highly competitive, and used to incentivize private or non-federal funding to improve the nation’s infrastructure. No specifics about how he would achieve these goals or if the September release will contain these details were released at the meeting. White House Infrastructure Advisory Council In July, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) establishing the White House Infrastructure Advisory Council. However, in August, before the Council had a chance to get started, it was dissolved. The 15 Presidential appointed council members was to be housed within the Department of Commerce with the mission of making recommendations to the President regarding federal funding and project delivery. Water resources and waterways were among the types of infrastructure covered by the Council’s work. Specifically, the Council had intended to make recommendations on the following:

Prioritizing the Nation's infrastructure needs; Accelerating pre-construction approval processes;

15

3

Developing funding and financing options capable of generating new infrastructure investment over the next 10 years;

Identifying methods to increase public-private partnerships for infrastructure projects, including appropriate statutory or regulatory changes;

Identifying best practices in and opportunities to improve procurement methods, grant procedures, and infrastructure delivery systems, and;

Promoting advanced manufacturing and infrastructure-related technological innovation.

It is unclear if a similar council will be created at some point. Regardless, infrastructure remains a priority of the Administration and we expect further announcements regarding the Administration proposal to be made this fall. President Signs New EO on Environmental Streamlining In his remarks on infrastructure, President Trump has consistently stated that infrastructure projects take too long to study and construct and he has expressed a desire to deliver projects in a more responsive manner. These sentiments were furthered in the signing of a new EO which seeks to “establish discipline and accountability in the environmental review and permitting process for infrastructure projects.” Central to these efforts, the President has called for the federal environmental process to be streamlined. He has tasked the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) with a government-wide review of environmental reviews which will then move into a two-year modernization effort which will be led by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Among other things, the Administration is working towards a two-year goal to process environmental documents for major infrastructure projects while maintaining environmental protections. Administration Cancels Obama Administration Flood Risk Reduction Standards As part of the President’s new EO on Infrastructure, President Trump canceled the Obama Administration’s Federal Flood Risk Management Standard. The FFRMS was established to address possible future flood impacts due to climate change. FFRMS would have required that projects receiving federal funds be constructed to provide a higher level of flood protection than currently required by the existing Corps or FEMA standards. FFRMS would have required the projects be designed and constructed to meet one of the following criteria:

Use best-available, actionable hydrologic and hydraulic data and methods that use current and future changes in flooding based on climate science;

Use a freeboard of two-feet above the FEMA 100-year flood for non-critical structures and three-feet above for critical structures such as hospitals and evacuation centers, and;

Use the FEMA 500-year flood elevation as the build height.

16

4

Each federal agency was tasked with producing their own set of requirements for meeting the FFRMS and many agencies were still working through this process when the EO canceling the effort was issued. The FFRMS was not without controversy. It drew opposition from many industry organizations as well as the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. EPA/Corps Move to Rescind “Waters of the United States” Rule The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps announced their decision to rescind the Clean Water Rule they published in 2015. The rule was intended to clarify the bodies of water that would be regulated under the Clean Water Act as “Waters of the United States.” However, the rule has been challenged on multiple fronts and is currently stayed under court order while the competing complaints are addressed. The decision comes after February’s EO by President directing the EPA Administrator to review options for repealing or revising the Clean Water Rule. This new action allows EPA and the Corps to begin the notice and comment process for preparing a new draft rule defining the reach of the Clean Water Act. Until a new rule is finalized, the definition governing waters subject to regulation will be based upon the standard that was in place prior to the 2015 rule, which was itself considered confusing. Senate Confirms Brock Long for FEMA Administrator The Senate confirmed Brock Long as FEMA administrator by a 95-4 vote. Long previously served as a National Hurricane Program manager from 2001-2006. He has also served as the director of the Alabama Emergency Management Agency where he oversaw the state’s response to the Deepwater Horizon oil leak.

17

VENTURA PORT DISTRICT DEPARTMENTAL STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: September 27, 2017 TO: Board of Port Commissioners FROM: Joe A. Gonzalez, Facilities Manager SUBJECT: August 2017 Facilities Report • Facilities

a) Continuing to perform preventive maintenance on certain areas that need immediate attention on the Ventura Harbor Village buildings to prevent dry rot.

b) Two domestic water backflows have been replaced within the village; one that serves the 1575 Building and the other device serves 1567 building.

c) One restaurant water meter has been

replaced; located at 1567 building.

18

d) The two main fire hydrants water backflow devices have been refurbished and serviced. These backflows serve all fire hydrants and fire sprinklers within the Ventura Harbor Village.

e) Several bollards and fire hydrants within the village have been refurbished with new

primmer and paint.

• Marina The Maintenance Department continues to perform the monthly inspections on all gangways, docks, fire extinguishers, fish pier cranes and fire boxes.

• Marketing

The Maintenance Department continues to provide assistance to the Marketing Department on weddings, set-up for events, during events, installation of banners/flyers, or whatever the needs are to make a successful event.

• On-going Projects 1. VHV Window Replacement: Window replacement project is going as planned

and the contractor is currently about 98% done. Three windows had to be re-ordered. The project will be 100% done after the installation of these three windows. Contractor anticipates for the windows to be delivered within two weeks.

2. 1583 Elevator Modernization: The District and Thyssenkrupp Elevator Company has finalized all the necessary paperwork. Staff is working on coordinating with tenants and we anticipate starting the mechanical part of this project soon. This project will take approximately one month to complete.

19

VENTURA PORT DISTRICT DEPARTMENTAL STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: September 27, 2017 TO: Board of Port Commissioners FROM: John Higgins, Harbormaster SUBJECT: August Harbormaster/Harbor Patrol Report Public Safety Overview: This summer will have been the busiest and highest attended season to date. Crowds often exceeded available parking on weekends and the mid-week visitor numbers were strong both on the beach and within the Village. Staff really doubled down their efforts to make the visitor experience as best as possible.

On the water, things were very active and overall the relatively calm conditions allowed for people to recreate safely. A number of outside groups like the RcFX Foundation, Naval Base Channel Islands Kids Camp, Lake Casitas Jr. Lifeguards, and City of Port Hueneme Jr. Lifeguards visited our Harbor for the first time and took part in the many activities. Each group was excited to increase their visits in the future. We believe introducing these young kids and their families to the Harbor at a young age will result in long term connection with this special place.

South Beach Update: We observed crowded beaches throughout the week. Our efforts to lessen errant trash issues has paid off with the addition of a large dumpster at Harbor Cove and locating the trash cans at the entrance/exits to the beach. Our sand profile has remained fairly consistent with some additional sand movement south of the Surfers Knoll Groin replenishing the beach. This was a result of a couple of minor Southern Hemisphere Swells. The investment in a Lifeguard Program resulted in a safer beach as most of the efforts were focused on education and prevention. The number of 911 responses to the beach was down significantly this year as the majority of potential life threatening rescues were addressed promptly. After aggressive efforts over the past two years by the Harbor Patrol, Police Department, Fire Department, and Dockmasters, we have almost completely eliminated beach bonfires. This was a significant relief as numerous problems arose from this seemingly benign local issue. Over the years the most popular burned item was stolen pallets that contain numerous nails. After the fires were concluded the area was often dusted with light sand leaving numerous hazards

20

like shark nails, broken glass, and hot embers just underneath. The elimination of these fires has resulted in a much safer beach for our visitors and wildlife. Harbor Cove Beach: One word to describe Ventura Counties Safest Beach would be “Active”. On any given day you can find a number of different recreational activities taking place. Some of the activities that occurred on a regular basis were long distance swimming, scuba diving lessons, triathlon training, paddling, fishing, volleyball, bird watching, Jr. Lifeguards, dog training, birthday parties, family reunions, and baptisms.

While this was a team effort to maintain this vibrant area, there was one person who really should be recognized as doing an exceptional job. Juan Valeriano is the maintenance custodian assigned to the beaches and specifically on the weekends when the crowds were the largest. Mr. Valeriano represents the best qualities in a Port District Employee. He was always the first person to answer the public’s questions, offer assistance, fix issues, and maintain the beaches and facilities to the highest level possible. As the Harbormaster, I would especially like to thank Mr. Valeriano for his dedication to make our Harbor special. Domoic Acid Naturally Occurring Event: The number of ill or deceased marine life on the beach and within our harbor remains fairly consistent due to robust local population. This issue continues to create a challenge as there are no agencies to call for assistance or to mitigate the health hazards. While we try to remove as much as possible, our lack of heavy equipment has made what should be a short removal and burying a more prolonged and sometimes visually bewildering process. I would like to suggest we consider a more long term solution to this challenge and either consider contracting out the disposal services or investigating the purchase of a small/mid-sized multi-use tractor.

21

Dog Challenges: Ventura Harbor has marketed itself as a dog friendly environment for the past several years. This has resulted in numerous dog owners frequenting the Harbor on a regular basis and in some cases daily. On a typical day the Harbor Patrol will see about 30 dogs with a number on the weekend climbing closer to 100 plus. Rarely are there issues and more often than not the experience for both the dog and the owner is good.

More recently we have noticed more complacency amongst some dog owners. Things like leaving dogs unattended within the Village or inside cars are some of the biggest challenges. Another area that could be improved upon is dogs on leash and in direct control of their owner. Because of the fluctuation of visitors during the week, the locals have become accustomed to having their mostly well behaved dogs off leash, but within their immediate control during the morning and evening hours when the pedestrian traffic is slow. This has expanded to weekends and after hours when other pet owners are present. Unfortunately, there are not enough Animal Control Officers in the City to effectively address this issue and our Harbor Patrol Officers are not trained or equipped to handle dog issues. We feel the best way to maintain our high level of professionalism and customer service is to implement a positive campaign promoting responsible dog ownership. While I was doing some research, I found that September is ‘AKC Responsible Pet Owner Month’. Using this information to complement ideas that the Harbor Patrol and Marketing will put together in the near future will give us a consistent platform to work from. Taking a positive approach to the challenge allows for everyone to participate and lessens the defensive reaction that often comes with trying to address it in an enforcement manner. With positive education throughout the Harbor and within businesses, the message can spread far more effectively. We will then monitor the trends and report back to the Commission with the results. Lifeguard Program Options: I continue to gather information and put together options for South Beach Lifeguard services. Over the past two months, I have met seven times with the City of Ventura to discuss the possibility of a joint endeavor. I will continue to work on this and plan to be able to provide the Board with several options in the coming months.

22

Marine Hazards: In June, I attended a regional Public Safety Meeting where we discussed Ocean Rescue related topics and Marine Hazards. Our group agreed to adopt the State Lifeguard policy for our beaches. This policy has a tiered response to posting or closing beaches based on the observed shark activity. Since that time, I am relieved to say that we have not been seeing the juvenile White Sharks along our beaches on a regular basis. During the peak summer months and during special programs like the Jr. Lifeguards, we performed marine hazard patrols daily and multiple times during the weekends for the benefit of our Ventura patrons.

Boat Disposal Program - Surrendered and Abandoned Vessel Exchange Over the past two years we have disposed of 10 in- the-water boats, and 8 trailered boats through the State Grant Program. We were the only active Ventura County Agency participating in this program. Additional funding has been requested through another grant, but the results have not been announced. More program information can be found at http://www.dbw.ca.gov/?page_id=28816. Port District & Ventura City Collaboration: • Performed Training With City Fire Department • EMT Skills Testing • Meeting to discuss In Vehicle Computer & Radios • Meetings with City Fire & Recreation Department Other Training & Collaboration: • US Coast Guard Mass Casualty Planning & Exercise • Ventura County Fire/EMS Chiefs Association Meeting • Host Location - United States Lifesaving Jr National Team Training • Ventura Police Department Vessel SWAT Training • Ventura County Office of Emergency Services Meeting - Harbor Entrance Camera

23

Harbor Patrol 911 Calls (85 Calls Between 6/21 & 9/21

ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Soundings: Overall Harbor Entrance and Sand Trap Conditions Remain Stable

24

ATTACHMENT 1

25

Marketing/Meetings/Media

Marketing Report July/August 2017

Beautification Project/ Visitor Experience • Conducted weekly walk through with Facilities Manager to enhance the new spaces

open of the beautification project for weekend customers • Reorganized signage weekly, cleanliness of planters and areas for the public, reinstalled

visitor experience amenities (photo boards, telescopes, nautical knot tying station, etc.) • Met with the Channel Islands National Park to start discussion on funding a

informational signage on the new island exhibit in the main courtyard • Enhanced a large wood panel along the Promenade with images of the Ventura Harbor

during construction through Rock on the Dock (images shown to the right)

Public Relations/Marketing • Finalization of Ventura Harbor/Harbor Village tourism Rack Cards: 72 locations • Somerville Associates pitched and secured a radio interview on WHGM radio with

Host/Producer Annie Cochran and the Harbor Marketing Manager on “Travel with Annie” broadcasting in Maryland, Delaware & Pennsylvania. Aired: August 31, 2017

• Somerville Associates distributed the following press releases to 304 media outlets: • Fall Seaside – California’s Second Summer • Wavelengths press release on Harbor happenings, events, and new at the Harbor • Rock on the Dock – Floating Stage Concert Series Returns for Sept. Saturdays

Event Production/ On-Site Promotions • “Happier Seaside” campaign launched for the summer promotions/ads • Seaside Kids Club weekly production, including bonus day for Members on August 19 • Wet Wednesdays weekly entertainment /offers/ Visitor Booth • Rock on the Dock in full-production: Secure bands/contracts/staffing/dock

enhancements/secured Ventura Boat Rentals as an in-kind sponsor • Prepare Rock on the Dock Posters (100) / Rock on the Dock advertisements • September Happenings Rack Cards (2,500): Rock on the Dock/Ventura Art & Street

Painting Festival/ Ventura Comedy Club • Production of Steel Drum Saturdays & Live Music Sundays at Harbor Village

26

Ventura Harbor Village Summer Promotions

Marketing Report July/August 2017

Seaside Kids Club July 6 – August 10

Wet Wednesdays July 5 – August 30th

Seaside Kids Club promotes family friendly business in Harbor Village to increase lunch/mid-week traffic. Coordinated 6 events - each included entertainment and a nautically themed craft.

Single Day Registration • $2 to participate in 1 session • New Harbor Patrol Sticker

NEW Membership Offer: • $10 to participate in all 6 sessions • Seal or Island fox after 3 sessions • Seaside Kids Club Sticker • 50 cents off Coastal Cone

Entertainment $2,525.00 Production $531.00 Total Expenses $3056.00

Paid Membership $358.00 Day Registration $424.00 Total Income $782.00

Wet Wednesdays: Promotion working with tenants to drive mid-week traffic by enticing visitors with live steel drum entertainment + various tenant specials. New Visitor Booth set up weekly: • List of specials + deals • New Harbor Postcards (free postage) • Scavenger Hunt for Children • Prizes & Magnets • Whale Watching Giveaway

Wet Wednesdays Highlights: • 22 Harbor Village tenants participated • 54 surveys completed • 60 entries for e-newsletter sign up • 45 postcards mailed (10 states reached)

“This is the greatest day of my life at the Harbor” – Seaside Member, age 10

Steel Drummer Expense (9 weeks): $2,700

27

Website Analytics

VenturaHarbor.com

Top 5 Pages Visited on VenturaHarbor.com ( July/August 2017): 1) Harbor Cove Café 2) Beaches 3) Directions 4) Restaurants 5) Ventura Swimwear

Top referral sites : Google and search engines | Direct | TheGreekVentura.com | Marriott.com | Facebook | VisitCalifornia.com

Data from July 1 – August 31, 2017

Data from July 1 – August 31, 2017 VenturaHarborVillage.com

Top 5 Pages Visited on VenturaHarborVillage.com ( July/August 2017): 1) Dine 2) Events 3) Play 4) Shop 5) Explore

Top referral sites: Google and search engines | Direct | Facebook Mobile | Facebook | VenturaHarbor.com | VenturaBoatRentals.com | TheUltimateEscapeRooms.com

Marketing Report July/August 2017

Note: Two month report

28

Social Media Analytics

Marketing Report July/August 2017

Seaside Kids Club Promotion

Campaign targeting local families for 6 themed Seaside Kids Club Summer Thursday’s in July & August. Instagram engagement : 1,449 Likes 27,929 Impressions 20,751 People Reached

Wet Wednesday Promotion

3,228 Likes 42,456 Impressions 32,157 People Reached

Targeting midweek visitation. Featured tenant offerings and live steel drum every Wednesday! Instagram engagement:

Top Instagram Posts

July 1 – August 31, 2017

+ 377 followers gained = 8,752 total followers

Instagram

29

Social Media Analytics (Cont.)

Facebook 18,837 Followers 19,418 Engagements 867,368 Impressions

Twitter 4,446 followers 33,300 Impressions

Marketing Report July/August 2017

Overall, our Wet Wednesdays Facebook Campaign post reach totaled 92.4k!

This musician inquiry and pre-promotion post reached 16,673 people and had 403 engagements in one post! Garnered a lot of interest about the concert series and attracted talented entertainers.

_________

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

__ 30

VENTURA PORT DISTRICT DEPARTMENTAL STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: September 27, 2017 TO: Board of Port Commissioners FROM: Frank Locklear, Marina Manager/Technology SUBJECT: August Marina Report I. Ventura Harbor Village Marina Occupancy and Squid Production

Late summer squid production has dwindled as expected throughout the region, due to high ocean water temperatures.

Ventura Harbor Village Marina slip occupancy has remained near 100% throughout July and August. Wandering tenant squid vessels that call Ventura home port are returning to their slips in preparation for the landings that are expected to resume with the return of cooler weather and ocean temperatures.

II. Technology AT&T has improved and expanded fiber optic services for tenant use in the Village. The increased services make the Ventura Harbor Village a more attractive retail and business location.

Improvements to equipment for the large conference room A/V system has begun and will be completed by the first week of October. The equipment will provide enhanced audio and visual capability for Port District teleconference meetings and presentations.

Essential upgrades to the District’s accounting server are currently underway and will be completed before the end of the month. The upgrade is necessary prior to the installation of system mandated updates to the Sage Accounting Software.

31

VENTURA PORT DISTRICT DEPARTMENTAL STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: September 27, 2017 TO: Board of Port Commissioners FROM: Robin Baer, Property Manager SUBJECT: August 2017 Property Report I. Tenant Report

1) Coffee Dock & Post --- 1575 Spinnaker Drive #105 A&B – The owners wish to assign their interest in the lease to Josefina Aguilar dba Espresso Mi Cultura. Josefina Aguilar previously owned a coffee house in Hollywood that received “Best Coffeehouse for Night Life” by ZAGAT. She currently resides in Pasadena, but will be relocating to Ventura. She plans on focusing on coffee, books, music, artwork and cultural events. She wants to develop the business into being the “Best Local Neighborhood Coffee House”.

2) BS Taproom --- 1591 Spinnaker Drive #115 – Drawings have been submitted to the City of Ventura. Waiting on DRC Meeting in October to move forward. Estimated completion third quarter of 2018.

3) Rhumb Line --- 1510 Anchors Way -- Drawings have been submitted to the City of Ventura. Waiting on DRC Meeting in October to move forward. Estimated completion second quarter of 2018.

4) Greek Restaurant --- 1583 Spinnaker Drive #101 -- The bar remodel is in design stages with the tenant. The design is subject to District approval. District waiting on tenant to provide design drawings.

II. Leasing 1) Leasing Outreach

• Posted online with Loopnet for office, restaurant and retail spaces. • Created a leasing campaign to contact realtors seeking specific square footage

spaces and our location: Outreached leasing packets to realtors/brokers interested in our type

of complex (CA, TX, AZ, NJ, FL, etc.) 122 Direct Emails --- for Lighthouse building leasing opportunity. They

can also view all other available office and retail spaces. Site visits to the following:

o Santa Barbara --- French Press Coffee, Daily Grind, Evangelina Boutique, Savoy Wines, Peets Coffee & Tea, Le Macaron Pastries, See’s Candies, Pickles & Swiss, Savoy Café & Deli, California Pasta, Via Maestra 42

o Ventura --- Very Ventura Gift Shop, Spice Topia • Posting ads online via Loopnet / Costar which covers the following:

200,000 commercial real estate professionals able to view our listings 24 Million visitors to these sites 83% of all 2016 commercial real estate transactions involved these

sites

2) Overview of FY2016/2017 leasing strategy goals: • Motionloft – A new pedestrian and vehicle counts system. This technology will

deliver reports with specific times, dates and locations. Sensors have been installed and awaiting the final setup configuration of the system. Estimated date to receive reports will be third quarter of 2017.

32

• Obtain monthly, quarterly and annual data from real estate sources; • Procured Co-star for real estate analytics; • Increase annual rental revenue to VPD at (or above) consumer price index; • Achieve vacancy rates for office, retail, restaurant below comparable properties

in the City of Ventura • Attendance and participation with real estate, trade shows, webinars and

networking events and others as applicable; • Annual memberships with leasing, real estate and development organizations; • Visit prospective tenant locations and meet with business owners.

III. Occupancy level at Harbor Village – August 2017 CATEGORY Harbor Harbor City * City *

Vacancy Vacancy Vacancy Available Sq Ft % % %

Office 2,615 9% 12% 22% Retail 1,381 6% 15% 24% Restaurant 0 0% 10% 9%

*Based on comparable square footage IV. July and August Sales Report

The attached summary provides sales for three categories: restaurants, retail and charters. The reports compare the monthly sales for 2017 and 2016. They also include year-to-date comparisons. Retail sales are up 14.93% and Charters are up 20.60% for the month of July 2017. The year-to-date overall sales were up 8.82% for July 2017 and 7.46% for August 2017 from the same time last year.

Attachment 1 – July & August Tenant Sales COFFEE DOCK & POST --- Current

33

ATTACHMENT 1

34

ATTACHMENT 1

35

36

37

JOHN CHIANGTREASURER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

06/19/17 0.98 0.92 18306/20/17 0.98 0.92 18206/21/17 0.99 0.92 18106/22/17 1.00 0.92 18606/23/17 1.00 0.92 18806/24/17 1.00 0.92 18806/25/17 1.00 0.92 18806/26/17 1.01 0.93 18406/27/17 1.01 0.93 18206/28/17 1.01 0.93 18206/29/17 1.01 0.93 18106/30/17 1.03 0.93 19407/01/17 1.03 1.03 194 June 2017 0.978%07/02/17 1.03 1.03 194 May 2017 0.925%07/03/17 1.03 1.03 199 Apr 2017 0.884%07/04/17 1.03 1.03 19907/05/17 1.04 1.03 19707/06/17 1.04 1.03 19607/07/17 1.04 1.04 19507/08/17 1.04 1.04 19507/09/17 1.04 1.04 19507/10/17 1.05 1.04 19207/11/17 1.04 1.04 19407/12/17 1.05 1.04 19407/13/17 1.05 1.04 19207/14/17 1.05 1.04 19307/15/17 1.05 1.04 19307/16/17 1.05 1.04 19307/17/17 1.05 1.04 19107/18/17 1.05 1.04 19007/19/17 1.05 1.04 193

7/19/2017Based on data available as of

Quarter to Date:Average Life:

View Prior Month Daily Rates

PMIA Average Monthly Effective Yields

0.93%

*Daily yield does not reflect capital gains or losses

194

PMIA Performance Report LAIF Performance Report

Date Daily Yield*

Quarter to

Date Yield

Average

Maturity

(in days) Apportionment Rate: 0.92%

Quarter Ending 06/30/17

.000025313094148800.998940671

Earnings Ratio:Fair Value Factor:

Daily: 1.03%

Treasuries42.96%

Mortgages0.05%

Agencies17.83%

Certificates of Deposit/Bank

Notes20.50%

Time Deposits7.23%

Commercial Paper

10.60%

Loans0.83%

Pooled Money Investment AccountPortfolio Composition

06/30/17$77.6 billion

38

BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS

SEPTEMBER 27, 2017

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM A APPROVAL OF OUT OF

TOWN TRAVEL REQUESTS

39

VENTURA PORT DISTRICT CONSENT AGENDA ITEM A BOARD COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: September 27, 2017 TO: Board of Port Commissioners FROM: Oscar F. Peña, General Manager SUBJECT: Out of Town Travel Requests RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Port Commissioners approve by motion the following out of town travel requests for:

A) Electrician, John Collins to travel to Ontario, California to participate in the California Building Officials Education Week (CALBO) on October 15 – 18, 2017. Attending this conference will allow Mr. Collins to keep up with continuing education units for Port District property inspections. Estimated cost for the travel is as follows:

Registration $830.00 Lodging $418.50 Meals $410.00 Mileage $111.54 TOTAL $1,770.04

B) Harbormaster, John Higgins to travel to Oakland, California to participate in the California

Harbormasters and Port Captains annual conference October 15 – 19, 2017. Attending this conference will allow Mr. Higgins to network with other Harbormasters and Managers, attend workshops for self-improvement and represent Ventura Harbor. Estimated cost for the travel is as follows:

Registration $375.00 Lodging $960.67 Meals $250.00 Mileage $375.00 TOTAL $1,620.00

40

BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS

SEPTEMBER 27, 2017

STANDARD AGENDA ITEM 1 Phase II Ventura Harbor Village

Reroofing Project Contract Award

41

VENTURA PORT DISTRICT STANDARD AGENDA ITEM 1 BOARD COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: September 27, 2017 TO: Board of Port Commissioners FROM: Richard Parsons, Project Manager Joe Gonzalez, Facilities Manager SUBJECT: Phase II Ventura Harbor Village Reroofing Project Contract Award RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Port Commissioners award the Phase II Ventura Harbor Village Reroofing Project to The Garland Company, Inc. in the amount of $638,849.00. SUMMARY: The Port District’s FY17-18 Capital Improvement Budget includes $660,000 for reroofing of the Harbor Village buildings at 1431 Spinnaker Drive (NPS), 1591 Spinnaker Drive (Le Petite), and 1691 Spinnaker Drive (Island Packers). Utilizing procedures established by the U.S. Communities government cooperative contracting process, the District has received a bid from the Garland Company to accomplish the reroofing project for $638,849.00. The District had in March 2017 received a low bid of $1,064,235 for this work utilizing our standard bidding procedure. That bid was rejected and we began working with the U.S. Communities cooperative contracting approach. Upon legal counsel’s review and approval of that approach, U.S. Communities put us in contact with the Garland Company. That company had previously been the successful low bidder on a government agency contract. The contract now proposed with the Garland Company deletes the following two work items from that included in the earlier bids: The tile mansard roof around the premises at 1591 Spinnaker Drive that is expected to

be occupied by BS Taproom is not included because it has not yet been established by the City what the final treatment of that roof is to be.

The tile mansard roof at 1431 Spinnaker Drive is not included because it continues to function well due to its steepness and to keep the project within budget. (The flat built-up roof, which has experienced leaks, will be replaced.)

The Garland Company bid includes a 30 year labor and material warranty on the flat built-up roof work and a 30 year warranty on the underlayment on the tile mansard roof sections. BACKGROUND: In 2012, the Port District retained the Corrough Consulting Group to prepare a Capital Needs Assessment Report to identify the capital needs of all of the District’s operated facilities within the harbor. One of the primary needs identified in this report was the reroofing of the then 30 year old roofs of the eight retail and office buildings comprising Harbor Village. In 2015, the District proceeded to replace the entire roof system at 1449 Spinnaker Drive (Andria’s) and at 1559 Spinnaker Drive (Brophy’s), as well as the tile mansard at 1691 Spinnaker Drive (Island Packers). That work was accomplished at a cost of $780,764.00. Upon completion of the Phase II work now proposed, there will remain the buildings at 1567 Spinnaker Drive (Hats/Margarita Villa), 1583 Spinnaker Drive (Coffee Dock), and 1575

42

Spinnaker Drive (The Greek/Boatyard Pub). The District’s Capital Improvement Plan has these roofs programed for FY19-20 and FY20-11. FISCAL IMPACT: The awarding of the reroofing contract to the Garland Company in the amount of $638,849.00 is within the budget amount of $660,000.00. ATTACHMENT: Attachment 1 – The Garland Company 9-20-17 Letter

43

THE GARLAND COMPANY, INC. HIGH PERFORMANCE BUILDING ENVELOPE SOLUTIONS

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA DIVISION PHONE: (661) 889-0449 • EMAIL: jmoronnolte@garlandind.com

NATIONWIDE: 1-800-321-9336

www.garlandco.com

September 20, 2017

Dear Ventura Port District,

Thank you for considering Garland Industries and Garland Design Build Solutions (DBS) for your roofing project at Ventura Harbor. Garland/DBS sent a request for proposal (RFP) to eight (8) different local approved contractors for the roofing work and received bids from four (4) roofing contractors to complete the roofing work at the harbor. The lowest responsible bidder was determined to be Western States Roofing Inc. and the total bid amount was $638,849.00. Rasmussen and Associates was consulted regarding the specifications, substitution requests and modifications to the scope of work for the project. Rasmussen reviewed all technical information, testing references, design calculations and warranty information to determine if the proposed roofing system would meet or exceed the design criteria specified, and all substitutions were accepted. The roofing system proposed will carry a 30-year No Dollar Limit (NDL) Edge-to-Edge labor and material leak-free warranty on the low-slope roof sections and a 30-year material warranty on the underlayment of the steep slope, tile roof sections. This project was bid using the US Communities government cooperative purchasing contract for the labor and materials to complete the project. Use of the US Communities contract by the Ventura Port District has allowed the Port District to purchase materials and services at the lowest prices offered with Garland/DBS as the prime contractor and Western States Roofing as the subcontractor.

Since our founding in 1895, The Garland Company, Inc. has remained strong, never wavering from our people-first philosophy and our firm belief that your success is the best guarantee of our own. We’ve built our reputation on remaining dedicated to our customers and committed to our promises. In that spirit of partnership, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank you for your friendship and for becoming a very valued addition to our partners here in California.

Garland is a privately held, 100 percent employee-owned company, which enables us to lead with the needs and expectations of our customers rather than Wall Street influencers. Every Garland employee-owner understands that the long-term success of each and every one of us is directly dependent on our ability to make you, our customers, successful.

We value the trust you have placed in us and look forward to continuing our relationship for the life of your buildings. If you have any questions or concerns about any aspect of our performance, I hope you will let me know.

Sincerely,

Jason Moronnolte

Jason Moronnolte,Territory ManagerEmployee Owner Since 2014

ATTACHMENT 1

44

BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS

SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

STANDARD AGENDA ITEM 2 ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF

THE LEASE AGREEMENT FOR COFFEE DOCK & POST

45

VENTURA PORT DISTRICT STANDARD AGENDA ITEM 2 BOARD COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: September 27, 2017 TO: Board of Port Commissioners FROM: Robin Baer, Property Manager SUBJECT: Assignment and Assumption of the Lease Agreement for Sandra Aiken, Ashley

Hwang, Janice Hwang, Priscilla Levy dba Coffee Dock & Post, 1575 Spinnaker Drive #105 A&B

RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Port Commissioners approve the proposed Assignment and Assumption of Lease between Sandra Aiken, Ashley Hwang, Janice Hwang, and Priscilla Levy dba Coffee Dock & Post and Josefina Aguilar for the premises located at 1575 Spinnaker Drive #105 A&B, Ventura, California 93001. SUMMARY: We are fortunate to have this new tenant in the complex. Staff recommends the Board’s approval of the assignment and assumption of lease agreement. BACKGROUND: On January 1, 2015, Sandra Aiken, Ashley Hwang, Janice Hwang, Priscilla Levy, operating under the trade name “Coffee Dock & Post,” entered into a lease agreement with Ventura Port District dba Ventura Harbor Village for the premises located at 1575 Spinnaker Drive #105 A&B, Ventura, California 93001 (“Lease”). Sandra Aiken, Ashley Hwang, Janice Hwang, Priscilla Levy subsequently formed Coffee Dock & Post now wishes to assign their interest in the Lease to Josefina Aguilar dba Espresso Mi Cultura. Subject to the Board’s consent, Sandra Aiken, Ashley Hwang, Janice Hwang, Priscilla Levy and Coffee Dock & Post have agreed to execute the document titled “Assignment and Assumption of Lease,” a copy of which has been provided to the Board for review and consent. Josefina Aguilar previously owned a coffee house in Hollywood that received “Best Coffeehouse for Night Life” by ZAGAT. She currently resides in Pasadena, but will be relocating to Ventura. She plans on focusing on coffee, books, music, artwork and cultural events. She wants to develop the business into being the “Local Neighborhood Coffee House”. FISCAL IMPACT: This lease change has no fiscal impact. ATTACHMENTS: None.

46

BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS

SEPTEMBER 27, 2017

STANDARD AGENDA ITEM 3 CONTINUATION OF GENERAL MANAGER’S EMPLOYMENT

47

VENTURA PORT DISTRICT STANDARD AGENDA ITEM 3 BOARD COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: September 27, 2017 TO: Board of Port Commissioners FROM: Timothy J. Gosney, General Counsel SUBJECT: Continuation of General Manager’s Employment_______________________ RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Port Commissioners approve Amendment No. 5 to the General Manager’s Restated Employment Agreement. BACKGROUND: During the General Manager’s last performance review, some issues were raised with respect to Mr. Peña’s long term employment plans. He is nearing completion of his 20 years of service as a PERS member through his employment with the District. In addition, the Board has come to recognize the high skill level and extreme value the Business Operations Manager has brought to the District, and concern exists that he could be “lured” aware to another public sector job, causing a loss of that expertise and skill level developed during the period of his employment with the District. It was with these concerns in mind that then Chairman Friedman appointed himself and Commissioner Ashworth as an ad hoc committee, with Board approval, to meet with Mr. Peña to study and review his current employment agreement (including the automatic rollover of the term to ensure a two year term effective January 1st each year) and discuss his ultimate retirement plans, so that a comprehensive amendment to his agreement could be prepared and brought to the Board for action. Commissioners Ashworth and Friedman have been meeting with the General Manager off and on with these issues in mind since late 2016. The General Manager has provided alternative proposals for amending his contract that would lead to a fixed retirement date as well as appropriate compensation adjustments, including shifting payment of the Employee Paid Membership Contribution from the District to Mr. Peña. In early July, Mr. Peña submitted a written proposal to the ad hoc committee addressing all of those issues. After further discussions between Mr. Peña and the committee, a revised proposal was submitted by Mr. Peña on August 11th. In subsequent meetings, the ad hoc committee members reached an understanding with Mr. Peña that they could support a modification of his employment agreement on the terms set forth in his revised proposal. Of critical importance to the ad hoc committee was Mr. Peña’s agreement to set his retirement date at April 30, 2019, which, under PERS regulations, qualifies him for the 20 year public service level of benefit. The amendment to his contract is to be retroactively effective July 1, 2017, and continue through April 30, 2019, unless modified by agreement. In addition, with relatively minor adjustments in his compensation effective July 1, 2017, and January 1, 2018 (the first adjustments in several years), Mr. Peña proposed that he begin to pay 6% of his PERS retirement contribution after the amendment of his employment agreement is approved by the Board (that date should be October 1, 2017). ATTACHMENT: Attachment 1 – Amendment No. 5 to Restated Employment Agreement

48

1 H:\ADMINISTRATION\Boards, Committees, Meetings\Board of Port Commissioners\Port Commission 2017\09.27.17\9 - Standard Item 3 - Attachment 1 - Amendment No. 5 - 09-2017.docx

AMENDMENT NO. 5

TO RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT amends that certain RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) dated and effective, July 1, 2017, as amended on October 3, 2006, July 25, 2007, July 23, 2008, and September 15, 2010, by and between Ventura Port District (hereinafter referred to as “VPD”), a political subdivision of the State of California, and Oscar F. Peña (hereinafter referred to as (“Peña “).

RECITALS

A. VPD and Peña entered into the Agreement with respect to Peña’s at will

employment with VPD as VPD’S General Manager.

B. The parties have from time to time modified the Agreement by mutual agreement to reflect negotiated changes in compensation, benefits for Peña, and the term of the Agreement.

C. The parties now desire to further amend Section 2, paragraph A, with regard to Salary, Section 2, paragraph D, with regard to Pension, and Section 3, with regard to Term.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1. Section 2, paragraph A of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and the following inserted in its place: “A. Salary. Effective July 1, 2017, Peña’s annual base salary shall be One Hundred Seventy Six Thousand Nine Hundred Ten Dollars ($176,910.00), payable in monthly installments of Fourteen Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Three Dollars ($14,743.00), less any deductions required or permitted by law. Commencing January 1, 2018, Peña’s annual base salary shall be increased to One Hundred Eighty Two Thousand Two Hundred Seventeen Dollars ($182,217.00), payable in monthly installments of Fifteen Thousand One Hundred Eighty Five Dollars ($15,185.00), less any deductions required or permitted by law. In addition, effective January 1, 2018, Peña’s performance shall be evaluated in accordance with the General Manager Performance Evaluation Policy adopted by the VPD Board of Port Commissioners (the “Board”). The performance evaluation and salary review shall include an evaluation of Peña’s successful completion of mutually agreeable goals and objectives established by the Board and Peña, along with other factors deemed critical to the successful functioning of VPD. The review may be conducted by the Board as a whole or by a committee appointed by the Chairman of the Board.”

ATTACHMENT 1

49

2 H:\ADMINISTRATION\Boards, Committees, Meetings\Board of Port Commissioners\Port Commission 2017\09.27.17\9 - Standard Item 3 - Attachment 1 - Amendment No. 5 - 09-2017.docx

2. Section 2, paragraph D, of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and the following inserted in its place: “D. Pension. VPD shall continue Peña’s enrollment as a member of the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). However, effective October 1, 2017, and continuing until December 31, 2017, Peña shall pay six percent (6%) of the seven percent (7%) of the employee contributions to PERS and VPD shall pay the remainder of the employee’s PERS contribution, if any. Effective January 1, 2018, Peña shall pay the full seven percent (7%) employee contribution to PERS. VPD shall pay all of the employer’s PERS contributions during the term of this Agreement.” 3. Section 3 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and the following inserted into its place: “Section 3. Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall commence and be effective July 1, 2017, and shall continue for a period of twenty-two months, expiring on April 30, 2019, unless sooner terminated as provided herein, or as the parties may otherwise agree. Notwithstanding the terms of the Agreement, Peña agrees he is an at-will employee and may be terminated in accordance with Section 4 below. Further, Peña agrees that if he is terminated prior to the expiration of this Agreement, or any extended term thereof, his sole remedy shall be that afforded to him under Section 6.” 4. Except for the Amendments set forth above in this Amendment No. 5 to Restated Employment Agreement, the Agreement, as previously amended, shall otherwise remain unchanged. DATED: _______________, 2017 Ventura Port District

Board of Port Commissioners

_______________________________ _______________________________ Oscar F. Peña By: Everard Ashworth, Chairman

ATTACHMENT 1

50

BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS

SEPTEMBER 27, 2017

STANDARD AGENDA ITEM 4 VENTURA SHELLFISH ENTERPRISE SITE SELECTION ALTERNATIVES

51

VENTURA PORT DISTRICT STANDARD AGENDA ITEM 4 BOARD COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: September 27, 2017 TO: Board of Port Commissioners FROM: Everard Ashworth, Chairman Oscar Peña, General Manager Brian Pendleton, Business Operations Manager SUBJECT: Ventura Shellfish Enterprise Site Selection Alternatives RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Port Commissioners receive a report on the Ventura Shellfish Enterprise Site Selection Alternatives.

SUMMARY: On September 13, 2017 the Board of Port Commissioners received a report on the Ventura Shellfish Enterprise (VSE) Site Selection Workshops and siting alternatives. The siting workshops have helped the VSE project team to develop the project description and proposed lease locations that will be submitted to state and federal agencies as part of lease and permit applications. The workshops were part of a lengthy outreach process that will include subsequent state and federal environmental review and consideration of permit applications. There were seven alternative siting configurations presented to the Board and public on September 13th. These seven alternatives with minor adjustments and a Site Selection Matrix are included as Attachments 1 and 2 respectively. Of the seven siting alternatives, the VSE team has narrowed its focus to three siting locations within the candidate area. They are Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 which will be discussed in greater detail below. Of the three, 4 and 5 are considered the leading candidates. Staff intends to return to the Board, tentatively scheduled for October 11th with final recommendations for growing plot locations for submission of a lease application to the State. BACKGROUND: Project Goals Increasing the supply of safe, sustainably produced domestic seafood is a priority of the State Legislature, NOAA and the Department of Commerce. The Ventura Shellfish Enterprise (VSE) is a multi-party initiative that seeks to permit twenty 100-acre plots for growing the Mediterranean mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis) via submerged long lines in state waters within the Santa Barbara Channel near Ventura Harbor. The Ventura Port District (VPD) received a substantial sub-award from a $300,000 NOAA 2015 Sea Grant for the proposed project in support of these goals. As part of the 2015 Sea Grant, the VSE developed a Strategic Permitting Plan previously provided to the Board and made available to stakeholders and the public (Attachment 3). This Strategic Permitting Plan provides a great deal of information about project goals, objectives and regulatory requirements. However for the District there are several key factors that align between its mission, goals and the proposed project as summarized below:

• Maintaining a safe and navigable harbor; • Diversification of commercial fishing opportunities to benefit the fishing industry, local

and regional economies;

52

• Continued priority (as a commercial fishing harbor) for federal funding appropriations for annual dredging of the federal harbor entrance.

Public Outreach The VSE team hosted a series of public educational workshops this year regarding the proposed project. In total there have been 10 educational and site selection workshops since January. A focused series of three workshops were held to engage with stakeholders to identify the location of twenty 100 acre parcels within a broader area of interest that was identified through use of a spatial planning tool developed by the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management at UC Santa Barbara (UC Bren School). The focused site selection workshops were held at the Four Points Sheraton Hotel in our Harbor on July 11 and 13 and the final workshop was held on August 9th. While in-person participation was strongly encouraged, individuals who were not able to attend the meetings were provided the opportunity to comment on site selection through SeaSketch linked to venturashellfishenterprise.com. Notice of the site selection workshops was mailed out to over 500 commercial fishing vessel owners between Goleta and Port Hueneme; additionally, VSE coordinated with NOAA representatives and commercial fishermen to encourage their attendance. Additionally, VSE contacted all of the individuals that have registered through the VSE website. This marine spatial planning opportunity was available through Wednesday, August 9th, the date of the final site selection meeting. The venturashellfishenterprise.com website continues to be used to communicate with interested parties who registered on the website. Candidate Area Considerations The larger candidate area was selected by the VSE with the assistance of analysis prepared by the UC Bren School. The selection of the candidate area is detailed in the Strategic Permitting Plan however some key considerations are summarized here. They include suitability of the candidate growing area for mussels such as water depth and ocean bottom; location in State waters near Ventura Harbor for product landing; avoidance of potential pollution sources; and avoidance of conflicts with existing subsurface leases for oil and gas pipelines, etc. Stakeholder considerations are discussed below. Since the original candidate area was identified over two years ago, VSE has come to realize that the minimum depth to support the leases should be adjusted from 60 feet to 80 feet. This depth is consistent with the only permitted mussel farm that can sell Mediterranean Mussels (Santa Barbara Mariculture, which is located in 80 feet of water off Hope Ranch), and with guidance that VSE has received from its aquaculture specialist – Scott Lindell, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Siting Considerations with the Candidate Area The proposed project requires leases with the State of California and amount to approximately 10%-11% of the candidate area. However, State law also recognizes the importance of commercial and recreational fishing activities. Therefore, other stakeholder groups including recreational fishermen may be able to use the leasehold area, provided that such activities do not interfere with the mussel producers’ gear, equipment and operations. These issues will need further discussion with the State and stakeholders as the project moves through the permitting process. The stakeholder groups that have participated in the education and/or site selection workshops generally fall within four broad categories: potential mussel grower/produces, halibut trawlers, bait fishermen and recreational fishermen. A brief summary of their participation is provided below:

53

Potential mussel grower/producers Comments received from this stakeholder group have been largely supportive of the proposed project as a way to develop new fisheries close to Ventura Harbor that can provide economic opportunity for commercial fishermen. Indeed, many of the attendees participated to better understand the opportunity and to express their desire to obtain a sublease. Halibut trawlers The candidate area is relatively productive for California Halibut trawling. Fishing data collected by the CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife is grouped by Block Code. Blocks 664 and 665 are within the candidate area (Attachment 4). The California Halibut data (Attachment #5) shows that over a 5-year period from 2012-2016 that 156,114 pounds were landed with a value of $723,690. In 2016, the last year of reporting, 35,263 pounds were landed with a value of $170,507. The regional trawlers association has voiced concern about use of the candidate area for mussel farming while advocating that if the proposed project were to move forward that it be contiguous, linear and as close to shore as possible (1 to 1.25 miles). Bait fishermen The candidate area is used by bait fishermen for the recreational fishing industry. Two typical types of bait fish include Anchovies and Sardines. The Anchovy data shows that over a 5-year period from 2012-2016 that 305,463 pounds were landed with a value of $98,055. The Sardine data shows that over a 5-year period from 2012-2016 that 77,177 pounds were landed with a value of $23,066. In three of the five years there was no reportable catch. The bait fishermen voiced concern about use of the candidate area for mussel farming while advocating that if the proposed project were to move forward that it be contiguous, linear and northerly in the candidate area. Suggestions were also made to relocate the project to the Santa Monica Bay, or west of Goleta. Recreational fishermen The candidate area is used by the recreational fishing industry and a variety of species are caught. The recreational fishermen voiced concern about use of the candidate area for mussel farming while advocating that if the proposed project were to move forward they maintain the ability to recreationally fish immediately adjacent to and if possible within the lease areas. Other Siting Considerations As depicted in the Site Selection Matrix other siting considerations include locations within or outside of the candidate area, approximate water depth for growing cost and efficiency purposes, potential visual effects from shore, adjacency to any potential adverse pollution sources, potential overlap with subsurface leases and contiguous siting. The VSE team, in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife aquaculture coordinator and the NOAA aquaculture coordinator for California, has carefully evaluated all of the considerations and has narrowed its focus to three siting locations within the candidate area. They are Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 which will be discussed in greater detail below. Of the three alternatives, 4 and 5 are considered the leading candidates. Alternatives #3 (Siting Along 80 Foot Depth Contour) Of the three alternatives located closer to shore following the 80 foot depth contour, Alternative #3 is the only one that can locate all 20 lease sites contiguously in the candidate area. Lease sites are located away from potential adverse water pollution sources with minimal potential visual effects from shore. The side-by-side configuration does however extend further towards the middle of the candidate area which is in an area where trawling operators have raised

54

concerns. However this same configuration may reduce concerns by bait fishermen because it remains further north in the candidate area. Alternatives #4 and #5 (Approximately 3 Nautical Miles from Shore) Alternative #4 and #5 are generally the same with the exception of slightly different positioning for navigational purposes. This different positioning causes Alternative #4 to extend more towards the middle of the candidate area while Alternative #5 extends slightly further south. In both cases all 20 lease sites are located in the candidate area adjacent to the outer edge of the candidate area (near 3 nautical miles) away from potential adverse water pollution sources with very minimal potential visual effects from shore. While trawling operators have voiced a preference for locating the project closer to shore, the linear configuration in both cases leaves more room in the middle of the candidate area for trawling. The same configuration may increase concerns by bait fishermen, given that they have voiced a preference for the site to be located farther north; however, available catch data for the two bait species discussed does not show that the proposed area is heavily used by bait fishermen. Staff intends to return to the Board, tentatively scheduled for October 11th, with recommended growing plot locations and a project description to be included with a lease application to be submitted to the State. Everyone who has registered on the VSE website will be notified of the meeting and VSE team members are reaching out to key stakeholder groups to discuss these alternative siting locations. This application will trigger the state environmental review process, known as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Dudek will prepare the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the District’s behalf. FISCAL IMPACT: As previously reported, the Board authorized funding for use of SeaSketch in the amount of $12,000, as part of the site selection process. Additionally, Blake Stok was retained through a professional services agreement in the amount of $7,500 to assist the District in coordinating the meetings and interfacing with SeaSketch personnel. It is likely there will be additional cost for these two consulting services that have provided extensive support to the District during this outreach effort that will extend to October. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - VSE Siting Alternatives Attachment 2 - VSE Site Selection Matrix Attachment 3 - Strategic Permitting Plan Attachment 4 - CDFW Block Map Attachment 5 - CDFW Species Catch Data

55

Alternative #1 -20 lease sites located along the 80' contour at 45-degree angle

ATTACHMENT 1

56

Alternative #2 - 20 lease sites along 80' contour with contiguous straight-line outer edge

ATTACHMENT 1

57

Alternative #3 - 20 lease sites along 80' contour with 2X2 configuration extending toward the

middle of candidate area

ATTACHMENT 1

58

Alternative #4 – 20 lease sites along 3nm State waters line, six sites south of Pitas Pt. extend

towards the middle of the candidate area

ATTACHMENT 1

59

Alternative #5 - 20 lease sites that follows 3nm line intuitively

ATTACHMENT 1

60

Alternative #6 - 20 lease sites at 3nm line arranged in a 2X2 configuration

ATTACHMENT 1

61

Alternative #7 - 20 lease sites intuitively following the 3nm State waters line in a 2X2

configuration

ATTACHMENT 1

62

Alternatives DescriptionAll Lease Sites 

Inside Candidate Area

Approximate Water Depth 

(Prelim. Estimate Ft.)

Projected Maximum Buoy and Grow Line  Cost (Prelim. Estimate for 2000 Acres)

Maximum Mussel Grow Line Length 

(Prelim. Estimate Ft. for 2000 

Acres)

Potential Adverse Water 

Pollution Sources

Potential Visual Effects From Shore

Potential  Interaction with Commercial Trawling 

Operations

Potential Interaction with Commercial Bait 

Fishing Operations

Potential Interaction with Recreational 

Fishing Operations

Potential Overlap with Subsurface Leases

Contiguous Siting

80' Contour

Alternative #120 lease sites located along the 80' contour 

at 45 degree angle  NO ‐ 3 Outside 70 ‐ 90 TBD TBD YESA Minimal Minimal Moderate Minimal YESG NO

Alternative #220 lease sites along 80' contour with 

contiguous straight‐line outer edge. NO ‐ 3 Outside 70 ‐ 90 TBD TBD YESB Minimal MinimalE Moderate Minimal YESH NO

Alternative #3

20 lease sites along 80' contour with 2X2 

configuration extending toward the middle 

of candidate area. YES 70 ‐ 100 TBD TBD NO Minimal Moderate MinimalF Minimal NO YES

3nm Line

Alternative #420 lease sites along 3nm State waters line, 

six sites south of Pitas Pt. extend towards 

the middle of the candidate area. YES 80 ‐ 130 TBD TBD NO

Very 

MinimalC Moderate Moderate Minimal NO NO

Alternative #5

20 lease sites that follows 3nm line 

intuitively.

YES 70 ‐ 130 TBD TBD NO

Very 

MinimalD Moderate Moderate Minimal NO YES

Alternative #620 lease sites at 3nm line arranged in a 2X2 

configuration.  YES 100 ‐ 130 TBD TBD NO Minimal Moderate Minimal Minimal NO YES

Alternative #7 20 lease sites intuitively following the 3nm 

State waters line in a 2X2 configuration YES 100 ‐ 130 TBD TBD NO  Minimal Moderate Minimal Minimal NO NO

Annotations:A‐B Five northereastern most sites are proximate to Carpinteria Waste Water Treatment Facility and in areas containing noticeable levels of natural oil/gas seepage (as stated in site selection meetings)

C‐D Surface buoy's are approximately 3nm from shore, significantly reducing day and night time visual effects

E Provides contiguous straight‐line outer edge in area closest to shore, potentially allows trawlers the most efficient pathway to pursue species

F No lease sites extend south of Pitas Pt., reducing poten al conflicts with bait fishing ac vi es (as stated in site selec on mee ngs)

G‐H Lease sites proximate to Rincon Island potentially overlap with existing oil and gas subsurface leases

VSE SITE SELECTION MATRIX

ATTACHMENT 2

63

Ventura Shellfish Enterprise: Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase

Shellfish Farming in Southern California

2015 NOAA Sea Grant Aquaculture Extension and Technology Transfer

Task 1 Deliverable: Strategic Permitting Plan

MAY 26, 2017

ATTACHMENT 3

64

Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

ATTACHMENT 3

65

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

i May 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page No.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................... III INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... V 

1  PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................1 1.1  Project Applicant .................................................................................................... 1 1.2  Project Summary ..................................................................................................... 1 1.3  Project Objectives ................................................................................................... 5 1.4  Project Location ...................................................................................................... 9 1.5  Project Approach .................................................................................................. 11 

1.5.1  Cultivation Methods.................................................................................. 11 1.5.2  Project Construction.................................................................................. 15 1.5.3  Protected Species Conservation Measures ................................................ 15 1.5.4  Best Management Practices ...................................................................... 16 1.5.5  Monitoring Program.................................................................................. 18 

2  REQUIRED PERMITS AND ENTITLEMENTS ........................................................19 2.1  Federal Requirements and Associated Agencies .................................................. 19 

2.1.1  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ................................................................. 19 2.1.2  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................................................................. 21 2.1.3  NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service ............................................... 24 2.1.4  U.S. Coast Guard ...................................................................................... 27 

2.2  NEPA Requirements ............................................................................................. 28 2.3  State Requirements and Associated Agencies ...................................................... 28 

2.3.1  California Fish and Game Commission .................................................... 28 2.3.2  California Department of Fish and Wildlife ............................................. 31 2.3.3  California Department of Public Health ................................................... 39 2.3.4  California Department of Food and Agriculture ....................................... 44 2.3.5  California State Lands Commission ......................................................... 45 2.3.6  California State Office of Historic Preservation ....................................... 46 

2.4  CEQA Requirements ............................................................................................ 47 2.5  Permits Not Required ............................................................................................ 48 2.6  Permit Application Sequencing and Critical Path ................................................ 48 

3  KEY TECHNICAL ISSUES AND INFORMATION NEEDED TO ADDRESS KEY ISSUES ....................................................................................................................53 3.1  Biological Issues ................................................................................................... 54 

3.1.1  Cultivation of Non-Native Species ........................................................... 54 

ATTACHMENT 3

66

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Section Page No.

ii May 2017

3.1.2  Water Column Effects ............................................................................... 55 3.1.3  Benthic Community .................................................................................. 56 3.1.4  Fouling Organisms (Didemnum) ............................................................... 58 3.1.5  Marine Wildlife ......................................................................................... 59 

3.2  Navigational Issues ............................................................................................... 61 3.3  Air Quality Issues ................................................................................................. 61 3.4  Product Quality Issues .......................................................................................... 62 

3.4.1  Domoic Acid ............................................................................................. 62 3.4.2  Vibrio ........................................................................................................ 63 

3.5  Social Impact Issues .............................................................................................. 63 3.5.1  Commercial Fishing .................................................................................. 63 3.5.2  Aesthetics .................................................................................................. 64 

4  REFERENCES CITED ...................................................................................................67 

APPENDIX

A Agency Comments Received during Regulatory Pre-Application Meeting 

FIGURES

1  Location of Project in Santa Barbara Channel .....................................................................3 2  Detailed Plan for Shellfish Longlines near Ventura Harbor ..............................................13 3  Ventura Shellfish Enterprise Permit Application Sequencing Timeline ...........................51 

TABLES

1 Comparison of Sustainability Indicators among Animal Production Systems ....................5 2 Ventura Shellfish Enterprise BMPs ...................................................................................17 3 Key Issues and Potential Levels of Impact ........................................................................53 

ATTACHMENT 3

67

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

iii May 2017

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acronym Definition BA Biological Assessment BE Biological Evaluation BMP best management practice CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CDPH California Department of Public Health CEQA California Environmental Quality Act Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act EIR environmental impact report EMB Environmental Management Branch ESA Endangered Species Act FDB Food and Drug Branch MND mitigated negative declaration ND negative declaration NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NSSP National Shellfish Sanitation Program NWP nationwide permit OHP Office of Historic Preservation PATON Private Aids to Navigation RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SLC California State Lands Commission SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VPD Ventura Port District VSE Ventura Shellfish Enterprise

ATTACHMENT 3

68

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

iv May 2017

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ATTACHMENT 3

69

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

v May 2017

INTRODUCTION

Increasing the supply of safe, sustainably produced domestic seafood is a priority for NOAA and the Department of Commerce, as well as the State of California and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). In 2015, the Ventura Port District (VPD), in cooperation with volunteer partners identified as the Ventura Shellfish Enterprise (VSE), received a substantial sub-award from a $300,000 NOAA 2015 Sea Grant Aquaculture Extension and Technology Transfer Grant to California Sea Grant in support of a strategic permitting and planning initiative to facilitate and substantially increase shellfish farming in Southern California. The project seeks to secure all required federal, state, and local permits and entitlements to support a commercial mussel farm in open state waters proximate to Ventura Harbor, California (Project). The VPD received this 2015 Sea Grant award to support this innovative project creating and permitting leases for farming the Mediterranean mussel, Mytilus galloprovincialis. As a member of VSE, the VPD will hold all required federal, state, and local permits and entitlements.

The NOAA 2015 Sea Grant provides funding and support of three discrete tasks: Task 1 provides for a Strategic Permitting Plan. Task 2 provides for completion and submittal of all requisite permit applications along with analyses necessary and sufficient to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Task 3 is an extension plan that includes two education and outreach components: (1) launch of an open-access project website and social media initiatives, and (2) a series of educational workshops that covers a broad spectrum of Project-related issues, including the need for safe and sustainable aquaculture, site selection, mussel growing technology and equipment choices, Project environmental effects and best management practices (BMPs), shellfish quality and safety assurance, economic projections and the process for becoming a Project shellfish grower/producer.

Task 1 of the NOAA Sea Grant provides funding to support a Strategic Permitting Plan. Chapter 1 of the Strategic Permitting Plan provides a detailed summary of the commercial mussel farm, which will consist of twenty 100-acre parcels to be located in the open state waters proximate to Ventura Harbor, California. Chapter 2 identifies the necessary federal and state permits and approvals, including those that trigger review under NEPA and CEQA. A focused summary of each of these approvals is provided, together with a permit review timeline and critical path elements. Chapter 3 provides the strategic plan to securing these approvals, along with a proposed permit schedule and critical permit path.

The Strategic Permitting Plan will allow for meaningful and early consultation with agency staff, as well as other stakeholders and the public. This in turn will ensure that Project permitting and land use analyses will be accurate and complete, and that the review of these materials will be

ATTACHMENT 3

70

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

vi May 2017

efficient, thorough, and streamlined to the extent practical. It is also intended to support others in their independent efforts to secure approvals for similar commercial mussel projects in open state waters off California’s coast.

ATTACHMENT 3

71

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

1 May 2017

1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 Project Applicant

The Ventura Port District (VPD) is the project applicant. VPD is what is known as an Independent “Special District.” State law defines a special district as “any agency of the state for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited boundaries.” A special district is a separate local government entity that delivers public services. VPD is the owner/operator of the Ventura Harbor.

1.2 Project Summary

The Project will establish a commercial offshore bivalve aquaculture operation based from the Ventura Harbor to create economic opportunities for community and marine stakeholders, produce a high value and sustainable seafood product, and advance collaborative evaluation of permit applications among regulators.

The Project consists of twenty 100-acre plots in state waters of the Santa Barbara Channel in sandy bottom areas located northwest of Ventura Harbor, as shown on Figure 1, Location of Project in Santa Barbara Channel. The sites will be used for growing the Mediterranean mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis) via submerged long lines. The mussels will be grown and harvested by Project growers/producers and landed at Ventura Harbor. A portion of one plot will be set aside for research and education purposes.

Initial plantings of juvenile seed mussels, commonly referred to as spat, will be purchased from onshore hatcheries certified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). If approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies, including CDFW and the California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission), subsequent plantings may include wild collected spat. At the hatcheries, mussels adhere directly to special textured ropes that promote mussel attachment and growth. These ropes will be suspended beneath the surface in open coastal waters of the Channel via lines and buoys anchored to the sandy bottom. Cultivated mussels grow by filtering naturally occurring phytoplankton from the ocean.

Harvesting involves separating the mussels from the ropes, followed by cleaning, sorting, and bagging. All of these activities will take place aboard the harvesting vessel. The bagged mussels will be transported to Ventura Harbor for offloading, sale, and distribution.

This Project will serve to diversify the catch and stabilize the fishing fleet home-ported at Ventura Harbor, provide a locally cultivated, sustainably raised food source, and significantly advance state and national goals and objectives for increased domestic aquaculture and a secure food supply.

ATTACHMENT 3

72

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

2 May 2017

This Project is supported, in part, through the NOAA Sea Grant program, the goal of which is to contribute to “a safe, secure and sustainable supply of seafood to meet public demand.”

The Project is a unique approach to developing environmentally and economically sustainable shellfish commerce with product landed at the Ventura Harbor. This initiative is novel in several ways. First, the Project proposes to produce bivalve shellfish in the offshore marine environment, cultivation practices that, although well established worldwide, are in their infancy in the United States, particularly on the West Coast. Second, the Project is working cooperatively in an open-source format with state and federal regulators to establish a template for additional future shellfish growing operations in California. The proposal to permit a group of twenty 100-acre growing plots allows for participation in the Project by potential growers who might otherwise be precluded because of the significant regulatory burden of obtaining the required government approvals. The scale of the Project also allows the individual grower/producers to benefit from centralized environmental monitoring, product safety testing, and product marketing. This Project as it is scaled is also intended to bolster the working waterfront in Ventura Harbor, providing economic benefits to VPD, its tenants, and the community.

The Project offers a number of other benefits related to food supply, because at present the mussel market in the United States and locally is dominated by imports from Canada, Chile, New Zealand, and Europe. The Project will supply a locally grown mussel product to an established market with the potential for expansion. Cultivating mussels off the California coast is also in keeping with federal policy to improve domestic food security. And at the same time, mussels provide a high-protein, low-fat source of human nutrition. Compared with other cultivated protein sources, mussels use far less of our limited freshwater resources.

The Project is consistent with California’s Aquaculture Development Act (California Public Resources Code, Sections 826–828), which encourages the practice of aquaculture to augment food supplies, expand employment, promote economic activity and protect and better use the land and water resources of the state, and Assembly Joint Resolution 43 (2014), wherein the State Legislature states its support “to protect existing shellfish beds and access to additional acreage for shellfish farming and restoration.” The Project is also consistent with NOAA’s National Shellfish Initiative (NOAA 2013) and National Marine Aquaculture Policy (NOAA 2011), which seek to increase populations of bivalves in coastal waters through commercial aquaculture production and acknowledge the multiple benefits of shellfish aquaculture, including providing new jobs and business opportunities, meeting the growing demand for seafood, and providing habitat for important species. Finally, the Project furthers the goals of the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan (National Ocean Council 2013), one of which is to increase efficiencies in the permitting process and encourage agency coordination to facilitate additional marine aquaculture development.

ATTACHMENT 3

73

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

Location of Project in Santa Barbara ChannelFIGURE 1

ATTACHMENT 3

74

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

4 May 2017

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ATTACHMENT 3

75

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

5 May 2017

1.3 Project Objectives

1. To increase the supply of safe, sustainably-produced, and locally-grown shellfish while minimizing negative project impacts

The Project responds to federal and state priorities to increase the supply of safe, sustainably produced domestic seafood.

California is the third-largest consumer of shellfish in the United States, and current state production lags far behind demand. Shortfalls are met by importation, which contributes to the state and national seafood deficit and increases our carbon footprint by the need to transport shellfish into the state from around the world. The Project at buildout would produce 9,000 to 11,000 tons of mussels for market per year. Further, per Objective 3, by serving as a template for additional offshore shellfish-growing projects, this Project aims to increase the efficiency of shellfish permitting and thus bring additional shellfish growing operations online in California.

Shellfish aquaculture is environmentally sustainable relative to other forms of animal protein in the human diet (see Table 1). Mussel production requires no feed and very little freshwater, and it uses ocean areas rather than land for production. Shellfish cultivation cleans ocean water of pollutants from land-based agriculture (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorous), and mussels are a low-carbon footprint food product compared to other sources of animal protein.

Table 1 Comparison of Sustainability Indicators among Animal Production Systems

Animal Type

Food Conversion (kg feed/kg

edible weight)

Protein Efficiency

(%)

Nitrogen Emissions

(kg/ton protein

produced)

Phosphorous Emissions

(kg/ton protein produced)

Land (tons edible product per

HA)

Consumptive Freshwater Use

(m3/ton) Beef 31.7 5 1,200 180 0.24–0.37 15,497 Chicken 4.2 25 300 40 1.0–1.20 3,918 Pork 10.7 13 800 120 0.83–1.10 4,856 Finfish (average)

2.3 30 360 48 0.15–3.70 5,000*

Bivalve mollusks

Not fed Not fed -27 -29 0.28–20 0

Source: Aquaculture Workshop 2015. Notes: kg = kilogram; HA = hectare; m3/ton = cubic meters per ton. * Consumptive water use is difficult to compare across finfish aquaculture production systems because of variability in feed sources and

depending on whether the system is freshwater or saltwater.

ATTACHMENT 3

76

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

6 May 2017

To minimize conflicts with other ocean uses and ensure location away from pollution sources, the Project location was selected using a marine spatial planning tool developed at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and described further in Section 1.4, Project Location.

2. To enhance and sustain Ventura Harbor as a major west coast fishing port and support the local economy

The VPD, which owns and operates Ventura Harbor, will receive lease revenues and and landing fees for mussels brought to the harbor for off-loading plus ancillary economic benefits of having producer/farmers based at the harbor. These new funds will assist the VPD in continuing to meet its mission, which includes providing a safe and navigable harbor and a seaside destination that benefits residents, visitors, fisherman, and boaters with harbor facilities, events, and services.

The Project will also serve to diversify the catch and stabilize the fishing fleet home-ported at Ventura Harbor. Project participation opportunities may be available for existing local commercial fishermen based in Ventura Harbor, existing commercial shellfish businesses, and startups. The Project will employ specific outreach efforts to target small businesses and encourage their participation in the project.

Additionally, Ventura Harbor depends upon the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for annual dredging. There is a strong nexus between the continued receipt of federal support and the vitality of the harbor’s commercial fishing operations and landings.

The Project as proposed will positively impact the economic health of the Ventura Harbor community through lease revenues and direct landing values, indirect secondary benefits, and economies of scale built into the project design.

Cultivated mussels landed by the Project will contribute significantly to the economic base of commercial seafood landings at Ventura Harbor. Each of the 20 proposed growing areas will accommodate an estimated 36 longlines. Each of these longlines is designed to support 8,000 feet of growing line, which in turn can produce 4 pounds of harvest size mussels per foot of line, or 32,000 pounds of harvest mussel per longline. It is reasonable to project each parcel producing 900,000 to 1,100,000 pounds of market-size mussels per year with a dockside wholesale value of $2.2 million to $2.8 million at current market rates of $2.50 per pound. Therefore, at full cultivation of all 20 sites, 18 million to 22 million pounds of high-value, sustainably produced mussels with a value of $45 million to $55 million could be landed and distributed from the Ventura Harbor.

Secondary economic benefits may include but are not limited to: direct retailing of mussel product within the harbor seafood restaurants and retailers; commercial boatyard activity related to maintenance of a producer vessel fleet; storage sales and maintenance of producer gear;

ATTACHMENT 3

77

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

7 May 2017

secondary contracts related to installation and maintenance of mussel lines; and indirect benefits related to the tenancy of producers and support industry associated with the Project.

3. To provide economies of scale and technical support to small producers who would not otherwise be able to participate in shellfish aquaculture

Designed economies of scale will maximize the previously described direct and indirect secondary benefits of the Project. Significant expenses are associated with permitting, environmental review, compliance with shellfish health regulations, and environmental monitoring; therefore, leasing and permitting the Project as one will provide economies of scale and eliminate a significant impediment to market diversification and participation by small shellfish companies or new investors. This is one of the central organizing components of the Project: 20 separate production parcels are pre-permitted within the umbrella of the larger project, and the parallel operation of these parcels will create operating efficiencies. By permitting all the growing areas as a single Project, individual growers/producers benefit from the collective upfront permitting effort of VPD.

As a specific example of a regulatory economy of scale, certification of shellfish growing grounds by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) is multi-step, multi-year process. Before an application for a Shellfish Growing Area Certification can be filed with CDPH, an individual grower must first identify and clearly define the proposed growing area, make a preliminary inquiry with CDPH to assess feasibility, obtain legal authorization to grow/harvest, and secure the appropriate law enforcement agency for patrol support of growing waters. Once an application is accepted by CDPH (but prior to classification and certification), the grower must then develop a comprehensive sampling and monitoring plan that includes mandatory participation in a CDPH-conducted sanitary survey for the evaluation of pollution impacts with a minimum duration of one year. Upon analysis of the sampling data, CDPH will classify (and certify, if appropriate) the growing area. If approved, the grower will bear continued responsibility for the regular sampling, monitoring, and analysis of shellfish product harvested from the certified growing area.

In contrast, Project growers/producers will have access to a pooled, centralized and comprehensive shellfish sanitation, monitoring and reporting program for all the growing plots. The CDPH certification will have been obtained along with all necessary permits and entitlements, making participation by the grower/producer “turn-key.” The costs to the grower/producer associated with ongoing water quality sampling and monitoring will be reduced by the efficiency of a centralized pooled program, which will in turn reduce operating cost and increase the direct benefit to the grower/producer.

ATTACHMENT 3

78

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

8 May 2017

Further, growers/producers will also have access to technical expertise and the accepted best management practices (BMPs) developed through the permitting process Similarly, Project grower/producers will enjoy access to centralized marketing and branding of a Ventura-specific premium seafood product grown and harvested in the Project area.

Each of these elements of the Project design contributes cumulatively to a total package, which in turn contributes positively, and materially to the ongoing operational health and vitality of the Ventura Harbor community.

4. To provide an entitlement and permitting template for aquaculture projects state-wide

A major goal of the Project is delineation of a streamlined strategic permitting pathway that will not only facilitate the establishment of a Ventura Harbor-based shellfish operation promoting sustainable economic development, but that will more generally serve as a model to help other entities address regulatory barriers and planning challenges that currently create impediments to the expansion of the shellfish aquaculture industry in California.

The Project seeks to significantly improve the interagency review and permitting process for offshore shellfish aquaculture and create a comprehensive and efficient permitting process that is cost effective for both review agencies and applicant alike. In doing so, the overarching Project objective is to establish a viable and replicable permitting pathway model that satisfies the requirements of the review and permitting agencies and may be used by any prospective shellfish growers/producers to facilitate project design and aid in the evaluation of future offshore aquaculture proposals.

5. To enhance public knowledge and understanding of sustainable shellfish farming practices and promote community collaboration in achieving VSE objectives

Realizing the vision of an improved permitting process requires coordinated planning among all stakeholders to attain the full environmental and economic benefits. VPD and other VSE partners are committed to transparency, open communication, and comprehensive public education and outreach efforts. To this end, VPD and other VSE partners will host an ongoing series of informational public meetings to discuss the social, economic, environmental, scientific, and technological variables encompassed by the Project. These interactive, workshop-style meetings will provide a forum for open dialog among all interested members of the general public, state and federal agency representatives, shellfish industry leaders, and environmental and scientific leaders to discuss the policy, planning, and scientific issues surrounding the establishment of a Ventura Harbor-based offshore shellfish aquaculture operation. This is a critical first step toward productive collaboration and ultimately, overall Project success.

ATTACHMENT 3

79

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

9 May 2017

It is also anticipated that the shellfish leases, in particular the research and education plot, will be used as open-water classrooms for local students and the public to educate students and the public about shellfish aquaculture practices and benefits through field trips and guided tours.

6. To advance scientific knowledge and state of the art aquaculture practices through research and innovation

The project is envisioned to include both research and education components. The project includes as partners researchers and educators with the following institutions:

University of California, Santa Barbara, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management

University of California, San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

The project will serve an in situ working laboratory for improving shellfish aquaculture techniques and will be used as an open-water classroom.

1.4 Project Location

Project growing plots will be located in open water within the 3-mile limit for state waters northwest of Ventura Harbor. The Project is proposing twenty 100-acre growing sites occupying a total Project area of 2,000 acres. A portion of one site will be set aside for research and education purposes. These individual sites will fall within a broader area. The area of interest, or candidate area, is 18,533 acres (300 cells, as shown on Figure 1, each cell 25 hectares (62 acres)). This area is generally located between the Ventura Harbor entrance and the Ventura County–Santa Barbara County line to the north and south, and between the 60-foot depth contour inshore and the 3-mile state water boundary offshore. The specific location of the 20 individual 100-acre growing parcels within the larger candidate area will be developed collaboratively with regional marine stakeholders in recognition of the need for state water bottom to accommodate multiple interests and natural functions. In addition to the 20 growing sites that will be identified for operation, 5 potential growing sites will be vetted as pre-approved backup options in the event any of the 20 operational sites need to be closed. The pre-approved backup sites can then be converted to operational sites per an adaptive management protocol. No more than 20 sites will be operational at any time.

Successful shellfish projects depend foremost on location in an appropriate growing area. In order to identify the previously described large candidate area, the Project uses methodology developed at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Bren School for Environmental Science

ATTACHMENT 3

80

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

10 May 2017

and Management for quantitative marine spatial planning specific to the needs of shellfish aquaculture (Lester et al., in press). This methodology was used to evaluate the marine environment adjacent to the Ventura Harbor. This model maps the marine environment with respect to suitability for a shellfish operation using stacked layers of mapping data. Areas constrained for use, such as navigation pathways, Marine Protected Areas, areas of hard rocky bottom representing essential fish habitat (EFH), oil and gas leases, and existing infrastructure such as telecommunication cables and municipal wastewater discharge pipelines, were identified and these areas removed from consideration. Biological and abiological ocean data layers of temperature, chlorophyll concentration, and current were applied to remaining areas as a proxy for shellfish production suitability. New maps with finer resolution created candidate zones, which were evaluated for suitability as a Project site with respect to proximity to Ventura Harbor, known bathymetric survey data, minimization of interaction with recreational traffic and activities, and total site contiguity.

The large candidate area meets all criteria for successful bivalve shellfish aquaculture and does not interact with constraints. The described area is a gradually sloping sandy/soft bottom ideal for the installation of sand screw mooring systems, which are the preferred method for deployment, removability, and holding power necessary for offshore mussel cultivation.

The marine spatial planning model (Lester et al., in press) further described a trade-off analysis used to create a tool for opportunities lost due to the siting of a shellfish aquaculture project and to quantitatively weigh those potential losses against potential gains from shellfish aquaculture. The primary identified area of concern associated with potential use conflicts was interaction with commercial fishing. Through analysis of fish landing data by harbor, gear type, and by fishing area (block), a possible interaction with the halibut trawl fishery was identified; all other landed species activities are not expected to interact with shellfish aquaculture in the general candidate area. Further analysis and modeling is expected to describe the possible interaction between shellfish aquaculture and the halibut trawl fishery for this specific large candidate area and will be used to develop the final proposal for siting of the twenty 100-acre production sites within the larger zone.

The suitability of potential growing areas will be further validated through the deployment of a set of six sentinel research buoys. These sentinels consist of a single strand of mussel grow-out line suspended from a buoy, anchored to the bottom at six locations defining the inshore and offshore boundaries of the greater candidate production area. Periodic sampling of mussels stocked to these sentinel lines will produce an early data set relative to site suitability with respect to site-specific animal growth and health, and for state shellfish sanitation plan development and certification, among other data that can inform site conditions.

ATTACHMENT 3

81

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

11 May 2017

Ocean bottom in the proposed project area is owned by the State of California with leasing authority vested in the California Fish and Game Commission. Studies of individual growing areas will provide information that characterizes the general hydrographic and benthic characteristics of the area and identifies any sensitive or important habitats that are present locally within the likely impact zone of the mussel farm.

1.5 Project Approach

The Project will focus on cultivation of Mediterranean mussels.1 The Mediterranean mussel is established and naturalized within the Santa Barbara Channel. It is currently approved for cultivation in Southern California, and there is an established market for its distribution and sale. Mussel species, and specifically Mediterranean mussels, have been successfully cultivated worldwide for centuries. Forty percent of modern world mussel production occurs in China. Other significant producers include Canada, Chile, New Zealand, and European countries.

1.5.1 Cultivation Methods

The Project proposes to use established protocols and gear for offshore cultivation referred to as the submerged long line method. A general depiction of the submerged long line deployment is shown on Figure 2, Detailed Plan for Shellfish Longlines near Ventura Harbor. This consists of a horizontal structural header line, or “backbone,” that is attached to the seafloor by sand screw anchors at each end, and is marked and supported by a series of buoys along the central horizontal section. Buoys marking the location of the sand screw anchors describe the total cultivation area for navigational safety and will comply with all regulations for height, illumination, and visibility, including radar reflection. Buoys attached to the central horizontal portion of the backbone line support the line, provide means via lifting of the backbone line to access the cultivation ropes, and determine the depth of the submerged backbone. The depth of the backbone will vary seasonally from 15 to 45 feet below the surface. All surface buoys will be uniquely colored for each operator and marked with the grower/producer name and phone number.

The long line configuration produces a fairly rigid tensioned structure from which the cultivation ropes, or “fuzzy ropes” are attached. Fuzzy ropes are characterized by extra filaments, which provide settlement substrate for mussels to attach. Fuzzy ropes may be attached to and suspended from the backbone rope either as individual lengths or as a continuous looping single length that drapes up and down over the backbone. The length of each section or loop of fuzzy cultivation

1 VPD may seek approval to cultivate other species in addition to Mediterranean mussels, which may include

Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas), rock scallops (Crassadoma gigantea), or marine algae. Any such additional species and their proposed cultivation methods will be included in the project applications submitted to regulatory agencies.

ATTACHMENT 3

82

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

12 May 2017

loop will be approximately 20 feet but will depend on the lifting capacity of the servicing vessel. The length of the central horizontal section of backbone line will be approximately 600 feet, which will support approximately 8,000 to 10,000 feet of fuzzy cultivation line.

The shape of each of the 100-acre cultivation parcels will be a function of the geometry of the submerged backbone line and anchoring. Each horizontal section of the longline will be approximately 600 feet long and will require an anchor scope of approximately 2.5 times depth. Therefore, in 100 feet of water depth, scope from the horizontal section of backbone to the sand screw anchor will require 250 feet on each end of the line, making a total length of 1,100 feet from sand screw to sand screw. A 100-acre parcel with rectangular dimensions of 1,200 by 3,600 feet will therefore accommodate up to 36 individual longlines, with spacing between longlines of 100 feet.

The submerged longline growing gear configuration will be specifically engineered for open ocean conditions with respect to size and strength of all line, anchoring, hardware, and buoyancy.

Juvenile mussels, also known as “seed” or “spat,” will initially be provided by certified hatchery production. Competent spat are settled to the fuzzy cultivation ropes in the hatcheries. When the seed are firmly settled to ropes, the ropes are covered with cotton socking material to protect them from shaking off the ropes during transport to the offshore growing site and deployment. The socks hold the spat next to the rope until the mussels naturally attach with their byssal threads, after which the cotton material naturally degrades. If approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies, including CDFW and the Coastal Commission, subsequent plantings may include wild spat recruited on existing longlines. Juvenile mussels will grow on lines until an intermediate size where the density of mussels on the fuzzy rope becomes limiting. At this point, a servicing vessel will lift the backbone line in order to access the fuzzy rope stocked with juvenile mussels and pulls the fuzzy rope through vessel based equipment designed to strip the mussels from the fuzzy rope and then clean, separate, and grade the juvenile mussels by size. Juvenile mussels are then restocked to clean fuzzy rope at a reduced density for their second stage of grow out to market size. At market size, which is expected to occur in about one year of total production time, the submerged backbone lines are again lifted in order to access the fuzzy cultivation ropes, and mussels are again stripped from the line, cleaned, and separated, and this time size-graded and bagged for landing at the Ventura Harbor as market-ready product. All husbandry activities related to harvesting, grading, and restocking of mussels to cultivation lines occur onboard the servicing vessel using specialized equipment for that purpose.

Purchased spat will be from CDFW-approved hatcheries. The hatcheries are not part of this Project.

ATTACHMENT 3

83

Anchor lineto next longline

~400 m

4 m helical anchorsSpaced 3 to 5 m apart

Submerged buoys with250 kg buoyancy

Center Pickup Line and 16” buoy (or larger)

5 to 20 m

15 to 30 m

-180 m of 1.25” polysteel

Mussel growing socks suspended every 1 m

(note scope is > 3:1 water depth)

3 to 9 m

15 L buoy16” surface corner buoy

1,100 # breakaway

Anchor lineto next longline

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

Detailed Plan for Shellfish Longlines near Ventura HarborFIGURE 2

ATTACHMENT 3

84

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

14 May 2017

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ATTACHMENT 3

85

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

15 May 2017

Gear and planted ropes will be inspected regularly as part of a comprehensive monitoring plan, but generally the planted ropes will only be manipulated during initial stocking, intermediate harvest and restocking, and final harvest. Inspection will involve monitoring the all hardware and rigging and surface buoys and their tension, and checking for escaped gear and potential entanglements. Examples of possible observations that would trigger concern and further investigation are (1) gaps or tangling of dropper ropes detected on depth finder or other structural anomalies, (2) fouling by objects or other marine debris detected in support buoys or buoy deployment lines, and (3) loss of function or damage to devices related to navigational safety.

Watercraft used for planting, inspections, and harvesting will be home ported at Ventura Harbor. On average, between 20 and 40 boats will be traveling to the specific lease sites to conduct these activities on a three-times-per-week to daily basis. The maximum distance traveled will be between Ventura Harbor and the farthest potential lease area, which could be up to 16 miles.

All mussel product from the Project will be landed at Ventura Harbor. Ventura Harbor is one of the primary offloading sites in California for commercial squid. As a consequence, Ventura Harbor has significant commercial fishing infrastructure. However, there may be a need to make some modifications or improvements to these existing harbor landing facilities to accommodate mussel offloading.

Landed product will comply with all testing and labeling regulations as part of the CDPH Shellfish Sanitation plan.

1.5.2 Project Construction

Submerged backbone lines will be attached to the seafloor using sand screw anchors. Sand screw anchors have been shown to exhibit superior holding power and are removable. The deployment of sand screw anchors will require specialized workboat equipment. This requirement will necessitate staged deployment of long lines in order to accommodate the installation process across all sites.

The Project will include a decommissioning plan, which will provide for the removal of all equipment and structures in each lease area associated with project activities when activities in that lease are terminated. The Project will provide financial assurance for decommissioning.

1.5.3 Protected Species Conservation Measures

Project design specifications are intended to minimize protected marine mammal and sea turtle entanglement. Additional design features may be incorporated as identified through the environmental review process.

ATTACHMENT 3

86

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

16 May 2017

The architecture of the longline is a thick (1-inch-diameter) tensioned (to approximately 800 pounds) rope that is not conducive to wrapping around or entangling protected species. The mussel grow-out ropes themselves are typically planted with seed 3 inches thick and may grow to be stiff with byssus at diameters of 10 inches or more at harvest, thus making them very unlikely sources of entanglement. As an additional precaution, grow-ropes will be attached to the headrope with a low-breaking-strength twine (4-millimeter (0.16-inch) diameter; <1,000 pounds), which will facilitate rapid detachment in the unlikely event of any interaction with the longline.

Potential entanglement points include (1) two vertical lines to the surface buoys marking each end of the headrope and (2) one pull-up buoy line for servicing at the midpoint. To minimize the entanglement hazard, a 1,100-pound breakaway link will be installed between the buoys and the vertical lines, similar to strategies used to mitigate potential entanglement in trap fisheries in the northeastern United States (NOAA 2008). Buoy lines between the surface and headrope are generally under tension partially equivalent (0 to 10 kilograms (0 to 22 pounds)) to their full buoyancy (42 kilograms (93 pounds)).

As noted in the Nationwide Permit (NWP) 48 Decision Document recently approved by the Corps, which considered shellfish aquaculture uses nationwide, “Compared to the disturbances and degradation caused by coastal development, pollution, and other human activities in coastal areas, commercial shellfish aquaculture activities present relatively mild disturbances to estuarine and marine ecosystems.” The Decision Document concludes that impacts from most aquaculture projects would be de minimis on the surrounding environment. This determination is generally reaffirmed in the Corps’s 2015 Programmatic Biological Assessment (BE) that considered new and existing shellfish aquaculture in Washington State, as well as the 2016 Programmatic Biological Opinions from NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) evaluating the same, which concluded that impacts would be minor upon imposition of identified conservation measures. Notably, the above analyses evaluated shellfish aquaculture at a larger scale than that proposed by the Project. NWP 48 covers most shellfish aquaculture projects nationwide and the Programmatic BE evaluated environmental impacts associated with a total of 38,400 commercial aquaculture acres in Washington.

1.5.4 Best Management Practices

In addition to the design features associated with minimizing impacts on marine mammals and sea turtles, the Project will incorporate a number of other resource protection measures that avoid and minimize impacts on the aquatic environment. These resource protection measures will include BMPs related to carrying capacity, seed supply, sediment quality, predator and wildlife

ATTACHMENT 3

87

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

17 May 2017

interactions, and storage and disposal of aquaculture gear. The BMPs will be incorporated in Project permit conditions and/or mitigation measures and implemented by individual growers/producers. The aquatic environment will benefit from a cumulative beneficial effect of these BMPs resulting from the programmatic nature of the Project. For example, there will be unique opportunities for a programmatic monitoring plan among the 20 lease areas that will provide a more comprehensive data set compared to project-by-project permitting and will also reduce individual efforts. Proposed BMPs are described in Table 2.

Table 2 Ventura Shellfish Enterprise BMPs

Measure Description of Measure Carrying capacity – 1 Make use of best available data to define the location of a farm and its maximum

stocking density. Carrying capacity – 2 Include in overall management plan a component that describes the corrective or

collaborative actions to be taken when production carrying capacity at the farm or ecosystem level is exceeded.

Seed supply – 1 Initial plantings will only use hatchery-reared mussel spat certified by CDFW. Wild spat will only be used for subsequent plantings upon approval from the relevant agencies, including CDFW and the Coastal Commission.

Sediment quality – 1 Monitor sediment conditions according to the requirements of all permits. Sediment quality – 2 Adopt corrective actions in cases where significant adverse impacts are identified by

the sediment monitoring program. Wildlife – 1 Produce a written Marine Wildlife Entanglement Plan that identifies policies and

procedures that will be followed to monitor for marine wildlife entanglements and report and remedy any such entanglements if they occur.

Wildlife – 2 Use humane methods of predator deterrence and actively favor non-lethal methods. Wildlife – 3 No controls, other than non-lethal exclusion, shall be applied to species that are

listed as threatened or endangered. Storage and disposal of supplies – 1 Fuel, lubricants, and chemicals shall be labeled, stored and disposed of in a safe

and responsible manner, and marked with warning signs. Storage and disposal of supplies – 2 Precautions shall be taken to prevent spills, fires and explosions, and procedures

and supplies shall be readily available to manage chemical and fuel spills or leaks. Storage and disposal of supplies – 3 Include in overall management plan an aquaculture gear monitoring and escapement

plan. Any farm gear that has broken loose from the farm location shall be retrieved. Source: Adapted from Global Aquaculture Alliance 2013. Notes: BMP = best management practice; CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Organization and Governance

Mussel farming opportunities will be available to Project growers/producers, anticipated to include existing commercial fishermen based in Ventura Harbor, existing commercial shellfish businesses, and startups that otherwise would be disinclined to embark on the lengthy and expensive mandatory regulatory pathway. As a requirement of their participation, growers/

ATTACHMENT 3

88

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

18 May 2017

producers will be obligated to operate under robust environmental monitoring guidelines and BMPs incorporated into Project entitlements and adopted from third-party certification agencies. CDFW personnel will be responsible for growing area patrol and enforcement. They will collaborate with CDPH on defining the specifics of patrol activities.

1.5.5 Monitoring Program

Conditions within the Project area will be monitored throughout Project implementation to ensure compliance with all permit requirements and to evaluate all effects, including beneficial effects, of the growing areas. Monitoring will be conducted according to a robust monitoring program designed to evaluate the Project’s potential effects on the following factors:

The seafloor and benthic environment beneath and in the vicinity of the facilities, including biological, physical, and chemical conditions

Wildlife interactions including marine mammals, sea turtles, fish, and seabirds

Marine debris, including lost and broken gear

The monitoring program and protocols will be vetted with input and coordination among the regulatory agencies and will include annual reports summarizing the previous year’s implemented Project activities, all activities that have been implemented since the start of the Project, all activities that have been implemented within the designated monitoring period, and all monitoring results.

ATTACHMENT 3

89

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

19 May 2017

2 REQUIRED PERMITS AND ENTITLEMENTS

Based on current understanding of the Project, including its offshore location, the following list of federal and state permits and approvals has been developed.

2.1 Federal Requirements and Associated Agencies

2.1.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) exercises regulatory jurisdiction over certain activities within waters of the United States. The Corps receives its statutory authority from Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which regulates placement of dredged or fill material in jurisdictional waters of the United States, and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, which regulates the construction of any structure in or over any navigable water of the United States or any work affecting the course, location, condition, or capacity of such waters.

The Project would involve the placement of structures located in offshore waters, and would not be subject to Corps regulatory authority under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, because there will not be a discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The proposed project would be required to obtain authorization under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act for structures and work in navigable waters.

General permits are authorizations that are issued for a category or categories of activities that are similar in nature and do not cause more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects. Nationwide permits (NWPs) are a type of general permit designed to regulate certain activities having minimal impacts. The NWPs are proposed, issued, modified, reissued (extended), and revoked from time to time after an opportunity for public notice and comment. An activity is authorized under an NWP if that activity and the permittee satisfy all of the NWP’s terms and conditions.

NWP 48, Commercial Shellfish Aquaculture Activities, authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States or structures or work in navigable waters of the United States necessary for new and continuing commercial shellfish aquaculture operations in authorized project areas. The project area is the area in which the operator is authorized to conduct commercial shellfish aquaculture activities, as identified through a lease or permit issued by an appropriate state or local government agency, a treaty, or any easement, lease, deed, contract, or other legally binding agreement that establishes an enforceable property interest for the operator. A “new commercial shellfish aquaculture operation” is an operation in a project area where commercial shellfish aquaculture activities have not been conducted during the past 100 years. This NWP authorizes the installation of buoys, floats, racks, trays, nets, lines, tubes, containers,

ATTACHMENT 3

90

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

20 May 2017

and other structures in navigable waters of the United States. This NWP also authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States necessary for shellfish seeding, rearing, cultivating, transplanting, and harvesting activities. Rafts and other floating structures must be securely anchored and clearly marked.

Regional general permits are a type of general permit issued by a division or district engineer and can improve regulatory consistency and enhance program efficiency.

Letters of Permission are another type of Corps permit issued through an abbreviated processing procedure which includes coordination with federal and state fish and wildlife agencies and a public interest evaluation, but without the publishing of an individual public notice. A Letter of Permission can be used when the proposed work would be minor, would not have significant individual or cumulative impacts on environmental values, and should encounter no appreciable opposition.

Standard individual permits are evaluated on a case-by-case basis for activities that do not qualify for a general permit or a Letter of Permission. Individual permits are processed through the Corps’s public interest review procedures, including public notice and receipt of comments. The approach for the Project would be to obtain an NWP 48 or an individual permit for the entire Project.

Permitting Process

Data Required: For all activities requiring permits and associated notification to the Corps, an application must be submitted, using standard ENG Form 4345. The application must include a complete description of the proposed activity including necessary drawings or plans; the location, purpose and need for the proposed activity; scheduling; the names and addresses of adjoining property owners; the location and dimensions of adjacent structures; and a list of authorizations required by other federal, state, or local agencies.

Analysis Required: In order to write up the necessary decision document (Environmental Assessment including Public Interest Determination) and make a permit decision, the Corps may require additional information be provided by the applicant for the Corps’s analysis. This information could include an alternatives analysis of alternate sites, methods, and project scales; information necessary to complete the required public interest review evaluating such factors as potential impacts to navigation, economics (impacts to fisheries), fish and wildlife values, and general environmental concerns; and a compensatory mitigation plan in cases where the Corps determines mitigation is required to offset unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. The Corps will need to determine that the project is not contrary to the public interest in order to issue a permit.

ATTACHMENT 3

91

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

21 May 2017

Related Laws

o Endangered Species Act: If the project may affect federally listed species or their critical habitat, a consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will be required. The applicant would need to provide the Corps with a Biological Assessment (BA) or Biological Evaluation (BE) identifying and analyzing the potential impacts to these listed species.

o Coastal Zone Management Act: Activities affecting the coastal zone require approval of a certification from the California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) that the proposed activity complies with and will be conducted in a manner consistent with the California Coastal Act (Coastal Act).

o Section 401 Water Quality Certification: If water quality certification is necessary for the proposed project, the Corps permit cannot be issued until the required certification has been obtained.

o Historic Properties: If the proposed activity would involve any property listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, a consultation will be required with the State Historic Preservation Officer. The applicant would need to provide the Corps with a cultural resources report identifying and analyzing the potential effects to historic properties.

o Timing: The Corps’s goal is to complete Individual Permits in less than 120 days. The actual time between application submittal and permit issuance is often much longer, often between 1 and 2 years, but this length of time can be reduced substantially with effective pre-application coordination and project planning.

o Fees: A fee of $100.00 will be charged with the purpose of the project is commercial or industrial in nature and is in support of operations that charge for the production, distribution, or sale of goods or services.

2.1.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USFWS has jurisdiction over federally listed wildlife and plant species under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires federal agencies to consult with USFWS to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed species or result in the adverse modification of designated critical habitat.

ATTACHMENT 3

92

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

22 May 2017

The Corps, as the lead federal agency, would be required to consult with the USFWS Region 8 to ensure that the issuance of the Corps permit would not jeopardize any federally listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. It is anticipated that the Project will have no effect on USFWS-regulated federally listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat, because none are expected to occur in the Project lease area, which is located within the open-ocean environment. For a project that may affect but is not likely to adversely affect any USFWS-regulated federally listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat, the Corps may request an informal consultation with USFWS to receive a Not Likely to Adversely Affect concurrence letter.

It is not anticipated that any federally listed species under the jurisdiction of the USFWS would be affected by the proposed project. A separate discussion of potential impacts to state-listed species is included below. In the event a determination is made that the project might affect federally listed species, the consultation process would occur as follows:

Consultation Process

Data Required

The applicant typically prepares and submits a BA or BE to the Corps for the Section 7 consultation. The BA/BE should contain the following elements:

1. Cover Letter

a. Briefly specify the proposed action. Include a description of both the federal action (e.g., issue Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act permit) and the applicant’s action (e.g., establish and operate shellfish aquaculture).

b. Make a determination for each listed species and designated critical habitat (i.e., no effect; may affect, not likely to adversely affect; or may affect, likely to adversely affect).

2. Project Description

a. Provide a detailed description of the proposed action, including secondary project features such as staging areas. Subdivide proposed action into project elements (e.g., construction, operation, and maintenance).

b. Describe the where, when, and how for each project element.

c. Include a map delineating the location of each project element.

d. Delineate the geographic area that will be affected; i.e., the area where the physical, chemical, and biotic effects will occur.

ATTACHMENT 3

93

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

23 May 2017

e. Delineate the specific areas that will be affected by each of the project elements.

3. Species, Suitable Habitat, and Critical Habitat Description(s)

a. Identify the species or critical habitat that may be present.

b. Provide a description of the habitat and/or plant communities on site and within the project vicinity.

c. Document how you identified these habitats and species occurrences.

d. Describe the current population and habitat conditions (status and trend, if known) in the action area for each protected resource that may be present.

4. Effects Analysis

a. For each species or critical habitat parcel, explain how it will or will not be exposed to the project elements; be sure to consider effects to all life stages.

b. Describe the anticipated response (e.g., none, abandoned the area, decreased foraging success, reduced fecundity, injury, death) from any likely exposure.

c. Describe and analyze all direct and indirect effects of the action.

d. Describe and analyze all effects of interdependent and interrelated actions.

e. Cumulative Effects Analysis: Identify any future state or private activities, not involving federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. Describe how such activities will affect listed resources within the action area.

5. Conservation Measures

a. Describe actions incorporated into the design of the proposed action to avoid or reduce adverse effects to and incidental take of listed species.

b. Conservation measures may be alterations in the proposed activity such as timing restrictions, access closures, or changes in project features or location.

6. Conclusion and Determination of Effects

a. For each protected resource, make a Section 7 determination and include rationale.

b. For a “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” finding, request USFWS concurrence. For a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” finding, request initiation of formal consultation.

7. Literature Cited

8. List of Preparers

ATTACHMENT 3

94

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

24 May 2017

Analysis Required: The USFWS will review the BA/BE and determine whether or not it concurs with the effects conclusions presented. For a “not likely to adversely affect” finding, the USFWS will write a concurrence letter and complete the informal consultation. For a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” finding, the USFWS will need to determine whether an action will result in jeopardy. The USFWS will begin by looking at the current status of the species, or baseline. Added to the baseline are the various effects—direct, indirect, interrelated, and interdependent—of the proposed action. USFWS also examines the cumulative effects of other non-federal actions that may occur in the action area. USFWS’s analysis is then measured against the definition of jeopardy, which occurs when an action is reasonably expected, directly or indirectly, to diminish a species’ numbers, reproduction, or distribution so that the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild is appreciably reduced.

Timing: Formal consultations are expected to take 90 days, after which USFWS will prepare a biological opinion within 45 days after completion of formal consultation. Informal consultations are expected to take approximately 1 month.

Fees: None.

2.1.3 NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

NMFS is an organization within NOAA with jurisdiction over federally listed marine and anadromous fish, sea turtles, and marine mammals, as well as economically important fisheries and fish habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires federal agencies to consult with NMFS to ensure actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally-listed species or result in the adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Listed species that could potentially occur within the Ventura Shellfish Enterprise (VSE) Project lease areas include green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), and fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus).

Additionally, NMFS has authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), which is the primary law governing marine fisheries management in U.S. federal waters. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, federal agencies must consult with NMFS on all actions that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). The Project occurs within EFH for various federally managed fish species within, potentially, Coastal Pelagic Species, Highly Migratory Species, and Pacific Coast Groundfish Fisheries Management Plans.

ATTACHMENT 3

95

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

25 May 2017

The Corps as the federal lead agency would be required to consult with NMFS under Section 7 of the ESA and under the Magnuson-Stevens Act for EFH. It is anticipated that the Project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect any NMFS-regulated federally listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat and that the Corps may therefore request an informal consultation with NMFS to receive a Not Likely to Adversely Affect concurrence letter.

Consultation Process

Data Required: The applicant will prepare a BA or BE, similar to that written for USFWS species, for consultation under Section 7 of the ESA. For NMFS, the BA/BE will include additional information in the form of an EFH Assessment regarding potential adverse effects to EFH, for consultation pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The level of detail in an EFH Assessment should be commensurate with the complexity and magnitude of the potential adverse effects of the action. At a minimum, an EFH assessment must contain a description of the proposed action; an analysis of the potential adverse effects of that action on EFH and the managed species; the federal action agency’s conclusions regarding the effects of the action on EFH; and proposed mitigation, if applicable. If appropriate, the assessment should also include the results of on-site inspections, the views of recognized experts on affected habitat or fish species, a review of pertinent literature, an alternatives analysis, and any other relevant information.

Analysis Required: In addition to making an ESA determination under a similar process as the USFWS’s determination process, NMFS will assess the potential adverse effects to EFH. NMFS will provide EFH Conservation Recommendations to the lead federal agency (the Corps), and the Corps will make a determination as to whether those Conservation Recommendations will be incorporated into the Corps’s permit conditions.

Timing: Formal consultations are expected to take 90 days, after which USFWS will prepare a biological opinion within 45 days after completion of formal consultation. Informal consultations are expected to take approximately 1 month.

Fees: None.

NOAA also regulates the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, and is charged with protecting whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, and sea lions by prohibiting, with certain exceptions, the “take” of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas. NMFS authorizes incidental take under the Marine Mammal Protection Act to U.S. citizens and U.S. based companies, if there is a finding that the taking would be of small numbers, would have no more than a negligible impact on those marine mammal species or stocks, and would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses.

ATTACHMENT 3

96

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

26 May 2017

It is anticipated that the VSE Project would not result in the take of any marine mammals. Should NMFS determine there might be a potential for take, the Project could apply for a Letter of Authorization. NMFS issues Letters of Authorization for actions that have the potential to result in harassment (i.e., injury or disturbance) and that are planned for multiple years.

Letter of Authorization Process

Data Required: The Project would apply for an Incidental Take Authorization, and the application would need to include the following elements:

1. Description of specified activity

2. Dates and duration, specified geographic region

3. Species and numbers of marine mammals

4. Affected species status and distribution

5. Type of incidental taking authorization requested

6. Take estimates for marine mammals

7. Anticipated impact of the activity

8. Anticipated impacts on subsistence uses

9. Anticipated impacts on habitat

10. Anticipated effects of habitat impacts on marine mammals

11. Mitigation measures

12. Arctic Subsistence Plan of Cooperation

13. Monitoring and reporting

14. Suggested means of coordination

Analysis Required: In looking at the effects of activities, NMFS will use information from the application, monitoring reports for previous similar activities, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents, the ESA consultation (when required), and additional scientific literature. NMFS will then analyze how the proposed project may impact marine mammals in the area, their habitats, and the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses.

Timing: Applications should be submitted 18 months in advance of the intended project start date.

Fees: None.

ATTACHMENT 3

97

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

27 May 2017

NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act designates and protects areas of the marine environment with special national significance due to their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, cultural, archaeological, educational, or aesthetic qualities as national marine sanctuaries. The branch of NOAA responsible for management of national marine sanctuaries is the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries.

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act requires federal agencies whose actions are likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource to consult with the program before taking the action. NOAA will then recommend reasonable and prudent alternatives to protect sanctuary resources.

The nearest national marine sanctuary to the proposed project is the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. The sanctuary encompasses 1,110 square nautical miles (1,470 square miles) of water from mean high tide to 6 nautical miles offshore of Santa Barbara, Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel Islands. The proposed VSE Project location is at least 12 nautical miles from the nearest border of the sanctuary. There is a network of Marine Protected Areas within the nearshore waters of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. Within this Marine Protected Area network are 11 marine reserves, within which all take and harvest is prohibited, and 2 marine conservation areas, which allow limited take of lobster and pelagic fish. The proposed location of the Project lease areas would not fall within the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary boundaries and as a result, the Project would not be required to consult with the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries.

2.1.4 U.S. Coast Guard

The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) has regulatory authority over Private Aids to Navigation (PATON) under Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 66. PATONs include buoys, lights, or day beacons owned and maintained by any individual or organization other than the Coast Guard and require a Coast Guard permit. PATONs are designed to allow individuals or organizations to mark privately owned marine obstructions or other similar hazards to navigation and must be maintained by the owner as stated on the Coast Guard permit. All aquaculture leases must be clearly marked with a minimum of one buoy anchored on each of the four corners and one buoy, possessing radar-reflecting capabilities, anchored in the center of each aquaculture lease. All buoys used to define the boundaries of an aquaculture lease must be marked in conformance with the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities Maritime Buoyage system regulations (33 CFR Sections 62.33 and 66.01-10). The proposed Project would be required to obtain a PATON Permit from the Coast Guard.

ATTACHMENT 3

98

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

28 May 2017

PATON Application

Data Required: Submit an application (Form CG-2554) that specifies information about the buoys, including light flash period, light flash length, and light color; position, depth of water, candela, and focal plane height; and structure type, color, and height above ground.

Analysis Required: The Coast Guard will evaluate the navigational safety of the object placed in the water, and will determine if it should be lighted and/or placed on the chart. PATONs are required to be maintained by the owner as stated on the Coast Guard permit.

Timeline: Applications should take 60 to 90 days or less to process.

Fees: None.

2.2 NEPA Requirements

NEPA requires federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making decisions. The range of actions covered by NEPA includes making decisions on permit applications, adopting federal land management actions, and constructing highways and other publicly owned facilities. Under NEPA, federal agencies evaluate the environmental and related social and economic effects of their proposed actions. Agencies also provide opportunities for public review and comment on those evaluations. NEPA requires federal agencies to incorporate environmental considerations in their planning and decision making through a systematic interdisciplinary approach. All federal agencies must prepare detailed statements assessing the environmental impact of and alternatives to major federal actions affecting the environment. These statements are in the form of an Environmental Assessment and/or an environmental impact statement.

The Corps is likely to be the lead federal agency for the Project’s NEPA document. It is anticipated that the Corps will require an Environmental Assessment-level assessment. The Project may undergo a combined NEPA/California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process.

2.3 State Requirements and Associated Agencies

2.3.1 California Fish and Game Commission

The California Fish and Game Commission (Fish and Game Commission) is the decision-making body that establishes regulations pertaining to wildlife conservation in California. The Fish and Game Commission consists of a five-member board that meets at least 11 times each year to publicly discuss various proposed regulations, permits, licenses, management policies,

ATTACHMENT 3

99

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

29 May 2017

and other subjects within its areas of responsibility. It establishes the regulations that are enforced by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

The Fish and Game Commission has authority over the leasing of state water bottoms or the water column for aquaculture under California Fish and Game Code Sections 15400–15415. Pursuant to the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, the Fish and Game Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over all ungranted tidelands and submerged lands. The Fish and Game Commission considers “tidelands” as “those lands lying between the lines of mean high tide and mean low tide” and “submerged lands” as “lands seaward of the line of mean low tide to three geographical (nautical) miles seaward from the coast.”

Applications for an aquaculture lease for state water bottoms or an aquaculture agreement (an aquaculture agreement is an agreement for the establishment of an aquaculture area on private water bottoms contiguous to state water bottoms, which may include a permit for relaying or depuration of shellfish) shall be made to the Fish and Game Commission. The Fish and Game Commission may approve, condition, or deny any application based upon factors or issues raised during the application review process.

The proposed project would occur offshore, within submerged lands. Therefore, the Fish and Game Commission would serve as the lead agency for the leasing of those lands.

Aquaculture Lease or Agreement Application Process

Data Required: The proposed project must submit an application for an aquaculture lease for state water bottoms to the Fish and Game Commission. Applications for an aquaculture lease shall be made to the Fish and Game Commission on Form A, State of California Department of Fish and Game Application for Lease of State Water Bottoms for Aquaculture.

A completed Form A shall be accompanied by the following information:

o Proof of ownership.

o Description of the area involved.

o Estimate of the acreage to be leased.

o A reference map depicting the exterior boundaries of the area. The description must be tied to monuments of record and maps must be in a form acceptable for recording in the county in which the aquaculture area is located. An aquaculture lease or agreement is subject to repeal if a map of the area is not filed by the holder of such lease or

ATTACHMENT 3

100

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

30 May 2017

agreement in the appropriate county(ies) within 30 days of approval by the Fish and Game Commission.

o An explanation of the type of operation including the aquaculture practices/culture techniques, description of the organisms to be grown, and the relay or depuration activities to be employed shall also be included in the application for an aquaculture lease or agreement.

o All aquaculture leases contain minimum planting and harvesting requirements for the species to be cultivated to insure that water bottoms so encumbered will be used for the purpose intended.

o A 5-year business plan detailing the steps in reaching the minimum planting and harvesting requirements shall be included in your application.

o Information as to whether the area involved in the aquaculture relay or depuration operation has been classified by CDPH as approved, conditionally approved, prohibited, restricted, or unclassified.

Analysis Required: Analysis of the above-listed information. No aquaculture agreement will be valid until the California State Lands Commission (SLC) has certified to CDFW that the area applied for is unencumbered or the private ownership is properly described, so as not to preclude its use for the proposed culture. Additionally:

o A lease shall not unreasonably interfere with fishing or other uses or public trust values.

o A lease shall not unreasonably disrupt wildlife and marine habitats.

o A lease shall not unreasonably harm the ability of the marine environment to support ecologically significant flora and fauna.

o A lease shall not have significant adverse cumulative impacts.

Timing: If the Fish and Game Commission finds that the area applied for is available for lease and that the lease would be in the public interest, it shall publish a notice that the area is being considered for leasing. No aquaculture lease or agreement will be approved until the Fish and Game Commission has held a public hearing at least 90 or 30 days, respectively, after notice thereof has been published in a newspaper of general circulation within the county involved.

ATTACHMENT 3

101

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

31 May 2017

Fee: Nonrefundable filing fee of $500 submitted with the application to:

Fish and Game Commission Executive Director 1416 Ninth Street, 13th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 916.653.4899

Assistance in completing and filing Form A may be obtained from CDFW’s Marine Region Marine Aquaculture Coordinator, 619 Second Street, Eureka, California 95501, or from the Marine Region Offices at 20 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 100, Monterey, California 93940, or 4665 Lampson Avenue, Suite C, Los Alamitos, California 90720.

2.3.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CDFW is the lead state agency for aquaculture. The CDFW has jurisdiction over commercial and recreational activities involving California fish and wildlife including the culture and husbandry of aquatic organisms as well as take of any California state-listed fish and wildlife species. The CDFW is the lead agency for evaluating potential marine aquaculture leases on state and private water bottoms in bays and estuaries and providing such analysis to the Fish and Game Commission to ensure that marine resources and essential habitat are protected.

In California, marine aquaculture for commercial purposes is currently limited to oysters, abalone, clams, scallops, mussels, and kelp.

CDFW operates under the Aquaculture Registration and Fish and Game Code and the California Endangered Species Act, and administers permits for the commercial import of fish species.

With its jurisdiction over state-listed species, CDFW also oversees the disbursement of Certificates for Health Inspections for Importation of live organisms into California, the issuance of Wild Broodstock Collection Permits, Permits for Exotic or Restricted Species, Aquarium Dealers’ Permits, and Incidental Take Permits.

Aquaculture Registration Process

Data Required: Aquaculture Registration approval by CDFW is required for every person engaged in controlled growing and harvesting of fish, shellfish, and plants in marine, brackish, and freshwater. Aquaculture does not include species of ornamental marine or freshwater plants and animals not used for human consumption or bait purposes that are maintained in closed systems for personal, pet industry, or hobby

ATTACHMENT 3

102

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

32 May 2017

purposes; however, these species continue to be regulated. A person desiring to propagate and rear marine life should make application on Form FG 750. The following information must be submitted:

o Owner information

o Facility name

o Facility location

o Business to be conducted at your facility (e.g., rearing invertebrates for sale); common and scientific names are to be used when listing species to be cultivated

o Species requested

o Cultivation area location information

o Whether bottomlands are state leased or private (for marine aquaculture)

o Bay or area

o Lot numbers or description

Analysis Required: Staff is responsible for the following tasks:

o Review and set terms and conditions for all marine importation permits, broodstock collection permits, and aquaculture registration forms

o Review aquaculture CEQA documents, provide aquaculture expertise and coordinate with Marine Region Environmental Services, CDFW Legal Services, other CDFW regions, and other state and federal agencies

o Develop recommendations for Fish and Game Commission action

o Coordinate disease and health certification for shellfish and other imported animals

Timing: New applicants should allow a total of 70 business days for permit application processing (40 business days for processing an Aquaculture Registration Application and an additional 30 business days for inspection of the proposed facility).

Fees: Aquaculture Registration is required for every person engaged in controlled growing and harvesting of fish, shellfish, and plants in marine, brackish, and freshwater, and the fee for a new operation is $827.50 (valid January 1 through December 31). The annual aquaculture renewal fee is $520.00 or $622.50 if the total gross sales at the aquaculture facility were at least $25,000 during the previous registration year. Please note: Every registered aquaculture facility or new facility engaged in aquaculture activity that fails to submit an application before April 1 is required to pay a late fee of $153.75.

ATTACHMENT 3

103

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

33 May 2017

Possession of a valid aquaculture registration is a condition of all aquaculture leases. An application, together with the required fee, should be transmitted to the CDFW License and Revenue Branch:

California Department of Fish and Wildlife License and Revenue Branch 1740 North Market Boulevard Sacramento, California 95834

The registration form is available online at https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=35115&inline.

CDFW is also responsible for administering the Marine Life Protection Act by designating marine protected areas, developing their management plans, and reviewing development within their boundaries for consistency. The Project lease area is outside the zone of any designated marine protected areas.

A preliminary investigation indicates there may be potential for Scripps’s murrelet (Synthliboramphus scrippsi) in the project area. However, it is unlikely that the proposed Project would be required to obtain an Incidental Take Permit pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act given the low potential for adverse impacts to state-listed species.

California Endangered Species Act Incidental Take Process

Data Required

1. Applicant’s full name, mailing address, and telephone number(s). If the applicant is a corporation, firm, partnership, association, institution, or public or private agency, the name and address of the person responsible for the project or activity requiring the permit, the president or principal officer, and the registered agent for the service of process.

2. The common and scientific names of the species to be covered by the permit and the species’ status under the California Endangered Species Act, including whether the species is the subject of rules and guidelines pursuant to Section 2112 and Section 2114 of the Fish and Game Code.

3. A complete description of the project or activity for which the permit is sought.

4. The location where the project or activity is to occur or to be conducted.

5. An analysis of whether and to what extent the project or activity for which the permit is sought could result in the taking of species to be covered by the permit.

ATTACHMENT 3

104

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

34 May 2017

6. An analysis of the impacts of the proposed taking on the species.

7. An analysis of whether issuance of the Incidental Take Permit would jeopardize the continued existence of a species. This analysis shall include consideration of the species’ capability to survive and reproduce, and any adverse impacts of the taking on those abilities in light of (A) known population trends, (B) known threats to the species, and (C) reasonably foreseeable impacts on the species from other related projects and activities.

8. Proposed measures to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the proposed taking.

9. A proposed plan to monitor compliance with the minimization and mitigation measures and the effectiveness of the measures.

10. A description of the funding source and the level of funding available for implementation of the minimization and mitigation measures.

Analysis Required: CDFW must ensure that:

1. The take authorized by the permit will be incidental to an otherwise lawful activity.

2. The applicant will minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the take authorized under the permit. The measures required to meet this obligation shall be roughly proportional in extent to the impact of the authorized taking on the species. Where various measures are available to meet this obligation, the measures required shall maintain the applicant’s objectives to the greatest extent possible. All required measures shall be capable of successful implementation. For purposes of this section only, impacts of taking include all impacts on the species that result from any act that would cause the proposed taking.

3. The permit will be consistent with any regulations adopted pursuant to Fish and Game Code Sections 2112 and 2114.

4. The applicant has ensured adequate funding to implement the measures required under the permit to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the taking, and to monitor compliance with, and the effectiveness of, the measures.

Timing: Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit is expected to take approximately 4 months.

Fees: None.

ATTACHMENT 3

105

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

35 May 2017

Commercial Vessel Registration

Fish and Game Code Section 7881 requires commercial fishing vessels to obtain a commercial boat registration license from CDFW. However, a mussel-culture-only vessel may not fall under the vessel licensing requirement. In the event CDFW determines a license is required, an application would be made for the commercial boat registration.

Data Required: A commercial boat registration can be acquired by completing an application form and providing the associated fee. Application forms are available from the website for commercial fishing licenses.

Analysis Required: The granting of a license is a ministerial process.

Timeline: A license must be renewed annually and can be renewed through an online renewal process.

Fees: The fee for a commercial boat registration is $357.00.

California Coastal Commission

The Coastal Commission has planning, regulatory, and permitting responsibilities, in partnership with local governments, over all “development” taking place within the coastal zone, which extends seaward 3 miles and landward from several miles inland to as close as a few hundred feet from the shore in other areas, under the Coastal Act and the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The Coastal Commission plans and regulates activities on land and water within the coastal zone or permits local agencies to make decisions under the guidance of an approved Local Coastal Program. Among the coastal resources specifically protected within the Coastal Act are public access to the coastline, wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitat areas, marine biological resources, agriculture, low-cost visitor-serving recreational uses, visual resources, commercial and recreational fishing, and community character.

The Coastal Commission retains permanent coastal permit jurisdiction over development proposed on tidelands, submerged lands, and public trust lands. The proposed project would involve work within submerged lands, over which the Coastal Commission retains permanent coastal permit jurisdiction. The VSE Project would, therefore, be required to obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission, South Central Coast District Office. Additionally, the Coastal Commission would have regulatory control over the federal action (Corps permit), and the VSE Project would need to be compliant with the federal CZMA.

Data Required

o Coastal Development Permit Application: https://www.coastal.ca.gov/cdp/cdp-forms.html

ATTACHMENT 3

106

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

36 May 2017

o Project description

o Proof of the applicant’s legal interest in the property

o Assessor’s parcel map(s) (if applicable)

o Stamped, addressed envelopes and list of names and addresses of all other parties known to the applicant to be interested in the proposed development

o Vicinity or location map

o Plans drawn to scale

o A copy of any draft or final negative declaration, environmental impact report (EIR), or environmental impact statement prepared for the project, and if available, comments from the reviewing agencies

o Verification of all other permits, permissions or approvals applied for or granted by public agencies such as CDFW, SLC, Corps, and Coast Guard

o Any offers of access, preliminary title reports, land surveys, legal descriptions, subordinate agreements, and other outside agreements

Analysis Required: The Coastal Commission staff completes an analysis of the application for consistency with the Coastal Act. The results of this analysis are described in the form of a staff report to the Commissioners, which includes suggested findings, recommendations, and any special conditions.

Timing: A coastal development permit application is considered filed after Coastal Commission staff determines the application is complete.

o Federal Consistency Determination. Under normal circumstances, the Coastal Commission must act on a filed application within a “limited time frame.” The Consistency Determination review period is up to 75 days. The Consistency Certification review period is up to 6 months. Applicants may extend either of these time frames. There is a 90-day rule for consistency determinations in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 15, Section 930.36(b), which states “the consistency determination shall be provided to State agencies at least 90 days before final approval of the federal agency activity unless both the federal agency and the state agency agree to an alternative notification schedule.”

o State Coastal Development Permit. There is a 30-day application completeness review. If determined incomplete by staff, additional requested materials must be submitted commencing another application completeness review cycle. Following a determination of application completeness, the Coastal Commission

ATTACHMENT 3

107

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

37 May 2017

staff has 180 days to bring the item to hearing, with extensions feasible if granted by the applicant.

Fees: Fees will be determined individually and are generally based on the cost of development.

State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards

The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) oversees the policy objectives of the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The RWQCBs exercise jurisdiction over water quality in waters of the United States within their respective regions and administer Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits pursuant to the Clean Water Act to ensure projects meet state water quality standards to regulate point source discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. The RWQCBs also regulate impacts to waters of the state, including point-source and diffused-source discharges to land and groundwater, under California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. In addition to those responsibilities to ensure water quality, the RWQCBs are required to grant approvals to 34 Areas of Special Biological Significance, ocean areas monitored and maintained for water quality by SWRCB.

The proposed Project is anticipated to be required to obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Los Angeles RWQCB, Region 4. The Los Angeles RWQCB is charged with maintaining the beneficial uses of waters of the state, as presented in the Water Quality Control Plan: Los Angeles Region Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (Basin Plan; Los Angeles RWQCB 2014). Aquaculture is considered one of the beneficial uses for water bodies in the Los Angeles Region and the Basin Plan defines that use as “Uses of water for aquaculture or mariculture operations including, but not limited to, propagation, cultivation, maintenance, or harvesting of aquatic plants and animals for human consumption or bait purposes” (Los Angeles RWQCB 2014).

The RWQCB regulates discharges of fill and dredged material under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

The RWQCB protects all waters in its regulatory scope, but has special responsibility for wetlands, riparian areas, and headwaters because these water bodies have high resource value, are vulnerable to filling, and are not systematically protected by other programs. Basin-level analysis focuses on pollutant removal, floodwater retention, and habitat connectivity.

Data Required: Issuance of a Section 401 Certification requires information demonstrating the project will comply with state water quality standards and aquatic

ATTACHMENT 3

108

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

38 May 2017

resources protection requirements. A 401 permit application should include information including a detailed project description, discussion of avoidance and minimization of impacts to waters of the state, impacts analysis, discussion of beneficial uses, identification of pollutants of concern and short- and long-term best management practices (BMPs) to minimize discharge of pollutants, and all associated figures (vicinity maps, project site maps, construction cross-sections, and others). Additionally, the RWQCB may require information pertaining to baseline benthic habitat and community assessments within the Project area and a monitoring plan for the operation of the aquaculture facility.

Analysis Required: Analysis by the SWRCB and RWQCB is intended to authorize and regulate discharges from aquaculture facilities. Analysis would consider impacts to the following beneficial uses: industrial processes and industrial service supply; wildlife habitat; migration of aquatic organisms; preservation of biological habitats of special significance; rare, threatened, or endangered species; water contact and non-contact recreation, including aesthetic enjoyment; navigation; commercial and sportfishing; mariculture; preservation and enhancement of designated Areas of Special Biological Significance; marine habitat; and fish spawning and shellfish harvesting.

The Corps (under Section 404 of Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States and work or structures in navigable waters of the United States. The Project is only required to obtain a Section 10 permit from the Corps, because there will not be a discharge of dredged or fill material. The state program under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act states “whenever anyone proposing to conduct a project that requires a federal permit or involves dredge or fill activities that may result in a discharge to U.S. surface waters and/or waters of the state are required to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification.” Either a 401 Water Quality Certification or compliance with Waste Discharge Requirements, or both, will be required from the RWQCB.

Timing: The RWQCB has 30 days to deem the application complete. The RWQCB has 180 days to act on a complete permit submittal. There is a 21-day public notice period that commences once the application is deemed complete.

Fees: The Project qualifies for the low impact application fee ($200).

ATTACHMENT 3

109

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

39 May 2017

2.3.3 California Department of Public Health

The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) is the state department under the State of California Health and Human Services Agency that is responsible for public health in California. At the state level, the California Department of Food and Agriculture has primary responsibility for food safety, but CDPH operates a parallel food safety program called the California Shellfish Sanitation Program.

The California Shellfish Sanitation Program regulates the growing, harvesting, processing, and marketing of shellfish intended for sale for human consumption. The CDPH defines “shellfish” as “edible bivalve molluscan shellfish, including oysters, mussels, clams, and scallops.”

The California shellfish sanitation program follows the standards and guidelines of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) Model Ordinance, and various other guidelines of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. For information on the NSSP, contact the U.S. Food and Drug Administration:

U.S. Food and Drug Administration Program and Enforcement Branch 5100 Paint Branch Parkway College Park, Maryland 20740-3835 301.436.1410

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FederalStateFoodPrograms/ucm2006754.htm

The CDPH Shellfish Sanitation Program is divided into two main components:

Pre-harvest, which regulates growing and harvest areas in California, including sanitary surveys, classification, certification (the Shellfish Growing Area Certificate), monitoring for water quality and marine biotoxins, and harvest closures. This program segment is conducted by staff of the Preharvest Shellfish Unit within the Environmental Management Branch (EMB). For questions or assistance, contact:

Eric Trevena, Chief Environmental Health Services Section Preharvest Shellfish Program PO Box 997377, MS 7404 Sacramento, California 95899-7377 916.449.5661

ATTACHMENT 3

110

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

40 May 2017

Post-harvest, which regulates the handling, processing, and distribution of shellfish after they are harvested, including inspection of shellfish plants and issuance of the Shellfish Handling and Marketing Certificate. This program segment is conducted by staff of the Food and Drug Branch (FDB). For questions or assistance, contact FDB:

Nicole Givens Food and Drug Branch – MS 7602 1500 Capitol Avenue PO Box 997413 Sacramento, California 95899-7413 Phone: 916.319.9661 Fax: 916.440.5138 Nicole.Givens@cdph.ca.gov

Pre-Harvest

This portion of the program requires Growing Area Certification from the EMB of the CDPH. It is unlawful in California to sell, offer, or hold for sale for human consumption any bivalve shellfish unless the harvest area is certified by CDPH. A harvest area may be any water body that meets certain standards of cleanliness, as well as an on-shore aquaculture system. A shellfish Growing Area Certificate is issued to the commercial shellfish grower/harvester when all of the requirements listed below are met. The certificate expires annually on February 15, and must be renewed by submitting an updated application.

Data Required to Obtain Growing Area Certification

o Submit Preliminary Inquiry. Contact CDPH’s EMB Pre-Harvest Shellfish Unit for a preliminary evaluation of the feasibility of certifying the proposed shellfish growing area. An area may be classified as Prohibited if it is too close to a sewage treatment plant outfall (dilution modeling is normally required if the proposed growing area is within 1 to 3 miles of a wastewater treatment plant outfall), marina, or other pollution source. During this time discuss the proposal informally with the EMB and request application forms.

o Define the Growing Area. The applicant must be legally authorized to conduct commercial shellfish growing and harvesting operations in that area, and must be able to submit written proof of that authorization and a detailed map or legal description that defines the location and boundaries of the growing area. Most commercial shellfish growers in California operate on state aquaculture leases issued by CDFW upon approval by the Fish and Game Commission. In some cases a growing area may be leased from a

ATTACHMENT 3

111

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

41 May 2017

local agency, such as a city or harbor district. Also, in some instances the grower may actually own a tidelands area—in which case a copy of the deed and a use permit form the city or county should be submitted.

o Identify a Law Enforcement Agency for Patrol Support. The NSSP requires that patrol be conducted in harvest areas classified as Restricted, Conditionally Restricted, or Prohibited, or Conditionally Approved or Approved, when in the closed status at sufficient intervals to deter illegal harvesting. Patrols must be conducted by law enforcement personnel from any state or local enforcement authority. If patrol activities are conducted by an agency other than CDPH, a Memorandum of Agreement must be developed with the delegated agency to assure that patrol requirements are met. The delegated agency must agree to maintain and file records of its patrol activities with CDPH. Staff from CDPH will work with the applicant to determine whether a patrol agency is available and willing to provide the required oversight as per NSSP requirements.

o File an Application. Upon completion of the aforementioned items, complete and submit Form SSP-11, Application for Shellfish Growing Area Certificate.

Analysis Required: Analysis is geared toward understanding water quality and impacts. The watershed or source of water is considered, and an attempt is made to determine the hazards associated with all actual and potential sources of pollution that might impinge on the growing area. This includes such things as sewage treatment plants, areas of urban runoff, industrial plants, and agricultural operations. For example, if the growing site is located closer to shore in the intertidal zone, then analysis is more focused on non-point-source pollution from stormwater runoff. Analysis for an open-ocean proposal is normally less complicated than a proposal located near shore and typically takes less time to complete.

o A shellfish growing area cannot be classified and certified until a sanitary survey has been completed, which usually requires evaluation of pollution impacts during all seasons of the year.

o Upon an application’s acceptance, CDPH will assist in the development of a mandatory sampling plan. The applicant will agree to (1) be responsible for the collection, transportation, and analysis of all samples necessary for a sanitary survey, including payment of all costs; (2) establish an account at a certified shellfish laboratory where samples will be analyzed and which will transmit the data directly to CDPH; (3) provide all materials and equipment needed for sample collection, preservation, and transportation; and (4) conduct sampling in accordance with a prescribed sampling protocol. Failure of the applicant to comply with the approved sampling plan may result in denial of a certificate. CDPH will provide training and

ATTACHMENT 3

112

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

42 May 2017

coordination, monitor sampling, perform a pollution source survey, and complete a sanitary survey report.

o Participation in a sanitary survey is on a cost-sharing basis, as agreed in the sampling plan. CDPH will conduct a sanitary survey of the proposed growing area and its watershed in accordance with the NSSP Model Ordinance. The sanitary survey evaluates the watershed or source of water as a whole, and attempts to determine the hazards associated with all actual and potential sources of pollution that might adversely affect the growing waters (the pollution source, or “shoreline survey”). This includes consideration of things such as sewage treatment plants, urban runoff, industrial plants, agricultural operations, etc.

o The amount of sampling depends on the location of the harvest sites and how they may be affected by pollution. In the case of an area not previously surveyed and classified, the NSSP Model Ordinance requires that at least 30 water samples be collected for bacteriological analysis from each sample station, and that the samples be collected under various environmental conditions, so as to permit determination of “adverse pollution conditions.” This generally requires taking samples over the course of at least 1 year. Additional time may be required to collect sufficient data to determine parameters for conditional closures (e.g., rainfall thresholds and closure durations).

o Standards in the NSSP Model Ordinance set maximum allowable levels for fecal coliform bacteria, as well as for other contaminants such as pesticides, toxic organic compounds, and heavy metals.

o Upon analysis of the required sampling data, and of other information that is collected, CDPH will complete a written sanitary survey report with a recommendation for the appropriate growing area classification.

o Upon completion of the sanitary survey, and any other plans or studies that may be required, the CDPH will classify the growing area (and certify it, if appropriate) in accordance with the NSSP Model Ordinance under one of the following classifications:

a. Approved. Shellfish may be harvested for direct marketing (no purification process required). Water samples must be collected for bacteriological monitoring at least five times annually under adverse conditions. An Approved area classification is reevaluated every year.

b. Conditionally Approved. Under this certification, shellfish may be harvested for direct marketing when the area is open for harvest, but the area is subject to closure when certain criteria are not met. Impacts to water quality must be

ATTACHMENT 3

113

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

43 May 2017

predictable and manageable in order for an area to be classified as Conditionally Approved. Water monitoring samples must be collected at least monthly under adverse conditions during open periods. A Conditionally Approved area is reevaluated annually.

c. Restricted. Shellfish must be purified by relaying or depuration before marketing. Water quality monitoring samples must be collected from the growing area at least five times annually. Additional sampling is required by FDB for any depuration system. The applicant must satisfactorily complete a purification effectiveness study and, if depuration is certified, CDPH must also determine that it has the resources necessary to manage the area. A Restricted area classification is reevaluated every year.

d. Prohibited. Areas having this classification are not certified. Shellfish cannot be harvested for human consumption in Prohibited areas.

Timing: New areas and areas closer to shore (i.e., the intertidal zone) typically take a year of analysis to develop a management strategy adequate for issuance of a Growing Area Certification. If a sanitary survey already exists or if the proposed project is located in the open ocean it typically takes less time to receive a Growing Area Certification (around 6 months).

Fees: No fee. Also note: The application is not online. The application should be transmitted to the CDPH’s EMB Pre-Harvest Shellfish Unit.

Post-Harvest

This portion of the program requires a Handling and Marketing Certificate from the FDB of CDPH, which cannot be issued before a Growing Area Certificate has been issued. Firms that process, handle, and distribute shellfish must obtain a Shellfish Handling and Marketing Certificate from FDB. This includes businesses involved in the distribution of shellfish that do not take physical possession of the shellfish. The Shellfish Handling and Marketing Certificate is required even if the facility has a Processed Food Registration. The Shellfish Handling and Marketing Certificate is free.

A Processed Food Registration is not required if firms exclusively manufacture, handle, and distribute raw, fresh, or frozen (shucked or in-the-shell) shellfish.

The Shellfish Handling and Marketing Certificate assigns a dealer’s number for each certified facility and authorizes a dealer to engage in specific activities such as repacking, reshipping, and shucking shellfish. The dealer’s number is required to be listed on all shellfish tags and labels to indicate that the shellfish has originated from a certified facility.

ATTACHMENT 3

114

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

44 May 2017

Shellfish dealers shipping products into interstate commerce are required to meet the requirements of the NSSP and must be certified for listing on the Interstate Certified Shellfish Shippers List.

In advance of processing/shipping, growers/producers would be required to obtain a Processed Food Registration and a Shellfish Handling and Marketing Certificate from the CDPH’s FDB.

In addition, prior to entering product into interstate commerce, producers are required to meet the requirements of the NSSP and must be certified for listing on the Interstate Certified Shellfish Shippers List.

Data Required to Obtain a Handling and Marketing Certification

o Description of the type and location of any facilities to be used for handling, packaging, or storing the aquaculture products within the state.

o Growing Area Certification from CDPH.

Analysis Required: Analysis completed under this certification is for subsequent approval of facilities, equipment, and procedures used for handling, shucking, storing, packaging, and shipping of fish and shellfish after harvest. This certification also enforces meat quality standards and sets requirements for proper packaging and labeling of all fish and shellfish moved in commerce.

Timeline: Typically a year from submittal.

Fees: None.

The California Shellfish Handling and Marketing Certificate Application can be found online at https://www.cdph.ca.gov/CDPH%20Document%20Library/ControlledForms/cdph8642.pdf.

2.3.4 California Department of Food and Agriculture

The California Department of Food and Agriculture is internally divided into seven administration divisions that carry out state food safety and regulation policy: the Animal Health and Food Safety Services, Division of Fairs & Expositions, Inspection Services Division, California Organic Program, Division of Marketing Services, Division of Measurement Standards, and Division of Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services.

The Division of Measurement Standards has jurisdiction over agricultural operations and administers Weighmaster Registration for agricultural products, including the sale of aquaculture products by weight. Pursuant to this authority, individual member-fishermen involved in aquaculture production on the proposed project would be required to obtain a weighmaster

ATTACHMENT 3

115

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

45 May 2017

license. The Project would most likely not be required to obtain a weighmaster license as an agent selling membership to shellfish fishermen.

Marine fish and shellfish cultivated under the provisions of an aquaculture registration may be sold irrespective of seasons, bag limits, or angling license provisions. The laws and regulations governing the sale of aquaculture products are cited in Fish and Game Code Section 15005 and in Title 14, Section 238, of the California Code of Regulations.

Data Required: Weighmaster licenses can be acquired by completing a standard Weighmaster License Application form and providing the associated fee. Application forms are available from the website of the Division of Measurement Standards.

Analysis Required: The granting of weighmaster licenses is a ministerial process.

Timeline: A weighmaster license must be renewed annually and can be renewed through an online renewal process.

Fees: Fees for a new weighmaster license range in cost depending on the number of deputy weighmasters included on the license, fixed versus non-fixed weighing location, and the number of fixed weighing locations. The fee is $75 for a fixed location, with a $30 fee for each additional location. The fee for a non-fixed location is $200. Each deputy costs $20.

2.3.5 California State Lands Commission

SLC has jurisdiction and management control over the state’s 4 million acres of tidelands and submerged lands and the beds of navigable rivers, streams, lakes, bays, estuaries, inlets, and straits; these lands are often referred to as public trust lands. SLC’s Land Management Division in Sacramento administers the leasing of these lands for development projects.

SLC will consider numerous factors in determining whether or not a proposed use of the state’s land is appropriate, including, but not limited to, the potential impacts on and the consistency with the Public Trust under which SLC holds the state’s sovereign lands, protection of natural resources and other environmental values, and preservation or enhancement of the public’s access to state lands. Other factors that SLC will consider are the size, location, intended use, and described need for the project/structure/facility, its relationship to the surrounding environment, and whether the size of the project/structure/facility is appropriate for the location and type of use or operation proposed.

Data Required: No aquaculture lease will be valid until SLC has certified to CDFW that the area applied for is unencumbered or the private ownership is properly described, so as not to preclude its use for the proposed culture.

ATTACHMENT 3

116

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

46 May 2017

Analysis Required: A state water bottom lessee may not “unreasonably impede public access to state waters for purposes of fishing, navigation, commerce, or recreation.”

Timeline: Review will occur concurrently with CDFW review.

Fees: None.

2.3.6 California State Office of Historic Preservation

The California State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) is responsible for administering federally and state-mandated historic preservation programs to further the identification, evaluation, registration and protection of California’s irreplaceable archaeological and historical resources under the direction of the State Historic Preservation Officer (a gubernatorial appointee responsible for the operation and management of the OHP and long-range preservation planning), and the State Historical Resources Commission (a nine-member state review board, appointed by the governor, with responsibilities for the identification, registration, and preservation of California’s cultural heritage). As such, OHP has authority over historic structures and ensures compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. It also administers the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and the California Historical Landmarks and California Points of Historical Interest programs.

The proposed Project would need to identify cultural and historic resources within the Project area. Tribal engagement would be required to assist in identifying areas of cultural importance and to map and document any Tribal resources. The OPH would also recommend that Project proponents identify ways in which Tribes can be better incorporated into decision processes. It is anticipated that the Project would be determined to have either “no potential to cause effects” or “no effect” on historic properties.

Data Required: An assessment of potential archaeological constraints on the Project area would be conducted. Typically, this includes a literature review and record search conducted through the California Historical Records Information System. Additionally, a Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File search and follow-up with Native American Heritage Commission-listed Native American representatives can be requested. Findings would be summarized in a cultural resources section of the environmental documents.

Analysis Required

o Consistency with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is a requirement of the Corps’s permitting process. Applicants provide the Corps with a cultural resources report identifying and analyzing the potential effects to historic

ATTACHMENT 3

117

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

47 May 2017

properties. If there is the potential to cause effects to historic properties, the Corps consults with the OHP per Title 33, Part 325 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Appendix C.

o Assembly Bill 52 requires consultation with all California Native American Tribes on the Native American Heritage Commission List. As part of the CEQA process, consideration must be given to Tribal Cultural Resources when determining project impacts and mitigation. Additionally, notice must be given to the Tribes and they must be engaged in a meaningful consultation.

Timeline: If the OHP does not object within 30 days of receipt of an adequately documented “no effect” determination, the Corps may proceed with issuing its permit.

Fees: None.

2.4 CEQA Requirements

CEQA requires that any project in the State of California determined to have the potential to result in adverse impacts to the environment be analyzed under the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and the results disclosed to the general public. A lead agency is determined under CEQA as the agency with greatest authority over the resources or land the proposed project is likely to impact, often a city, county, school district, or public resource agency.

If a proposed project is not exempt from CEQA, the CEQA lead agency conducts an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study is circulated to responsible, trustee, and interested public agencies and others who have expressed an interest in such documents for review and comment. The circulation period is normally 30 days. Based upon the responses received, a determination is made as to whether a negative declaration (ND) or an EIR is required.

An ND is the less complex of the two documents. Generally, an ND consists of the Initial Study accompanied by a recommendation by the determination that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. If the ND contains mitigation measures that help ensure that the proposed project is not environmentally harmful, then it is considered to be a mitigated negative declaration (MND). The ND/MND is circulated for 30 days to appropriate agencies and interested persons. This review is provided through the State Clearinghouse. If no significant environmental effects are identified, the ND/MND is considered together with any comments received, and the lead agency either does or does not adopt the ND/MND, and then either approves or disapproves the proposed project.

ATTACHMENT 3

118

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

48 May 2017

An EIR is required in instances where responses to the Initial Study reflect concern that the proposed project may or will have a significant effect on the environment. In some cases it is clear without preparation of an Initial Study that a project could have a significant effect on the environment. In such cases, the EIR process may begin without preparation of an Initial Study. Usually a third-party consultant will be hired by the lead agency to prepare the EIR.

In most instances, the preparation of an EIR takes from 6 to 9 months. The lead agency will prepare a Notice of Preparation that is circulated for 30 days, and will hold a scoping meeting during that time, to obtain specific detail about the scope and content of environmental information to include in the EIR. Later, a Draft EIR is circulated for 45 days to agencies and individuals concerned about the project. The State Clearinghouse provides for circulation to state agencies. During the 45-day review period, a public meeting to receive comments on the project may be held. Comments and recommendations received and significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process are responded to in the Final EIR. This document is then circulated to those agencies and persons who commented on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR is then presented to the lead agency for certification, and the proposed project, including any recommended alterations or mitigation measures, is presented to the lead agency for approval or disapproval.

The proposed Project would be required to complete environmental review under CEQA, led by the Fish and Game Commission, to identify and disclose potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of the proposed aquaculture facilities.

2.5 Permits Not Required

Clean Water Act 404 Permit – not required because the project will not result in a discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.

Clean Air Act Title V Permit – not required because shellfish processing will use pre-existing infrastructure.

Hazardous Waste ID Number – not required because no hazardous waste will be generated.

NPDES 402 Stormwater Permit – not required because there will not be a discharge of pollutants to surface waters resulting from the lease areas.

2.6 Permit Application Sequencing and Critical Path

The overall timeline for completing environmental review under CEQA and obtaining all required permits is expected to be up to 3 years. The process follows a simple sequence: engaging regulatory agencies and gathering data at Project development stage; generating a complete Project description; initiating the CEQA and NEPA process; and submitting permit

ATTACHMENT 3

119

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

49 May 2017

applications concurrently to all regulatory agencies for required permits (see Figure 3, Ventura Shellfish Enterprise Permit Application Sequencing Timeline). A unique aspect of the Project is the simultaneous permitting and CEQA processes. The Project will combine the permit applications submittal with the processing of environmental documents, allowing for increased early input and review from the regulatory agencies.

ATTACHMENT 3

120

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

50 May 2017

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ATTACHMENT 3

121

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3Months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Initial Study

DEIRNOP/Scoping Meeting

DEIR Public ReviewFEIR

FEIR Approval

Permit ApplicationPublic Notice

Section 7 Consultation, Consultation Under MMPA, Public Interest Review, NEPA Document

Public NoticeLease Review, coordination with State Lands Commission

Application Review and Permit DecisionPermit Application

Application Review and Certification DecisionPermit Application

Permit Decision

Form A Application Submitted

Application Review and Decision

Develop Project Description and Site Selection

Sampling Plan Review, Sanitary Survey, Certification of Growing Area, and Certificate Application Review

Application Review and Permit Decision

PATON ApprovalPATON Application

Subleases Awarded

CA Dept. Public HealthUS Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Coast Guard

CA Fish and Game Commission

Sublessees obtain CDA DFW Registration

CA Coastal CommissionRWQCB

CA Fish and Game Commission Environmental Review (CEQA)

Sublessees obtain CA Dept. of Food and Agriculture Permit

LEGEND

In addition to the standard agency permit application packages, Ventura Port District also plans to submit substantive information on the environmental setting for the project and anticipated environmental impacts in order to streamline the environmental review process, as reflected in the timeline below. The permit review periods shown in the timeline are the maximum times provided for by applicable statute or regulation. The time needed for each agency to render a decision on its permit or authorization is not estimated.

Develop Project Description and site selection

Subleases Awarded

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

Ventura Shellfish Enterprise Permit Application Sequencing TimelineFIGURE 3

ATTACHMENT 3

122

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

52 May 2017

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ATTACHMENT 3

123

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

53 May 2017

3 KEY TECHNICAL ISSUES AND INFORMATION NEEDED TO ADDRESS KEY ISSUES

In order to procure all required permits to proceed, the proposed project must address potential impacts and fully comply with the suite of applicable regulations. We have identified the following considerations as Key Issues in the approval process for the proposed Project and shellfish aquaculture in California in general. Approvals by the various regulatory agencies will require evaluating alternatives with regard to these Key Issues in order to minimize adverse environmental effects of the Project. Table 3 summarizes the Key Issues and potential levels of impact by category, and each issue is described in further detail following the table.

Table 3 Key Issues and Potential Levels of Impact

Issue Level of Potential Impact Biological Issues

Release of viable nonnative reproductive material by cultivated specimens Low Release of potentially invasive species, parasites and pathogens from seed stock Low Removal of phytoplankton from the water column Low Effects of equipment on water column habitat Low Construction impacts on the seafloor Low to medium Deposition and accumulation of biological materials on the seafloor during operation Low to medium Invasive fouling organisms Medium Potential for ship strikes of marine wildlife Low Potential for marine mammal entanglement in aquaculture gear Low to medium

Navigational Issues Project effects on navigational safety Low

Air Quality Issues Increased air emissions from boat trips to construct and operate the project Low

Product Quality Issues Potential for domoic acid accumulation in cultivated shellfish from natural algae blooms Low Vibrio contamination of cultivated shellfish Low

Social Impact Issues Potential economic impact on existing fisheries, specifically halibut trawling Medium Damage to fishing gear due to contact with aquaculture equipment Low to medium Onshore aesthetic impacts of surface equipment (buoys, navigation aids, etc.) None to low

For each of the following issues, data will be required to describe the existing conditions, potential project impacts, and potential cumulative impacts.

ATTACHMENT 3

124

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

54 May 2017

3.1 Biological Issues

3.1.1 Cultivation of Non-Native Species

The proposed project would involve the cultivation and harvest of the Mediterranean mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis). The Mediterranean mussel is a non-native species but has already established naturalized, self-sustaining populations outside of cultivation in California. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) does not consider the Mediterranean mussel an invasive species in California.

Issue A: Release of Viable Nonnative Reproductive Material by Cultivated Specimens

Cultivation of Mediterranean mussels has the potential to lead to the spread of this non-native species outside of cultivation if viable eggs, larvae, or other reproductive material are released into the ocean system. Subsequent competition with and displacement of native shellfish species is the primary concern related to release of reproductive material. However, the Project area appears to lack suitable substrate for development of natural Mediterranean mussel populations and there are no native shellfish populations in the Project area or in Ventura Harbor. Because the Mediterranean mussel is already so pervasive in California waters, the additional reproductive material released by the proposed Project may not have any appreciable effect on the spread of the species.

Permits/Entitlements Implicated

o Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and the Wildlife Coordination Act

o California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) federal consistency review pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and compliance with Section 30233(a) of Article 4, Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act (Coastal Act)

o CDFW review during the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process and lease approval

Information Needs

o Data regarding the nearest known existing occurrences of Mediterranean mussel and baseline conditions

o Amounts of potential release of eggs and larvae from the Project

ATTACHMENT 3

125

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

55 May 2017

o Potential for dispersion based on ocean currents

o Identification of suitable substrate and any native shellfish populations that could be affected

Issue B: Release of Potentially Invasive Species, Parasites, and Pathogens from Seed Stock

Shellfish aquaculture has the potential to introduce invasive species, parasites, and pathogens into the environment via seed stock, which could have detrimental impacts on the California marine ecosystem. The risk of such introductions can be minimized by ensuring shellfish seed are imported from sources with rigorous QA/QC for invasive species and that are certified to be disease and parasite free.

Permits/Entitlements Implicated: CDFW aquaculture registration

Information Needs: Importation permit demonstrating that the seed stock will come from a hatchery that is certified as disease and parasite free

3.1.2 Water Column Effects

The Project has the potential to affect habitat within the water column, including habitat for pelagic fish species.

Issue A: Removal of Phytoplankton from the Water Column

Mussels, including the Mediterranean mussel, are filter feeders that feed primarily on phytoplankton from the water column. In large enough numbers, cultivated mussels have the potential to affect the abundance and diversity of phytoplankton in the vicinity of aquaculture operations. A decrease in phytoplankton can lead to subsequent decreases in the zooplankton species that feed on phytoplankton and the fish species that feed on plankton in the water column. The Project’s location in open offshore waters reduces the likelihood that a localized decrease in phytoplankton will occur, because the currents and movement of water in the open ocean should ensure a sufficient mixing and turnover of water.

Permits/Entitlements Implicated

o Consultation with NMFS pursuant to ESA Section 7, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the Wildlife Coordination Act

o Coastal Commission federal consistency review pursuant to the CZMA and compliance with Section 30233(a) of Article 4, Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act

ATTACHMENT 3

126

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

56 May 2017

Information Needs

o Data regarding the baseline abundance of plankton in the vicinity of the Project area

o Phytoplankton consumption rate for mussels

o Potential for mixing of waters characterized by water movement velocity and depth in the Project area

Issue B: Effects of Equipment on Water Column Habitat

The aquaculture equipment associated with the Project, particularly the submerged lines and cultivation ropes, would serve as a new source of water column habitat not otherwise present in the open ocean. The new surface area created by the equipment has the potential to function as foraging habitat and refuge areas for pelagic fish species. This type of beneficial effect would be an important consideration in favor of locating the Project in open ocean waters.

Permits/Entitlements Implicated

o U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899

o Consultation with NMFS pursuant to ESA Section 7, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the Wildlife Coordination Act

o Coastal Commission federal consistency review pursuant to the CZMA and compliance with Section 30233(a) of Article 4, Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act

Information Needs

o Data regarding the baseline abundance of pelagic fish in the project vicinity

3.1.3 Benthic Community

The proposed project would be located above sandy bottom sea floor in offshore open ocean waters. The benthic community in the project area is likely to contain a limited number of epifaunal species and a much larger number of infaunal species. The Project has the potential to impact the benthic environment through both placement of the proposed anchors and through the accumulation of biological material generated by shellfish cultivation.

Issue A: Construction Impacts on the Seafloor

Seafloor habitat could be altered or disturbed by the placement of the anchoring apparatus (e.g., screw anchors) used to hold the lines, ropes, floats, and buoys of the cultivation lines in place. The Coastal Commission will consider the anchors as “fill in open coastal waters.” The Corps

ATTACHMENT 3

127

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

57 May 2017

will not consider the anchors as “fill” but will regulate the apparatus as a “structure” and regulate its placement as “work.”

Permits/Entitlements Implicated

o Corps Permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899

o Consultation with NMFS pursuant to ESA Section 7, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the Wildlife Coordination Act

o Coastal Commission federal consistency review pursuant to the CZMA and compliance with Section 30233(a) of Article 4, Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act

Information Needs

o Detailed plans describing and depicting the type, amount, layout, and method of installation of the facility, specifically the anchoring apparatus

o Data regarding the baseline abundance and diversity of epifaunal and infaunal species beneath the proposed anchoring areas

Issue B: Deposition and Accumulation of Biological Materials on the Seafloor during Operation

Seafloor habitat can be altered or disturbed by the deposition of biological materials resulting from dislodged or discharged shells, shell fragments, and deposits from the growing operation accumulating on the seafloor beneath the structure. Such material typically includes feces and pseudofeces from the cultivated shellfish, as well as fouling organisms such as algae, barnacles, sponges, and other species of shellfish that accumulate on the Project equipment and subsequently become dislodged by natural processes, or due to harvesting or cleaning operations. Cultivated shellfish or shells from the Project can also be dislodged from the structure during growth, storm events, predation by marine wildlife, cleaning, and harvest activities.

The accumulation of material including shell fragments, intact shells, fouling organisms, and feces can alter the physical and chemical characteristics of the bottom substrate, and can impact the benthic community and sediment-dwelling organisms that may be sensitive to conditions such as substrate composition and chemistry. Accumulation of material could also attract organisms that would change the composition of the benthic community.

Permits/Entitlements Implicated

o Coastal Commission federal consistency review pursuant to the CZMA and compliance with Sections 30230 and 30231 of Article 4, Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act

ATTACHMENT 3

128

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

58 May 2017

o Consultation with NMFS pursuant to ESA Section 7, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the Wildlife Coordination Act

Information Needs

o Analysis of baseline and potential seafloor habitat debris composition

3.1.4 Fouling Organisms (Didemnum)

The submerged structures of open water shellfish farms can provide hard substrate habitat for invasive “fouling organisms.” Fouling organisms, such as invasive algae, sea squirts, and mussels, pose economic and ecological risks to the marine environment. A species such as Didemnum vexillum is worthy of considerable attention as a nuisance species because it reproduces rapidly and fouls marine habitats (including shellfish aquaculture operations and fishing grounds), ship’s hulls, and maritime structures. It can interfere with coastal and offshore activities. Like other fouling organisms, they are found on hard substrates that include floats, moorings and ropes, steel chain, automobile tires, polythene plastic, rock outcrops, gravel seabed (pebbles, cobbles, boulders), and ship hulls. They overgrow other marine organisms such as tunicates, sponges, macro algae, hydroids, anemones, bryozoans, scallops, mussels, and oysters. Where these colonies occur on the seabed, they likely cover the siphons of infaunal bivalves and also serve as a barrier between demersal fish and benthic prey. The colonies can occur at water depths ranging from intertidal to continental shelf depths of 65 meters (213 feet).

Issue A: Attraction of Fouling Organisms on Aquaculture Gear

Permits/Entitlements Implicated

o Coastal Commission, Section 30231, Article 4, Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act

o NMFS consultation pursuant to ESA Section 7, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the Wildlife Coordination Act

o CDFW aquaculture registration

Information Needs

o An evaluation of the diversity, abundance, and distribution of fouling organisms that could potentially establish on the shellfish cultivation facility (e.g., ropes, buoys, cables, cultivation structures, and cultivated shellfish)

o A list of maintenance actions for in-water structures and vessels that involve the periodic removal of fouling organisms with proper collection and disposal protocols

ATTACHMENT 3

129

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

59 May 2017

o Analysis of the abundance/distribution of non-native fouling organisms, and evaluation of the response of fish, macro invertebrate, seabird, and marine mammal populations in the Project area to the presence of the facility’s bio fouling organisms

o An upland disposal plan for non-native fouling organisms when conducting maintenance cleaning operations

3.1.5 Marine Wildlife

The proposed Project would be located in open ocean waters that are used by numerous marine species, including marine mammals and sea turtles. Marine mammal species that could be present in the Project area include gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus), blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus), humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), Dall’s porpoises (Phocoenoides dalli), Pacific white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), common dolphins (Delphinus delphis), California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), and harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). Two species of sea turtle, green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) and leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea), could also be present. The Project has the potential to adversely affect marine wildlife via collisions with Project boats and entanglement in lines and aquaculture equipment.

Issue A: Potential for Ship Strikes due to Increased Boat Activity

Ship strikes are known to be a hazard to a number of marine species with the potential to occur in the Project vicinity, including several species of whale. The Project would contribute to increased boat traffic in the area during both Project construction and regular operations. Mortality from collision with marine vessels is often associated with larger container and freight ships; however, collisions with smaller boats such as those that would be used for the proposed Project do have the potential to kill or injure marine mammals.

Permits/Entitlements Implicated

o Coastal Commission, Section 30231, Article 4, Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act

o NMFS consultation pursuant to ESA Section 7, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the Wildlife Coordination Act

Information Needs

o List of species with the potential to occur in the Project area and survey data if available

o Information regarding the size and number of vessels to be used during Project construction

ATTACHMENT 3

130

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

60 May 2017

o Information regarding the size and number of vessels to be used during regular Project operations, such as seeding, harvesting, and maintenance of facilities and the frequency/number of trips

o Existing use of the area by ships (size, frequency)

Issue B: Potential for Marine Mammal Entanglement in Aquaculture Gear

Marine mammal entanglement in fishing gear is considered a major cause of injury and mortality for marine mammals, particularly when a large number of lines and ropes are used and the lines and ropes have a small diameter and are slack. Each of these factors can create a potential for entanglement.

Additional risk is posed by the potential for aquaculture facilities to trap derelict fishing gear, lines, and debris that could separately create the potential for entanglement if not properly managed and removed.

Few quantitative data are available regarding the risks of commercial aquaculture facilities located in offshore open ocean waters, particularly in California. A mussel aquaculture operation located off the coast of Santa Barbara is the nearest similar facility to the proposed Project, and that operation has never recorded an instance of marine mammal entanglement in more than a decade of operations.

The design of each of the facilities currently proposed consists of cultivation ropes suspended from a long line submerged 15 to 45 feet beneath the water surface. The configuration consists of a horizontal header line that is supported by buoys and vertical lines that anchor the longline to the bottom of the ocean, as shown on Figure 2. The long line configuration produces a fairly rigid structure under tension, with stout lines and little slack. Unlike fishing lines and nets, shellfish longlines are not intended to catch fish or marine mammals. Therefore, the Project design is expected to pose a much smaller risk to marine mammal entanglement compared to long line fishing methods.

Permits/Entitlements Implicated

o Coastal Commission, Section 30231, Article 4, Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act

o NOAA consultation pursuant to ESA Section 7, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the Wildlife Coordination Act

Information Needs

o List of species with the potential to occur in the Project area and survey data if available

ATTACHMENT 3

131

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

61 May 2017

3.2 Navigational Issues

Offshore shellfish cultivation facilities can pose a risk of collision or entanglement to ocean-based vessel traffic and activities such as whale watching, sailing, and fishing. Marker buoys placed at the corners of the facility demarcate the boundaries, and the actual cultivation structures would be submerged to a depth of 15 to 45 feet, below the draft of most vessel traffic outside of shipping lanes. With proper facility design, installation, location information, and in-water navigational demarcation, vessel traffic through an offshore shellfish cultivation facility can be properly managed.

Issue A: Project Effects on Navigational Safety

Permits/Entitlements Implicated

o U.S. Coast Guard pursuant to U.S. Private Aids to Navigation System

o Corps Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act Permit

o Coastal Commission pursuant to Sections 30211, 30220 of Article 4, Chapter 4 of the Coastal Act

Information Needs

o Marker buoy type, size, and layout design to assist implementation of a navigation system

o Facility structure layout plans to aid in analysis of collision or entanglement risk to vessel traffic

o Location and configuration information to allow information transfer to navigational charts

3.3 Air Quality Issues

Issue A: Increased Air Emissions from Boat Trips to Construct and Operate the Project

The proposed Project has the potential to impact air quality, primarily through emissions generated by additional boat trips to and from the Project site for construction, operation, and maintenance of the aquaculture facilities, as well as additional vehicle traffic generated by the Project and operation of harvesting equipment.  

Permits/Entitlements Implicated

o Corps Permit Public Interest Review, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899

ATTACHMENT 3

132

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

62 May 2017

Information Needs

o Information regarding the number of vessels to be used during Project construction, duration of construction, and estimate of resulting emissions

o Information regarding the number of vessels to be used during regular Project operations, such as seeding, harvesting, and maintenance of facilities; frequency/number of trips; and estimate of resulting emissions

o Expected vehicle traffic generated by the Project

o Existing use of the area by ships; baseline emissions

3.4 Product Quality Issues

3.4.1 Domoic Acid

Domoic acid is a biological toxin produced by members of the phytoplankton genus Pseudo-nitzschia. When environmental conditions cause these phytoplankton to bloom in excessive concentrations, domoic acid can accumulate in the environment and become highly concentrated in filter-feeding organisms and higher trophic levels of the marine food chain. It can be harmful to humans if shellfish contaminated with domoic acid is consumed.

Issue A: Potential for Domoic Acid Accumulation in Cultivated Shellfish from Natural Algae Blooms

Permits/Entitlements Implicated

o California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Environmental Management Branch (EMB) Pre-Harvest Shellfish Unit

Information Needs

o General growing area information and analysis geared towards understanding water quality and impacts to conduct a Preliminary Inquiry with CDPH’s EMB Pre-Harvest Shellfish Unit

o Detailed location information (with written authorization for that location), sanitary survey, and monitoring protocol for water quality and marine biotoxins to set rules for harvest closures and to develop a management strategy adequate for issuance of a CDPH Growing Area Certification

o A plan that identifies law enforcement agency patrol support when in the closed status (due to a product quality issue such as domoic acid) to deter illegal harvesting

ATTACHMENT 3

133

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

63 May 2017

3.4.2 Vibrio

Vibrio is a genus of Gram-negative bacteria. Several species of Vibrio are pathogens. Most disease-causing strains are associated with gastroenteritis in humans, but they can also infect open wounds and cause septicemia, leading to fatality. Vibrio can be carried by numerous marine organisms, including shellfish.

Issue A: Vibrio Contamination of Cultivated Shellfish

Permits/Entitlements Implicated

o CDPH’s EMB Pre-Harvest Shellfish Unit

Information Needs

o General growing area information and analysis geared towards understanding water quality and impacts to conduct a preliminary inquiry with CDPH’s EMB Pre-Harvest Shellfish Unit

o Detailed location information (with written authorization for that location), sanitary survey, and monitoring protocol for water quality and marine biotoxins to set rules for harvest closures and to develop a management strategy adequate for issuance of a CDPH Growing Area Certification

o A plan that identifies law enforcement agency patrol support when in the closed status (due to a product quality issue such as Vibrio) to deter illegal harvesting

3.5 Social Impact Issues

3.5.1 Commercial Fishing

The proposed Project has the potential to impact certain commercial fishing operations. In particular, the California Halibut Trawl Grounds are a designated area located offshore beginning approximately 1 nautical mile from the mainland shore between Point Arguello in Santa Barbara County and Point Mugu in Ventura County. California halibut (Paralichthys californicus) is a commercially important flatfish species caught in shallow waters off the Southern California coast. Trawl-caught California halibut account for the majority of California halibut catches, generating a seasonal annual average of over $1.7 million in ex-vessel revenue (CDFG 2008).

Issue A: Potential Economic Impact on Existing Fisheries

The Project’s location in offshore open ocean waters has the potential to preclude certain commercial and recreational fishing operations and activities within the lease areas. In

ATTACHMENT 3

134

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

64 May 2017

particular, the halibut trawling operations currently in the Project area would need to avoid the cultivation equipment, because the trawl nets and other equipment could become entangled or damaged by contact with the aquaculture lines. This preclusion of the lease areas could have an adverse economic impact on a fishery that has already seen its available trawling area restricted in recent years.

Permits/Entitlements Implicated

o Corps Permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899

o Coastal Commission federal consistency review pursuant to the CZMA and compliance with Section 30233(a) of Article 4, Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act

Information Needs

o Current use of the Project area by halibut trawling operations

o Suitability of Project area for halibut trawling operations

Issue B: Damage to Fishing Gear due to Contact with Aquaculture Equipment

The Project has the potential to damage commercial and recreational fishing gear should the gear come into contact with the aquaculture facilities and become entangled. The result of entanglement could be damage to or even loss of the fishing gear, which could have an adverse economic impact on fishermen. Clear demarcation of all lease areas and aquaculture configurations with surface highflyer buoys will minimize collisions and associated gear damage.

Permits/Entitlements Implicated

o Corps Permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899

o Coastal Commission federal consistency review pursuant to the CZMA and compliance with Section 30233(a) of Article 4, Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act

Information Needs

o Locations of lease areas and current fisheries operations

o Amount of recreational fishing in the lease areas

3.5.2 Aesthetics

Issue A: Onshore Aesthetic Impacts of Surface Equipment (Buoys, Navigation Aids, etc.)

The proposed Project site would be located in offshore waters and would likely not be visible to observers from the shoreline. The majority of equipment involved in longline mussel

ATTACHMENT 3

135

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

65 May 2017

aquaculture is located beneath the surface. Above-surface equipment would consist of buoys, floats, and navigational aids that would be used to identify the location of the cultivation plots for vessels to prevent collisions or entanglement of gear. The potential for aesthetical conflicts is likely to be minimal.

Permits/Entitlements Implicated

o Corps Permit Public Interest Review pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899

o Coastal Commission federal consistency review pursuant to the CZMA and compliance with Section 30233(a) of Article 4, Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act

Information Needs

o Visual layout of surface markers and buoys associated with specific lease locations

ATTACHMENT 3

136

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

66 May 2017

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ATTACHMENT 3

137

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

67 May 2017

4 REFERENCES CITED

Aquaculture Workshop (California Sea Grant Program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ), 2015. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Aquarium of the Pacific). 2015. Aquaculture Workshop Report: Offshore Aquaculture in the California Bight: Part 1. April 28–29, 2015. http://www.aquariumofpacific.org/downloads/ Aquaculture_Workshop_WEB.pdf.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2008. Review of California Halibut Trawl Fishery in the California Halibut Trawl Grounds. Report to the Fish and Game Commission. CDFG Marine Region, State Fisheries Evaluation Project. June 27, 2008. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=36120&inline.

Global Aquaculture Alliance. 2013. “Aquaculture Facility Certification: Mussel Farms – Best Aquaculture Practices Certification Standards, Guidelines.” Version 1. August 2013. Accessed September 30, 2016. bap.gaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/ 2/2015/02/BAP-MusselF-813.pdf.

Gentry R.R., S.E. Lester, C.V. Kappel, C. White, T.W. Bell, J. Stevens, and S.D. Gaines. 2017. “Offshore Aquaculture: Spatial Planning Principles for Sustainable Development.” Ecology and Evolution 7:733–743. doi: 10.1002/ece3.2637.

Los Angeles RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2014. Water Quality Control Plan: Los Angeles Region – Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. September 11, 2014. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan_documentation.shtml.

National Ocean Council. 2013. National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan. April 2013. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/national_ocean_policy_ implementation_plan.pdf.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2008. “Gear Modification Techniques for Complying with the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP).” Effective April 5, 2008. https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/nero/hotnews/whalesfr/Gear%20Modification%20Techniques%20for%20Complying%20with%20the%20ALWTRP_vs8.pdf

ATTACHMENT 3

138

Strategic Permitting Initiative to Substantially Increase Shellfish Farming in Southern California

68 May 2017

NOAA. 2011. “National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Aquaculture Policy.” NOAA Fisheries. June 2011. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/policy/noaa_aquaculture_policy_2011.pdf.

NOAA. 2013. “National Shellfish Initiative.” Fact sheet. NOAA Fisheries. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/policy/natl_shellfish_init_factsheet_ summer_2013.pdf.

ATTACHMENT 3

139

APPENDIX A Agency Comments Received

during Regulatory Pre-Application Meeting

ATTACHMENT 3

140

ATTACHMENT 3

141

APPENDIX A Agency Comments Received

during Regulatory Pre-Application Meeting

A-1 May 2017

Document Location Name Comment/Issue 1.4, Project Location Chris Yates (NOAA) Suggest having the Bren School model incorporate factors that the

permitting agencies suggest as screening criteria. Make sure the model is answering the questions of the permitting agencies.

1.5.3, Protected Species Conservation Measures

Bryant Chesney (NOAA) Fully describe conservation measures and point to recent studies and anecdotal evidence that supports this design and shows how issues can be managed.

2.1.3, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

Penny Ruvelas (NOAA) Include full list of listed species that could occur.

2.1.3, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

Bryant Chesney (NOAA) Consider reaching out to Pacific Fisheries Management Council regarding their Essential Fish Habitat responsibilities.

2.1.3, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

Penny Ruvelas (NOAA) Consider variety of other effects and concerns beyond just the location of the lines in the water. For example, need to consider entire scope of project, including impact of having 20 or more sites, how the ropes and lines are configured in the water, harvesting activities, boat traffic, etc.

2.3.2, California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Loni Adams (CDFW) Consider California least terns could potentially be impacted as they forage in Ventura Harbor.

Table 3, Key Issues and Potential Levels of Impact

Penny Ruvelas (NOAA) For ESA/MMPA, focus is at site specific level. But also need to consider density and siting/location of structures; where sites are located relative to one another. Make sure there isn’t a creation of migratory barriers or mazes for species moving through. Also think about MMPA stocks – dolphin or porpoise stocks that have a restricted range; make sure not narrowing with dense placement within 100 acre plots.

Table 3, Key Issues and Potential Levels of Impact

Chris Yates (NOAA) Don’t want to set up a curtain or migratory barrier for gray whales, for example.

Table 3, Key Issues and Potential Levels of Impact

Bryant Chesney (NOAA) Think of other indirect impacts such as Port infrastructure expansion’s effects if creating a large commercial enterprise.

Table 3, Key Issues and Potential Levels of Impact

Cassidy Teufel (CA Coastal Commission)

Marine debris can be a biological issue and also have commercial impacts. Facilities themselves can break loose and become marine debris. And if fishing is allowed nearby, fishing gear can become entangled and lost.

Table 3, Key Issues and Potential Levels of Impact

Chris Yates (NOAA) Consider gear marking requirements so there is a confident system of marking and way of identifying if pieces get lost.

Table 3, Key Issues and Potential Levels of Impact

Cassidy Teufel (CA Coastal Commission)

On water operations and use of lighting – protected sea bird species can be sensitive to light attraction. If there are on-water operations at night, effects of use of lighting should be considered depending on location and how far offshore.

Table 3, Key Issues and Potential Levels of Impact

Cassidy Teufel (CA Coastal Commission)

May need to consider effects of on-water operations at night (light effects) as aesthetic or visual impacts, depending how far offshore.

ATTACHMENT 3

142

APPENDIX A (Continued)

A-2 May 2017

Document Location Name Comment/Issue 3.5, Social Impact Issues – 3.5.1, Commercial Fishing

Mike McCorkle Fishermen already concerned about being squeezed in. Have had bad luck with CDFW; leases are still there that were never removed and not marked. Gray whales need to be included in list of species moving through. Would support a project inside of one mile. Sites have to be well marked and monitoring needs to happen. Put pingers on leases to warn whales. Need a bond to ensure there’s clean up if growers walk away. Need criteria in place/ vetting process for who can get a lease. Concerned about unmaintained gear and no enforcement from the agencies. Fishermen need to know where the sites are and they need to be clearly marked.

ATTACHMENT 3

143

San Nicolas

U.S

. Wat

ers

Mex

ican

Wat

ers

896

697

895

777

776

897901

880889890 881 879894 893

878883886888 882885 884887891892

869 868870874 861873 865875 862871872 864866 863876

858 847857 846856 853854 848 845855 844852 843851

834841 825828 826835840 831833 824827830839 836 823832837838

809 808816817 811 810818 815 804 803812820 819 805 802

758759773 768 767774 772775 766769

771 770 764765

763

741751 750 744746 745755 743 742754 747749752 740748753

735 725 724734 732733 726727 722728736 731 723 721729730

739

713 703 702714 707 704717 705716 715 706

692695696 691 684693694

676 675 672 669 668 666671674 667670673677

662 658660661 659663

760

822

806

829

689

708

867

665

683

807

710

757

813

688

712

814

762

690 687 685

656

850

709

655

849

657

720

686

738

654

682

761

711

719

860

652653

842

801

701

756

718

664

681 679

877

680

821

737

651

859

678

650

644645648 646647

641642 639640 638

634635 633636 632

643

637

631

1032

1033

1034

1036

1035

910

Pt. Arg

uello

Pt. Con

cept

ion

Santa

Barba

ra

Ventur

a

Pt. Dum

e

Santa

Mon

ica

San P

edro

San Miguel SantaRosa

SantaCruz Anacapa

Dana P

oint

Ocean

side

La Joll

a

San Clemente

Santa Catalina

Santa Barbara

Pt. Sal

950 904 902 903

916

Gaviot

a

Carpin

teria

Port H

uene

me

Pt. Mug

u

Mali

bu

Redon

do B

each

Huntin

gton B

each

Lagun

a Bea

ch

San O

nofre

Encin

itas

Del M

ar

Pt. La J

olla

Pt. Vice

nte

Miss

ion B

ay

Coronado Islands

Cortez Bank

Tanner Bank

Osborn BankBegg Rock

Horseshoe Kelp

Bishop Rock

121°30'0"W

121°30'0"W

120°45'0"W

120°45'0"W

120°0'0"W

120°0'0"W

119°15'0"W

119°15'0"W

118°30'0"W

118°30'0"W

117°45'0"W

117°45'0"W

117°0'0"W

117°0'0"W

32°1

5'0"

N

32°1

5'0"

N

33°0

'0"N

33°0

'0"N

33°4

5'0"

N

33°4

5'0"

N

34°3

0'0"

N

34°3

0'0"

N

35°1

5'0"

N

35°1

5'0"

N

San Nicolas

U.S

. Wat

ers

Mex

ican

Wat

ers

896

697

895

777

776

897901

880889890 881 879894 893

878883886888 882885 884887891892

869 868870874 861873 865875 862871872 864866 863876

858 847857 846856 853854 848 845855 844852 843851

834841 825828 826835840 831833 824827830839 836 823832837838

809 808816817 811 810818 815 804 803812820 819 805 802

758759773 768 767774 772775 766769

771 770 764765

763

741751 750 744746 745755 743 742754 747749752 740748753

735 725 724734 732733 726727 722728736 731 723 721729730

739

713 703 702714 707 704717 705716 715 706

692695696 691 684693694

676 675 672 669 668 666671674 667670673677

662 658660661 659663

760

822

806

829

689

708

867

665

683

807

710

757

813

688

712

814

762

690 687 685

656

850

709

655

849

657

720

686

738

654

682

761

711

719

860

652653

842

801

701

756

718

664

681 679

877

680

821

737

651

859

678

650

644645648 646647

641642 639640 638

634635 633636 632

643

637

631

1032

1033

1034

1036

1035

910

Pt. Arg

uello

Pt. Con

cept

ion

Santa

Barba

ra

Ventur

a

Pt. Dum

e

Santa

Mon

ica

San P

edro

San Miguel SantaRosa

SantaCruz Anacapa

Dana P

oint

Ocean

side

La Joll

a

San Clemente

Santa Catalina

Santa Barbara

Pt. Sal

950 904 902 903

916

Gaviot

a

Carpin

teria

Port H

uene

me

Pt. Mug

u

Mali

bu

Redon

do B

each

Huntin

gton B

each

Lagun

a Bea

ch

San O

nofre

Encin

itas

Del M

ar

Pt. La J

olla

Pt. Vice

nte

Miss

ion B

ay

Coronado Islands

Cortez Bank

Tanner Bank

Osborn BankBegg Rock

Horseshoe Kelp

Bishop Rock

121°30'0"W

121°30'0"W

120°45'0"W

120°45'0"W

120°0'0"W

120°0'0"W

119°15'0"W

119°15'0"W

118°30'0"W

118°30'0"W

117°45'0"W

117°45'0"W

117°0'0"W

117°0'0"W

32°1

5'0"

N

32°1

5'0"

N

33°0

'0"N

33°0

'0"N

33°4

5'0"

N

33°4

5'0"

N

34°3

0'0"

N

34°3

0'0"

N

35°1

5'0"

N

35°1

5'0"

N

Use Block Number: 3028 - Outside 200 nmi (EEZ) of U.S. 3900 - Outside 200 nmi of MexicoNote: Between 1964-2000, fishing blocks 857, 858, 875, 876,893, 894 were incorporated into a larger block denoted as 857.

25 0 25 50Km

25 0 25 50Mi

Scale 1:2,000,000

Southern California Fisheries ChartCalifornia Department of Fish & Game

-- This chart is not intended for use in navigation ---- Each block is 10 minutes square --

Marine Region GIS LabJune 2001

ATTACHMENT 4

144

CDFW Catch Data for Anchovy, Halibut, Sardine

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Value ($) Total Pounds

Species Name Block Code Value ($) Pounds Value ($) Pounds Value ($) Pounds Value ($) Pounds Value ($) Pounds

Anchovy, northern 664 11,095.50$ 36985 5,155.20$ 18384 28,391.30$ 81118 35,495.95$ 101417 7,679.00$ 21940 87,816.95$ 259844

665 5,235.88$ 29265 3,198.65$ 9139 1,803.75$ 7215 -$ 0 10,238.28$ 45619

Anchovy, northern Total 11,095.50$ 36985 10,391.08$ 47649 31,589.95$ 90257 37,299.70$ 108632 7,679.00$ 21940 98,055.23$ 305463

Halibut, California 664 9,957.20$ 1764.5 32,138.80$ 5516.2 2,683.45$ 535.1 2,808.85$ 510.7 2,279.54$ 369.09 49,867.84$ 8695.59

665 109,441.03$ 26864.4 124,162.37$ 29127.31 105,277.87$ 20717.44 166,713.78$ 35815 168,227.84$ 34894.38 673,822.88$ 147418.53

Halibut, California Total 119,398.23$ 28628.9 156,301.17$ 34643.51 107,961.32$ 21252.54 169,522.63$ 36325.7 170,507.38$ 35263.47 723,690.72$ 156114.12

Sardine, Pacific 664 23,056.13$ 77154 -$ 0 23,056.13$ 77154

665 4.02$ 8.03 6.00$ 15 10.02$ 23.03

Sardine, Pacific Total 23,060.15$ 77162.03 6.00$ 15 23,066.15$ 77177.03

Totals 664-5 153,553.88$ 142775.93 166,692.24$ 82292.51 139,551.27$ 111509.54 206,822.33$ 144957.7 178,192.38$ 57218.47 844,812.09$ 538754.15

ATTACHMENT 5

145