Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Regulations, 3216-3262 [E9-652]
Download as PDF
3216
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
California and on the Web at https://
channelislands.noaa.gov.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
15 CFR Part 922
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Murray at (805) 884–1464.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[Docket No. 080311420–9008–02]
I. Introduction
RIN 0648–AT17
Pursuant to section 304(e) of the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act
(NMSA; 16 U.S.C. 1434(e)), NOAA
conducted a review of the management
plan and regulations for the Channel
Islands National Marine Sanctuary
(CINMS or Sanctuary), located off Santa
Barbara and Ventura counties in
southern California. As a result of the
review, NOAA determined that it was
necessary to revise the management
plan and regulations for the Sanctuary
and subsequently published a draft
revised management plan, proposed
rule, and draft environmental impact
statement (71 FR 29096; May 19, 2006).
NOAA later published a supplemental
proposed rule and supplemental draft
environmental impact statement (73 FR
16580; March 28, 2008).
The revised management plan for the
Sanctuary contains a series of action
plans that outline management,
research, education, operational, and
evaluation activities for the next five
years. The activities are designed to
address specific issues facing the
Sanctuary and, in doing so, help achieve
the mandates of the NMSA and the
Sanctuary’s designation. NOAA has also
revised several sections of the
Sanctuary’s terms of designation. This
final rule publishes these revisions, as
well as revisions to Sanctuary
regulations. These revisions are
described below in the ‘‘Terms of
Designation’’ and ‘‘Summary of the
Regulatory Amendments’’ sections and
are analyzed in the FEIS. The FMP and
FEIS are available at https://
channelislands.noaa.gov or may be
obtained by contacting the individual
listed under the heading FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
AGENCY: Office of National Marine
Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean
Service (NOS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce (DOC).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
publishes this rule to finalize the
regulations for the Channel Islands
National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS or
Sanctuary). This final rule revises the
regulations to implement prohibitions
on: Exploring for, developing, or
producing minerals within the
Sanctuary; abandoning matter on or in
Sanctuary submerged lands; taking
marine mammals, sea turtles, or
seabirds within or above the Sanctuary;
possessing within the Sanctuary any
marine mammal, sea turtle, or seabird;
marking, defacing, damaging, moving,
removing, or tampering with Sanctuary
signs, monuments, boundary markers,
or similar items; introducing or
otherwise releasing from within or into
the Sanctuary an introduced species;
and operating motorized personal
watercraft within waters of the
Sanctuary that are coextensive with the
Channel Islands National Park. NOAA
also makes additional changes to the
grammar and wording of several
sections of the regulations to ensure
clarity. Finally, NOAA publishes the
Sanctuary’s revised terms of
designation.
DATES: Effective Date: Pursuant to
section 304(b) of the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C.
1434(b)), the revised terms of
designation and regulations shall take
effect and become final after the close of
a review period of forty-five days of
continuous session of Congress
beginning on January 16, 2009.
Announcement of the effective date of
the final regulations will be published
in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the final
management plan (FMP) and final
environmental impact statement (FEIS)
are available at Channel Islands
National Marine Sanctuary, 113 Harbor
Way, Suite 150, Santa Barbara,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
A. Marine Reserves and Conservation
Areas
In 2002, NOAA considered merging
the environmental review processes for
management plan review and the
consideration of marine zones within
the Sanctuary, but subsequently
determined that it was more appropriate
to proceed with two separate processes
for these actions because of differing
process needs regarding coordination
with the State of California and Pacific
Fishery Management Council.
Consequently, NOAA prepared a
separate DEIS and proposed rule (71 FR
46134; August 11, 2006) and FEIS and
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
final rule (72 FR 29208; May 24, 2007)
to address marine zones in the
Sanctuary. As such, that process is
outside the scope of this rule.
B. Sanctuary Environment
Designated on October 2, 1980 (45 FR
65200), the Sanctuary consists of an area
off the coast of southern California of
approximately 1470 square statute miles
(1110 square nmi) 1 adjacent to the
following islands and offshore rocks:
San Miguel Island, Santa Cruz Island,
Santa Rosa Island, Anacapa Island,
Santa Barbara Island, Richardson Rock,
and Castle Rock (the Islands) extending
seaward to a distance of approximately
six nmi. The Sanctuary is located within
the upper portion of the Southern
California Bight (SCB), which is formed
by a transition in the California
coastline wherein the north-south
trending coast begins to trend east to
west. The SCB stretches from Point
Conception in the north to Punta
Eugenia (Mexico) in the south. Due to
the oceanographic features of the SCB,
its two biogeographic provinces or
bioregions (areas characterized by
distinct patterns of species abundance
and distribution) and a transition zone
between them, and the complex bottom
topography and diversity of habitats
found at the Islands, the Sanctuary has
a great diversity of marine life.
Numerous important habitats are
represented within the Sanctuary
including kelp forests, surfgrass and
eelgrass, intertidal, nearshore subtidal,
deep-water benthic, and pelagic
habitats.
The Sanctuary’s cultural values stem
largely from its rich array of maritime
heritage resources (paleontological
remains, prehistoric archaeological sites
and their associated artifacts,
shipwrecks, aircraft wrecks, and
material associated with wharves, piers
1 From 1980 to 2007, the area of CINMS was
described as approximately 1252.5 square nautical
miles. However, in 2007 NOAA re-calculated the
original CINMS area as approximately 1113 square
nautical miles (72 FR 29208). Also in 2007, NOAA
designated the federal portion of the Channel
Islands MPA network, consisting of eight marine
reserves and one marine conservation area within
the CINMS (72 FR 29208). The marine reserves are
distributed throughout the CINMS and extend
slightly beyond the original boundaries of the
CINMS in four locations, increasing the overall size
of the Sanctuary by approximately 15 square
nautical miles. This change allowed the boundary
of four of the marine reserves to be defined by
straight lines projecting outside the original CINMS
boundary, allowing for better enforcement of the
marine reserves. Since then, adjusting for technical
corrections and using updated technologies, NOAA
has re-calculated the CINMS area as approximately
1470 square statute miles (1110 square nmi). This
change does not constitute a change in the
geographic area of the Sanctuary, but rather an
improvement in the estimate of its size.
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
and landings). Carbon dating indicates
that humans were present at the Islands
as early as 13,000 years ago. The Islands
and surrounding Sanctuary contain an
abundance of prehistoric Native
American Chumash artifacts and are
still revered as part of the traditional
homeland by contemporary Chumash.
Historical remains may exist from as
early as Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo’s
voyage (1542 to 1543) through modern
times. Known historical remains are
represented in an inventory of over 140
shipwrecks and aircraft wrecks
documented as existing in the Sanctuary
since 1853. The uniqueness of the
Sanctuary region and its proximity to
several major ports and harbors along
the mainland coast has made it a
popular destination for numerous
recreational and commercial activities.
Sportfishing, diving, snorkeling, whale
watching, pleasure boating, kayaking,
surfing, and sightseeing are all popular
pastimes within the Sanctuary, which is
often referred to as ‘‘the Galapagos of
the north.’’ Commercial activities
include fishing, whale watching,
chartered tours, and maritime shipping.
The Sanctuary is located near an area
of southern California coastline that has
experienced a dramatic increase in
population. Whereas the population of
southern California (Imperial, Los
Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara,
and Ventura counties) was
approximately 13.5 million in 1980,
population levels now reach nearly 20
million. This represents a regional
increase in population of approximately
43%. Aerial and on-water surveys
indicate that visitation to CINMS has
increased significantly since 1980. With
continued technological innovations
such as global positioning systems
(GPS) and improved watercraft design,
it is likely that there will be continued
increasing visitation to the Sanctuary
and added pressure on its resources.
With its proposed revised management
plan and regulations, NOAA continues
to protect CINMS for appreciation and
appropriate use by current and future
generations. For a more detailed
description of the Sanctuary
environment, please refer to the final
environmental impact statement
available on the Sanctuary Web site at
https://channelislands.noaa.gov.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
II. Changes to the Sanctuary Terms of
Designation
Section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA (16
U.S.C. 1434(a)(4)) requires that, in
designating national marine sanctuaries,
NOAA specify the sanctuary’s ‘‘terms of
designation.’’ The NMSA requires that
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
each sanctuary’s terms of designation
include:
1. The geographic area proposed to be
included within the sanctuary;
2. The characteristics of the area that
give it conservation, recreational,
ecological, historical, research,
educational, or esthetic value; and
3. The types of activities that will be
subject to regulation by the Secretary to
protect those characteristics.
The CINMS terms of designation were
originally published in 1980 upon
establishment of the Sanctuary and
revised in 2007 (45 FR 65198, published
October 2, 1980; and 72 FR 29208,
published May 24, 2007, respectively).
NOAA is revising the Sanctuary’s
terms of designation as follows:
1. Modifying the characteristics that
give the Sanctuary particular value
(Article III) to clarify that the submerged
lands at CINMS are legally part of the
Sanctuary and are included in the
boundary description. At the time the
Sanctuary was designated in 1980, Title
III of the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act (now also known as
the NMSA) characterized national
marine sanctuaries as consisting of
coastal and ocean waters but did not
expressly mention submerged lands
thereunder. NOAA has consistently
interpreted its authority under the
NMSA as extending to submerged lands,
and amendments to the NMSA in 1984
(Pub. L. 98–498) clarified that
submerged lands may be designated by
the Secretary of Commerce as part of a
national marine sanctuary (16 U.S.C.
1432(3)). Therefore, NOAA is updating
the terms of designation and the
boundary description, and is also
replacing the term ‘‘seabed’’ with
‘‘submerged lands of the Sanctuary.’’ In
addition, NOAA is clarifying the
description of the Sanctuary’s shoreline
boundary demarcation as the Mean High
Water Line (MHWL) of Island shores.
2. Modifying the scope of activities
that may be subject to regulation
(Article IV) to authorize regulation of:
a. Exploring for, developing, or
producing minerals within the
Sanctuary;
b. Discharging or depositing from
beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary
any material or other matter that
subsequently enters the Sanctuary and
injures a Sanctuary resource or quality;
c. Placing or abandoning any
structure, material, or other matter on or
in the submerged lands of the
Sanctuary;
d. Moving, injuring, possessing, or
attempting to move, injure, or possess a
Sanctuary historical resource;
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3217
e. Taking any marine mammal, sea
turtle, or seabird within or above the
Sanctuary;
f. Possessing within the Sanctuary
(regardless of where taken from, moved,
or removed from) any marine mammal,
sea turtle or seabird;
g. Marking, defacing, damaging,
moving, removing, or tampering with
any sign, notice, or placard, whether
temporary or permanent, or any
monument, stake, post, or other
boundary marker related to the
Sanctuary; and
h. Introducing or otherwise releasing
from within or into the Sanctuary an
introduced species.
These substantive revisions to and
addition of new activities subject to
Sanctuary regulation enable new and
emerging resource management issues
to be addressed, and are necessary in
order to ensure the protection,
preservation, and management of the
conservation, recreational, ecological,
historical, cultural, educational,
archeological, scientific, and esthetic
resources and qualities of the Sanctuary.
3. Ensuring consistency of the
sections on international law and
emergency regulations with the NMSA
and ONMS program-wide regulations
(sections 2 and 3 of Article IV).
4. Updating the explanation of the
effect of Sanctuary authority on
preexisting leases, permits, licenses, and
rights (section 3 of Article V).
5. Updating Article VI, ‘‘Alterations to
This Designation’’, to reflect the NMSA
as currently written.
6. Making other minor editorial
changes in order to conform wording of
the Sanctuary’s terms of designation,
where appropriate, to wording used in
the NMSA and for more recently
designated sanctuaries.
NOAA is not making any changes to
the ‘‘Fishing’’ and ‘‘Defense Activities’’
sections within Article V (Relation to
Other Regulatory Programs) of the terms
of designation as part of this action.
Revised Terms of Designation for the
Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary
Article I. Effect of Designation
The Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary was designated on October 2,
1980 (45 FR 65200). Section 308 of the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 16
U.S.C. 1431 et seq., (NMSA) authorizes
the issuance of such regulations as may
be necessary to implement the
designation, including managing,
protecting and preserving the
conservation, recreational, ecological,
historical, cultural, archeological,
scientific, educational, and esthetic
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
3218
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
resources and qualities of the Channel
Islands National Marine Sanctuary
(Sanctuary). Section 1 of Article IV of
this Designation Document lists
activities of the types that are to be
regulated on the effective date of
designation or may be regulated at some
later date in order to protect Sanctuary
resources and qualities. Listing does not
necessarily mean that a type of activity
will be regulated; however, if a type of
activity is not listed it may not be
regulated, except on an emergency
basis, unless Section 1 of Article IV is
amended to include the type of activity
by the same procedures by which the
original designation was made.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Article II. Description of the Area
The Sanctuary consists of an area of
approximately 1,110 square nautical
miles (nmi) of coastal and ocean waters,
and the submerged lands thereunder, off
the southern coast of California. The
Sanctuary boundary begins at the Mean
High Water Line of and extends seaward
to a distance of approximately six nmi
from the following islands and offshore
rocks: San Miguel Island, Santa Cruz
Island, Santa Rosa Island, Anacapa
Island, Santa Barbara Island, Richardson
Rock, and Castle Rock (the Islands). The
seaward boundary coordinates are listed
in an Appendix to 15 CFR 922 subpart
G.
Article III. Characteristics of the Area
That Give It Particular Value
The Islands and surrounding
ecosystems are unique and highly
valued, as demonstrated by, for
example, several national and
international designations. The Islands
and surrounding ecosystems are
characterized by a unique combination
of features including: Complex
oceanography, varied bathymetry,
diverse habitats, remarkable
biodiversity, rich maritime heritage,
remote yet accessible location, and
relative lack of development. These
features yield high existence values as
well as human use values for research,
education, recreation, and commerce.
The Islands are located within a 300mile long oceanographic region known
as the Continental Borderland, a unique
region of the continental shelf
characterized by basins and elevated
ridges. Within this region, the
confluence of the cool California
Current and warm Southern California
Countercurrent creates two distinct
bioregions in and around the Sanctuary:
The cold Oregonian bioregion and the
warm Californian bioregion. There is
also a transition zone between the two
regions. The overlap of these bioregions
results in a unique and highly diverse
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
array of marine life within the
Sanctuary, including cold water species
at the southern end of their range and
warm water species at the northern end
of their range. In addition, the Sanctuary
is located offshore from Point
Conception, the southernmost major
upwelling center on the west coast of
the United States. Upwelling yields
increased primary productivity essential
to the marine food web.
Diverse bathymetry and habitats are
also important and unique
characteristics of the Islands and
surrounding ecosystems. The Sanctuary
contains many important and varied
physical and geological features
including a complex of plateaus,
continental slope, gyres, banks, subsea
canyons, and rocky reefs. The diversity
of accentuated bottom relief, abrupt
change in depth, and varied substrate
provide a spectrum of marine habitats.
Some of the key marine habitats are
sandy beach, rocky intertidal, kelp
forest, rocky reef, and sandy bottom.
The Sanctuary’s oceanographic and
physical features support a great
diversity of marine species, many of
which are extremely rare and afforded
special protection by federal and state
law. At least 33 species of cetaceans are
found within the Sanctuary, including
blue, gray, and humpback whales and
numerous dolphin species. While seven
species of pinnipeds have been found
historically throughout or in certain
areas of the Sanctuary, at least four
species maintain important rookery
and/or haul out sites on the Islands.
Following the 1987 to 1990
translocation of southern sea otters to
San Nicolas Island, rare sea otter
sightings have been reported in the
Sanctuary. Over 60 species of seabird
occur within the Sanctuary, eleven of
which utilize breeding habitat at the
Islands. In addition, over 400 species of
fish and more than 5,000 species of
invertebrates are found in the
Sanctuary. Stranding data indicate that
green, loggerhead, olive Ridley, and
leatherback sea turtles may also be
found within the Sanctuary. Finally,
numerous marine algae and plant
species occur within the Sanctuary, the
most notable among these being giant
kelp and eelgrass.
The quality and abundance of natural
resources at the Islands and surrounding
waters have attracted man from the
earliest prehistoric times to the present.
As a result, the Sanctuary contains
significant prehistoric and historic
maritime heritage resources. Prehistoric
maritime heritage resources include
submerged Native American Chumash
sites, the significance of which is
underscored by a terrestrial Island site
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
with human remains dated to 13,000
years ago. Historic maritime heritage
resources date back as far as 1542 and
include over 140 historic shipwreck and
aircraft sites. These wrecks reveal the
diverse range of activities and
nationalities that have traversed the
Santa Barbara Channel. Following the
mission era, human occupation of the
Islands transitioned from significant
Chumash Native American villages, to
land grant and ranching settlements,
and finally to joint public-private
ownership and management aimed at
resource conservation and compatible
public use. Today’s Chumash people
continue to value and enjoy the Islands
and surrounding Sanctuary waters,
working to keep and revitalize their
ancient Chumash maritime heritage.
Despite this long history of human
presence on the Islands, they remain
remote yet accessible, and undeveloped
relative to the burgeoning populations
of nearby mainland southern California.
The physical, biological, and cultural
characteristics of the Sanctuary combine
to provide outstanding opportunities for
appropriate scientific research,
education, recreation, commerce, and
natural and maritime heritage resource
protection, preservation, and
management. The Islands and
surrounding Sanctuary are the subject of
extensive research, primarily in the
following categories: Physical and
biological science research;
socioeconomic, cultural, and historic
research; and political science research.
Since its designation in 1980, the
Sanctuary has played an important role
in marine science education for all ages
on a local, regional, national, and
international scale. Popular Sanctuary
recreation activities include wildlife
viewing, boating, sailing, kayaking,
diving, and sportfishing. Commercial
activities within the Sanctuary include
maritime shipping, oil and gas activities
(three leases units pre-date the
Sanctuary), kelp harvesting, and
commercial fishing. Some of the state’s
most valuable commercial fisheries
occur within the Sanctuary. County,
state, and federal agencies manage the
resources of the Islands and
surrounding area and human uses
thereof.
Several special designations recognize
the Islands’ and surrounding
ecosystems’ unique value. In 1980, the
United States designated both the
Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary, as well as the islands of
Anacapa, San Miguel, Santa Barbara,
Santa Cruz, and Santa Rosa and 125,000
acres of submerged lands surrounding
them as the Channel Islands National
Park. In addition, the United Nations
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization’s (UNESCO) Man and the
Biosphere Program designated the
Sanctuary as a Biosphere Reserve in
1986.
Article IV. Scope of Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Section 1. Activities Subject to
Regulation
The following activities are subject to
regulation, including prohibition, as
may be necessary to ensure the
management, protection, and
preservation of the conservation,
recreational, ecological, historical,
cultural, archeological, scientific,
educational, and esthetic resources and
qualities of this area:
a. Exploring for, developing, or
producing hydrocarbons or minerals
within the Sanctuary;
b. Discharging or depositing from
within or into the Sanctuary any
material or other matter;
c. Discharging or depositing from
beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary
any material or other matter that
subsequently enters the Sanctuary and
injures a Sanctuary resource or quality;
d. Drilling into, dredging, or
otherwise altering the submerged lands
of the Sanctuary; or constructing,
placing, or abandoning any structure,
material, or other matter on or in the
submerged lands of the Sanctuary;
e. Operating a vessel (i.e., watercraft
of any description) within the Sanctuary
except fishing vessels or vessels
traveling within a Vessel Traffic
Separation Scheme or Port Access Route
designated by the Coast Guard outside
of 1 nmi from any Island;
f. Disturbing a marine mammal or
seabird by an overflight below 1000 feet;
g. Within a marine reserve, marine
park, or marine conservation area,
harvesting, removing, taking, injuring,
destroying, possessing, collecting,
moving, or causing the loss of any
Sanctuary resource, including living or
dead organisms or historical resources,
or attempting any of these activities;
h. Within a marine reserve, marine
park, or marine conservation area,
possessing fishing gear;
i. Moving, removing, injuring,
possessing, or attempting to move,
remove, injure, or possess a Sanctuary
historical resource;
j. Taking any marine mammal, sea
turtle, or seabird within or above the
Sanctuary;
k. Possessing within the Sanctuary
(regardless of where taken from, moved,
or removed from) any marine mammal,
sea turtle, or seabird;
l. Marking, defacing, damaging,
moving, removing, or tampering with
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
any sign, notice, or placard, whether
temporary or permanent, or any
monument, stake, post, or other
boundary marker related to the
Sanctuary;
m. Introducing or otherwise releasing
from within or into the Sanctuary an
introduced species.
Section 2. Consistency With
International Law
The regulations governing the
activities listed in Section 1 of this
article shall be applied in accordance
with generally recognized principles of
international law, and in accordance
with treaties, conventions, and other
agreements to which the United States
is a party. No regulation shall apply to
or be enforced against a person who is
not a citizen, national, or resident alien
of the United States, unless in
accordance with: Generally recognized
principles of international law; an
agreement between the United States
and the foreign state of which the
person is a citizen; or an agreement
between the United States and the flag
state of a foreign vessel, if the person is
a crewmember of the vessel.
Section 3. Emergency Regulations
Where necessary to prevent or
minimize the destruction of, loss of, or
injury to a Sanctuary resource or
quality, or minimize the imminent risk
of such destruction, loss, or injury, any
and all activities, including those not
listed in section 1 of this Article, are
subject to immediate temporary
regulation, including prohibition,
consistent with the Administrative
Procedure Act.
Article V. Relation to Other Regulatory
Programs
Section 1. Fishing
The regulation of fishing is not
authorized under Article IV, except
within portions of the Sanctuary
designated as marine reserves, marine
parks, or marine conservation areas
established pursuant to the goals and
objectives of the Sanctuary and within
the scope of the State of California’s
Final Environmental Document ‘‘Marine
Protected Areas in NOAA’s Channel
Islands National Marine Sanctuary’’
(California Department of Fish and
Game, October 2002), certified by the
California Fish and Game Commission.
However, fishing vessels may be
regulated with respect to discharges in
accordance with Article IV, Section 1,
paragraphs (b) and (c), and aircraft
conducting kelp bed surveys below
1000 feet can be regulated in accordance
with Article IV, Section 1, paragraph (f).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3219
All regulatory programs pertaining to
fishing, including particularly
regulations promulgated under the
California Fish and Game Code and
Fishery Management Plans promulgated
under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, 16
U.S.C. 1801 et seq., shall remain in
effect. All permits, licenses and other
authorizations issued pursuant thereto
shall be valid within the Sanctuary
unless authorizing any activity
prohibited by any regulation
implementing Article IV. Fishing as
used in this article and in Article IV
includes kelp harvesting.
Section 2. Defense Activities
The regulation of those activities
listed in Article IV shall not prohibit
any activity conducted by the
Department of Defense that is essential
for national defense or because of an
emergency. Such activities shall be
consistent with the regulations to the
maximum extent practicable.
Section 3. Effect on Leases, Permits,
Licenses, and Rights
Pursuant to section 304(c) of the
NMSA, 16 U.S.C. 1434(c), no valid
lease, permit, license, approval, or other
authorization issued by any federal,
state, or local authority of competent
jurisdiction, or any right of subsistence
use or access, may be terminated by the
Secretary of Commerce or designee as a
result of this designation or as a result
of any Sanctuary regulation if such
authorization or right was in existence
on the effective date of this designation.
The Secretary of Commerce, or
designee, however, may regulate the
exercise (including, but not limited to,
the imposition of terms and conditions)
of such authorization or right consistent
with the purposes for which the
Sanctuary is designated.
Article VI. Alterations to This
Designation
The terms of designation, as defined
under section 304(a) of the NMSA, may
be modified only by the same
procedures by which the original
designation is made, including public
hearings, consultation with interested
federal and state agencies and the
Pacific Fishery Management Council,
approval by the Secretary of Commerce
or designee, and after the close of a
review period of forty-five days of
continuous session of Congress.
III. Summary of the Regulatory
Amendments
This section describes the changes
NOAA is making to the CINMS
regulations.
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3220
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
1. Clarify and update Sanctuary
boundary.
This rule clarifies that ‘‘submerged
lands’’ are within the Sanctuary
boundary, i.e., part of the Sanctuary.
This updates the boundary regulation to
make it consistent with the revised
terms of designation. (See discussion
above for more information.) This rule
also clarifies the description of the
shoreline boundary to make clear that
the shoreline boundary is the Mean
High Water Line (MHWL) of Island
shores.
2. Revise oil and gas regulation, and
add mineral regulation.
This rule modifies the oil and gas
regulation by removing the oil spill
contingency equipment requirements
and modifying exceptions to this
prohibition. The equipment
requirements are outdated and
unnecessary since Minerals
Management Service lease agreement
terms prescribe more stringent
mandatory oil spill contingency plans.
This rule also prohibits exploring for,
developing, or producing minerals
within the Sanctuary, except producing
by-products incidental to hydrocarbon
production allowed under the
regulations. ‘‘Mineral’’ is defined by the
ONMS-wide regulations as clay, stone,
sand, gravel, metalliferous ore, nonmetalliferous ore, or any other solid
material or other matter of commercial
value (15 CFR 922.3). Mineral extraction
activities could involve scraping the
Sanctuary’s seabed surface and/or
excavation of pits and tunnels into the
seabed. This prohibition protects
Sanctuary resources and qualities from
potentially damaging effects of offshore
mineral activities, including (but not
limited to): Destruction and direct
smothering of the benthic biota;
alteration of the seabed surface profile;
potential harm to fisheries; introduction
of substances (e.g., drill cuttings and
mud) that could cause interference with
the filtering, feeding, or respiratory
functions of marine organisms; loss of
food sources and habitat for some
species; possible lowered
photosynthesis and oxygen levels; and
degraded appearance of the water itself.
Finally, prohibition of mineral activities
within the Sanctuary reduces the risk of
potential disturbance to underwater
historical resources either through
physical disturbance or increased
turbidity, which will result in direct
long-term beneficial impact to historical
resources. A prohibition on mineral
activities within the Sanctuary is
consistent with the prohibition on
alteration of or construction on or in the
submerged lands discussed below.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
3. Revise regulations on discharge/
deposit.
This rule also clarifies and otherwise
modifies the regulations prohibiting
discharging or depositing any material
or other matter as follows:
a. Clarify that the regulation applies to
discharges and deposits ‘‘from within or
into the Sanctuary.’’ Using the word
‘‘into’’ is intended to make clear that it
applies to not only discharges and
deposits originating in the Sanctuary
(including from vessels in the
Sanctuary), but also to, e.g., discharges
and deposits from aircraft above the
Sanctuary, from docks and piers
extending over the Sanctuary, and from
cliffs and other land adjacent to the
Sanctuary.
b. Clarify that the exception for fish,
fish parts, or chumming materials (bait)
applies only to such discharges or
deposits that were used in or resulting
from lawful fishing activity within the
Sanctuary and provided that such
discharges or deposits are during the
conduct of lawful fishing activity in the
Sanctuary.
c. Remove the exception for
discharging or depositing biodegradable
effluents generated by meals onboard
vessels. Coast Guard regulations
prohibit discharge/deposit of food
wastes (garbage) within three nmi and
prohibit discharge/deposit of food
wastes unless ground to less than one
inch within three to twelve nmi. The
Sanctuary regulations are modified to
mirror the Coast Guard regulations
within three nmi and, beyond three
nmi, provide increased protection to
Sanctuary resources and qualities.
d. Clarify NOAA’s original intent of
prohibiting untreated sewage discharge/
deposit within the Sanctuary. The
exception for biodegradable effluent
discharges/deposits from marine
sanitation devices is now explicit in its
application only to operable Type I or
II marine sanitation devices approved
by the United States Coast Guard in
accordance with the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended.
e. Prohibit discharges/deposits of
treated and untreated sewage and
graywater from vessels 300 gross
registered tons (GRT) or greater, except
oceangoing ships without sufficient
holding tank capacity to hold sewage
and graywater, respectively, while
within the Sanctuary. Cruise ships
(larger than 300 GRT) are not provided
an exception and, therefore, are
prohibited from discharging/depositing
treated or untreated sewage and
graywater in the Sanctuary.
These revisions address NOAA’s
concerns about possible impacts from
large volumes of sewage discharges in
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the Sanctuary, whether treated or not,
from large vessels (such as cruise ships).
Vessel sewage discharges are more
concentrated than domestic land-based
sewage. They may introduce diseasecausing microorganisms (pathogens),
such as bacteria, protozoans, and
viruses, into the marine environment
(EPA 2007). They may also contain high
concentrations of nutrients that can lead
to eutrophication (the process that can
cause oxygen-depleted ‘‘dead zones’’ in
aquatic environments), and may yield
unpleasant esthetic impacts to the
Sanctuary (diminishing Sanctuary
resources and its ecological,
conservation, esthetic, recreational and
other qualities).
Graywater can contain a variety of
substances including (but not limited to)
detergents, oil and grease, pesticides
and food wastes (Eley 2000). Very little
research has been done on the impacts
of graywater on the marine
environment, but many of the chemicals
commonly found in graywater are
known to be toxic (Casanova et al.
2001). These chemicals have been
implicated in the occurrence of
cancerous growths in bottom-dwelling
fish (Mix 1986). Furthermore, studies of
graywater discharges from large cruise
ships in Alaska (prior to strict state
effluent standards for cruise ship
graywater discharges) found very high
levels of fecal coliform in large cruise
ship graywater (well exceeding the
federal standards for fecal coliform from
Type II MSDs). These same studies also
found high mean total suspended solids
in some graywater sources (exceeding
the federal standards for total
suspended solids from Type II MSDs).
While many older ships have been
modified to allow graywater retention,
some must still discharge graywater
directly as it is produced. Similarly,
some older ships have very limited
holding tank capacity for sewage.
Consequently, given that many older
vessels are still in operation, NOAA
provides exceptions for sewage and
graywater discharge from oceangoing
ships without sufficient holding tank
capacity to retain sewage or graywater,
respectively, while in the Sanctuary.
Treated sewage and graywater
discharge from small vessels, and from
oceangoing ships without sufficient
holding tank capacity to hold sewage
and graywater while within the
Sanctuary, is anticipated to have a less
than significant adverse impact on the
Sanctuary’s physical, biological, and
esthetic resources. Most oceangoing
ships have sufficient holding tank
capacity to hold sewage and graywater
while within the Sanctuary. As for other
oceangoing ships, given the much lower
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
number of people on oceangoing ships
(as noted in the FEIS section 3.0, on
average oceangoing ships carry crews of
approximately twenty people, but may
range from five to fifty people), the
treated sewage and graywater generated
by such ships is far less in quantity as
compared to that from cruise ships, and
is therefore not expected to contain the
larger volume of possible harmful
nutrients, pathogens, and chemicals that
can be found in cruise ship treated
sewage and graywater.
Additional details on the potential
impacts to Sanctuary resources from
graywater and treated sewage
discharges/deposits are provided in the
FEIS.
f. Provide a definition of ‘‘graywater’’
that reads as follows: ‘‘Graywater means
galley, bath, or shower water.’’ Other
discharges, such as those from laundry
facilities, are not included in this
definition, which is based on section
312 of the CWA. In May 2006, NOAA’s
proposed rule (71 FR 29096; May 19,
2006) referred to the definition of
graywater codified by the CWA;
however, due to comments received,
NOAA added a free-standing definition
for graywater, rather than referring to
the CWA.
g. Adopt, for consistency purposes, in
relevant part, the existing California
Clean Coast Act definition of
‘‘oceangoing ship’’ (California Public
Resources Code sec. 72410(j)). The
definition of ‘‘oceangoing ship’’ is
added to the CINMS regulations to read
as follows: ‘‘Oceangoing ship means a
private, commercial, government, or
military vessel of 300 gross registered
tons or more, not including cruise
ships.’’
The California Clean Coast Act
definition is the same with one
additional phrase at the end: ‘‘Calling
on California ports or places.’’ The
Sanctuary definition excludes this
phrase since ships of this general
description may traverse the Santa
Barbara Channel TSS, and thereby the
Sanctuary, without stopping in
California ports or places.
h. Adopt a definition of ‘‘cruise ship.’’
The definition of ‘‘cruise ship’’ is added
to the CINMS regulations as follows:
‘‘Cruise ship means a vessel with 250 or
more passenger berths for hire.’’
i. Prohibit discharging or depositing
any material or other matter from
beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary
that subsequently enters the Sanctuary
and injures a Sanctuary resource or
quality. ‘‘Sanctuary resource’’ is defined
at 15 CFR 922.3 as ‘‘any living or nonliving resource of a National Marine
Sanctuary that contributes to the
conservation, recreational, ecological,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
historical, research, educational, or
aesthetic value of the Sanctuary,
including, but not limited to, the
substratum of the area of the Sanctuary,
other submerged features and the
surrounding seabed, carbonate rock,
corals and other bottom formations,
coralline algae and other marine plants
and algae, marine invertebrates, brineseep biota, phytoplankton, zooplankton,
fish, seabirds, sea turtles and other
marine reptiles, marine mammals and
historical resources.’’ ‘‘Sanctuary
quality’’ is defined at 15 CFR 922.3 as
‘‘any of those ambient conditions,
physical-chemical characteristics and
natural processes, the maintenance of
which is essential to the ecological
health of the Sanctuary, including, but
not limited to, water quality, sediment
quality and air quality.’’ This
modification provides consistency with
the regulatory language of other more
recently designated sanctuaries, and
helps to protect Sanctuary resources and
qualities from negative influences
originating outside the boundaries of the
CINMS.
4. Clarify and update regulation on
disturbing Sanctuary areas.
This rule modifies the existing
prohibition against altering the seabed
of the Sanctuary or constructing a
structure thereon. The term ‘‘seabed’’ is
replaced with ‘‘submerged lands’’ to be
consistent with language used in the
NMSA. In addition, this rule expands
the geographic extent of this regulation
from the first 2 nmi offshore to the
entire area of the Sanctuary in order to
ensure protection of the diverse
accentuated bottom relief, varied
substrate, and concomitant benthic
habitats of the Sanctuary, and wording
is conformed with similar regulations at
more recently designated sanctuaries.
Another change modifies the exception
for ‘‘bottom trawling from a commercial
vessel’’ to provide an exception for
activities incidental and necessary to
‘‘conduct lawful fishing activity.’’ This
exception encompasses other bottomtouching gear types, such as pots and
traps. This change removes any
uncertainty about the existing
exception’s applicability to such gear
types.
This rule also specifies that
abandoning—by which is meant leaving
without intent to remove, any structure,
material, or other matter on or in the
submerged lands of the Sanctuary—is
prohibited. This change makes the
CINMS regulations consistent with
regulations at more recently designated
sanctuaries and helps protect the
Sanctuary from, for example, debris
abandoned by Sanctuary users.
5. Modify vessel approach regulation.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3221
NOAA also modifies the vessel
approach regulation so that the
prohibition against vessel operation
within 1 nmi of any of the Islands also
applies to all vessels 300 gross
registered tons or more (excluding
fishing and kelp harvesting vessels). The
former regulation prohibiting vessel
operation within 1 nmi of any of the
Islands applied only to vessels engaged
in the trade of carrying cargo and those
engaged in the trade of servicing
offshore installations. The intent of this
modification is to protect the sensitive
nearshore areas off the Islands,
including kelp forests, rocky reefs, and
other areas, from the potential impacts
of large-vessel groundings and
collisions, including, but not limited to,
cruise ships. NOAA modified this
prohibition to more directly address its
concern that large vessels put at risk
sensitive nearshore areas of the
Sanctuary regardless of their purpose for
operating in nearshore Sanctuary
waters.
6. Clarify and update regulation on
disturbing historical resources.
This rule also includes a modification
to the prohibition on removing or
damaging any historical or cultural
resource. The rule adds ‘‘moving’’ and
‘‘possessing’’ to the prohibition;
replaces ‘‘damage’’ with ‘‘injure,’’ a term
defined at 15 CFR 922.3; and adds
‘‘attempting’’ to move, remove, injure,
or possess as a prohibition. The intent
of this modification is to provide added
protection to these fragile, finite, and
non-renewable resources so they may be
studied, and so appropriate information
about them may be made available for
the benefit of the public. The rule also
replaces ‘‘historical or cultural
resource’’ with ‘‘Sanctuary historical
resource’’ to be consistent with
regulatory language used at several
other more recently designated national
marine sanctuaries. ‘‘Historical
resource’’ is defined in NMSP programwide regulations as ‘‘any resource
possessing historical, cultural,
archaeological or paleontological
significance, including sites, contextual
information, structures, districts, and
objects significantly associated with or
representative of earlier people,
cultures, maritime heritage, and human
activities and events. Historical
resources include ‘submerged cultural
resources’, and also include ‘historical
properties’, as defined in the National
Historic Preservation Act, as amended,
and its implementing regulations, as
amended.’’ (15 CFR 922.3).
7. Prohibit take and possession of
certain species.
This rule implements a new
prohibition on take of marine mammals,
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3222
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sea turtles, and seabirds, except as
authorized by the MMPA, ESA, MBTA,
or any regulation, as amended,
promulgated under one of these acts.
The intent of this regulation is to bring
a special focus to protection of the
diverse and vital marine mammal and
seabird populations and the sea turtles
of the Sanctuary. This area-specific
focus is complementary to the
prohibitions against taking promulgated
by other resource protection agencies,
especially given that other federal and
state authorities must spread limited
resources over much wider geographic
areas. This regulation is consistent with
regulations for several other more
recently designated national marine
sanctuaries, and provides a greater
deterrent due to the higher civil
penalties afforded under the NMSA
than the penalties provided by the
MMPA, ESA, and MBTA. Further, the
prohibition covers all marine mammals,
sea turtles, and seabirds within or above
the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary’s
regulations do not apply if an activity
(including fishing in a federally or stateapproved fishery) that results in the take
of marine mammals, sea turtles, or
seabirds has been authorized under the
MMPA, ESA, or MBTA or an
implementing regulation. Therefore,
under this rule, if NMFS or the USFWS
issues a permit for, or otherwise
authorizes, the take of a marine
mammal, sea turtle, or seabird, such
taking would not be prohibited and
therefore would not require a permit
from the Sanctuary Superintendent
unless the activity would violate
another provision of the Sanctuary’s
regulations.
‘‘Take’’ is defined in the NMSP
program-wide regulations at 15 CFR
922.3.
The prohibition on take of marine
mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds
complements the regulation already
prohibiting disturbing seabirds or
marine mammals by flying motorized
aircraft at less than 1000 feet over the
waters within one nmi of any Island.
That regulation provides a special focus
on a specific type of activity, operation
of motorized aircraft, within the
particularly sensitive environments of
the Sanctuary.
This rule also prohibits possessing
within the Sanctuary (regardless of
where taken from, moved, or removed
from) any marine mammal, sea turtle, or
seabird, except as authorized by the
MMPA, ESA, MBTA, or any regulation,
as amended, promulgated under the
MMPA, ESA, or MBTA. This provision
provides a greater deterrent against
violations of existing laws protecting
marine mammals, sea turtles, and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
seabirds than that offered by those other
laws alone. This provision is also
consistent with NOAA’s regulations for
other more recently designated national
marine sanctuaries and enhances
protection provided by the prohibition
on the take of marine mammals, sea
turtles, and seabirds discussed above.
8. Prohibit damaging signs and
markers.
This rule also prohibits marking,
defacing, damaging, moving, removing,
or tampering with any sign, notice or
placard, whether temporary or
permanent, or any monument, stake,
post, or other boundary marker related
to the Sanctuary. This prohibition is
designed to protect Sanctuary property
used for purposes including
demarcation, enforcement, regulatory
information, education, outreach, and
research. This new regulation is
consistent with NOAA’s regulations for
other sanctuaries.
9. Prohibit release of introduced
species.
This rule also prohibits introducing or
otherwise releasing from within or into
the Sanctuary an introduced species,
except striped bass (Morone saxatilis)
released during catch and release
fishing activity. ‘‘Introduced species’’ is
defined to mean: (1) Any species
(including but not limited to any of its
biological matter capable of
propagation) that is non-native to the
ecosystems of the Sanctuary; or (2) any
organism into which altered genetic
matter, or genetic matter from another
species, has been transferred in order
that the host organism acquires the
genetic traits of the transferred genes.
This prohibition is designed to help
reduce the risk from introduced species,
including but not limited to their seeds,
eggs, spores, and other biological matter
capable of propagating. The intent of the
prohibition is to prevent injury to
Sanctuary resources and qualities, to
protect the biodiversity of the Sanctuary
ecosystems, and to preserve the native
functional aspects of the Sanctuary
ecosystems, all of which are put at risk
by introduced species. Introduced
species may become a new form of
predator, competitor, disturber, parasite,
or disease that can have devastating
effects upon ecosystems. For example,
introduced species impacts on native
coastal marine species of the Sanctuary
could include: Replacement of a
functionally similar native species
through competition; reduction in
abundance or elimination of an entire
population of a native species, which
can affect native species richness;
inhibition of normal growth or
increased mortality of the host and
associated species; increased intra- or
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
interspecies competition with native
species; creation or alteration of original
substrate and habitat; hybridization
with native species; and direct or
indirect toxicity (e.g., toxic diatoms).
Changes in species interactions can lead
to disrupted nutrient cycles and altered
energy flows that ripple with
unpredictable results through an entire
ecosystem. Exotic species may also pose
threats to endangered species, and
native species diversity. A number of
non-native species now found in the
Sanctuary region were introduced
elsewhere on the west coast but have
spread through accidental
introductions, such as hull-fouling and
ballast water discharges.
The introduced species regulation
includes an exception for striped bass
(Morone saxatilis) released during catch
and release fishing activity. Striped bass
were intentionally introduced in
California in 1879, and in 1980 the
California Department of Fish and Game
initiated a striped bass hatchery
program to support the striped bass
sport fishery, which according to the
California Department of Fish and Game
is one of the most important fisheries on
the Pacific Coast. The California
Department of Fish and Game manages
the striped bass fishery through a
Striped Bass Management Conservation
Plan. This provision is intended to
acknowledge that striped bass are the
focus of an established state-managed
sport fishery and, since they
consequently may be caught within the
Sanctuary, allow for an exception for
striped bass released during catch and
release fishing activity.
10. Regulate Motorized Personal
Watercraft (MPWC).
This rule also prohibits operating a
MPWC within waters of the Sanctuary
that are coextensive with the Channel
Islands National Park (CINP),
established by 16 U.S.C. 410(ff). The
CINP includes San Miguel and Prince
Islands, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz,
Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands,
including the rocks, islets, submerged
lands, and waters within one nmi of
each island. For the precise coordinates
and a map of the CINP, refer to the FEIS.
This provision mirrors an existing
National Park Service ban on use of
MPWC within waters of the CINP and
many other units of the National Park
System, and is intended to provide
added deterrence for purposes of
ensuring protection of the Sanctuary’s
sensitive nearshore marine wildlife and
habitats. The CINP staff have observed
an increase in use of MPWC within the
park over the last several years, and
park staff issue several dozen warnings
per year for violation of this ban. For
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
consistency (including enforcement),
this rule adopts the National Park
Service definition of MPWC (36 CFR
1.4(a)) for the Sanctuary, which reads as
follows:
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
‘‘Motorized personal watercraft’’ means a
vessel, usually less than 16 feet in length,
which uses an inboard, internal combustion
engine powering a water jet pump as its
primary source of propulsion. The vessel is
intended to be operated by a person or
persons sitting, standing or kneeling on the
vessel, rather than within the confines of the
hull. The length is measured from end to end
over the deck excluding sheer, meaning a
straight line measurement of the overall
length from the foremost part of the vessel to
the aftermost part of the vessel, measured
parallel to the centerline. Bow sprits,
bumpkins, rudders, outboard motor brackets,
and similar fittings or attachments, are not
included in the measurement. Length is
stated in feet and inches.
MPWCs operate in a manner unique
among recreational vessels and pose a
threat to wildlife. Their shallow draft
enables them to penetrate areas not
available to conventional motorized
watercraft (NPS 2000, MOCZM 2002).
The high speed and maneuverability of
MPWCs, along with the tendency to
operate them near the shore and in a
repeated fashion within a confined area,
results in recurring disturbance to
animals and habitats (Rodgers and
Smith 1997, Snow 1989). Studies have
shown that the use of MPWCs in
nearshore areas can increase flushing
rates, reduce nesting success of certain
bird species, impact spawning fish, and
reduce fishing success (Burger 1998,
Snow 1989). The National Park Service
(2000, 2004) identified several of these
impacts along with interruption of
normal activity, avoidance and
displacement, loss of habitat use,
interference with movement, direct
mortality, interference with courtship,
alteration of behavior, change in
community structure, elevated noise
levels, and damage to aquatic
vegetation. Further, offshore marine
mammals or surfacing birds may be
unaware of the presence of these
vehicles due to their low frequency
sound; when the inability to detect the
vehicles is combined with their high
speed and rapid and unpredictable
movements, both animals and operators
are at risk (Snow 1989).
MPWC manufacturers have made
efforts to reduce emissions and noise
through use of more efficient four-stroke
engines as well as other technology (e.g.,
Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc.
2005a, 2005b; Personal Watercraft
Industry Association 2005). However, it
is not clear that such improvements
have rendered MPWC-caused wildlife
disturbance impacts insignificant. While
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
industry sponsored studies indicate that
MPWCs are no louder than similar
motorized vessels under analogous
conditions, other studies indicate that
because MPWCs often travel repeatedly
in the same area, continually leaving
and reentering the water, they can create
rapid cycles of noise that disturb
humans and wildlife (MOCZM 2002).
Industry improvements in noise and
other emissions do not address impacts
associated with the high speed,
maneuverability, shallow draft, and
nearshore operation of MPWC.
The area within one nmi of island
shores experiences the greatest visitor
use and impact to sensitive nearshore
Sanctuary marine resources. The new
provisions implemented through this
final rule serve as an added deterrent to
illegal MPWC use within the nearshore
area and other waters of the Channel
Islands National Park.
11. Revise regulation on military
activities.
This rule modifies regulations stating
that all activities currently (i.e., at the
time of designation in 1980) carried out
by the Department of Defense within the
Sanctuary are essential for the national
defense and, therefore, not subject to the
prohibitions contained within the other
Sanctuary regulations. As part of this
modification, the list of exempt military
activities occurring within the
Sanctuary is updated to include present
military activities if specifically
identified in the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) for this rule. In
addition, the rule adds language
consistent with the NMSA, stating that
mitigation and restoration or
replacement of Sanctuary resources and
qualities is required when Department
of Defense activity results in their
injury, destruction, or loss. All
Department of Defense activities are
required to be carried out in a manner
that avoids to the maximum extent
practicable any adverse impacts on
Sanctuary resources and qualities.
This rule also adds one exception
pertaining to vessels of the Armed
Forces to the two discharge/deposit
regulations discussed earlier. Namely,
an exception is made for discharges
allowed under section 312(n) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Section 312(n), which was enacted in
1996, provides for uniform national
standards for discharges, other than
sewage, incidental to normal operation
of vessels of the Armed Forces.
12. Revise permit regulations.
This rule also modifies the
Sanctuary’s permit regulations by: (a)
Augmenting and clarifying the list of
activities for which the Director of
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3223
NOAA’s ONMS (Director) 2 may issue a
permit; (b) clarifying which prohibitions
are eligible for a permit from the
Director for the conduct of a particular
activity; (c) expanding and clarifying the
criteria the Director must use in
reviewing permit applications; (d)
clarifying the application requirements
for permits; and (e) requiring that all
permittees hold the United States
government harmless against claims
arising from permitted activities.
The modifications clarify that the
Director may issue permits for salvage
activities pertaining to both abandoned
shipwrecks (invoking maritime heritage
resource protection concerns) and
recent air or marine casualties (invoking
prompt response concerns). The
modifications also allow the Director to
issue permits for activities that would
assist Sanctuary management, but that
do not fall into the categories of
research, education, or salvage. For
example, the Director may issue
Sanctuary management permits for
activities such as repairing or replacing
piers that help facilitate Sanctuary
operations. The updated list of
otherwise prohibited activities that may
be conducted pursuant to a permit is
necessary given the addition of several
new prohibitions and the recent
addition of marine reserves and
conservation area regulations, and given
the need to specify those activities for
which a permit may in no
circumstances be granted.
The modifications to the permit
regulations also strengthen and augment
the criteria that the Director must
consider when evaluating permit
applications. The modifications now
expressly indicate to prospective permit
applicants what type of information
they are required to include in their
application. The modifications also
modernize the permit regulations by
expressly requiring that the permittee
agree to hold the United States harmless
against any claims arising out of the
permitted activities.
In summary, the overall intent of the
revised permit regulations is: To clarify,
standardize, and make express the
permit requirements and procedures,
rendering them easier for permit
applicants to comply with and for the
Director and Sanctuary staff to
implement; to ensure that permitted
projects are appropriate for the
Sanctuary; and to provide a mechanism
for issuing permits for activities that
2 The Director has delegated the responsibility for
the review of most permit applications and the
decision making for most permits to the Sanctuary
Superintendents.
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
3224
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
may further Sanctuary management but
would otherwise be prohibited.
13. Make non-substantive revisions to
regulations on marine reserves and
conservation areas.
This rule makes non-substantive
revisions to the regulations on marine
reserves and conservation areas to
remove some unnecessary language and
to better integrate the regulations with
the rest of the CINMS regulations.
which could result in unnecessary loss
of life. This section of the regulations
should be much more narrowly drafted
to allow for a master’s judgment in
extremis.
Response: The regulation includes an
exception for ‘‘an activity necessary to
respond to an emergency threatening
life, property, or the environment.’’
IV. Response to Comments
3. Comment: The proposed
abandoning prohibition eliminates
continuation of a historic record by
making it illegal to leave historic vessels
in the Sanctuary after they have sunk.
NOAA should establish guidelines
delineating the difference between an
abandoned vessel and an historical or
archaeological resource.
Response: NOAA does not
automatically consider newly sunken
vessels as historical resources to be
protected. The extent to which removal
of a sunken vessel would be required is
based on several factors, including
guidelines set by National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) criteria (16
U.S.C. 470 et seq.) for determining
historical significance.
This section provides NOAA’s
response to comments received between
May and July 2006 on the proposed rule
and during two hearings on the
proposed rule and associated DEIS, and
to comments received between March
and May 2008 on a second proposed
rule and associated supplemental DEIS
(or SDEIS). NOAA received over 700
comments on the DEIS, SDEIS, and
proposed rules. NOAA summarized the
comments according to the content of
the statement or question put forward in
the letters, emails, and written and oral
testimony at the public hearings on this
action because many of the comments
touched upon the same or similar issue
and could be answered with one
response.
Abandoning Matter
1. Comment: The proposed
prohibition on abandoning is too broad
and may cause an unnecessary burden
on existing lawful fishing activities by
appearing to render illegal the
inadvertent loss of fishing gear. The
proposed regulation should clarify the
specific materials and situations
prohibited, or exempt fishing gear lost
during lawful fishing operations—if the
owner or operator attempts to recover
the gear with the equipment available to
them at the time of the loss.
Response: In the rule’s summary of
regulatory amendments, NOAA has
stated that ‘‘abandoning’’ refers to
‘‘leaving without intent to remove.’’
NOAA is not providing an exception for
lost fishing gear. However, NOAA
would consider the efforts made by
fishermen to retrieve any deployed
fishing gear in determining whether the
loss of fishing gear constituted the
abandonment of matter on or in the
submerged lands of the Sanctuary.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Abandoning Material—General
2. Comment: The abandoning
prohibition is overly broad and could be
a detriment to safety of life at sea in that
the threat of penalty may cause a master
to delay abandonment of his sinking
vessel beyond what is prudent and
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
Acoustic Impacts
Acoustic Impacts—General Action
Recommendations
Abandoning Matter—Fishing Gear
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Abandoning Matter—Abandoned
Vessels vs. Historical Resources
4. Comment: The FMP’s Resource
Protection Action Plan should include
an acoustics strategy that identifies
underwater noise as an issue, explains
potential sources of noise (e.g., seismic
testing and sonar) and their effects on
marine life, and explains NOAA’s plans
for noise evaluation and response in the
Sanctuary.
Response: The FMP’s Resource
Protection Action Plan identifies
human-induced acoustic impacts as a
resource protection issue, explains
potential sources of noise and their
potential effects on marine life, and
explains how NOAA is evaluating and
responding to this issue in the
Sanctuary.
5. Comment: Given increasing
shipping traffic and its associated noise
in the CINMS region, the FMP’s
Conservation Science Action Plan
should provide strategies for tracking
and/or quantifying vessel traffic through
the Sanctuary and, if needed, mitigating
or minimizing ship noise.
Response: NOAA has added to the
FMP’s Conservation Science Action
Plan a new Strategy CS.8 on Automated
Identification System (AIS) Vessel
Tracking. This strategy explains
NOAA’s long-term plan for large vessel
tracking within and around the
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Sanctuary. See also FMP Strategy CS.3
for related information on acoustic
monitoring in the Sanctuary, and the
FMP’s Resource Protection Action Plan
(Description of the Issues) for related
information on addressing humaninduced acoustic impacts.
6. Comment: CINMS should formally
consider energetic discharges from
human activities as pollutants in the
same manner in which organic and
chemical discharges are considered.
Several precedents for this already exist,
including California state law (the
California Thermal Plan), federal law
(the Clean Water Act), and international
law (UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea).
Response: While NOAA does not
consider noise discharge as a
‘‘pollutant,’’ any impacts resulting from
noise on marine mammals and other
endangered species are regulated under
the Marine Mammal Protection Act and
the Endangered Species Act. At this
time, NOAA believes these measures are
sufficient to address the threat of
human-induced sound on these
sensitive species.
7. Comment: NOAA should establish
a voluntary ‘‘speed limit’’ for
commercial ship traffic passing through
or near the Sanctuary during blue and
fin whale inhabitation to reduce the
noise impacts on these species.
Response: Since 2007, NOAA and the
U.S. Coast Guard have issued Local
Notices to Mariners containing a request
that large vessels transiting the Santa
Barbara Channel voluntarily reduce
their speed to ten knots or less when
aggregations of large cetaceans are
present. NOAA and the U.S. Coast
Guard may issue future notices as
conditions warrant them. Although the
rationale for these notices is to help
reduce the risk of ship strikes on
whales, ancillary benefits of reduced
ship speeds generally include reduced
vessel noise.
8. Comment: NOAA should consult
with the Minerals Management Service
(MMS) on future proposed seismic
survey activities in the Channel and
with the Navy to ascertain the
likelihood of any active sonar exercises
in range of the CINMS to ensure they
cause minimal disruption to the
migration or reproduction of Sanctuary
species.
Response: Section 304(d) of the
NMSA requires any federal agency to
consult with the NMSP on activities that
are likely to destroy, cause the loss of,
or injure any Sanctuary resource
(whether or not those activities are
conducted within a national marine
sanctuary). This would of course apply
to both seismic and sonar activities.
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Furthermore, regarding seismic
activities within the Sanctuary, CINMS
regulations prohibit exploring for,
developing, or producing hydrocarbons.
Acoustic Impacts—Regulations
9. Comment: NOAA should create
CINMS noise regulations and/or ban
sonar testing to help protect Sanctuary
wildlife, and/or make the enter-injure
clause of the discharge regulation
applicable to noise pollution.
Response: NOAA and its partners are
researching underwater noise in the
Sanctuary. Currently, the available sitespecific acoustic data is insufficient to
justify the need for more stringent
regulations on underwater noise than
those promulgated by NMFS pursuant
to the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA; 50 CFR 216.101–216.108 et
seq. ). Except in a small grandfathered
lease area, CINMS regulations preclude
seismic exploration for hydrocarbons
within the Sanctuary, as they prohibit
exploring for, developing, or producing
hydrocarbons within the Sanctuary.
Any activities that may exceed a certain
noise threshold are subject to rigorous
review under NMFS’ MMPA authority,
which includes mitigation measures
when deemed necessary.
While NOAA is not pursuing special
noise regulations for CINMS at this
time, NOAA will continue to use its
authority under section 304(d) of the
NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1434(d)) to help
protect marine mammals from the
impacts of noise. Section 304(d) of the
NMSA requires any federal agency to
consult with the NMSP on activities that
are likely to destroy, cause the loss of,
or injure any Sanctuary resource. This
consultation requirement requires
NOAA to provide recommendations to
these agencies to protect Sanctuary
resources, including marine mammals.
If an agency fails to follow a
recommendation and its action results
in injury to a Sanctuary resource, the
agency must restore or replace the
Sanctuary resource. In addition, if a
noise-producing project is not
authorized by NMFS under its MMPA
authority and harms marine mammals
within the Sanctuary, the CINMS’s new
regulation prohibiting the take of marine
mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds
would apply.
10. Comment: NOAA staff should
advocate for domestic and international
attention to and action on the current
gaps in understanding and regulation of
underwater noise.
Response: As a federal agency, under
federal law NOAA staff may not
advocate for legislative action. However,
research and monitoring on underwater
noise in the Sanctuary is shared within
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
NOAA and as such can influence
Executive Branch actions and decisionmaking related to this issue. NOAA staff
also help raise international attention to
noise impacts by participating in and
sharing knowledge at conferences on
this issue. For example, NOAA
sponsored a symposium with the
shipping industry on the topic of shipquieting technology in 2004, and again
in May 2007.
Acoustic Impacts—Research and
Monitoring
11. Comment: The FMP should
explain NOAA’s plans for noise
research and monitoring in the
Sanctuary, which should include:
Promoting research on anthropogenic
noise impacts on Sanctuary resources;
documenting and improving
understanding of Sanctuary baseline
and new acoustic conditions;
identifying significant sources and
levels of noise within the Sanctuary;
and promoting dialogue and
collaboration between the Sanctuary,
the shipping industry, and other
relevant regional and national agencies.
Response: Increasing research efforts,
such as those recommended within the
National Academies’ National Research
Council’s recent reports on the impacts
of noise on marine mammals, will assist
NOAA in continuing to evaluate the
agency’s management responses to this
issue. NOAA has revised the FMP’s
Conservation Science Action Plan to
include details on current and potential
future acoustic research and monitoring
plans in the CINMS. In addition, NOAA
has addressed promoting dialogue and
collaboration between relevant agencies
and the shipping industry in the
Resource Protection Action Plan (see the
Description of the Issues section on
Human-induced Acoustic Impacts).
NOAA’s Acoustics Program, based at
the NOAA Headquarters Office, is
investigating all aspects of marine
animal acoustic communication,
hearing, and the effects of sound on
behavior and hearing in protected
marine species. For additional
information, see https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/.
12. Comment: The FMP’s
Conservation Science Action Plan
should include a ‘‘stranding strategy’’
for addressing potential noise induced
marine mammal stranding events. It
should address: Funding, monitoring,
data reporting (including from
stranding, necropsies, and noise events),
and public involvement.
Response: NOAA has not added a
stranding strategy to the Conservation
Science Action Plan. However, the
Resource Protection Action Plan
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3225
(Description of the Issues section on
Marine Mammal Strikes) describes
CINMS’s role in responding to and
reducing the risk of future stranding
events (e.g., those caused by ship
strikes) in the Sanctuary. The Action
Plan reflects that in 2008, CINMS,
NMFS, and the U.S. Coast Guard, with
input from the Sanctuary Advisory
Council, developed a Prevention and
Emergency Response Plan for Reducing
Ship Strikes on Blue Whales and Other
Large Cetaceans in the CINMS and
Santa Barbara Channel. This prevention
and response plan helps NOAA and the
U.S. Coast Guard respond to stranding
events and helps the agencies
coordinate with partners authorized to
assist including the Santa Barbara
Museum of Natural History, and the
Santa Barbara Marine Mammal Center.
NMFS manages marine mammal
stranding events and administers the
Marine Mammal Stranding Network
program. This program addresses
funding for stranding teams, monitoring
marine mammal stranding events,
reporting on stranding causes (including
those from acoustics), and managing
public involvement in necropsies. In
addition, NMFS administers the Marine
Mammal Protection Act and Endangered
Species Act, and would be responsible
for acquiring information on all possible
causes of stranding events. With regard
to monitoring for stranding events, the
Sanctuary’s Aerial Monitoring and
Spatial Analysis Program (SAMSAP)
provides an important stranding
detection capability that provides
important information for estimating
time and location of a large whale
mortality. SAMSAP also provides
details that can be used by NMFS to
coordinate a stranding response,
including a necropsy, if possible and
appropriate, to determine the cause of
death.
13. Comment: NOAA should
incorporate into the Conservation
Science Action Plan the Advisory
Council acoustic report’s research and
monitoring recommendations.
Response: NOAA has incorporated
the report by referencing it and a
summary of its findings in the FMP
Resource Protection Action Plan’s
Description of the Issues section.
Additionally, a description of acoustic
monitoring, which was recommended in
the report, has been added to the
Conservation Science Action Plan’s list
of monitoring activities CINMS intends
to support (Strategy CS.3). NOAA has
also referred to specific research and
monitoring recommendations within
relevant activities in strategies CS.3, and
CS.8.
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
3226
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Aerial Monitoring
14. Comment: The Sanctuary Aerial
Monitoring and Spatial Analysis
Program (SAMSAP) program should be
explicitly linked to the Conservation
Science Program so that SAMSAP’s
capabilities can be analyzed with
respect to more specific science and
monitoring needs. For example,
SAMSAP could provide a current
spatial dataset depicting marine
mammal and bird hotspots, and areas of
concentrated use of large vessels,
personal watercraft, squid boat lighting,
sources of major acoustic emanations,
etc.
Response: In the past, due to limited
resources, SAMSAP has been
predominantly a data collection
program with only limited analyses
taking place on an as-needed and time
allowed basis. Since the draft
management plan was released, NOAA
has devoted more resources to SAMSAP
and in depth analyses are taking place
with both recently collected data and
the full SAMSAP historical database.
For example, NOAA analyzed SAMSAP
vessel traffic data used in
socioeconomic impact studies related to
marine zoning. NOAA is also analyzing
changes in visitor use patterns, and in
partnership with the Scripps Institute of
Oceanography is combining data from
SAMSAP, acoustic monitoring, and the
regional Automated Identification
System (which tracks vessel traffic) to
study the impacts of vessel traffic noise
on large cetaceans. Given available
funding and resources, SAMSAP will
continue to be increasingly used as a
tool to assist in implementation of the
strategies in the FMP’s Conservation
Science Action Plan.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Aircraft
15. Comment: NOAA should remove
the language regarding disturbing
seabirds or marine mammals from the
prohibition on disturbing seabirds or
marine mammals via operating aircraft
below 1000 ft within one nmi of the
Islands, thereby prohibiting the activity
itself without the enforcement challenge
of proving disturbance.
Response: NOAA is currently
consulting with the Federal Aviation
Administration, the primary agency of
the U.S. Government with authority to
regulate safe and efficient use of U.S.
airspace, to determine the best approach
to regulating impacts of aircraft on
Sanctuary resources. If removing the
language in the referenced prohibition is
determined to be appropriate, NOAA
will revise its regulations accordingly.
16. Comment: NOAA should justify
the one nmi limitation for the overflight
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
disturbance regulation based on
information about the location and
seabird and marine mammal
concentrated use areas within the
Sanctuary (such as emergent rocks). If
one of the purposes of limiting
overflights is to protect seabirds and
marine mammals, it would seem that
they will be impacted beyond one nmi
of the Islands and the regulation should
apply to the entire Sanctuary.
Response: Some small offshore rocks
beyond one nmi from San Miguel Island
and Santa Rosa Island are emergent
during lower periods of the tidal cycle.
However, the presence of these rocks is
ephemeral because most are submerged
during the remainder of the tidal cycle,
some are consistently awash from wave
action, and others may be completely
submerged during neap tide cycles
when tides are relatively weak. Hence,
the role of such rocks as nesting,
breeding, or permanent haul out habitat
is limited. Low aircraft overflights
(below 1000 feet) within these more
remote offshore areas is limited, and
NOAA does not at this time regard these
areas as needing the specific protection
provided by this regulation. However,
all aircraft flight is also subject to the
prohibition on unauthorized take of
marine mammals, sea turtles and
seabirds (Prohibition 7), which applies
throughout the entire Sanctuary.
Alternative Energy
17. Comment: NOAA should include
in the FEIS a description of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005.
Response: NOAA has added
information about the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 to the FEIS cumulative effects
section, and to the FEIS discussion of
federal law pertaining to offshore energy
sources and mineral exploration and
development.
Aquaculture
18. Comment: The FMP must provide
clear, specific, strategic guidelines to
CINMS staff to carry out resource
protection responsibilities with regard
to open finfish aquaculture, including
consulting with prospective fish farm
operators and permitting agencies, and
maintaining adequate enforcement effort
to ensure that offshore aquaculture
activities, even if located outside
Sanctuary boundaries, do not violate
CINMS regulations such as the
discharge prohibition’s ‘‘enter-andinjure’’ clause, and the prohibition on
introduction of species.
Response: The FMP does not contain
guidelines dedicated to aquaculture.
However, a number of management
tools already in place, such as the
permit process and consultation
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
requirements, provide CINMS staff with
a robust means of addressing any
potential issues regarding open ocean
finfish aquaculture in the Sanctuary. In
addition, CINMS existing regulations
prohibit, for example, discharges in the
Sanctuary, and the new regulations
prohibit introduced species into the
Sanctuary. If offshore aquaculture
activities are proposed in the Sanctuary
region, NOAA’s ONMS and NMFS
would work closely with the California
Coastal Commission, California
Department of Fish and Game, and other
relevant regulatory agencies on
analyzing the associated potential
impacts and their effects on the
Sanctuary. NOAA will also use the
Sanctuary Advisory Council’s 2007
report and recommendations on open
ocean aquaculture, in support of any
future management decisions on this
issue in the Sanctuary. Regarding
maintaining enforcement effort, see the
responses to comments 118 and 120.
19. Comment: NOAA should develop
management strategies for addressing
and mitigating potential impacts from
aquaculture on the Sanctuary’s marine
resources. NOAA should also analyze
the adverse impacts to marine resources
and water quality from finfish
aquaculture farms, including genetic
pollution from escaped fish, the
introduction and propagation of fish
diseases and parasites, the discharge of
nutrients, antibiotics and other
chemicals, the use of anti-predation
devices and the potential for space
conflicts with existing commercial and
recreational activities.
Response: NOAA will continue to
track the wide range of research projects
(and their associated results) currently
underway along the west coast of the
United States and elsewhere analyzing
the impacts of aquaculture. NOAA
would apply the results from these
research efforts, as necessary and
appropriate, in decisions it may make
regarding any future aquaculture
activities in the Sanctuary. Regarding
management strategies for addressing
potential impacts from aquaculture, see
the response to comment 18.
Artificial Reefs
20. Comment: The prohibition on
altering the seafloor may conflict with
existing artificial reef programs if the
Sanctuary is extended to the mainland
coast.
Response: NOAA is not making any
changes to the CINMS boundary at this
time. The prohibition on altering
submerged lands of the Sanctuary
precludes installation of an artificial
reef without a CINMS permit. Proposals
to construct artificial reefs in CINMS
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
will be considered, as before, in
accordance with the ‘‘Policy Statement
of the National Marine Sanctuary
Program: Artificial Reef Permitting
Guidelines.’’ CINMS permit regulations
would require an NMSP determination
that any proposed artificial reef: (a)
Furthers the understanding of Sanctuary
resources and qualities; (b) furthers the
educational value of the Sanctuary; (c)
furthers salvage or recovery operations
in or near the Sanctuary in connection
with a recent air or marine casualty; (d)
assists in the management of the
Sanctuary; or (e) furthers salvage or
recovery operations in connection with
an abandoned shipwreck in the
Sanctuary. For more information on the
procedures and issuance criteria for
Sanctuary permits, see 15 CFR part 922.
21. Comment: NOAA should prohibit
rigs-to-reefs projects within Sanctuary
waters, and should consult with project
applicants and permitting agencies
before such projects are allowed outside
Sanctuary boundaries if they have any
potential to negatively affect Sanctuary
resources.
Response: Because there are both a
national policy guiding the
consideration of artificial reefs and
other CINMS regulations relevant to
artificial reefs in the Sanctuary (see the
response to comment 20), NOAA is not
specifically addressing rigs-to-reefs
projects in the CINMS regulations. In
addition, there are currently no oil
platforms in the Sanctuary. If in the
future an applicant proposes a rigs-toreefs project outside the Sanctuary,
CINMS staff would consult with all
relevant permitting agencies as part of
the process to best understand any
potential impacts to the Sanctuary from
such a proposal. Federal agency actions,
including private activities authorized
by licenses, leases, or permits, that are
likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or
injure a Sanctuary resource are subject
to consultation with NOAA per section
304(d) of the NMSA.
22. Comment: NOAA should provide
an exception to the abandoning
prohibition for materials intended to be
used for artificial reefs, especially if
subsequent Sanctuary boundary changes
cause an existing platform(s) on the
Pacific OCS to be included within the
Sanctuary.
Response: As explained in the
response to comment 20, NOAA has
developed Artificial Reef Permitting
Guidelines. At this time, NOAA is not
adding a reef materials exception to the
regulation on abandoning matter in the
Sanctuary because NOAA prefers to
evaluate the efficacy of artificial reef
proposals on a case-by-case basis rather
than to provide a blanket exception that
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
would allow any artificial reef project
anywhere within the Sanctuary.
Boundary Evaluation
23. Comment: The FMP/FEIS should
be updated to note that the
Biogeographic Assessment has been
completed, and should also explain that
the assessment ranked boundary
concept 1 first for ecological
significance, and boundary concept 2
second.
Response: Text on the completion of
the Sanctuary’s biogeographic
assessment has been added to the FMP’s
Boundary Evaluation Action Plan, the
FMP’s Appendix D, and the
Introduction of the FEIS. For details
about the findings of the assessment,
including details about the various
boundary concepts and their rankings,
see https://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/products/
biogeography/cinms/.
24. Comment: Boundary Concept 1
best meets the goals and objectives of
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act
and the CINMS, is the only one that
truly meets the ecosystem protection
goals of the Act, provides clear and
effective management, facilitates
increased public participation and
support for the Sanctuary, provides
more meaningful education and
research about marine resources and
habitats, ensures greater protection from
harmful impacts, provides a coastal
interface that is part of the Channel
Islands ecosystem, provides additional
protection from offshore oil and gas
development, and will result in
partnerships that will increase marine
resource and water quality protection.
Response: As stated in the FMP’s
Appendix D (‘‘Supporting Information
on Boundary Evaluation’’), NOAA is not
considering any changes to the CINMS
boundary as part of this management
plan review. However, NOAA will
further analyze the boundary concepts
in a separate process sometime in the
future. This process will include public
review and comment in accordance
with legal requirements.
25. Comment: NOAA should begin
the environmental review process for
boundary change alternatives now or as
soon as the management plan process is
finalized.
Response: As indicated in the FMP’s
Boundary Evaluation Action Plan,
NOAA will further analyze the
boundary concepts in a future
environmental review process.
26. Comment: NOAA might garner a
lot more support for Sanctuary
boundary expansion by proposing to
limit oil and gas activities while
supporting pre-existing, sustainable,
commercial and recreational uses, as
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3227
opposed to re-allocating the natural
resources within the Sanctuary.
Response: When NOAA considers
Sanctuary boundary expansion, it will
evaluate a wide variety of potential
threats to and uses of Sanctuary
resources, as well as various
management measures that best address
these issues. When designating new or
expanding existing sanctuaries, NOAA
will evaluate oil and gas development,
as well as other commercial and
recreational uses. NOAA will consider
the impacts of these uses on Sanctuary
resources, as well as the impacts of
CINMS management measures on users.
27. Comment: During the future
consideration of CINMS boundary
expansion, NOAA should allow for
enough public review of this action to
encompass two meetings of the Pacific
Fishery Management Council (PFMC)
and allow for full PFMC deliberation
and comment development.
Response: NOAA is aware of the
PFMC decision-making process and will
consider providing a public review
period that encompasses two PFMC
meetings.
28. Comment: NOAA should address
the fact that industrialized uses could
have the prospect of limiting boundary
expansion.
Response: NOAA believes it is
premature to include in the FMP and
FEIS conclusive statements about how
CINMS boundary alternatives and
industrialized uses may relate to one
another. NOAA will analyze the
relationship between industrialized uses
and Sanctuary boundary alternatives in
a future environmental review process.
29. Comment: NOAA should indicate
the number of comments received that
were not in favor of boundary
expansion.
Response: NOAA has revised text in
the FMP to indicate the number of
scoping comments received that did not
support an expanded Sanctuary
boundary.
30. Comment: The NCCOS
Biogeographic study should not be
described as providing any new
information about marine species
because it using existing information.
Response: Although new data was not
collected for the NCCOS biogeographic
study, it integrated data sets from
various sources and provided new
statistical and spatial analyses that
characterize biological and
oceanographic patterns of the Channel
Islands marine region.
31. Comment: If incorporation of
biodiversity and protection of entire
ecosystems is a goal in boundary
reformulation, then the boundaries
should be extended because they do not
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
3228
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
correspond well to existing marine
ecosystem extents.
Response: Once NOAA determines
that an evaluation of the CINMS
boundary is appropriate, several factors
will be incorporated into the associated
environmental analysis, including the
spatial extent of regional ecosystems
and areas of complex biodiversity.
Chumash
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Chumash—General
32. Comment: NOAA should add to
the management plan information about
the spirituality and spiritual energy of
the Channel Islands, and the Chumash
connection to surrounding waters.
Response: NOAA has added text to
the FMP Human Setting section, the
FMP Maritime Heritage Resources
Action Plan, and the FEIS Affected
Environment/Maritime Heritage
Resources section to emphasize the
spiritual significance of the Channel
Islands to Chumash people.
33. Comment: Members of the
Chumash community, not NOAA,
should initiate any joint paddling
excursions directly with the Makah
Nation.
Response: NOAA has revised the
FMP’s Maritime Heritage Action Plan to
clarify that NOAA’s intent is not to
initiate paddling excursions, but rather
to support such excursions initiated by
Chumash and other partners.
34. Comment: Information about
submerged Chumash cultural resources
should be referenced to and provided by
Chumash scholars and Chumash people.
Response: In the FMP and FEIS,
NOAA has upheld the standard of using
the best available scientific information,
including the best available
anthropological and archeological
information regarding submerged
Chumash cultural resources. CINMS
staff consulted with a Chumash
community member and expert to
improve referencing and ensure
accuracy.
35. Comment: It is important that
DMP p. 28 states that, ‘‘Archaeologists
suggest the Sanctuary may have once
been the site of Chumash villages
* * *,’’ because there are sites now
submerged due to changing sea level.
Response: Comment noted.
36. Comment: The management plan
should explain how Chumash people
are involved in monitoring artifacts, and
what federal, state and local regulations
pertain to Chumash monitoring of
artifacts.
Response: NOAA has added an
activity to FMP Strategy MH.4 that
describes how the NOAA will consult
with the Sanctuary Advisory Council
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
and ask for the assistance of its
Chumash Community Working Group in
clarifying existing requirements and
discussing best practices regarding
protection and handling of Chumash
artifacts.
37. Comment: NOAA should increase
funding and planned efforts for Strategy
MHR.6 on Promoting Public Education
of Chumash Native American History.
Response: NOAA will continue to
contribute staff time and vessel support
toward the implementation of this
Strategy (now referred to as MH.6), and
will continue to support the Sanctuary
Advisory Council’s Chumash
Community Working Group. NOAA will
allocate additional resources as funding
allows.
38. Comment: NOAA should hire
Chumash staff to properly implement
the Maritime Heritage Resources Action
Plan.
Response: Should NOAA add any
new staff positions at CINMS, such
positions must be open to all qualified
individuals. In addition, NOAA
encourages individuals from all local
communities to participate in the
Sanctuary’s Maritime Heritage
Resources Volunteer Program (see
strategy MH.2).
39. Comment: NOAA should establish
an internship for Chumash high school
and/or college students.
Response: NOAA initiated a Chumash
internship at the Sanctuary in 2008.
NOAA values this internship for
improving coordination and partnership
building between CINMS and the
Chumash community, and as a means to
introduce Chumash students to marine
conservation education and resource
protection professions. NOAA looks
forward to continuing the internship as
resources allow.
40. Comment: NOAA should separate
shipwreck information from Chumash
cultural information in the Maritime
Heritage Resources Action Plan.
Response: The majority of the
strategies contained in this action plan
bear relevance to researching,
protecting, and conducting outreach and
education not only on shipwrecks, but
also on Chumash cultural sites and
artifacts. However, given that NOAA
regards Chumash culture, past and
present, as a special part of the
Sanctuary’s maritime heritage, the
FMP’s planned activities to support
education about Chumash heritage are
contained in a separate strategy.
41. Comment: A cave in Oregon has
been recently determined to house the
oldest human remains found in North
America; therefore the reference to
Santa Rosa Island as such should be
revised.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Response: NOAA has revised FMP
and FEIS text accordingly.
Chumash—Inclusion Across Tribal,
Political, and Social Groupings
42. Comment: The documents should
reflect that there are many Chumash
tribal, political and social groupings.
The Chumash Maritime Association
should not be the only Chumash group
considered in DMP Strategy MHR.6
activities on Promoting Public
Education of Chumash Native American
History.
Response: NOAA has added
information about various Chumash
bands, tribal, political, and social
groupings to the FMP Human Setting
section, and elsewhere within the FMP/
FEIS documents. NOAA has listed the
Sanctuary Advisory Council’s Chumash
Community Working Group as the
Chumash community partner in
Strategy MH.6 activities. The Chumash
Community Working Group is open to
membership from the entire Chumash
community, and its purpose is to advise
the Sanctuary Advisory Council, and in
turn the Sanctuary, regarding matters
related to the Chumash community.
NOAA has also replaced the detailed
activity and program ideas within MH.6
with a new activity that outlines a plan
to work with the Chumash community
(via the Chumash Community Working
Group) to identify mutual objectives for
supporting public education about
Chumash heritage.
43. Comment: NOAA should explore
a government-to-government
relationship with the Chumash.
Response: As the Santa Ynez Band of
Chumash Indians is a federally
recognized tribe, any interaction
between the Santa Ynez Band and
NOAA occurs in the context of a
relationship between two government
entities, and within the limits of the
Santa Ynez Band’s and the Sanctuary’s
respective jurisdictions and authorities.
Chumash—Language Revisions
44. Comment: Portions of the Draft
Management Plan should be rewritten,
especially under the Maritime Heritage
Resources Action Plan, because the text
contains many examples of ‘‘word and
meaning biases and conflicts.’’ NOAA
should work collaboratively with the
Chumash before developing the final
versions of the documents.
Response: Although the Sanctuary
Advisory Council’s Chumash
Community Working Group was not
available for meetings during the time
the final text was being prepared,
CINMS staff consulted with a Chumash
community member and expert and
have worked to fully respond to the
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Chumash community comments
received. NOAA looks forward to
continuing to partner with the Chumash
community on implementation of
activities described within the FMP.
45. Comment: The Draft Management
Plan contains several examples of
culturally biased language creating the
perception of diminished Native
Chumash history, presence,
participation and responsibility, and
some of the language conveys a
patriarchal nature of the relationship
between the NOAA and the wider
Chumash community. It brings an
otherwise unaware reader to the
conclusion that the Sanctuary is in the
role of a necessary savior of native
Chumash traditions and teachings.
Response: Text in the DMP was
crafted to indicate that NOAA’s role will
be one of assisting, supporting, and
helping in Chumash efforts aimed at
cultural revitalization that also align
with the mission of the CINMS. NOAA
staff have consulted with a Chumash
community member and expert and
have worked to fully respond to the
Chumash community comments
received, including by clarifying
CINMS’s intended role as a supporter of
Chumash initiated efforts in supporting
public awareness and understanding of
Chumash heritage. NOAA looks forward
to continuing to partner with the
Chumash community on
implementation of activities described
within the FMP.
46. Comment: A reference to
educating Chumash community
members on such topics as respectful
gathering skills reflects a sense of
arrogance and difference in world view.
No matter who NOAA partners with, it
cannot teach me to be respectful.
Response: Text in the DMP (strategy
MHR.6, activity 3) indicated that the
CINMS role in this activity would be to
help the Chumash Maritime Association
and Chumash Community Working
Group provide education and outreach
opportunities for the larger regional
community regarding Chumash and
environmental issues. The text also
indicated that this program would be
designed primarily for Chumash people
to educate their fellow Chumash and
others about Chumash heritage.
However, in an effort to ensure broader
Chumash community input NOAA has
replaced this specific activity in FMP
strategy MH.6 with activities that now
describe a process for working together
to identify mutual education and
outreach objectives.
47. Comment: NOAA should revise
text that refers to ‘‘descendents of’’
Chumash, since such people identify
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
themselves as Chumash, not
descendents.
Response: NOAA has replaced
references to ‘‘descendants of Chumash’’
with ‘‘Chumash.’’
48. Comment: The DMP’s description
(at Part II–C, The Human Setting) of the
importance of the Channel Islands and
surrounding waters to humans for
thousands of years is confusing and
unclear.
Response: NOAA has revised this text
within the FMP’s section II-C. See also
the response to comment 44 for
information on NOAA’s efforts to
develop Chumash related text.
49. Comment: NOAA should add
information about the forced relocation
of Island Chumash people.
Response: NOAA has added
information to the FMP Human Setting
section, the Maritime Heritage
Resources Action Plan’s Description of
the Issues section, and the FEIS Affected
Environment/Maritime Heritage
Resources section about forced
relocation of island Chumash to the
mainland. See also the response to
comment 44 for information on NOAA’s
efforts to develop Chumash related text.
50. Comment: The MHR Action Plan
refers to ‘‘Native American Artifacts,’’
but the artifacts are specific to the
Chumash people.
Response: NOAA has changed the text
referring specifically to Native
American artifacts found in the Channel
Islands to refer to such artifacts as
Chumash Native American artifacts.
51. Comment: Text about Juan
Rodriguez Cabrillo’s voyage of discovery
(1542–1543) improperly suggests that
Cabrillo ‘‘discovered’’ the already
inhabited Channel Islands.
Response: Although the text did not
state that Cabrillo discovered the
Channel Islands, NOAA recognizes that
the reference to Cabrillo’s ‘‘voyage of
discovery’’ could be construed to mean
this, and as such NOAA has revised the
text accordingly.
52. Comment: NOAA should revise
text that refers to Chumash people in
the past tense, because there has been
no discontinuation of the Chumash
people. NOAA should also revise
Strategy MHR.6 title, ‘‘Promoting Public
Education of Chumash Native American
History,’’ by removing the word
‘‘history.’’
Response: NOAA made a directed
effort to refer to contemporary Chumash
in the DMP and DEIS, and to ensure that
there are no improper references to
Chumash people in the past tense
within the FMP and FEIS. See also the
response to comment 44 for information
on NOAA’s efforts to develop Chumash
related text. Regarding the title of
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3229
Strategy MH.6, NOAA has changed the
strategy title and text, which now
describe the Sanctuary’s efforts to
support public education of Chumash
Native American maritime heritage.
Civil Penalties
53. Comment: The NMSP is
positioning itself for growth in any way
that it can, including by gaining the
ability to assess new civil penalties.
Current law prohibiting certain
activities does not provide the potential
of financial benefit for the CINMS.
Response: NOAA has maintained the
authority to assess civil penalties for
violations of CINMS regulations since
those regulations took effect in the early
1980s. Congress defines the parameters
of civil penalties during the
authorization and subsequent
reauthorization of the NMSA. The
actual penalties levied for violations
vary in proportion to the severity of the
incident and other case-specific factors.
NOAA is issuing this final rule to
provide NOAA enforcement officers and
enforcement partners with enhanced
regulatory tools designed to improve
protection of Sanctuary resources.
Designation TERMS
54. Comment: NOAA should not
make the proposed changes to the
Sanctuary’s designation document,
because they are unnecessary and
NOAA has not followed the procedures
required for granting CINMS new
regulatory authority.
Response: In accordance with section
304(a)(4) of the NMSA (16 U.S.C.
1434(a)(4)), the terms of designation of
a sanctuary include: (1) The geographic
area included within the sanctuary; (2)
the characteristics of the area that give
it conservation, recreational, ecological,
historical, research, educational, or
esthetic value; and (3) the types of
activities that will be subject to
regulation by the Secretary to protect
those characteristics. Under the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act, a
sanctuary’s terms of designation may
only be modified by following the same
procedures by which the sanctuary was
designated. NOAA has followed this
process to modify the CINMS terms of
designation, including the publication
of a draft environmental impact
statement, proposed regulations, and
draft terms of designation. NOAA also
explained why the proposed changes
are necessary and analyzed each change
thoroughly in the EIS.
55. Comment: NOAA’s ability to
protect Sanctuary resources is overly
limited by the CINMS Designation
Document. Identifying and proposing
regulations to protect Sanctuary
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
3230
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
resources, including by extending the
CINMS scope of authority is required to
fulfill the duty Congress assigned to the
National Marine Sanctuary Program.
Response: National marine sanctuary
terms of designation typically express
the types of activities subject to
sanctuary regulation in general terms.
Recognizing that environmental
conditions in a sanctuary change over
time, this is necessary to allow NOAA
to make appropriate modifications to
existing regulations or to regulate
additional activities that are impacting
or may impact sanctuary resources (i.e.,
to allow for adaptive management).
NOAA is revising the CINMS terms of
designation as necessary to provide the
authority to implement its revised
proposed regulations.
Discharge
Discharge—Bilge Water
56. Comment: NOAA should include
an explicit ban on dumping oily bilge
water (treated or not).
Response: Although NOAA provides
certain exceptions to the CINMS
discharge regulation, the discharge of
oily bilge water is prohibited by existing
regulations and is also prohibited under
the new regulations. See the FEIS for
additional information on and revisions
to the discharge regulation.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Discharge—Chumming
57. Comment: NOAA should clarify
that the discharge regulation allows for
the common practice of filleting fish
during the trip back to port.
Response: NOAA considers tossing
scraps overboard from filleting fish
caught in the Sanctuary during the trip
back to port to be part of the exception
for fish, fish parts, or chumming
materials (bait).
58. Comment: Several commenters
expressed support for the proposed
exception for fish, fish parts, or
chumming materials (bait) to the CINMS
discharge regulation.
Response: Comment noted.
59. Comment: Commenter is
concerned about compliance with the
discharge regulation (e.g., feeding
wildlife food scraps).
Response: In an effort to increase
compliance with CINMS regulations,
NOAA will use an educational approach
to raise awareness of the regulation and
the problems associated with feeding
wildlife. An educational approach to the
issue can also be implemented through
the Public Awareness and
Understanding Action Plan strategy
AU.3 (Team OCEAN) activities,
including those pertaining to ocean
etiquette. See also the response to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
comment 120 for an explanation of how
Sanctuary regulations are enforced.
60. Comment: The exception to the
enter-and-injure regulation as it relates
to discharge of fish and fish parts and
chumming materials is unnecessary,
and could potentially undermine the
effect, perception, and credibility of this
otherwise sound and necessary
measure.
Response: NOAA is not considering
removing the exception to the CINMS
discharge regulation for fish, fish parts,
or chumming material (bait) used in or
resulting from lawful fishing activity
beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary.
NOAA believes that such activities do
not currently pose a threat to Sanctuary
resources; if in the future such activities
were to harm Sanctuary resources, then
NOAA would re-evaluate the scope of
this exception.
Discharge—Enter/Injure
61. Comment: A number of
commenters expressed support for the
proposed prohibition on discharging or
depositing from beyond the boundary of
the Sanctuary any material or other
matter that subsequently enters the
Sanctuary and injures a Sanctuary
resource or quality.
Response: Comments noted.
62. Comment: The proposed
prohibition on discharging or depositing
from beyond the boundary of the
Sanctuary is problematic because it
enables the Sanctuary to regulate
activities outside its jurisdiction; is an
unwarranted and improper extension of
the Sanctuary boundaries; the term
‘‘injury’’ is not defined, thus inviting
numerous interpretations and the
potential for litigation; and the process
by which injury would be determined is
not described.
Response: In order for a violation to
occur of the regulation prohibiting
discharge or deposit from beyond the
Sanctuary, the matter that is discharged
or deposited from beyond the Sanctuary
must also injure a Sanctuary resource or
quality, except for the exceptions listed
in the regulations. Thus, operations and
activities taking place beyond the
Sanctuary are only subject to this
regulation if the discharge or deposit of
the matter is shown to injure a
Sanctuary resource or quality within the
Sanctuary, and this regulation is not an
extension of the Sanctuary’s boundary.
Injure, as defined at 15 CFR 922.3,
means to change adversely, either in the
short or long term, a chemical,
biological or physical attribute of, or the
viability of. This includes, but is not
limited to, to cause the loss of or
destroy.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Discharge—General
63. Comment: NOAA should apply
heightened restrictions on polluting
vessels, including large vessels,
watercraft and cruise ships, in the Santa
Barbara Channel, or tighten the
exceptions to the discharge and deposit
prohibition with the goal of better
protecting Sanctuary waters from
pollution.
Response: NOAA’s revised Sanctuary
regulations strengthen protections
against pollution from vessels by
clarifying that discharges allowed from
marine sanitation devices apply only to
Type I and Type II marine sanitation
devices, and by limiting graywater and
treated sewage exceptions to apply only
to vessels less than 300 gross registered
tons (GRT), and oceangoing ships (not
including cruise ships) without
sufficient holding tank capacity to hold
graywater or sewage while within the
CINMS.
64. Comment: To best protect
Sanctuary resources, the new CINMS
regulations should ban dumping
hazardous waste into the Sanctuary.
Response: CINMS regulations prohibit
discharging or depositing from within or
into the Sanctuary any material or other
matter, with a list of exceptions.
Discharging or depositing any material
or other matter that is not included in
the list of exceptions, including
hazardous waste, is prohibited.
Discharge—Meals
65. Comment: Several commenters
expressed support for NOAA’s proposal
to prohibit discharging or depositing
from within or into the Sanctuary meals
on board vessels.
Response: Comments noted.
Discharge—Sewage/Graywater
66. Comment: The discharge and
deposit regulation requires that vessel
operators must lock all marine
sanitation devices in a manner that
prevents discharge of untreated sewage,
without defining what is meant by
‘‘lock.’’
Response: Locking means securing the
device such that removal of a locking
mechanism (e.g., padlock, combination
lock, or cable tie) is required to enable
the system to discharge raw sewage
overboard. In the case of a Y valve that
toggles toilet bowl discharge between a
treatment system/holding tank and an
overboard outlet, the valve handle
would need to be in the closed position
for overboard discharge and locked to
prevent inadvertent and unopposed
opening of the valve.
67. Comment: A number of
commenters indicated that the proposed
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
discharge and deposit regulation does
not provide the same level of protection
as California Clean Coast Act.
Response: NOAA revised the
proposed CINMS discharge/deposit
regulation to prohibit the discharge of
sewage from all vessels 300 GRT or
more, and the discharge of graywater
from vessels 300 GRT or more, except
for oceangoing ships without sufficient
holding tank capacity for graywater.
This is consistent with the Clean Coast
Act. These regulatory changes were
analyzed in a Supplemental EIS (March
2008).
68. Comment: A number of
commenters, including the U.S. EPA
and the California State Water
Resources Control Board, expressed
support for the revised proposed
discharge regulation as analyzed in the
SDEIS.
Response: Comment noted.
69. Comment: One commenter
supported CINMS for not providing a
sewage discharge exemption for ships
greater than 300 GRT, as has been
proposed by the Northern California
sanctuaries, but objected to the revised
proposed discharge regulation
exceptions for graywater and treated
sewage from vessels less than 300 GRT,
and graywater from oceangoing ships
without sufficient holding tank capacity
to hold graywater within the Sanctuary.
Response: NOAA acknowledges
support for the revised proposed
discharge/deposit regulation as
analyzed in the SDEIS; however, NOAA
has concluded that an exception for
treated sewage discharge/deposit from
oceangoing ships without sufficient
holding tank capacity (excluding cruise
ships) is warranted at this time. See the
response to comment 72 for more
information. CINMS is maintaining the
treated sewage exception for vessels less
than 300 GRT. The rationale for the
treated sewage exceptions is provided in
the response to comment 70. The
exception for oceangoing ships without
sufficient holding tank capacity to hold
graywater while within the Sanctuary is
implemented because, unlike cruise
ships and newer oceangoing ships, some
older oceangoing ships are designed
without the ability to retain graywater,
and, as such, must discharge graywater
directly as it is produced. As explained
in FEIS section 4, graywater discharge
from small vessels, and from oceangoing
ships without sufficient holding tank
capacity to hold graywater while within
the Sanctuary, is anticipated to have a
less than significant adverse impact on
the Sanctuary’s physical, biological, and
esthetic resources.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
70. Comment: NOAA should phase-in
a total wastewater discharge ban for all
ocean-going vessels in CINMS.
Response: NOAA is not planning to
phase in a total wastewater discharge
ban for all oceangoing vessels in the
Sanctuary at this time because available
data do not suggest that the excepted
sewage and graywater discharges within
the Sanctuary pose an unacceptable risk
to Sanctuary resources and qualities.
Should information to the contrary
become available, NOAA may consider
further regulation.
71. Comment: Regulations applying to
large vessels should also apply to
vessels servicing those larger vessels
(e.g., barges that may be used to transfer
sewage from an anchored vessel to
outside of the 3-mile limit).
Response: The regulations prohibit
discharging from within or into the
Sanctuary sewage (treated and
untreated) and graywater from vessels
300 GRT or more (unless the vessel is
an oceangoing ship without sufficient
holding tank capacity—this does not
apply to cruise ships). NOAA interprets
this regulation to prohibit the discharge
of such sewage or graywater even if the
sewage or graywater were transferred to
a second vessel, regardless of the second
vessel’s size. Furthermore, transferring
sewage from an anchored large vessel
seems implausible since vessels 300
GRT or more are not known to anchor
within the Sanctuary.
72. Comment: The proposed revisions
of the Sanctuary’s discharge prohibition
should be consistent with the California
Clean Coast Act and include the
exception for ocean going vessels
without sufficient holding tank capacity
to hold treated blackwater (sewage)
while within the Sanctuary.
Response: To be consistent with the
California Clean Coast Act, as well as
with regulations for the Monterey Bay,
Cordell Bank, and Gulf of the Farallones
national marine sanctuaries, NOAA is
providing an exception for treated
sewage discharges from oceangoing
ships that do not have sufficient holding
tank capacity while within the CINMS.
73. Comment: Adequate education on
the proposed discharge restrictions will
ensure that oceangoing ships retain all
discharges to the greatest extent possible
within the Sanctuary.
Response: Outreach and education to
the shipping industry about the
Sanctuary’s revised regulations is
important, and NOAA will apply
educational resources toward that
purpose, including outreach to the
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association.
74. Comment: The management plan
fails to recognize or provide an
incentive for the use and further
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3231
development of advanced wastewater
treatment systems currently installed on
cruise ships, and instead, encourages
ships to construct and utilize large
holding tanks and discharge elsewhere.
The targeting of cruise ships and ban on
discharges promotes older, cheaper, less
advanced technology and the use of
holding tanks. The proposed discharge
regulations amount to a wholesale ban
on discharges creating a disincentive to
further research, development and
installation of systems that produce
clean and scientifically acceptable
effluent. If discharges are harmful,
transferring them to another location
would simply be transferring the
problem.
Response: The management plan
recognizes the use of advanced
wastewater treatment systems by cruise
ships. The SDEIS and FEIS both
acknowledge the use of these systems
and their ability to dramatically
improve the quality of effluent
discharged in Alaska. Currently,
however, advanced wastewater
treatment systems on cruise ships do
not always function properly and even
when they do, they do not always
effectively remove all contaminants.
NOAA encourages the development of
new technologies to address these
issues.
Similarly, the management plan does
not encourage or promote retrenchment
to older, cheaper, less advanced
technology. The regulations prohibit
cruise ships from discharging sewage
and graywater from within or into a
particular area afforded special
protection due to its nationally
significant resources. NOAA believes
that transferring discharges outside of
the Sanctuary is an appropriate resource
protection measure.
75. Comment: There is no credible
reason to ban cruise ship discharges
from Type II MSDs and advanced
wastewater treatment systems, and such
discharges should be allowed in general,
or when discharged while the vessel is
moving at or above six knots. Cruise
ship Type II MSDs meet or exceed U.S.
Coast Guard standards and pose little or
no threat to the environment. The
revised proposed discharge regulation
assumes that any sewage and gray water
discharges, no matter the quality, are
likely to have adverse environmental
impacts on the receiving water and
ambient air based on their sheer
volume. NOAA should consult with the
EPA and Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation since they
have done an exceptional amount of
work regarding cruise ship effluent
discharges.
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3232
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Response: NOAA is not aware of any
EPA or other reports showing that
treated sewage discharges from cruise
ships would not pose any discernable
effect within the Sanctuary. As
discussed in the SDEIS (p. 22), it is
important to note that many dilution
studies only consider effluent from
properly functioning MSDs, which is
not necessarily the condition of MSDs
on all or most vessels. The revised
regulation addresses NOAA’s concerns
about failure of conventional MSDs on
large vessels to adequately treat sewage
waste streams, and lack of monitoring of
those waste streams.
Regarding use of Coast Guard
approved Type II MSDs, Coast Guard
standards for MSDs pertain to the
design and construction of MSDs, and
procedures for certifying MSDs prior to
sale, introduction or delivery into
interstate commerce, or import into the
United States for sale or resale. The
Coast Guard does not test the effluent
from certified MSDs once installed
onboard a vessel (except in Alaska).
Simply having a Coast Guard approved
MSD on board a ship does not guarantee
that a ship’s sewage discharges meet
EPA discharge requirements, as
demonstrated by cruise ship sampling
data in Alaska prior to institution of
more stringent discharge standards,
monitoring, inspection, and reporting
requirements there.
The SDEIS and FEIS analysis of the
potential impacts of cruise ship
discharges is based on both the quality
and volume of sewage and graywater
discharges. Even when sewage and
graywater discharges meet MSD Type II
standards for fecal coliform and total
suspended solids, there are other
qualities of sewage and graywater
discharges that may be harmful, such as
chemicals used to treat sewage and
graywater, and high nutrient levels,
especially when discharged in large
volumes. As noted in the SDEIS and
FEIS, results of cruise ship graywater
sampling in Alaska indicate that in the
absence of water quality standards and
monitoring, graywater is similar to
sewage in terms of fecal coliform and
total suspended solids. The SDEIS and
FEIS do not analyze cruise ship sewage
and graywater discharge impacts on
ambient air.
Regarding cruise ships that transit
Alaska, and that use advanced
wastewater treatment systems, see the
response to comment 76.
76. Comment: Rather than a ban,
NOAA should consider drafting
regulations that mirror requirements in
other jurisdictions, such as Alaska,
which permit sewage and gray water
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
discharges at levels scientifically
acceptable through discharge criteria.
Response: As stated in the SDEIS and
FEIS, the results of cruise ship
blackwater samples taken in Alaska
indicate that blackwater from vessels
without advanced treatment systems
(and not subject to mandatory
monitoring, inspection, and reporting)
may contain levels of fecal coliform and
total suspended solids that exceed
federal standards for MSDs, as well as
a variety of other pollutants. Unlike
Alaska, NOAA is not planning on
instituting a CINMS cruise ship sewage
and graywater discharge monitoring,
inspection, and reporting program.
Effluent monitoring would be cost
prohibitive and infeasible, particularly
for vessels underway (large vessels do
not customarily stop in the Sanctuary).
Additionally, ship discharge audits
often reveal that a discharge occurred
but do not contain information on
contaminant levels. Currently, advanced
waste water treatment systems on cruise
ships do not always function properly
and even when they do, they do not
always effectively remove all
contaminants. Therefore NOAA believes
that prohibiting cruise ship sewage and
graywater discharges is the most
effective and enforceable regulation.
The SDEIS and FEIS both acknowledge
the use of advanced wastewater
treatment systems and their ability to
improve the quality of effluent
discharged in Alaska. However, the
program adopted in Alaska is a complex
arrangement requiring issuance of a
permit, prior demonstration that the
ships can meet water quality standards
based on independent contractor
evaluation, environmental compliance
fees, wastewater sampling and testing
protocols, record keeping and reporting
protocols, on-board observers, and a tax
per passenger to fund the administration
of the program. Such a program is
inherently difficult to monitor and
enforce and the NMSP has no
mechanism in place for recouping the
necessary funds needed to administer it.
Also, the EPA studies indicate that
although advanced wastewater
treatment systems remove most of the
priority pollutants of concern they do
not adequately reduce discharge of
ammonia and metals. For these reasons,
the CINMS regulations prohibit
discharges from advanced wastewater
treatment systems. Cruise ships have
sufficient holding tank capacity to hold
their discharge as they transit the
Sanctuary.
77. Comment: CINMS should not
implement new sewage discharge
regulations for small vessels because (1)
existing laws prohibit the discharge of
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
untreated sewage from small vessels
within three nautical miles of shore; (2)
existing requirements should be better
enforced instead of adding new
requirements; (3) no significant water
quality issues have been noted for
discharges by vessels under 150 GRT
with certified MSDs Type I, II, or III; (4)
requiring untreated sewage to be
discharged further offshore would turn
‘‘good guys’’ into ‘‘bad guys’’; (5) using
the Coast Guard regulations as the
standard for sewage discharges from
vessels less than 300 GRT would
facilitate Channel Islands National Park
operations (i.e., kelp forest monitoring,
submerged cultural resources
monitoring); (6) Coast Guard regulations
are easier to enforce since most boaters
are familiar with them; (7) prohibiting
untreated sewage discharge within the
entire Sanctuary would present a tradeoff between having untreated sewage
discharged further from shore and
environmental impacts such as
pollution costs (including from fuel
production and transportation) and
energy waste from the fuel burned to get
there; and (8) a requirement to discharge
untreated sewage further offshore
presents time and fuel costs to boaters.
Response: NOAA recognizes that
other federal regulations prohibit the
discharge of untreated sewage within
three nmi from shore; however, CINMS
regulations have prohibited the
discharge of untreated sewage within
the entire Sanctuary since 1981 (the
FEIS clarifies this existing regulation).
NOAA is concerned about the
pathogens, nutrients, and esthetic
impacts that untreated sewage could
introduce if discharged within the
Sanctuary. To date, untreated sewage
discharges have not been definitively
linked to significant water quality
problems in the Sanctuary; however,
this rule will ensure that such problems
do not occur in the future.
CINMS partners closely with Channel
Islands National Park (CINP) on marine
operations including research,
monitoring, and enforcement. Based on
NOAA’s analysis of Park and CINMS
vessel operations, NOAA does not
expect the clarifications to the sewage
discharge regulation to significantly
impede Park operations.
Enforcement of regulations, including
discharge regulations, is important to
ensure their effectiveness. NOAA
intends to consider enforcement needs
during the development of the
Sanctuary’s water quality protection
program (see FMP strategy WQ.2).
Additional outreach and education
regarding Sanctuary discharge
regulations is warranted, and NOAA
intends to work with the Coast Guard,
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
CINP, and other key agencies to develop
effective outreach tools.
NOAA believes all boaters can
reasonably adapt to comply with this
regulation and practice clean boating
within the Sanctuary, as was the case
when similar or more stringent
regulations were adopted in other large
areas of U.S. waters (e.g., the Great
Lakes, state marine waters in the Florida
Keys, and Chesapeake Bay). With proper
trip planning, necessary equipment and
maintenance, and attention to sewage
holding capacity and needs, NOAA
expects that boaters can take steps to
avoid special trips beyond the
Sanctuary’s six nmi boundary solely to
discharge sewage (after which they
would continue boating within the
Sanctuary). For example, there are
compact commode and portable sewage
storage systems widely available on the
market.
78. Comment: NOAA should prohibit
sewage sludge from large vessels
because it is produced in large
quantities by cruise ships and included
in the California Clean Coast Act’s
prohibitions.
Response: Sewage sludge discharges/
deposits are prohibited throughout the
Sanctuary.
79. Comment: CINMS should revise
the discharge regulation to mirror
existing law pertaining to vessel sewage
and graywater discharges and fully
prohibit graywater, sewage (untreated
and treated) and sewage sludge
discharges from cruise ships and other
large oceangoing vessels throughout the
Sanctuary.
Response: Regarding mirroring
existing laws on vessel sewage and
graywater discharges, see the response
to comment 67. The revised discharge
and deposit regulation now prohibits
graywater discharges from vessels 300
GRT or more (except oceangoing ships
without sufficient holding tank capacity
to hold graywater while within the
Sanctuary); it also prohibits treated
sewage discharges from all vessels 300
GRT or more throughout the Sanctuary
(except oceangoing ships without
sufficient holding tank capacity to hold
sewage while within the Sanctuary),
and prohibits untreated sewage from all
vessels within the Sanctuary. The
Sanctuary’s discharge regulation does
not provide an exception for sewage
sludge discharges.
80. Comment: The Sanctuary should
not exempt military vessels from the
discharge and deposit prohibition, as
they are included in the California
Clean Coast Act’s sewage and sewage
sludge prohibitions.
Response: NOAA believes the DOD
discharge requirements under CWA
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
section 312(n) are sufficient to protect
Sanctuary resources.
81. Comment: NOAA should delete
the discharge regulation’s graywater
exception.
Response: NOAA believes there is no
need to prohibit graywater discharges
from vessels less than 300 GRT within
the Sanctuary at this time. However,
Sanctuary regulations would now
prohibit graywater discharges from
vessels 300 GRT or more, except from
oceangoing ships without sufficient
holding tank capacity to hold graywater
while within the Sanctuary.
82. Comment: NOAA’s discharge
regulation should reflect the California
Coastal Commission’s recommendation
to prohibit vessels of 300 GRT or more
from discharging sewage or graywater
into the waters of the Sanctuary.
Response: NOAA has revised the
CINMS discharge regulation to reflect
the California Coastal Commission’s
recommendation and prohibit the
discharge of sewage from all vessels 300
GRT or more, as well as the discharge
of graywater from vessels 300 GRT or
more. Exceptions would be consistent
with the California Clean Coast Act,
allowing graywater and treated sewage
from oceangoing ships without
sufficient holding tank capacity to hold
these discharges while within the
Sanctuary).
83. Comment: Due to the volume of
their discharges, cruise ships should be
directed around the Sanctuary.
Response: Rather than direct cruise
ships around the Sanctuary, NOAA is
excluding cruise ships from the CINMS
sewage and graywater exceptions,
thereby prohibiting their discharge
within the Sanctuary.
84. Comment: Unless NOAA is able to
institute a rigorous monitoring and
sampling program for sewage effluent
from ships as Alaska has done, it is
prudent to adopt a no-discharge policy
that mirrors the state of California’s
laws.
Response: Although NOAA may
implement some discharge monitoring
in partnership with other agencies,
NOAA is not currently planning to
institute a comprehensive sewage
effluent monitoring and sampling
program in the Sanctuary similar to
Alaska’s program (see also the response
to comment 75). Regarding adopting a
policy that mirrors California’s law, see
the response to comment 67.
85. Comment: All vessels, ships, or
large vessels should hold either all
waste or sewage until they can
discharge it into pump out stations for
disposal or treatment on land.
Response: The revised CINMS
discharge regulation prohibits
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3233
discharging untreated sewage within the
Sanctuary from vessels less than 300
GRT, and prohibits discharging sewage
(whether treated or untreated) within
the Sanctuary from vessels 300 GRT or
more, except for oceangoing ships that
do not have sufficient holding tank
capacity to hold sewage while within
the Sanctuary.
86. Comment: NOAA should either
include sewage sludge in the definition
of ‘‘sewage’’ or explicitly prohibit
sewage sludge in the discharge
regulation.
Response: Existing CINMS regulations
do not provide an exception for sewage
sludge discharge/deposit; as such, these
discharges/deposits are prohibited.
87. Comment: The prohibition of
sewage sludge should be incorporated
in outreach documents.
Response: CINMS staff will consider
this comment when developing
outreach products about the revised
Sanctuary regulations.
88. Comment: Commenter supports
the marine sanitation device
clarification in the revised proposed
discharge regulation.
Response: Comment noted.
89. Comment: Commenter supports
the proposed definitions of ‘‘graywater,’’
‘‘oceangoing ship,’’ and ‘‘cruise ship,’’
as well as the Sanctuary’s effort to
provide greater regulatory consistency
and clarity by establishing formal
definitions for important concepts
relevant to CINMS resource
conservation and management.
Response: Comment noted.
Ecosystem Based Management
90. Comment: The Management Plan
refers to Ecosystem Based Management,
but there is no mention of Ecosystem
Based Management in the NMSA.
Response: The Management Plan
Introduction section refers to ecosystembased management and the NMSA, and
it specifies the sections of the NMSA
that NOAA believes support the use of
ecosystem-based management. As stated
therein, NOAA believes that ecosystembased management is in keeping with
the NMSA’s primary objective of
resource protection. Section 301(b) of
the NMSA, which provides the
purposes and policies of the national
marine sanctuary system, provides
CINMS and the other national marine
sanctuaries with a solid framework for
ecosystem-based management. Section
301 provides that it is the purpose of the
NMSA to, among other things: (a)
Maintain the natural biological
communities of the national marine
sanctuaries, and to protect, and where
appropriate, restore and enhance natural
habitats, populations, and ecological
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
3234
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
processes; (b) develop and implement
coordinated plans for the protection and
management of these areas with
appropriate Federal agencies, State and
local governments, Native American
tribes and organizations, international
organizations, and other public and
private interests concerned with the
continuing health and resilience of the
sanctuaries; and (c) to create models of,
and incentives for, ways to conserve and
manage these areas, including the
application of innovative management
techniques. Maintaining biological
communities, and protecting, restoring,
and enhancing habitats, populations,
and ecological processes (see clause a
above), along with addressing the health
and resiliency of national marine
sanctuaries (see clause b above), are
endeavors best suited to an ecosystembased approach. Such an approach is
consistent with applying innovative
management techniques (see clause c
above).
91. Comment: NOAA should replace
the management plan’s Grumbine (1994)
definition of Ecosystem Based
Management with the definition from
the Scientific Consensus Statement on
Marine Ecosystem Based Management
released in March 2005 (by authors
including Jenn Casselle, Jennie Dugan,
Ben Halpern, Jeremy Jackson, Satie
Airame, and Hunter Lenihan).
Response: Text in the FMP has been
revised to reflect the definition of
marine ecosystem-based management
from NOAA’s New Priorities for the 21st
Century (NOAA’s strategic plan for
2006–2011), rather than the definition
provided by Grumbine (1994). NOAA’s
definition of an ecosystem approach to
management is consistent with the 2005
Scientific Consensus Statement on
Marine Ecosystem-Based Management,
which is available on line at https://
www.compassonline.org/marinescience/
solutions_ecosystem.asp.
Education and Outreach
92. Comment: Commenters indicated
support for the management plan’s
education and outreach goals and
objectives and the Public Awareness
and Understanding Action Plan.
Response: Comment noted.
93. Comment: Through the Public
Awareness and Understanding Action
Plan NOAA should ensure that all
employees and crew of Channel Islands
National Park concessionaires who
bring visitors to the Sanctuary are aware
of and understand CINMS regulations
and resource conservation issues.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that even
major concessionaires are not aware of
CINMS regulations on matters such as
vessel sewage and wastewater
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
discharge. NOAA should also provide
an incentive for concessionaires to
participate in an education program.
Response: CINMS staff work directly
with Channel Islands National Park staff
responsible for educating
concessionaires through the strategic
plan mentioned in the FMP Public
Awareness & Understanding Action
Plan (Strategy AU.2 activity 3). As part
of the Ocean Etiquette Outreach
program (AU.3, activity 4), which
promotes communication and
coordination between California ocean
users and Federal and State agencies,
CINMS staff plan to engage
concessionaires and other boaters in
Ocean Etiquette workshops. As the Park
reviews and awards concessionaire
licenses to various operators, CINMS
staff will continue to communicate with
the Park on interests and concerns
regarding concessionaire compliance
with Sanctuary regulations, such as
those pertaining to clean boating
practices, as well as possible
compliance incentives.
94. Comment: NOAA should work
with the City of Santa Barbara to
increase opportunities for effective
signage and publicity.
Response: NOAA worked with the
City of Santa Barbara (City) in the mid1990s on several CINMS interpretive
signs that are located in Santa Barbara’s
Shoreline Park. NOAA also works with
the City each year by participating in
the annual Harbor and Seafood Festival,
and serving alongside the City, U.S.
Forest Service, National Park Service
and Santa Barbara Maritime Museum as
a partner in the Outdoors Santa Barbara
Visitor Center in the Santa Barbara
Harbor (see the Public Awareness and
Understanding Action Plan strategy
AU.7—Visitor Center Support &
Development for more information).
NOAA is currently working with the
City Waterfront Department to place
signs at the Santa Barbara Harbor fuel
dock and along the Santa Barbara
Harbor Fish Walk. These signs focus on
CINMS, CINP, and marine zoning, and
are part of a larger NMSP sponsored
initiative called the California Signage
Plan. Sanctuary interactive kiosks, like
signs, are also an important outreach
tool that can help provide CINMS
publicity at various locations, such as at
the City Waterfront Department office.
For information about interactive
kiosks, see Public Awareness and
Understanding strategy AU.7.
95. Comment: The management plan
did not indicate how NOAA would
assess the effectiveness of strategies
AU.1 through AU.8.
Response: NOAA understands the
importance of evaluating the
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
effectiveness of its programs. FMP
Strategy EV.1 (Measuring Sanctuary
Performance Over Time) details how
each education program or product will
be evaluated, and FMP Table 16 shows
specific strategies, objectives,
performance measures and metrics for
measuring effectiveness of the Public
Awareness and Understanding Action
Plan. Also, NOAA is working at CINMS
to meet the NMSP’s system-wide
performance measure related to
education, which states that ‘‘By 2010
all education programs implemented in
national marine sanctuaries will be
assessed for effectiveness against stated
program goals and objectives and
appropriate National and State
education standards.’’
96. Comment: NOAA should clarify
for each program whether there are
plans to assure that strategies AU.1, and
AU.3–AU.9 are reaching a diverse
audience.
Response: NOAA strives to reach
diverse audiences with its CINMS
education and outreach programs and
materials. FMP Strategy AU.9 describes
how CINMS will build multicultural
elements into existing education
programs and materials, and activity 5
describes in detail the implementation
of a comprehensive multicultural
education strategic plan for Santa
Barbara and Ventura Counties.
97. Comment: NOAA should consider
best education practices in the
development of Strategy AU.1.
Response: NOAA education staff at
CINMS use best practices when
developing educational programming.
CINMS educators stay abreast of current
issues and changes in science and
environmental education content
standards by participating in annual
education conferences and workshops
put on by leaders in science education.
98. Comment: Given the changing
make-up of our population, NOAA
should create strategies to create a
diverse pool of interns and volunteers,
and should create career paths for
interns from ethnic groups underrepresented in resource sciences. The
latter would help create a pool of
qualified future resource scientists,
technicians, managers and leaders.
Response: As mentioned in Strategy
AU.9 of the FMP’s Public Awareness &
Understanding Action Plan, CINMS
implements the MERITO Hispanic
Students Internship Program. Text in
FMP Strategy AU.2 has been changed to
reflect these CINMS internship
strategies for under-represented youth
as defined in Strategy AU.9.
99. Comment: The management plan
refers to the Los Marineros education
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
program, without explaining that this
program is now defunct.
Response: NOAA and the Santa
Barbara Museum of Natural History
(Museum) started the Los Marineros
Program in 1987. The Museum took
over administration of the program in
the mid 1990s. The Museum decided
not to continue the program after 2005,
which is now reflected in the FMP.
NOAA is now working to build
Sanctuary stewardship and increase
understanding of ocean related threats
within the Hispanic community of
Santa Barbara and Ventura counties
through strategy AU.9, Multicultural
Education. A component of this strategy
is the MERITO Academy which targets
5th–8th grade teachers and students and
provides a meaningful watershed
experience through field trips to the
beach and Sanctuary.
100. Comment: NOAA should
mention a shift to a philosophy of
sustainability in its CINMS education
programs.
Response: Since its designation in
1980, CINMS staff has been educating
the community about human impacts on
the ocean environment and working to
foster a sense of personal ownership and
responsibility for care of Sanctuary
resources.
101. Comment: NOAA should
incorporate into education and outreach
action plans some specific programs
directly facilitating compatible use,
such as brochures with simple charts
indicating best places to scuba dive,
fish, kayak, view wildlife, and so forth.
Response: NOAA’s ‘‘Protecting Your
Channel Islands’’ brochure shows
popular anchorages, diving spots and
wildlife areas (for pinnipeds and
seabirds), and provides tips for
watching wildlife and a synopsis of
sanctuary and park regulations.
Members of the boating and fishing
communities participated in the
development of this brochure through
the Sanctuary Advisory Council and the
Sanctuary Education Team. NOAA will
continue to work with boaters, fishers,
and other interested community
members to develop useful brochures
and other education materials regarding
responsible ways to enjoy Sanctuary
resources.
102. Comment: NOAA should support
or sponsor contests or festivals that
celebrate use of the Sanctuary, such as
photo contests, harbor seafood festivals,
sailing regattas, and whale festivals.
Response: As indicated in FMP Public
Awareness & Understanding Action
Plan Strategy AU.6, CINMS staff
participation in outreach events is
identified as a tool to provide Sanctuary
information to a widely diverse
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
audience. CINMS staff and volunteers
participate in over 30 regional outreach
events annually, spanning from Santa
Barbara County to Los Angeles County,
serving a diverse number of
constituents. Events include whale
festivals, harbor festivals, boat shows,
fishing conventions, and dive industry
events.
103. Comment: NOAA education staff
at CINMS should establish closer
contact with researchers whose work
forms the information base used by
Sanctuary education programs.
Response: NOAA education and
research program staff at CINMS work
closely together on many different
Sanctuary management issues. One
example is the ongoing ‘‘From Shore to
Sea’’ lecture series sponsored by CINMS
and CINP, which brings scientists
studying the Channel Islands to venues
in Santa Barbara and Ventura one night
per month for a public presentation
about their research. CINMS research
and education staff also collaborate on
other programs and products including
interpreting research data for
presentation on the CINMS Web site,
annual research summaries, and the
CINMS Teacher at Sea program.
104. Comment: The management plan
should mention the ‘Follow That Fish!’
curriculum and aquarium exhibit,
which is a program that highlights the
results of fish movement studies in the
Sanctuary conducted by the Pfleger
Institute of Environmental Research
(PIER) using an acoustic received array.
Response: In 2006, PIER removed its
acoustic receivers and discontinued its
fish movement study project.
Consequently, NOAA is not highlighting
this project in the FMP’s description of
educational activities.
Emergency Response
105. Comment: NOAA should
develop a means for more timely
response to oil spills within the
Sanctuary by: (1) Identifying vessels
(e.g., local or Sanctuary vessels) capable
of boom deployment and skimming
systems, (2) investigating the feasibility
of the Sanctuary becoming a Clean Seas
client, and (3) providing spill cleanup/
response equipment cached at various
locations in the Channel Islands.
Response: NOAA staff take an active
role in spill response preparation by
representing CINMS on the Area
Contingency Plan (ACP) committee for
U.S. Coast Guard Region IX. CINMS
staff are also instrumental in helping to
revise the ACP to create more effective
response to spills, specifically in the
area of resource protection. The ACP is
a ‘‘cookbook’’ for oil spill response that
includes contact information for
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3235
responders, agencies, cleanup
contractors, and vessel and equipment
resources. This information is
constantly updated. Clean Seas LLC has
response vessels in place that can
quickly respond to spills within the
Sanctuary. Another regional
organization with vessels and trained
crew capable of responding to spills is
the Ventura County Commercial
Fishermen’s Association’s Fishermen’s
Oil Response Team, or FORT.
Equipment caches kept on the islands
would need to be authorized by the
National Park Service. Obtaining and
placing any spill equipment would be
best done through an agency/responder
partnership with those organizations,
such as the USCG and Clean Seas LLC,
that have dedicated staff with expertise
in spill response and all associated
equipment and assets. For more
information about how CINMS is
involved in and addresses emergencies
such as oil spills, see FMP Strategy
EE.1.
106. Comment: NOAA should look
into whether oil facilities can store
cleanup equipment, inventory
equipment already there, and consider
whether it can develop an agreement
between oil companies and sanctuaries
to use that equipment.
Response: Currently oil platforms in
the Santa Barbara Channel store various
quantities of booming and skimming
equipment and dispersants. Full
inventory lists are kept and supplied to
various Federal, State, and local
agencies involved in oil spill response,
and these lists are accessible by CINMS
staff as needed. Equipment use requires
specialized training, and oil companies
work with spill response co-ops such as
Clean Seas LLC, to provide equipment
and personnel for cleanup.
Additionally, agencies such as the U.S.
Coast Guard can ‘‘federalize’’ (place a
spill under the jurisdiction of the
Federal government if the responsible
party is not responding appropriately)
an oil spill and then call in authorized,
trained contractors to help respond to
the spill.
107. Comment: NOAA should look
towards the future of emergency
response and find funding for Clean
Seas. Currently oil spill response is paid
for by oil companies, so if oil and gas
facilities are decommissioned then
Clean Seas is not likely to be here.
Response: Although CINMS staff
could contribute to planning ideas for
maintaining oil spill response
capabilities provided by Clean Seas,
such an effort would most likely be
spearheaded by other NOAA offices
(such as NOAA HAZMAT) as well as
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
3236
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal, State, and local agencies whose
primary mission is oil spill response.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Emerging Issues
108. Comment: Commenter expressed
support for the management plan review
addressing emerging issues.
Response: Comment noted.
109. Comment: The management plan
should provide a stronger link between
the Emerging Issues and Conservation
Science action plans by directing
research towards evaluating emerging
issues.
Response: Research coordination and
integration are very important to the
evaluation of emerging issues. Within
the Conservation Science Action Plan,
NOAA has added details about the link
between emerging issues and
conservation science within the
Conservation Science Action Plan
Overview and Strategy CS.3, as well as
in Strategy RP.1. As explained in RP.1,
input from the Advisory Council, the
science community, and the public
informs CINMS efforts at identifying
and assessing current and emerging
issues at all stages, including
identification of issues, assessment of
threats, and tracking and responding to
issues.
110. Comment: The management plan
should clarify whether each emerging
issue is: (a) Forecasted to, but not
presently harming Sanctuary resources;
or (b) already causing harm to Sanctuary
resources. NOAA should also develop
criteria to determine when an issue is
emerging vs. when it has emerged.
Response: The FMP includes a
Resource Protection Action Plan in
which NOAA has clarified and
augmented information on the status of
each issue previously listed as an
‘‘emerging issue.’’ The Resource
Protection Action Plan also articulates
how CINMS addresses current issues
and how it will address emerging issues.
Since NOAA has outlined how it plans
to identify, assess, prioritize, and
address both current and emerging
resource protection issues, it is not
necessary to develop criteria for
determining when an issue has
‘‘emerged.’’ Rather, it is NOAA’s intent
that CINMS track, assess, prioritize, and
determine how best to respond to all
issues relevant to protecting Sanctuary
resources.
111. Comment: Strategy EI.1 could be
sufficient for ‘‘emerging issues’’—issues
that have yet to cause significant harm
to Sanctuary resources.
Response: NOAA will implement
Strategies RP.1 and RP.2 in identifying,
assessing, and responding to all current
and emerging issues.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
112. Comment: NOAA should
dedicate funding to emerging issues so
as not to depend on volunteers to
research such issues, and should specify
who is responsible for implementing
Strategy EI.1.
Response: The NMSP dedicates and
funds policy analysts, an advisory
council coordinator, a team of research
and monitoring staff, a boat crew, and
education and outreach staff to identify,
assess, and respond to emerging issues.
The implementation of the Resource
Protection Action Plan relies on this
existing staff structure, as noted in the
implementation section of Strategy
RP.1. When an emerging issue requires
community input and/or is beyond
CINMS’s capabilities either technically
or fiscally, staff rely on the expertise
and knowledge of the Sanctuary
Advisory Council and agency partners.
For complex emerging issues that
require a CINMS response, staff have in
the past and can in the future reallocate
staff time and budget, as well as
leverage other agency resources to
adequately address an issue.
113. Comment: The Track Emerging
Issues activity of strategy EI.1 should
require that CINMS staff relay the
findings of their issue tracking activities
to the Advisory Council, with whom
they collaboratively identified and
prioritized the issues.
Response: CINMS staff have provided
and will continue to provide regular
updates to the Advisory Council on
emerging issues.
114. Comment: NOAA should define
how it will ‘‘track’’ emerging issues.
Response: The Resource Protection
Action Plan identifies the ways in
which CINMS will identify and track
emerging issues in the Sanctuary.
115. Comment: NOAA should include
marine bioprospecting, offshore energy
projects (e.g., wind and wave energy),
global greenhouse gas emissions, global
warming, and squid boat lights in its list
of emerging issues.
Response: NOAA has included
marine bioprospecting, offshore energy
projects, climate change, and wildlife
disturbance caused by artificial lighting
as emerging issues in the FMP’s
Resource Protection Action Plan.
116. Comment: The DMP’s Emerging
Issues Action Plan defers Sanctuary
resource protection to a bureaucratic
process with no allocated funding, and
offers minimal specificity as to when or
how management effort will be
deployed to mitigate or eliminate
impacts from emerging issues.
Response: All CINMS activities
ultimately contribute to resource
protection, which is the primary
purpose of the National Marine
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Sanctuaries Act. The FMP’s Resource
Protection Action Plan outlines
processes for tracking, assessing,
prioritizing, and determining how to
respond to current and emerging
resource protection issues (processes
previously contained in an Emerging
Issues Action Plan). These processes are
essential to determining how to respond
to a given issue at a given point in time,
based on the best available information,
and depending on available funding and
the level of risk or priority for a given
issue. Unfortunately, NOAA cannot
predict when an issue will become a
high priority and what the appropriate
response at that time might be. Should,
for example, NOAA determine that a
given issue warrants development of a
new action plan strategy, or perhaps
even a new action plan, NOAA’s plan
for action would be articulated in those
documents.
Regarding funding, while the
Resource Protection Action Plan’s
estimated cost table does not reflect
potential future investments in CINMS
resource protection issues, CINMS does
request additional funds to address high
priority resource protection issues in a
given year as part of its annual budget
planning process. Further, the budget
table does not show base budget funding
(e.g., staff salaries) which is critical to
tracking, assessing, prioritizing, and
determining how to respond to current
and emerging resource protection
issues.
117. Comment: DMP Strategy EI.2
includes several constructive options for
addressing resource protection issues,
which if implemented could reduce
impacts to Sanctuary resources from
resource protection issues.
Response: Comment noted.
Enforcement
118. Comment: NOAA should ensure
that sufficient funds/resources are
available for enforcement and increase
available funding for enforcement.
Response: NOAA recognizes resource
limitations and necessary program and
partner developments may limit
implementation of all of the activities in
the management plan. NOAA will
continue to work with the Department
of Commerce, Office of Management
and Budget, and Congress in developing
supporting justifications when
preparing budget submissions. NOAA
allocates funds provided by Congress
through annual appropriations for
national marine sanctuaries and from
other sources of funding (e.g., settlement
funds) to enforcement of the NMSA and
implementing regulations. In doing so,
however, NOAA must balance the need
for increased enforcement with other
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
management needs (e.g., science and
monitoring, education). NOAA uses
these funds to leverage additional
investments in enforcement by partner
agencies (CDFG, NPS, USCG) to have an
effective on-the-water presence in the
Sanctuary. NOAA’s Office for Law
Enforcement, which is funded
separately from the Sanctuary budget,
also assigns a law enforcement agent to
the Sanctuary region.
119. Comment: Team OCEAN should
be deleted from the Expanding
Enforcement Efforts section, Strategy
EE.2 and included in the Public
Awareness and Understanding Action
Plan.
Response: In addition to traditional
enforcement, NOAA employs
interpretive enforcement through Team
OCEAN, a program that reaches out to
boaters to help them understand and
comply with CINMS regulations. Team
OCEAN will not be administered as a
substitute for law enforcement, but can
complement those efforts. Team OCEAN
will remain in the Emergency Response
and Enforcement Action Plan because it
is an important tool for both emergency
response and enforcement. While Team
Ocean is mentioned briefly as an
activity within strategy EE.2, it is
explained in detail in the Public
Awareness and Understanding Action
Plan (Strategy AU.3).
120. Comment: NOAA must ensure
the regulations for CINMS are legally
binding and enforceable, must have a
dedicated/exclusive enforcement
program for the CINMS, and/or must
establish formal partnerships with as
many enforcement agencies as possible.
Response: Primary law enforcement
responsibilities for NOAA regulations
are carried out by the NOAA Office for
Law Enforcement (OLE). An
enforcement officer stationed in Long
Beach conducts investigations into
violations of the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act and regulatory
prohibitions in coordination with State,
local and other Federal law enforcement
counterparts. In addition, NOAA signed
agreements with the State of California,
the National Park Service, and the U.S.
Coast Guard that provide authorization
for local enforcement personnel from
these agencies to enforce Sanctuary
regulations. They work with NOAA to
conduct patrols and investigate
potential violations. For example, the
U.S. Coast Guard conducts air and sea
surveillance within the sanctuary and
has broad Federal enforcement
authority. NOAA OLE also works with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) to investigate violations of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
environmental laws within national
marine sanctuaries. More information
about enforcement of NOAA regulations
can be found at https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/.
The CINMS regulations are legally
binding and enforceable. They were
drafted with extensive input from
NOAA’s Office of General Counsel,
NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, and
our enforcement partners—CDFG, NPS
and USCG. NOAA’s Office of General
Counsel for Enforcement and Litigation
also establishes a penalty schedule that
outlines recommended penalties for
violations under the NMSA. This
penalty schedule provides notice to the
public and provides guidance to the
prosecutors as to a general range of
penalties for specific violations. The
penalty schedule reflects sanctions that
NOAA believes will encourage
compliance and deter violations;
however, in every case, NOAA retains
the ability to assess a penalty up to the
statutory maximum of $130,000. The
NMSA penalty schedule is publicly
available and can be accessed through
this link: https://www.gc.noaa.gov/
schedules/58NMSA%20Penalty%20Schedule%20906.pdf.
121. Comment: NOAA should not
issue the new regulations for CINMS
and should instead rely on existing
regulations and authorities for
additional protection.
Response: NOAA carefully examined
existing CINMS and other relevant
regulations as part of the management
plan review, and determined that in
some cases strengthening of Sanctuary
regulations was warranted, as described
in section 2 of the FEIS. NOAA often
relies on other agencies’ regulations to
help protect sanctuary resources.
However, sometimes the scope of these
regulations is not broad enough to
protect sanctuary resources, or may
need to be reinforced with parallel
sanctuary regulations, which allow for
additional enforcement options. NOAA
always works very closely with other
agencies to minimize potential
management conflicts and to promote
compliance with sanctuary regulations
and the regulations of other agencies.
122. Comment: NOAA should
increase, rather than maintain at current
levels, vessel and aircraft surveillance
operations.
Response: NOAA will pursue
opportunities to expand vessel and
aircraft based surveillance, but will first
focus efforts on maintaining access to
existing opportunities and platforms for
this activity. To better reflect this NOAA
has changed the activity title to
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3237
‘‘Maintain Effective Vessel and Aircraft
Surveillance Operations.’’
123. Comment: To ensure that CINMS
discharge regulations are being
complied with, NOAA should conduct
snapshot water quality monitoring,
perhaps immediately following cruise
ship transits through the CINMS, as well
as at other key times of high vessel
traffic.
Response: CINMS will consider
snapshot water quality monitoring
during implementation of FMP Strategy
WQ.2—Water Quality Protection
Planning.
124. Comment: Commenter strongly
supports additional efforts by CINMS to
expand enforcement efforts in order to
ensure compliance with new and
existing Sanctuary regulations, as well
as other federal and state laws and
regulations.
Response: Comment noted.
Fishing
125. Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern about regulating
fishing activities under the CINMS
regulations and NMSA, making one or
more of the following points: There is
no connection between the overall
management of CINMS as both a
Sanctuary under the NMSP and an EFH
designation under NMFS.
NOAA should utilize the MagnusonStevens process for fishery management,
and the Pacific Fishery Management
Council should be the body to adopt
fishery regulations within the Sanctuary
and to ratify any marine reserves
designation.
NOAA has no functional MOU
between the NMSP and NMFS
concerning marine zoning, fishery
management planning, and ecosystem
based adaptive co-management.
NOAA should revise each of the
CINMS prohibitions to provide
exemptions for all lawfully conducted
state and federal fisheries.
The CINMS has no need or the
resources necessary to be involved in
fisheries management.
Response: NOAA considers both the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act
(NMSA) and the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MSA) to be tools that can be used
exclusively or in conjunction to regulate
fishing activities to meet Sanctuary
goals and objectives. NOAA evaluates
regulatory options on a case by case
basis to determine the most appropriate
regulatory approach to meet the stated
goals and objectives of a sanctuary. If
NOAA determines additional
regulations on fishing within CINMS are
necessary, NOAA will follow the
process for developing such regulations
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3238
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
in consultation with the PFMC and
State, and as directed under section
304(a)(5) of the NMSA.
For example, the recently designated
marine reserves in the CINMS resulted
from a coordinated regulatory effort
among the Pacific Fishery Management
Council, NMFS and NMSP. Under the
MSA, bottom contact gear is prohibited
in these zones. The NMSA was used to
create no take zones and complement
the bottom contact gear prohibition by
prohibiting all other extractive
activities, including fishing.
NOAA strives for cooperative and
adaptive management among its various
offices including NMFS and the NMSP,
and does not typically establish MOUs
for this purpose. The NMSP and NMFS
regularly collaborate to integrate zoning
and fishery management by jointly
participating in Sanctuary Advisory
Council and Regional Fishery
Management Council meetings,
information and data exchanges, and
cooperative enforcement of zoning and
fishery regulations within national
marine sanctuaries.
Where NOAA has deemed it
appropriate, the CINMS regulations
provide exceptions for lawful fishing
activities.
NOAA has the expertise to determine
the goals and objectives necessary to
protect the nationally significant
resources of national marine
sanctuaries. This responsibility extends
beyond fishery resources to
conservation, recreational ecological,
historical, cultural archeological,
scientific, educational and esthetic
qualities of national marine sanctuaries.
If NOAA, in consultation with advisory
councils and other stakeholders,
determines that fishing regulations are
needed to further sanctuary goals and
objectives, section 304(a)(5) of the
NMSA requires that the Sanctuary
provide the appropriate Fishery
Management Council the opportunity to
prepare draft sanctuary fishing
regulations for the Exclusive Economic
Zone that will fulfill the Sanctuary’s
goals and objectives.
126. Comment: NOAA should add
wording to protect rights to fish and
recreate in Sanctuary waters in the
emergency regulations.
Response: NOAA is not modifying the
emergency regulations section of the
terms of designation for the purpose
mentioned. In the case of an emergency
within the Sanctuary, fishing or
recreating may temporarily not be
appropriate or possible in certain areas.
For example, when Alaska Airlines
Flight 261 crashed in the Sanctuary in
January 2000, a temporary navigational
closure was established around the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
crash site. These emergency provisions
are not used lightly, can only be in place
temporarily (as long as necessary to
respond to the emergency), and are
subject to extensive administrative
review. Many federal and state agencies
have authority to issue temporary
emergency regulations in response to
emergency situations, such as natural or
man-made disasters.
127. Comment: NOAA has completely
ignored its commitment to the fishing
community at CINMS from the public
awareness goal.
Response: NOAA continues to carry
out its education and outreach
commitment to the fishing community
at CINMS. NOAA has engaged the
fishing community in the development
and delivery of several outreach tools,
for example: Regulatory brochures,
signage at harbors, and guest speaking
opportunities to the Sanctuary Advisory
Council and general public.
128. Comment: NOAA should
recognize the CINMS fishing
community as a cultural resource.
Response: NOAA recognizes the
importance of the fishing community
and provides opportunities for its
involvement in Sanctuary research,
education, and resource protection
activities, such as in development of
outreach tools (see also the response to
comment 127), and in advising CINMS
through the Commercial Fishing and
Recreational Fishing seats on the
Sanctuary Advisory Council. Moreover,
NOAA believes healthy fisheries within
a national marine sanctuary are an
indication of a healthy ecosystem
protected by that sanctuary. NOAA has
already incorporated, and will continue
to incorporate, fishing themes into
CINMS education and outreach efforts,
such as public lectures and weather
kiosks. CINMS staff will also continue
to work with the fishing community to
develop additional fishing-related
programs and products.
129. Comment: Reductions in
commercial and recreational fishing
vessels can result in economic impacts,
including impacts on boat owners, the
fuel dock, boatyard, and Port District.
Response: In the FEIS, NOAA has
concluded that recreational and
commercial fishing should experience
no significant adverse impacts from
implementation of the revised CINMS
regulations. Furthermore, these
regulations would not result in a
‘‘reduction’’ in commercial and
recreational fishing vessels. A number
of the regulations provide specific
exceptions to accommodate lawful
fishing activities. In addition, the
management plan includes a number of
programs that support boating in general
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(e.g., safe boating brochure, the
Protecting Your Channel Islands
brochure), and that should also be
helpful to boaters engaged in fishing.
General Comments
130. Comment: General support
expressed for the changes and updates
proposed in the management plan, and
the associated background information
and environmental analysis.
Response: Comment noted.
131. Comment: Broad support
expressed for resource conservation and
protection, and acknowledgement that
the Sanctuary is ‘‘moving in the right
direction.’’ NOAA should not, however,
over-regulate or adopt regulations that
are inconsistent with other agencies.
Response: Comment noted.
132. Comment: General support
indicated for DEIS Alternative 1 due to
concern about increased use of the
Santa Barbara channel by cruise ships,
interest in long-term protection of
resources and existing Sanctuary uses,
and concern about protection against
predicted future increases in
industrialization of the Santa Barbara
Channel area.
Response: Comments noted. For
additional context, see the responses to
comment 283 regarding support for
Alternative 1 as it relates to water
quality, comment 78 regarding support
for the Alternative 1 discharge
regulation, comment 176 regarding
support for the Alternative 1 lightering
regulation, and comment 221 regarding
support for the Alternative 1 nearshore
vessel approach regulation.
133. Comment: Support expressed for
CINMS to retain its current role focusing
on and facilitating public and scientific
attention on the Channel Islands area,
and prohibiting certain industrial
extractive activities within the
Sanctuary.
Response: Comments noted.
134. Comment: The DMP and DEIS
are so large and burdensome that they
prohibit real public input.
Response: NOAA believes that the
length of the documents is appropriate
and necessary to explain the
justification for, and analyze
alternatives to, the revisions to the
Management Plan and associated
regulations, as required by the NMSA,
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), and other relevant authorities
including the Administrative Procedure
Act. NOAA believes the organizational
structure should allow readers to find
information pertinent to their specific
interests.
135. Comment: NOAA must update
the current policies and programs at
CINMS to develop a plan that will
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
enhance protection of Sanctuary
resources for future generations, and
succeed in achieving the goals and
objectives of the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act.
Response: NOAA implemented
changes that will update current CINMS
policies and programs, and enhance
protection of Sanctuary resources.
136. Comment: Commenters indicated
that they would like to incorporate by
reference, and/or support all or a subset
of the Sanctuary Advisory Council’s
Conservation Working Group
comments.
Response: Please refer to responses to
the Conservation Working Group’s
comments, listed in the table at the
beginning of the FEIS response-tocomments appendix under ‘‘Krop,
Linda’’ and dated July 7, 2006.
137. Comment: NOAA should invest
(fiscally or through dedicated
personnel) in the National Park
Service’s long-term kelp forest
monitoring program or other marinebased resource monitoring programs to
further knowledge of the ecosystem.
Response: NOAA values the kelp
forest monitoring program implemented
by the National Park Service, and
intends to continue providing vessel
and staff support to this important
program as resources allow. NOAA
strongly supports cooperative
management of Sanctuary resources by
promoting and coordinating the efforts
of outside research groups whose work
increases understanding of Channel
Islands biological and cultural
resources. Enforcement, monitoring,
education, and outreach efforts are
achieved through partnerships with
various state and federal agencies,
universities, private institutions and
non-profit organizations. CINMS
provides its partners with opportunities
onboard its research platforms,
including the R/V Shearwater and,
historically, the Seawolf aircraft. In
2006, CINMS research vessels were at
sea for more than 200 days conducting
projects on seabirds, marine mammals,
kelp forests, oceanography, intertidal
monitoring, and geology in and around
the Sanctuary. Further, a proportion of
the CINMS annual budget has been and
continues to support partner research,
monitoring and enforcement activities.
138. Comment: NOAA should
consider and be guided by the special
and unique nature of the islands and
surrounding waters in crafting the
Management Plan, regulations, and
programs.
Response: The special and unique
characteristics of the Islands and
surrounding waters were significant
factors in the decision to designate the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
waters surrounding the Islands as a
national marine sanctuary, and remain
the overarching reason for revising
CINMS regulations and implementing a
variety of programs.
139. Comment: NOAA should provide
adequate resources and funding levels
to implement the management plan,
especially given increased requirements
from the recently designated Channel
Islands MPA Network.
Response: NOAA recognizes that
resource limitations as well as the
necessary program and partner
developments may limit
implementation of all of the activities in
the various management plans. NOAA
will continue to work with the
Department of Commerce, Office of
Management and Budget, and Congress
in developing supporting justifications
when preparing budget submissions.
The Management Plan articulates the
full suite of potential CINMS actions for
the next five to ten years. However,
CINMS’s budget may not allow for a
high level of implementation of every
planned activity. NOAA has described
the planned implementation level of
each activity in various future funding
scenarios (see the FMP Action Plan
Summary Table). Regarding funding and
marine protected areas see the response
to comment 118.
140. Comment: Language in the
management plan is subjective and
vague.
Response: NOAA has been as specific
and transparent as possible in
describing planned actions in the
CINMS management plan and EIS. As a
federal resource management agency,
NOAA must meet federal standards of
objectivity and transparency in
describing the actions and rationale for
planned management actions within
national marine sanctuaries.
141. Comment: NOAA does not
identify the new threats used to justify
regulation changes.
Response: NOAA has described
threats to Sanctuary resources and
qualities that warrant new and revised
CINMS actions in the beginning of each
action plan under the header
‘‘Description of the Issues,’’ as well as
throughout the Sanctuary’s FEIS and in
this preamble to the final rule.
142. Comment: NOAA should focus
on practical, precise, and prudent
CINMS management actions and
enforcement, rather than expanding
Sanctuary authority beyond its means.
Additional changes should only be
seriously discussed or considered if
these efforts indicate further need of
beneficial adjustment.
Response: NOAA considered such
concepts prior to proposing the CINMS
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3239
revised management plan, revised
authority and regulations. Per the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act, NOAA
is required to evaluate sanctuary
management plans and regulations at
regular intervals. During the course of
management plan reviews, NOAA
solicits public and agency input to help
determine the extent to which sanctuary
management plan changes may be
warranted, as well as to help determine
the nature of any such changes.
143. Comment: Despite a new
Sanctuary office building to be built on
the campus of UCSB, NOAA should
continue to maintain a public CINMS
presence at the waterfront, which is
heavily used by both residents and
visitors. Most members of the public
will not be exposed to the offices at
UCSB, because they do not travel there
regularly, because of high parking fees,
and for various other reasons.
Response: NOAA plans to keep a
CINMS office in the Santa Barbara
Harbor to support operations of the
R/V Shearwater, and to maintain a
public access contact point at the Santa
Barbara Harbor through educational
signage and a brochure rack (currently
part of Santa Barbara Harbor office).
NOAA has also installed a Sanctuary
interactive kiosk at the Santa Barbara
Harbor and plans to continue a
partnership with the Harbor’s Outdoors
Santa Barbara Visitor Center. In
partnership with the Santa Barbara
Maritime Museum at the Santa Barbara
Harbor, NOAA also intends to maintain
and develop public education exhibits
relating to maritime heritage.
144. Comment: Support expressed for
NOAA’s development and support of
on-going CINMS partnerships with a
variety of local institutions, as well as
a focus on water quality and teacher
training, all of which is a benefit to the
community.
Response: Comment noted.
145. Comment: NOAA should explain
how a subset of the NMSA purposes and
policies were selected and listed in the
management plan’s Introduction
section, as opposed to listing all of the
NMSA’s purposes and policies.
Response: The list of purposes and
policies provided in the FMP is a
complete, verbatim list of the purposes
and policies of the NMSA. NOAA has
revised the text introducing the list to
clarify that it is a complete and verbatim
list.
146. Comment: Did NOAA review the
original management plan, did it work,
and why or why not?
Response: Sanctuary staff thoroughly
reviewed the 1983 management plan’s
goals and objectives, and assessed the
extent to which they were
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3240
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
accomplished, as well as the continuing
relevancy of each. Staff then engaged in
a similar discussion with the Sanctuary
Advisory Council in 1999. In general,
NOAA has made progress towards
accomplishing the broad goal areas of
the original CINMS plan: Resource
protection, research, interpretation, and
visitor use. Through enforcement of
regulations and collaboration with other
agencies and constituents NOAA has
enhanced protection of Sanctuary
resources. NOAA has made strides
towards directing research efforts to
resolving management concerns and
increasing understanding of the
Sanctuary environment and resources,
including through use of the Sanctuary’s
research vessels. NOAA has developed
interpretative programs that enhance
public awareness and understanding of
the significance of the Sanctuary and
the need to protect its resources. NOAA
has encouraged commercial and
recreational use of the Sanctuary that is
compatible with protection of its
significant resources, such as placing
trained naturalists on board commercial
whale watching vessels. Within the
Introduction to the FMP, NOAA has
added text to describe the review of the
1983 CINMS management plan.
147. Comment: NOAA has used
science to support the notion of new
threats in CINMS that is so selective it
does not meet basic ethical standards for
science. NOAA should provide data to
support new threats such as: Declines in
bird populations, evidence that nutrient
cycles are disrupted relative to humans
visiting, kelp forests being in decline in
fished areas, and showing that predator
prey relationships govern ecosystem
functions and are compromised with
any size frequency data on harvested
populations.
Response: NOAA must comply with
all federal standards, such as the
National Environmental Policy Act, the
Administrative Procedure Act, and the
Data Quality Act, regarding the use of
science. NOAA did not make any of the
statements mentioned about Sanctuary
resources (declines in bird populations,
etc.) in the CINMS management plan.
Similarly, NOAA has not made
statements in the management plan
about a new threat from evidence that
nutrient cycles are disrupted relative to
humans visiting. However, in the FEIS
NOAA does discuss and provide
references for information indicating
that sewage and graywater discharges
have the potential to disrupt nutrient
cycles. Finally, NOAA has not made
statements in the management plan
indicating that predator prey
relationships govern ecosystem
functions and are compromised with
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
any size frequency data on harvested
populations.
148. Comment: NOAA should
develop a Man in the Biosphere
program working group.
Response: The Sanctuary Advisory
Council is the body that develops
working groups to discuss Sanctuary
issues. NOAA recommends that the
commenter provide this suggestion
directly to the Sanctuary Advisory
Council.
149. Comment: NOAA should create a
budget for an independent community
GIS program to foster social justice and
oppose NMSP neocolonialism.
Response: The NMSA does not direct
NOAA to develop social justice
programs, and such efforts would be
outside the scope of actions proposed in
the CINMS management plan. NOAA
disagrees with the commenter’s
assertion that the NMSP is engaged in
‘‘neocolonialism.’’
150. Comment: NOAA should not
refer to life forms as ‘‘resources’’ in the
text of the management plan.
Response: ‘‘Resource’’ is a broadly
defined term in the Office of National
Marine Sanctuaries’ program wide
regulations (15 CFR 922.3) to include all
components within a sanctuary that
contribute to the conservation,
recreational, ecological, historical,
research, educational, or aesthetic value
of the Sanctuary (15 CFR 922.3). The
use of this term does not intend to
connote that sanctuary components are
valued solely on the basis of their
potential for human use or exploitation.
151. Comment: Since people go to the
islands to enjoy them, NOAA should
regulate without excluding the public,
such as dive charter vessels, and
without restricting where vessels moor.
Response: Consistent with purposes
and policies of the NMSA, NOAA
facilitates public and private uses of the
national marine sanctuaries to the
extent that such uses are compatible
with the primary goal of resource
protection, and not prohibited by other
authorities. The revised CINMS
regulations prohibit most vessels 300
GRT or more from approaching within
one nmi of island shores. Such vessels
are consequently precluded from
mooring at the Islands. Sanctuary users
must also comply with all applicable
regulations while in the Sanctuary, not
only with CINMS regulations. The
California Department of Fish and Game
and Channel Islands National Park
seasonally limit access to certain
nearshore areas of the Islands during
seabird nesting.
152. Comment: NOAA should use
forward thinking and the best
environmental protections to protect the
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Channel Islands from an array of new
threats and pressures, especially since
new threats may emerge before the next
management plan review.
Response: Strong environmental
protections are necessary for the
Sanctuary, and the management plan
should be forward thinking. The NMSA
requires NOAA to review national
marine sanctuary management plans at
regular intervals. Should any threats to
Sanctuary resources arise between
management plan review cycles, NOAA
can take action to address such threats
without engaging in a management plan
review process, consistent with
applicable authorities (see Resource
Protection Action Plan Strategy RP.2).
153. Comment: The CINMS
management plan should connect
management of coastal resources with
the Sanctuary, recognizing that there is
connectedness between a lot of pelagic
fish species and the Sanctuary. NOAA
should not manage the Sanctuary as if
it is isolated from these other areas.
Response: NOAA manages CINMS
resources with the understanding that
the Sanctuary exists in a coastal ocean
environment within which
administrative boundaries do not
provide a barrier between resources
inside and outside of the Sanctuary.
Pelagic fisheries in the Sanctuary region
are managed by NMFS (with
recommendations from the Pacific
Fishery Management Council) under the
MSA, as well as by the California
Department of Fish and Game. CINMS
consults with these and other partner
resource agencies regarding any
implications for Sanctuary resources
that may result from management
actions both within and outside of the
Sanctuary. In addition, the NMSP West
Coast Region works to integrate
strategies and programs across west
coast national marine sanctuary sites,
and also to coordinate efforts with other
federal, state, local, and regional ocean
management agencies. See also the
response to comment 31 for information
about marine ecosystem extents and
expanding the Sanctuary.
154. Comment: NOAA should
demonstrate, through specific CINMS
programs, that it encourages compatible
use. This is an important component in
boosting CINMS’s image as being
friendly to local interests.
Response: NOAA encourages
compatible use through several CINMS
program areas. Education and outreach
programs, for example, develop and
distribute the ‘‘Protecting Your Channel
Islands,’’ ‘‘Boating & Safety,’’ and the
‘‘Protecting Our Seabirds’’ brochures
with this purpose in mind (see also the
response to comment 101). These
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
brochures provide information and
helpful tips about various activities
people may enjoy in the Sanctuary, such
as diving and fishing, and how to do so
in a safe and responsible manner. In
addition, several pages on the CINMS
Web site provide information about how
to get to the islands, as well as
information about the best times of year
to engage in certain activities. The
CINMS Maritime Heritage Program
provides information to divers about
recommended shipwreck dive sites,
while Research and Monitoring Program
staff work closely with researchers from
all over the world to facilitate
appropriate research within the
Sanctuary. The Sanctuary Advisory
Council includes members from diverse
user groups, several of which have
active working groups.
155. Comment: Frustration expressed
that NOAA, at the time the DMP/DEIS
was released, was still only at the stage
of developing a process for dealing with
marine reserves and boundary
expansion issues, both of which have
received strong public support in the
Ventura and Santa Barbara
communities.
Response: NOAA believes in ensuring
that the best available science is used in
national marine sanctuary decision
making, and in dedicating sufficient
resources to each environmental review
project. NOAA values the public
support for processes to consider
establishing marine reserves within the
Sanctuary, and to evaluate the
Sanctuary boundary. NOAA has since
completed implementation of a network
of marine reserves and marine
conservation areas within the Sanctuary
(72 FR 29208). NOAA determined that
the best manner in which to evaluate
the CINMS boundary was to first
conduct a comprehensive biogeographic
assessment of the Sanctuary and
surrounding environment. Now that the
biogeographic assessment is complete,
given sufficient resources, NOAA plans
to initiate the environmental review
process for boundary evaluation at an
appropriate time in the future.
156. Comment: The management plan
update process that started in 1999 has
been very lengthy and the remaining
steps of converting the draft plan to
final should be completed as
expediently as possible.
Response: NOAA values the efforts of
everyone involved in the CINMS
management plan review to date. The
length of this review is due to many
factors, including that the CINMS
management plan review was the first
comprehensive management plan
review the NMSP initiated for the
national marine sanctuaries designated
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
prior to 1995. The CINMS management
plan review was also lengthened in
order to address issues concerning large
vessel discharge raised by the California
Coastal Commission and others during
the public comment period on the DMP/
DEIS. NOAA determined that
addressing such issues required
development of an SDEIS, and
providing a supplemental public
comment period.
157. Comment: The management
plan’s action plans should be both well
funded and adequately staffed, perhaps
with the assistance of the NMSP’s West
Coast Region, to carry out the
Sanctuary’s programs and objectives.
Response: As part of the management
plan review process, CINMS staff
worked to prioritize the strategies and
activities in the management plan’s
action plans (see Appendix A1 of the
FMP for a table identifying how each
activity will be maintained or
implemented in the future). Staff from
the West Coast Regional Office (WCRO)
work on management issues that are
primarily regional in scope; they also
work with individual sanctuaries on
priority management activities that
would benefit from the WCR staffs’
expertise.
158. Comment: The management plan
should include a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between various
Federal and State agencies, including
the Coastal Commission, to better
respond to current water quality issues
and conditions. The MOU should reflect
the Plan for California’s Nonpoint
Source Pollution Control Program.
Response: Although NOAA does not
envision drafting an MOU among
various Federal and State agencies as a
direct activity associated with this
CINMS management plan review, the
agency recognizes the important role of
MOUs in better articulating roles and
responsibilities among the multitude of
management authorities that typically
exist within national marine sanctuary
regions (see Strategy OP.3 in the FMP
for a description of how the NMSP
formalizes relationships with other
authorities). The NMSP has
implemented several MOUs across the
sanctuary system (including several at
CINMS) and, if appropriate, may do so
again in the CINMS region sometime in
the future. This could involve MOUs
related to water quality protection.
NOAA recognizes the importance of
state agency partners, and the value of
consistency among respective programs
to the extent practicable.
159. Comment: The management
plan’s Action Plan activity ‘‘status’’
descriptions should be explained in
more detail to include specific dates, if
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3241
possible, or at least be revised to include
some definition of the phrase ‘‘years 1–
5.’’
Response: NOAA has included
specific dates, where possible, to
describe the status of activities in the
FMP. NOAA has added information to
explain the meaning of years 1–5, which
now appears in the FMP’s Action Plan
Background section entitled, ‘‘How Are
Action Plans Organized?’’
160. Comment: The DMP’s
description of the Sanctuary Setting
could be augmented by recent
information that has been recently made
available through the NCCOS
Biogeographic Assessment report.
Response: NOAA has revised FMP
text to reference the biogeographic
assessment (NCCOS 2005).
161. Comment: The islands are
special, unique, and Congressionally
recognized as a place for extra
protections, whereas there are other
areas to take large vessels and personal
watercraft.
Response: Comment noted.
Global Climate Change
162. Comment: NOAA should address
climate change/global warming and its
effects on Sanctuary resources. NOAA
should: (1) Formally acknowledge the
threat of global warming and work to
better understand how global warming
may affect Sanctuary resources, (2)
reduce greenhouse gas emissions
associated with CINMS operations, and
(3) advocate, through appropriate
administrative channels, for the
deployment of a national response to
global warming to reduce its impacts on
the climate, and thus on CINMS
resources.
Response: NOAA has added language
to the FMP’s Resource Protection Action
Plan that explains how the NMSP and
NOAA are assessing potential climate
change impacts on national marine
sanctuaries and how such impacts may
be mitigated. NOAA has also added a
strategy to the FMP’s Operations Action
Plan that discusses how CINMS is
working to green its operations. Finally,
NOAA has added information to the
FMP’s Conservation Science Action
Plan strategy CS.3, about pursuing
development and future monitoring of a
carbon budget for the Sanctuary. NOAA
would consider data and findings from
this work as part of its collective
scientific efforts to inform climate
policy.
Goals
163. Comment: NOAA should explain
why the old and new CINMS goals are
so different.
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3242
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Response: In general, goals from the
1983 CINMS management plan are
encompassed within the new goals
articulated in this FMP. NOAA revised
the CINMS management plan to better
explain that the original goals are
missing several important concepts and
nuances encompassed in the National
Marine Sanctuaries Act and reflected in
the new goals for the Sanctuary (as
revised for the FMP).
164. Comment: NOAA should clarify
if the CINMS goals presented in the
management plan are new, and who
decided upon them.
Response: NOAA determined that
CINMS goals should directly reflect the
overarching mission of the ONMS and
be derived from the purposes and
policies of the NMSA, as enacted by
Congress. All of the seven goals
provided in the DMP were paraphrased
from section 301 of the NMSA. NOAA
has since decided to use language taken
directly from NMSA section 301, rather
than to paraphrase it. NOAA has also
added two goals that contain concepts
from NMSA section 301 that were
previously missing from the CINMS
goals, and additional explanation
regarding goal development.
165. Comment: CINMS goal four (i.e.,
provide comprehensive and coordinated
conservation and management of these
marine areas, as well as the activities
affecting them, in a manner
complementing existing regulatory
authorities) has yielded new
prohibitions that are vague and
enabling, duplicate other regulations,
and are inconsistent with the CINMS
charter. NOAA should rewrite the goal
to state ‘‘* * * complementing, but not
duplicating * * *.’’
Response: The new prohibitions are
not inconsistent with the CINMS terms
of designation (referred to above as the
‘‘charter’’). Furthermore, the NMSA
provides authority for, among other
things, ‘‘* * * comprehensive and
coordinated conservation and
management of these marine areas, and
activities affecting them, in a manner
which complements existing regulatory
authorities.’’ The CINMS terms of
designation acknowledge that the
NMSA ‘‘authorizes the promulgation of
such regulations as are reasonable and
necessary to protect the values of the
Sanctuary.’’ As evidenced by the
analysis in the FEIS, the new
prohibitions meet this criterion.
While CINMS may have similar
regulatory prohibitions as another
agency, NOAA has crafted CINMS
regulations to be complementary.
Further, the NMSA provides a different
suite of penalties than available under
another regulatory authority.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
166. Comment: Ecosystem-based
management is adaptive, but given that
it has been 25 years since the last
management plan, it is not clear
whether Sanctuary goals are adaptive.
Response: CINMS goals directly
reflect the findings and purposes and
policies of the NMSA. These findings,
purposes and policies are very broad,
encompass all of the actions identified
in the FMP, and have been adapted
several times during reauthorization of
the NMSA by Congress. In turn, the
CINMS goals are broad enough that
CINMS can adapt its management
actions as necessary.
167. Comment: NOAA should make
the CINMS goals more consistent with
the NMSA by using the word
‘‘facilitate’’ instead of ‘‘allow’’ in goal
six, by encouraging compatible public
and private commercial and recreational
use, and by adding goals for science and
monitoring.
Response: NOAA has revised the
CINMS goals to make them more
consistent with the NMSA. A new goal
three regarding support for science and
monitoring has also been included.
168. Comment: CINMS has not
honored its commitments to programs
and stonewalled basic data
management. CINMS goals five, six, and
seven are empty promises with no
budget.
Response: FMP Strategy CS.2 is
dedicated to comprehensive data
management. Regarding goal five (now
six), NOAA believes the CINMS marine
zoning process demonstrates strong
models for conserving and managing
national marine sanctuaries and
applying innovative management
techniques. Regarding goal six (now
seven), CINMS provides education and
outreach materials aimed at facilitating
public and private uses of resources that
are compatible with resource protection.
These materials help Sanctuary users
understand and learn about activities
they may enjoy within the Sanctuary,
and where certain types of activities are
prohibited. Regarding goal seven (now
eight), CINMS cooperates regularly with
national and international programs
encouraging conservation of marine
resources. CINMS frequently hosts
international delegates interested in
learning about Sanctuary issues and
how CINMS is addressing them. CINMS
staff also represent the ONMS and
NOAA in exchanges with marine
resource management agencies in other
countries, and participate in
international conferences focused on
marine conservation. CINMS staff also
often cooperate with national programs
encouraging conservation of marine
resources (see the FMP for specific
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
examples). The FMP does not describe
a budget for each goal. Budgets are
developed for action plans, which are
designed to meet CINMS goals.
Introduced Species
169. Comment: Commenters support
the Sanctuary’s new introduced species
prohibition, efforts to prevent the
release of introduced species in the
Sanctuary, and the exemption under
this prohibition for striped bass released
during catch and release fishing.
Response: Comment noted.
170. Comment: The prohibition on
releasing introduced species may
conceivably put an angler in a position
of non-compliance with regulations
from other entities if the angler catches
an introduced species that is not legal
to catch (per such other entities), but the
angler cannot release it due to the
CINMS prohibition. The final regulation
should leave an angler with a safe and
legal course of action.
Response: NOAA is not aware of any
state or federal fishing regulations that
would require an angler to release an
introduced species caught in the
Sanctuary. Thus, complying with this
regulation on releasing introduced
species would not place an angler in a
position of non-compliance with
regulations from other entities.
Furthermore, NOAA encourages
recreational anglers to assist in
collecting information about introduced
species by keeping specimens and
sharing them with NOAA and other
resource management agencies, such as
the California Department of Fish and
Game.
171. Comment: The regulation
prohibiting the introduction of
introduced species should have an
exemption for aquaculture or
mariculture activities pursuant to a
valid lease, permit, license, or other
authorization.
Response: Intentionally introducing
species or experimenting with new
introduced species is not an appropriate
activity in national marine sanctuaries
because introduced species may
threaten the diversity or abundance of
native species or the ecological stability
of waters in which they occur. They
may also threaten commercial or
recreational activities dependent on
sanctuary waters. The California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
asserts ‘‘invasive species are the number
two threat to rare, threatened or
endangered species nationwide, second
only to habitat destruction,’’ (Leet et al.
2001). Although national marine
sanctuaries retain authority to address
this threat to sanctuary resources, the
NMSP would work very closely with the
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
State of California regarding any
aquaculture proposals that might arise
in the Sanctuary area.
172. Comment: NOAA should add a
specific action plan in the Education
and Outreach area to educate Sanctuary
users how to comply with the
prohibition on introduced species, such
as a ‘‘Keep your boat bottom clean!’’
information brochure.
Response: Education, especially
boater education, about introduced
species is important. Introduced species
in the Sanctuary are an emerging
resource protection issue. The FMP
action plans are meant to be living
documents that incorporate the most
current resource issues in the Sanctuary
into our plans and programs. NOAA has
not added a separate action plan on
introduced species; however, CINMS
plans to incorporate education about
introduced/invasive species into
education programs and materials. The
Long-term Monitoring and Experiential
Training for Students (LiMPETs)
program (Strategy AU.1, activity 5)
monitors algal and invertebrate species
on the Channel Islands and may be a
program where invasive species
education can be incorporated. CINMS
staff also participate in annual efforts
sponsored by the Santa Barbara
Waterfront Department and California
Department of Fish and Game to remove
the invasive Japanese kelp, Undaria.
FMP Strategy AU.6, activity 1 (Boater
Safety Tips Brochure) also addresses
introduced species by including
information related to boating safety,
regulations on discharge in the ocean
and sanctuary, clean boating practices,
and local marine refuse stations.
Additionally, as explained in Strategy
AU.6, activity 5, CINMS participates in
a variety of outreach events each year
including whale festivals, harbor
festivals, boat shows, and dive industry
events. These events include boater
outreach where education about a
variety of CINMS regulations and issues,
including aquatic nuisance/invasive
species, is shared with the public and
boaters. Any tool or product mentioned
under Strategy AU.6 will be updated to
reflect any changes to CINMS
regulations.
173. Comment: NOAA should explain
how Sanctuary research vessels are
going to comply with the new
prohibition on introduced species,
especially given that they are docked in
a port containing invasive species.
Response: CINMS regularly inspects
and cleans its vessels and equipment in
order to minimize the risk of our
activities being a vector for introduction
of invasive species. CINMS is also
working with the Santa Barbara
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
Waterfront Department to assess and
mitigate the threat of invasive Japanese
kelp in Santa Barbara Harbor.
174. Comment: Given that the
proposed Sanctuary prohibition on
introduced species is largely redundant
of State regulation, the Sanctuary
should support the existing, spatially
comprehensive authorities that are
addressing the invasive species
problem, especially where the
Sanctuary is at risk.
Response: NOAA supports existing
regulatory authorities on introduced
species. However, the CINMS regulation
for introduced species differs from
similar laws and regulations in that it:
(1) Provides place-based protections
specifically for CINMS; (2) prohibits
transgenic species introductions in both
state and federal waters of the
Sanctuary; and (3) prohibits introducing
or otherwise releasing species beyond
the one nmi offshore Channel Islands
National Park boundary. Furthermore,
the introduced species regulation
establishes a deterrent against
intentional and unintentional
introductions or other releases of
introduced species into the Sanctuary
through civil penalty (up to $130,000
per incident, per day) under the NMSA.
Finally, this regulation prohibits
introductions of species native to
California but not native to the
ecosystems of the Sanctuary.
175. Comment: NOAA should clarify
the burden of proof for enforcing the
prohibition on introducing introduced
species by adding an ‘‘intent to release’’
provision.
Response: NOAA enforcement
personnel maintain prosecutorial
discretion in determining whether or
not to prosecute violators of CINMS
regulations. NOAA is not incorporating
‘‘intent to release’’ into the language of
the prohibition because it does not think
there should be a requirement of intent
in the regulation.
Lightering
176. Comment: NOAA should adopt
the prohibition on lightering included
in Alternative 1 to further Sanctuary
resource protection, protect against
lightering related oil spill impacts, and
further protect water quality.
Response: NOAA has decided not to
include the lightering prohibition in the
CINMS regulations at this time because
large scale vessel lightering does not
occur in the Sanctuary, and NOAA does
not believe it is likely to become a
common practice given the Sanctuary’s
geographic location (i.e., its distance
from major ports), the Area to Be
Avoided that advises large vessels to
avoid the majority of the Sanctuary
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3243
(excluding the TSS), and the established
traffic patterns within the Sanctuary
(e.g., large vessels typically transit the
Sanctuary through the TSS). Regarding
smaller vessels, NOAA understands that
the occasional practice of sharing fuel
between boats (also a form of lightering)
may occur, and that this practice may
help prevent other possible problems
such as vessel groundings. For now,
existing prohibitions against discharges
into the Sanctuary will be used to
address spills associated with smallboat to small-boat fuel transfers. Should
lightering become an issue that NOAA
deems necessary to regulate in the
future, NOAA may consider proposing a
Sanctuary lightering regulation.
Although NOAA is not prohibiting
lightering activities at this time, all
vessels must still comply with the
CINMS discharge and deposit
regulation.
177. Comment: The lightering
prohibition in Alternative 1 should
include an exception for emergencies.
For example, if a vessel loses power,
drifts into and becomes embedded in
the islands, it would need to be
lightered.
Response: NOAA is not including the
lightering prohibition in the CINMS
regulations at this time (see the response
to comment 176). However, note that
the lightering prohibition described in
Alternative 1, as with most Sanctuary
regulations, includes an exception for
‘‘an activity necessary to respond to an
emergency threatening life, property, or
the environment.’’
Liquefied Natural Gas
178. Comment: NOAA should
prohibit Liquid Natural Gas projects
within CINMS boundaries. NOAA
should also address impacts from LNG
projects outside the Sanctuary boundary
through early consultation with project
applicants and permitting agencies. If
such projects would harm Sanctuary
resources, they should not be permitted.
NOAA should also maintain adequate
enforcement effort so that if LNG
projects violate CINMS regulations,
such as the discharge regulation’s ‘‘enter
and injure’’ clause, or the introduced
species regulation, the violations are
prosecuted and properly mitigated.
Response: CINMS regulations include
prohibitions on disturbing the seabed,
and discharging or depositing within
the Sanctuary in the absence of a
Sanctuary permit. Installing and
operating LNG terminals within CINMS
would likely involve such activities. If
an LNG project applicant were to seek
permits for activities that would
otherwise be prohibited by CINMS
regulations, it is unlikely that such a
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
3244
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
project could meet the criteria for
issuance of a CINMS permit.
The presence of the Sanctuary is
recognized as important in decisions
regarding permits for LNG projects in
the region, and was recently cited by the
Governor of California as part of his
rationale for denying the Cabrillo Port
LNG proposal. Any LNG project
proposed outside the Sanctuary, but in
the Sanctuary region, would likely be
subject to consultation per section
304(d) of the NMSA, which requires
that federal agency actions internal or
external to a national marine sanctuary,
including private activities authorized
by licenses, leases, or permits, that are
likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or
injure any Sanctuary resource, are
subject to consultation with the NMSP.
This provision of the NMSA provides
NOAA with the opportunity to formally
recommend alternative courses of action
for the applicant. NEPA, the APA, and
the Deepwater Ports Act also provide
opportunity for inter-agency
consultation. In addition, the Sanctuary
prohibition on discharging or depositing
from beyond the boundary of the
Sanctuary any material or other matter
that subsequently enters the Sanctuary
and injures a Sanctuary resource or
quality would apply to discharges/
deposits from LNG projects located
outside the Sanctuary.
NOAA law enforcement efforts for
CINMS will continue per the
cooperative mechanisms currently
implemented in the Sanctuary. For more
detail on cooperative enforcement
efforts, see the response to comment
120.
Marine Bioprospecting
179. Comment: In the DMP, NOAA
inappropriately identified as ‘‘marine
bioprospecting’’ a research project that
was funded by MMS in conjunction
with the University of California at
Santa Barbara (UCSB) This term as used
in the DMP implies a sustained removal
or harvesting of a marine resource.
However, the UCSB project was a
limited time sampling of marine
organisms on oil and gas platforms, the
purpose of which was to isolate
compounds with anti-cancer and antiinflammatory potential for further
research. Ultimately, the goal of any
such successful compounds would be
synthesis of the new drugs in
laboratories rather than purification of
these from collecting.
Response: The referenced project was
appropriately identified as marine
bioprospecting. As stated in the DMP
and in the FMP, marine bioprospecting
is the activity of seeking a useful
application, process, or product in
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
nature. However, NOAA has added
further explanation of the MMS–UCSB
research project to the FMP.
Marine Debris
180. Comment: The FMP’s Offshore
Water Quality Monitoring Strategy
should include systematic monitoring of
anthropogenic marine debris, per a
recommendation in the Sanctuary
Advisory Council’s 2005 report: A
Water Quality Needs Assessment for the
Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary.
Response: NOAA has been working
and will continue to work in
partnership with the marine debris
researchers from the University of
California Davis and the Algalita Marine
Research Foundation to conduct surveys
of and remove marine debris from the
Sanctuary. The NOAA Marine Debris
Program has supported some of this
work, and CINMS staff look forward to
pursuing additional opportunities to
work with this Program. For more
information about CINMS’s future plans
to address water quality issues,
including marine debris, see the
response to comment 303.
181. Comment: The impact of marine
debris and derelict fishing gear on
natural and cultural resources in the
CINMS is not well understood and
deserves to be investigated.
Response: As mentioned in the FMP’s
Maritime Heritage Action Plan (Strategy
MH.1, Activity 2), during regular
monitoring of cultural resource sites,
divers will remove marine debris and
derelict fishing gear when it is feasible
and safe to do so. With regard to
understanding impacts on natural
resources, NOAA is supporting marine
debris removal work within CINMS (see
the response to comment 180) that is
improving our understanding of the
extent and potential impacts of lost
fishing gear.
Marine Reserves
182. Comment: General support
expressed for NOAA’s efforts to
complete the establishment of the
Channel Islands MPA network.
Response: Comment noted.
183. Comment: A crucial data gap
exists for marine reserve monitoring in
that a spatially explicit data set of
commercial and recreational fishing
does not exist, or is poor. NOAA should
analyze the potential of the Sanctuary’s
aerial survey program for filling this gap
by providing all or part of a spatial
depiction of current fishing effort.
Response: NOAA has analyzed the
Sanctuary’s aerial survey data, in
conjunction with other spatially explicit
relevant information to depict current
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
fishing effort. NOAA provided this
analysis in the FEIS on marine reserves
(https://channelislands.noaa.gov/
marineres/main.html).
184. Comment: NOAA should
aggressively defend the NMSP’s
jurisdiction over the establishment and
management of marine reserves within
the existing Sanctuary boundaries.
Response: In 2007, NOAA completed
a Final EIS and Final Rule that
established a network of marine zones,
including marine reserves, in the federal
waters of the Sanctuary (three nmi to six
nmi) (72 FR 29208).
185. Comment: The management plan
indicates a bias toward area closures
over other forms of management (see
DMP strategies CS.6 and MZ.2).
Closures purported to be precautionary
are questionable. In addition to area
closures, NOAA should consider the
effectiveness of methods to attain
resource protection goals, improve and
recover habitat and fisheries, such as:
Restricting trawling and other bottom
tending gear, restricting fishing during
spawning seasons, size/slot limits, bag
limits, catch and release, and closure of
a particular fishery for a period of time
(successful with Atlantic striped bass,
and Gulf of Mexico Red Drum). NOAA
should also take a more comprehensive
management based approach, which
would protect all areas within the
Sanctuary. This could include
integrating the results of various
research components to assist all
management strategies, not just marine
reserves.
Response: NOAA considered a wide
range of management measures in
developing the FMP and associated
regulations. Marine zoning is an
important and effective marine
management tool that, when coupled
with other management tools, provides
the Sanctuary and its resource
management partners a wide range of
management approaches. The NMSP
action related to marine reserves is
addressed in a separate NEPA action,
see https://channelislands.noaa.gov/
marineres/main.html. Full
consideration and review was given to
existing and traditional fishery
management approaches to marine
resource management. NOAA
determined that existing and traditional
fishery management approaches are not
sufficient to meet the Sanctuary’s goals.
The State of California reached a similar
conclusion in adopting the state waters
portions of the network.
186. Comment: Regarding strategy
CS.6 (Marine Reserves Monitoring), the
Pacific Fishery Management Council
would be a valuable source of
information on management measures
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
that have been successful in protection
of both habitat and fisheries.
Response: Comment noted. The
NMSP has consulted with the PFMC
extensively and will continue to engage
the PFMC for their fishery management
information and expertise. The NMSP
also formally consults with the PFMC
on matters concerning fishing
regulations and Sanctuary resources
through NMSA sections 304(d) and
304(a)(5).
187. Comment: Regarding strategy
CS.6 (Marine Reserves Monitoring), the
intent of the activity entitled, ‘‘Utilize
Existing CINMS Research and
Monitoring Programs in Support of
Marine Reserves,’’ is unclear. The
programs listed in the activity are
programs to document the status of all
of the sanctuary. It is difficult to see
how such activities ‘‘support’’ marine
reserves. It also seems to imply that
CINMS, prior to completing the marine
reserves designation process in federal
waters, expects to promote such
reserves as a means to address habitat,
seabird and kelp preservation.
Response: Marine reserves are
expected to have both direct and
indirect effects within and outside their
borders. Many of the existing CINMS
research and monitoring programs were
originally designed to broadly measure
change and gauge the overall health of
Sanctuary resources. However, in some
cases they can be adjusted to
specifically monitor marine reserve
performance as well as the sanctuary as
a whole. For example, the Channel
Island National Park’s and PISCO’s kelp
forest ecosystem monitoring programs’
sampling designs have been modified to
increase their ability to measure change
over time in marine reserves in
comparison to nearby control areas.
188. Comment: DMP Strategy MZ.2
(Consideration of Marine Reserves and
Conservation Areas) contains language
in the activity that is unclear regarding
the purpose of Pacific Fishery
Management Council (PFMC)
regulations because it seems to suggest
that a marine reserve determination has
already been made.
Response: Language in the DMP was
not intended to suggest that a final
determination about federal marine
reserves designation within CINMS had
been made prior to conclusion of the
consultative process with the PFMC. In
May 2005, NOAA presented the PFMC,
per section 304(a)(5) of the NMSA, with
an opportunity to prepare draft fishing
regulations to meet the goals of the
CINMS marine zones. Section 304(a)(5)
requires that the relevant Fishery
Management Council be given the
opportunity to prepare draft fishing
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
regulations within the Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) of the sanctuary
(the CINMS EEZ is from 3 to 6 nm
offshore the northern Channel Islands).
The PFMC responded and
recommended that fishing regulations
for the CINMS marine zones in federal
waters be implemented through the
existing authorities of the MSA and the
State of California. In November 2005,
the PFMC directed its staff to work with
NMFS to implement fishery closures
within the CINMS zones consistent with
California law.
In 2006, to mitigate fishing impacts to
groundfish essential fish habitat (EFH),
the PFMC approved Amendment 19 of
the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan that, in part,
recommended designation of the CINMS
as EFH and the existing and proposed
CINMS marine zones as Habitat Areas of
Particular Concern (which have
corresponding regulations to prohibit
fishing). Based on a review of the
existing factual and scientific evidence,
NOAA promulgated regulations
prohibiting the use of bottom-contact
fishing gear in these areas under the
MSA.
The NMSA was used to complement
the bottom contact gear prohibition and
create no take zones that prohibit all
other extractive activities, including
fishing. The FMP has been updated to
reflect the conclusion of the designation
process for the Channel Islands MPA
Network.
Marine Zoning
189. Comment: Commenter supports
both activities outlined under the DMP’s
General Marine Zoning Strategy (MZ.1).
Response: Comment noted. This
strategy is now RP.3 in the FMP’s
Resource Protection Action Plan.
190. Comment: The management
plan’s Marine Zoning Action Plan
should provide a spatial representation
of all restrictions/zones, and regulations
with a spatial feature in the Sanctuary.
Response: NOAA has augmented the
discussion of existing zones within the
Sanctuary in the FMP’s Resource
Protection Action Plan (Strategy RP.3
background section). Although NOAA
agrees that a spatial database of various
marine zones, data, and features is
important and useful for Sanctuary
management, a map that attempts to
show the complex spatial management
and regulatory regimes within CINMS
would be overwhelming and
complicated to display, and may not
prove useful for coastal managers or the
general public. NOAA has been
developing a spatial database of
management zones within and adjacent
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3245
to CINMS, as well as biological and
socioeconomic monitoring activities.
191. Comment: NOAA should
consider using marine zoning for:
Derelict/abandoned fishing gear, vessel
traffic, light pollution, corals and
structure-forming organisms, and
bottom-tending fishing gear.
Response: Bottom-tending fishing gear
is now prohibited within the marine
zones designated as marine reserves and
marine conservation areas in the
Sanctuary. NOAA is not establishing
additional marine zones to address the
remainder of the issues mentioned at
this time for reasons including
insufficient information available to
support such action, non-zoning
measures already in place, or preexisting zones. NOAA does, however,
regard marine zoning as an important
tool for consideration and application
where appropriate. As described in the
FMP’s Resource Protection Action Plan,
NOAA will identify, track, and where
appropriate, respond to Sanctuary
resource protection issues. For some
issues, the evaluation process may
include consideration of marine zoning,
where appropriate.
Military Activities
192. Comment: The Department of
Defense should not continue to be
exempt from CINMS rules because it has
a bad record of disturbing, harming, and
killing endangered species with
underwater sonar, which should not
happen in the Sanctuary.
Response: The NMSP works closely
with NMFS regarding assessment of the
potential impacts of DOD activities on
Sanctuary resources, and how DOD
should address such potential impacts.
As the revised CINMS regulations state,
in the event of destruction of, loss of, or
injury to a Sanctuary resource or quality
resulting from an incident, including,
but not limited to, discharges, deposits,
and groundings, caused by a DOD
activity, DOD, in coordination with the
Director, must promptly prevent and
mitigate further damage and must
restore or replace the Sanctuary
resource or quality in a manner
approved by the Director. Furthermore,
all DOD activities must be carried out in
a manner that avoids to the maximum
extent practicable any adverse impacts
on Sanctuary resources and qualities.
193. Comment: NOAA should remove
the exception for military vessel
discharge of sewage and sewage sludge
from the discharge prohibition.
Response: NOAA has determined that
the regulation of DOD vessel discharges
by section 312(n) of the FWPCA (Clean
Water Act) is sufficient at this time.
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
3246
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Mineral Activities
194. Comment: Commenter supports
the proposed prohibition on mining
activities within the Sanctuary.
Response: Comment noted.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Motorized Personal Watercraft (MPWC)
MPWC—Inappropriate Use of Studies
195. Comment: Studies cited and
information used to support the
proposed MPWC prohibition were
outdated, inaccurate, of poor quality,
biased, and/or from locations other than
the Channel Islands.
Response: NOAA consulted a variety
of sources in developing the prohibition
on MPWC operation within one nmi of
the Channel Islands. The sources
comprise available literature on MPWC
impacts, as well as existing enforcement
data from CINP Rangers and other
enforcement agencies. NOAA is not
aware of any MPWC impact studies
conducted in the Channel Islands. This
is not surprising, given that the National
Park Service has banned the use of
MPWC in the Channel Islands since
2000. Given this lack of site-specific
data for MPWC impacts, the data and
observations from other locations
(including the Monterey Bay National
Marine Sanctuary) are relevant to
CINMS, especially data on flushing of
nesting birds and disturbance of marine
mammals. NOAA has received written
and oral reports of MPWC users
disturbing sea otters, harbor seals,
porpoises, dolphins and other wildlife
in various areas of the Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuary since
implementation of the regulation in
1993. Sometimes, due to high surf
conditions, operators are unaware of
their disturbance of wildlife.
196. Comment: In citing information
from the Massachusetts Office of Coastal
Zone Management Personal Watercraft
Management Guide (MOCZM 2002),
CINMS irresponsibly selected particular
passages that support a PWC ban, from
a document that advocates managing
PWC use and provides much data to
support management tactics short of
bans. In addition, the MOCZM
document was published in 2002 and
could not, at that time, include the most
up-to-date technological innovations.
CINMS should seek the most current,
accurate and peer reviewed data.
Response: Regarding the MOCZM
document advocating managing MPWC
use, this document proposed a variety of
different management techniques
regarding MPWCs, including an outright
ban for particularly sensitive or difficult
enforcement areas. CINMS fits both of
these criteria, with many rare,
endangered or sensitive species and a
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
remote environment which makes
behavior-based enforcement impossible
without extensive enforcement
resources. Moreover, CINMS is not
banning MPWC throughout the
Sanctuary, but only in the sensitive
nearshore zone from zero to one nmi
offshore. The amount of scientific
research conducted on the topic of
MPWCs and wildlife disturbance has
not increased significantly since 2002.
However, additional information on
MPWC use was added to the FEIS
Affected Environment, Human Uses,
Nonconsumptive Recreation and
Tourism section on Motorized Personal
Watercraft for revisions.
MPWC—Against Ban
197. Comment: NOAA should not
prohibit MPWC from operating within
one nautical mile of the Channel
Islands.
Response: As explained in the
response to comment 200 NOAA
believes that the Sanctuary prohibition
on MPWCs within one nautical mile of
the Channel Islands will assist in
achieving the NMSP’s primary mandate
of resource protection. Because the NPS
already prohibited MPWC operation
within one nautical mile of the islands
in 2000, the Sanctuary MPWC
prohibition will not result in adverse
socioeconomic impacts. NOAA does not
prohibit any individuals from visiting
the Sanctuary or the Islands, and this
prohibition is not designed to keep
some members of the public from doing
so.
198. Comment: NOAA should not ban
MPWC use beyond one nmi in the
Sanctuary because this would prohibit
MPWC use at a known tow-in surfing
location.
Response: NOAA is not prohibiting
MPWC use beyond one nmi. NOAA is
aware of tow-in surfing activities off San
Miguel Island; however, the tow-in
surfing location is beyond one nmi and
as such would not be affected by the
Sanctuary prohibition.
MPWC—Behavior
199. Comment: NOAA should
address/prohibit unacceptable MPWC
operator behavior, and/or wildlife
disturbance (except for fishing) rather
than prohibit MPWC use.
Response: NOAA is not considering
the ideas suggested as an alternative to
the prohibition on MPWC use within
one nmi of the Channel Islands because
the use of MPWC in this zone has
already been prohibited by the NPS
since 2000.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
MPWC—Duplicative Regulation
200. Comment: NOAA should not
duplicate the existing NPS regulation
that prohibits MPWC operation within
one nmi of the Channel Islands.
Response: The use of MPWC within
one nmi of the Channel Islands has been
prohibited by the NPS since 2000.
NOAA is mirroring the existing MPWC
prohibition to provide an added
deterrent to illegal MPWC use within
the nearshore areas of the CINMS and
CINP (the CINMS regulation carries a
maximum civil penalty of $130,000 per
incident, per day). The CINMS MPWC
prohibition provides an additional legal
authority through which to prosecute
violators of the MPWC prohibition.
MPWC—Environmental Impacts
201. Comment: NOAA’s
characterization of MPWCs as
producing high emissions, being noisy,
and/or being hazardous to the ocean and
environment is incorrect. New MPWC
designs are clean and quiet.
Response: The MPWC industry has
reduced noise and emissions with 4stroke engines, and NOAA has revised
the description of MPWC in the DEIS.
See the updated FEIS Affected
Environment, Human Uses,
Nonconsumptive Recreation and
Tourism section on Motorized Personal
Watercraft for revisions. However,
NOAA is not aware of studies that have
demonstrated the extent to which these
improvements have reduced wildlife
disturbance. NOAA’s prohibition on the
operation of MPWC within one mile of
the islands is due primarily to the
potential for wildlife disturbance rather
than concerns about emissions. While
emissions and noise from MPWC have
been reduced, it is not clear that they
are now insignificant. NOAA is still
concerned about the effects of
oscillating sound caused by persistent
throttling of the engine during repeated
acceleration/deceleration within the
surf zone, which is often necessary to
avoid capsizing and rolling. Research
and observations have shown that this
frequent oscillating sound pattern is
particularly disruptive to wildlife.
Finally, NOAA is unaware of
information indicating the immediate
breakdown of oil from MPWCs.
202. Comment: MPWCs have less of
an impact on kelp and aquatic
vegetation than do other vessel types, as
discussed in the Massachusetts Office of
Coastal Zone Management Personal
Watercraft Management Guide (MOCZM
2002).
Response: The potential for damage to
aquatic vegetation is reduced in MPWCs
as compared with that for propeller
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
driven vessels. However, the referenced
document (MOCZM 2002) also makes
the following statement about PWC
operation: ‘‘However, PWC are
frequently operated in ways that
enhance their capacity to damage
seagrass communities. For example,
PWC are often used in shallow water
areas, where their jet wash is more
likely to kick up sediments. PWC also
tend to kick up more sediment when
operators are performing acrobatic
maneuvers, traveling at slower speeds or
rapidly accelerating. These activities tilt
PWC back into the water column and
direct their jet wash downward into
underlying sediments and seagrass beds.
PWC-related seagrass damage may also
be exacerbated if PWC operation is
spatially and/or temporally
concentrated. Multiple PWC circling
about in that same vicinity may have a
greater impact than a single PWC
traveling through the same area.’’ With
respect to MPWC impacts on kelp beds,
the enclosed propulsion system of
MPWC will not cut through kelp as will
vessels with conventional outboard
motors. The EIS text referring to impacts
on kelp has been revised to reflect this
information.
203. Comment: The National Park
Service EIS’s on personal watercraft use
found that these craft cause no adverse
or lasting impact. NOAA’s EIS did not
discuss the National Park Service’s
findings.
Response: There are 21 units in the
national park system (generally national
recreation areas or national sea/
lakeshores) where the legislative
purpose of the unit may permit use of
MPWCs. In those units which have
considered authorization of MPWC use,
impacts were identified and
requirements identified to mitigate the
impacts to acceptable levels for those
units. These findings were site-specific
and generally included substantial
limits on the operation of MPWCs.
However, the NPS, via regulation, has
determined that MPWC use is generally
inappropriate in units of the National
Park system due to likely ecological or
visitor impacts. Under NPS regulations
finalized in 2000 and revised in March
2007 (36 CFR sec. 3.9(a)), Channel
Islands National Park is closed to
MPWC use.
MPWC—Extend Ban Beyond 1 NMi
Offshore
204. Comment: NOAA should extend
the prohibition beyond one nmi to
include the entirety of CINMS waters
(i.e., six nmi from the Islands), consider
prohibiting MPWC use in certain
sensitive areas outside the one nmi
limit, such as near emergent rocks or
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
other resource-attracting features, or
consider a temporal ban on MPWC
outside of one nmi to protect pinnipeds
and birds.
Response: NOAA is not extending the
prohibition on MPWC beyond one nmi
of the Islands (defined in the CINMS
terms of designation as San Miguel
Island, Santa Cruz Island, Santa Rosa
Island, Anacapa Island, Santa Barbara
Island, Richardson Rock, and Castle
Rock) at this time, and believes that the
one nmi ban provides the appropriate
level of compatible use consistent with
the protection of Sanctuary resources.
The new prohibition on taking a marine
mammal, sea turtle or seabird allows
sufficient enforcement flexibility for
activities occurring outside the one nmi
MPWC ban area. Additionally,
overlaying the existing CINP ban
provides important benefits for
cooperative enforcement. NOAA, in
conjunction with the CDFG and other
partners, will continue to monitor the
use of MPWC within other areas of the
Sanctuary. If this monitoring indicates
adverse impacts to wildlife or other
Sanctuary resources, NOAA could
consider additional management actions
as part of an adaptive approach to
managing the Sanctuary. Any future
regulatory actions taken by NOAA
would be subject to the appropriate
environmental analysis under the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and public review and comment
per the requirement of the
Administrative Procedure Act.
MPWC—Other
205. Comment: NOAA is focusing too
much on the semantics of the definition
of a Motorized Personal Watercraft.
Response: As explained in the FEIS,
the CINMS regulations provide a
definition of MPWC that is the same as
that used by the NPS. This is important
so that the CINMS regulation is
consistent with the NPS ban on MPWC
use in effect in the Channel Islands.
206. Comment: The process leading to
the creation of the MPWC prohibition
did not allow for public input, and/or
NOAA should consult with more state
officials, emissions experts,
manufacturers, and actual users, before
committing to such a ban.
Response: Per requirements of the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the
National Environmental Policy Act, and
the Administrative Procedure Act,
NOAA has followed federal
requirements for notifying, and
soliciting input from, the public, along
with relevant state and federal agencies
about the MPWC prohibition and all
other actions that are part of the CINMS
management plan review. Public input
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3247
on the management plan has been
extensive through the Sanctuary
Advisory Council, public hearings, and
the public comment period.
207. Comment: MPWC owners are
cautious, use good judgment, and are
considerate of the environment, and/or
the demographics of MPWC owners
have shifted to ‘‘a little older, more
affluent and more responsible person.’’
Response: Despite the changes in
MPWC user demographics described by
the commenters, NOAA believes that
the prohibition will assist CINMS in
achieving its primary mandate of
resource protection. Furthermore, the
use of MPWC within one nmi of the
Channel Islands has been prohibited by
the NPS since 2000.
208. Comment: The plan does not
mention that as of 2004 the California
Air Resource Board (CARB) has
prohibited the sale of two-stroke marine
engines. There are no two-stroke
engines being sold of any kind for
marine use.
Response: NOAA is not aware of any
CARB regulation banning the sale of
two-stroke engines. CARB did restrict
the type of two-stroke engine to only
direct injection as of 2001. In addition
there are many pre-2001 two-stroke
powered MPWC in operation and there
are no prohibitions on the use,
replacement, or resale of the older
carbureted or non-direct injected twostroke engines in these craft.
209. Comment: NOAA should explain
why it is prohibiting Personal
Watercraft, when the agency seems to
realize the benefits of these type of boats
for emergency response and law
enforcement.
Response: NOAA notes a distinction
between recreational use and emergency
response/enforcement. There is a
tradeoff between potential
environmental impacts and the benefit
of emergency response and
enforcement. The prohibition on MPWC
use does not apply to (1) an activity
necessary to respond to an emergency
threatening life, property, or the
environment; and (2) an activity
necessary for valid law enforcement
purposes in the Sanctuary. For a
response to commenters who indicated
that they are opposed to the Sanctuary’s
MPWC regulation, see the response to
comment 197.
210. Comment: NOAA should have
reasonable boating regulations such as
the generally applicable access
restrictions, closures and boating rules
set forth in existing Sanctuary
regulations, and/or regulations that
require an age limit, educational
program, and a licensing system for
MPWC use; or NOAA should establish
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3248
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
best management practices to resolve
problems with MPWC use.
Response: Given that the use of
MPWC within one nmi of the Channel
Islands has been prohibited by the NPS
since 2000, NOAA is not considering
the ideas suggested as an alternative to
the prohibition on MPWC use in this
zone. Regarding rider age limits and
licensing systems, these are boating
safety and registration issues more
appropriately managed by State and
Federal boat licensing agencies.
211. Comment: Based on the
definition of personal watercraft in the
DEIS, it appears that the intent of the
MPWC prohibition is not to regulate
fishing. If this is correct, the prohibition
does not directly affect fishing, fishing
vessels, fish stocks, or fish habitat.
Response: While the intent of this
regulation is not to regulate fishing per
se, it does prohibit the use of MPWC
within one nmi of the islands, even if
the MPWC were being used to conduct
an otherwise lawful fishing activity.
212. Comment: NOAA should
implement boater education programs to
reduce MPWC accidents and injuries,
which would render the ban on MPWC
unnecessary.
Response: Education and safety
regulations can increase MPWC safety.
However, the intent of the one nmi
prohibition is primarily to protect
wildlife, and the existing NPS ban
eliminates the utility of an educational
program for MPWC operators in that
zone. NOAA would consider partnering
with another agency or organization for
the purposes of developing educational
programs to address MPWC use from
one nmi to six nmi offshore in the
sanctuary, should circumstances
warrant it. NOAA welcomes input from
the California Department of Boating
and Waterways and the California
Boating and Waterways Commission on
education and outreach for MPWC users
and all boaters regarding the Sanctuary.
213. Comment: NOAA should explain
how the one mile limit for the MPWC
prohibition was determined.
Response: NOAA believes that the
one nmi limit is reasonable for
preventing wildlife disturbance from
MPWC in the sensitive nearshore area of
the Sanctuary, especially considering
the number of emergent rocks within
the one nmi offshore zone of the islands.
Additionally, this zone directly overlays
the existing National Park Service ban
on MPWC within Channel Islands
National Park, facilitating cooperative
enforcement of both the NPS and NOAA
MPWC regulations.
214. Comment: The California
Department of Boating and Waterways
(CDBW) commented that they would be
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
happy to help CINMS staff in delivering
a message to the boaters that they come
into contact with.
Response: NOAA looks forward to
working with the CDBW on boater and
MPWC education and outreach and has
benefitted from partnering with the
CDBW and others involved in the
California Ocean Communicators
Alliance ‘‘Thank You Ocean’’ campaign.
The CDBW featured this campaign in an
article in its April 2007 Changing Tide
newsletter, including campaign
advertisements and logos on the front
and back cover of the issue. In
recognition that 8,200 copies of this
newsletter are circulated to marinas,
yacht clubs, boat supply stores, boat
repair facilities, other state agencies,
clean boating network members, boat
shows and events, NOAA greatly
appreciates opportunities to partner
with CDBW to conduct outreach to
boaters. NOAA also appreciates the
CDBW assistance with distribution of a
CINMS boater safety brochure to
registered boat owners throughout
Ventura County, and looks forward to
partnering on future boater outreach.
215. Comment: NOAA should keep
the waterways open for responsible
public use.
Response: This action keeps the
Sanctuary open for all public uses
compatible with the CINMS’s primary
objective of resource protection, and not
prohibited pursuant to other authorities.
MPWC—Other Agencies Regulate
Boating
216. Comment: The CDBW was not
consulted or asked to participate during
the planning process. NOAA should
have also consulted with the U.S. Coast
Guard because they have the authority
to promulgate regulations regarding
recreational boats in federal waters.
Response: NOAA provided scoping
and noticing of this action in
accordance with NEPA, APA, and
NMSA requirements. The U.S. Coast
Guard and the California Resources
Agency (the parent agency of the
CDBW) each hold seats on the CINMS
Sanctuary Advisory Council, and as
such have been aware of and involved
in this management plan development
since its inception. In addition, prior to
release of the DMP and DEIS, the
NMSP’s West Coast Region informed the
California Boating and Waterways
Commission of plans to consider an
MPWC regulation at CINMS. NOAA
remains open to working with the
CDBW in the Channel Islands on topics
of mutual interest in the future.
Regarding consultation with the U.S.
Coast Guard and enforcement, in
addition to its involvement throughout
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the management plan review as an
agency member of the Advisory
Council, the USCG is also a Sanctuary
cooperative enforcement partner. NOAA
believes that the USCG is well suited to
help enforce CINMS regulations,
including the prohibition on MPWC,
and as such CINMS coordinates
enforcement with the USCG and other
enforcement agencies.
217. Comment: The California
Department of Boating and Waterways
and the U.S. Coast Guard have the
authority to regulate boating. Any
federal regulations related to
recreational boating (i.e., MPWC use)
proposed in the management plan
should be adopted, if needed, by the
U.S. Coast Guard, the federal agency
with historical boating expertise and
appropriate enforcement
responsibilities.
Response: Although boating
regulations could be developed by
another agency, such as the USCG,
NOAA thinks that in this case using
Sanctuary authority would be the most
efficient and logical means of achieving
enhanced Sanctuary protection.
Additionally, this regulation is an
overlay of an existing National Park
Service ban. NOAA works cooperatively
with the NPS, USCG, and CDFG to
enforce Sanctuary regulations, including
regulations pertaining to recreational
boaters that have been in effect for over
twenty-five years. NOAA is interested in
exploring opportunities for CDBW to
assist with marine enforcement within
the state waters portion of the
Sanctuary.
MPWC—Penalty
218. Comment: The maximum penalty
of $130,000 for violation of the
Sanctuary’s MPWC prohibition is too
high. Given this high fine, NOAA
should mark the one nmi boundary with
buoys and signs about the prohibition.
Response: The penalty of $130,000 is
a maximum penalty for any violation as
decided upon by Congress during the
authorization and subsequent
reauthorizations of the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act. The actual penalties
levied for NMSA violations vary in
proportion to the severity of the
incident and other case-specific factors.
NOAA’s Office of General Counsel for
Enforcement and Litigation establishes a
penalty schedule that outlines
recommended penalties for violations
under the NMSA. This penalty schedule
provides notice to the public and
provides guidance to the prosecutors as
to a general range of penalties for
specific violations. The penalty
schedule reflects sanctions that NOAA
believes will encourage compliance and
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
deter violations; however, in every case,
NOAA retains the ability to assess a
penalty up to the statutory maximum of
$130,000. The NMSA penalty schedule
is publicly available and can be
accessed through this link: https://
www.gc.noaa.gov/schedules/58NMSA%20Penalty%20Schedule%20906.pdf.
It is the responsibility of Sanctuary
users to know where they are within the
Sanctuary, and what laws and
regulations apply in a given area.
CINMS education and outreach
materials are designed to help users
understand regulations. Physical signs
can enhance awareness and compliance,
but it is neither logistically nor
financially feasible for NOAA to install
a system of signs along the one nmi
boundary warning of the MPWC ban.
MPWC—Relation to Other Boats
219. Comment: The MPWC
prohibition unfairly singles out and/or
discriminates against MPWC, especially
in terms of described environmental
impacts, and/or access rights or
regulations.
Response: NOAA has already
established a precedent for regulating
some users, such as large vessels and
aircraft, differently than others in the
one nmi offshore zone due to concerns
about their potential impacts. NOAA
acknowledges that MPWC are not alone
in their potential for wildlife
disturbance. However, scientific
research and studies across the United
States (e.g. California, New Jersey,
Florida) have produced strong evidence
that MPWC present a significant and
unique disturbance to marine mammals
and birds different from other
watercraft. Though some other studies
have found few differences between
MPWC and small motor-powered boats,
they have not presented evidence to
invalidate the studies detecting
significant impacts. In 1994, NOAA
commissioned a review of recreational
boating activity in the Monterey Bay
NMS. The review provided statistics on
MPWC use and operating patterns in the
Sanctuary at the time and identified
issues of debate from the research
community regarding MPWC impacts
on wildlife, but it made no formal
conclusion or recommendation. At this
time, NOAA has determined that the
unique properties and operating
characteristics of MPWC (which allow
for high speed, repetitive nearshore
operations, and are further described in
the FEIS) make them prone to present a
significantly higher risk of wildlife
disturbance than other vessel types. As
such, NOAA thinks that MPWC are
incompatible with resource protection
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
within the one nmi offshore zone of the
Sanctuary. Operation of MPWC in the
CINMS is still allowed outside of the
one nmi offshore area.
Regarding comments asserting that
MPWC should be regulated in the same
manner as other boats, NOAA believes
that for other types of boaters, and for
MPWC operating beyond the one nmi
offshore zone, enforcement of the
restrictions presented in Prohibition 9
(Taking a Marine Mammal, Sea Turtle or
Seabird) provide for sufficient resource
protection at this time. However, NOAA
could in the future propose additional
restrictions on other Sanctuary users,
with public input and review, should
protecting Sanctuary resources warrant
such action. With regard to MPWC
rights to access, please note that the
MPWC regulation overlays an existing
NPS ban on MPWC use within one nmi
of the islands that has been in place
since 2000. Neither the NPS nor CINMS
regulations ban MPWCs for a six mile
area surrounding the park. Rather, both
ban MPWC use only in the one nmi
offshore zone. Concerning emissions
and water quality issues among MPWC
and other boats, NOAA’s objection to
the operation of MPWC within one mile
of the islands is due more to their
potential for wildlife disturbance than
concerns about emissions (see also the
response to comment 201). In terms of
whether or not there are differences in
engine types between MPWC and other
craft, the justification for the prohibition
is not related to the engine type, but
rather to the craft’s unique capabilities
and use patterns.
For information about NOAA’s use of
the best available information as it
relates to the rationale for this
prohibition, see response to comment
195.
MPWC—Support Ban
220. Comment: NOAA should
prohibit the use of MPWC within one
nmi from the islands, as proposed in the
preferred alternative.
Response: NOAA is implementing the
preferred alternative MPWC regulation.
Nearshore Vessel Approach
221. Comment: NOAA should adopt
the nearshore vessel approach
prohibition in Alternative 1 in order to:
Reduce the risk of grounding and
collision accidents; to provide
additional protection for sensitive nearshore areas; exclude a greater number of
potentially harmful large vessels (those
150 GRT or more) than the Proposed
Action (those 300 GRT or more); and
reduce the likelihood of discharges and
other impacts from relatively large
vessels, including cruise ships.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3249
Additionally, NOAA should provide an
exception allowing large vessels to
operate in the shipping lanes.
Response: Like Alternative 1, the
Proposed Action directly addresses the
NOAA’s concern that, with limited
exceptions, large vessels should not
approach and put at risk sensitive
nearshore areas of the Sanctuary. NOAA
is not aware of more than a few vessels
between 150 to 299 GRT that
occasionally visit the Sanctuary area
within one nmi of the Islands. Using
Automated Identification System (AIS)
data, which will soon be available for
the entire Sanctuary, NOAA plans to
enhance vessel traffic monitoring in the
nearshore area. If the number of vessels
between 150 to 299 GRT increases
significantly, and/or the incident of
vessel accidents increases, NOAA can
revisit this regulatory issue. Cruise ships
are typically much larger than 300 GRT,
and industry trends show increasing
vessel sizes. The shipping lanes do not
come within one nmi of Island shores,
and thus an exception allowing large
vessels to operate in the shipping lanes
is not necessary.
222. Comment: NOAA should remove
the fishing vessel exception to the
nearshore vessel approach regulation
under both the Proposed Action and
Alternative 1. Additionally, NOAA
should assess the costs and benefits of
removing the exception for fishing
vessels of these sizes, including the
regulatory burden of gaining a permit
for such activity, and the rationale for
the exception.
Response: NOAA is not removing the
nearshore vessel approach regulation’s
exception for fishing vessels at this
time. NOAA is not aware of fishing
vessels greater than 150 GRT using
Sanctuary waters, including within one
nmi of the Islands, nor aware of any
emerging fisheries trends suggesting that
vessels of this size are planning to use
Sanctuary waters. Using AIS data,
which will soon be available for the
entire Sanctuary, NOAA will enhance
vessel monitoring in the nearshore area.
NOAA also monitors vessel use of the
Sanctuary via aerial surveys. Should
fishing vessels 150 GRT begin to use the
Sanctuary, NOAA can revisit the
associated risks and determine how to
address them.
NOAA does not believe that the
requirements for obtaining a permit are
burdensome. Sanctuary staff regularly
process a variety of permits and work to
maintain an efficient and streamlined
process. Furthermore, few vessels that
routinely visit the Channel Islands
nearshore area are 300 GRT or more.
223. Comment: Support is expressed
for the Proposed Action alternative’s
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
3250
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
modification of the nearshore vessel
approach regulation to prevent large
(300 GRT or more) non-fishing vessels
from traveling within one nmi of island
shores in the Sanctuary.
Response: Comment noted.
224. Comment: NOAA should not
limit the large vessel nearshore
approach prohibition to one nautical
mile from island shores, but instead
should expand it to the Sanctuary’s
outer boundary.
Response: The International Maritime
Organization has already designated the
majority of the Sanctuary, excluding the
portion that overlaps the TSS, as an
Area To Be Avoided (ATBA). NOAA
seldom observes large vessels within the
ATBA, and as such NOAA has not
deemed it necessary at this time to
prohibit large vessel use beyond one
nmi from the Islands.
225. Comment: NOAA should
completely ban cruise ships inside the
Sanctuary’s six nautical mile boundary
because of poor dumping practices.
Response: CINMS regulations prohibit
cruise ships 300 GRT or more (cruise
ships are typically much larger than 300
GRT) from approaching within one nmi
of the Islands, and prohibit them from
discharging sewage and graywater in the
Sanctuary. Based upon the best
available information, NOAA has
determined that it is not necessary to
ban cruise ships within the entire
Sanctuary at this time.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Oil and Gas
226. Comment: NOAA should
continue to prohibit any oil and gas
development within the Sanctuary
given the short- and long-term human
and environmental impacts from oil
spills, and the relatively high
probability that they will occur. NOAA
should also take necessary measures to
protect Sanctuary resources from oil
development in the surrounding region.
Response: NOAA is maintaining the
prohibition on exploring for,
developing, or producing hydrocarbons
within the Sanctuary. NOAA also
comments on oil and gas related
projects in the region that have the
potential to affect Sanctuary resources.
227. Comment: Commenter supports
the Proposed Action Alternative’s
prohibition 1 on oil and gas that
maintains current prohibitions on oil
and gas development while removing
outdated exemptions.
Response: Comment noted.
Performance Evaluation
228. Comment: The Conservation
Science Action Plan’s performance
measures should include not only
funding levels and quantitative
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
measures of monitoring and research
efforts, but metrics of a given activity’s
completeness, efficiency and quality.
Response: The FMP’s Performance
Evaluation Action Plan contains
performance targets for all eight of the
Conservation Science Action Plan’s
strategies, all of which address at least
one of the criteria identified by the
commenter (completeness, efficiency,
and quality). As CINMS staff implement
the management plan, these targets may
be updated or modified to more clearly
articulate these criteria, and to more
closely align the specific CINMS
performance targets with those
identified for the national program
(there are currently 21 program
performance measures for the NMSP).
229. Comment: Requirements for
specific quantitative performance
measures may impede CINMS’s ability
to implement programmatic and
regulatory improvements that may have
more qualitative benefits.
Response: CINMS staff have
developed both quantitative and
qualitative performance targets for the
strategies in each of the FMP’s action
plans. Quantitative performance targets
are typically used to track outputs (or
products), but may also be used to
identify certain qualitative
achievements (such as the percentage of
increased knowledge within a particular
user group). Performance targets are
developed in response to, rather than as
an impetus for, identification of a
management activity. In other words,
sanctuary-specific performance targets
do not ‘‘drive’’ the development of
management activities; rather, they are
the means by which a sanctuary tracks
it progress towards the achievement of
sanctuary-specific and NMSP goals and
objectives. As such, NOAA does not
believe that quantitative performance
targets will impede development of any
regulatory or non-regulatory
management actions that may have
qualitative benefits for CINMS.
230. Comment: The management plan
should include a baseline water quality
characterization, and its Performance
Evaluation Action Plan should include
a performance metric that actually
measures whether Sanctuary water
quality is being improved via physical
measurements of pollution levels and
environmental health.
Response: Strategy WQ.2 includes an
activity to complete a CINMS water
quality characterization report.
Regarding water quality performance
metrics, since revision of the CINMS
management plan began, the NMSP has
developed a set of program level
performance measures that set
management targets for the sanctuary
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
system. One of these targets is the
‘‘Number of sites in which water
quality, based on long-term monitoring
data, is being maintained or improved.’’
Criteria for measuring this target have
been developed through the NMSP’s
conservation science program, and a
tracking plan for how each sanctuary
will meet these criteria has been
implemented across the system. CINMS
staff are currently working to provide
Sanctuary-specific data on these criteria,
which will eventually be included in a
system-wide report on the status of
NMSP performance targets.
231. Comment: Sanctuary goals are
lacking an MOU for procedural review
of the protection at CINMS that defines
data gaps, survey design and data
streams connected to budgets that
facilitate management decisions. CINMS
has no functional management culture
that can assess the status of the
resources to use as a foundation for
working with the fishing community. It
is not bound by any peer review
protocol or data management
performance criteria.
Response: The FMP’s Conservation
Science Action Plan identifies the
myriad ways in which NOAA and its
partners have collected, and continue to
collect, assess, and apply, information
on the status of CINMS resources.
Although no general MOU exists
between CINMS and its partners on
research in the Sanctuary, there are a
variety of MOUs planned or in place for
specific research and management
activities (such as implementation of the
marine reserves). In addition, MOUs are
often not needed for collaboration on
management and monitoring of marine
resources with many agencies and
organizations—for example, CINMS
collaborates extensively with NMFS,
and existing statutes allow for extensive
coordination with the Pacific Fishery
Management Council. Identifying data
gaps and survey design are an inherent
part of nearly all CINMS research
initiatives and decisions to implement
any research project are always linked
to budgetary considerations. With
regard to performance criteria, see the
response to comment 230 for an
example of how the NMSP is moving
forward on this issue.
Permits
232. Comment: NOAA has recently
dramatically improved the scientific
research permitting process. The
process is straightforward and
reasonably quick, much improved over
the past.
Response: Comment noted.
233. Comment: NOAA should provide
transparency for the CINMS permit
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
process, including provisions for public
notice, review and comment on
issuance and monitoring of Sanctuary
permits.
Response: NOAA does not currently
envision a public notification and
review provision for all CINMS permits.
Existing NMSP regulations (15 CFR
922.48) identify the permit issuance
criteria for all national marine
sanctuaries, which provide a rigorous
set of parameters under which NOAA
can permit an activity that is otherwise
prohibited. It should be noted that when
receiving a permit application, the
CINMS Superintendent may request
additional information from the
applicant and, if appropriate, may hold
a public hearing to obtain more
information. If a permit holder acts in
violation of the terms and conditions of
any permit, NOAA may amend,
suspend, or revoke the permit. Projects
that would result in the preparation of
an environmental impact statement
under the National Environmental
Policy Act would be subject to public
review and comment.
234. Comment: If a permit applicant
will be using vessels for hire or
soliciting related assistance for his/her
proposed project, NOAA should require
the applicants to use appropriately
licensed vessels and operators.
Response: Individuals or entities
conducting activities under a CINMS
permit must still comply with all
federal, state and local laws and
regulations that are applicable to that
activity.
235. Comment: In the FMP NOAA
should provide an explanation or
examples of what types of research
would and would not require a permit.
Response: NOAA has updated FMP
Strategy OP.2 (Permitting and Activity
Tracking) with examples of the types of
research and other activities that do and
do not require a Sanctuary permit.
Research and Monitoring
236. Comment: The Channel Islands
National Marine Sanctuary has an
admirable scientific research program,
primarily in partnership with colleges
and universities in the area. This
scientific research should be continued
and expanded to increase understanding
of the unique ecosystem of the Santa
Barbara Channel and Channel Islands.
Response: CINMS research staff
continue to look for opportunities to
build partnerships and collaborate on
research. Through research outreach
efforts, such as presentations at
conferences and workshops, publication
of scientific papers, and distribution of
reports, staff inform the research
community of our efforts and needs.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
CINMS staff also solicit research
projects in the Sanctuary through our
request-for-vessel process while
continuing to identify funding
opportunities through grants and
partnerships.
237. Comment: The management plan
properly identifies the importance of
data management and dissemination to
the overall effectiveness of the
Conservation Science Action Plan. It
also addresses the highly collaborative
and partnership-based nature of the
biological research process and the need
for extensive collaboration with partners
at other agencies and entities.
Response: Comment noted.
238. Comment: NOAA should find
additional funding for monitoring
programs so that the scientific
community does not lose its integrity by
not being able to fulfill monitoring
requirements. The funding amount for
Conservation Science Action Plan
should be increased at least two-fold, to
match the level of funding dedicated to
Education and Outreach. NOAA should
also fund structural support for the
cooperative research program.
Response: NOAA recognizes that
resource limitations as well as the
necessary program and partner
developments may limit
implementation of all of the activities in
the management plan, including the
Conservation Science Action Plan.
NOAA will continue to work with the
Department of Commerce, Office of
Management and Budget, and Congress
in developing supporting justifications
when preparing budget submissions.
Sanctuary staff will continue to look for
opportunities for funding through other
federal programs, private grants, and
partnerships with agencies, universities,
and private and non-profit
organizations. NOAA supports the
cooperative research program and will
fund it as the CINMS budget allows,
including through the funding
opportunities listed above. Estimated
costs shown for the Conservation
Science Action Plan and the Public
Awareness and Understanding Action
Plan are not directly comparable. The
Conservation Science Action Plan
budget does not include contributions
from partners and collaborators, nor
does it include the large amount of
funding to staff and operate vessels,
which is estimated in the FMP’s
Operations Action Plan. In addition to
these contributions, NOAA continues to
seek additional funding opportunities as
listed above. NOAA has also revised
some of the cost estimates for
Conservation Science Action Plan
strategies.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3251
239. Comment: NOAA should
prioritize science relevant to
management and apply it to existing
and emerging resource protection
issues. The Conservation Science Action
Plan should include an explicit goal for
the application of scientific research to
the understanding and mitigation of
identified or emerging threats. NOAA
should consider how it can best orient
its scientific research programs to better
translate research results to management
decisions.
Response: NOAA recognizes that
sanctuaries should ensure that their
research and monitoring programs are
effectively prioritized to produce
scientific information that can be
applied to the understanding,
mitigation, and management of
identified or emerging threats. Through
the NMSP’s System-Wide Monitoring
Program (SWiM) reports, CINMS staff
will provide status updates on the
condition of Sanctuary resources to
local, regional, and national policy
makers. The NMSP holds an annual
research coordinators’ meeting at which
research staff discuss research issues
and needs across the program. The
ONMS West Coast Region coordinates
research and monitoring efforts within
the region to address regional
management and resource protection
issues.
The purpose of the research
department at CINMS is to support
management decision making with
conservation science. NOAA has
emphasized this point in the FMP’s
revised Overview to the Conservation
Science Action Plan. CINMS research
staff regularly collaborate with partners,
including other federal and state
agencies, universities, private
institutions, and non-profit agencies.
The Research Activities Panel, a
working group of the Sanctuary
Advisory Council, provides oversight to
the monitoring programs in the
Sanctuary. The status of monitoring
programs is reported to regional and
national offices through internal
documents.
240. Comment: Overall research/
science coordination and data
management are important, necessary,
and the greatest conservation science
needs within the Sanctuary.
Response: CINMS research staff
coordinate conservation science by
being in close contact with researchers,
tracking and requiring updates on their
research activities, and working with
joint-jurisdiction agencies. Staff also
develop research partnerships to
address research gaps, and receive input
from the RAP on research and
monitoring activities.
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3252
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
CINMS staff continue to strive
towards better research coordination
and comprehensive data management as
funding and staffing allows.
241. Comment: Sanctuary Aerial
Monitoring Spatial Analysis Program
(SAMSAP) graphical data must be
included in the online database
architecture proposed in DMP Strategy
CS.2, and become publicly available.
Response: SAMSAP data have been,
and continue to be, analyzed and used
in a wide variety of spatial and
statistical projects ranging from marine
zoning to emergency response
applications. The majority of SAMSAP
data are already in a format easily
importable into a variety of common
database formats. As noted in the
revised Strategy CS.2, rather than
developing a new online database,
CINMS will work with regional partners
already running established web-based
data warehouses to identify the most
appropriate data warehouses to best
disseminate particular data types. The
end result will make SAMSAP data
available and integrated with the
publicly-accessible Sanctuary Integrated
Monitoring Network (SIMoN, https://
www.sanctuarysimon.org) that will be
expanded to CINMS.
242. Comment: Many existing
programs (e.g., SAMSAP) could be used
to meet a greater variety of research
needs. The CINMS Research
Coordinator should take an active role
in expanding or redirecting internal
CINMS research activity and make
strategic decisions about the allocation
of Sanctuary support among existing
external research programs.
Response: CINMS research staff use
the Management Plan and other annual
research prioritization documents to set
priorities and direct and fund CINMS
research activities. In recent years
SAMSAP data have been analyzed and
are now being used, among other things,
in socioeconomic impact studies related
to marine zoning.
243. Comment: The Conservation
Science Action Plan’s Comprehensive
Data Management strategy does not
include enough analysis and synthesis
to help formulate a general research
plan. Data management must be more
than a simple means to provide
information to the public and others; it
should reveal important gaps and
trends, and can be used strategically to
guide future research and to answer
specific questions mandated by
reviewing agencies.
Response: Data management can be
used strategically to guide future
research and to answer specific
questions. The FMP’s comprehensive
data management strategy is focused on
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
integrating CINMS data into existing
regional and national data management
programs to facilitate enhanced
conservation science-based decisionmaking. While this strategy focuses on
data management, inherent in the
Resource Protection Action Plan is a
need to analyze data. Complementing
the data management strategy, the
FMP’s Resource Protection Action Plan
identifies a variety of current and
emerging resource protection issues and
it is expected that for each issue a
number of science-based questions may
emerge. Answers to these questions will
guide and drive data analysis activities
and research planning in a manner
consistent with the comment. Thus,
data analysis and synthesis occur as part
of management plan implementation,
and are also manifested in Sanctuary
annual operating plans, as well as
through annual research vessel
allocation decisions.
244. Comment: Strategy CS.2
(Comprehensive Data Management)
should be elevated to a high level of
planned implementation as shown in
the management plan’s Appendix A1. If
CINMS could serve as a clearinghouse
for data, such as through the Sanctuary
Integrated Monitoring Network
(SIMoN), interested researchers would
be able to assist the Sanctuary even in
the absence of a comprehensive research
and monitoring plan.
Response: NOAA has elevated the
planned implementation level of
activities within Strategy CS.2 to high.
See revised Strategy CS.2 for updated
information on how CINMS staff plans
to use existing data management tools,
like SIMoN.
245. Comment: Support expressed for
the Collaborative Marine Research
Program as a highly innovative effort to
bring potential resources, knowledge
and cost savings to bear on the process
of biological marine research and
monitoring. The Collaborative Marine
Research Program is also: Uniquely
capable of monitoring species not easily
detected by traditional monitoring
techniques; an excellent example of
applying limited Sanctuary resources to
known gaps and limitations that should
be routinely assessed; an important
outreach and research program.
Response: The Collaborative Marine
Research Project is a valuable program.
NOAA will continue to support this
program as funding allows. For
additional information about funding
see the response to comment 238.
246. Comment: Support expressed for
development of collaborative research
programs coupled with socioeconomic
monitoring programs, and as part of an
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
integrated research plan, rather than
developing in isolation.
Response: Collaborative marine
research projects need to be integrated
into the overall research and monitoring
plan. As noted in the background of
Strategy CS.4, efforts will be made to
ensure that collaborative marine
research does not duplicate existing
research efforts, but rather complements
them by filling research gaps and
building new knowledge to assist
resource managers. NOAA believes that
the Sanctuary Advisory Council’s
Research Activities Panel (RAP) is a key
player in providing Sanctuary
management with advice to help ensure
that research programs are integrated.
247. Comment: NOAA should donate
R/V Shearwater vessel time to support
the National Audubon Society’s
Christmas Bird Count.
Response: Written proposals must be
submitted in order for NOAA to
consider any vessel undertaking. NOAA
will assign priority to those proposals
that take place within Sanctuary
boundaries and address various
management plan priorities. See the
response to comment 249 for additional
information about the vessel allocation
process.
248. Comment: The support of the R/
V Shearwater to the local research
community has been invaluable and
CINMS should continue this support.
Response: The R/V Shearwater will
continue to support those efforts that
address various FMP action plan
strategies, to the greatest extent
allowable given financial and logistical
constraints inherent to field operations.
249. Comment: Regarding the
management plan’s Operations Action
Plan, the process by which CINMS
research vessel time is allocated remains
obscure, and research operations would
benefit from an open and transparent set
of rules by which allocation decisions
are reached.
Response: NOAA has revised text in
the FMP’s Operations Action Plan,
Strategy OP.4 to include clarification of
the annual sea-day allocation and
scheduling processes that occur each
autumn.
250. Comment: NOAA should include
a plan for deepwater site
characterization and deepwater MPA
monitoring in Strategy CS.3—Support
Existing Site Characterization and
Monitoring Programs.
Response: NOAA has updated text in
Strategy CS. 3 of the FMP to include an
activity on deep water monitoring for
the CINMS MPA network.
251. Comment: SAMSAP surveys
should be expanded (provided
increased funding). There is an unmet
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
need to quantify fishing pressure in and
around Sanctuary waters. Additionally,
SAMSAP surveys would benefit from
review by statisticians to optimize their
design and usefulness.
Response: NOAA is actively working
to increase SAMSAP funding at CINMS.
Reduced availability of NOAA aircraft
requires CINMS staff to seek alternative
aircraft options, such as contract
aircraft, which cost much more to fund
than NOAA aircraft, and partner agency
aircraft. CINMS has been working with
socioeconomic statisticians and
economists since 2007 to analyze and
improve SAMSAP survey methodology
and analysis.
252. Comment: NOAA should
continue supporting seafloor mapping
within the Sanctuary, which has uses
for education and outreach, research
and monitoring, and historical resources
(finding shipwrecks).
Response: Comment noted.
253. Comment: Existing ongoing
research activities in the CINMS are
described in varying amounts of detail
in the Conservation Science Action
Plan; many are mentioned in passing or
not mentioned at all.
Response: NOAA describes projects in
varying amounts of detail and has
elected not to describe every research
project in great detail. There are some
small, short-term projects (for example,
graduate student work, or projects that
may last three years or less), that while
important, NOAA concluded did not
warrant detailed descriptions in the
plan. Programs that fall within
Sanctuary priorities, but are not
described, are not necessarily precluded
from Sanctuary support. Likewise, the
Sanctuary remains open to supporting
new projects that may emerge.
254. Comment: The management
plan’s Conservation Science Action Plan
information on marine reserves
monitoring does not mention the large
acoustic receiver array maintained by
the Pfleger Institute of Environmental
Research (PIER). PIER’s monitoring of
fish movement relative to the reserve
boundaries is one of very few projects
that are specifically designed to
investigate questions of reserve efficacy.
Response: NOAA acknowledges
important contributions the PIER project
has brought to marine reserves research.
Although this project ended in 2006,
Sanctuary staff look forward to the
analysis of existing data and are
interested in seeing this project or
similar acoustic tagging projects return,
should funding allow. As mentioned in
the Conservation Science Action Plan at
CS.6, specific marine reserves biological
monitoring programs are described in
the Channel Islands Marine Protected
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
Area Monitoring Plan, a multi-agency
document developed by the California
Department of Fish and Game
(California Resources Agency, CDFG
2004).
255. Comment: The CINMS
Conservation Science Action Plan
should do more than simply track
external programs. Importantly, as
programs grow and research activity
intensifies, a policy of generally
supporting all existing programs will
not suffice.
Response: The Conservation Science
Action Plan is not limited to tracking
external programs. The Sanctuary is
directly involved in a number of
research programs (e.g., SAMSAP, and
seabird monitoring), explained in the
Conservation Science Action Plan, and
for which the Sanctuary provides
support in the form of staff, vessel time,
and/or funding. NOAA does not have a
policy of ‘‘supporting all existing
programs’’ at the CINMS. There are
limits to the amount of support the
Sanctuary can provide, and NOAA uses
a strategic approach to planning
Sanctuary research and monitoring,
allocating resources in accordance with
Sanctuary research priorities that are
determined on an annual basis.
256. Comment: The Conservation
Science Action Plan’s performance
evaluation criteria are not satisfactory,
including the performance targets for
the marine reserves monitoring strategy
(CS.6). By specifying very narrow
performance targets without an
integrated research plan, CINMS staff
effort is focused too quickly on small
steps. NOAA should identify: (1) What
the Sanctuary specifically wants to
monitor, (2) what the targets for
management are, and (3) whether those
targets are being met.
Response: NOAA acknowledges that
the Conservation Science Action Plan’s
performance evaluation criteria, while
tangible and able to be quantifiably
tracked, are not alone fully informative
for overall management effectiveness.
NOAA understands that a variety of
assessment methods will be needed to
ensure that the Conservation Science
Action Plan is effective. Additional
specific performance measures have
been developed and are listed in the
Description of the Issues section of the
Performance Evaluation Action Plan
within the FMP. These performance
measures establish targets for
understanding the status and trends of
Sanctuary water quality, habitats and
living marine resources, and will help
guide prioritization and implementation
of strategies and activities within the
Conservation Science Action Plan.
NOAA will work with the Research
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3253
Activities Panel and other partners to
refine assessment methods during
management plan implementation, and
will refine these methods over time.
257. Comment: CINMS staff should
partner with ongoing research and
coordination efforts via California Sea
Grant, the Southern California Coastal
Ocean Observing System (SCCOOS),
and the California North Coast Ocean
Observing System (CNCOOS).
Response: The NMSP’s West Coast
Region has been the lead on
coordinating ocean observing systems
within west coast national marine
sanctuaries. With its support, CINMS
staff continue to work with the
Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies
of Coastal Oceans (PISCO) to help fund
their oceanographic buoys.
258. Comment: NOAA should initiate
an ecosystem based co-management seat
on the research activities panel.
Response: As is the case with all
Sanctuary Advisory Council working
groups, the Research Activities Panel
decides upon its membership, and does
not at this time have seats dedicated to
specific ideologies or user groups.
NOAA recommends that the commenter
make this general suggestion directly to
the Research Activities Panel.
259. Comment: Success of the
Comprehensive Data Management
strategy will rely heavily on identifying
a highly capable CINMS Research
Coordinator.
Response: In 2007, NOAA hired Dr.
Steve Katz as the Sanctuary’s new
Research Coordinator.
260. Comment: NOAA should initiate
research on the impacts of increasing
CO2 and ocean acidification on
Sanctuary resources.
Response: CINMS staff and the
Sanctuary Advisory Council have begun
to examine increasing CO2, ocean
acidification, and related climate change
issues. For example, CINMS staff and
the Sanctuary Advisory Council are
collaborating on a carbon budget and
greening project that aims to raise
awareness and understanding of the
Sanctuary’s carbon cycle and carbon
inputs from human activity in the
Sanctuary and surrounding
environment. The NMSP is working
with the NOAA Climate Office to
pursue funding for detecting climate
change impacts in each national marine
sanctuary, including the Channel
Islands. With regard to ocean
acidification and its potential effects on
Sanctuary resources, the Advisory
Council’s Conservation and Commercial
Fishing working groups are
collaborating on development of a
comprehensive report on ocean
acidification, and related
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
3254
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
recommendations for the Sanctuary and
NMSP. (See also new information added
to the FMP’s Resource Protection Action
Plan). The results of this work are
anticipated in 2008, and will include
review and comments from the
Advisory Council and its Research
Activities Panel.
261. Comment: Commenter concurred
with the comments offered by the
Research Activities Panel.
Response: Please refer to responses to
the Research Activities Panel’s
comments, listed in the table at the
beginning of the FEIS response-tocomments appendix under ‘‘Warner,
Robert.’’
Resource Protection
262. Comment: NOAA should
develop a Resource Protection Action
Plan within the management plan, to
incorporate but go beyond the Emerging
Issues Action Plan. A resource
protection action plan should: link
resource protection issues with
management responses; require funding
for staff time dedicated to issueresponse measures; and articulate that
CINMS may play a leadership role in,
rather than relying excessively on other
parties for, scientific and resource
protection efforts. Resource protection
issues could include: LNG, aquaculture,
sea otter migration, artificial lighting
(e.g. from squid boats), ship strikes,
introduced and invasive species,
artificial reefs, plumes of non-point
source pollution from mainland rivers
during storm events, and atmospheric
deposition of air pollutants into
Sanctuary waters.
Response: NOAA has revised several
strategies and background information
from the DMP to develop a new
Resource Protection Action Plan in the
FMP. This action plan articulates how
NOAA addresses existing CINMS
resource protection issues, as well as
how emerging issues will be addressed.
Each of the issues suggested as resource
protection issues are noted in either the
FMP’s Resource Protection or Water
Quality action plans. NOAA has
explained the various steps it may take
in responding to Sanctuary resource
protection issues within Strategy RP.2
(‘‘Responding to Identified Issues’’). Due
to the complexity and evolving nature of
resource protection issues, NOAA
maintains that it would be inappropriate
to link specific ‘‘triggers’’ with specific
‘‘responses’’ in advance. The CINMS
Resource Protection Coordinator and
Sanctuary Advisory Council
Coordinator are primarily responsible
for implementing the activities in this
action plan (with assistance from other
staff). As permanent, full-time positions,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
each is allocated specific funding.
NOAA also leverages and maximizes
resources available through
collaborative partnerships.
263. Comment: NOAA should take
additional, or in some cases, immediate
management measures to address
critical resource management issues
including: Underwater noise,
aquaculture, artificial reefs, oil and gas
development, wildlife protection,
fisheries management, global warming
and liquefied natural gas proposals.
NOAA should establish a specific
process to address these CINMS issues
as part of the management plan review.
Response: The CINMS staff work
closely with fishery management
agencies (NMFS and the California
Department of Fish and Game) to
address Sanctuary concerns about
fisheries impacts. The Sanctuary has
expanded its discussion of wildlife
protection, oil and gas development,
and global warming in the FMP’s
Resource Protection Action Plan, which
also discusses aquaculture and artificial
reefs. This action plan describes a
process for addressing resource
protection issues. Threats from oil and
gas development, and activities to
address them, are discussed in the
FMP’s Emergency Response and
Enforcement Action Plan, as well as the
Water Quality Action Plan (which
outlines a process for developing a
comprehensive Water Quality
Management Program to address all
Sanctuary water quality issues).
264. Comment: NOAA should
consider placing permanent moorings at
popular island anchorages to prevent
seafloor damage and protect resources
from boaters who possess poor
anchoring skills.
Response: NOAA has supported and
permitted the installation and
maintenance of permanent moorings at
Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz and Anacapa
islands anchorages, which are used by
the NPS and its concessionaire vessels.
The Sanctuary Advisory Council has
discussed, and NOAA has considered
the possible need for and
appropriateness of additional moorings;
however, at this time, NOAA has not
reached a decision on this issue as it is
still gathering information. NOAA will
continue discussing this with the NPS,
the Sanctuary Advisory Council and
others. NOAA will use the activities in
the Resource Protection Action Plan to
track, assess, and determine how to
address seafloor damage from
anchoring.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Sanctuary Advisory Council
Involvement
265. Comment: NOAA’s federalism
assessment statement within the
proposed rule improperly and
inaccurately suggested that the current
Sanctuary Advisory Council supports
the regulatory action.
Response: NOAA’s intent was to
provide information explaining that
NOAA has consulted with various
entities, including the Sanctuary
Advisory Council, throughout the
development of the regulatory action.
The Sanctuary Advisory Council was
very closely involved from 1999 through
2002, at which point the proposed
regulatory action entered NOAA’s
internal review process. NOAA
acknowledges that individuals who
joined the Advisory Council since 2002
were not as closely involved in the
development of the proposed regulatory
action, and as such NOAA has revised
the statement accordingly.
Sea Otters
266. Comment: The FMP and FEIS
should discuss the connection between
water quality, sea otter health, nearshore
marine ecosystem health, and human
health.
Response: Text in FEIS Appendix C
now includes discussion about research
on the connection between these
concerns.
267. Comment: In the FEIS, NOAA
should acknowledge and support the
reality of future sea otter migration into
Sanctuary habitats and not identify this
as a potential ‘‘issue,’’ ‘‘conflict,’’ or
‘‘problem’’ to be dealt with. Also, it
should be acknowledged in the FEIS
that NOAA has taken a position on the
expanding range of the sea otter by
commenting in support of Alternative
3C in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(2006) DSEIS.
Response: NOAA does consider future
sea otter migration into Sanctuary
habitats as an ‘‘issue’’ to be addressed.
NOAA has not equated issues with
problems, but rather issues constitute
the range of topics that must be
addressed by Sanctuary actions.
Because sea otters have not been present
in significant numbers within the
Sanctuary since its designation, the
expansion of their current range to
include the Sanctuary is a change in
Sanctuary conditions. NOAA believes
that this change would warrant
Sanctuary attention and may potentially
warrant future actions by Sanctuary staff
(e.g., in the Resource Protection,
Research, and Education programs).
NOAA has updated and augmented
information on this issue in the FMP’s
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Resource Protection Action Plan,
Description of the Issues, under the subheader Termination of the Sea Otter
Translocation Program. The NMSP has
taken a position on the expansion of the
sea otter range in southern California,
and this is a matter of public record.
268. Comment: The documents
should not use the phrase ‘‘possible
future sea otter migration into Sanctuary
habitats,’’ since sea otters are currently
found within the Sanctuary, albeit not
in large numbers (both at San Nicolas
Island and in other parts of the
Sanctuary) or necessarily as permanent
residents. However, at some unknown
time, sea otters will probably reoccupy
this historic habitat as permanent
residents again.
Response: NOAA has updated the
management plan text in the FMP’s
Resource Protection Action Plan with
information about the status of sea otters
in the Sanctuary and surrounding
region, using information from the
USFWS 2005 Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement on
translocation of southern sea otters. San
Nicolas Island is one of the Channel
Islands, but is not part of the Sanctuary.
269. Comment: NOAA should consult
with researchers at USGS (Brian
Hatfield) and FWS (Lilian Carswell) to
revise the mention of ‘‘rare sightings’’ of
sea otters in the FEIS.
Response: NOAA has revised text in
the FEIS based on the USFWS (2005)
Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement, which includes
current information on the presence of
sea otters in Sanctuary waters and the
study area. Based on USFWS (2005)
information on the abundance and
distribution of California sea otters, sea
otters are not expected to have any
effect on CINMS resources within 10
years, and while there are rare sightings,
they have yet to recolonize the CINMS.
Submerged Lands Disturbance
270. Comment: Commenters indicated
their support for the proposed
modification of the prohibition on
altering submerged lands of the
Sanctuary, which extends this
protection of the seabed to the entire
Sanctuary.
Response: Comment noted.
271. Comment: If bottom trawling
occurs in a sanctuary, it should not be
called a sanctuary.
Response: The purposes and policies
of the NMSA provide for facilitating
public and private use of national
marine sanctuaries compatible with
their primary goal of resource
protection. Pursuant to existing federal
and state regulations, bottom trawling is
highly restricted in existing Sanctuary
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
waters. It is prohibited inside one nmi
of the islands, throughout the network
of ten marine reserves and two
conservation areas, and in several
fisheries.
Take and Possession of Marine
Mammals, Sea Turtles and Seabirds
272. Comment: Support expressed for
prohibitions 9 and 10 (taking and
possessing, respectively, any marine
mammal, sea turtle, or seabird), but
recommend that the regulation include
or reference language specifically stating
that commercial fishing or certain
research activities which may involve
the occasional take of these species may
lawfully operate as such under
authorizations granted pursuant to the
Marine Mammal Protection Act,
Endangered Species Act, or Migratory
Bird Treaty Act.
Response: NOAA has not added the
specifically requested language to these
regulations. These prohibitions already
include an exception for authorizations
granted by the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, Endangered Species Act,
or Migratory Bird Treaty Act. As the
DEIS (sections 2.1.10 and 2.1.11, 4.1.9
and 4.1.10) explained, the Sanctuary’s
proposed regulation would not apply if
an activity (including a federally or
state-approved fishery) that does or
might cause take of marine mammals,
sea turtles or seabirds has been
authorized to do so under the MMPA,
ESA, or MBTA or any implementing
regulation promulgated under these
acts. NOAA believes it has clearly
described and helped the reader
understand the nature, extent,
applicability and intent of the exception
to prohibitions 9 and 10.
273. Comment: Sanctuary
prohibitions 9 and 10 (taking and
possessing, respectively, any marine
mammal, sea turtle, or seabird) are
duplicative of existing regulations,
unnecessary, confusing as to whether
the intent is to track other laws, and
could unnecessarily prohibit certain
fisheries in the Sanctuary. NOAA
should add language specifically
acknowledging take exemptions found
in other existing authorities, including
PFMC Fishery Management Plans.
Response: NOAA has carefully crafted
these regulations to be complementary
in nature, with an area-specific focus on
marine mammals, sea turtles, and
seabirds in the Sanctuary, and to
provide a different suite of penalties
than available under other regulatory
agencies’ authority. The regulations as
written acknowledge take and
possession exemptions found in the
Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA), Endangered Species Act
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3255
(ESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) or any regulation promulgated
under the MMPA, ESA, or MBTA.
NOAA understands that lawful fishing
operations that are likely to take a
marine mammal, sea turtle, or seabird
are typically provided with exemptions
for such take, and therefore would be
excepted from this Sanctuary regulation.
NOAA believes that the NMSA civil
penalty schedule provides a valuable
deterrent to illegal take and possession
of these species. In addition, this
regulation is consistent with those in
place at the Monterey Bay, Stellwagen
Bank, Olympic Coast, and Florida Keys
national marine sanctuaries.
274. Comment: Concern expressed
about the Sanctuary’s prohibition on
take of marine mammals, sea turtles,
and seabirds, as it might apply to
unintentional hooking of these animals
while lawfully fishing. The regulation
would impede a fisherman’s ability to
release, remove, unhook, or untangle
any marine mammal that is
inadvertently caught or snagged during
lawful fishing operations in the CINMS.
NOAA should revise the regulation to
provide an exception for unintentional
hooking. NOAA should also consider if
USFWS and CDFG regulations have
such an exception.
Response: NOAA understands that
lawful fishing operations that are likely
to take a marine mammal, sea turtle, or
seabird are typically provided with
exemptions for such take, and therefore
are excepted from this regulation.
275. Comment: NOAA should
improve NMSP enforcement of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act with
respect to emissions of underwater
noise, especially now that NOAA is
proposing to add a CINMS prohibition
on marine mammal ‘‘take’’ within
Sanctuary boundaries.
Response: The NMSP does not have
enforcement authority with regard to the
Marine Mammal Protection Act. Should
NOAA conclude that unauthorized take
has occurred within the Sanctuary,
NOAA would ensure that appropriate
enforcement actions are taken by
NOAA’s Office for Law Enforcement,
the branch of NOAA charged with
enforcing both the NMSA and MMPA.
276. Comment: Why is NOAA only
now proposing a regulation to prohibit
take of a turtle or marine mammal,
when that is one of the basic protections
that people expect?
Response: Take of these species has
always been prohibited in the
Sanctuary, and in U.S. waters in
general, under the protections afforded
by the Marine Mammal Protection Act,
and the Endangered Species Act. At this
time NOAA has determined that
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
3256
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
overlaying these regulations with
Sanctuary regulations is warranted to
provide an added civil penalty deterrent
against such already illegal take.
Vessel Traffic
277. Comment: NOAA should explain
why CINMS Designation Document
Article IV indicates that operating a
vessel (i.e., watercraft of any
description) within the Sanctuary is
subject to regulation, including
prohibition. At an Advisory Council
meeting CINMS staff discussed
regulation of MPWCs, but this language
makes it possible for the Sanctuary to
prohibit all vessels and NOAA should
remove it.
Response: NOAA is not removing this
language because since its inception,
CINMS has had general authority to
regulate the navigation of vessels. To
date, NOAA has utilized this authority
to regulate the operation of cargo vessels
and vessels servicing offshore
installations within one nmi of the
Islands, and now, to regulate motorized
personal watercraft within that same
area. While a given activity may be
within the Sanctuary’s scope of
regulations, any new Sanctuary action
(including regulation) that could
significantly affect the environment
(including the human environment)
would be subject to legal requirements
under the National Environmental
Policy Act, and Administrative
Procedure Act, which ensure an open
public review process regardless of the
scope of regulations within the CINMS
terms of designation.
278. Comment: NOAA should
prohibit cruise ships and industrial
activities such as LNG and associated
traffic within the entire Sanctuary to
protect the Sanctuary from noise
impacts and discharges.
Response: At this time, NOAA’s
primary concerns with cruise ships
pertain to nearshore approach and waste
discharge/deposit in the Sanctuary. The
new CINMS regulations prohibit cruise
ships 300 GRT or more (cruise ships are
typically much larger than 300 GRT,
and industry trends show increasing
vessel sizes) from approaching within
one nmi of the Islands, and prohibit
them from discharging sewage and
graywater anywhere in the Sanctuary.
Based upon the best available
information, NOAA has determined that
it is not necessary to ban cruise ships
within the entire Sanctuary at this time.
The Sanctuary is already protected
from industrial activities through
regulations protecting the seabed and
water quality, and a prohibition on
hydrocarbon activities. The regulation
changes add a prohibition on mineral
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
activities. The International Maritime
Organization designated the majority of
the Sanctuary, excluding the portion
that overlaps the Traffic Separation
Scheme, as an Area To Be Avoided
(ATBA). NOAA seldom observes large
vessels within the ATBA, and as such
has not deemed it necessary at this time
to prohibit large vessel use beyond one
nmi from the Islands. NOAA has been
actively involved in commenting on
proposed LNG projects adjacent to the
Sanctuary. Regarding discharges from
industrial traffic, Sanctuary regulations
provide strong protections against
pollution and discharges. Regarding
noise impacts, see the response to
comment 9.
279. Comment: DMP Strategy CS.2—
Comprehensive Data Management must
include data on commercial shipping
dynamics via the Automated
Identification System, and CINMS staff
must consider taking a leadership role
in bringing this system online.
Response: CINMS staff have taken a
lead role in working with the Navy, U.S.
Coast Guard, and The Marine Exchange
of Southern California to install an AIS
transceiver station on Santa Cruz Island
or Anacapa Island and integrate the data
with an AIS transceiver station on San
Nicolas Island. Once completed, NOAA
will work with partners to facilitate the
distribution and management of
incoming AIS data. For more
information about CINMS AIS activities
see FMP Strategy CS.8 (Automated
Identification System (AIS) Vessel
Tracking).
280. Comment: On SDEIS pages five
and seven, 6,980 and 7,000 are both
used to present the same information
about ship transits, but one number
should be used consistently.
Response: NOAA did not use two
different numbers to present the same
information about ship transits. One
number presents a general statement
about yearly ship transits through the
Santa Barbara Channel being ‘‘nearly
7,000,’’ while the other number presents
a statistic about Santa Barbara Channel
ship transits in 2006 being ‘‘an
estimated 6,980.’’
281. Comment: NOAA should
incorporate the Santa Barbara Channel
into the Sanctuary and reroute
commercial ship traffic west of the
Channel Islands.
Response: NOAA is not changing the
CINMS boundary as part of this
management plan review. However,
NOAA will further analyze the
boundary concepts in a separate
environmental review process sometime
in the future.
The shipping lanes were designated
by the International Maritime
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Organization (IMO) and any
modification of these lanes would be
decided by this international body, not
unilaterally by the United States or its
executive branch agencies such as
NOAA. Should the United States
determine that the placement of the
shipping lanes warrants reconsideration
(for example, to reduce the risk of ship
strikes on whales), the appropriate
federal representatives would bring this
information to the IMO.
Water Quality
Water Quality—Enhanced Protection
282. Comment: The final management
plan and sanctuary regulations should
make certain that the sanctuary is
protected beyond minimum state and
Federal pollution requirements.
Response: Both the existing and
modified Sanctuary regulations go
beyond state and other federal standards
for the prohibition of waterborne
pollution.
283. Comment: The EPA recommends
the selection of NOAA’s Alternative 1,
which provides additional protections
for water quality, including prohibiting
the discharge of treated sewage from
larger vessels and the at-sea transfer of
petroleum-based products, materials or
other matter (‘lightering’) within
CINMS.
Response: Certain aspects of
Alternative 1 are more protective to
CINMS resources and qualities.
However, at this time, in order to be
consistent with the California Clean
Coast Act, as well as with regulations
proposed by the Monterey Bay, Cordell
Bank, and Gulf of the Farallones
national marine sanctuaries, NOAA is
providing an exception for treated
sewage discharges from oceangoing
ships that do not have sufficient holding
tank capacity to hold sewage while
within the CINMS. See the FEIS for
additional text and analysis on large
vessel sewage discharge in the
Sanctuary. With regard to the
prohibition of lightering, NOAA
maintains that such a prohibition is not
warranted at this time (see the response
to comment 176). Regarding Alternative
1, see the response to comment 132.
Water Quality—Funding
284. Comment: $20,000 per year, as
indicated in the DMP, will not be
commensurate with the workload
associated with the Water Quality
Protection Planning Strategy.
Response: The estimated costs for this
strategy do not include staff time, which
will be the principal cost of water
quality program development. This
strategy is focused on developing a plan
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
for water quality protection, rather that
implementation of specific tasks.
Furthermore, as explained in the
strategy’s background text, the NMSP’s
West Coast Regional Office is playing a
significant role in helping to develop a
CINMS water quality protection plan
(and is not reflected in estimated site
costs for implementing this strategy).
CINMS will continue to work to
leverage partner resources, including
funds, as appropriate.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Water Quality—Incorporate SAC
Recommendations
285. Comment: The management plan
should be updated to indicate that the
CINMS Advisory Council adopted the
water quality needs assessment report in
2005, and that it is thus a product of the
full Advisory Council rather than just
the Conservation Working Group.
Response: NOAA has updated the
FMP to note and describe the Sanctuary
Advisory Council’s adopted Water
Quality Needs Assessment for the
Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary.
286. Comment: NOAA should
incorporate the Advisory Council’s
water quality report recommendations
into the management plan.
Response: NOAA has updated the
FMP’s Water Quality Action Plan,
which now refers to the Sanctuary
Advisory Council’s 2005 report A Water
Quality Needs Assessment for the
Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary, and the recommendations it
contains. NOAA will work with the
CINMS Advisory Council, its working
groups, and other partners to implement
the water quality strategy in the
management plan, and to develop a
detailed Sanctuary water quality
protection plan that will describe
knowledge and management gaps and
how they may be addressed.
Water Quality—Other
287. Comment: Comments support:
CINMS’ continued efforts to address
water quality concerns in the Sanctuary;
the heightened attention to specific
threats to Sanctuary water quality; the
management plan placing a high value
on monitoring and improving water
quality; and the regulations providing
needed enhancements to CINMS water
quality protection. Support also
expressed for evaluating and
understanding localized and large-scale
spatial and temporal impacts from
oceanographic and climatic changes,
and coastal and offshore impacts from
human population increases.
Response: Comment noted.
288. Comment: The Central Coast
Water Board implements programs that
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
address many of the priority sub-issues
identified in the DMP and welcomes the
opportunity to work cooperatively and
proactively with the Sanctuary on water
quality issues.
Response: NOAA appreciates the
Central Coast Water Board’s support on
Sanctuary water quality issues.
289. Comment: The DMP/DEIS should
incorporate a broad-based approach and
goals of the Ocean and Coastal Water
Quality section of the five-year strategic
plan of the California Ocean Protection
Council (COPC).
Response: The CINMS Water Quality
Action Plan provides the foundation for
a broad based approach and outlines the
process for developing a Sanctuary
water quality protection plan. Sanctuary
water quality goals will be developed as
part of this process, and may include
some of the goals identified in the OPC’s
five-year strategic plan.
290. Comment: Water quality
conservation is one of the most critical
issues facing Sanctuary managers in the
coming five years and beyond. While
the three activities and updated
regulations proposed in Strategy WQ.2
are a good start toward meeting this
objective, growing threats to Sanctuary
water quality warrant a much more
proactive and aggressive approach by
CINMS.
Response: Once strategy WQ.2 is
implemented and CINMS has a water
quality protection plan, NOAA will
consider the future actions it will need
to take to best implement the activities
identified in the plan to address threats
to Sanctuary water quality.
291. Comment: CINMS should
convene a conference of Santa Barbara
Channel-area water quality experts to
catalyze the action planning process and
facilitate the identification of issues that
drive water quality action planning.
Response: As described in the
background to Strategy WQ.2 in the
FMP, CINMS will consult with area
water quality experts as part of the
process to develop a water quality
protection plan.
292. Comment: The Water Quality
Protection Planning strategy should
explicitly assign a greater level of
responsibility and leadership on
initiating short term water quality
protection to the Sanctuary managers.
Response: The NMSP and its
managers have a responsibility to
address Sanctuary water quality. NMSP
and CINMS leadership are also
accountable to NMSP performance
measures, one of which calls for
sanctuaries to maintain or improve
water quality based on long term
monitoring data.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3257
293. Comment: There are way too
many people on this coastline, the
ocean is affected, and I’m sure it’s going
to affect the Sanctuary.
Response: Implementing the
management plan’s Water Quality
Action Plan will enable CINMS, by
working in close coordination with
other area water quality managers, to
better identify and address water quality
threats to the Sanctuary.
294. Comment: The DMP should
include discharges from ship accidents,
and natural oil and gas seeps as
important possible sources affecting
Sanctuary water quality.
Response: NOAA has revised the
FMP’s Water Quality Action Plan to
incorporate natural oil and gas seeps
and discharges from vessel accidents in
the discussion of possible sources of
pollution affecting Sanctuary water
quality.
295. Comment: Two commenters
indicated that they agreed with or
supported the water quality comments
submitted by the Sanctuary Advisory
Council’s Conservation Working Group.
Response: Please refer to responses to
the Conservation Working Group’s
comments, listed in the table at the
beginning of the FEIS response-tocomments appendix under ‘‘Krop,
Linda.’’
Water Quality—Research and
Monitoring
296. Comment: Commenter
encourages continued CINMS support
for Plumes and Blooms project and an
assessment of its management
implications, and continued CINMS
support for the Southern California
Bight Regional Monitoring surveys.
Response: Comment noted. NOAA
plans to continue support for these
programs as described in the FMP.
297. Comment: NOAA should process
and analyze water quality samples from
the Bight ’03 survey and the Pac
Baroness shipwreck exploration.
Response: ACINMS samples taken
during the Bight ’03 survey have been
lab processed, and the results are
publicly available on the Web site of the
Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project. In addition, lab tests
on sediment samples taken from the
wreck site of the Pac Baroness have
been completed and some preliminary
analysis work was done in 2007,
yielding no striking results.
298. Comment: CINMS research effort
should aim to determine the issues that
will drive Sanctuary water quality
action planning, and this should be
included in the water quality
monitoring strategy.
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3258
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Response: CINMS staff will work with
water quality experts and researchers, as
appropriate, to identify and assess water
quality issues during the process of
developing a water quality protection
program. These assessments will help
set priorities for water quality research
and monitoring efforts.
299. Comment: Water quality
sampling of anchorage areas within the
Sanctuary should be continued beyond
the current pilot phase in order to
provide a more comprehensive picture
of potential water quality impacts
associated with recreational boating
around the Channel Islands. The
sampling should be expanded to better
assess high-use conditions by sampling
more often during weekends and
holidays. In addition, the monitoring
protocol should be adapted based on
results from the pilot phase. The
management plan should reflect a
commitment to this continued
monitoring, and specify the subsequent
research and management steps CINMS
staff will take based on monitoring
results.
Response: Monitoring of select
anchorages and other sites within the
Sanctuary took place in 2006, with
Santa Barbara Channel Keeper
performing the work under agreement
with CINMS. In 2007, a report was
produced by Santa Barbara Channel
Keeper detailing the results of this
monitoring effort. In the future, CINMS
may continue and potentially expand
this type of monitoring within the
Sanctuary, as resources allow and upon
further consideration of the efficacy of
this approach. See activity 3 of Strategy
WQ.1 for a description of CINMS water
quality monitoring initiatives.
300. Comment: The management
plan’s Water Quality Action Plan
Strategy WQ.1 should provide
additional specificity to identify or at
least propose specific measures CINMS
staff can take to physically or
institutionally support storm water
plume researchers, such as with vessel
time, lab space, human resources, etc.
As written, the activity is too general
with respect to existing information,
SAC consensus, CINMS participation,
and resource protection needs. The
management plan should also articulate
CINMS support for future Bight Surveys
by first allocating specific funding to
analyze existing samples (and organize
that data for public availability), and
then by planning funding and human
resources for extensive sampling,
processing and water quality data
management in upcoming Bight
Surveys.
Response: Strategy WQ.1 now notes
the importance of better understanding
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
stormwater plumes and how they may
affect Sanctuary water quality and living
resources. Additional details with
regard to specific new monitoring
measures to be taken have not yet been
developed, but are expected to result
from implementation of the broader
strategy to develop a water quality
protection plan (WQ.2). Regarding the
Bight ’03 survey data, all CINMS
samples taken during that project have
been lab processed, and the results are
publicly available on the Web site of the
Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project. Furthermore, as the
Water Quality Action Plan states,
CINMS intends to continue support for
future Bight Surveys.
301. Comment: NOAA should provide
for systematic monitoring of
anthropogenic marine debris.
Response: Marine debris is included
in the description of water quality
issues to be addressed through the
Water Quality Action Plan, and NOAA
may consider the suggestion of a
systematic monitoring program for
marine debris during the water quality
protection planning process.
302. Comment: The Matilija Dam
(Ventura County) is scheduled to be
removed, potentially impacting CINMS
resources through increased
sedimentation. Monitoring should be
implemented to understand the impact
of this dam removal.
Response: The Matilija Dam is
scheduled to be gradually removed
starting in 2012. According to recent
environmental assessments of dam
removal, short term sediment
stabilization will result in
approximately 30% increase in coarse
(sand and bigger) sediment at the
associated beach over 50 years, which
will be released gradually over 20–30
years, depending upon climate and
hydrology. Fine sediments removed
from the reservoir will be slurried
downstream and placed within the 100
year floodplain. There is an estimate of
potential increase in fine sediment
plume from the river, but quantitatively
this will be insignificant since the dam
currently passes 100% of the fine
sediment. At this time, NOAA will rely
on the relevant federal and state
authorities to monitor and report on
increased sedimentation from dam
removal, while also continuing to
support related water quality, sediment
and plume studies (see the response to
comment 300).
Water Quality—Specify Plans in More
Detail
303. Comment: The management plan
needs more specificity regarding
corrective actions for managing water
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
quality impacts in the Sanctuary. The
Water Quality Action Plan is relying
almost entirely on a long-term
bureaucratic process subject to
Congressional funding, and the success
or failure of Staff recruitment at the
NMSP’s regional level. This is
particularly troubling given the array of
documented water quality threats facing
Channel Islands today, and the suite of
relatively low-cost, actionable water
quality conservation recommendations
delivered from the Advisory Council to
the Sanctuary Superintendent in 2005.
Response: The Water Quality Action
Plan describes a future process that will
build on the best available information,
engage stakeholders and experts,
identify and prioritize gaps in Sanctuary
water quality protection, and propose
management actions to address threats.
NOAA understands that there are
known issues and many specific
recommendations that have been put
forth by various individuals and the
Sanctuary Advisory Council, and
intends to build on those ideas. CINMS
staff have added recent information to
the Water Quality Action Plan, drawing
on documents such as the water quality
needs assessment endorsed by the
Sanctuary Advisory Council. At this
time, however, full details of what the
water quality protection program would
entail have not yet been decided upon,
and will be determined through the
process described in the Water Quality
Action Plan.
Water Quality—Staffing
304. Comment: NOAA should
expeditiously hire a new West Coast
Region Water Quality Coordinator.
Response: The hiring of a regional
water quality coordinator or other
positions related to CINMS water
quality protection planning will be
considered as appropriate, and as
resources allow. NOAA recognizes that
resource limitations as well as the
necessary program and partner
developments may limit
implementation of all of the activities in
the various action plans. NOAA will
continue to work with the Department
of Commerce, Office of Management
and Budget, and Congress in developing
supporting justifications when
preparing budget submissions.
305. Comment: NOAA should
consider creating a water quality
specialist position at CINMS.
Response: As CINMS water quality
protection program continues to evolve,
NOAA will consider a new staff
position. Any new position would,
however, be contingent upon the
availability of resources and the staffing
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
needs required for addressing identified
issues and actions.
Water Quality—Watershed Approach
306. Comment: Given that land-based
activities can have a dramatic effect on
water quality, the Sanctuary should take
a watershed approach in coordination
with other agencies and groups involved
in water quality management.
Response: A watershed approach and
coordination with other agencies is
important when addressing CINMS
water quality issues. NOAA will work
in close collaboration with area water
quality partners in the development of
the CINMS water quality protection
plan, and will consider the task force
suggestion.
Water Quality—Working Group
307. Comment: The management plan
should establish a Water Quality
Working Group within the SAC. Any
Water Quality Protection Program the
working group develops should be
similar to that at the Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuary.
Response: CINMS staff and Advisory
Council members have been discussing
the potential formation of a Water
Quality Working Group for several
years. As CINMS implements Strategy
WQ.2, staff will revisit this idea with
the Advisory Council. Process
approaches, such as the possible
formation of a Working Group, will be
defined at that point. Stakeholder and
expert participation is a hallmark of the
Sanctuary’s management approach, and
will be part of the overall process to
develop a water quality protection
program. As Strategy WQ.2 notes,
CINMS will use, to the extent
appropriate, the existing Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuary Water
Quality Protection Program as a model.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
V. Changes From the Proposed Rule
NOAA published a proposed rule for
this action on May 19, 2006 (71 FR
29096). This final rule incorporates
changes to the 2006 proposed rule based
on comments received during the 2006
public comment period, comments
received during the 2008 public
comment period (regarding large vessel
sewage and graywater discharge), and
NOAA’s subsequent analysis.
Between May and July of 2006, NOAA
received public comment and held two
hearings on the proposed rule and
associated DEIS. Between March and
May 2008, NOAA received public
comment on a supplemental proposed
rule for discharges/deposits from within
or into the Sanctuary and associated
supplemental DEIS (SDEIS). NOAA
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
received over 700 comments on the
DEIS, SDEIS, and proposed rules.
Regulation changes between the
proposed and final rules include the
following:
• Discharge and deposit regulation:
Modified graywater exception applies to
vessels less than 300 gross registered
tons (GRT), and oceangoing ships 300
GRT or more without sufficient holding
tank capacity to hold graywater while
within the CINMS.
• Discharge and deposit regulation:
Modified treated sewage exception
applies to vessels less than 300 GRT, as
well as to oceangoing ships without
sufficient holding tank capacity to hold
treated sewage while within the
Sanctuary.
• Added definitions for ‘‘cruise ship,’’
‘‘oceangoing ship,’’ and ‘‘graywater’’.
• Discharge and deposit regulation:
Modified the exception for fish, fish
parts and chumming materials to clarify
that it applies to the lawful practice of
discarding fish scraps used in or
resulting from lawful fishing.
• Removed the proposed outer
boundary coordinate corrections, and
removed the proposed corrections to the
legal description of the Sanctuary area
based on recalculations of the
Sanctuary’s size.
As NOAA explained in the March
2008 proposed rule and SDEIS, after
receiving comments on the 2006
proposed rule and DEIS, NOAA
modified the Sanctuary’s proposed
discharge regulation to better address
potential impacts of sewage and
graywater discharges from large vessels.
In addition, based on comments
received on the 2008 proposed rule and
SDEIS, NOAA further modified the
discharge regulation as it pertains to
treated sewage discharges from large
vessels. The final rule’s discharge
regulation provides that the exception
for treated sewage is applicable to small
vessels (less than 300 GRT), as well as
to oceangoing ships (defined in the
regulations as private, commercial,
government, or military vessels of 300
gross registered tons or more, not
including cruise ships) without
sufficient holding tank capacity to hold
sewage while within the Sanctuary. The
final rule’s discharge regulation as it
pertains to graywater provides that the
exception for graywater is only
applicable to small vessels (less than
300 GRT), and to oceangoing ships
without sufficient holding tank capacity
to hold graywater while within the
Sanctuary.
In 2007, NOAA made technical
corrections to the CINMS boundary
coordinates, re-calculated the original
CINMS area as approximately 1,113
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3259
square nautical miles (72 FR 29208),
and increased the Sanctuary area by
approximately 15 square nautical miles
to allow the boundary of four marine
reserves to be defined by straight lines
projecting outside the original CINMS
boundary, allowing for better
enforcement of the marine reserves.
This change did not constitute a
significant change in the geographic
area of the Sanctuary (other than the
approximately 15 square nautical miles
referred to above) but rather an
improvement in the estimate of its size.
NOAA originally intended to make
technical corrections to the Sanctuary
boundary coordinates and re-calculate
the CINMS area (provided at 15 CFR
922.70) as part of this rule. However,
since NOAA made the technical
corrections to Sanctuary boundary
coordinates and re-calculated the
CINMS area in 2007 as part of the FEIS
and final rule to establish marine
reserves and conservation areas within
the Sanctuary, these aspects of
clarifying the Sanctuary boundary
description are reflected in, but not
established by this final rule.
VI. Miscellaneous Rulemaking
Requirements
National Marine Sanctuaries Act
Section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA (16
U.S.C. 1434(a)(4)) requires that the
procedures specified in section 304 for
designating a National Marine
Sanctuary be followed in modifying any
term of designation. Because this action
revises the terms of designation, NOAA
must comply with the requirements of
section 304(a)(5). All requirements have
been completed.
National Environmental Policy Act
When changing a term of designation
of a National Marine Sanctuary, section
304 of the NMSA (16 U.S.C.
1434(a)(2)(A)) requires the preparation
of an environmental impact statement
(EIS), as defined by the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and that the draft
EIS be made available to the public.
NOAA prepared a draft EIS (DEIS) and
supplemental DEIS (SDEIS) on the
proposal, and copies are available at the
address and Web site listed in the
Address section of this final rule.
Responses to comments received on the
DEIS, SDEIS and proposed rule were
published in the final EIS and are also
provided in this final rule.
Coastal Zone Management Act
The California Coastal Commission
has concurred that this action is
consistent to the maximum extent
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
3260
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
practicable with the California Coastal
Management Program.
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Impact
This final rule has been determined to
be not significant within the meaning of
Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Assessment
NOAA has concluded that this
regulatory action does not have
federalism implications, as that term is
defined in Executive Order 13132, to
warrant preparation of a federalism
assessment. Through the course of the
development of the management plan
and regulatory changes NOAA
consulted with members of the
Sanctuary Advisory Council, the
California Resources Agency, California
Department of Fish and Game, and the
California Coastal Commission,
California Department of Boating and
Waterways, California Department of
Fish and Game, California State Lands
Commission, and California Resources
Agency. Also, in 2003, NOAA consulted
in writing with the above mentioned
state agencies in addition to: The Office
of the Governor of California, the
California Department of Parks and
Recreation, the California Department of
Water Resources, the California
Department of Conservation, the
California Environmental Protection
Agency, the California State Water
Resources Control Board, and the
California Assembly Committee on
Natural Resources.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of
the Department of Commerce certified
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration that the
proposed rule, if adopted, would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The factual basis for this certification
appears in the proposed rule and is not
repeated here. There were no comments
received on the certification, and
comments related to the economic
impacts of this rule do not change the
basis of the certification. As a result, a
final regulatory flexibility analysis was
not required and none was prepared.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any new
information collection requirements or
revisions to the existing information
collection requirement that was
approved by OMB (OMB Control
Number 0648–0141) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no person is required to respond
to, nor shall any person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
References
A complete list of all references cited
herein is available upon request (see
ADDRESSES section).
Dated: January 9, 2009.
Christopher Cartwright,
Associate Assistant Administrator for
Management and CFO/CAO, Ocean Services
and Coastal Zone Management.
List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 922
Administrative practice and
procedure, Coastal zone, Historic
preservation, Intergovernmental
relations, Marine resources, Natural
resources, Penalties, Recreation and
recreation areas, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
■ Accordingly, for the reasons set forth
above, 15 CFR part 922 is amended as
follows:
PART 922—NATIONAL MARINE
SANCTUARY PROGRAM
REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 922
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.
2. Sections 922.70 through 992.74 are
revised to read as follows:
■
Sec.
922.70 Boundary.
922.71 Definitions.
922.72 Prohibited or otherwise regulated
activities—Sanctuary-wide.
922.73 Additional prohibited or otherwise
regulated activities—marine reserves and
marine conservation area.
922.74 Permit procedures and issuance
criteria.
§ 922.70
Boundary.
The Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary (Sanctuary) consists of an
area of approximately 1,110 square
nautical miles (nmi) of coastal and
ocean waters, and the submerged lands
thereunder, off the southern coast of
California. The Sanctuary boundary
begins at the Mean High Water Line of
and extends seaward to a distance of
approximately six nmi from the
following islands and offshore rocks:
San Miguel Island, Santa Cruz Island,
Santa Rosa Island, Anacapa Island,
Santa Barbara Island, Richardson Rock,
and Castle Rock (the Islands). The
seaward boundary coordinates are listed
in Appendix A to this subpart.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
§ 922.71
Definitions.
In addition to those definitions found
at 15 CFR 922.3, the following
definitions apply to this subpart:
Cruise ship means a vessel with 250
or more passenger berths for hire.
Graywater means galley, bath, or
shower water.
Introduced species means any species
(including but not limited to any of its
biological matter capable of
propagation) that is non-native to the
ecosystems of the Sanctuary; or any
organism into which altered genetic
matter, or genetic matter from another
species, has been transferred in order
that the host organism acquires the
genetic traits of the transferred genes.
Motorized personal watercraft means
a vessel, usually less than 16 feet in
length, which uses an inboard, internal
combustion engine powering a water jet
pump as its primary source of
propulsion. The vessel is intended to be
operated by a person or persons sitting,
standing or kneeling on the vessel,
rather than within the confines of the
hull. The length is measured from end
to end over the deck excluding sheer,
meaning a straight line measurement of
the overall length from the foremost part
of the vessel to the aftermost part of the
vessel, measured parallel to the
centerline. Bow sprits, bumpkins,
rudders, outboard motor brackets, and
similar fittings or attachments, are not
included in the measurement. Length is
stated in feet and inches.
Oceangoing ship means a private,
commercial, government, or military
vessel of 300 gross registered tons or
more, not including cruise ships.
Pelagic finfish are defined as:
Northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax),
barracudas (Sphyraena spp.), billfishes
(family Istiophoridae), dolphinfish
(Coryphaena hippurus), Pacific herring
(Clupea pallasi), jack mackerel
(Trachurus symmetricus), Pacific
mackerel (Scomber japonicus), salmon
(Oncorhynchus spp.), Pacific sardine
(Sardinops sagax), blue shark (Prionace
glauca), salmon shark (Lamna ditropis),
shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus),
thresher sharks (Alopias spp.),
swordfish (Xiphias gladius), tunas
(family Scombridae), and yellowtail
(Seriola lalandi).
Stowed and not available for
immediate use means not readily
accessible for immediate use, e.g., by
being securely covered and lashed to a
deck or bulkhead, tied down, unbaited,
unloaded, or partially disassembled
(such as spear shafts being kept separate
from spear guns).
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
§ 922.72 Prohibited or otherwise regulated
activities—Sanctuary-wide.
(a) Except as specified in paragraphs
(b) through (e) of this section, the
following activities are prohibited and
thus unlawful for any person to conduct
or cause to be conducted:
(1) Exploring for, developing, or
producing hydrocarbons within the
Sanctuary, except pursuant to leases
executed prior to March 30, 1981, and
except the laying of pipeline pursuant to
exploring for, developing, or producing
hydrocarbons.
(2) Exploring for, developing, or
producing minerals within the
Sanctuary, except producing byproducts incidental to hydrocarbon
production allowed by paragraph (a)(1)
of this section.
(3)(i) Discharging or depositing from
within or into the Sanctuary any
material or other matter except:
(A) Fish, fish parts, or chumming
materials (bait) used in or resulting from
lawful fishing activity within the
Sanctuary, provided that such discharge
or deposit is during the conduct of
lawful fishing activity within the
Sanctuary;
(B) For a vessel less than 300 gross
registered tons (GRT), or an oceangoing
ship without sufficient holding tank
capacity to hold sewage while within
the Sanctuary, biodegradable effluent
generated incidental to vessel use by an
operable Type I or II marine sanitation
device (U.S. Coast Guard classification)
approved in accordance with section
312 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, (FWPCA), 33
U.S.C. 1321 et seq. Vessel operators
must lock all marine sanitation devices
in a manner that prevents discharge or
deposit of untreated sewage;
(C) Biodegradable matter from:
(1) Vessel deck wash down;
(2) Vessel engine cooling water;
(3) Graywater from a vessel less than
300 gross registered tons;
(4) Graywater from an oceangoing
ship without sufficient holding tank
capacity to hold graywater while within
the Sanctuary;
(D) Vessel engine or generator
exhaust;
(E) Effluent routinely and necessarily
discharged or deposited incidental to
hydrocarbon exploration, development,
or production allowed by paragraph
(a)(1) of this section; or
(F) Discharge allowed under section
312(n) of the FWPCA.
(ii) Discharging or depositing from
beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary
any material or other matter that
subsequently enters the Sanctuary and
injures a Sanctuary resource or quality,
except those listed in paragraphs
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
(a)(3)(i)(B) through (F) of this section
and fish, fish parts, or chumming
materials (bait) used in or resulting from
lawful fishing activity beyond the
boundary of the Sanctuary, provided
that such discharge or deposit is during
the conduct of lawful fishing activity
there.
(4) Drilling into, dredging, or
otherwise altering the submerged lands
of the Sanctuary; or constructing or
placing any structure, material, or other
matter on or in the submerged lands of
the Sanctuary, except as incidental to
and necessary to:
(i) Anchor a vessel;
(ii) Install an authorized navigational
aid;
(iii) Conduct lawful fishing activity;
(iv) Lay pipeline pursuant to
exploring for, developing, or producing
hydrocarbons; or
(v) Explore for, develop, or produce
hydrocarbons as allowed by paragraph
(a)(1) of this section.
(5) Abandoning any structure,
material, or other matter on or in the
submerged lands of the Sanctuary.
(6) Except to transport persons or
supplies to or from any Island, operating
within one nmi of any Island any vessel
engaged in the trade of carrying cargo,
including, but not limited to, tankers
and other bulk carriers and barges, any
vessel engaged in the trade of servicing
offshore installations, or any vessel of
three hundred gross registered tons or
more, except fishing or kelp harvesting
vessels.
(7) Disturbing a seabird or marine
mammal by flying a motorized aircraft
at less than 1,000 feet over the waters
within one nmi of any Island, except (if
allowed under paragraph (a)(9) of this
section):
(i) To engage in kelp bed surveys; or
(ii) to transport persons or supplies to
or from an Island.
(8) Moving, removing, injuring, or
possessing, or attempting to move,
remove, injure, or possess a Sanctuary
historical resource.
(9) Taking any marine mammal, sea
turtle, or seabird within or above the
Sanctuary, except as authorized by the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, as
amended, (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361 et
seq., Endangered Species Act, as
amended, (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.,
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended,
(MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq., or any
regulation, as amended, promulgated
under the MMPA, ESA, or MBTA.
(10) Possessing within the Sanctuary
(regardless of where taken from, moved,
or removed from) any marine mammal,
sea turtle, or seabird, except as
authorized by the MMPA, ESA, MBTA,
or any regulation, as amended,
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3261
promulgated under the MMPA, ESA, or
MBTA.
(11) Marking, defacing, damaging,
moving, removing, or tampering with
any sign, notice, or placard, whether
temporary or permanent, or any
monument, stake, post, or other
boundary marker related to the
Sanctuary.
(12) Introducing or otherwise
releasing from within or into the
Sanctuary an introduced species, except
striped bass (Morone saxatilis) released
during catch and release fishing activity.
(13) Operating a motorized personal
watercraft within waters of the
Sanctuary that are coextensive with the
Channel Islands National Park,
established by 16 U.S.C. 410(ff).
(b)(1) The prohibitions in paragraphs
(a)(3) through (13) of this section and in
§ 922.73 do not apply to military
activities carried out by DOD as of the
effective date of these regulations and
specifically identified in section 3.5.9
(Department of Defense Activities) of
the Final Channel Islands National
Marine Sanctuary Management Plan/
Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FMP/FEIS), Volume II: Environmental
Impact Statement, 2008, authored and
published by NOAA (‘‘pre-existing
activities’’). Copies of the document are
available from the Channel Islands
National Marine Sanctuary, 113 Harbor
Way, Santa Barbara, CA 93109. Other
military activities carried out by DOD
may be exempted by the Director after
consultation between the Director and
DOD.
(2) A military activity carried out by
DOD as of the effective date of these
regulations and specifically identified in
the section entitled ‘‘Department of
Defense Activities’’ of the FMP/FEIS is
not considered a pre-existing activity if:
(i) It is modified in such a way that
requires the preparation of an
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under
the National Environmental Policy Act,
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., relevant to a
Sanctuary resource or quality;
(ii) It is modified, including but not
limited to changes in location or
frequency, in such a way that its
possible adverse effects on Sanctuary
resources or qualities are significantly
greater than previously considered for
the unmodified activity;
(iii) It is modified, including but not
limited to changes in location or
frequency, in such a way that its
possible adverse effects on Sanctuary
resources or qualities are significantly
different in manner than previously
considered for the unmodified activity;
or
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
3262
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
(iv) There are new circumstances or
information relevant to a Sanctuary
resource or quality that were not
addressed in the FMP/FEIS.
(3) In the event of destruction of, loss
of, or injury to a Sanctuary resource or
quality resulting from an incident,
including, but not limited to,
discharges, deposits, and groundings,
caused by a DOD activity, DOD, in
coordination with the Director, must
promptly prevent and mitigate further
damage and must restore or replace the
Sanctuary resource or quality in a
manner approved by the Director.
(4) All DOD activities must be carried
out in a manner that avoids to the
maximum extent practicable any
adverse impacts on Sanctuary resources
and qualities.
(c) The prohibitions in paragraphs
(a)(3) through (10), (a)(12), and (a)(13) of
this section and in § 922.73 do not apply
to any activity conducted under and in
accordance with the scope, purpose,
terms, and conditions of a National
Marine Sanctuary permit issued
pursuant to 15 CFR 922.48 and 922.74.
(d) The prohibitions in paragraphs
(a)(3) through (11) and (a)(13) of this
section and in § 922.73 do not apply to
any activity necessary to respond to an
emergency threatening life, property, or
the environment.
(e) The prohibitions in paragraphs
(a)(3) through (11) and (a)(13) of this
section and in § 922.73 do not apply to
any activity necessary for valid law
enforcement purposes in the Sanctuary.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
§ 922.73 Additional prohibited or
otherwise regulated activities—marine
reserves and marine conservation area.
(a) Marine reserves. Unless prohibited
by 50 CFR part 660 (Fisheries off West
Coast States), the following activities are
prohibited and thus unlawful for any
person to conduct or cause to be
conducted within a marine reserve
described in Appendix B to this subpart,
except as specified in paragraphs (b)
through (e) of § 922.72:
(1) Harvesting, removing, taking,
injuring, destroying, collecting, moving,
or causing the loss of any Sanctuary
resource, or attempting any of these
activities.
(2) Possessing fishing gear on board a
vessel unless such gear is stowed and
not available for immediate use.
(3) Possessing any Sanctuary resource,
except legally harvested fish on board a
vessel at anchor or in transit.
(b) Marine conservation area. Unless
prohibited by 50 CFR part 660 (Fisheries
off West Coast States), the following
activities are prohibited and thus
unlawful for any person to conduct or
cause to be conducted within the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:00 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
marine conservation area described in
Appendix C to this subpart, except as
specified in paragraphs (b) through (e)
of § 922.72:
(1) Harvesting, removing, taking,
injuring, destroying, collecting, moving,
or causing the loss of any Sanctuary
resource, or attempting any of these
activities, except:
(i) Recreational fishing for pelagic
finfish; or
(ii) Commercial and recreational
fishing for lobster.
(2) Possessing fishing gear on board a
vessel, except legal fishing gear used to
fish for lobster or pelagic finfish, unless
such gear is stowed and not available for
immediate use.
(3) Possessing any Sanctuary resource,
except legally harvested fish.
§ 922.74
criteria.
Permit procedures and issuance
(a) A person may conduct an activity
prohibited by § 922.72(a)(3) through
(10), (a)(12), and (a)(13), and § 922.73, if
such activity is specifically authorized
by, and conducted in accordance with
the scope, purpose, terms, and
conditions of, a permit issued under
§ 922.48 and this section.
(b) The Director, at his or her sole
discretion, may issue a permit, subject
to terms and conditions as he or she
deems appropriate, to conduct an
activity prohibited by § 922.72(a)(3)
through (10), (a)(12), and (a)(13), and
§ 922.73, if the Director finds that the
activity:
(1) Is appropriate research designed to
further understanding of Sanctuary
resources and qualities;
(2) Will further the educational value
of the Sanctuary;
(3) Will further salvage or recovery
operations in or near the Sanctuary in
connection with a recent air or marine
casualty;
(4) Will assist in managing the
Sanctuary; or
(5) Will further salvage or recovery
operations in connection with an
abandoned shipwreck in the Sanctuary
title to which is held by the State of
California.
(c) The Director may not issue a
permit under § 922.48 and this section
unless the Director also finds that:
(1) The proposed activity will have at
most short-term and negligible adverse
effects on Sanctuary resources and
qualities;
(2) The applicant is professionally
qualified to conduct and complete the
proposed activity;
(3) The applicant has adequate
financial resources available to conduct
and complete the proposed activity;
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(4) The duration of the proposed
activity is no longer than necessary to
achieve its stated purpose;
(5) The methods and procedures
proposed by the applicant are
appropriate to achieve the goals of the
proposed activity, especially in relation
to the potential effects of the proposed
activity on Sanctuary resources and
qualities;
(6) The proposed activity will be
conducted in a manner compatible with
the primary objective of protection of
Sanctuary resources and qualities,
considering the extent to which the
conduct of the activity may diminish or
enhance Sanctuary resources and
qualities, any potential indirect,
secondary, or cumulative effects of the
activity, and the duration of such
effects;
(7) The proposed activity will be
conducted in a manner compatible with
the value of the Sanctuary as a source
of recreation and as a source of
educational and scientific information,
considering the extent to which the
conduct of the activity may result in
conflicts between different users of the
Sanctuary and the duration of such
effects;
(8) It is necessary to conduct the
proposed activity within the Sanctuary;
(9) The reasonably expected end value
of the proposed activity furthers
Sanctuary goals and purposes and
outweighs any potential adverse effects
on Sanctuary resources and qualities
from the conduct of the activity; and
(10) Any other matters the Director
deems appropriate do not make the
issuance of a permit for the proposed
activity inappropriate.
(d) Applications. (1) Applications for
permits should be addressed to the
Director, Office of National Marine
Sanctuaries; ATTN: Manager, Channel
Islands National Marine Sanctuary, 113
Harbor Way, Santa Barbara, CA 93109.
(2) In addition to the information
listed in § 922.48(b), all applications
must include information the Director
needs to make the findings in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(e) In addition to any other terms and
conditions that the Director deems
appropriate, a permit issued pursuant to
this section must require that the
permittee agree to hold the United
States harmless against any claims
arising out of the conduct of the
permitted activities.
[FR Doc. E9–652 Filed 1–15–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P
E:\FR\FM\16JAR4.SGM
16JAR4
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 11 (Friday, January 16, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3216-3262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-652]
[[Page 3215]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15 CFR Part 922
Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Regulations; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 3216]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
15 CFR Part 922
[Docket No. 080311420-9008-02]
RIN 0648-AT17
Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Regulations
AGENCY: Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean
Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce (DOC).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
publishes this rule to finalize the regulations for the Channel Islands
National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS or Sanctuary). This final rule revises
the regulations to implement prohibitions on: Exploring for,
developing, or producing minerals within the Sanctuary; abandoning
matter on or in Sanctuary submerged lands; taking marine mammals, sea
turtles, or seabirds within or above the Sanctuary; possessing within
the Sanctuary any marine mammal, sea turtle, or seabird; marking,
defacing, damaging, moving, removing, or tampering with Sanctuary
signs, monuments, boundary markers, or similar items; introducing or
otherwise releasing from within or into the Sanctuary an introduced
species; and operating motorized personal watercraft within waters of
the Sanctuary that are coextensive with the Channel Islands National
Park. NOAA also makes additional changes to the grammar and wording of
several sections of the regulations to ensure clarity. Finally, NOAA
publishes the Sanctuary's revised terms of designation.
DATES: Effective Date: Pursuant to section 304(b) of the National
Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1434(b)), the revised terms of
designation and regulations shall take effect and become final after
the close of a review period of forty-five days of continuous session
of Congress beginning on January 16, 2009. Announcement of the
effective date of the final regulations will be published in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the final management plan (FMP) and final
environmental impact statement (FEIS) are available at Channel Islands
National Marine Sanctuary, 113 Harbor Way, Suite 150, Santa Barbara,
California and on the Web at https://channelislands.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Murray at (805) 884-1464.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
Pursuant to section 304(e) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act
(NMSA; 16 U.S.C. 1434(e)), NOAA conducted a review of the management
plan and regulations for the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary
(CINMS or Sanctuary), located off Santa Barbara and Ventura counties in
southern California. As a result of the review, NOAA determined that it
was necessary to revise the management plan and regulations for the
Sanctuary and subsequently published a draft revised management plan,
proposed rule, and draft environmental impact statement (71 FR 29096;
May 19, 2006). NOAA later published a supplemental proposed rule and
supplemental draft environmental impact statement (73 FR 16580; March
28, 2008).
The revised management plan for the Sanctuary contains a series of
action plans that outline management, research, education, operational,
and evaluation activities for the next five years. The activities are
designed to address specific issues facing the Sanctuary and, in doing
so, help achieve the mandates of the NMSA and the Sanctuary's
designation. NOAA has also revised several sections of the Sanctuary's
terms of designation. This final rule publishes these revisions, as
well as revisions to Sanctuary regulations. These revisions are
described below in the ``Terms of Designation'' and ``Summary of the
Regulatory Amendments'' sections and are analyzed in the FEIS. The FMP
and FEIS are available at https://channelislands.noaa.gov or may be
obtained by contacting the individual listed under the heading FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
A. Marine Reserves and Conservation Areas
In 2002, NOAA considered merging the environmental review processes
for management plan review and the consideration of marine zones within
the Sanctuary, but subsequently determined that it was more appropriate
to proceed with two separate processes for these actions because of
differing process needs regarding coordination with the State of
California and Pacific Fishery Management Council. Consequently, NOAA
prepared a separate DEIS and proposed rule (71 FR 46134; August 11,
2006) and FEIS and final rule (72 FR 29208; May 24, 2007) to address
marine zones in the Sanctuary. As such, that process is outside the
scope of this rule.
B. Sanctuary Environment
Designated on October 2, 1980 (45 FR 65200), the Sanctuary consists
of an area off the coast of southern California of approximately 1470
square statute miles (1110 square nmi) \1\ adjacent to the following
islands and offshore rocks: San Miguel Island, Santa Cruz Island, Santa
Rosa Island, Anacapa Island, Santa Barbara Island, Richardson Rock, and
Castle Rock (the Islands) extending seaward to a distance of
approximately six nmi. The Sanctuary is located within the upper
portion of the Southern California Bight (SCB), which is formed by a
transition in the California coastline wherein the north-south trending
coast begins to trend east to west. The SCB stretches from Point
Conception in the north to Punta Eugenia (Mexico) in the south. Due to
the oceanographic features of the SCB, its two biogeographic provinces
or bioregions (areas characterized by distinct patterns of species
abundance and distribution) and a transition zone between them, and the
complex bottom topography and diversity of habitats found at the
Islands, the Sanctuary has a great diversity of marine life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From 1980 to 2007, the area of CINMS was described as
approximately 1252.5 square nautical miles. However, in 2007 NOAA
re-calculated the original CINMS area as approximately 1113 square
nautical miles (72 FR 29208). Also in 2007, NOAA designated the
federal portion of the Channel Islands MPA network, consisting of
eight marine reserves and one marine conservation area within the
CINMS (72 FR 29208). The marine reserves are distributed throughout
the CINMS and extend slightly beyond the original boundaries of the
CINMS in four locations, increasing the overall size of the
Sanctuary by approximately 15 square nautical miles. This change
allowed the boundary of four of the marine reserves to be defined by
straight lines projecting outside the original CINMS boundary,
allowing for better enforcement of the marine reserves. Since then,
adjusting for technical corrections and using updated technologies,
NOAA has re-calculated the CINMS area as approximately 1470 square
statute miles (1110 square nmi). This change does not constitute a
change in the geographic area of the Sanctuary, but rather an
improvement in the estimate of its size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous important habitats are represented within the Sanctuary
including kelp forests, surfgrass and eelgrass, intertidal, nearshore
subtidal, deep-water benthic, and pelagic habitats.
The Sanctuary's cultural values stem largely from its rich array of
maritime heritage resources (paleontological remains, prehistoric
archaeological sites and their associated artifacts, shipwrecks,
aircraft wrecks, and material associated with wharves, piers
[[Page 3217]]
and landings). Carbon dating indicates that humans were present at the
Islands as early as 13,000 years ago. The Islands and surrounding
Sanctuary contain an abundance of prehistoric Native American Chumash
artifacts and are still revered as part of the traditional homeland by
contemporary Chumash. Historical remains may exist from as early as
Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo's voyage (1542 to 1543) through modern times.
Known historical remains are represented in an inventory of over 140
shipwrecks and aircraft wrecks documented as existing in the Sanctuary
since 1853. The uniqueness of the Sanctuary region and its proximity to
several major ports and harbors along the mainland coast has made it a
popular destination for numerous recreational and commercial
activities. Sportfishing, diving, snorkeling, whale watching, pleasure
boating, kayaking, surfing, and sightseeing are all popular pastimes
within the Sanctuary, which is often referred to as ``the Galapagos of
the north.'' Commercial activities include fishing, whale watching,
chartered tours, and maritime shipping.
The Sanctuary is located near an area of southern California
coastline that has experienced a dramatic increase in population.
Whereas the population of southern California (Imperial, Los Angeles,
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and
Ventura counties) was approximately 13.5 million in 1980, population
levels now reach nearly 20 million. This represents a regional increase
in population of approximately 43%. Aerial and on-water surveys
indicate that visitation to CINMS has increased significantly since
1980. With continued technological innovations such as global
positioning systems (GPS) and improved watercraft design, it is likely
that there will be continued increasing visitation to the Sanctuary and
added pressure on its resources. With its proposed revised management
plan and regulations, NOAA continues to protect CINMS for appreciation
and appropriate use by current and future generations. For a more
detailed description of the Sanctuary environment, please refer to the
final environmental impact statement available on the Sanctuary Web
site at https://channelislands.noaa.gov.
II. Changes to the Sanctuary Terms of Designation
Section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1434(a)(4)) requires that,
in designating national marine sanctuaries, NOAA specify the
sanctuary's ``terms of designation.'' The NMSA requires that each
sanctuary's terms of designation include:
1. The geographic area proposed to be included within the
sanctuary;
2. The characteristics of the area that give it conservation,
recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational, or
esthetic value; and
3. The types of activities that will be subject to regulation by
the Secretary to protect those characteristics.
The CINMS terms of designation were originally published in 1980
upon establishment of the Sanctuary and revised in 2007 (45 FR 65198,
published October 2, 1980; and 72 FR 29208, published May 24, 2007,
respectively).
NOAA is revising the Sanctuary's terms of designation as follows:
1. Modifying the characteristics that give the Sanctuary particular
value (Article III) to clarify that the submerged lands at CINMS are
legally part of the Sanctuary and are included in the boundary
description. At the time the Sanctuary was designated in 1980, Title
III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (now also
known as the NMSA) characterized national marine sanctuaries as
consisting of coastal and ocean waters but did not expressly mention
submerged lands thereunder. NOAA has consistently interpreted its
authority under the NMSA as extending to submerged lands, and
amendments to the NMSA in 1984 (Pub. L. 98-498) clarified that
submerged lands may be designated by the Secretary of Commerce as part
of a national marine sanctuary (16 U.S.C. 1432(3)). Therefore, NOAA is
updating the terms of designation and the boundary description, and is
also replacing the term ``seabed'' with ``submerged lands of the
Sanctuary.'' In addition, NOAA is clarifying the description of the
Sanctuary's shoreline boundary demarcation as the Mean High Water Line
(MHWL) of Island shores.
2. Modifying the scope of activities that may be subject to
regulation (Article IV) to authorize regulation of:
a. Exploring for, developing, or producing minerals within the
Sanctuary;
b. Discharging or depositing from beyond the boundary of the
Sanctuary any material or other matter that subsequently enters the
Sanctuary and injures a Sanctuary resource or quality;
c. Placing or abandoning any structure, material, or other matter
on or in the submerged lands of the Sanctuary;
d. Moving, injuring, possessing, or attempting to move, injure, or
possess a Sanctuary historical resource;
e. Taking any marine mammal, sea turtle, or seabird within or above
the Sanctuary;
f. Possessing within the Sanctuary (regardless of where taken from,
moved, or removed from) any marine mammal, sea turtle or seabird;
g. Marking, defacing, damaging, moving, removing, or tampering with
any sign, notice, or placard, whether temporary or permanent, or any
monument, stake, post, or other boundary marker related to the
Sanctuary; and
h. Introducing or otherwise releasing from within or into the
Sanctuary an introduced species.
These substantive revisions to and addition of new activities
subject to Sanctuary regulation enable new and emerging resource
management issues to be addressed, and are necessary in order to ensure
the protection, preservation, and management of the conservation,
recreational, ecological, historical, cultural, educational,
archeological, scientific, and esthetic resources and qualities of the
Sanctuary.
3. Ensuring consistency of the sections on international law and
emergency regulations with the NMSA and ONMS program-wide regulations
(sections 2 and 3 of Article IV).
4. Updating the explanation of the effect of Sanctuary authority on
preexisting leases, permits, licenses, and rights (section 3 of Article
V).
5. Updating Article VI, ``Alterations to This Designation'', to
reflect the NMSA as currently written.
6. Making other minor editorial changes in order to conform wording
of the Sanctuary's terms of designation, where appropriate, to wording
used in the NMSA and for more recently designated sanctuaries.
NOAA is not making any changes to the ``Fishing'' and ``Defense
Activities'' sections within Article V (Relation to Other Regulatory
Programs) of the terms of designation as part of this action.
Revised Terms of Designation for the Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary
Article I. Effect of Designation
The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary was designated on
October 2, 1980 (45 FR 65200). Section 308 of the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act, 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq., (NMSA) authorizes the issuance
of such regulations as may be necessary to implement the designation,
including managing, protecting and preserving the conservation,
recreational, ecological, historical, cultural, archeological,
scientific, educational, and esthetic
[[Page 3218]]
resources and qualities of the Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary (Sanctuary). Section 1 of Article IV of this Designation
Document lists activities of the types that are to be regulated on the
effective date of designation or may be regulated at some later date in
order to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities. Listing does not
necessarily mean that a type of activity will be regulated; however, if
a type of activity is not listed it may not be regulated, except on an
emergency basis, unless Section 1 of Article IV is amended to include
the type of activity by the same procedures by which the original
designation was made.
Article II. Description of the Area
The Sanctuary consists of an area of approximately 1,110 square
nautical miles (nmi) of coastal and ocean waters, and the submerged
lands thereunder, off the southern coast of California. The Sanctuary
boundary begins at the Mean High Water Line of and extends seaward to a
distance of approximately six nmi from the following islands and
offshore rocks: San Miguel Island, Santa Cruz Island, Santa Rosa
Island, Anacapa Island, Santa Barbara Island, Richardson Rock, and
Castle Rock (the Islands). The seaward boundary coordinates are listed
in an Appendix to 15 CFR 922 subpart G.
Article III. Characteristics of the Area That Give It Particular Value
The Islands and surrounding ecosystems are unique and highly
valued, as demonstrated by, for example, several national and
international designations. The Islands and surrounding ecosystems are
characterized by a unique combination of features including: Complex
oceanography, varied bathymetry, diverse habitats, remarkable
biodiversity, rich maritime heritage, remote yet accessible location,
and relative lack of development. These features yield high existence
values as well as human use values for research, education, recreation,
and commerce.
The Islands are located within a 300-mile long oceanographic region
known as the Continental Borderland, a unique region of the continental
shelf characterized by basins and elevated ridges. Within this region,
the confluence of the cool California Current and warm Southern
California Countercurrent creates two distinct bioregions in and around
the Sanctuary: The cold Oregonian bioregion and the warm Californian
bioregion. There is also a transition zone between the two regions. The
overlap of these bioregions results in a unique and highly diverse
array of marine life within the Sanctuary, including cold water species
at the southern end of their range and warm water species at the
northern end of their range. In addition, the Sanctuary is located
offshore from Point Conception, the southernmost major upwelling center
on the west coast of the United States. Upwelling yields increased
primary productivity essential to the marine food web.
Diverse bathymetry and habitats are also important and unique
characteristics of the Islands and surrounding ecosystems. The
Sanctuary contains many important and varied physical and geological
features including a complex of plateaus, continental slope, gyres,
banks, subsea canyons, and rocky reefs. The diversity of accentuated
bottom relief, abrupt change in depth, and varied substrate provide a
spectrum of marine habitats. Some of the key marine habitats are sandy
beach, rocky intertidal, kelp forest, rocky reef, and sandy bottom.
The Sanctuary's oceanographic and physical features support a great
diversity of marine species, many of which are extremely rare and
afforded special protection by federal and state law. At least 33
species of cetaceans are found within the Sanctuary, including blue,
gray, and humpback whales and numerous dolphin species. While seven
species of pinnipeds have been found historically throughout or in
certain areas of the Sanctuary, at least four species maintain
important rookery and/or haul out sites on the Islands. Following the
1987 to 1990 translocation of southern sea otters to San Nicolas
Island, rare sea otter sightings have been reported in the Sanctuary.
Over 60 species of seabird occur within the Sanctuary, eleven of which
utilize breeding habitat at the Islands. In addition, over 400 species
of fish and more than 5,000 species of invertebrates are found in the
Sanctuary. Stranding data indicate that green, loggerhead, olive
Ridley, and leatherback sea turtles may also be found within the
Sanctuary. Finally, numerous marine algae and plant species occur
within the Sanctuary, the most notable among these being giant kelp and
eelgrass.
The quality and abundance of natural resources at the Islands and
surrounding waters have attracted man from the earliest prehistoric
times to the present. As a result, the Sanctuary contains significant
prehistoric and historic maritime heritage resources. Prehistoric
maritime heritage resources include submerged Native American Chumash
sites, the significance of which is underscored by a terrestrial Island
site with human remains dated to 13,000 years ago. Historic maritime
heritage resources date back as far as 1542 and include over 140
historic shipwreck and aircraft sites. These wrecks reveal the diverse
range of activities and nationalities that have traversed the Santa
Barbara Channel. Following the mission era, human occupation of the
Islands transitioned from significant Chumash Native American villages,
to land grant and ranching settlements, and finally to joint public-
private ownership and management aimed at resource conservation and
compatible public use. Today's Chumash people continue to value and
enjoy the Islands and surrounding Sanctuary waters, working to keep and
revitalize their ancient Chumash maritime heritage. Despite this long
history of human presence on the Islands, they remain remote yet
accessible, and undeveloped relative to the burgeoning populations of
nearby mainland southern California.
The physical, biological, and cultural characteristics of the
Sanctuary combine to provide outstanding opportunities for appropriate
scientific research, education, recreation, commerce, and natural and
maritime heritage resource protection, preservation, and management.
The Islands and surrounding Sanctuary are the subject of extensive
research, primarily in the following categories: Physical and
biological science research; socioeconomic, cultural, and historic
research; and political science research. Since its designation in
1980, the Sanctuary has played an important role in marine science
education for all ages on a local, regional, national, and
international scale. Popular Sanctuary recreation activities include
wildlife viewing, boating, sailing, kayaking, diving, and sportfishing.
Commercial activities within the Sanctuary include maritime shipping,
oil and gas activities (three leases units pre-date the Sanctuary),
kelp harvesting, and commercial fishing. Some of the state's most
valuable commercial fisheries occur within the Sanctuary. County,
state, and federal agencies manage the resources of the Islands and
surrounding area and human uses thereof.
Several special designations recognize the Islands' and surrounding
ecosystems' unique value. In 1980, the United States designated both
the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, as well as the islands
of Anacapa, San Miguel, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Santa Rosa and
125,000 acres of submerged lands surrounding them as the Channel
Islands National Park. In addition, the United Nations
[[Page 3219]]
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) Man and
the Biosphere Program designated the Sanctuary as a Biosphere Reserve
in 1986.
Article IV. Scope of Regulations
Section 1. Activities Subject to Regulation
The following activities are subject to regulation, including
prohibition, as may be necessary to ensure the management, protection,
and preservation of the conservation, recreational, ecological,
historical, cultural, archeological, scientific, educational, and
esthetic resources and qualities of this area:
a. Exploring for, developing, or producing hydrocarbons or minerals
within the Sanctuary;
b. Discharging or depositing from within or into the Sanctuary any
material or other matter;
c. Discharging or depositing from beyond the boundary of the
Sanctuary any material or other matter that subsequently enters the
Sanctuary and injures a Sanctuary resource or quality;
d. Drilling into, dredging, or otherwise altering the submerged
lands of the Sanctuary; or constructing, placing, or abandoning any
structure, material, or other matter on or in the submerged lands of
the Sanctuary;
e. Operating a vessel (i.e., watercraft of any description) within
the Sanctuary except fishing vessels or vessels traveling within a
Vessel Traffic Separation Scheme or Port Access Route designated by the
Coast Guard outside of 1 nmi from any Island;
f. Disturbing a marine mammal or seabird by an overflight below
1000 feet;
g. Within a marine reserve, marine park, or marine conservation
area, harvesting, removing, taking, injuring, destroying, possessing,
collecting, moving, or causing the loss of any Sanctuary resource,
including living or dead organisms or historical resources, or
attempting any of these activities;
h. Within a marine reserve, marine park, or marine conservation
area, possessing fishing gear;
i. Moving, removing, injuring, possessing, or attempting to move,
remove, injure, or possess a Sanctuary historical resource;
j. Taking any marine mammal, sea turtle, or seabird within or above
the Sanctuary;
k. Possessing within the Sanctuary (regardless of where taken from,
moved, or removed from) any marine mammal, sea turtle, or seabird;
l. Marking, defacing, damaging, moving, removing, or tampering with
any sign, notice, or placard, whether temporary or permanent, or any
monument, stake, post, or other boundary marker related to the
Sanctuary;
m. Introducing or otherwise releasing from within or into the
Sanctuary an introduced species.
Section 2. Consistency With International Law
The regulations governing the activities listed in Section 1 of
this article shall be applied in accordance with generally recognized
principles of international law, and in accordance with treaties,
conventions, and other agreements to which the United States is a
party. No regulation shall apply to or be enforced against a person who
is not a citizen, national, or resident alien of the United States,
unless in accordance with: Generally recognized principles of
international law; an agreement between the United States and the
foreign state of which the person is a citizen; or an agreement between
the United States and the flag state of a foreign vessel, if the person
is a crewmember of the vessel.
Section 3. Emergency Regulations
Where necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction of, loss of,
or injury to a Sanctuary resource or quality, or minimize the imminent
risk of such destruction, loss, or injury, any and all activities,
including those not listed in section 1 of this Article, are subject to
immediate temporary regulation, including prohibition, consistent with
the Administrative Procedure Act.
Article V. Relation to Other Regulatory Programs
Section 1. Fishing
The regulation of fishing is not authorized under Article IV,
except within portions of the Sanctuary designated as marine reserves,
marine parks, or marine conservation areas established pursuant to the
goals and objectives of the Sanctuary and within the scope of the State
of California's Final Environmental Document ``Marine Protected Areas
in NOAA's Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary'' (California
Department of Fish and Game, October 2002), certified by the California
Fish and Game Commission. However, fishing vessels may be regulated
with respect to discharges in accordance with Article IV, Section 1,
paragraphs (b) and (c), and aircraft conducting kelp bed surveys below
1000 feet can be regulated in accordance with Article IV, Section 1,
paragraph (f). All regulatory programs pertaining to fishing, including
particularly regulations promulgated under the California Fish and Game
Code and Fishery Management Plans promulgated under the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et
seq., shall remain in effect. All permits, licenses and other
authorizations issued pursuant thereto shall be valid within the
Sanctuary unless authorizing any activity prohibited by any regulation
implementing Article IV. Fishing as used in this article and in Article
IV includes kelp harvesting.
Section 2. Defense Activities
The regulation of those activities listed in Article IV shall not
prohibit any activity conducted by the Department of Defense that is
essential for national defense or because of an emergency. Such
activities shall be consistent with the regulations to the maximum
extent practicable.
Section 3. Effect on Leases, Permits, Licenses, and Rights
Pursuant to section 304(c) of the NMSA, 16 U.S.C. 1434(c), no valid
lease, permit, license, approval, or other authorization issued by any
federal, state, or local authority of competent jurisdiction, or any
right of subsistence use or access, may be terminated by the Secretary
of Commerce or designee as a result of this designation or as a result
of any Sanctuary regulation if such authorization or right was in
existence on the effective date of this designation. The Secretary of
Commerce, or designee, however, may regulate the exercise (including,
but not limited to, the imposition of terms and conditions) of such
authorization or right consistent with the purposes for which the
Sanctuary is designated.
Article VI. Alterations to This Designation
The terms of designation, as defined under section 304(a) of the
NMSA, may be modified only by the same procedures by which the original
designation is made, including public hearings, consultation with
interested federal and state agencies and the Pacific Fishery
Management Council, approval by the Secretary of Commerce or designee,
and after the close of a review period of forty-five days of continuous
session of Congress.
III. Summary of the Regulatory Amendments
This section describes the changes NOAA is making to the CINMS
regulations.
[[Page 3220]]
1. Clarify and update Sanctuary boundary.
This rule clarifies that ``submerged lands'' are within the
Sanctuary boundary, i.e., part of the Sanctuary. This updates the
boundary regulation to make it consistent with the revised terms of
designation. (See discussion above for more information.) This rule
also clarifies the description of the shoreline boundary to make clear
that the shoreline boundary is the Mean High Water Line (MHWL) of
Island shores.
2. Revise oil and gas regulation, and add mineral regulation.
This rule modifies the oil and gas regulation by removing the oil
spill contingency equipment requirements and modifying exceptions to
this prohibition. The equipment requirements are outdated and
unnecessary since Minerals Management Service lease agreement terms
prescribe more stringent mandatory oil spill contingency plans.
This rule also prohibits exploring for, developing, or producing
minerals within the Sanctuary, except producing by-products incidental
to hydrocarbon production allowed under the regulations. ``Mineral'' is
defined by the ONMS-wide regulations as clay, stone, sand, gravel,
metalliferous ore, non-metalliferous ore, or any other solid material
or other matter of commercial value (15 CFR 922.3). Mineral extraction
activities could involve scraping the Sanctuary's seabed surface and/or
excavation of pits and tunnels into the seabed. This prohibition
protects Sanctuary resources and qualities from potentially damaging
effects of offshore mineral activities, including (but not limited to):
Destruction and direct smothering of the benthic biota; alteration of
the seabed surface profile; potential harm to fisheries; introduction
of substances (e.g., drill cuttings and mud) that could cause
interference with the filtering, feeding, or respiratory functions of
marine organisms; loss of food sources and habitat for some species;
possible lowered photosynthesis and oxygen levels; and degraded
appearance of the water itself. Finally, prohibition of mineral
activities within the Sanctuary reduces the risk of potential
disturbance to underwater historical resources either through physical
disturbance or increased turbidity, which will result in direct long-
term beneficial impact to historical resources. A prohibition on
mineral activities within the Sanctuary is consistent with the
prohibition on alteration of or construction on or in the submerged
lands discussed below.
3. Revise regulations on discharge/deposit.
This rule also clarifies and otherwise modifies the regulations
prohibiting discharging or depositing any material or other matter as
follows:
a. Clarify that the regulation applies to discharges and deposits
``from within or into the Sanctuary.'' Using the word ``into'' is
intended to make clear that it applies to not only discharges and
deposits originating in the Sanctuary (including from vessels in the
Sanctuary), but also to, e.g., discharges and deposits from aircraft
above the Sanctuary, from docks and piers extending over the Sanctuary,
and from cliffs and other land adjacent to the Sanctuary.
b. Clarify that the exception for fish, fish parts, or chumming
materials (bait) applies only to such discharges or deposits that were
used in or resulting from lawful fishing activity within the Sanctuary
and provided that such discharges or deposits are during the conduct of
lawful fishing activity in the Sanctuary.
c. Remove the exception for discharging or depositing biodegradable
effluents generated by meals onboard vessels. Coast Guard regulations
prohibit discharge/deposit of food wastes (garbage) within three nmi
and prohibit discharge/deposit of food wastes unless ground to less
than one inch within three to twelve nmi. The Sanctuary regulations are
modified to mirror the Coast Guard regulations within three nmi and,
beyond three nmi, provide increased protection to Sanctuary resources
and qualities.
d. Clarify NOAA's original intent of prohibiting untreated sewage
discharge/deposit within the Sanctuary. The exception for biodegradable
effluent discharges/deposits from marine sanitation devices is now
explicit in its application only to operable Type I or II marine
sanitation devices approved by the United States Coast Guard in
accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
e. Prohibit discharges/deposits of treated and untreated sewage and
graywater from vessels 300 gross registered tons (GRT) or greater,
except oceangoing ships without sufficient holding tank capacity to
hold sewage and graywater, respectively, while within the Sanctuary.
Cruise ships (larger than 300 GRT) are not provided an exception and,
therefore, are prohibited from discharging/depositing treated or
untreated sewage and graywater in the Sanctuary.
These revisions address NOAA's concerns about possible impacts from
large volumes of sewage discharges in the Sanctuary, whether treated or
not, from large vessels (such as cruise ships). Vessel sewage
discharges are more concentrated than domestic land-based sewage. They
may introduce disease-causing microorganisms (pathogens), such as
bacteria, protozoans, and viruses, into the marine environment (EPA
2007). They may also contain high concentrations of nutrients that can
lead to eutrophication (the process that can cause oxygen-depleted
``dead zones'' in aquatic environments), and may yield unpleasant
esthetic impacts to the Sanctuary (diminishing Sanctuary resources and
its ecological, conservation, esthetic, recreational and other
qualities).
Graywater can contain a variety of substances including (but not
limited to) detergents, oil and grease, pesticides and food wastes
(Eley 2000). Very little research has been done on the impacts of
graywater on the marine environment, but many of the chemicals commonly
found in graywater are known to be toxic (Casanova et al. 2001). These
chemicals have been implicated in the occurrence of cancerous growths
in bottom-dwelling fish (Mix 1986). Furthermore, studies of graywater
discharges from large cruise ships in Alaska (prior to strict state
effluent standards for cruise ship graywater discharges) found very
high levels of fecal coliform in large cruise ship graywater (well
exceeding the federal standards for fecal coliform from Type II MSDs).
These same studies also found high mean total suspended solids in some
graywater sources (exceeding the federal standards for total suspended
solids from Type II MSDs). While many older ships have been modified to
allow graywater retention, some must still discharge graywater directly
as it is produced. Similarly, some older ships have very limited
holding tank capacity for sewage. Consequently, given that many older
vessels are still in operation, NOAA provides exceptions for sewage and
graywater discharge from oceangoing ships without sufficient holding
tank capacity to retain sewage or graywater, respectively, while in the
Sanctuary.
Treated sewage and graywater discharge from small vessels, and from
oceangoing ships without sufficient holding tank capacity to hold
sewage and graywater while within the Sanctuary, is anticipated to have
a less than significant adverse impact on the Sanctuary's physical,
biological, and esthetic resources. Most oceangoing ships have
sufficient holding tank capacity to hold sewage and graywater while
within the Sanctuary. As for other oceangoing ships, given the much
lower
[[Page 3221]]
number of people on oceangoing ships (as noted in the FEIS section 3.0,
on average oceangoing ships carry crews of approximately twenty people,
but may range from five to fifty people), the treated sewage and
graywater generated by such ships is far less in quantity as compared
to that from cruise ships, and is therefore not expected to contain the
larger volume of possible harmful nutrients, pathogens, and chemicals
that can be found in cruise ship treated sewage and graywater.
Additional details on the potential impacts to Sanctuary resources
from graywater and treated sewage discharges/deposits are provided in
the FEIS.
f. Provide a definition of ``graywater'' that reads as follows:
``Graywater means galley, bath, or shower water.'' Other discharges,
such as those from laundry facilities, are not included in this
definition, which is based on section 312 of the CWA. In May 2006,
NOAA's proposed rule (71 FR 29096; May 19, 2006) referred to the
definition of graywater codified by the CWA; however, due to comments
received, NOAA added a free-standing definition for graywater, rather
than referring to the CWA.
g. Adopt, for consistency purposes, in relevant part, the existing
California Clean Coast Act definition of ``oceangoing ship''
(California Public Resources Code sec. 72410(j)). The definition of
``oceangoing ship'' is added to the CINMS regulations to read as
follows: ``Oceangoing ship means a private, commercial, government, or
military vessel of 300 gross registered tons or more, not including
cruise ships.''
The California Clean Coast Act definition is the same with one
additional phrase at the end: ``Calling on California ports or
places.'' The Sanctuary definition excludes this phrase since ships of
this general description may traverse the Santa Barbara Channel TSS,
and thereby the Sanctuary, without stopping in California ports or
places.
h. Adopt a definition of ``cruise ship.'' The definition of
``cruise ship'' is added to the CINMS regulations as follows: ``Cruise
ship means a vessel with 250 or more passenger berths for hire.''
i. Prohibit discharging or depositing any material or other matter
from beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary that subsequently enters the
Sanctuary and injures a Sanctuary resource or quality. ``Sanctuary
resource'' is defined at 15 CFR 922.3 as ``any living or non-living
resource of a National Marine Sanctuary that contributes to the
conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research,
educational, or aesthetic value of the Sanctuary, including, but not
limited to, the substratum of the area of the Sanctuary, other
submerged features and the surrounding seabed, carbonate rock, corals
and other bottom formations, coralline algae and other marine plants
and algae, marine invertebrates, brine-seep biota, phytoplankton,
zooplankton, fish, seabirds, sea turtles and other marine reptiles,
marine mammals and historical resources.'' ``Sanctuary quality'' is
defined at 15 CFR 922.3 as ``any of those ambient conditions, physical-
chemical characteristics and natural processes, the maintenance of
which is essential to the ecological health of the Sanctuary,
including, but not limited to, water quality, sediment quality and air
quality.'' This modification provides consistency with the regulatory
language of other more recently designated sanctuaries, and helps to
protect Sanctuary resources and qualities from negative influences
originating outside the boundaries of the CINMS.
4. Clarify and update regulation on disturbing Sanctuary areas.
This rule modifies the existing prohibition against altering the
seabed of the Sanctuary or constructing a structure thereon. The term
``seabed'' is replaced with ``submerged lands'' to be consistent with
language used in the NMSA. In addition, this rule expands the
geographic extent of this regulation from the first 2 nmi offshore to
the entire area of the Sanctuary in order to ensure protection of the
diverse accentuated bottom relief, varied substrate, and concomitant
benthic habitats of the Sanctuary, and wording is conformed with
similar regulations at more recently designated sanctuaries. Another
change modifies the exception for ``bottom trawling from a commercial
vessel'' to provide an exception for activities incidental and
necessary to ``conduct lawful fishing activity.'' This exception
encompasses other bottom-touching gear types, such as pots and traps.
This change removes any uncertainty about the existing exception's
applicability to such gear types.
This rule also specifies that abandoning--by which is meant leaving
without intent to remove, any structure, material, or other matter on
or in the submerged lands of the Sanctuary--is prohibited. This change
makes the CINMS regulations consistent with regulations at more
recently designated sanctuaries and helps protect the Sanctuary from,
for example, debris abandoned by Sanctuary users.
5. Modify vessel approach regulation.
NOAA also modifies the vessel approach regulation so that the
prohibition against vessel operation within 1 nmi of any of the Islands
also applies to all vessels 300 gross registered tons or more
(excluding fishing and kelp harvesting vessels). The former regulation
prohibiting vessel operation within 1 nmi of any of the Islands applied
only to vessels engaged in the trade of carrying cargo and those
engaged in the trade of servicing offshore installations. The intent of
this modification is to protect the sensitive nearshore areas off the
Islands, including kelp forests, rocky reefs, and other areas, from the
potential impacts of large-vessel groundings and collisions, including,
but not limited to, cruise ships. NOAA modified this prohibition to
more directly address its concern that large vessels put at risk
sensitive nearshore areas of the Sanctuary regardless of their purpose
for operating in nearshore Sanctuary waters.
6. Clarify and update regulation on disturbing historical
resources.
This rule also includes a modification to the prohibition on
removing or damaging any historical or cultural resource. The rule adds
``moving'' and ``possessing'' to the prohibition; replaces ``damage''
with ``injure,'' a term defined at 15 CFR 922.3; and adds
``attempting'' to move, remove, injure, or possess as a prohibition.
The intent of this modification is to provide added protection to these
fragile, finite, and non-renewable resources so they may be studied,
and so appropriate information about them may be made available for the
benefit of the public. The rule also replaces ``historical or cultural
resource'' with ``Sanctuary historical resource'' to be consistent with
regulatory language used at several other more recently designated
national marine sanctuaries. ``Historical resource'' is defined in NMSP
program-wide regulations as ``any resource possessing historical,
cultural, archaeological or paleontological significance, including
sites, contextual information, structures, districts, and objects
significantly associated with or representative of earlier people,
cultures, maritime heritage, and human activities and events.
Historical resources include `submerged cultural resources', and also
include `historical properties', as defined in the National Historic
Preservation Act, as amended, and its implementing regulations, as
amended.'' (15 CFR 922.3).
7. Prohibit take and possession of certain species.
This rule implements a new prohibition on take of marine mammals,
[[Page 3222]]
sea turtles, and seabirds, except as authorized by the MMPA, ESA, MBTA,
or any regulation, as amended, promulgated under one of these acts. The
intent of this regulation is to bring a special focus to protection of
the diverse and vital marine mammal and seabird populations and the sea
turtles of the Sanctuary. This area-specific focus is complementary to
the prohibitions against taking promulgated by other resource
protection agencies, especially given that other federal and state
authorities must spread limited resources over much wider geographic
areas. This regulation is consistent with regulations for several other
more recently designated national marine sanctuaries, and provides a
greater deterrent due to the higher civil penalties afforded under the
NMSA than the penalties provided by the MMPA, ESA, and MBTA. Further,
the prohibition covers all marine mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds
within or above the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary's regulations do not apply
if an activity (including fishing in a federally or state-approved
fishery) that results in the take of marine mammals, sea turtles, or
seabirds has been authorized under the MMPA, ESA, or MBTA or an
implementing regulation. Therefore, under this rule, if NMFS or the
USFWS issues a permit for, or otherwise authorizes, the take of a
marine mammal, sea turtle, or seabird, such taking would not be
prohibited and therefore would not require a permit from the Sanctuary
Superintendent unless the activity would violate another provision of
the Sanctuary's regulations.
``Take'' is defined in the NMSP program-wide regulations at 15 CFR
922.3.
The prohibition on take of marine mammals, sea turtles, and
seabirds complements the regulation already prohibiting disturbing
seabirds or marine mammals by flying motorized aircraft at less than
1000 feet over the waters within one nmi of any Island. That regulation
provides a special focus on a specific type of activity, operation of
motorized aircraft, within the particularly sensitive environments of
the Sanctuary.
This rule also prohibits possessing within the Sanctuary
(regardless of where taken from, moved, or removed from) any marine
mammal, sea turtle, or seabird, except as authorized by the MMPA, ESA,
MBTA, or any regulation, as amended, promulgated under the MMPA, ESA,
or MBTA. This provision provides a greater deterrent against violations
of existing laws protecting marine mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds
than that offered by those other laws alone. This provision is also
consistent with NOAA's regulations for other more recently designated
national marine sanctuaries and enhances protection provided by the
prohibition on the take of marine mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds
discussed above.
8. Prohibit damaging signs and markers.
This rule also prohibits marking, defacing, damaging, moving,
removing, or tampering with any sign, notice or placard, whether
temporary or permanent, or any monument, stake, post, or other boundary
marker related to the Sanctuary. This prohibition is designed to
protect Sanctuary property used for purposes including demarcation,
enforcement, regulatory information, education, outreach, and research.
This new regulation is consistent with NOAA's regulations for other
sanctuaries.
9. Prohibit release of introduced species.
This rule also prohibits introducing or otherwise releasing from
within or into the Sanctuary an introduced species, except striped bass
(Morone saxatilis) released during catch and release fishing activity.
``Introduced species'' is defined to mean: (1) Any species (including
but not limited to any of its biological matter capable of propagation)
that is non-native to the ecosystems of the Sanctuary; or (2) any
organism into which altered genetic matter, or genetic matter from
another species, has been transferred in order that the host organism
acquires the genetic traits of the transferred genes. This prohibition
is designed to help reduce the risk from introduced species, including
but not limited to their seeds, eggs, spores, and other biological
matter capable of propagating. The intent of the prohibition is to
prevent injury to Sanctuary resources and qualities, to protect the
biodiversity of the Sanctuary ecosystems, and to preserve the native
functional aspects of the Sanctuary ecosystems, all of which are put at
risk by introduced species. Introduced species may become a new form of
predator, competitor, disturber, parasite, or disease that can have
devastating effects upon ecosystems. For example, introduced species
impacts on native coastal marine species of the Sanctuary could
include: Replacement of a functionally similar native species through
competition; reduction in abundance or elimination of an entire
population of a native species, which can affect native species
richness; inhibition of normal growth or increased mortality of the
host and associated species; increased intra- or interspecies
competition with native species; creation or alteration of original
substrate and habitat; hybridization with native species; and direct or
indirect toxicity (e.g., toxic diatoms). Changes in species
interactions can lead to disrupted nutrient cycles and altered energy
flows that ripple with unpredictable results through an entire
ecosystem. Exotic species may also pose threats to endangered species,
and native species diversity. A number of non-native species now found
in the Sanctuary region were introduced elsewhere on the west coast but
have spread through accidental introductions, such as hull-fouling and
ballast water discharges.
The introduced species regulation includes an exception for striped
bass (Morone saxatilis) released during catch and release fishing
activity. Striped bass were intentionally introduced in California in
1879, and in 1980 the California Department of Fish and Game initiated
a striped bass hatchery program to support the striped bass sport
fishery, which according to the California Department of Fish and Game
is one of the most important fisheries on the Pacific Coast. The
California Department of Fish and Game manages the striped bass fishery
through a Striped Bass Management Conservation Plan. This provision is
intended to acknowledge that striped bass are the focus of an
established state-managed sport fishery and, since they consequently
may be caught within the Sanctuary, allow for an exception for striped
bass released during catch and release fishing activity.
10. Regulate Motorized Personal Watercraft (MPWC).
This rule also prohibits operating a MPWC within waters of the
Sanctuary that are coextensive with the Channel Islands National Park
(CINP), established by 16 U.S.C. 410(ff). The CINP includes San Miguel
and Prince Islands, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Anacapa and Santa Barbara
Islands, including the rocks, islets, submerged lands, and waters
within one nmi of each island. For the precise coordinates and a map of
the CINP, refer to the FEIS. This provision mirrors an existing
National Park Service ban on use of MPWC within waters of the CINP and
many other units of the National Park System, and is intended to
provide added deterrence for purposes of ensuring protection of the
Sanctuary's sensitive nearshore marine wildlife and habitats. The CINP
staff have observed an increase in use of MPWC within the park over the
last several years, and park staff issue several dozen warnings per
year for violation of this ban. For
[[Page 3223]]
consistency (including enforcement), this rule adopts the National Park
Service definition of MPWC (36 CFR 1.4(a)) for the Sanctuary, which
reads as follows:
``Motorized personal watercraft'' means a vessel, usually less
than 16 feet in length, which uses an inboard, internal combustion
engine powering a water jet pump as its primary source of
propulsion. The vessel is intended to be operated by a person or
persons sitting, standing or kneeling on the vessel, rather than
within the confines of the hull. The length is measured from end to
end over the deck excluding sheer, meaning a straight line
measurement of the overall length from the foremost part of the
vessel to the aftermost part of the vessel, measured parallel to the
centerline. Bow sprits, bumpkins, rudders, outboard motor brackets,
and similar fittings or attachments, are not included in the
measurement. Length is stated in feet and inches.
MPWCs operate in a manner unique among recreational vessels and pose a
threat to wildlife. Their shallow draft enables them to penetrate areas
not available to conventional motorized watercraft (NPS 2000, MOCZM
2002). The high speed and maneuverability of MPWCs, along with the
tendency to operate them near the shore and in a repeated fashion
within a confined area, results in recurring disturbance to animals and
habitats (Rodgers and Smith 1997, Snow 1989). Studies have shown that
the use of MPWCs in nearshore areas can increase flushing rates, reduce
nesting success of certain bird species, impact spawning fish, and
reduce fishing success (Burger 1998, Snow 1989). The National Park
Service (2000, 2004) identified several of these impacts along with
interruption of normal activity, avoidance and displacement, loss of
habitat use, interference with movement, direct mortality, interference
with courtship, alteration of behavior, change in community structure,
elevated noise levels, and damage to aquatic vegetation. Further,
offshore marine mammals or surfacing birds may be unaware of the
presence of these vehicles due to their low frequency sound; when the
inability to detect the vehicles is combined with their high speed and
rapid and unpredictable movements, both animals and operators are at
risk (Snow 1989).
MPWC manufacturers have made efforts to reduce emissions and noise
through use of more efficient four-stroke engines as well as other
technology (e.g., Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. 2005a, 2005b;
Personal Watercraft Industry Association 2005). However, it is not
clear that such improvements have rendered MPWC-caused wildlife
disturbance impacts insignificant. While industry sponsored studies
indicate that MPWCs are no louder than similar motorized vessels under
analogous conditions, other studies indicate that because MPWCs often
travel repeatedly in the same area, continually leaving and reentering
the water, they can create rapid cycles of noise that disturb humans
and wildlife (MOCZM 2002). Industry improvements in noise and other
emissions do not address impacts associated with the high speed,
maneuverability, shallow draft, and nearshore operation of MPWC.
The area within one nmi of island shores experiences the greatest
visitor use and impact to sensitive nearshore Sanctuary marine
resources. The new provisions implemented through this final rule serve
as an added deterrent to illegal MPWC use within the nearshore area and
other waters of the Channel Islands National Park.
11. Revise regulation on military activities.
This rule modifies regulations stating that all activities
currently (i.e., at the time of designation in 1980) carried out by the
Department of Defense within the Sanctuary are essential for the
national defense and, therefore, not subject to the prohibitions
contained within the other Sanctuary regulations. As part of this
modification, the list of exempt military activities occurring within
the Sanctuary is updated to include present military activities if
specifically identified in the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) for this rule. In addition, the rule adds language consistent
with the NMSA, stating that mitigation and restoration or replacement
of Sanctuary resources and qualities is required when Department of
Defense activity results in their injury, destruction, or loss. All
Department of Defense activities are required to be carried out in a
manner that avoids to the maximum extent practicable any adverse
impacts on Sanctuary resources and qualities.
This rule also adds one exception pertaining to vessels of the
Armed Forces to the two discharge/deposit regulations discussed
earlier. Namely, an exception is made for discharges allowed under
section 312(n) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Section
312(n), which was enacted in 1996, provides for uniform national
standards for discharges, other than sewage, incidental to normal
operation of vessels of the Armed Forces.
12. Revise permit regulations.
This rule also modifies the Sanctuary's permit regulations by: (a)
Augmenting and clarifying the list of activities for which the Director
of NOAA's ONMS (Director) \2\ may issue a permit; (b) clarifying which
prohibitions are eligible for a permit from the Director for the
conduct of a particular activity; (c) expanding and clarifying the
criteria the Director must use in reviewing permit applications; (d)
clarifying the application requirements for permits; and (e) requiring
that all permittees hold the United States government harmless against
claims arising from permitted activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Director has delegated the responsibility for the review
of most permit applications and the decision making for most permits
to the Sanctuary Superintendents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The modifications clarify that the Director may issue permits for
salvage activities pertaining to both abandoned shipwrecks (invoking
maritime heritage resource protection concerns) and recent air or
marine casualties (invoking prompt response concerns). The
modifications also allow the Director to issue permits for activities
that would assist Sanctuary management, but that do not fall into the
categories of research, education, or salvage. For example, the
Director may issue Sanctuary management permits for activities such as
repairing or replacing piers that help facilitate Sanctuary operations.
The updated list of otherwise prohibited activities that may be
conducted pursuant to a permit is necessary given the addition of
several new prohibitions and the recent addition of marine reserves and
conservation area regulations, and given the need to specify those
activities for which a permit may in no circumstances be granted.
The modifications to the permit regulations also strengthen and
augment the criteria that the Director must consider when evaluating
permit applications. The modifications now expressly indicate to
prospective permit applicants what type of information they are
required to include in their application. The modifications also
modernize the permit regulations by expressly requiring that the
permittee agree to hold the United States harmless against any claims
arising out of the permitted activities.
In summary, the overall intent of the revised permit regulations
is: To clarify, standardize, and make express the permit requirements
and procedures, rendering them easier for permit applicants to comply
with and for the Director and Sanctuary staff to implement; to ensure
that permitted projects are appropriate for the Sanctuary; and to
provide a mechanism for issuing permits for activities that
[[Page 3224]]
may further Sanctuary management but would otherwise be prohibited.
13. Make non-substantive revisions to regulations on marine
reserves and conservation areas.
This rule makes non-substantive revisions to the regulations on
marine reserves and conservation areas to remove some unnecessary
language and to better integrate the regulations with the rest of the
CINMS regulations.
IV. Response to Comments
This section provides NOAA's response to comments received between
May and July 2006 on the proposed rule and during two hearings on the
proposed rule and associated DEIS, and to comments received between
March and May 2008 on a second proposed rule and associated
supplemental DEIS (or SDEIS). NOAA received over 700 comments on the
DEIS, SDEIS, and proposed rules. NOAA summarized the comments according
to the content of the statement or question put forward in the letters,
emails, and written and oral testimony at the public hearings on this
action because many of the comments touched upon the same or similar
issue and could be answered with one response.
Abandoning Matter
Abandoning Matter--Fishing Gear
1. Comment: The proposed prohibition on abandoning is too broad and
may cause an unnecessary burden on existing lawful fishing activities
by appearing to render illegal the inadvertent loss of fishing gear.
The proposed regulation should clarify the specific materials and
situations prohibited, or exempt fishing gear lost during lawful
fishing operations--if the owner or operator attempts to recover the
gear with the equipment available to them at the time of the loss.
Response: In the rule's summary of regulatory amendments, NOAA has
stated that ``abandoning'' refers to ``leaving without intent to
remove.'' NOAA is not providing an exception for lost fishing gear.
However, NOAA would consider the efforts made by fishermen to retrieve
any deployed fishing gear in determining whether the loss of fishing
gear constituted the abandonment of matter on or in the submerged lands
of the Sanctuary.
Abandoning Material--General
2. Comment: The abandoning prohibition is overly broad and could be
a detriment to safety of life at sea in that the threat of penalty may
cause a master to delay abandonment of his sinking vessel beyond what
is prudent and which could result in unnecessary loss of life. This
section of the regulations should be much more narrowly drafted to
allow for a master's judgment in extremis.
Response: The regulation includes an exception for ``an activity
necessary to respond to an emergency threatening life, property, or the
environment.''
Abandoning Matter--Abandoned Vessels vs. Historical Resources
3. Comment: The proposed abandoning prohibition eliminates
continuation of a historic record by making it illegal to leave
historic vessels in the Sanctuary after they have sunk. NOAA should
establish guidelines delineating the difference between an abandoned
vessel and an historical or archaeological resource.
Response: NOAA does not automatically consider newly sunken vessels
as historical resources to be protected. The extent to which removal of
a sunken vessel would be required is based on several factors,
including guidelines set by National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
criteria (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) for determining historical
significance.
Acoustic Impacts
Acoustic Impacts--General Action Recommendations
4. Comment: The FMP's Resource Protection Action Plan should
include an acoustics strategy that identifies underwater noise as an
issue, explains potential sources of noise (e.g., seismic testing and
sonar) and their effects on marine life, and explains NOAA's plans for
noise evaluation and response in the Sanctuary.
Response: The FMP's Resource Protection Action Plan identifies
human-induced acoustic impacts as a resource protection issue, explains
potential sources of noise and their potential effects on marine life,
and explains how NOAA is evaluating and responding to this issue in the
Sanctuary.
5. Comment: Given increasing shipping traffic and its associated
noise in the CINMS region, the FMP's Conservation Science Action Plan
should provide strategies for tracking and/or qu