List of National System Marine Protected Areas, 18551-18557 [E9-9335]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Notices
seasons have been closed before the
fishery quotas have been reached to
prevent the fishery from reaching the
halibut PSC limit. Reducing halibut
mortality and assuring that each halibut
returned to the sea has the highest
possible chance of survival are therefore
high priorities for the IPHC’s, the
Council’s, and NMFS’s management
goals for both halibut and groundfish.
Before halibut are returned to the sea,
the catch of halibut as well as other
groundfish must first be estimated by
at–sea observers. A number of
regulations assure that observer
estimates of halibut and groundfish
catch are credible, accurate, and without
bias. For example, NMFS requires that
all catch be made available for sampling
by an observer; prohibits tampering
with observer samples; prohibits
removal of halibut from a codend, bin,
or conveyance system prior to being
observed and counted by an at–sea
observer; and prohibits fish (including
halibut) from remaining on deck unless
an observer is present.
With the implementation of
Amendment 80 to the FMP on
September 14, 2007 (72 FR 52668),
allocation of halibut PSC amounts was
modified for vessels in the Amendment
80 sector, but halibut mortality
continued to limit fishing in some
fisheries. The Amendment 80 sector
received an initial allocation of 2,525
metric tons (mt) of halibut PSC in 2008,
but that allocation will decrease by 50
mt per year until it reaches 2,325 mt in
2012 and subsequent years. This
amount is further allocated between the
BUC and the Amendment 80 limited
access fishery. In certain years, the
amount of halibut PSC allocated to the
Amendment 80 sector is less than the
sector’s historic catch; therefore, finding
ways to continue to reduce halibut
mortality is important for this sector.
The EFP applicant proposes to assess
various fishing practices and their effect
on halibut survival. It would allow
researchers onboard the three catcher
processor vessels to sort halibut
removed from a codend on the deck of
the vessel and release those fish back to
the water after determining the physical
condition of the halibut using standard
IPHC viability methods for predicting
mortality of individual fish.
Fishing under the EFP would occur in
two phases during 2009. In May and
June, Phase I fishing would allow
sorting of halibut on deck to determine
practices for reducing halibut mortality.
Later in the year, Phase II would apply
the halibut mortality saved in Phase I to
allow additional EFP catch of
groundfish and halibut within the
BUC’s allocation.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:59 Apr 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
This proposed action would exempt
the participating vessels from the
following:
1. The prohibition on biasing the
sampling procedure employed by an
observer through sorting of catch before
sampling at § 679.7(g)(2);
2. A requirement to weigh all catch by
an Amendment 80 vessel on a NMFS–
approved scale at § 679.27(j)(5)(ii);
3. A requirement for all catch to be
made available for sampling at
§ 679.93(c)(1); and
4. The requirement for halibut to not
be allowed on deck without an observer
present at § 679.93(c)(5).
The BUC would not be allowed to
exceed the 2009 Amendment 80
cooperative apportionment of halibut
mortality of (1,793 mt). In the event that
the amount of halibut mortality savings
estimated under this EFP shows less
mortality than the amount estimated
using standard 2009 halibut discard
mortality rates established for the Bering
Sea trawl fisheries (February 17, 2009,
74 FR 7333), BUC may be allowed to
continue fishing for groundfish species
later in the year, with some limitations.
The BUC would be required to submit
a report to NMFS and the IPHC of the
estimated halibut mortality saved
during the Phase I. After review and
approval by NMFS, the BUC may be
allowed to do subsequent EFP fishing
later in the year as Phase II fishing
under the EFP. The BUC would be
limited to no more than the BUC’s
Amendment 80 groundfish allocation.
The additional amount of halibut caught
would not exceed the amount of the
halibut mortality savings under the EFP,
or BUC’s 2009 allocation of halibut PSC.
This EFP would apply for the period
of time required to complete the
experiment in Phase I and potentially in
subsequent fishing in Phase II, during
2009, in areas of the BSAI open to
directed fishing by the BUC. The EFP
activities would be of limited scope and
duration and would not be expected to
change the nature or duration of the
groundfish fishery, fishing practices or
gear used, or the amount or species of
fish caught by the BUC.
The activities that would be
conducted under this EFP are not
expected to have a significant impact on
the human environment as detailed in
the categorical exclusion issued for this
action (see ADDRESSES).
In accordance with § 679.6, NMFS has
determined that the proposal warrants
further consideration and has forwarded
the application to the Council to initiate
consultation. The Council considered
the EFP application during its April
2009 meeting.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18551
Public Comments
Public comments are being solicited
on the application through the end of
the comment period stated in this
notice. To be considered, comments
must be received by close of business on
the last day of the comment period; that
does not mean postmarked or otherwise
transmitted by that date. Copies of the
application and categorical exclusion
are available for review from NMFS (see
ADDRESSES).
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: April 17, 2009.
Kristen C. Koch,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E9–9343 Filed 4–22–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
List of National System Marine
Protected Areas
AGENCY: NOAA, Department of
Commerce (DOC).
ACTION: Notice of availability of the List
of National System Marine Protected
Areas (MPAs) and response to
comments on nominations of existing
MPAs to the national system.
SUMMARY: NOAA and the Department of
the Interior (DOI) invited federal, state,
commonwealth, and territorial MPA
programs with potentially eligible
existing MPAs to nominate their sites to
the national system of MPAs (national
system). A total of 225 nominations
were received. Following a 30-day
public review period, 26 public
comments were received by the
National Marine Protected Areas Center
and forwarded to the relevant managing
agencies. After review of the public
comments, managing agencies were
asked to make a final determination of
sites to nominate to the national system.
All the nominations were confirmed by
the managing agencies. Finding them to
be eligible for the national system, the
National Marine Protected Areas Center
has accepted the nominations for 225
sites and placed them on the List of
National System MPAs.
The national system and the
nomination process are described in the
Framework for the National System of
Marine Protected Areas of the United
States of America (Framework),
developed in response to Executive
Order 13158 on Marine Protected Areas.
The final Framework was published on
E:\FR\FM\23APN1.SGM
23APN1
18552
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
November 19, 2008, and provides
guidance for collaborative efforts among
Federal, State, commonwealth,
territorial, tribal and local governments
and stakeholders to develop an effective
and well coordinated national system
that includes existing MPAs meeting
national system criteria as well as new
sites that may be established by
managing agencies to fill key
conservation gaps in important ocean
areas.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lauren Wenzel, NOAA, at 301–713–
3100, ext. 136 or via e-mail at
mpa.comments@noaa.gov. A more
detailed electronic copy of the List of
National System MPAs is available for
download at https://www.mpa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background on National System
The national system of MPAs
includes member MPA sites, networks
and systems established and managed
by Federal, State, Territorial, Tribal and/
or local governments that collectively
enhance conservation of the nation’s
natural and cultural marine heritage and
represent its diverse ecosystems and
resources. Although participating sites
continue to be managed independently,
national system MPAs also work
together at the regional and national
levels to achieve common objectives for
conserving the nation’s important
natural and cultural resources, with
emphasis on achieving the priority
conservation objectives of the
Framework. MPAs include sites with a
wide range of protection, from multiple
use areas to no take reserves where all
extractive uses are prohibited. The term
MPA refers only to the marine portion
of a site (below the mean high tide
mark) that may include both terrestrial
and marine components.
Benefits of joining the national
system, which are expected to increase
over time as the system matures,
include a facilitated means to work with
other MPAs in the MPA’s region, and
nationally on issues of common
conservation concern; fostering greater
public and international recognition of
MPAs and the resources they protect;
priority in the receipt of available
technical and other support for crosscutting needs; and the opportunity to
influence Federal and regional ocean
conservation and management
initiatives (such as integrated ocean
observing systems, systematic
monitoring and evaluation, targeted
outreach to key user groups, and
helping to identify and address MPA
research needs). In addition, the
national system provides a forum for
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:59 Apr 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
coordinated regional planning about
place-based conservation priorities that
does not otherwise exist.
Joining the national system does not
restrict or require changes affecting the
designation process or management of
member MPAs. It does not bring State,
Territorial, Tribal or local sites under
Federal authority. It does not establish
new regulatory authority or revise
existing regulatory authority. The
national system is a mechanism to foster
greater collaboration among
participating MPA sites and programs in
order to enhance stewardship in the
waters of the United States.
conservation objectives and design
principles described in the Framework.
The MPA Center used existing
information in the MPA Inventory to
determine which MPAs meet the first
and second criteria. The inventory is
online at https://www.mpa.gov/
helpful_resources/inventory.html, and
potentially eligible sites are posted
online at https://mpa.gov/pdf/nationalsystem/allsitesumsheet120408.pdf. As
part of the nomination process, the
managing entity for each potentially
eligible site is asked to provide
information on the third and fourth
criteria.
Nomination Process
The Framework describes two major
focal areas for building the national
system of MPAs—a nomination process
to allow existing MPAs that meet the
entry criteria to become part of the
system and a collaborative regional gap
analysis process to identify areas of
significance for natural or cultural
resources that may merit additional
protection through existing Federal,
State, commonwealth, territorial, tribal
or local MPA authorities. The initial
nomination process for the national
system began on November 25, 2008,
when the National Marine Protected
Areas Center (MPA Center) sent a letter
to federal, state, commonwealth, and
territorial MPA programs inviting them
to submit nominations of eligible MPAs
to the national system. The initial
deadline for nominations was January
31, 2009; this was extended to February
13, 2009. A public comment period was
held from March 6, 2009 through April
6, 2009.
There are three entry criteria for
existing MPAs to join the national
system, plus a fourth for cultural
heritage. Sites that meet all pertinent
criteria are eligible for the national
system.
1. Meets the definition of an MPA as
defined in the Framework.
2. Has a management plan (can be
site-specific or part of a broader
programmatic management plan; must
have goals and objectives and call for
monitoring or evaluation of those goals
and objectives).
3. Contributes to at least one priority
conservation objective as listed in the
Framework.
4. Cultural heritage MPAs must also
conform to criteria for the National
Register for Historic Places.
Additional sites not currently meeting
the management plan criterion can be
evaluated for eligibility to be nominated
to the system on a case-by-case basis
based on their ability to fill gaps in the
national system coverage of the priority
List of National System MPAs
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The following MPAs have been
nominated by their managing programs
to join the national system of MPAs. A
list providing more detail for each site
is available at https://www.mpa.gov.
Federal Marine Protected Areas
Marine National Monument
¯
¯
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National
Monument (Hawaii)
National Marine Sanctuaries
Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary (California)
Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary
(California)
Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary
(American Samoa)
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
(Florida)
Flower Garden Banks National Marine
Sanctuary (Texas)
Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary
(Georgia)
Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary (Massachusetts)
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine
Sanctuary (California)
Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
National Marine Sanctuary (Hawaii)
Monitor National Marine Sanctuary
(North Carolina)
Monterey Bay National Marine
Sanctuary (California)
Olympic Coast National Marine
Sanctuary (Washington)
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary
(Michigan)
National Parks
Assateague Island National Seashore
(Virginia, Maryland)
Biscayne National Park (Florida)
Channel Islands National Park
(California)
Dry Tortugas National Park (Florida)
Everglades National Park (Florida)
Glacier Bay National Park (Alaska)
Isle Royale National Park (Minnesota,
Michigan)
Point Reyes National Park (California)
E:\FR\FM\23APN1.SGM
23APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Notices
Virgin Islands Coral Reef National
Monument (US Virgin Islands)
Virgin Islands National Park (US Virgin
Islands)
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
National Wildlife Refuges
ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
(South Carolina)
Alaska Maritime National Wildlife
Refuge (Alaska)
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
(North Carolina)
Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge
(Texas)
Aransas National Wildlife Refuge
(Texas)
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Alaska)
Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge
(Virginia)
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge
(Hawaii)
Bandon Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
(Oregon)
Big Boggy National Wildlife Refuge
(Texas)
Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife
Refuge (Louisiana)
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge
(Maryland)
Block Island National Wildlife Refuge
(Rhode Island)
Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge
(Delaware)
Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge
(Alabama)
Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge
(Texas)
Breton National Wildlife Refuge
(Louisiana)
Cape May National Wildlife Refuge
(New Jersey)
Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
(South Carolina)
Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
(North Carolina)
Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge
(Florida)
Chassahowitzka National Wildlife
Refuge (Florida)
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge
(Virginia, Maryland)
Conscience Point National Wildlife
Refuge (New York)
Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge
(Florida)
Cross Island National Wildlife Refuge
(Maine)
Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge
(Florida)
Currituck National Wildlife Refuge
(North Carolina)
Delta National Wildlife Refuge
(Louisiana)
Don Edwards San Francisco Bay
National Wildlife Refuge (California)
Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge
(Washington)
Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge
(Maryland)
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:59 Apr 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Eastern Shore of Virginia National
Wildlife Refuge (Virginia)
Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife
Refuge (New Jersey)
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge
(Virginia)
Fisherman Island National Wildlife
Refuge (Virginia)
Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
(Mississippi, Alabama)
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
(Washington)
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge
(New Hampshire)
Great White Heron National Wildlife
Refuge (Florida)
Guam National Wildlife Refuge (Guam)
Howland Island National Wildlife
Refuge (Pacific Islands)
Huron National Wildlife Refuge
(Michigan)
Island Bay National Wildlife Refuge
(Florida)
J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife
Refuge (Florida)
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge
(Pacific Islands)
John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge
(Rhode Island)
Johnston Island National Wildlife
Refuge (Pacific Islands, Hawaii)
Key West National Wildlife Refuge
(Florida)
Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge
(Pacific Islands)
Lewis and Clark National Wildlife
Refuge (Washington, Oregon)
Lower Suwannee National Wildlife
Refuge (Florida)
Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
(Virginia, North Carolina)
Marin Islands National Wildlife Refuge
(California)
Martin National Wildlife Refuge
(Maryland)
Mashpee National Wildlife Refuge
(Massachusetts)
Matlacha Pass National Wildlife Refuge
(Florida)
Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge
(Hawaii)
Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge
(Massachusetts)
National Key Deer Refuge (Florida)
Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge
(Oregon)
Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge
(Rhode Island)
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
(Washington)
Nomans Land Island National Wildlife
Refuge (Massachusetts)
Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge
(Virginia)
Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge
(New York)
Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge
(Pacific Islands)
Parker River National Wildlife Refuge
(Massachusetts)
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18553
Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
(North Carolina)
Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge
(Florida)
Pine Island National Wildlife Refuge
(Florida)
Pinellas National Wildlife Refuge
(Florida)
Plum Tree Island National Wildlife
Refuge (Virginia)
Pond Island National Wildlife Refuge
(Maine)
Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge
(Delaware)
Protection Island National Wildlife
Refuge (Washington)
Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge
(Maine)
Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge
(Pacific Islands)
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
(Louisiana)
Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge
(Rhode Island)
San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge
(Texas)
San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge
(California)
Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge (New
York)
Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
(Louisiana)
Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge
(Oregon)
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
(Florida)
St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge
(Florida)
Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife
Refuge (Connecticut)
Supawna Meadows National Wildlife
Refuge (New Jersey)
Susquehanna National Wildlife Refuge
(Maryland)
Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
(North Carolina)
Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife
Refuge (California)
Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge
(New York)
Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife
Refuge (Florida)
Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
(South Carolina)
Wallops Island National Wildlife Refuge
(Virginia)
Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge
(New York)
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge
(Washington)
Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge
(Alaska)
Federal/State Partnership Marine
Protected Areas
National Estuarine Research Reserves
Guana Tolomato Matanzas National
Estuarine Research Reserve (Florida)
E:\FR\FM\23APN1.SGM
23APN1
18554
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Notices
Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine
Research Reserve (New Jersey)
Rookery Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve (Florida)
Waquoit Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve (Massachusetts)
State Marine Protected Areas
American Samoa
Aua
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
California
Ano Nuevo Area of Special Biological
Significance
Ano Nuevo State Marine Conservation
Area
Asilomar State Marine Reserve
Big Creek State Marine Conservation
Area
Big Creek State Marine Reserve
Bird Rock Area of Special Biological
Significance
Bodega Area of Special Biological
Significance
Cambria State Marine Conservation
Area
Carmel Bay Area of Special Biological
Significance
Carmel Bay State Marine Conservation
Area
Carmel Pinnacles State Marine Reserve
Del Mar Area of Special Biological
Significance
Double Point Area of Special Biological
Significance
Duxbury Reef Area of Special Biological
Significance
Edward F. Ricketts State Marine
Conservation Area
Elkhorn Slough State Marine
Conservation Area
Elkhorn Slough State Marine Reserve
Farallon Islands Area of Special
Biological Significance
Farnsworth Bank Area of Special
Biological Significance
Gerstle Cove Area of Special Biological
Significance
Greyhound Rock State Marine
Conservation Area
Heisler Park Area of Special Biological
Significance
Irvine Coast Area of Special Biological
Significance
James V. Fitzgerald Area of Special
Biological Significance
Jughandle Cove Area of Special
Biological Significance
Julia Pfeiffer Burns Area of Special
Biological Significance
King Range Area of Special Biological
Significance
La Jolla Area of Special Biological
Significance
Laguna Point to Latiga Point Area of
Special Biological Significance
Lovers Point State Marine Reserve
Moro Cojo Slough State Marine Reserve
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:59 Apr 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Morro Bay State Marine Recreational
Management Area
Morro Bay State Marine Reserve
Natural Bridges State Marine Reserve
Northwest Santa Catalina Area of
Special Biological Significance
Pacific Grove Area of Special Biological
Significance
Pacific Grove Marine Gardens State
Marine Conservation Area
Piedras Blancas State Marine
Conservation Area
Piedras Blancas State Marine Reserve
Point Buchon State Marine
Conservation Area
Point Buchon State Marine Reserve
Point Lobos Area of Special Biological
Significance
Point Lobos State Marine Conservation
Area
Point Lobos State Marine Reserve
Point Reyes Headlands Area of Special
Biological Significance
Point Sur State Marine Conservation
Area
Point Sur State Marine Reserve
Portuguese Ledge State Marine
Conservation Area
Redwoods National Park Area of Special
Biological Significance
Robert E. Badham Area of Special
Biological Significance
Salmon Creek Coast Area of Special
Biological Significance
San Clemente Area of Special Biological
Significance
San Diego Scripps Area of Special
Biological Significance
San Nicolas Island & Begg Rock Area of
Special Biological Significance
Santa Barbara & Anacapa Island Area of
Special Biological Significance
Santa Rosa & Santa Cruz Island Area of
Special Biological Significance
Saunders Reef Area of Special
Biological Significance
Soquel Canyon State Marine Reserve
Southeast Santa Catalina Area of Special
Biological Significance
Trinidad Head Area of Special
Biological Significance
Vandenberg State Marine Reserve
Western Santa Catalina Area of Special
Biological Significance
White Rock (Cambria) State Marine
Conservation Area
Florida
See National Estuarine Research
Reserves, above.
Hawaii
Ahihi Kina’u Natural Area Reserve
Hanauma Bay Marine Life Conservation
District, Oahu
Kaho’olawe Island Reserve
Kealakekua Bay Marine Life
Conservation District
Molokini Shoal Marine Life
Conservation District
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Pupukea Marine Life Conservation
District, Oahu
West Hawaii Regional Fisheries
Management Area
Maryland
U–1105 Black Panther Historic
Shipwreck Preserve
Massachusetts
See National Estuarine Research
Reserves, above
New Jersey
See National Estuarine Research
Reserves, above
Virginia
Bethel Beach Natural Area Preserve
Blue Crab Sanctuary
Dameron Marsh Natural Area Preserve
False Cape State Park
Hughlett Point Natural Area Preserve
Kiptopeke State Park
Savage Neck Dunes Natural Area
Preserve
Washington
Admiralty Head Preserve
Argyle Lagoon San Juan Islands Marine
Preserve
Blake Island Underwater Park
Brackett’s Landing Shoreline Sanctuary
Conservation Area
Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve
Cypress Island Aquatic Reserve
Deception Pass Underwater Park
False Bay San Juan Islands Marine
Preserve
Fidalgo Bay Aquatic Reserve
Friday Harbor San Juan Islands Marine
Preserve
Haro Strait Special Management Fishery
Area
Maury Island Aquatic Reserve
San Juan Channel & Upright Channel
Special Management Fishery Area
Orchard Rocks Conservation Area
Shaw Island San Juan Islands Marine
Preserve
South Puget Sound Wildfire Area
Sund Rock Conservation Area
Yellow and Low Islands San Juan
Islands Marine Preserve
Zelia Schultz/Protection Island Marine
Preserve
Response to Public Comments
On March 6, 2009, NOAA and DOI
(agencies) published the Nomination of
Existing Marine Protected Areas to the
National System of Marine Protected
Areas for public comment. By the end
of the 30-day comment period, 26
individual submissions had been
received from a variety of government
agencies, non-governmental
organizations, industry and
conservation interests, advisory groups
E:\FR\FM\23APN1.SGM
23APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Notices
and the public. Given the breadth and
multi-faceted nature of comments and
recommendations received, related
comments have been grouped below
into categories to simplify the
development of responses. For each of
the comment categories listed below, a
summary of comments is provided, and
a corresponding response provides an
explanation and rationale about changes
that were or were not made in the
Official List of National System Marine
Protected Areas (MPAs) for this first
round of nominated sites.
Comment Category 1: Purpose and Scope of
National System
Comment Category 2: Agency Review Process
Comment Category 3: Public Review Process
Comment Category 4: Support for
Nomination of Specific Sites to National
System
Comment Category 5: Questioning Eligibility
of Specific Sites for the National System
Comment Category 6: Concerns about
Potential Restrictions on Use
Comment Category 7: Information Available
to Assess Nominations
Comment Category 8: Information Quality
Act
Comment Category 9: Gap Analysis
Comments and Responses
Comment Category 1: Purpose and
Scope of National System
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Summary
A few comments called for more
clarity about the purpose and vision of
the National System of Marine Protected
Areas (MPAs), although there were
different perspectives about what this
vision should include. One respondent
thought that the agencies should create
more specific minimum criteria for the
national system, while another
contended that the nomination process
should mirror the creation of new sites
under the National Marine Sanctuaries
Act. Some respondents had comments
on entry criteria for nominations to the
National System of MPAs, or on plans
for implementation of the federal
responsibility to avoid harm to the
resources protected by a national system
MPA. One respondent recommended
that the name of the ‘‘National System
of MPAs’’ be revised and called the
‘‘National Network of MPAs’’ stating
that ‘‘a National Network is opinionbased; a National System is sciencebased.’’
Response
The purpose and scope of the national
system, and plans for its
implementation, were developed with
extensive stakeholder engagement over
a four year period from 2004 through
2008. During this period, the Framework
for the National System of Marine
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:59 Apr 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Protected Areas of the United States
(Framework) was developed. Three
separate public comment periods on the
document were held and announced in
the Federal Register. In addition, the
National Marine Protected Areas Center
(MPA Center) held numerous meetings
with stakeholders to obtain input on the
Framework, and worked closely with
the Marine Protected Areas Federal
Advisory Committee (MPA FAC) in
open meetings on key concepts that
were incorporated into the document.
The Framework document was finalized
in November 2008; no public comments
were received on the Federal Register
notice announcing its release. Issues
raised by respondents focused on the
content of the Framework are not
considered germane to this public
comment notice.
Regarding the recommendation that
the nomination process should mirror
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act
(NMSA), the agencies contend that the
NMSA should not be the model for
nominations to the national system for
the following reasons: (1) The national
system is charged with working to
coordinate diverse MPAs across all
levels of governments. These sites and
programs have diverse authorities, and
it is inappropriate to impose the
requirements of one federal MPA
program (e.g. the NMSA) on other
federal, state, and territorial MPA
programs, which have their own legal
authorities, processes and purposes; (2)
The procedural elements for the NMSA
are focused on the designation of new
MPAs, while the nomination process for
national system of MPAs is focused on
the admission of existing MPAs into the
national system for the purposes of
enhanced coordination, recognition and
stewardship and (3) The NMSA’s
extensive procedural requirements for
sanctuary designation (including public
involvement and interagency
consultation) are not warranted for
inclusion of a site in the national system
of MPAs since that action has no
regulatory impact or potential to restrict
human uses of that site.
The agencies disagree with the
recommendation that the National
System of MPAs be renamed the
‘‘National Network of MPAs.’’ Section
4(e) of Executive Order 13158 calls for
the development of a National System of
MPAs. In addition, the terms ‘‘system’’
and ‘‘network’’ as used in the
Framework are clearly defined in
Section VI. Glossary of Key Terms of the
final Framework. These definitions were
developed in consultation with the
MPA Federal Advisory Committee to
ensure clarity of usage and consistency
with current scientific thinking.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18555
Comment Category 2: Agency Review
Process
Summary
Two respondents called for
nominations to the national system to
undergo special review by particular
management agencies. One called for all
nominations in a given region to be
reviewed and approved by regional
Fishery Management Councils. Another
respondent called for all sites in Alaska
to be reviewed and approved by the
Alaska Board of Fisheries.
Response
The current process for nominations
to the national system provides for
nominations to be made by the MPA’s
managing agency and for a public
review process of the MPAs proposed
for nomination. The agencies believe
that while it is appropriate for other
agencies or bodies in a region to
comment on such proposed
nominations as part of the public
process, it is inappropriate for these
other agencies or bodies to have the
authority to approve or disapprove
nominations made by the agency legally
responsible for the management of an
MPA.
Comment Category 3: Public Review
Process
Summary
Two respondents noted that the 30day public comment period was not
sufficient to review information for 225
nominated sites, and requested that the
public comment period be extended.
One respondent recommended that all
nominated sites be reviewed by the
Marine Protected Areas Federal
Advisory Committee.
Response
The agencies have concluded that this
extension is not necessary because the
public has had ample opportunity to
address many of the issues raised
through the multi-year public process to
develop the Framework, which
included three separate Federal Register
public comment periods. The agencies
followed the Framework’s process and
provided an opportunity for the public
to comment on issues related
specifically to nominations to the
national system. The agencies do not
believe that an extended comment
period would substantively change the
comments received. Moreover, because
the national system of MPAs is a nonregulatory program that will not change
the management or regulations of
member sites, there is no risk of harm
to the public resulting from declining
this extension. Regarding the
E:\FR\FM\23APN1.SGM
23APN1
18556
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Notices
recommendation that the Marine
Protected Areas Federal Advisory
Committee should review the
nominations, the Committee was
actively involved in developing and
recommending the entry criteria for the
national system. However, the role of
the Committee is to provide advice to
the Departments of Commerce and the
Interior, not to engage in governmental
decision-making regarding operational
details of the national system.
Comment Category 4: Support for
Nomination of Specific Sites to National
System
Summary
A number of comments supported the
nomination of specific sites to the
national system, noting the significant
ecological and cultural value of the
areas, and adding that the participation
of these sites in the national system will
lead to a strengthening of their
conservation efforts, as well as
enhancing the national system. One
comment sought better integration
among NOAA Fisheries and National
Marine Sanctuaries, and further sought
opportunities to leverage funds and
establish partnerships.
Response
Comments that support the
nominations of sites to the national
system were forwarded to the
appropriate managing agencies.
Regarding the call for enhanced
integration, the agencies believe that the
national system will result in enhanced
collaboration and coordination of all
MPA managing agencies, including
NOAA Fisheries and National Marine
Sanctuaries.
Comment Category 5: Questioning
Eligibility of Specific Sites for the
National System
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Summary
Several comments questioned the
eligibility of specific sites for inclusion
in the national system. Eligibility
concerns included whether sites met the
definitions of ‘marine’ and ‘MPA,’ as
well as concerns over a specific site’s
management plan. In particular, several
respondents noted that the Cherry Point
Aquatic Reserve (WA) did not meet the
national system entry criteria to have a
management plan because its
management plan is still in draft.
Response
According to the Framework for the
National System of Marine Protected
Areas of the United States of America
(Framework), a site is eligible for
inclusion in the national system if the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:59 Apr 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
site: (1) Meets the definition of an MPA
as defined in the Framework; (2) has a
management plan (can be site-specific
or part of a broader programmatic
management plan); (3) contributes to at
least one priority conservation objective
as listed in the Framework; and (4)
cultural heritage resources must also
conform to criteria for the National
Register of Historic Places.
It is important to note that only the
‘marine’ portion of a site will be eligible
for inclusion in the national system.
According to the Framework, to be
marine, a site ‘‘must be: (a) Ocean or
coastal waters (note: coastal waters may
include intertidal areas, bays or
estuaries); (b) an area of the Great Lakes
or their connecting waters; (c) an area of
submerged lands under ocean or coastal
waters or the Great Lakes or their
connecting waters; or (d) a combination
of the above. The term ‘‘intertidal’’ is
understood to mean the shore zone
between the mean low water and mean
high water marks. An MPA may be a
marine component part of a larger site
that includes uplands. However, the
terrestrial portion is not considered an
MPA. For mapping purposes, an MPA
may show an associated terrestrial
protected area.’’
Recognizing the often lengthy process
in finalizing a management plan, which
in some cases can take years to
complete, the agencies determined that
an established site may submit a draft
management plan in order to meet this
eligibility criterion.
Comment Category 6: Concerns About
Potential Restrictions on Use
Summary
Several comments addressed the
concern that the inclusion of a site in
the national system will limit access to
an area, and in particular will restrict
recreational fishing or boating,
sportfishing, commercial fishing,
aquaculture operations, or coastal
industry.
Response
The national system has no authority
under Executive Order 13158 to either
change the management or regulatory
authority of existing MPAs or create
new MPAs. MPAs will continue to be
established, managed and revised under
each site’s existing federal, state,
territorial, tribal or local authorities and
their associated legal processes. The
inclusion of an MPA into the national
system in no way ‘‘federalizes’’ any state
or local areas included within the
system. The Executive Order states that
the national system is ‘‘intended to
support, not interfere with, agencies’
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
independent exercise of their own
existing authorities.’’
Comment Category 7: Information
Available to Assess Nominations
Summary
Several respondents contended that
the information available on the
nominated sites was not sufficient for
the public to assess whether the entry
criteria had been met. Respondents
noted that additional information was
needed to ensure the transparency of the
review process. For example, one
respondent wanted to view information
that indicated how, not merely whether,
sites met the nomination criteria.
Response
The agencies posted information on
the nominated sites on the public Web
site, https://www.mpa.gov in a
downloadable PDF format. Information
provided in this format included: site
name, management agency, level of
protection, permanence, constancy,
protection focus, fishing restrictions and
management plan type. In addition,
information on the primary
conservation objective(s) addressed by
each site, and the regulatory or
management tools used to address the
primary conservation objective(s) was
provided. One week after the Federal
Register notice appeared, based on a
request from the public, the location of
all federal sites sorted by the state in
which it is located was added to the
downloadable file to improve ease of
utility. Users were also able to
download GIS data for nominated sites
as part of the MPA Inventory posted on
www.mpa.gov. Information regarding
the MPA Center’s assessment of
eligibility was available to the public
through the Web site. For example, the
Web site provided information on the
type of management plan for each site,
as well as the evidence the management
program for each site provided to
indicate how it met the primary
conservation objective(s) of the national
system.
The MPA Center recognizes the need
to expand the data available on https://
www.mpa.gov and to make it more
accessible and usable to the public, and
is in process of developing and
improving Web-based applications to
address this need.
Comment Category 8: Information
Quality Act
Summary
One respondent expressed concern
that because of general disclaimers on
the https://www.mpa.gov Web site (at:
https://mpa.gov/helpful_resources/
E:\FR\FM\23APN1.SGM
23APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
disclaimers_pr.html), the data contained
therein regarding the Marine Protected
Areas Inventory does not comply with
the Information Quality Act (IQA). The
respondent states that in light of the
disclaimer language, the public ‘‘has no
reason to believe that any of these data
are accurate, reliable, and complete or
they have any utility.’’ If true,
dissemination of such information
would violate NOAA’s Information
Quality (IQ) guidelines, published
pursuant to the IQA. In support of this
assertion, the respondent cites NOAA’s
IQA guidelines as follows: ‘‘Information
quality is composed of three elements:
utility, integrity and objectivity. Quality
will be ensured and established at levels
appropriate to the nature and timeliness
of the information to be disseminated.
NOAA will conduct a pre-dissemination
review of information it disseminates to
verify quality. Information quality is an
integral part of the pre-dissemination
review * * * .’’
Web site meet the applicable NOAA IQ
standards.
Regarding the disclaimer language
posted on the MPA Center Web site (at:
https://mpa.gov/helpful_resources/
disclaimers_pr.html), the agency has
taken the respondent’s comments into
consideration and will replace the
existing disclaimer with more
appropriate language regarding
limitations on the use of the data
contained on the MPA Center Web site.
Response
NOAA’s MPA Inventory information
is reliable and complies with the NOAA
IQ guidelines standards for utility,
integrity, and objectivity. The content of
the initial Marine Managed Area (MMA)
Inventory and its successor Marine
Protected Areas Inventory (MPA
Inventory) were developed and
designed in cooperation with federal,
state and territorial agencies and were
the subject of public comment under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. The
definition of ‘‘MPA’’ was the subject of
Federal Register comment processes as
part of the inventory development
process, and three additional times as
part of the development and publication
of the Framework for the National
System of Marine Protected Areas of the
United States of America. Data were
collected directly from primary sources,
and from the Federal, State, or territorial
agency programs that designate and
manage MPAs. Once initial data were
collected, inventory information for
each site was sent by the MPA Center
to the pertinent MPA management
agency for verification prior to posting
on the www.mpa.gov Web site as part of
the quality assurance/quality control
process.
In addition, on November 20, 2008
the MPA Center Director sent a letter to
MPA program managers providing each
with a set of potential nominee sites
from the pertinent program. The MPA
program managers reviewed and
verified the accuracy of the information
provided. As a result of these review
processes, the agencies believe NOAA’s
MPA inventory and related information
disseminated through the MPA Center
The regional gap analysis process
described in the Framework will
complement the nominations of existing
sites to the National System of MPAs by
providing information on areas in need
of additional protection to MPA
management agencies. NOAA and DOI
are currently in the design phase of the
gap analysis process; information on the
process will continue to be posted on
https://www.mpa.gov.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:59 Apr 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Comment Category 9: Gap Analysis
Summary
Two respondents noted the
importance of the gap analysis
described in the Framework document,
and urged that the agencies move
forward with the gap analysis to identify
areas meeting the conservation
objectives of the national system in need
of additional protection.
Response
Dated: April 17, 2009.
John H. Dunnigan,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9–9335 Filed 4–22–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Minority Business Development
Agency
[Docket No.: 090416673–9681–01]
Solicitation of Applications for the
Minority Business Enterprise Center
(MBEC) Program
AGENCY: Minority Business
Development Agency, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: In accordance with 15 U.S.C.
1512 and Executive Order 11625, the
Minority Business Development Agency
(MBDA) is soliciting competitive
applications from organizations to
operate a Minority Business Enterprise
Center (MBEC) in the two locations and
geographical service areas specified in
this notice. The MBEC operates through
the use of business consultants and
provides a range of business consulting
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18557
and technical assistance services
directly to eligible minority-owned
businesses. Responsibility for ensuring
that applications in response to this
competitive solicitation are complete
and received by MBDA on time is the
sole responsibility of the applicant.
Applications submitted must be for the
operation of a MBEC and to provide
business consultation services to
eligible clients. Applications that do not
meet these requirements will be
rejected. This is not a grant program to
help start or to further an individual
business.
A link to the full text of the
Announcement of Federal Funding
Opportunity (FFO) for this solicitation
may be accessed at: https://
www.Grants.gov, https://www.mbda.gov,
or by contacting the appropriate MBDA
representative identified above. The
FFO contains a full and complete
description of the application and
programmatic requirements under the
MBEC Program. In order to receive
proper consideration, applicants must
comply with the requirements
contained in the FFO.
DATES: The closing date for receipt of
applications is June 4, 2009 at 5 p.m.
Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
Completed applications must be
received by MBDA at the address below
for paper submissions or at https://
www.Grants.gov for electronic
submissions. The due date and time is
the same for electronic submissions as
it is for paper submissions. The date
that applications will be deemed to have
been submitted electronically shall be
the date and time received at
Grants.gov. Applicants should save and
print the proof of submission they
receive from Grants.gov. Applications
received after the closing date and time
will not be considered. Anticipated time
for processing is seventy-five (75) days
from the closing date for receipt of
applications. MBDA anticipates that one
award under this notice will be made
with a start date of September 1, 2009.
Pre-Application Conference: In
connection with this solicitation, a preapplication conference is scheduled for
May 7, 2009. The time and location of
the pre-application conference have yet
to be determined. Participants must
register at least 24 hours in advance of
the conference and may participate in
person or by telephone. Please visit the
MBDA Internet Portal at https://
www.mbda.gov (MBDA Portal) or
contact an MBDA representative listed
below for the specific time and location
of the pre-application conference and
for registration instructions.
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\23APN1.SGM
23APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 77 (Thursday, April 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18551-18557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9335]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
List of National System Marine Protected Areas
AGENCY: NOAA, Department of Commerce (DOC).
ACTION: Notice of availability of the List of National System Marine
Protected Areas (MPAs) and response to comments on nominations of
existing MPAs to the national system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NOAA and the Department of the Interior (DOI) invited federal,
state, commonwealth, and territorial MPA programs with potentially
eligible existing MPAs to nominate their sites to the national system
of MPAs (national system). A total of 225 nominations were received.
Following a 30-day public review period, 26 public comments were
received by the National Marine Protected Areas Center and forwarded to
the relevant managing agencies. After review of the public comments,
managing agencies were asked to make a final determination of sites to
nominate to the national system. All the nominations were confirmed by
the managing agencies. Finding them to be eligible for the national
system, the National Marine Protected Areas Center has accepted the
nominations for 225 sites and placed them on the List of National
System MPAs.
The national system and the nomination process are described in the
Framework for the National System of Marine Protected Areas of the
United States of America (Framework), developed in response to
Executive Order 13158 on Marine Protected Areas. The final Framework
was published on
[[Page 18552]]
November 19, 2008, and provides guidance for collaborative efforts
among Federal, State, commonwealth, territorial, tribal and local
governments and stakeholders to develop an effective and well
coordinated national system that includes existing MPAs meeting
national system criteria as well as new sites that may be established
by managing agencies to fill key conservation gaps in important ocean
areas.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren Wenzel, NOAA, at 301-713-3100,
ext. 136 or via e-mail at mpa.comments@noaa.gov. A more detailed
electronic copy of the List of National System MPAs is available for
download at https://www.mpa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background on National System
The national system of MPAs includes member MPA sites, networks and
systems established and managed by Federal, State, Territorial, Tribal
and/or local governments that collectively enhance conservation of the
nation's natural and cultural marine heritage and represent its diverse
ecosystems and resources. Although participating sites continue to be
managed independently, national system MPAs also work together at the
regional and national levels to achieve common objectives for
conserving the nation's important natural and cultural resources, with
emphasis on achieving the priority conservation objectives of the
Framework. MPAs include sites with a wide range of protection, from
multiple use areas to no take reserves where all extractive uses are
prohibited. The term MPA refers only to the marine portion of a site
(below the mean high tide mark) that may include both terrestrial and
marine components.
Benefits of joining the national system, which are expected to
increase over time as the system matures, include a facilitated means
to work with other MPAs in the MPA's region, and nationally on issues
of common conservation concern; fostering greater public and
international recognition of MPAs and the resources they protect;
priority in the receipt of available technical and other support for
cross-cutting needs; and the opportunity to influence Federal and
regional ocean conservation and management initiatives (such as
integrated ocean observing systems, systematic monitoring and
evaluation, targeted outreach to key user groups, and helping to
identify and address MPA research needs). In addition, the national
system provides a forum for coordinated regional planning about place-
based conservation priorities that does not otherwise exist.
Joining the national system does not restrict or require changes
affecting the designation process or management of member MPAs. It does
not bring State, Territorial, Tribal or local sites under Federal
authority. It does not establish new regulatory authority or revise
existing regulatory authority. The national system is a mechanism to
foster greater collaboration among participating MPA sites and programs
in order to enhance stewardship in the waters of the United States.
Nomination Process
The Framework describes two major focal areas for building the
national system of MPAs--a nomination process to allow existing MPAs
that meet the entry criteria to become part of the system and a
collaborative regional gap analysis process to identify areas of
significance for natural or cultural resources that may merit
additional protection through existing Federal, State, commonwealth,
territorial, tribal or local MPA authorities. The initial nomination
process for the national system began on November 25, 2008, when the
National Marine Protected Areas Center (MPA Center) sent a letter to
federal, state, commonwealth, and territorial MPA programs inviting
them to submit nominations of eligible MPAs to the national system. The
initial deadline for nominations was January 31, 2009; this was
extended to February 13, 2009. A public comment period was held from
March 6, 2009 through April 6, 2009.
There are three entry criteria for existing MPAs to join the
national system, plus a fourth for cultural heritage. Sites that meet
all pertinent criteria are eligible for the national system.
1. Meets the definition of an MPA as defined in the Framework.
2. Has a management plan (can be site-specific or part of a broader
programmatic management plan; must have goals and objectives and call
for monitoring or evaluation of those goals and objectives).
3. Contributes to at least one priority conservation objective as
listed in the Framework.
4. Cultural heritage MPAs must also conform to criteria for the
National Register for Historic Places.
Additional sites not currently meeting the management plan criterion
can be evaluated for eligibility to be nominated to the system on a
case-by-case basis based on their ability to fill gaps in the national
system coverage of the priority conservation objectives and design
principles described in the Framework.
The MPA Center used existing information in the MPA Inventory to
determine which MPAs meet the first and second criteria. The inventory
is online at https://www.mpa.gov/helpful_resources/inventory.html, and
potentially eligible sites are posted online at https://mpa.gov/pdf/national-system/allsitesumsheet120408.pdf. As part of the nomination
process, the managing entity for each potentially eligible site is
asked to provide information on the third and fourth criteria.
List of National System MPAs
The following MPAs have been nominated by their managing programs
to join the national system of MPAs. A list providing more detail for
each site is available at https://www.mpa.gov.
Federal Marine Protected Areas
Marine National Monument
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (Hawaii)
National Marine Sanctuaries
Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (California)
Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary (California)
Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary (American Samoa)
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (Florida)
Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (Texas)
Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary (Georgia)
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (Massachusetts)
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (California)
Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (Hawaii)
Monitor National Marine Sanctuary (North Carolina)
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (California)
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (Washington)
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary (Michigan)
National Parks
Assateague Island National Seashore (Virginia, Maryland)
Biscayne National Park (Florida)
Channel Islands National Park (California)
Dry Tortugas National Park (Florida)
Everglades National Park (Florida)
Glacier Bay National Park (Alaska)
Isle Royale National Park (Minnesota, Michigan)
Point Reyes National Park (California)
[[Page 18553]]
Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument (US Virgin Islands)
Virgin Islands National Park (US Virgin Islands)
National Wildlife Refuges
ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge (South Carolina)
Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (Alaska)
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (North Carolina)
Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge (Texas)
Aransas National Wildlife Refuge (Texas)
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Alaska)
Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Virginia)
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge (Hawaii)
Bandon Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (Oregon)
Big Boggy National Wildlife Refuge (Texas)
Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (Louisiana)
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge (Maryland)
Block Island National Wildlife Refuge (Rhode Island)
Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge (Delaware)
Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge (Alabama)
Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge (Texas)
Breton National Wildlife Refuge (Louisiana)
Cape May National Wildlife Refuge (New Jersey)
Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge (South Carolina)
Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge (North Carolina)
Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge (Virginia, Maryland)
Conscience Point National Wildlife Refuge (New York)
Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Cross Island National Wildlife Refuge (Maine)
Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Currituck National Wildlife Refuge (North Carolina)
Delta National Wildlife Refuge (Louisiana)
Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (California)
Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge (Washington)
Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge (Maryland)
Eastern Shore of Virginia National Wildlife Refuge (Virginia)
Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (New Jersey)
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge (Virginia)
Fisherman Island National Wildlife Refuge (Virginia)
Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Mississippi, Alabama)
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge (Washington)
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge (New Hampshire)
Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Guam National Wildlife Refuge (Guam)
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge (Pacific Islands)
Huron National Wildlife Refuge (Michigan)
Island Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge (Pacific Islands)
John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge (Rhode Island)
Johnston Island National Wildlife Refuge (Pacific Islands, Hawaii)
Key West National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge (Pacific Islands)
Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge (Washington, Oregon)
Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge (Virginia, North Carolina)
Marin Islands National Wildlife Refuge (California)
Martin National Wildlife Refuge (Maryland)
Mashpee National Wildlife Refuge (Massachusetts)
Matlacha Pass National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge (Hawaii)
Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge (Massachusetts)
National Key Deer Refuge (Florida)
Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Oregon)
Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge (Rhode Island)
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (Washington)
Nomans Land Island National Wildlife Refuge (Massachusetts)
Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Virginia)
Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge (New York)
Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge (Pacific Islands)
Parker River National Wildlife Refuge (Massachusetts)
Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge (North Carolina)
Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Pine Island National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Pinellas National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Plum Tree Island National Wildlife Refuge (Virginia)
Pond Island National Wildlife Refuge (Maine)
Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge (Delaware)
Protection Island National Wildlife Refuge (Washington)
Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge (Maine)
Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge (Pacific Islands)
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge (Louisiana)
Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge (Rhode Island)
San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge (Texas)
San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge (California)
Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge (New York)
Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge (Louisiana)
Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Oregon)
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge (Connecticut)
Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (New Jersey)
Susquehanna National Wildlife Refuge (Maryland)
Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge (North Carolina)
Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (California)
Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge (New York)
Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge (South Carolina)
Wallops Island National Wildlife Refuge (Virginia)
Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge (New York)
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (Washington)
Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (Alaska)
Federal/State Partnership Marine Protected Areas
National Estuarine Research Reserves
Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve (Florida)
[[Page 18554]]
Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve (New Jersey)
Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (Florida)
Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (Massachusetts)
State Marine Protected Areas
American Samoa
Aua
California
Ano Nuevo Area of Special Biological Significance
Ano Nuevo State Marine Conservation Area
Asilomar State Marine Reserve
Big Creek State Marine Conservation Area
Big Creek State Marine Reserve
Bird Rock Area of Special Biological Significance
Bodega Area of Special Biological Significance
Cambria State Marine Conservation Area
Carmel Bay Area of Special Biological Significance
Carmel Bay State Marine Conservation Area
Carmel Pinnacles State Marine Reserve
Del Mar Area of Special Biological Significance
Double Point Area of Special Biological Significance
Duxbury Reef Area of Special Biological Significance
Edward F. Ricketts State Marine Conservation Area
Elkhorn Slough State Marine Conservation Area
Elkhorn Slough State Marine Reserve
Farallon Islands Area of Special Biological Significance
Farnsworth Bank Area of Special Biological Significance
Gerstle Cove Area of Special Biological Significance
Greyhound Rock State Marine Conservation Area
Heisler Park Area of Special Biological Significance
Irvine Coast Area of Special Biological Significance
James V. Fitzgerald Area of Special Biological Significance
Jughandle Cove Area of Special Biological Significance
Julia Pfeiffer Burns Area of Special Biological Significance
King Range Area of Special Biological Significance
La Jolla Area of Special Biological Significance
Laguna Point to Latiga Point Area of Special Biological Significance
Lovers Point State Marine Reserve
Moro Cojo Slough State Marine Reserve
Morro Bay State Marine Recreational Management Area
Morro Bay State Marine Reserve
Natural Bridges State Marine Reserve
Northwest Santa Catalina Area of Special Biological Significance
Pacific Grove Area of Special Biological Significance
Pacific Grove Marine Gardens State Marine Conservation Area
Piedras Blancas State Marine Conservation Area
Piedras Blancas State Marine Reserve
Point Buchon State Marine Conservation Area
Point Buchon State Marine Reserve
Point Lobos Area of Special Biological Significance
Point Lobos State Marine Conservation Area
Point Lobos State Marine Reserve
Point Reyes Headlands Area of Special Biological Significance
Point Sur State Marine Conservation Area
Point Sur State Marine Reserve
Portuguese Ledge State Marine Conservation Area
Redwoods National Park Area of Special Biological Significance
Robert E. Badham Area of Special Biological Significance
Salmon Creek Coast Area of Special Biological Significance
San Clemente Area of Special Biological Significance
San Diego Scripps Area of Special Biological Significance
San Nicolas Island & Begg Rock Area of Special Biological Significance
Santa Barbara & Anacapa Island Area of Special Biological Significance
Santa Rosa & Santa Cruz Island Area of Special Biological Significance
Saunders Reef Area of Special Biological Significance
Soquel Canyon State Marine Reserve
Southeast Santa Catalina Area of Special Biological Significance
Trinidad Head Area of Special Biological Significance
Vandenberg State Marine Reserve
Western Santa Catalina Area of Special Biological Significance
White Rock (Cambria) State Marine Conservation Area
Florida
See National Estuarine Research Reserves, above.
Hawaii
Ahihi Kina'u Natural Area Reserve
Hanauma Bay Marine Life Conservation District, Oahu
Kaho'olawe Island Reserve
Kealakekua Bay Marine Life Conservation District
Molokini Shoal Marine Life Conservation District
Pupukea Marine Life Conservation District, Oahu
West Hawaii Regional Fisheries Management Area
Maryland
U-1105 Black Panther Historic Shipwreck Preserve
Massachusetts
See National Estuarine Research Reserves, above
New Jersey
See National Estuarine Research Reserves, above
Virginia
Bethel Beach Natural Area Preserve
Blue Crab Sanctuary
Dameron Marsh Natural Area Preserve
False Cape State Park
Hughlett Point Natural Area Preserve
Kiptopeke State Park
Savage Neck Dunes Natural Area Preserve
Washington
Admiralty Head Preserve
Argyle Lagoon San Juan Islands Marine Preserve
Blake Island Underwater Park
Brackett's Landing Shoreline Sanctuary Conservation Area
Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve
Cypress Island Aquatic Reserve
Deception Pass Underwater Park
False Bay San Juan Islands Marine Preserve
Fidalgo Bay Aquatic Reserve
Friday Harbor San Juan Islands Marine Preserve
Haro Strait Special Management Fishery Area
Maury Island Aquatic Reserve
San Juan Channel & Upright Channel Special Management Fishery Area
Orchard Rocks Conservation Area
Shaw Island San Juan Islands Marine Preserve
South Puget Sound Wildfire Area
Sund Rock Conservation Area
Yellow and Low Islands San Juan Islands Marine Preserve
Zelia Schultz/Protection Island Marine Preserve
Response to Public Comments
On March 6, 2009, NOAA and DOI (agencies) published the Nomination
of Existing Marine Protected Areas to the National System of Marine
Protected Areas for public comment. By the end of the 30-day comment
period, 26 individual submissions had been received from a variety of
government agencies, non-governmental organizations, industry and
conservation interests, advisory groups
[[Page 18555]]
and the public. Given the breadth and multi-faceted nature of comments
and recommendations received, related comments have been grouped below
into categories to simplify the development of responses. For each of
the comment categories listed below, a summary of comments is provided,
and a corresponding response provides an explanation and rationale
about changes that were or were not made in the Official List of
National System Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for this first round of
nominated sites.
Comment Category 1: Purpose and Scope of National System
Comment Category 2: Agency Review Process
Comment Category 3: Public Review Process
Comment Category 4: Support for Nomination of Specific Sites to
National System
Comment Category 5: Questioning Eligibility of Specific Sites for
the National System
Comment Category 6: Concerns about Potential Restrictions on Use
Comment Category 7: Information Available to Assess Nominations
Comment Category 8: Information Quality Act
Comment Category 9: Gap Analysis
Comments and Responses
Comment Category 1: Purpose and Scope of National System
Summary
A few comments called for more clarity about the purpose and vision
of the National System of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), although there
were different perspectives about what this vision should include. One
respondent thought that the agencies should create more specific
minimum criteria for the national system, while another contended that
the nomination process should mirror the creation of new sites under
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. Some respondents had comments on
entry criteria for nominations to the National System of MPAs, or on
plans for implementation of the federal responsibility to avoid harm to
the resources protected by a national system MPA. One respondent
recommended that the name of the ``National System of MPAs'' be revised
and called the ``National Network of MPAs'' stating that ``a National
Network is opinion-based; a National System is science-based.''
Response
The purpose and scope of the national system, and plans for its
implementation, were developed with extensive stakeholder engagement
over a four year period from 2004 through 2008. During this period, the
Framework for the National System of Marine Protected Areas of the
United States (Framework) was developed. Three separate public comment
periods on the document were held and announced in the Federal
Register. In addition, the National Marine Protected Areas Center (MPA
Center) held numerous meetings with stakeholders to obtain input on the
Framework, and worked closely with the Marine Protected Areas Federal
Advisory Committee (MPA FAC) in open meetings on key concepts that were
incorporated into the document. The Framework document was finalized in
November 2008; no public comments were received on the Federal Register
notice announcing its release. Issues raised by respondents focused on
the content of the Framework are not considered germane to this public
comment notice.
Regarding the recommendation that the nomination process should
mirror the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), the agencies contend
that the NMSA should not be the model for nominations to the national
system for the following reasons: (1) The national system is charged
with working to coordinate diverse MPAs across all levels of
governments. These sites and programs have diverse authorities, and it
is inappropriate to impose the requirements of one federal MPA program
(e.g. the NMSA) on other federal, state, and territorial MPA programs,
which have their own legal authorities, processes and purposes; (2) The
procedural elements for the NMSA are focused on the designation of new
MPAs, while the nomination process for national system of MPAs is
focused on the admission of existing MPAs into the national system for
the purposes of enhanced coordination, recognition and stewardship and
(3) The NMSA's extensive procedural requirements for sanctuary
designation (including public involvement and interagency consultation)
are not warranted for inclusion of a site in the national system of
MPAs since that action has no regulatory impact or potential to
restrict human uses of that site.
The agencies disagree with the recommendation that the National
System of MPAs be renamed the ``National Network of MPAs.'' Section
4(e) of Executive Order 13158 calls for the development of a National
System of MPAs. In addition, the terms ``system'' and ``network'' as
used in the Framework are clearly defined in Section VI. Glossary of
Key Terms of the final Framework. These definitions were developed in
consultation with the MPA Federal Advisory Committee to ensure clarity
of usage and consistency with current scientific thinking.
Comment Category 2: Agency Review Process
Summary
Two respondents called for nominations to the national system to
undergo special review by particular management agencies. One called
for all nominations in a given region to be reviewed and approved by
regional Fishery Management Councils. Another respondent called for all
sites in Alaska to be reviewed and approved by the Alaska Board of
Fisheries.
Response
The current process for nominations to the national system provides
for nominations to be made by the MPA's managing agency and for a
public review process of the MPAs proposed for nomination. The agencies
believe that while it is appropriate for other agencies or bodies in a
region to comment on such proposed nominations as part of the public
process, it is inappropriate for these other agencies or bodies to have
the authority to approve or disapprove nominations made by the agency
legally responsible for the management of an MPA.
Comment Category 3: Public Review Process
Summary
Two respondents noted that the 30-day public comment period was not
sufficient to review information for 225 nominated sites, and requested
that the public comment period be extended. One respondent recommended
that all nominated sites be reviewed by the Marine Protected Areas
Federal Advisory Committee.
Response
The agencies have concluded that this extension is not necessary
because the public has had ample opportunity to address many of the
issues raised through the multi-year public process to develop the
Framework, which included three separate Federal Register public
comment periods. The agencies followed the Framework's process and
provided an opportunity for the public to comment on issues related
specifically to nominations to the national system. The agencies do not
believe that an extended comment period would substantively change the
comments received. Moreover, because the national system of MPAs is a
non-regulatory program that will not change the management or
regulations of member sites, there is no risk of harm to the public
resulting from declining this extension. Regarding the
[[Page 18556]]
recommendation that the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory
Committee should review the nominations, the Committee was actively
involved in developing and recommending the entry criteria for the
national system. However, the role of the Committee is to provide
advice to the Departments of Commerce and the Interior, not to engage
in governmental decision-making regarding operational details of the
national system.
Comment Category 4: Support for Nomination of Specific Sites to
National System
Summary
A number of comments supported the nomination of specific sites to
the national system, noting the significant ecological and cultural
value of the areas, and adding that the participation of these sites in
the national system will lead to a strengthening of their conservation
efforts, as well as enhancing the national system. One comment sought
better integration among NOAA Fisheries and National Marine
Sanctuaries, and further sought opportunities to leverage funds and
establish partnerships.
Response
Comments that support the nominations of sites to the national
system were forwarded to the appropriate managing agencies. Regarding
the call for enhanced integration, the agencies believe that the
national system will result in enhanced collaboration and coordination
of all MPA managing agencies, including NOAA Fisheries and National
Marine Sanctuaries.
Comment Category 5: Questioning Eligibility of Specific Sites for the
National System
Summary
Several comments questioned the eligibility of specific sites for
inclusion in the national system. Eligibility concerns included whether
sites met the definitions of `marine' and `MPA,' as well as concerns
over a specific site's management plan. In particular, several
respondents noted that the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve (WA) did not
meet the national system entry criteria to have a management plan
because its management plan is still in draft.
Response
According to the Framework for the National System of Marine
Protected Areas of the United States of America (Framework), a site is
eligible for inclusion in the national system if the site: (1) Meets
the definition of an MPA as defined in the Framework; (2) has a
management plan (can be site-specific or part of a broader programmatic
management plan); (3) contributes to at least one priority conservation
objective as listed in the Framework; and (4) cultural heritage
resources must also conform to criteria for the National Register of
Historic Places.
It is important to note that only the `marine' portion of a site
will be eligible for inclusion in the national system. According to the
Framework, to be marine, a site ``must be: (a) Ocean or coastal waters
(note: coastal waters may include intertidal areas, bays or estuaries);
(b) an area of the Great Lakes or their connecting waters; (c) an area
of submerged lands under ocean or coastal waters or the Great Lakes or
their connecting waters; or (d) a combination of the above. The term
``intertidal'' is understood to mean the shore zone between the mean
low water and mean high water marks. An MPA may be a marine component
part of a larger site that includes uplands. However, the terrestrial
portion is not considered an MPA. For mapping purposes, an MPA may show
an associated terrestrial protected area.''
Recognizing the often lengthy process in finalizing a management
plan, which in some cases can take years to complete, the agencies
determined that an established site may submit a draft management plan
in order to meet this eligibility criterion.
Comment Category 6: Concerns About Potential Restrictions on Use
Summary
Several comments addressed the concern that the inclusion of a site
in the national system will limit access to an area, and in particular
will restrict recreational fishing or boating, sportfishing, commercial
fishing, aquaculture operations, or coastal industry.
Response
The national system has no authority under Executive Order 13158 to
either change the management or regulatory authority of existing MPAs
or create new MPAs. MPAs will continue to be established, managed and
revised under each site's existing federal, state, territorial, tribal
or local authorities and their associated legal processes. The
inclusion of an MPA into the national system in no way ``federalizes''
any state or local areas included within the system. The Executive
Order states that the national system is ``intended to support, not
interfere with, agencies' independent exercise of their own existing
authorities.''
Comment Category 7: Information Available to Assess Nominations
Summary
Several respondents contended that the information available on the
nominated sites was not sufficient for the public to assess whether the
entry criteria had been met. Respondents noted that additional
information was needed to ensure the transparency of the review
process. For example, one respondent wanted to view information that
indicated how, not merely whether, sites met the nomination criteria.
Response
The agencies posted information on the nominated sites on the
public Web site, https://www.mpa.gov in a downloadable PDF format.
Information provided in this format included: site name, management
agency, level of protection, permanence, constancy, protection focus,
fishing restrictions and management plan type. In addition, information
on the primary conservation objective(s) addressed by each site, and
the regulatory or management tools used to address the primary
conservation objective(s) was provided. One week after the Federal
Register notice appeared, based on a request from the public, the
location of all federal sites sorted by the state in which it is
located was added to the downloadable file to improve ease of utility.
Users were also able to download GIS data for nominated sites as part
of the MPA Inventory posted on www.mpa.gov. Information regarding the
MPA Center's assessment of eligibility was available to the public
through the Web site. For example, the Web site provided information on
the type of management plan for each site, as well as the evidence the
management program for each site provided to indicate how it met the
primary conservation objective(s) of the national system.
The MPA Center recognizes the need to expand the data available on
https://www.mpa.gov and to make it more accessible and usable to the
public, and is in process of developing and improving Web-based
applications to address this need.
Comment Category 8: Information Quality Act
Summary
One respondent expressed concern that because of general
disclaimers on the https://www.mpa.gov Web site (at: https://mpa.gov/
helpful--resources/
[[Page 18557]]
disclaimers--pr.html), the data contained therein regarding the Marine
Protected Areas Inventory does not comply with the Information Quality
Act (IQA). The respondent states that in light of the disclaimer
language, the public ``has no reason to believe that any of these data
are accurate, reliable, and complete or they have any utility.'' If
true, dissemination of such information would violate NOAA's
Information Quality (IQ) guidelines, published pursuant to the IQA. In
support of this assertion, the respondent cites NOAA's IQA guidelines
as follows: ``Information quality is composed of three elements:
utility, integrity and objectivity. Quality will be ensured and
established at levels appropriate to the nature and timeliness of the
information to be disseminated. NOAA will conduct a pre-dissemination
review of information it disseminates to verify quality. Information
quality is an integral part of the pre-dissemination review * * * .''
Response
NOAA's MPA Inventory information is reliable and complies with the
NOAA IQ guidelines standards for utility, integrity, and objectivity.
The content of the initial Marine Managed Area (MMA) Inventory and its
successor Marine Protected Areas Inventory (MPA Inventory) were
developed and designed in cooperation with federal, state and
territorial agencies and were the subject of public comment under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. The definition of ``MPA'' was the subject of
Federal Register comment processes as part of the inventory development
process, and three additional times as part of the development and
publication of the Framework for the National System of Marine
Protected Areas of the United States of America. Data were collected
directly from primary sources, and from the Federal, State, or
territorial agency programs that designate and manage MPAs. Once
initial data were collected, inventory information for each site was
sent by the MPA Center to the pertinent MPA management agency for
verification prior to posting on the www.mpa.gov Web site as part of
the quality assurance/quality control process.
In addition, on November 20, 2008 the MPA Center Director sent a
letter to MPA program managers providing each with a set of potential
nominee sites from the pertinent program. The MPA program managers
reviewed and verified the accuracy of the information provided. As a
result of these review processes, the agencies believe NOAA's MPA
inventory and related information disseminated through the MPA Center
Web site meet the applicable NOAA IQ standards.
Regarding the disclaimer language posted on the MPA Center Web site
(at: https://mpa.gov/helpful_resources/disclaimers_pr.html), the
agency has taken the respondent's comments into consideration and will
replace the existing disclaimer with more appropriate language
regarding limitations on the use of the data contained on the MPA
Center Web site.
Comment Category 9: Gap Analysis
Summary
Two respondents noted the importance of the gap analysis described
in the Framework document, and urged that the agencies move forward
with the gap analysis to identify areas meeting the conservation
objectives of the national system in need of additional protection.
Response
The regional gap analysis process described in the Framework will
complement the nominations of existing sites to the National System of
MPAs by providing information on areas in need of additional protection
to MPA management agencies. NOAA and DOI are currently in the design
phase of the gap analysis process; information on the process will
continue to be posted on https://www.mpa.gov.
Dated: April 17, 2009.
John H. Dunnigan,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-9335 Filed 4-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
