Gulf of the Farallones and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries Regulations on Introduced Species, 8778-8787 [2015-03486]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 33 (Thursday, February 19, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8778-8787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03486]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 922

[Docket No. 120809321-4999-03]
RIN 0648-BC26


Gulf of the Farallones and Monterey Bay National Marine 
Sanctuaries Regulations on Introduced Species

AGENCY: Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On March 18, 2013, NOAA proposed to prohibit the introduction 
of introduced species into the state waters of Gulf of the Farallones 
and Monterey Bay national marine sanctuaries (GFNMS and MBNMS, 
respectively). The proposed prohibition included exceptions for the 
catch and release of striped bass and for introduced species of 
shellfish as part of commercial aquaculture activities in the Tomales 
Bay region of GFNMS (the only geographic area within sanctuaries 
offshore of California where aquaculture occurs). On March 27, 2014, 
NOAA amended the proposal to allow GFNMS and MBNMS to consider 
authorizing the introduction of certain introduced species of 
shellfish, those considered to be non-invasive, from commercial 
aquaculture culture projects in all state waters of the sanctuaries. 
NOAA's final action allows MBNMS to authorize state of California 
permits or leases for commercial aquaculture projects in state waters 
involving introduced species of shellfish that a) the state management 
agencies and NOAA have determined to be non-invasive, and b) will not 
have significant adverse impacts to sanctuary resources or qualities. 
For GFNMS, NOAA will not adopt authorization authority for similar 
projects in state waters at this time and will revert to the proposal 
from March 2013, which prohibits introduction of introduced species, 
exempts state permitted commercial shellfish aquaculture activities 
within Tomales Bay only, and provides an exception for the catch and 
release of striped bass.

DATES: Effective Date: Pursuant to section 304(b) of the National 
Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1434(b)), the revised 
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 February 19, 2015. NOAA will publish an 
announcement of the effective date of the final regulations in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Lott, Regional Operations 
Coordinator, West Coast Region, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 
99 Pacific Street, STE 100F, Monterey, CA 93940. (831) 647-1920.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    On November 20, 2008, NOAA issued a final rule associated with the 
Joint Management Plan Review (JMPR) of GFNMS, MBNMS, and Cordell Bank 
National Marine Sanctuary (73 FR 70488). Among other things, the rule 
prohibited the introduction of introduced species within or into both 
the federal and state waters of GFNMS and MBNMS, except for the catch 
and release of striped bass in both sanctuaries and from existing 
commercial aquaculture activities within the Tomales Bay region of

[[Page 8779]]

GFNMS. In December 2008, the Governor of California, acting pursuant to 
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1434(b)(1)), certified 
that certain changes to each sanctuary's terms of designation for 
regulating the introduction of introduced species were unacceptable for 
the state waters portions of GFNMS and MBNMS. As a result of that 
determination, NOAA's prohibitions on introduced species currently 
apply only in the federal waters of MBNMS and GFNMS.
    On March 18, 2013, following discussions with the state of 
California, NOAA re-proposed the prohibition on the introduction of 
introduced species within or into the state waters of GFNMS and MBNMS 
to provide regulatory consistency in all waters of those two 
sanctuaries and across the four national marine sanctuaries along the 
California coast (78 FR 16622). The proposal would have expanded into 
state waters the exception for the catch and release of striped bass 
and would have exempted state-permitted mariculture activities in 
Tomales Bay. A 60-day comment period on the proposed rule closed on May 
17, 2013. (Note: MBNMS regulations use the term ``aquaculture'' and 
GFNMS regulations use the term ``mariculture'' to refer to the same 
activity; accordingly, both of these terms are used in this final 
rulemaking.)
    NOAA received approximately 14 comments from the public and the 
MBNMS and GFNMS Sanctuary Advisory Councils in support of the March 
2013 draft proposal. NOAA also received comments from both the 
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and aquaculture 
industry raising concerns that ONMS's broad definition of ``introduced 
species'' did not recognize that a number of introduced species of 
shellfish have been cultivated for over 100 years in Tomales Bay, 
within GFNMS, without significant adverse impacts to native resources. 
The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 2008 Joint Management 
Plan Review recognized that non-native oyster species cultivated in 
Tomales Bay had not spread outside the aquaculture areas. Both the CDFW 
and aquaculture industry also commented that the proposed regulation 
did not allow NOAA to consider potential future permit requests from 
the industry for cultivation of such species. The state believed that 
if NOAA exercised the authority to permit such operations, in close 
cooperation and collaboration with state resource management entities--
CDFW, California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC), and California 
Coastal Commission (CCC)--this would offer an opportunity for 
aquaculture operators and the state to demonstrate that expanding 
existing or developing new shellfish aquaculture operations involving 
introduced species of shellfish that are non-invasive would not harm 
sanctuary resources. Both CDFW and the aquaculture industry also 
expressed the view that this approach would be more consistent with 
Executive Order 13112 on the management of introduced species.
    In response to these concerns, on March 27, 2014, NOAA amended its 
proposal to provide MBNMS and GFNMS the regulatory authority to 
authorize state permits or leases for commercial aquaculture projects 
in state waters involving introduced species of shellfish that the 
state management agencies and NOAA have determined to be non-invasive 
and thus would not have significant adverse impacts to sanctuary 
resources or qualities (79 FR 17073). Representatives from state 
agencies agreed with NOAA that introduced species should be managed 
uniformly throughout all state waters of the two sanctuaries.
    NOAA received 16 comments on this revised proposal, virtually all 
in opposition to granting GFNMS the regulatory authority to authorize 
state permits for such aquaculture projects. There were no comments 
received objecting to this authority for MBNMS.
    NOAA and the state of California have both expressed interest in 
entering into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to define the roles of 
various state agencies (CDFW, CFGC, and CCC) and ONMS in a prescribed, 
collaborative process to determine whether an introduced species of 
shellfish could be considered non-invasive and potentially approved for 
cultivation within the state waters of either national marine 
sanctuary. The MOA would not supersede the legal authority of any 
participating agency; rather it would guide the collaborative 
interagency process and decision making timelines. The MOA would be 
necessary in response to the process outlined in NOAA's proposed rule 
published on March 2013 (78 FR 16622) regarding consultations for 
aquaculture projects in Tomales Bay, or for the process described in 
the March 2014 proposed rule (79 FR 17073) regarding the permit 
authorization process for the two national marine sanctuaries.

II. Summary of the Revisions to GFNMS Terms of Designation and 
Regulations

    NOAA received few comments on the March 2013 proposed rulemaking 
regarding the introduced species regulation related to GFNMS. Both the 
GFNMS Advisory Council and several members of the public commented in 
strong support of the proposed rule and complimented the state agencies 
for recognizing the value in collaborating with NOAA to ensure state 
waters had additional protection from introduced species. However, the 
subsequent March 2014 proposed rule received considerable criticism 
from the public due to the proposal to allow GFNMS to authorize other 
agency permits, leases or licenses for new or expanded commercial 
shellfish aquaculture projects involving non-invasive introduced 
species. GFNMS does not presently have this permit authority and many 
commenters objected to providing that authority and increasing the risk 
of an invasion by an introduced shellfish species in state waters of 
GFNMS. In a separate rulemaking to expand GFNMS boundaries (79 FR 
20981), the state of California also requested that NOAA not provide 
GFNMS authorization authority at this time and that NOAA conduct a 
separate process to allow time for local input and education regarding 
such a regulatory change.
    As a result, NOAA will move forward with the regulatory proposals 
for GFNMS that were described in the March 2013 proposed rule. 
Specifically for GFNMS, this final rule extends the introduced species 
prohibition to all of GFNMS state waters, but exempts catch and release 
of striped bass and any existing or future commercial aquaculture 
project involving introduced species approved by the state of 
California in sanctuary waters of Tomales Bay after consulting GFNMS. 
NOAA's final rule is responsive to public support; eliminates the 
authorization authority for GFNMS that had generated considerable 
public concern; is consistent with the state of California's request to 
consider authorization authority for GFNMS in a separate process; and 
allows existing aquaculture projects to continue in Tomales Bay, the 
only area of either sanctuary where such activity presently occurs.
    Presently 23.6 percent of GFNMS--all of the state waters in 
sanctuary (301.5 square statute miles)--is at risk from the 
introduction of introduced species. With this action, the vast majority 
of the sanctuary would be protected from such introductions of 
introduced species, except for less than 1 percent (10.3 square statute 
miles) in sanctuary waters of Tomales Bay, where commercial aquaculture 
of introduced species of shellfish approved by the state after 
consulting with NOAA, would be allowed. All other vectors of

[[Page 8780]]

introduction of introduced species are prohibited in Tomales Bay.
    Accordingly, NOAA is amending the GFNMS terms of designation to 
ensure that the introduction or release of an introduced species 
applies to the state waters of the sanctuary regardless of the means of 
introduction. The revised terms of designation under Article IV Scope 
of Regulations, Section 1 Activities Subject to Regulation, Activity 
(e) will read as follows (new text in quotes and deleted text in 
brackets and italics):
Article IV. Scope of Regulations
Section 1. Activities Subject to Regulation
    * * *

(e) Introducing or otherwise releasing from within or into [the federal 
waters of] the Sanctuary an introduced species

    NOAA is also changing the second sentence of Article V in the terms 
of designation to ensure that the intent NOAA has consistently 
described--to regulate introduced species consistently across all four 
national marine sanctuaries along the coast California, in both state 
and federal waters--is achieved. Additionally, NOAA's final rule 
removes the time limitation needed to grandfather existing state-
approved mariculture projects in Tomales Bay. Therefore, Article V. 
Relation to Other Regulatory Programs, Section 1, will read as follows 
(new text in quotes and deleted text in brackets and italics):
Article V. Relation to Other Regulatory Programs
Section 1. Fishing and Waterfowl Hunting
    The regulation of fishing, including fishing for shellfish and 
invertebrates, and waterfowl hunting, is not authorized under Article 
IV. However, fishing vessels may be regulated with respect to vessel 
operations in accordance with Article IV, section 1, paragraphs (b) and 
(h), and mariculture activities involving alterations of or 
construction on the seabed, or ``introduction or'' release of 
introduced species by mariculture activities [not covered by a valid 
lease from the State of California and in effect on the effective date 
of the final regulation], can be regulated in accordance with Article 
IV, section 1, paragraph (c) and (e). All regulatory programs 
pertaining to fishing, and to waterfowl hunting, including 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., will remain in 
effect, and all permits, licenses, and other authorizations issued 
pursuant thereto will be valid within the Sanctuary unless authorizing 
any activity prohibited by any regulation implementing Article IV. The 
term ``fishing'' as used in this Article includes mariculture.
    In addition, for the purpose of this regulation NOAA is codifying 
the northern geographical extent of Tomales Bay via the same 
demarcation line that is already used in the International Regulations 
for Preventing Collision at Sea 1972 (COLREGS): the line runs from 
Avalis Beach east to Sand Point. These geographic coordinates have been 
added as Appendix D to Subpart H of Part 922. Parts of the western and 
southern shoreline of Tomales Bay solely within Point Reyes National 
Seashore are not subject to this regulation.
    Last, as described in new Sec.  922.85, NOAA intends to enter into 
a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the state of California to 
implement the Department of Fish and Wildlife's commitment to consult 
with NOAA whenever a future commercial shellfish aquaculture project 
permit application within Tomales Bay is received and being considered 
by the state.

III. Summary of the Revisions to MBNMS Terms of Designation and 
Regulations

    NOAA received few comments on the March 2013 proposed rulemaking 
regarding the introduced species regulation related to MBNMS. The MBNMS 
Advisory Council and several members of the public commented in strong 
support of the proposed rule. The comments received for the March 2014 
proposed rule generally focused on the GFNMS regulations, however the 
aquaculture industry commented in support of allowing MBNMS (as well as 
GFNMS) to consider a permit authorization for future commercial 
shellfish aquaculture projects involving non-invasive introduced 
species.
    NOAA is implementing the regulatory proposals for MBNMS that were 
described in the March 2014 proposed rule. As with GFNMS, NOAA believes 
there is urgency and need to extend from federal waters into state 
waters the full protection of sanctuary regulations prohibiting the 
introduction or release of introduced species. Accordingly, NOAA is 
modifying the MBNMS terms of designation and regulations to prohibit 
the introduction or other release of introduced species from within or 
into the state waters of the sanctuary. The revised terms of 
designation under Article IV Scope of Regulations, Section 1 Activities 
Subject to Regulation, Activity (l) will read as follows (deleted text 
in brackets and italics):
Article IV. Scope of Regulations
Section l. Activities Subject to Regulation
    * * *
    (l) Introducing or otherwise releasing from within or into [the 
federal waters of] the Sanctuary an introduced species.
    This final rule also provides MBNMS with the authority to authorize 
a valid permit, license or other authorization issued by the state of 
California for commercial shellfish aquaculture activities conducted in 
state waters of MBNMS involving introduced species of shellfish that 
NOAA and the state have determined are non-invasive and that will not 
cause significant adverse effects to sanctuary resources or qualities. 
MBNMS regulations already allow the ONMS Director the ability to 
authorize state of California (or other agency) permits for certain 
activities that are otherwise prohibited in the sanctuary. This 
authority is delegated from the ONMS Director to the sanctuary 
Superintendent.
    NOAA intends to enter into an MOA with the state of California to 
describe how NOAA and the state agencies--CFGC, CDFW and CCC--will 
coordinate on any future proposal to develop any commercial shellfish 
aquaculture project in state waters of MBNMS involving a non-invasive 
introduced species. Similar to other MOAs with state agencies, this MOA 
requirement will be reflected in MBNMS regulations (see Sec.  
922.134(a)).

IV. Response to Comments

    NOAA conducted two comment periods on separate proposed rules 
between March 2013 and March 2014 and received a total of 29 comments 
from 33 groups, agencies or individuals. The comments and responses 
have been segregated below to reflect the two different proposed rules.

Comments and Responses Submitted on the March 2013 Proposed Rule

General Support for the Proposed Rule

    1. Comment: Commenters generally supported the 2013 proposal, 
noting the cooperation of NOAA and the state agencies in coming to 
terms that would protect the national marine sanctuaries from the 
threat of introduced species.
    Response: NOAA agrees there was ongoing need to address the 
unresolved issue of leaving the state waters portions of the two 
national marine sanctuaries

[[Page 8781]]

vulnerable to introduction of introduced species. This final rule 
incorporates aspects of both the 2013 and 2014 proposed rules, and 
relies on increased collaboration among the state of California 
agencies and NOAA. The final rule specifically includes the ability for 
aquaculture operators to seek a permit from the state (within Tomales 
Bay in GFNMS) and from the state and NOAA (within MBNMS).

The Proposed Rule Does Not Recognize That Some Introduced Species Are 
Non-Invasive

    2. Comment: NOAA should revise the proposed rule to recognize that 
some introduced species are not a threat to sanctuary resources because 
they do not reproduce or otherwise affect the natural ecosystem of the 
sanctuary if released. NOAA should consider provisions for allowing 
culturing of introduced shellfish species approved by the state of 
California and proven to pose no significant threat to native 
ecological processes within the sanctuaries.
    Response: National marine sanctuaries are designated, in part, to 
maintain ``natural biological communities . . . and to protect, and 
where appropriate, restore and enhance natural habitats, populations, 
and ecological processes'' (16 U.S.C. 1431(b)(3)). In short, national 
marine sanctuaries are mandated by law to preserve the natural 
character of national marine sanctuary ecosystems, similar to the 
manner that terrestrial ecosystems have been preserved and protected by 
the national parks system. Any proposed alteration of the natural 
biological community (e.g. introduction of a foreign species) is 
contrary to the purpose of sanctuary designation. Therefore, the 
proposed introduction of species not native to a national marine 
sanctuary places the burden of proof on the project sponsor to 
demonstrate to NOAA and state management agencies that no significant 
harm will result from any such proposal. NOAA acknowledges that there 
have been some introduced species of shellfish cultivated in GFNMS 
which have not, to date, had significant adverse effects on sanctuary 
resources. In discussions with the three state management entities with 
regulatory control over aquaculture projects in state waters--the 
Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Fish and Game Commission and the 
California Coastal Commission--it is clear to NOAA that state 
management entities are also concerned about the impact invasive, 
introduced species can have on an ecosystem. These agencies have taken 
steps to eliminate, or at least greatly reduce the risk of an invasion 
from such species grown in aquaculture projects.
    Based on these comments and further analysis, NOAA issued a revised 
proposed rule in March 2014 which proposed to allow the ONMS Director 
to consider authorization of state permits or leases for a very limited 
scope of aquaculture projects--state-approved aquaculture in state 
waters of GFNMS (including Tomales Bay) or MBNMS involving an 
introduced species of shellfish that the state and NOAA determined 
would not be invasive or otherwise damage sanctuary resources 
(authority to issue an authorization is delegated from the ONMS 
director to a sanctuary superintendent). NOAA proposed to develop an 
MOA with the state agencies to lay out how such joint review would take 
place for any future aquaculture project. MBNMS already has 
authorization authority, but cannot issue a permit for an introduced 
species projects. GFNMS does not have authorization authority, so this 
would have been new authority for GFNMS.
    The final rule expands MBNMS's existing authorization authority to 
include this limited scope of regulatory action--the potential 
authorization of state permits or leases that would allow development 
of new aquaculture projects in state waters involving introduced 
shellfish species the state and NOAA have determined are non-invasive 
and will not harm sanctuary resources or qualities. For GFNMS, NOAA has 
adjusted the final rule to conform to a request from the state of 
California as part of a separate rulemaking on boundary expansion of 
that sanctuary to not include authorization authority in GFNMS at this 
time. NOAA intends to begin implementing a separate public process, 
including consultation with affected agencies, on the topic of 
authorization after the finalization of the sanctuary expansion action.

Future Growth of Shellfish Industry

    3. Comment: The proposed rule eliminates sites for future growth of 
the shellfish industry in California, conflicts with other federal 
policies and goals, and should be withdrawn for further consideration 
and revision.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. The final rule does not prohibit 
aquaculture. It prohibits the introduction of introduced species within 
or into nationally protected marine ecosystems. The final rule now 
allows the consideration of non-invasive introduced species as part of 
a commercial shellfish aquaculture operation in state waters of MBNMS, 
provided that both the state and NOAA determine cultivation of the 
species would have no significant adverse effects to sanctuary 
resources or qualities. Furthermore, the final rule includes no 
regulatory restrictions by GFNMS for any new or expanded aquaculture 
project cultivating introduced species in Tomales Bay, the only area of 
either sanctuary where such activity is currently conducted. Expansion 
would be possible in Tomales Bay, provided applicants received 
appropriate state permits or leases. The final rule specifically 
includes the ability for aquaculture operators to seek a permit from 
the state (within Tomales Bay in GFNMS) and from the state and NOAA 
(within MBNMS).

Exempting Tomales Bay Increases Permitting Burden

    4. Comment: The proposed exemption of Tomales Bay from ONMS 
regulations would cause undue and additional regulatory burden on 
aquaculture operators seeking new permits from the state. The proposed 
Memorandum of Agreement between NOAA and the state agencies would cause 
undue delay.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. The exemption to the introduced species 
regulation for mariculture in Tomales Bay will not cause a burden on an 
operator proposing a new or expanded aquaculture project. The MOA will 
outline and clarify agency roles and anticipated timelines in the 
consultation process that state agencies would normally conduct with 
other agencies, in this case GFNMS.

Proposed Rule Eliminates Jobs

    5. Comment: The proposed rule will result in elimination of green 
jobs and sustainable small businesses associated with shellfish 
aquaculture, and create a greater seafood trade imbalance.
    Response: The final rule will not eliminate any existing 
aquaculture operation or associated green jobs in GFNMS, and exempts 
from sanctuary regulation the only area in that sanctuary where 
aquaculture presently occurs. For MBNMS, the final rule allows the 
sanctuary superintendent to consider authorization of a state permit or 
lease for a future commercial shellfish aquaculture project in state 
waters cultivating an introduced species that NOAA and the state 
determine is non-invasive and will not adversely affect sanctuary 
resources or qualities. Presently there are no such introduced species 
aquaculture projects in MBNMS and hence no jobs that could be lost due 
to the final rule.

[[Page 8782]]

Proposed Action Is More Consistent With Coastal Act

    6. Comment: The proposed rule is more consistent with the past 
decision by the California Coastal Commission regarding the final rule 
NOAA submitted to the state in 2008. (The current status is 
inconsistent with that decision, with the state waters completely 
unprotected from introduction of introduced species.)
    Response: NOAA agrees.

Effect of Regulation on Research on Introduced Species

    7. Comment: Clarify how the proposed regulation affects research on 
introduced species.
    Response: The final rule applies to state waters of both GFNMS and 
MBNMS and would make the restrictions on introduction of introduced 
species consistent within state and federal waters of those 
sanctuaries. Specifically, sanctuary regulations will prohibit 
introducing or otherwise releasing an introduced species into the 
sanctuary, and thus any research that includes or results in the 
release or other introduction of an introduced species would not be 
allowed. Regulations for both sites would not allow a superintendent to 
issue a permit for such research. Research on introduced species 
already existing within the sanctuary would not generally be prohibited 
unless such research involved relocation, moving, or otherwise 
distributing individuals or propagules of the existing introduced 
species.

Memorandum of Agreement

    8. Comment: The MOA between NOAA and the state of California 
regarding introduced species aquaculture should be circulated for 
public comment so the public can be assured that the MOA's design 
adequately satisfies the intent of the proposed rule.
    Response: Interagency MOA are not generally circulated for public 
review before they are signed. The MOA will establish procedures for 
the agencies to work collaboratively pursuant to and consistent with 
the respective legal authorities of each participating agency. In no 
case will the MOA supersede NOAA's regulatory authority. The final, 
signed agreement will be available to the public.

Comments and Responses Submitted for Second Proposed Rule, March 2014

No Introduced Species Should Be Allowed

    9. Comment: Introduced species pose a threat to native species 
diversity and endangered species, ecosystem integrity, and the 
composition and resilience of natural biological communities as well as 
the commercial and recreational uses that depend on these resources. 
GFNMS and MBNMS should revise sanctuary regulations to consistently 
protect all sanctuary and associated state marine waters and habitats 
from negative ecological and socio-economic impacts caused by the 
introduction of introduced species.
    Response: NOAA agrees. The introduction of introduced species to 
marine waters can disrupt native ecological processes, resulting in 
altered trophic relationships and habitat modification. Introduced 
species can spread unabated in areas where no natural predators exist, 
and eradication of these species may become impossible once they 
disperse. Propagation of invasive introduced species can lead to socio-
economic impacts, such as changes in fisheries, fouling of 
infrastructure and seawater intakes, and aesthetic changes that impact 
tourism. The final rule prohibits all forms of introducing or releasing 
an introduced species into state waters of both sanctuaries, with three 
exceptions: (1) Within both sanctuaries, catch and release of an 
introduced species, striped bass, already established in marine waters 
and part of an active recreational fishery. State-imposed size limits 
could result in striped bass being caught and released while fishing in 
either sanctuary; (2) within GFNMS, existing commercial shellfish 
aquaculture operations in Tomales Bay permitted by the state that 
cultivate introduced species which have not, to date, invaded native 
ecosystems and caused significant adverse harm to sanctuary resources 
and qualities; and, (3) within MBNMS, introduction of introduced 
species from commercial shellfish aquaculture projects in state waters 
that NOAA and the state have determined are non-invasive and will not 
cause adverse harm to sanctuary resources and qualities. NOAA will work 
very closely with the state resource management entities to ensure any 
new, expanded or future aquaculture project will not result in a 
release of an invasive species that will cause harm to sanctuary, and 
state, resources. All other forms of introduction or release of an 
introduced species will be strictly prohibited.

Catch and Release of State Approved Non-Native Species

    10. Comment: Regulation of introduced species by MBNMS and GFNMS 
should include provisions for continued catch and release of striped 
bass (Marone saxatilis), a fish stock historically managed by the 
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
    Response: As in the original final rule issued on November 20, 
2008, catch and release of striped bass (Marone saxatilis) in both 
state and federal waters of GFNMS and MBNMS is exempt from this 
regulation (73 FR 70488).

General Opposition to the Amended Rule

    11. Comment: The proposal to allow authorization of state-permitted 
commercial shellfish aquaculture operations in GFNMS would give 
deference to the aquaculture industry over the national marine 
sanctuaries' resource protection mandate.
    Response: As a result of the Governor's objection in 2008, there 
are currently no sanctuary regulations protecting state waters of these 
two national marine sanctuaries from the introduction of introduced 
species. This final rule closes that regulatory gap and prohibits the 
introduction of introduced species in the state waters of the 
sanctuaries from all other pathways of introductions except for the 
three exceptions described in response to comment 9 above. For GFNMS, 
the final rule does not add authorization authority to that sanctuary's 
regulations. However, any expanded or new aquaculture operation within 
Tomales Bay in GFNMS would have to be permitted by several state 
resource management agencies, who would consult with GFNMS before 
issuing any permit. In addition, the authority to authorize another 
agency's permit, which MBNMS could exercise through this final rule, 
gives complete discretion to the MBNMS superintendent to approve with 
conditions or deny a potential future aquaculture project in state 
waters of MBNMS cultivating introduced shellfish species that NOAA and 
the state have found to be non-invasive and to not adversely affect 
sanctuary resources and qualities.

Authorization Authorities

    12. Comment: NOAA should not adopt the proposed authorization 
authority because it provides essentially a rubber stamp approval to 
future activities involving introduced species.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. The final regulation allows MBNMS to 
consider

[[Page 8783]]

the authorization of aquaculture operations within very narrow 
parameters (to approve, condition, or deny state issued permits for 
commercial shellfish aquaculture in state waters of MBNMS determined by 
NOAA and state management agencies to be not invasive and not cause 
significant adverse effects to sanctuary resources or qualities). 
Authorization authority has existed in MBNMS and five other national 
marine sanctuaries for many years and has been used successfully and 
consistent with the purposes and policies of the NMSA.
    13. Comment: The authority to authorize other agencies' permits 
found in 15 CFR 922.49 is deficient in that it lacks administrative 
procedure for public oversight and comment, and for public appeals, and 
it is not directly connected to the conditions for sanctuary permits 
found in 15 CFR 922.83 and 15 CFR 922.133
    Response: The final rule does not add permit authorization 
authority to GFNMS regulations at this time. For MBNMS, which has had 
authorization authority since 1992, the issues of public review have 
not arisen in large part because projects MBNMS has considered for 
authorization have had extensive public review by another local, state 
or federal agencies.
    14. Comment: NOAA should not adopt authorization authority because 
this adds another layer of bureaucracy to an already-complicated, 
multi-state agency review process, impeding future growth of the 
industry.
    Response: NOAA disagrees that the authorization process adds 
another layer of bureaucracy. The authorization process is intended to 
improve administrative efficiency by allowing NOAA to review and 
approve, deny or condition other agencies' permits. This simplifies the 
application process for a permit applicant and promotes cooperative 
efforts among NOAA and other regulatory agencies.

Grandfathering Existing State Leases

    15. Comment: NOAA should not ``grandfather'' existing or heretofore 
undisclosed leases, permits, and pending modifications of existing 
activities within Tomales Bay. NOAA should obtain full and complete 
copies of those leases before the effective date of the regulation, and 
they should be identified in the Federal Register announcement at the 
time the final rule is published.
    Response: The grandfathering of existing aquaculture leases has 
been removed from the final rule and will not occur within GFNMS. 
Instead, NOAA is exempting from regulation the sanctuary waters of 
Tomales Bay, where existing aquaculture projects occur, as described in 
the 2013 proposed rule. In MBNMS there are no existing aquaculture 
operations, thus there are no undisclosed leases or permits and no 
projects will be grandfathered. The existing state review process 
continues in these areas and any major state action on an aquaculture 
operation in Tomales Bay will proceed consistent with existing public 
review processes, including public hearings before the California Fish 
and Game Commission or the California Coastal Commission.

Memorandum of Agreement

    16. Comment: The MOA between NOAA and the state of California, and 
NOAA's authorization authority regarding introduced species 
aquaculture, should in no way expand from bivalve mariculture to 
finfish aquaculture.
    Response: NOAA agrees. The authorization authority for MBNMS is 
narrowly defined to only allow MBNMS to consider authorizing state of 
California permits or leases for commercial shellfish aquaculture 
projects in state waters involving introduced species of shellfish that 
the state management agencies and NOAA have determined will not have 
significant adverse impacts to sanctuary resources or qualities. For 
Tomales Bay, the state will continue to have primary jurisdictional 
authority for aquaculture, consulting with GFNMS before issuing any new 
permits or leases. All other introductions of introduced species in 
state and federal waters of GFNMS and MBNMS, except for the catch and 
release of striped bass, are prohibited. Furthermore, the state of 
California has a current legislative prohibition on non-native finfish 
aquaculture in state waters.

Collaboration Between State and Federal Agencies

    17. Comment: Too much of the proposal is predicated on promises of 
future collaborations and agreements. Recent history suggests that the 
state is incapable of shared jurisdictional authority when managing 
aquaculture.
    Response: NOAA believes the collaborative process developed for 
both GFNMS and MBNMS will allow the state and NOAA to work 
cooperatively to prevent the introduction of introduced species into 
state waters of the sanctuaries. The state will consult with GFNMS 
prior to issuing any new permits in Tomales Bay. However, in all other 
state waters of GFNMS, introduced species aquaculture will not be 
allowed. In MBNMS, the state and NOAA will each have jurisdiction over 
commercial aquaculture projects in state waters involving introduced 
species of shellfish.

Scientific Data

    18. Comment: NOAA should not adopt the proposed rule (March 2014) 
to consider permitting aquaculture projects in GFNMS with non-invasive, 
introduced species because lack of scientific data on the significant 
impacts of invasive species, a lack of data on native and non-native 
species abundance and condition, and on cross-vector influences.
    Response: NOAA agrees that impacts from introduced species can pose 
a major threat to sanctuary resources and qualities. However, in 
Tomales Bay, the only location in sanctuaries offshore of California 
where commercial cultivation of introduced species currently occurs, 
state management agencies have regulated these types of aquaculture 
operations for many years. In this final rule, NOAA is not expanding 
the ability to develop new introduced species aquaculture projects in 
GFNMS beyond Tomales Bay and will defer to state management agencies 
for aquaculture projects within Tomales Bay.

NEPA Compliance

    19. Comment: NOAA has not adequately complied with the National 
Environmental Policy Act for proposed rule because it relied on 
analysis from 2008, and did not conduct a new environmental review.
    Response: NOAA is relying on the FEIS as prepared for the 2008 JMPR 
because the baseline conditions have not changed. That is, there has 
been no change in the number of mariculture operations or leases in 
Tomales Bay and NOAA is unaware of any change in the environmental 
effects of those species in Tomales Bay. With this rule, the 
introduction of introduced species, including the use of non-native 
shellfish in commercial aquaculture operations, is being prohibited in 
state waters of both sanctuaries, with the exception of Tomales Bay. 
The 2008 FEIS specifically identified that the prohibition of the 
introduction of introduced species would lead to beneficial impacts to 
Biological Resources and Water Quality Resources and would not cause 
any adverse impacts to existing shellfish aquaculture operations.
    The final rule adopts a regulatory regime slightly different from 
that reviewed in 2008 because it will allow commercial shellfish 
aquaculture to continue using introduced species in Tomales Bay that 
have been shown to be

[[Page 8784]]

non-invasive and will allow the State of California to demonstrate on a 
case-by-case basis with NOAA concurrence that commercial shellfish 
operations using certain non-invasive shellfish species may be safely 
established in state waters of MBNMS. NOAA believes this action is 
within the range of alternatives considered in 2008 and will result in 
nearly the same level of beneficial impacts that were identified in 
2008. Further, NOAA is adopting final regulations that would not affect 
existing aquaculture projects in Tomales Bay that are conducted 
pursuant to a valid lease, permit, license or other authorization 
issued by the state of California.
    NOAA has added authorization authority for MBNMS to consider 
authorizing state of California permits or leases for commercial 
aquaculture projects in state waters involving introduced species of 
shellfish that the state management agencies and NOAA have determined 
will not have significant adverse impacts to sanctuary resources or 
qualities. This process will require additional NEPA and California 
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review to be triggered on a case by 
case basis if new aquaculture projects were to be proposed in the state 
waters of MBNMS. NOAA has complied with NEPA for this action.

Species May Become Invasive Over Time Due to Climate Change

    20. Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns that cultivated 
species currently not considered by the state of California to be 
invasive, such as Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas), have the 
potential to be invasive in other environments and situations, and may 
become invasive in California under global climate change scenarios 
where warmer waters allow unassisted reproduction.
    Response: NOAA is also concerned about how climate change will 
impact introduced species aquaculture. In this action, NOAA is 
implementing a final rule which does not allow introduced species 
aquaculture in state waters of GFNMS except in Tomales Bay and only 
with a state lease or permit. Aquaculture operators will be required to 
follow the state's public process through the CA Fish and Game 
Commission and the CA Coastal Commission. The results of studies in the 
United States and elsewhere as to how species may become invasive will 
be considered by the state and NOAA in making any future 
determinations.

Parasites and Other Impacts

    21. Comment: NOAA's final action needs to account for the 
likelihood that these shellfish species would themselves attract or 
carry other exotic species, thereby causing environmentally detrimental 
impacts.
    Response: In GFNMS, only those aquaculture operations in Tomales 
Bay with a valid lease or permit from the state of California would be 
exempt. If a commercial shellfish aquaculture project involving 
introduced species is proposed in MBNMS, as part of the permit 
authorization state management agencies and NOAA must determine the 
project will not have significant adverse impacts to sanctuary 
resources or qualities. In this review process, NOAA and state 
management agencies will consider not only the proposed introduced 
species themselves, but also the threats from parasites, project 
siting, the financial capability of the applicant, among other factors.

Monitoring and Management

    22. Comment: NOAA should clarify how it or the state will monitor 
and prevent accidental introductions of diseases, parasites and hitch-
hikers on aquaculture species within sanctuary waters. No protocol for 
monitoring or management of new or expanded aquaculture operations is 
referenced in the proposed regulation amendment.
    Response: For Tomales Bay in GFNMS, commercial shellfish 
aquaculture will remain under the primary management authority of state 
management agencies and their public processes at this time. The MOA 
will outline how GFNMS can raise concerns to the state and seek their 
inclusion of permit conditions that ensure adequate enforcement and 
monitoring. For state waters of MBNMS, ONMS may condition or deny a 
potential permit authorization request if NOAA finds the applicant and 
the state management agencies do not adequately monitor and manage a 
proposed commercial shellfish aquaculture project involving introduced 
species. Monitoring and enforcement protocols could be added to permit 
conditions as part of an authorization, and would ideally be discussed, 
reviewed, and planned for on a case by case basis, and considered 
during the NEPA and CEQA process.

Other Federal Jurisdictions

    23. Comment: NOAA's proposed rule does not recognize the regulatory 
role of the National Park Service (NPS). NPS national policy prohibits 
introductions of non-native species in NPS waters, including waters 
which overlap with national marine sanctuaries, the introduction of 
non-native species within national parks is inconsistent with the NPS 
Organic Act of 1916 (as amended and supplemented).
    Response: NOAA and NPS have some jurisdictional overlap in GFNMS. 
Where there is jurisdictional overlap, NOAA's final regulations in this 
action do not usurp other federal regulations, including those of the 
National Park Service. As discussed in the preamble to this rule above, 
due to the previous Governor's objection in December 2008, there are 
currently no sanctuary regulations regarding introduced species in 
state waters of GFNMS and MBNMS (including waters adjacent to national 
parks). NOAA believes this final action will close that regulatory gap 
by prohibiting virtually all of the mechanisms that could result in the 
introduction of an introduced species. The final rule will only allow 
introduced species shellfish aquaculture within sanctuary waters of 
Tomales Bay operating with a valid permit of lease from the state. This 
final action will support the goals of the National Park Service to 
prevent the introduction of introduced species.

Weakens ONMS Authority

    24. Comment: NOAA's proposed action weakens the authority of the 
national marine sanctuaries to control invasive non-native species that 
potentially may be introduced by new aquaculture operations. In so 
doing, NOAA delegates to the state the authority to define invasive 
species and bypasses a process for environmental review and compliance, 
including the participation of other potentially impacted federal 
agencies, such as national parks as well as the public.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. Currently, there are no introduced 
species regulations in state waters of GFNMS or MBNMS and this final 
rule provides that regulatory protection by prohibiting the 
introduction of introduced species in all state waters of MBNMS and 
nearly all state waters of GFNMS. Any state review of an existing, 
expanded or new aquaculture project in Tomales Bay in GFNMS will 
include compliance with CEQA, consultation with affected agencies, and 
public review, including hearings, as prescribed by agency procedures 
when issuing leases and permits. Any new project in MBNMS will also 
require compliance with NEPA. While the final rule exempts the need for 
a permit authorization from GFNMS in Tomales Bay it includes extensive 
consultation with GFNMS prior to the state's issuing permits or leases 
as outlined in the

[[Page 8785]]

MOA. Therefore, additional public review consistent with state and 
federal law and procedures will be provided and comments considered on 
any such action in either sanctuary, if proposed in the future.

Existing Operations

    25. Comment: NOAA should require ONMS review for any change to an 
existing lease where the grower proposes to cultivate new non-native 
shellfish species on their farm.
    Response: The grandfathering option for GFNMS discussed in the 
March 2013 proposal was adopted by NOAA and will exempt existing and 
future commercial shellfish aquaculture operations in Tomales Bay with 
a valid state of California permit or lease. The MOA will outline how 
the state will consult with GFNMS on expansion of existing leases or 
future proposals to cultivate new species.

Extending the Public Comment Period

    26. Comment: NOAA should extend the short comment period of the 
amended proposed rule. The release of the Federal Register notice 
reopening this issue, and the subsequent comment deadline for this 
reversal by the agency was conducted in such manner as to preclude the 
public from having timely access to the necessary information and 
supporting documents, and the necessary time for review.
    Response: The comment period for the March 2013 proposed rule was 
60 days and generated very few public comments. The comments received 
in 2013 were mostly in support--including those received from the GFNMS 
and MBNMS Sanctuary Advisory Councils--of NOAA's proposed action which 
is being implemented for GFNMS in this final rule. Based on this 
information, NOAA did not anticipate receiving many public comments for 
the March 27, 2014 amended proposed rule, and therefore NOAA 
established a 15 day comment period. Upon receiving a request for an 
extension, NOAA re-opened the comment period for an additional 24 days 
until May 5, 2017. Based on the comments received during these two 
comment periods, NOAA believes this final rule-making has provided the 
public with timely involvement and the opportunity to review and 
comment on this action.

Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (pEIR)

    27. Comment: The rule is premature because this current NOAA 
comment period predates a pending state of California Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Report (pEIR) on aquaculture issues expected to be 
inclusive of many of the same types of invasive species questions 
brought forward by expanded aquaculture proposals in state waters.
    Response: This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The 
state's programmatic environmental impact report being prepared 
pursuant to CEQA is unrelated to this final action promulgated by NOAA. 
This regulation has a long history, and is designed to extend existing 
sanctuary introduced species prohibitions from federal waters into 
state waters of GFNMS and MBNMS. Future state action may further assist 
the state and federal regulatory agencies in protecting coastal waters 
from the invasive impacts of introduced species.

GFNMS Boundary Expansion

    28. Comment: NOAA should not take any action on the introduced 
species rule until the public hearings and written comments on the 
draft environmental impact Statement (DEIS) and accompanying 
regulations for boundary expansion for GFNMS has been subjected to 
sufficient public review.
    Response: This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 
However, we note the proposed rule for GFNMS expansion recognizes that 
there is a separate rulemaking process the introduced species. The 
rules will be codified accordingly, in the order they are finalized.

Oil Drilling

    29. Comment: NOAA should specifically exclude oil drilling from the 
list of otherwise prohibited activities that could be authorized by 
NOAA (922.132(1)) within GFNMS.
    Response: This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 
Nevertheless, as noted previously, the Final Rule does not add 
authorization authority to GFNMS regulations.

V. Miscellaneous Rulemaking Requirements

A. National Marine Sanctuaries Act

    Section 301 of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1434) provides authority for 
comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management of national 
marine sanctuaries in coordination with other resource management 
authorities. When changing a term of designation of a National Marine 
Sanctuary, section 304 of the NMSA requires the preparation of a draft 
environmental impact statement (DEIS), as provided by the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and that the 
DEIS be made available to the public. NOAA prepared a draft and final 
management plan and a draft and final EIS on the initial proposal and 
final rule for the Joint Management Plan Review (JMPR). Copies are 
available at the address and Web site listed in the Addresses section 
of this proposed rule. Responses to comments received on March 18, 2013 
proposed rule and on the March 27, 2014 proposed revision to the 
regulations have been analyzed and published in the preamble to this 
final rule and discussed in the record of decision. NOAA has made 
available the 2008 final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the 
JMPR that was previously available to the public, and which analyzes 
the environmental effects of the introduced species regulations as they 
are now finalized by this action. (For a copy of the FEIS, please visit 
www.sanctuaries.noaa.gov/jointplan.)

B. National Environmental Policy Act

    In the 2008 FEIS for the JMPR, NOAA identified a preferred action 
which was to modify the terms of designation and regulations for GFNMS 
and MBNMS to, among other things, prohibit the introduction of 
introduced species (with limited exceptions) throughout the 
sanctuaries, and NOAA endorses that action as re-proposed and as 
amended in the notices of proposed rulemaking associated with this 
final rule. The 2008 FEIS specifically identified that the prohibition 
of the introduction of introduced species would lead to beneficial 
impacts to Biological Resources and Water Quality Resources and would 
not cause any adverse impacts to existing shellfish aquaculture 
operations. The final rule adopts a regulatory regime slightly 
different from that reviewed in 2008, however, this action is within 
the range of alternatives considered in 2008 and will result in nearly 
the same level of beneficial impacts that were identified in 2008. 
Further, NOAA is adopting final regulations that would not affect 
existing aquaculture projects in Tomales Bay that are conducted 
pursuant to a valid lease, permit, license or other authorization 
issued by the state of California. NOAA further believes there has not 
been a significant change to the environmental conditions or the 
potential environmental effects of the preferred alternative. NOAA has 
determined that a supplement to the FEIS is not required for this final 
action.
    Pursuant to a MOA that would be executed, the state would consult 
with NOAA prior to any new or amended state-issued lease and permits. 
In addition, through this action NOAA

[[Page 8786]]

would exercise limited authorization authority with respect to 
commercial shellfish aquaculture activities in state waters of MBNMS 
involving cultivation of introduced species of shellfish that NOAA and 
the State have determined are non-invasive and would not cause 
significant adverse effects. Any future proposal or amendments to 
existing state leases for an aquaculture project involving cultivation 
of introduced shellfish species would undergo environmental review 
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and NEPA 
for MBNMS and CEQA for GFNMS on a case-by-case basis to consider 
project-specific effects of that action. NOAA may refuse to authorize a 
project in MBNMS that would not comply with terms or conditions 
required by NOAA. 15 CFR 922.49(a).
    Copies of the FEIS, the record of decision and other related 
materials that are specific to this action are available at https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/jointplan/feis/feis.html, or by contacting NOAA at 
the address listed in the For Further Information section of this final 
rule. Comments regarding the introduction of introduced species portion 
of the original FEIS are analyzed and responded to above, in the 
Response to Comments section.

C. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Impact

    This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of 
Executive Order 12866.

D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Assessment

    NOAA has concluded that this regulatory action falls within the 
definition of ``policies that have federalism implications'' within the 
meaning of Executive Order 13132. NOAA's previous proposed rule and 
subsequent amended proposed rule were conducted in cooperation with the 
State of California, and pursuant to Section 304(b) of the NMSA. Since 
the proposed rule was issued on March 18, 2013, further consultations 
have occurred with the State of California, and the proposed changes 
contained in the March 27, 2014 notice reflect cooperative negotiations 
reached in those consultations. It is NOAA's view that, due to these 
negotiations, the state will not object to the amended regulations 
finalized in this action. In keeping with the intent of the Executive 
Order, NOAA consulted with a number of entities within the state which 
participated in development of the initial rule, including but not 
limited to, the California Coastal Commission, the California 
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the California Natural Resources 
Agency.

E. 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 at the proposed rule stage that this rule would not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The factual basis for this certification was discussed in the 
proposed rule issued on March 18, 2013, and the March 27, 2014 amended 
proposal, where the conclusion remained the same. No comments were 
received on that certification. No other law requires a regulatory 
flexibility analysis so none is required and none has been prepared.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not contain information collections that are 
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. 
Notwithstanding any other provision of the 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 PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently 
valid OMB Control Number.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 922

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aquaculture, Catch and 
release, Environmental protection, Fish, Harbors, Introduced species, 
Mariculture, Marine pollution, Marine resources, Natural resources, 
Non-invasive, Penalties, Recreation and recreation areas, Research, 
Water pollution control, Water resources, Wildlife.

W. Russell Callender,
Acting Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service, National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, 15 CFR part 922 is 
amended as follows:

PART 922--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 922 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.


0
2. In Sec.  922.82, revise paragraph (a)(10) to read as follows:


Sec.  922.82  Prohibited or otherwise regulated activities.

    (a) * * *
    (10) Introducing or otherwise releasing from within or into the 
Sanctuary an introduced species, except:
    (i) Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) released during catch and 
release fishing activity; or
    (ii) Species cultivated by commercial shellfish mariculture 
activities in Tomales Bay pursuant to a valid lease, permit, license or 
other authorization issued by the state of California. Tomales Bay is 
defined in Sec.  922.80. The coordinates for the northern terminus of 
Tomales Bay are listed in appendix D to this subpart.
* * * * *

0
3. Add new Sec.  922.85 to read as follows:


Sec.  922.85  Review of State permits and leases for certain 
mariculture projects.

    NOAA has described in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the 
State of California how the State will consult and coordinate with NOAA 
to review any new, amended or expanded lease or permit application for 
mariculture projects in Tomales Bay involving introduced species.

0
4. Add Appendix D to subpart H of part 922, to read as follows:

Appendix D to Subpart H of Part 922--Northern Extent of Tomales Bay

    For the purpose of Sec.  922.82(a)(10)(ii), NOAA is codifying 
the northern geographical extent of Tomales Bay via a line running 
from Avalis Beach (Point 1) east to Sand Point (Point 2). 
Coordinates listed in this Appendix are unprojected (geographic) and 
based on the North American Datum of 1983.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Point ID No.  Tomales Bay
            boundary                   Latitude            Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................  38.23165             -122.98148
2..............................  38.23165             -122.96955
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
5. Revise Sec.  922.132, paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  922.132  Prohibited or otherwise regulated activities.

* * * * *
    (e) The prohibitions in paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(8) of this 
section, and (a)(12) of this section regarding any introduced species 
of shellfish that NOAA and the State of California have determined is 
non-invasive and will not cause significant adverse effects to 
sanctuary resources or qualities, and that is cultivated in state 
waters as part of commercial shellfish aquaculture activities, do not 
apply to any activity authorized by any lease, permit, license, 
approval, or other authorization issued after the effective date of 
Sanctuary

[[Page 8787]]

designation (January 1, 1993) and issued by any Federal, State, or 
local authority of competent jurisdiction, provided that the applicant 
complies with 15 CFR 922.49, the Director notifies the applicant and 
authorizing agency that he or she does not object to issuance of the 
authorization, and the applicant complies with any terms and conditions 
the Director deems necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and 
qualities. Amendments, renewals, and extensions of authorizations in 
existence on the effective date of designation constitute 
authorizations issued after the effective date of Sanctuary 
designation.
* * * * *

0
6. In Sec.  922.134, revise the section heading and add new paragraph 
(a) to read as follows:


Sec.  922.134  Review of certain State permits and leases.

    (a)(1) NOAA has described in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with 
the State of California how NOAA will coordinate review of any 
introduction of non-invasive introduced species from a proposed 
shellfish aquaculture project when considering an authorization under 
Sec.  922.132(e).
    (2) The MOA specifies how the process of 15 CFR 922.49 will be 
administered within State waters within the sanctuary in coordination 
with State permit and lease programs as administered by the California 
Fish and Game Commission, the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the 
California Coastal Commission.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-03486 Filed 2-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P