i 

 

Olympic Coast 

National Marine Sanctuary 

Draft Management Plan and 

Draft Environmental Assessment 

January 2011 

http://olympiccoast.noaa.gov 

i 

ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT 

This document is a combined preliminary draft management plan for Olympic 

Coast National Marine Sanctuary as well as the preliminary draft environmental 

assessment, required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This 

document also fulfills compliance requirements under Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. 

Once finalized, it is anticipated that this plan will serve as the primary 

management document of OCNMS for approximately the next five to ten years. 

Comments or questions on this preliminary draft management plan should be 

directed to: 

George Galasso 

Management Plan Review Coordinator 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary 

115 East Railroad Avenue, Suite 301 

Port Angeles, WA 98362-2925 

 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Liam Antrim, Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) 

Lauren Bennett, OCNMS 

Craig Bowhay, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

George Galasso, OCNMS 

Molly Holt, NOAA Office of the General Counsel 

Hélène Scalliet, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

Bruce Terrell, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 

Representatives of the Hoh, Quileute and Makah Tribes and Quinault Indian Nation 

Members of the OCNMS Advisory Council and associated working groups 
ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.1. Office of National Marine Sanctuaries ............................................................................. 1

1.2. Significance of The Sanctuary ......................................................................................... 2

1.3. OCNMS’s collaborative management framework ........................................................... 4

1.4. OCNMS goals and objectives .......................................................................................... 6

2. Treaty Trust Responsibility .................................................................................................... 8

2.1. Coastal Treaty Tribes, the Treaty Right to Fish, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation Act ........................................................................................................................ 9

2.2. OCNMS and Tribal Trust and Treaty Responsibilities .................................................. 11

2.3. Consultation with Coastal Treaty Tribes ........................................................................ 12

2.4. Tribal Consultation Procedures ...................................................................................... 13

3. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR REVISING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND 

REGULATIONS........................................................................................................................... 14

3.1. Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 14

3.1.1. National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) ............................................................. 14

3.1.2. Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary ............................................................ 16

3.1.3. Management Plan Review ...................................................................................... 16

3.2. Need ............................................................................................................................... 16

3.2.1. Outdated Management Plan .................................................................................... 16

3.2.2. Ocean Governance .................................................................................................. 17

3.2.3. Data Gaps ................................................................................................................ 18

3.2.4. New Technologies .................................................................................................. 18

3.2.5. Scope of Issues ........................................................................................................ 18

4. MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS .................................................................. 20

4.1. Overview of The MPR Process ...................................................................................... 20

4.1.1. Public Involvement ................................................................................................. 21

4.2. MPR Preliminary Priority Topics .................................................................................. 22

4.3. Summary of Public Scoping ........................................................................................... 24

4.4. Issue Prioritization and Final Priority Topics ................................................................ 26

4.5. Working Groups and Workshops ................................................................................... 27
iii 

4.6. Draft Action Plans .......................................................................................................... 28

4.7. Improving Collaboration through MPR process ............................................................ 29

4.8. Scoping Ideas Considered But Not Developed As Alternatives .................................... 30

4.8.1. Boundary expansion................................................................................................ 30

4.8.2. Alternative energy development ............................................................................. 30

4.8.3. Compatibility determinations .................................................................................. 30

4.8.4. No-take zones/marine reserves ............................................................................... 31

4.8.5. Aquaculture ban ...................................................................................................... 31

4.8.6. Harbors of refuge .................................................................................................... 32

5. DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN ....................................................................................... 33

5.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 33

5.2. Action Plans ................................................................................................................... 34

A. Achieve Effective Collaborative and Coordinated Management .................................... 35

A1. Collaborative and Coordinated Sanctuary Management Action Plan ........................... 36

A2. Community Involvement in Sanctuary Management Action Plan ................................ 41

A3. Sanctuary Operations Action Plan ................................................................................. 44

B. Conduct Collaborative Research, Assessments and Monitoring to Inform EcosystemBased Management ............................................................................................................... 50

B1. Habitat Mapping and Classification Action Plan ........................................................... 51

B2. Physical and Chemical Oceanography Action Plan ....................................................... 54

B3. Populations, Communities and Ecosystems Action Plan ............................................... 57

B4. Data Management, Sharing and Reporting Action Plan ................................................ 62

C. Improve Ocean Literacy ................................................................................................... 65

C1. K-12 Education Action Plan .......................................................................................... 66

C2. Higher Education Action Plan. ....................................................................................... 69

C3. Visitor Services Action Plan .......................................................................................... 71

C4. Community Outreach Action Plan ................................................................................. 74

D. Conserve Natural Resources in the Sanctuary ................................................................. 77

D1. Spills Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Restoration Action Plan ...................... 78

D2. Climate Change Action Plan .......................................................................................... 85

D3. Marine Debris Action Plan ............................................................................................ 88

D4. Wildlife Disturbance Action Plan .................................................................................. 91

D5. Water Quality Protection Action Plan ........................................................................... 95

D6. Habitat Protection Action Plan ...................................................................................... 97
iv 

D7. Marine Spatial Planning Action Plan ............................................................................. 99

E. Understand the Sanctuary’s Cultural, Historical and Socioeconomic Significance ....... 101

E1. Maritime Heritage Action Plan .................................................................................... 102

E2. Socioeconomic Values of Resources in the Sanctuary Action Plan ............................. 105

5.3. Performance Measures ................................................................................................. 107

5.4. Cost Estimates and Timelines ...................................................................................... 110

5.5. Implementation Table .................................................................................................. 114

5.5.1. Explanation of Implementation Table .................................................................. 115

6. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................... 119

6.1. Physical Setting ............................................................................................................ 119

6.1.1. Geography and Geology ....................................................................................... 121

6.1.2. Oceanography ....................................................................................................... 122

6.1.3. Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 123

6.1.4. Climate/Meteorology ............................................................................................ 132

6.1.5. Climate Change ..................................................................................................... 133

6.2. Biological Setting ......................................................................................................... 134

6.2.1. Intertidal Habitats .................................................................................................. 134

6.2.2. Nearshore Habitats ................................................................................................ 135

6.2.3. Pelagic (Water Column) Habitats ......................................................................... 136

6.2.4. Seafloor Habitats ................................................................................................... 137

6.2.5. Benthic Invertebrates ............................................................................................ 140

6.2.6. Fishes .................................................................................................................... 140

6.2.7. Seabirds ................................................................................................................. 141

6.2.8. Marine Mammals .................................................................................................. 143

6.3. Cultural and historical setting ...................................................................................... 144

6.3.1. American Indian Cultural Resources .................................................................... 144

6.3.2. Historical and Archaeological Resources ............................................................. 145

6.4. Human/socioeconomic Setting ..................................................................................... 149

6.4.1. Population, Housing, Income, and Employment .................................................. 149

6.4.2. Maritime Transportation ....................................................................................... 152

6.4.3. Commercial Fishing .............................................................................................. 155

6.4.4. Developed Environment ....................................................................................... 157

6.4.5. Department of Defense Activities ......................................................................... 158
v 

6.4.6. U.S. Coast Guard/Homeland Security Activities .................................................. 159

6.4.7. Recreational Fishing ............................................................................................. 160

6.4.8. Recreation and Tourism ........................................................................................ 160

6.4.9. Research and Monitoring ...................................................................................... 161

6.4.10. Education and Outreach .................................................................................... 162

6.4.11. Passive Users ..................................................................................................... 163

7. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................ 164

7.1. Alternative A (no-action alternative) ........................................................................... 166

7.2. Alternative B (preferred alternative) ............................................................................ 167

7.3. Alternative C (not preferred) ........................................................................................ 168

8. Environmental Consequences of Alternatives ................................................................... 175

8.1. Physical Setting ............................................................................................................ 181

8.1.1. Actions with Negligible Effects to the Physical Setting ....................................... 181

8.1.2. Actions with Beneficial Effects to the Physical Setting ....................................... 183

8.1.3. Actions with Adverse Effects to the Physical Setting .......................................... 195

8.1.4. Summary of Effects to Physical Setting ............................................................... 199

8.2. Biological Setting ......................................................................................................... 200

8.2.1. Actions with Negligible Effect to Biological Setting ........................................... 200

8.2.2. Actions with Beneficial Effects to the Biological Setting .................................... 202

8.2.3. Actions with Adverse Effects to the Biological Setting ....................................... 206

8.2.4. Summary of Effects to Biological Resources ....................................................... 212

8.3. Historical/Cultural Setting............................................................................................ 213

8.3.1. Actions with Negligible Effect to the Historical/Cultural Setting ........................ 213

8.3.2. Actions with Beneficial Effects to the Historical/Cultural Setting ....................... 214

8.3.3. Actions with Adverse Effects to the Historical/Cultural Setting .......................... 216

8.3.4. Summary of Effects to Historical/Cultural Setting ............................................... 217

8.4. Human/Socioeconomic Setting .................................................................................... 218

8.4.1. Actions with Negligible Effects to the Human/Socioeconomic Setting ............... 218

8.4.2. Actions with Beneficial Effects to the Human/Socioeconomic Setting ............... 219

8.4.3. Actions with Adverse Effects to the Human/Socioeconomic Setting .................. 222

8.4.4. Summary of Effects to Human/Socioeconomic Setting ....................................... 227

8.5. Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................... 228
vi 

8.6. Summary of effects ...................................................................................................... 233

9. Persons and Agencies Contacted ....................................................................................... 235

10. References .......................................................................................................................... 239

Appendix A – Designation Document ........................................................................................ 246

Appendix B – Initiation Of Review Of Management Plan/ Regulations .................................... 250

Appendix C – Initiation of section 106 Consultation ................................................................. 252

Appendix D –Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership (EO 12875) ................................. 253

Appendix E – Executive Order 12898 ........................................................................................ 255

Appendix F – Secretarial Order 3206 ......................................................................................... 260

Appendix G – Executive Order 13084 ........................................................................................ 267

Appendix H – Presidential Memorandum of November 5, 2009 ............................................... 270

Appendix I – Executive Order 13175 ......................................................................................... 272

Appendix J – Department of Commerce American Indian and Alaska Native Policy ............... 276

Appendix K – Discharge Estimation Methodology .................................................................... 280
vii 

FIGURES 

Figure 1 National Marine Sanctuary System ................................................................................. 1 

Figure 2 Diagram showing jurisdictional boundaries within OCNMS. ...................................... 37 

Figure 3 Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary ................................................................. 120 

Figure 4 Schematic of general physical factors controlling ocean surface response during 

January, May, July, and September (from Pirhalla et al. 2009). .................................. 123 

Figure 5 Kelp Distribution ......................................................................................................... 136 

Figure 6 Habitat Map ................................................................................................................. 138 

Figure 7 Potential historic distribution of biologically structured habitat associated with hard 

substrate overlaid on Olympic 2 EFH Conservation Area (data from Curt Whitmire, 

NOAA) ......................................................................................................................... 139 

Figure 8 Vessel Traffic Management System ............................................................................ 154 

Figure 9 Location of the Alaska United and .............................................................................. 157 

Figure 10 Military Operating Areas ........................................................................................... 158 

Figure 11 CVTS Radar Coverage-all 2009 transits (8,849 transits) ......................................... 191 

Figure 12 CVTS Radar Coverage - OCNMS 2009 transits (6,128 transits) ............................. 191 

Figure 13 CVTS Radar Coverage – ATBA 2009 transits (68 transits) ............................. 193 

Figure 14 The OCNMS Research Vessel Tatoosh .................................................................... 198 

Figure 15 Picture of OCNMS mooring anchor .......................................................................... 210 

Figure 16 Extent of the Canadian Coast Guard Radar Coverage on the West Coast of Vancouver 

Island ............................................................................................................................ 281 

Figure 17 WDFW Marine Areas and OCNMS Boundary ......................................................... 282 

   
viii 

TABLES 

Table 1 Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Goals and Objectives ................................... 6 

Table 2 List of 37 topics raised during scoping ........................................................................... 25

Table 3 Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan Action Plans ....... 33 

Table 4 List of Cost Estimates Associated with the Action Plan Strategies 

(in thousands of dollars). .............................................................................................. 110 

Table 5 OCNMS Management Plan Implementation Table ...................................................... 116 

Table 6 Potential Gallons of Sewage Discharges in Olympic Coast 

National Marine Sanctuary in 2009 ............................................................................. 129 

Table 7 Potential Gallons of Graywater Discharges in OCNMS in 2009 ................................. 130 

Table 8 Population, Housing, Poverty, and Incomea ................................................................. 149 

Table 9 Population, Housing and Income for American Indian Tribes adjacent to OCNMS ... 150 

Table 10 Employment in counties adjacent to OCNMS (2008) ................................................ 151 

Table 11 All Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service (CVTS) Vessel Transits in 2009. For 

transits in OCNMS, the cumulative time and average transit time in OCNMS 

for all vessels of a given classification combined is provided for each vessel class. .. 153 

Table 12 Summary of three alternatives analyzed ..................................................................... 165 

Table 13 Summary of Analyzed Actions ................................................................................... 178 

Table 14 Comparison of estimated potential discharges (in gallons) 

under alternatives A, B and C ...................................................................................... 188 

Table 15 All Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service (CVTS) Vessel Transits in 2009 .................. 192 

Table 16 Echosounder specifications for equipment most commonly used by 

OCNMS for hydrographic surveys .............................................................................. 208 

Table 17 Protected and/or listed marine species of concern for impact by sonar 

within OCNMS ............................................................................................................ 208 

Table 18 Comparison of effects of the three alternatives on physical, biological, 

historic/cultural and socioeconomic resources ............................................................ 233 

Table 19 Comparison of Vessel Data Sources ........................................................................... 280 

Table 20 Recreational Fishing Boat Trips, within OCNMS, for 2009 ...................................... 283 

Table 21 Recreational Fishing Angler Trips, within OCNMS, for 2009 ................................... 283 

 
ix 

ACRONYMS 

AC Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council 

ADV Annual Discharge Volume 

AIS Automated Identification System 

AOP Annual Operating Plan 

AOPA Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

ATBA Area-to-be-Avoided 

AUV Autonomous Underwater Vehicle 

CMECS Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard 

COASST Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team 

CSS Carbon Saturation State 

CVTS Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DEA Draft Environmental Assessment 

DMP Draft Management Plan 

DO Dissolved Oxygen 

DOC Department of Commerce 

DOD Department of Defense 

DOI Department of Interior 

EFH Essential Fish Habitat 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GRP Geographic Response Plans 

GT Gross Tons 

HAB Harmful Algal Blooms 

HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular Concern 

ICS Incident Command System 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

IPC Olympic Coast Intergovernmental Policy Act 

IT Information Technology 

MARINe Multi-Agency Rocky Intertidal Network 

MCBI Marine Conservation Biology Institute 

MCTS Marine Communications and Traffic Services 

MMS Minerals Management Service 

MMSN Marine Mammal Stranding Network 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MPR Management Plan Review 

MRC Marine Resource Committees 

MSD Marine Sanitation Device 

NANOOS Northwest Association of Networked Ocean Observing Systems 

NBDC National Buoy Data Center 

NCDC National Climatic Data Center 

NCDDC NOAA Coastal Data Development Center 
x 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NGO Non-governmental organization 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NMSA National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOS National Ocean Service 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NPS National Park Service 

NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment 

NWCA Northwest Cruise Ship Association 

NWFSC NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

NWSC Northwest Straits Commission 

OAP Washington Ocean Action Plan 

OCNMS Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary 

OLE National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Law Enforcement 

ONMS Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

ONMS WCRO Office of National Marine Sanctuaries West Coast Regional Office 

ONP Olympic National Park 

ORHAB Olympic Region Harmful Algal Bloom Partnership 

ORR NOAA Office of Response and Restoration 

OSLTF Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 

OSU Oregon State University 

PAC Procurement, Acquisition, Construction 

PaCOOS Pacific Coast Ocean Observing System 

PFMC Pacific Fisheries Management Council 

PISCO Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans 

PMEL NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory 

REEF Reef Environmental Education Foundation 

ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle 

RRT Rapid Response Team 

SECO NOAA Safety and Environmental Compliance Office 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIMoN Sanctuary Integrated Monitoring Network 

SOC Standards of Care 

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USCG U.S. Coast Guard 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

UW/APL University of Washington Applied Physics Lab 

VTSPS Vessel Traffic Service Puget Sound 

WCCA Washington Clean Coast Alliance 

WCGA West Coast Governors’ Agreement 
xi 

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources 

WDE Washington Department of Ecology 

WPA Washington Pilots Association 

WSDOT Washington Department of Transportation 

WSPRC Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
xii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Designated in 1994, Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS or sanctuary) is a place 

of regional, national and global significance. The sanctuary, which is connected to both the Big 

Eddy Ecosystem and the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem, is the site of one of North 

America’s most productive marine regions and spectacular, undeveloped shorelines. 

OCNMS’s current management plan was written at the time of sanctuary designation in 1994. A 

sanctuary management plan is a site-specific planning and management tool that describes the 

goals, objectives and activities for a sanctuary, and guides future activities. NOAA’s Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) is required by the National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

(NMSA) to review and revise, if necessary, sanctuary management plans at periodic intervals. 

The 1994 management plan was written to give broad, general direction for the formation of 

OCNMS’s program areas. Many of the activities it describes are too general to provide useful 

guidance now that OCNMS is over a decade old. Sixteen years after sanctuary designation, 

OCNMS is in need of more refined and directed guidance. 

Since Fall 2008, ONMS has worked closely with the OCNMS Advisory Council (AC), the 

Olympic Coast Intergovernmental Policy Council (IPC) and the public to review and revise its 

1994 management plan. Commonly referred to as “management plan review or MPR,” for 

OCNMS this process was also labeled “Navigating the Future”. OCNMS’s MPR process has 

focused and will continue to focus on public and stakeholder involvement and to ensure that all 

aspects of MPR are transparent. ONMS went through a detailed issue analysis process with the 

AC and the IPC, which included a series of AC working group meetings and workshops to 

explore priority issues in greater detail. These AC working groups and workshops involved over 

100 subject area experts and interested members of the public. Through these meetings, specific 

strategies and activities for the revised management plan were developed. The AC then 

reviewed these suggested strategies and activities, recommended minor changes and voted to 

forward them to the OCNMS Superintendent with a recommendation that they be included in the 

revised management plan. 

This document includes both the draft management plan (DMP) and a draft environmental 

assessment (DEA) that analyzes the impacts of the DMP. The DEA fulfills compliance 

requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c). 

Section 1 (Introduction) of the document introduces OCNMS, the Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS) and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). This section also 

presents the revised goals and objectives for OCNMS, which were developed as part of the MPR 

process and are considered an integral part of the DMP. 

Section 2 (Treaty Trust Responsibility) focuses on explaining the nature and significance of 

OCNMS’s treaty trust responsibility to the Hoh, Quileute and Makah Tribes and Quinault Indian 

Nation. A team of sanctuary, tribal and Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission representatives 

wrote this section jointly. OCNMS’s treaty trust responsibility is an integral part of its mission; 
xiii 

and fulfilling this responsibility is critical to the successful implementation of this management 

plan. This section provides critical supporting information for both the DMP and the DEA. 

Section 3 (Purpose and Need) summarizes the purpose of and need for reviewing and revising 

the OCNMS management plan. This section is required by NEPA implementation regulations. 

The purpose and need section also provides important context and support for the DMP. 

Section 4 (MPR Process) summarizes the history of the MPR process to facilitate transparency 

by explaining systematically the process by which the DMP was developed. Included in this 

section is a discussion of topics that were raised during the public MPR scoping process but not 

developed as management plan alternatives. 

Section 5 is the DMP, which consists of 20 action plans grouped under five priority needs. 

During the MPR process, six priority needs were identified. In recognition of its unique nature 

and importance the priority need to fulfill treaty trust responsibility was developed into section 2 

of this document. The remaining five priority needs are addressed by the action plans. The 

action plans are comprised of a series of non-regulatory and/or regulatory strategies and 

activities. The management plan includes a total of 84 strategies and 293 activities. Each action 

plan also includes a desired outcome, links to the revised OCNMS goals, and a list of key 

partners. 

Included at the end of the DMP are a set of performance measures, cost estimates for each 

strategy, and an implementation table that prioritizes strategies. It is estimated that it would take 

an annual budget of $4.2 to $5.4 million to implement all of the strategies in the DMP effectively 

over the next five years (Table 4). OCNMS currently operates with an annual budget of around 

$1.5 million, not including in-kind support from other NOAA offices or grants from NOAA or 

other agencies and organizations. The amount of in-kind support and grant funding OCNMS 

receives each year varies greatly. Thus, in order to implement the entire DMP, ONMS would 

need to significantly increase directed funding for OCNMS management (whether through grants 

or base funding).Given the substantial federal budget constraints anticipated for the next few 

years, OCNMS staff worked with its AC and the IPC to develop the implementation table that 

appears at the end of the DMP. The implementation table explains what strategies will be the 

highest priorities for ONMS to implement under three potential budget scenarios: level-funding 

(i.e., no budget increase), a moderate budget increase and a significant budget increase. ONMS 

will use the implementation table to guide and inform its annual operating planning efforts. 

The DMP, while it can be considered a stand-alone document, is also an important component of 

the DEA. The role of the DEA is to analyze the action of revising the OCNMS management 

plan. The DMP presented in section five is OCNMS’s preferred management plan revision. 

Later sections of the document related specifically to the DEA analyze the environmental 

consequences of the DMP as well as other alternatives for revising the management plan. 

 
xiv 

OCNMS Draft Management Plan - Action Plans 

A. Achieve Effective Collaborative and Coordinated Management 

A1. Collaborative and Coordinated Sanctuary Management Action Plan 

A2. Community Involvement in Sanctuary Management Action Plan 

A3. Sanctuary Operations Action Plan 

B. Conduct Collaborative Research, Assessments and Monitoring to Inform Ecosystem-Based Management 

B1. Habitat Mapping and Classification Action Plan 

B2. Physical and Chemical Oceanography Action Plan 

B3. Populations, Communities and Ecosystems Action Plan 

B4. Data Management, Sharing and Reporting Action Plan 

C. Improve Ocean Literacy 

C1. K-12 Education Action Plan 

C2. Higher Education Action Plan 

C3. Visitor Services Action Plan 

C4. Community Outreach Action Plan 

D. Conserve Natural Resources in the Sanctuary 

D1. Spills Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Restoration Action Plan 

D2. Climate Change Action Plan 

D3. Marine Debris Action Plan 

D4. Wildlife Disturbance Action Plan 

D5. Water Quality Protection Action Plan 

D6. Habitat Protection Action Plan 

D7. Marine Spatial Planning Action Plan 

E. Understand the Sanctuary’s Cultural, Historical and Socioeconomic Significance 

E1. Maritime Heritage Action Plan 

E2. Socioeconomic Values of Resources in the Sanctuary Action Plan 

Section 6 (Affected Environment) provides a detailed description of the environment (biological, 

physical and human) that will be affected by the action of revising the OCNMS management 

plan. The action plans in the DMP are purposefully written in a concise manner and do not 

provide extensive background information. The background and supporting information for the 

action plans is in the affected environment discussion. 
xv 

Section 7 (Description of Alternatives) summarizes three alternatives (A, B and C) that were 

considered for revising the management plan. One of these alternatives (the preferred) is the 

DMP presented in section five. In accordance with NOAA NEPA guidelines, OCNMS has also 

considered two other alternatives: a “no-action” alternative (in which the 1994 management plan 

would not be revised at all) and a third alternative (in which the 1994 management plan would be 

revised but in way different from the preferred alternative). 

Section 8 (Environmental Consequences of Alternatives) provides a detailed analysis of the 

potential effects of all three alternatives on the biological, physical and human resources 

discussed in the affected environment (section six). Section eight fulfills NOAA’s responsibility 

under NEPA to analyze the potential beneficial and adverse effects of its actions on the 

environment. Additionally, Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to analyze the 

potential impacts of their actions on historic properties and resources (as defined under the 

NHPA). This analysis is also incorporated into section eight of the document. 

The findings of the Environmental Consequences section indicate that revision of the OCNMS 

management plan under all three alternatives would have a less than significant effect on the 

biological, physical and human environment, both as an individual action and cumulatively with 

other actions. 

It should be noted that a separate rulemaking will be proposed in the Federal Register to request 

public comment on the proposed changes to OCNMS’s regulations under the preferred 

alternative. Descriptions of these potential regulatory changes appear in the DMP (section five); 

and the environmental consequences of these regulatory changes are analyzed in section eight. 

A notice will be published in the Federal Register to alert the public of both the availability of 

the joint DMP/DEA as well as the opening of a public comment period. Written public 

comments can be submitted via e-mail, fax, phone or letter. Oral public comments can be 

submitted at any of the several public hearings that ONMS will hold in the region. For more 

information on these public hearings or on how to submit public comments, in addition to all the 

documents developed for the MPR, please visit OCNMS’s Navigating the Future website at 

http://olympiccoast.noaa.gov/protection/mpr/welcome.html. 

1 

INTRODUCTION 

1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1. OFFICE OF NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES 

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1431 et. seq.), directs the Office 

of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) to serve as a trustee for a system of 14 marine 

protected areas (13 national marine sanctuaries and Papahanāumokuākea Marine National 

Monument, Figure 1), which together encompass more than 290,000 square miles of 

marine and Great Lakes waters from Washington state to the Florida Keys, and from New 

England to American Samoa. 

The ONMS is an office within the National Ocean Service of the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The ONMS works cooperatively with other 

governments, agencies, resource users and the public to protect the living, non-living, and 

cultural marine resources of sanctuaries while allowing recreational and commercial 

activities that are compatible with the NMSA’s primary goal of resource protection. The 

ONMS also raises public awareness and deepens understanding of sanctuary resources and 

management issues through research, monitoring, exploration, education and outreach 

programs. 

Figure 1 National Marine Sanctuary System 
2 

INTRODUCTION 

Throughout its work ONMS is guided by these vision and mission statements (ONMS 2005): 

Vision - The National Marine Sanctuary Program is a world-class system of 

sanctuaries that protect the nation’s natural and cultural marine resources for this 

and future generations and provides both national and international leadership for 

marine conservation. 

Mission - Identify, protect, conserve, and enhance the natural and cultural 

resources, values, and qualities of the National Marine Sanctuary System for this 

and future generations throughout the nation. 

National marine sanctuaries are an essential part of the country’s collective environmental 

riches. Within their protected waters, giant whales feed, breed and nurse their young, coral 

colonies flourish, and shipwrecks tell stories of our maritime history. Sanctuary habitats 

include beautiful reefs, lush kelp forests, whale migration corridors and destinations, 

spectacular deep-sea canyons, and underwater archeological sites. Our nation’s marine 

sanctuaries range in size from one-quarter square mile (American Samoa’s Fagatele Bay) 

to the more than 140,000 square miles (Papahanāumokuākea Marine National Monument 

in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands). Each sanctuary is a unique place that requires 

special protections. Serving as natural classrooms, cherished recreation spots, places for 

valuable commercial activities, and places of profound cultural significance, national 

marine sanctuaries represent many things to many people. 

1.2. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SANCTUARY 

Designated by NOAA in 1994 (Appendix A), Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary 

(OCNMS or the sanctuary) is a place of regional, national and global significance. 

OCNMS, which is connected to both the Big Eddy Ecosystem and the California Current 

Large Marine Ecosystem, is home to one of North America’s most productive marine 

regions and spectacular, undeveloped shorelines. 

Article III of the OCNMS terms of designation identifies “characteristics of the sanctuary 

area that give it particular value” (59 FR 24586, May 11, 1994; Appendix A). These 

characteristics include a highly productive ocean and coastal environment that is important 

to the continued survival of numerous ecologically and commercially important species of 

fish, seabirds, and marine mammals; a diversity of habitats that support a great variety of 

biological communities; significant historical resources; and exceptional opportunities for 

scientific research and public education and awareness programs. Additional description of 

the environment in the area of the sanctuary is provided below in section 6 and in the 2008 

OCNMS Condition Report (ONMS 2008). 

OCNMS spans 2,408 square nautical miles (8,259 square kilometers) of marine waters off 

Washington state’s rugged Olympic Peninsula coast. Extending seaward 40 to 72 

kilometers (25 to 45 miles) and to depths of over 1,400 meters (4,500 feet), the sanctuary 

covers much of the continental shelf and the heads of three major submarine canyons. 
3 

INTRODUCTION 

Approximately 17.25% of the sanctuary is located within state of Washington waters. 

OCNMS covers an area that is approximately: 

 1.7 times larger than the entire Puget Sound 

 Almost 2.5 times larger than Olympic National Park 

 The size of Puerto Rico 

 The size of Delaware and Rhode Island combined 

The sanctuary borders one of the few undeveloped coastlines remaining in North America, 

enhancing the protection provided by both Olympic National Park, which includes 56 miles 

(90-kilometer) of wilderness shoreline adjacent to the sanctuary and the Washington 

Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which includes more than 600 offshore 

islands and emergent rocks within the sanctuary. Olympic National Park is designated a 

World Heritage Site and a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. 

Located in a nutrient-rich upwelling zone, the sanctuary supports high primary productivity 

and is home to a diversity of organisms and habitats. Twenty-nine species of marine 

mammals have been sighted in the sanctuary, and the seabird colonies off the Olympic Coast 

are among the largest in the continental United States. Commercially important fish species in 

the sanctuary include groundfish, shellfish and five species of salmon. Influenced by geology, 

ocean currents and other global processes, OCNMS’s temperate location and physical 

environment support critical habitats and unique communities of organisms, including deep 

sea corals and one of the most diverse seaweed communities in the world. 

Beyond its ecological significance the sanctuary has extraordinary cultural significance. 

For time immemorial, American Indians have inhabited and cared for the coastal and 

marine ecosystems that are now part of the sanctuary. The Hoh, Makah and Quileute 

tribes, and the Quinault Indian Nation, collectively the Coastal Treaty Tribes, continue to 

make their home on the Olympic Peninsula’s outer coast maintaining the continuity of 

cultures that remain intimately connected with the ocean and its resources. 

The sanctuary also hosts commercial enterprises, local and international. Some of the 

busiest shipping lanes in the world run through sanctuary. Commercial fisheries, both 

tribal and non-tribal, occur in sanctuary waters and are critical components of the regional 

economy. 

In managing OCNMS, NOAA is guided by the following mission statement: 

Mission - To protect the Olympic Coast’s natural and cultural resources through 

responsible stewardship, to conduct and apply research to preserve the area’s 

ecological integrity and maritime heritage, and to promote understanding through 

public outreach and education. 
4 

INTRODUCTION 

1.3. OCNMS’S COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK 

OCNMS is managed using a collaborative management framework that is unique within 

the sanctuary system and the world. Given that the sanctuary is adjacent to Canada and is 

encompassed by the usual and accustomed Areas of the Hoh, Makah, and Quileute tribes, 

and the Quinault Indian Nation, OCNMS’s management framework is truly multi-national 

and multi-cultural in nature. 

The Coastal Treaty Tribes have treaty-protected fishing rights and share co-management 

responsibilities for fishing activities within the sanctuary with the state of Washington and 

federal government. These common interests and joint authorities led the Coastal Treaty 

Tribes, the state of Washington and ONMS to create the Olympic Coast Intergovernmental 

Policy Council (IPC) in 2007. The first of its kind in the nation, the IPC provides a regional 

forum for resource managers to exchange information, coordinate policies, and develop 

recommendations for resource management within the sanctuary. 

The IPC’s goals include: 

 Protecting the safety and health of coastal residents 

 Enhancing the social and economic vitality of coastal communities 

 Improving the understanding and management of marine resources 

Since its inception, the IPC has laid the groundwork for successful government-togovernment collaboration, focusing on the following activities: 

 Participating in the review of OCNMS’s management plan 

 Identifying research priorities, including the development of a five-year Ocean 

Ecosystem Monitoring and Research Initiative 

 Establishing initial priorities for a transition to ecosystem-based management 

 Seeking stable and long-term funding to support operation of the IPC 

Sanctuary management also relies on community and stakeholder involvement. In addition 

to working with the IPC, ONMS works closely with the OCNMS 21-seat Advisory Council 

(AC). The AC, established in 1996, is a community-based advisory group consisting of 

representatives from four Coastal Treaty Tribes, nine state and federal agencies, local 

governments, and a variety of local user and interest groups. All AC meetings are open to 

the public with agendas that provide opportunity for public comment. 
5 

INTRODUCTION 

List of Advisory Council (AC) seats and their 

voting status 

Makah Tribe Voting 

Quileute Tribe Voting 

Hoh Tribe Voting 

Quinault Indian Nation Voting 

Citizen-at-large Voting 

Education Voting 

Research Voting 

Conservation/Environmental Voting 

Chamber of Commerce, 

Tourism, Recreation 

Voting 

Marine Business/Ports/ 

Industry 

Voting 

Commercial Fishing Voting 

Washington Department of 

Ecology 

Voting 

Washington Department of 

Natural Resources 

Voting 

Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife 

Voting 

Local Counties (rotating seat) Voting 

Northwest Straits 

Commission 

Non-voting 

U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security/ U.S. 

Coast Guard 

Non-voting 

Olympic National Park Non-voting 

Washington Maritime 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex 

Non-voting 

NOAA National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Non-voting 

U.S. Navy Non-voting 

The AC provides advice to the OCNMS 

Superintendent on the management and 

protection of the sanctuary, and also 

deliberates and provides 

recommendations on sanctuary 

operations, education and outreach 

programs, research and science 

programs, regulations and enforcement 

efforts, and marine policy and 

management plans. The AC also 

provides advice to ONMS on national 

and regional issues that impact the 

OCNMS such as ocean acidification. 

The AC has played a vital role in 

decisions affecting Olympic Coast 

marine resources. To date the AC has 

focused on issues such as oil spill 

preparedness and prevention, vessel 

traffic measures, reviewing policies and 

permitting issues associated with fiber 

optic cables, alternative energy and 

military activities within the sanctuary, 

and defining research and educational 

programmatic priorities. Both the AC 

and the IPC have been invaluable in 

guiding the MPR process. 

Not only is OCNMS management based 

on a collaborative, community-based 

framework, but OCNMS managers also 

participate on a larger regional and 

national stage acting as key players in a 

variety of statewide, regional and 

international collaborative ocean 

management frameworks. The West 

Coast Governor’s Agreement on Ocean 

Health, the Washington Ocean Action 

Plan and the Juan de Fuca International 

Marine Ecosystem Initiative are all ocean 

management frameworks within which 

OCNMS plays an important role. In this 

way, the DMP complements and 

emphasizes the importance of these 

larger collaborative frameworks. 
6 

INTRODUCTION 

1.4. OCNMS GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

As part of the MPR process, OCNMS worked with the AC and IPC to revise its goals and 

objectives. The revised goals and objectives presented below were adopted by OCNMS in 

September 2009 (Table 1) and should be considered draft pending publication of the final 

OCNMS management plan. 

Table 1 Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Goals and Objectives 

Goals and Objectives 

A. Build and strengthen OCNMS’s partnerships with the coastal treaty tribes and the Olympic Coast 

Intergovernmental Policy Council (IPC), and honor the sanctuary’s treaty trust responsibility. 

Objective 1: Promote a transparent, cooperative and coordinated management structure for Olympic Coast 

marine resources within tribal, state and federal jurisdictions. 

Objective 2: Work with the four coastal treaty tribes to improve the government-to-government consultation 

process. 

Objective 3: Work collaboratively with the IPC to identify common goals and reach consensus on 

management priorities within the boundaries of the OCNMS for the protection, management and 

sustainable use of natural resources, and the promotion of educational opportunities and scientific 

research. 

Objective 4: Work with the IPC to improve communication and facilitate the exchange of information to 

foster more effective decision-making. 

B. Promote collaborative and coordinated management and stewardship of resources in the sanctuary. 

Objective 1: Actively encourage the State, tribes, interested agencies, coastal communities, and 

organizations to partner in addressing specific sanctuary management concerns, joint work on action plans, 

and marine stewardship and sustainable use opportunities. 

Objective 2: Improve intra-agency partnerships within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

Objective 3: Create linkages between OCNMS’s action plans and ocean initiatives of other entities. 

Objective 4: Maintain and support the OCNMS Advisory Council. 

C. Investigate and enhance the understanding of ecosystem processes, and inform ecosystem-based 

management efforts, through scientific research, monitoring, and characterization. 

Objective 1: Understand the effects of changing climate and ocean conditions on sanctuary ecosystems. 

Objective 2: Monitor key resources within the sanctuary to identify significant changes over time. 

Objective 3: Characterize and map the sanctuary’s species and habitats. 

Objective 4: Promote more informed management by improving opportunities and mechanisms for sharing 

scientific data and research results. 

Objective 5: Collaborate with the IPC and coastal treaty tribes on research and monitoring activities within 

the tribes’ usual and accustomed areas. 

Objective 6: Promote and coordinate scientific research in the sanctuary in collaboration with others. 
7 

INTRODUCTION 

D. Enhance Ocean Literacy, promote awareness of the sanctuary and foster a sense of ocean stewardship 

through outreach, education, and interpretation efforts. 

Objective 1: Collaborate to enhance K-12 and adult education programs on the Olympic Peninsula related 

to marine ecology and conservation. 

Objective 2: Promote and support community-based conservation and education efforts. 

Objective 3: Improve the public’s understanding of coastal tribal cultures and awareness of the sanctuary 

and its marine ecosystem. 

E. Maintain the sanctuary’s natural biological diversity and protect, and where appropriate, restore and 

enhance sanctuary ecosystems. 

Objective 1: Work collaboratively with strategic partners to conserve natural habitats, populations, and 

ecological processes by preventing, minimizing and/or mitigating stressors on resources in the sanctuary. 

Objective 2: Actively participate in regional spill prevention, contingency planning, emergency response, 

damage assessment, and restoration activities. 

Objective 3: Develop and maintain permitting and enforcement programs and partnerships to maximize 

protection of resources in the sanctuary. 

Objective 4: Promote marine debris removal in coordination with federal, state, local, and tribal authorities 

and volunteer organizations. 

F. Enhance understanding and appreciation of the Olympic Coast’s maritime heritage (living cultures, 

traditions, and cultural resources). 

Objective 1: Map and interpret cultural resources in the sanctuary. 

Objective 2: Improve understanding of and education about regional tribal cultures. 

Objective 3: Incorporate local and customary knowledge into sanctuary programs. 

G. Facilitate wise and sustainable use in the sanctuary to the extent that such uses are compatible with 

resource protection. 

Objective 1: Assess, monitor and manage, as appropriate, levels of human use in the sanctuary. 

Objective 2: Create and support programs and strategies that protect tribal welfare. 

Objective 3: Understand the sanctuary’s socioeconomic values. 

H. Build, maintain, and enhance an operational capability and infrastructure. 

Objective 1: Ensure that OCNMS regulations are consistent with other sanctuaries, where appropriate. 

Objective 2: Pursue the infrastructure improvements and staffing increases necessary to achieve the work 

identified in the management plan. 

Objective 3: Identify strategies to minimize the contribution of sanctuary operations to climate change. 

Objective 4: Support and expand volunteer opportunities at the sanctuary. 

Objective 5: Improve communication and collaboration between sanctuaries to share best practices. 
8 

TREATY TRUST RESPONSIBILITY 

2. TREATY TRUST RESPONSIBILITY 

From left, Vivian Lee, Hoh tribal chairman; Micah McCarty, Makah tribal chairman; Washington Gov. Chris 

Gregoire; Daniel Basta, director of NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries; Scott Rayder, NOAA Chief of 

Staff (standing); Chris Morganroth, Quileute tribal policy representative; and Fawn Sharp, Quinault Indian Nation 

tribal chairman complete the signing of the charter to create the Intergovernmental Policy Council (May 2007) 

This section was prepared by a working group of tribal and NOAA ONMS representatives 

to provide background information for NOAA’s policies, operations, program planning and 

program implementation that assists in satisfying the requirements of the federal trust 

responsibility to the sovereign tribal governments of the Hoh, Makah, Quileute tribes and 

the Quinault Nation (collectively the Coastal Treaty Tribes). 

NOAA seeks to work directly with the Coastal Treaty Tribes on a government-togovernment basis to promote a healthy ecosystem in the waters adjacent to the Olympic 

Peninsula for the support and enhancement of tribal treaty rights and resources, cultural 

resources and activities, tribal self-determination and sovereignty. In addition, NOAA 

supports and works with the Olympic Coast Intergovernmental Policy Council (IPC) to 

obtain guidance and the collective views of the Coastal Treaty Tribes and the state of 

Washington on maintaining a healthy marine ecosystem in the waters off the Olympic 

Peninsula for the benefit of all citizens and for future generations. NOAA believes that 

these activities are mutually supportive of both the federal government’s treaty trust 

responsibility as well as its responsibilities under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

(NMSA). 
9 

TREATY TRUST RESPONSIBILITY 

2.1. COASTAL TREATY TRIBES, THE TREATY RIGHT TO FISH, 

AND THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION 

ACT 

The marine ecosystem off the Olympic Peninsula provides habitat for a wide variety of 

marine and terrestrial birds, fish, mammals and plants. Through treaties with the United 

States, the Coastal Treaty Tribes reserved hunting, fishing, and gathering rights to access 

and utilize the plants, mammals, fish and other resources of the Olympic Peninsula and its 

adjacent waters in their respective treaty areas in perpetuity. The marine ecosystem and its 

associated natural resources form an essential foundation for the economies and cultures of 

the Coastal Treaty Tribes, and the Coastal Treaty Tribes view the continued ability to 

harvest and utilize water, plants, mammals, fish and other resources of this region as being 

critical to the protection of their treaty rights and the continuity of their distinct societies. 

The treaties of the Coastal Treaty Tribes are part of the “Stevens treaties.” These treaties 

were negotiated in the mid-1850s throughout the lands that are now western Washington 

with Governor of the Washington territory, Isaac Stevens. The 1855 Treaty of Neah Bay 

with the Makah Indian Tribe and the 1855 Treaty of Olympia with the Hoh Indian Tribe, 

Quileute Indian Tribe and the Quinault Indian Nation govern the relationships between the 

federal government and the Coastal Treaty Tribes. 

In the 1970s American Indian tribes in the state of Washington sought to have greater 

access to their treaty resources and uphold their treaty rights in federal court. The outcome 

of this arduous legal path re-established these treaties as the supreme law of the land and 

culminated in the seminal case of United States v. Washington, written by Judge George 

Boldt and often referred to as the “Boldt” decision. (U. S. v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, 

353(W.D. Wash. 1974), aff’d 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975), aff’d sub nom. State of 

Washington et al. v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association 

et al. 443 U.S 658, 99 Ct. 3055 (1979)). In arriving at the decision upholding the treaty 

rights, Judge Boldt traced the history of the salmon fishing tribes of the state of 

Washington to treaty-time signing periods. Judge Boldt’s decision recounts that: 

“From the earliest known times, up to and beyond the time of the Stevens’ 

treaties, the Indians comprising each of the treating tribes and bands were 

primarily a fishing, hunting, and gathering people dependent almost entirely 

upon the natural animal and vegetative resources of the region for their 

subsistence and culture.” 384 F.Supp 312, 406 (W. D. Wash. 1974)

“The treaty-secured rights to resort to the usual and accustomed places to 

fish were a part of larger rights possessed by the treating Indians, upon the 

exercise of which there was not a shadow of impediment, and which were 

nor much less necessary to their existence than the atmosphere they 

breathed. The treaty was not a grant of rights to the treating Indians, but a 

grant of rights from them, and a reservation of those not granted.” 

384 F. Supp. 312, 407 (W. D Wash. 1974). 
10 

TREATY TRUST RESPONSIBILITY 

The treaty right to fish is constrained only by the requirement to ensure that fishery 

resources are preserved and maintained. U.S. v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, 402 (W.D. 

Wash. 1974). Further, the Coastal Treaty Tribes’ fishing rights are: 

“ ...not limited as to species of fish, the origin of fish, the purpose or use, or 

the time or manner of taking except to the extent necessary to achieve 

preservation of the resource and to allow non-Indians an opportunity to fish 

in common with treaty right fishermen outside the reservation boundaries.” 

384 F. Supp. 312, 401(W.D. Wash. 1974). 

The state of Washington may regulate tribal fisheries only in very limited circumstances: 

“The State’s police power to regulate the off-reservation fishing activities of 

members of the treaty tribes exists only to the extent necessary to protect the 

fishery resource. This power does not include the authority to impair or 

qualify the treaty right by limiting its exercise to State-preferred times, 

manners or purposes except as such limitations may be necessary for 

preservation of the resource and protection of the interests of all those 

entitled to share it. This power does not include the power to determine for 

the Indian tribes what is the wisest and best use of their share of the 

common resource.” 384 F. Supp. 401-402. (W.D. Wash. 1974). 

Circumstances under which the United States may limit the exercise of the treaty right are 

broader than the State’s. Congress has plenary authority to modify the exercise of 

American Indian treaty rights through the enactment of laws and statutes, subject to 

Constitutional limitations. The federal courts are very reluctant to interpret federal statutes 

as abrogating or modifying an Indian treaty or interest absent an explicit statement by 

Congress to do so. In its role as co-manager of the ocean fisheries, the United States acts in 

concert with the Coastal Treaty Tribes to preserve and maintain marine resources for future 

generations. 

Because the Coastal Treaty Tribes’ right to fish is held “in common with” the non-Indian 

citizens of present-day Washington and Oregon, Judge Boldt determined that the tribes are 

“co-managers” of the fishery resource (U. S. v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, 403 (W. D. 

Wash. 1974)). Thus, each of the Coastal Treaty Tribes regulates and controls tribal fishing 

at its usual and accustomed grounds in accordance with tribal law and judicially prescribed 

fishery management responsibilities, maintains its own fisheries management and 

enforcement staff, enters into management agreements with other co-managers, and 

engages in a wide variety of research, restoration and enhancement activities to improve 

the scientific basis for resource stewardship. 

In state waters, the Coastal Treaty Tribes are co-managers of the fishery with the state of 

Washington. In federal waters (beyond three miles off shore), the Coastal Treaty Tribes 

are co-managers with the federal government through implementation of the Magnuson 

Stevens Fishery Conservation Act (Magnuson Stevens Act; 16 U.S. 1801et seq.) by 

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). This tribal/federal/state co-
11 

TREATY TRUST RESPONSIBILITY 

management framework has evolved as a reliable planning forum for all aspects of fishery 

management, including but not limited to planning harvest time, place and manner, and 

constraining fishing mortality. The co-managers are charged with the responsibility for 

managing all aspects of fishery resources and for coordinating their efforts through the 

development, adoption and implementation of fishery management plans under the 

Magnuson Stevens Act. The NMSA provides authority for the ONMS to regulate activities 

in marine sanctuaries for comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management in 

a manner which complements existing regulatory authorities (15CFR 922.2(b)(2)) and to 

develop and implement coordinated management plans for the protection and management 

of the sanctuary together with the state of Washington and the Coastal Treaty Tribes (15 

CFR 922.2(b)(6)). 

Over the years, the federal courts have become the chief protectors of the exercise of 

American Indian treaty rights and many cases and sub-proceedings have been brought in 

Washington and Oregon courts to interpret tribal rights under the Stevens’ treaties. In the 

1990s, the United States Government, in exercise of its trust responsibility, asked the 

federal courts to establish the rights of Stevens’ treaty tribes in western Washington to 

access shellfish beds across private lands and to an equitable harvest of the shellfish 

resource (U. S. v Washington, 873 F. Supp. 1422 (W. D. Wash. 1994), aff’d in part, rev’d 

in part, 135 F.3d 618 (9th Cir. 1998), amended 157 F. 3d 630 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. den., 526 

U.S. 1060 (1999)). The decision that resulted established the tribal right to harvest not just 

shellfish, but also any species of fish, finned or not finned, in the usual and accustomed 

area of a tribe. In recent years, the United States has sought to ensure that the State of 

Washington does not allow the treaty fishery resource to be adversely impacted by statesanctioned activities that impede fish migration and production and diminish the available 

fish resource (U. S. v Washington, (CV9213RSM August 22, 2007) 2007 WL 2437166 (W. 

D. Wash. 2007) (also known as the Culverts Case)). 

2.2. OCNMS AND TRIBAL TRUST AND TREATY 

RESPONSIBILITIES 

NOAA’s implementation of the NMSA and its duty to implement the federal trust 

responsibility toward American Indian tribes complement and support one another. The 

purposes and policies of the NMSA include the following, “to maintain the natural 

biological communities in national marine sanctuaries, and to protect, and where 

appropriate restore and enhance natural habitats, populations, and ecological processes.” 

This statutory mission requires NOAA to implement the federal trust responsibility to 

protect treaty trust resources, tribal access to treaty resources and the sustainable 

development of treaty rights. One of the purposes and policies of the NMSA is “to develop 

and implement coordinated plans for the protections and management of [sanctuaries] 

with ...Native American Tribes and organizations...and other public and private interests 

concerned with the continuing health and resilience of these marine areas.” This policy 

can support the development of and deference to tribal management plans that achieve the 

statutory obligations of OCNMS. 
12 

TREATY TRUST RESPONSIBILITY 

In addition, the NMSA’s objective “to facilitate to the extent compatible with the primary 

objective of resource protection, all public and private uses of the resources of” national 

marine sanctuaries supports implementation of NOAA’s trust responsibility to protect the 

exercise of treaty rights, now and in perpetuity. The NMSA and the federal trust 

responsibility provide one basis, among many, for the determination that OCNMS 

regulations do not restrict the ability of Coastal Treaty Tribes to exercise their treaty 

protected rights (15 CFR 122.152(f)). The Coastal Treaty Tribes and NOAA strive to 

develop joint activities and projects, and to engage in the collaborative development and 

implementation of coordinated plans for the management and protection of treaty 

resources, to ensure resilience of those resources, and to promote the continuing health of 

the OCNMS ecosystem. 

In summary, to the extent consistent with federal law, NOAA implements its trust 

responsibility toward the Coastal Treaty Tribes and discharges its statutory mission under 

the NMSA to: 

 Protect and conserve treaty trust resources 

 Protect the exercise of treaty rights by the Coastal Treaty Tribes 

 Support the development of and deference to tribal treaty resource management 

plans 

 Consult with the Coastal Treaty Tribes on a government-to-government basis when 

proposing to take an action that may affect treaty resources or tribal treaty rights or 

resources of cultural or historical significance (15 CFR 922.153(g)(h)) 

2.3. CONSULTATION WITH COASTAL TREATY TRIBES 

The obligation of federal agencies to consult with American Indian tribes on matters that 

could affect tribal rights and interests is based in case law, and regular consultation with 

tribes and others is required by NMSA regulations (15 CFR 922.154(a)). Executive Orders 

12875 and 13175 (Appendices D and I) direct federal agencies to consult with Native 

American tribes on a “government-to-government” basis when proposing to take an action 

affecting tribal sovereignty or tribal trust resources or tribal treaty rights. Executive Order 

13175 also requires federal agencies to encourage American Indian tribes to develop their 

own policies to achieve program objectives, defer to tribally established standards, and 

preserve the prerogatives and authority of Indian tribes to the extent permitted by federal 

law. Executive Order 12898 (Appendix E) on Environmental Justice, specifies that federal 

agencies must ensure that environmental justice requirements are applied to American 

Indian tribes and their subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife. These policies are also 

reflected in the Department of Commerce American Indian and Alaska Native Policy, 1995

(Appendix J) and in Secretarial Order 3206, American Indian Tribal Rights, FederalTribal Trust Responsibilities and the Endangered Species Act (Appendix F). 

Whenever it is determined by a Coastal Treaty Tribe or NOAA that actions proposed or 

authorized by the NMSA may impact tribal trust resources, the exercise of tribal treaty 

rights, Indian lands, or tribal self- government and determination, NOAA will consult with, 
13 

TREATY TRUST RESPONSIBILITY 

and seek the participation of, the affected Coastal Treaty Tribe(s) in accordance with the 

executive orders and other agency guidance relating to such consultation. 

2.4. TRIBAL CONSULTATION PROCEDURES 

Tribal consultations are planned, structured meetings between the OCNMS superintendent 

and/or Director of ONMS and the affected tribe(s) or their designees. They refer to 

meetings, either in person or via phone/video teleconference, between officials of OCNMS 

and/or ONMS and the affected tribe(s) or their designees, which are planned, structured 

and understood by both parties to be consultation. Communications outside of consultation 

meetings may be part of the overall consultation process, but these communications are not 

consultations themselves. 

As used in this document, tribal consultation means the process of seeking, discussing, and 

considering the views of the tribal government(s) at the earliest time in NOAA’s decisionmaking about the management of OCNMS. Tribal consultation is more than simply 

providing information about what NOAA is planning to do and allowing comment. Rather, 

tribal consultation means respectful, meaningful, and effective two-way communication 

that works towards the goal of consensus reflecting the concerns of the affected Coastal 

Treaty Tribe(s) before NOAA makes its decision or moves forward with its action. The 

objective is to promote cooperative decision making on activities that may impact treaty 

trust resources or the exercise of tribal rights on American Indian lands and waters. 

Individual Coastal Treaty Tribes may choose to work with NOAA, ONMS and OCNMS to 

develop more specific, individually defined tribal consultation procedures beyond those 

outlined here. The tribal consultation procedures outlined above reflect the guiding 

objective and basic process that will be enacted. These procedures may be modified as a 

result of the Department of Commerce Consultation Procedures initiative being conducted 

in response to Executive Order 13175 (Appendix I). 

 
14 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR REVISING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REGULATIONS 

3. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR REVISING THE 

MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REGULATIONS 

3.1. PURPOSE 

The purpose for taking action to address the need described below is derived principally 

from the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) and the goals and objectives for 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS). 

3.1.1. National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) 

The NMSA (16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.) is the legislative mandate that governs the Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) and the National Marine Sanctuary System (NMSS). 

Under the NMSA, the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to designate and manage areas 

of the marine environment as national marine sanctuaries. Such designations are based on 

attributes of special national significance, including conservation, recreational, ecological, 

historical, scientific, cultural, archaeological, educational, or aesthetic qualities. With the 

primary mandate to provide protection for the resources of these special ocean and Great 

Lakes areas, the NMSA identifies nine purposes and policies1

: 

(1) To identify and designate as national marine sanctuaries areas of the 

marine environment which are of special national significance and to 

manage these areas as the National Marine Sanctuary System; 

(2) To provide authority for comprehensive and coordinated conservation 

and management of these marine areas, and activities affecting them, in a 

manner that complements existing regulatory authorities; 

(3) To maintain the natural biological communities in the national marine 

sanctuaries, and to protect, and, where appropriate, restore and enhance 

natural habitats, populations and ecological processes; 

(4) To enhance public awareness, understanding, appreciation, and wise and 

sustainable use of the marine environment, and the natural, historical, 

cultural and archeological resources of the National Marine Sanctuary 

System; 

(5) To support, promote and coordinate scientific research on, and long-term 

monitoring of, the resources of these marine areas; 

 

1

 The purposes and policies of the NMSA have changed over time. They are presented here in their current 

form. Since NOAA designated OCNMS in 1994, the purposes and policies have been changed twice (1996 

and 2000). 
15 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR REVISING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REGULATIONS 

(6) To facilitate to the extent compatible with the primary objective of 

resource protection, all public and private uses of the resources of these 

marine areas not prohibited pursuant to other authorities; 

(7) To develop and implement coordinated plans for the protection and 

management of these areas with appropriate Federal agencies, state and 

local governments, Native American tribes and organizations, international 

organizations, and other public and private interests concerned with the 

continuing health and resilience of these marine areas; 

(8) To create models of, and incentives for, ways to conserve and manage 

these areas, including the application of innovative management techniques; 

and 

(9) To cooperate with global programs encouraging conservation of marine 

resources. 

The NMSA also states that the ONMS shall “maintain for future generations the habitat 

and ecological services of the natural assemblage of living resources that inhabit 

[sanctuaries]” (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq., §301(a)(4)(A),(C)). The NMSA further recognizes 

that “while the need to control the effects of particular activities has led to enactment of 

resource-specific legislation, these laws cannot in all cases provide a coordinated and 

comprehensive approach to the conservation and management of the marine environment” 

(16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq., §301(a)(3)). Accordingly, the ONMS subscribes to a broad and 

comprehensive management approach to meet the NMSA’s primary mandate of resource 

protection. This approach differs from that of various other national and local agencies and 

laws directed at managing single or limited numbers of species, habitats, or specific human 

activities within the marine environment. 

 

Sanctuary management, therefore, serves as a framework for providing long-term 

protection of a wide range of living and non-living marine resources, while allowing 

multiple uses of the sanctuaries to the extent that they are compatible with resource 

protection. The ecosystems managed by the ONMS span diverse geographic, 

administrative, political and economic boundaries. To comprehensively manage national 

marine sanctuaries, individually and as a system, strong partnerships between the ONMS 

and local, state and tribal governments, resource management agencies, the scientific 

community, stakeholders and the public at-large are needed to achieve the coordination and 

program integration called for by the NMSA. The proposed revised management plan 

would enable sanctuary staff to manage the ecosystem resources of the sanctuary more 

effectively and transparently by building stronger partnerships and providing the public 

with a management plan that identifies sanctuary priorities in great detail. 

 
16 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR REVISING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REGULATIONS 

3.1.2. Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary 

OCNMS encompasses approximately 2,408 square nautical miles of coastal and ocean 

waters and the submerged lands thereunder, off the central and northern coast of the state 

of Washington. In designating and managing OCNMS, NOAA’s mission is to protect the 

Olympic Coast’s natural and cultural resources through responsible stewardship; to conduct 

and apply research to preserve the area’s ecological integrity and maritime heritage; and to 

promote understanding through public outreach and education. In preparation for a review 

of this management plan, OCNMS staff worked with the OCNMS Advisory Council (AC) 

and the Olympic Coast Intergovernmental Policy Council (IPC) to update the OCNMS 

goals and objectives, which are presented in section 1.3 of this document. The proposed 

revised management plan would more clearly align management priorities with the revised 

goals and objectives for the sanctuary. 

3.1.3. Management Plan Review 

New challenges and opportunities emerge 

with time. To ensure sanctuary 

management keeps up with the pace of 

change, section 304(e) of the NMSA 

requires periodic updating of sanctuary 

management plans to re-evaluate sitespecific goals and objectives and to 

develop management strategies and 

activities to ensure the sanctuary best 

protects its resources. As an outcome of 

the management plan review (MPR) 

process, NOAA may need to revise the 

regulations for the sanctuary to ensure they 

meet the sanctuary goals and objectives and 

the purposes and policies of the NMSA. 

3.2. NEED 

Since 1994, there have been several developments which make the revision of the original 

OCNMS management plan a necessity if OCNMS is to have a management plan that meets 

the requirements presented in section 3.1 (Purpose). The various needs for such a revised 

management plan are described below.

3.2.1. Outdated Management Plan 

OCNMS’s current management plan was drafted in advance of sanctuary designation in 

1994. The current management plan was written to give broad, general direction for the 

formation of OCNMS’s program areas. Many of the activities it describes are too general 

to provide useful guidance now that OCNMS is over a decade old (e.g., “Focus and 

coordinate data collection efforts on the physical, chemical, geological and biological 

oceanography of the Sanctuary”). Sixteen years after sanctuary designation, OCNMS is in 

need of more refined and directed guidance. 

The Management Plan Review (MPR) 

process includes five fundamental steps: 

1) Public scoping to identify a broad range of 

issues and concerns related to 

management of the sanctuary; 

2) Analysis and prioritization of the issues 

raised during scoping; 

3) Preparation of the draft management plan 

and relevant environmental analysis; 

4) Public comment on the draft plan and 

environmental analysis; and 

5) Revision and preparation of the final 

management plan and environmental 

analysis. 
17 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR REVISING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REGULATIONS 

Additionally, as our knowledge about the sanctuary and its resources has improved over the 

past 16 years, several topics have emerged that are not addressed in the current 

management plan. For example, the current management does not directly address cultural 

or maritime heritage resources, nor does it specifically acknowledge traditional ecological 

knowledge from American Indian cultures. It also does not mention or address 

ecologically important resources in the sanctuary that have only recently been discovered, 

such as deep sea corals. 

3.2.2. Ocean Governance 

Since 1994, there have been significant discussions focused on ocean governance issues 

nationwide in the United States, as well as regionally on the West Coast, statewide in 

Washington, and locally on the Olympic Coast. Resulting changes in local, state, regional 

and national frameworks for ocean governance are not reflected in OCNMS’s current 

management plan. 

In 2003 and 2004 two major commissions, the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy, addressed diverse ocean issues including ocean governance. 

The reports produced by these commissions served as impetus for the governors of 

California, Oregon and Washington to develop the West Coast Governors' Agreement on 

Ocean Health, which was released on September 18, 2006 

(http://westcoastoceans.gov/docs/WCOceanAgreementp6.pdf). This agreement launched a 

new, proactive, regional collaboration to protect and manage the ocean and coastal 

resources along the entire West Coast. 

On December 31, 2006, the Washington State Ocean Policy Work Group, under direction 

from the Washington State Legislature completed the Washington Ocean Action Plan. 

Since that time the Governor's Office and state agencies have been acting on the plan’s 

recommendations through the State Ocean Caucus. The State Ocean Caucus provides a 

way for state agencies to work together to prioritize activities and solve problems related to 

the ocean environment of Washington state. 

In 2007 the Hoh, Makah, Quileute tribes, the Quinault Indian Nation, the state of 

Washington and OCNMS collaborated to form the Olympic Coast Intergovernmental 

Policy Council (IPC). The first of its kind in the nation, the IPC provides a regional forum 

for marine resource managers to exchange information, coordinate policies, and develop 

recommendations for resource management within the sanctuary. 

On a local level, in 2009, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, directed by the 

Washington State Legislature, worked with Washington’s five coastal counties to create a 

Coastal Marine Resource Committee (MRC) Program. The goal of the MRC Program is to 

understand, steward, and restore the marine and estuarine ecological processes of the 

Washington coast in support of ecosystem health, sustainable marine resource-based 

livelihoods, cultural integrity, and coastal communities. Two of the coastal MRCs formed 

are adjacent to OCNMS: the North Pacific Coast MRC and Grays Harbor MRC. These 
18 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR REVISING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REGULATIONS 

MRCs represent a new grassroots, local, community-based marine stewardship effort that 

was not envisioned in 1994. 

While the original 1994 OCNMS management plan allows for OCNMS to pursue 

partnerships with other organizations and ocean management initiatives, by revising the 

management plan, OCNMS can elucidate more specifically its role in these multiple new 

collaborative ocean management frameworks in the Olympic Coast region. 

3.2.3. Data Gaps 

In September 2008 OCNMS published a Condition Report on the status and trends for 

resources within the sanctuary. This report found that, in general, the resources within the 

sanctuary appear to be in good to fair condition, which may in large part be a reflection of 

the sanctuary’s isolation from major urban areas and industrial complexes. The 2008 

Condition Report also identified significant data gaps in existing knowledge about 

resources in the sanctuary. Currently only 25% of the seafloor habitat in the sanctuary has 

been accurately mapped and characterized. There is also limited understanding of some 

fisheries resources, current patterns of exploitation, and overall marine ecosystem 

functioning in the sanctuary. Furthermore, there is limited understanding of phenomena 

recently observed in the sanctuary (e.g., hypoxia, ocean acidification) that may be related to 

climate change. The Condition Report also emphasized the critical need for an ecosystembased approach to research and monitoring in the sanctuary. While there was a general 

research and monitoring component in the original 1994 management plan, the data gaps 

identified in the 2008 Condition Report indicate that a much more detailed and 

comprehensive suite of research and monitoring strategies are needed to guide OCNMS. 

3.2.4. New Technologies 

There have been significant improvements in technology related to habitat mapping, ocean 

exploration, water quality monitoring and other data collection efforts that have increased 

the capacity of NOAA and its partners’ research and monitoring programs. None of these 

new technologies are mentioned in the original 1994 management plan. In revising the 

management plan, OCNMS can highlight these technologies and provide a more specific 

research plan for the next five to ten years. 

3.2.5. Scope of Issues 

Several ocean conservation issues that have risen to a level of great importance over the 

past decade are not discussed in the 1994 management plan. These emerging issues 

include climate change, ocean acidification, ocean hypoxia, open ocean aquaculture, and 

alternative energy development. By revising the OCNMS management plan, NOAA will 

be able to address several of these issues directly. 

In particular, the revised management plan includes a physical and chemical oceanography 

action plan that places a strong emphasis on ocean acidification and hypoxia research, as 

well as a climate change action plan. And while the revised management plan does not 

include policies or regulations related to specific ocean development frontiers, such as 

wave energy and aquaculture, it does include a marine spatial planning action plan, as well 
19 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR REVISING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REGULATIONS 

as focused strategies for OCNMS permitting and enforcement programs. Rather than 

instituting new policies or regulations related to particular types of ocean development in 

the sanctuary, OCNMS’s revised management plan focuses on participation in emerging 

regional planning efforts in order to guide and locate ocean development projects in a 

manner that best protects marine ecosystems inside and adjacent to the sanctuary. 

In order to address all of these emerging issues, the current management plan needs to be 

revised and updated. 

 
20 

MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS 

4. MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS 

Management Plan Review, or MPR, is the process by which NOAA reviews and revises 

the management plans for all national marine sanctuaries. A sanctuary management plan is 

a site-specific planning and management document that describes the goals, objectives and 

activities for a sanctuary, and guides future management activities. Sanctuaries are 

currently mandated under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) to review and 

revise, if necessary, their management plans on 5-year intervals. 

4.1. OVERVIEW OF THE MPR PROCESS 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary’s (OCNMS) MPR process consists of six 

distinct phases: 

Phases I and II began in 2005, years before OCNMS began the formal public scoping 

process. During Phases I and II, OCNMS planned for the public phases of MPR by 

briefing its Advisory Council (AC) on details of the MPR process, developing a 

communications plan for the MPR process, and developing a detailed MPR timeline and 

process outline. Additionally, during these early phases OCNMS worked with the Coastal 

Treaty Tribes and the state of Washington to form the Olympic Coast Intergovernmental 

Policy Council (IPC) in 2007. Early work of the IPC included discussions on the proposed 

MPR process and preliminary priority topics for MPR. 

The final task in Phase II was the production of the 2008 OCNMS Condition Report 

(ONMS 2008). The Condition Report provided a summary of resources in the sanctuary, 

pressures on those resources, current resource conditions and trends, and management 

responses to the pressures that threaten the integrity of the sanctuary’s marine environment. 

This report served as one source of background and supporting material for the MPR 

process. 

Phase III, Public Scoping & Issues Analysis, was initiated when NOAA published a Notice 

of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register (73 FR 53162; Appendix B) announcing a 60-day 

public comment period on the scope and need for conducting OCNMS’s MPR. This NOI 

initiated the public portion of the MPR process. Phase III continued for 16 months after the 

Management Plan Review Process 

Phase I – Initiation (2005-2008) 

Phase II – Project Planning (2005-2008) 

Phase III – Public Scoping & Issues Analysis (2008-2010) 

Phase IV – Develop Draft Management Plan (2010) 

Phase V – Public Review (2011) 

Phase VI – Issue Final Management Plan & Environmental 

Analysis (2011) 
21 

MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS 

close of the public comment period to allow for in-depth public and stakeholder 

involvement in analyzing the comments received and developing a suite of priority issues 

to address in the revised management plan. Also during this phase, OCNMS went through 

a detailed priority issue analysis process with the AC and the IPC, which included a series 

of AC working group meetings and workshops to explore priority issues in greater detail. 

The AC working groups and workshops involved over 100 subject area experts and 

interested members of the public. Through these meetings specific strategies and activities 

for the revised management plan were developed. The AC then reviewed these suggested 

strategies and activities, recommended minor changes and voted to forward them to the 

OCNMS Superintendent with a recommendation that they be included in the revised 

management plan. 

Phase IV of the MPR process focused on developing the Draft Management Plan (DMP), 

proposed regulatory changes and requisite environmental compliance documentation. 

ONMS took the strategies and activities forwarded by the AC, as well as some developed 

internally based on agency priorities, and shaped them into the 20 action plans that are 

provided in section 5.0 (Draft Management Plan) of this document. Staff also developed a 

draft environmental assessment (DEA) to analyze the environmental impacts of the DMP, 

as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Lastly, ONMS 

developed changes to the OCNMS regulations in order to implement several activities 

identified in the DMP. The regulatory changes will be published separately through a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register. The publication of the 

DMP, DEA and the NPRM marks the end of Phase IV of the MPR. 

Phase V, public review of the DMP/DEA, and Phase VI, finalization of the management 

plan and environmental compliance documentation, will occur in 2011. All documents 

produced as part of the MPR process can be found on-line at 

http://olympiccoast.noaa.gov/protection/mpr/mpr_bgdocs.html. 

4.1.1. Public Involvement 

There has been continual and significant public involvement in the MPR process and the 

development of the DMP. Nationwide, the ONMS MPR process is driven largely by the 

input of sanctuary advisory councils, members of the public and topic area experts. ONMS 

has strived and will continue to strive throughout the MPR process to offer its partners and 

the public numerous opportunities to contribute to and shape the revised management plan. 

During Phase III of MPR, Public Scoping and Issues Analysis, ONMS encouraged public 

involvement by: 

 Hosting seven public scoping meetings in Port Angeles, Neah Bay, La Push, 

Westport, Ocean Shores, Olympia and Seattle 

 Holding a 60-day public comment period during which members of the public 

could submit MPR comments via e-mail, fax or letter 
22 

MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS 

 Hosting 23 additional public meetings related to MPR, including AC meetings, 

workshops and working group meetings 

 Posting approximately 20 updates to OCNMS’s MPR Current Status website 

(http://olympiccoast.noaa.gov/protection/mpr/mpr_currentstat.html) to keep the 

public informed about the MPR process 

 Sending approximately 20 updates to the OCNMS MPR listserv, which has over 

1,000 members 

 Making all MPR documents available on the OCNMS MPR Documents 

webpage in a timely manner 

(http://olympiccoast.noaa.gov/protection/mpr/mpr_bgdocs.html) 

Public attendance at bi-monthly AC meetings has varied throughout the MPR process. 

Usually, a minimum of one or two members of the public were present at any given 

meeting. At meetings during which major MPR decisions were made, upwards of 20 

members of the public attended. Additionally, a handful of members of the public 

expressed interest in participating in the AC working group meetings and workshops and 

were invited to attend. 

ONMS informed the public about MPR-related meetings by sending out press releases and 

listserv e-mails, and posting notices on its website in advance of every public meeting. 

Additionally, OCNMS staff actively sought out opportunities to present information about 

the MPR process at various public events and meetings. ONMS also produced and 

publicized numerous documents detailing each step in the MPR process so that the public 

could stay informed as progress was made. ONMS remains firmly committed to making 

the MPR process both transparent and accessible to the public. 

4.2. MPR PRELIMINARY PRIORITY TOPICS 

In preparation for the public scoping process, OCNMS staff and the IPC identified six 

topics that were anticipated to be high priorities for consideration during the MPR process. 

These preliminary priority topics were published in the Notice of Intent (Appendix B) that 

initiated the public scoping period in order to, 1) share with the public the best professional 

judgment of OCNMS and the IPC on important issues that needed to be considered during 

MPR, and 2) to encourage public comments on specific issues. These preliminary priority 

topics were: 

1. Improved Partnerships 

Recent initiatives for regional ocean management, including the formation 

of the IPC, the Washington Ocean Action Plan and the West Coast 

Governors Agreement on Ocean Health, provide the sanctuary with new 

opportunities to strengthen partnerships, particularly with the four Coastal 

Treaty Tribes and the state of Washington in their role as governments. 

OCNMS will work in active partnership to provide a more transparent, 

cooperative and coordinated management structure of Olympic Coast 

marine resources within tribal, state and federal jurisdictions. 
23 

MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS 

2. Characterization and Monitoring 

There is a need to develop an understanding of baseline conditions of 

marine resources and ecosystem functions of the sanctuary, and status and 

trends of biological and socioeconomic resources to effectively inform 

management. OCNMS, in conjunction with the IPC and other entities, will 

work to address these needs. 

3. Spill Prevention Contingency Planning and Response 

The risk from vessel traffic and other hazards remains a significant threat to 

marine resources. The potential for a catastrophic oil spill remains a 

primary concern and while advances in maritime safety have been made 

since the sanctuary was designated, better coordination is needed for 

response to these threats. Oil spills cause immediate and potentially longterm harm to marine resources as well as socioeconomic impacts to coastal 

communities. 

4. Climate Change 

Climate change is widely acknowledged, yet there is considerable 

uncertainty about current and future consequences at local, ecosystem and 

oceanic scales. Increased coordination and cooperation among resource 

management agencies is required to improve planning, monitoring and 

adaptive management to address this phenomenon. 

5. Ocean Literacy 

Enhancing the public’s awareness and appreciation of marine, 

socioeconomic, and cultural resources is a cornerstone of the sanctuary’s 

mission. Recent regional initiatives offer opportunities for the sanctuary, in 

conjunction with the IPC and other entities, to expand education 

contributions and reach a larger audience. 

6. Marine Debris 

Coastal marine debris is a persistent and poorly diagnosed problem within 

the sanctuary that negatively impacts natural and socioeconomic resources 

and qualities. 

ONMS clarified in the NOI that the publication of these six preliminary priority topics in 

no way restricted the content and scope of comments that could be submitted by the public. 

ONMS encouraged members of the public to submit comments on any topic or issue that 

they felt was important for ONMS to address in its revised management plan. In fact, all of 

the six preliminary priority topics did end up in the DMP, though the topic titles and 

characterizations were modified as a result of the public comment and the issue 

prioritization process. 
24 

MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS 

4.3. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING 

The 60-day public scoping comment period was open from September 15 to November 14, 

2008. A total of 166 people attended the seven public scoping meetings, and they provided 

516 recorded comments. During the public scoping comment period, an additional 688 

letters, e-mails and public comment forms were received, of which approximately 600 were 

an e-mail campaign with the same five comments. 

Many of the letters and e-mails contained comments on multiple topics, which were 

separated for analysis. Thus, the total number of unique or individual comments analyzed by 

ONMS staff was 1,009 (516 from the public meetings and 493 from written comments). 

Staff summarized and analyzed these comments by grouping them under 37 topics (Table 2). 

In December 2008, ONMS published on its website and presented to the AC and IPC: 

1. All of the public comments received 

(http://olympiccoast.noaa.gov/protection/mpr/mpr_scoping.html#scopingcomments) 

2. A Scoping Summary that described the process by which the public comments were 

binned under the 37 public scoping topics, and showed which comments were 

binned under each topic 

(http://olympiccoast.noaa.gov/protection/mpr/ScopingSummary_12-15-08.pdf) 

3. A Topic Analysis Report that analyzed each of the 37 topics in greater detail and 

summarized the types of public comments submitted on each topic 

(http://olympiccoast.noaa.gov/protection/mpr/TopicsAnalysis_12-15-08.pdf) 
25 

MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS 

Table 2 List of 37 topics raised during scoping 

Public Scoping Topics (in alphabetical order)

1 Administration - Flexibility to Respond to Emerging Issues 

2 Administration – Infrastructure 

3 Administration - Sanctuary Goals & Objectives 

4 Boundary Adjustment 

5 Climate Change 

6 Collaborative and Coordinated Management 

7 Community Outreach 

8 Ecosystem Impacts of Fishing 

9 Fisheries Stock Assessment 

10 Habitat Characterization 

11 Habitat Protection 

12 Invasive Species 

13 Living Resource Conservation 

14 Living Resources Monitoring 

15 Local and Customary Knowledge 

16 Marine Debris – Abandoned Submerged Equipment 

17 Marine Debris – Shoreline Clean-Up 

18 Maritime and Environmental Safety - Harbors of Refuge 

19 Maritime and Environmental Safety – Navigation 

20 Maritime and Environmental Safety - Vessel Management 

21 Maritime and Environmental Safety - Weather Forecasting 

22 Maritime Heritage - Cultural Resource Management 

23 Maritime Heritage - Living Cultures 

24 Military Activities 

25 Non-point Source Pollution 

26 Ocean Literacy 

27 Public and Private Resource Use - Commercial Development 

28 Public and Private Resource Use - Compatibility Analysis 

29 Public and Private Resource Use - Recreational Opportunities 

30 Public and Private Resource Use - Socioeconomic Values & Human Use 

31 Regulations, Permitting & Enforcement 

32 Research to Support Ecosystem Management 

33 Spill Prevention, Contingency Planning and Response 

34 Treaty Trust Responsibility 

35 Visitor Services 

36 Water Quality Monitoring 

37 Water Quality Protection 

 
26 

MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS 

The final list of priority topics, which are 

described in the Priority Issue Work Plan 

as priority issues, was: 

A. Fulfill treaty trust responsibility 

B. Achieve collaborative and coordinated 

management 

C. Conduct collaborative research, 

assessments and monitoring to inform 

ecosystem-based management 

D. Improve ocean literacy 

E. Conserve natural resources in the 

sanctuary 

F. Understand the sanctuary’s cultural, 

historical and socioeconomic significance

4.4. ISSUE PRIORITIZATION AND FINAL PRIORITY TOPICS 

In January 2009, OCNMS worked with its AC and the IPC to begin the issue prioritization 

process, which was also part of Phase III, Public Scoping and Issues Analysis. To initiate 

this process, the AC hosted a two-day, facilitated Issue Prioritization Workshop in January 

2009. IPC members were invited to participate along with AC members. The workshop 

was open to the public and members of the public were given several opportunities to 

comment during the workshop. 

In preparation for the workshop, each AC seat was asked to score each of the 37 public 

scoping topics based upon 1) benefits to sanctuary resources, 2) urgency of the topic, 3) 

extent to which the topic advances the mission and goals of the ONMS, and 4) any limiting 

factors that could prevent OCNMS from successfully addressing a topic. The compiled 

scores were reviewed by the participants at the workshop. 

During the workshop, AC members made comments and suggestions about potential 

grouping/combining of topics, ways in which the topics should be characterized, and 

OCNMS’s specific role in addressing the topics. By the end of the workshop, the AC had 

generated lists of 1) highest priority topics, 2) second-tier topics, 3) topics that should be 

grouped under other topics, and 4) topics that should not be addressed in the revised 

management plan. A detailed description of the workshop and its outcomes can be found 

in the AC Issue Prioritization Workshop Report published in March 2009 

(http://olympiccoast.noaa.gov/protection/mpr/AC_Wkshp_Report.pdf). 

After analyzing the workshop results, 

ONMS then drafted a Priority Issue 

Work Plan. The aims of the Priority 

Issue Work Plan were to 1) identify the 

final list of priority topics that would be 

addressed in the revised management 

plan, and 2) identify a suite of working 

groups and workshops supported by the 

AC through which each priority topic 

would be addressed in greater detail. 

The AC and IPC were intimately 

involved in developing of the Priority 

Issue Work Plan, which went through 

several iterations of review. The final 

Priority Issue Work Plan was the result 

of a detailed, facilitated discussion 

between the AC, OCNMS staff and IPC representatives at the May 2009 AC meeting. At 

that time, all parties agreed on the final list of priority topics, as well as the working groups 

and workshops that the AC would host and organize. The Priority Issue Work Plan was 

published on the OCNMS website in July 2009. 

(http://olympiccoast.noaa.gov/protection/mpr/PriorityIssue_WorkPlan.pdf). 
27 

MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS 

4.5. WORKING GROUPS AND WORKSHOPS 

The final stage of Phase III (public scoping and issues analysis) involved the AC sponsoring 

a suite of working groups and workshops to address the six priority issues identified in the 

Priority Issue Work Plan. AC members and IPC members, with support from OCNMS staff, 

hosted the working group meetings and workshops between July and December 2009. It 

should be noted that some priority issues were addressed solely by OCNMS staff, who 

reported their findings to the AC for review and comment. Additionally, the working group 

addressing treaty trust responsibility was comprised solely of IPC and federal representatives 

(United States government, state of Washington, Hoh Tribe, Makah Tribe, Quileute Tribe 

and the Quinault Indian Nation). This group was not considered an AC working group and 

did not report to the AC. Below is a list of all the working groups and workshops, grouped 

under the six priority issues: 

Working Groups and Workshops 

Grouped under the six priority issues identified in the Priority Issue Work Plan

Fulfill treaty trust responsibility 

1. Governments Working Group: Treaty Trust Responsibility 

Achieve collaborative and coordinated management 

2. OCNMS Staff Working Group: Collaborative and Coordinated Management 

3. OCNMS Staff Working Group: Sanctuary Operations 

Conduct collaborative research, assessments and monitoring to inform ecosystem-based 

management 

4. Advisory Council Working Group: Collaborative Research, Assessments and Monitoring to 

Inform Ecosystem-Based Management 

Improve ocean literacy 

5. Workshop: Ocean Literacy 

Conserve natural resources in the sanctuary 

6. Advisory Council Working Group: Spills Prevention, Preparedness, Response and 

Restoration 

7. Advisory Council Working Group: Living Resources Conservation 

Understand the sanctuary’s cultural, historical and socioeconomic significance 

8. Workshop: Maritime Heritage 

9. Workshop: Socioeconomic Values of Resources in the Sanctuary 
28 

MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS 

OCNMS staff worked with AC members to identify subject-area experts to participate in 

the working group meetings and workshops. All working group meetings and workshops 

were open to the public with the exception of the working group that addressed treaty trust 

responsibility. 

With the exception of the governments working group, which developed section 2.0 

(Treaty Trust Responsibility) of this document, all working groups and workshop 

organizers submitted reports to the AC detailing their final recommendations and findings, 

including specific strategies and activities that they wanted to see included in the revised 

management plan. Representatives from each working group and workshop presented their 

reports to the AC during its November 2009 and January 2010 meetings. All reports were 

published on-line in advance of the AC meeting at which they were presented 

(http://olympiccoast.noaa.gov/protection/mpr/mpr_bgdocs.html). 

The AC discussed each report and voted to forward all of the strategies and activities 

recommended by the working groups/workshops, with minor changes, to the OCNMS 

Superintendent with a formal endorsement and recommendation that they be included in 

the revised management plan. The AC’s recommendations were published on-line 

(http://olympiccoast.noaa.gov/protection/mpr/mpr_bgdocs.html), along with a letter of 

support from the AC. 

4.6. DRAFT ACTION PLANS 

OCNMS staff took the strategies and activities recommended by the AC and used them to 

develop a suite of 20 preliminary draft action plans: 

A. Achieve Effective Collaborative and Coordinated Management 

A1. Collaborative and Coordinated Sanctuary Management Action Plan

A2. Community Involvement in Sanctuary Management Action Plan

A3. Sanctuary Operations Action Plans

B. Conduct Collaborative Research, Assessments and Monitoring to Inform 

Ecosystem Based Management 

B1. Habitat Mapping and Classification Action Plan 

B2. Physical and Chemical Oceanography Action Plan

B3. Populations, Communities and Ecosystems Action Plan

B4. Data Management, Sharing and Reporting Action Plan

C. Improve Ocean Literacy 

C1. K-12 Education Action Plan

C2. Higher Education Action Plan

C3. Visitor Services Action Plan

C4. Community Outreach Action Plan

 

 
29 

MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS 

D. Conserve Natural Resources in the Sanctuary 

D1. Spills Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Restoration Action Plan 

D2. Climate Change Action Plan 

D3. Marine Debris Action Plan

D4. Wildlife Disturbance Action Plan

D5. Water Quality Protection Action Plan

D6. Habitat Protection Action Plan

D7. Marine Spatial Planning Action Plan

E. Understand the Sanctuary’s Cultural, Historical and Socioeconomic 

Significance 

E1. Maritime Heritage Action Plan

E2. Socioeconomic Value of Resources in the Sanctuary Action Plan

ONMS staff presented the preliminary draft action plans to the AC and the IPC at their 

March 2010 meetings and received comments from both councils that were used to refine 

the action plans. Between spring and fall 2010, OCNMS worked to develop the Draft 

Management Plan and Draft Environmental Assessment presented here. 

4.7. IMPROVING COLLABORATION THROUGH MPR PROCESS 

One of the most beneficial aspects of the MPR process is that it has given OCNMS a 

vehicle through which to build stronger relationships with its partners. Throughout the 

MPR process, OCNMS has focused on improving its communications and relationships 

with the IPC, the AC, each Coastal Treaty Tribe, the Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(PFMC), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Olympic National Park, the 

Washington Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Complex, the state of Washington Ocean 

Caucus, the local marine resources committees and a host of others. 

OCNMS has worked to make the MPR process exceedingly transparent and inclusive of all 

interested partners with the goal of building the support necessary to implement the revised 

management plan in a collaborative manner. Given the multitude of jurisdictions that 

overlay the sanctuary and the paucity of resources of all agencies and organizations, 

successful marine conservation efforts in the sanctuary will require OCNMS to build longterm, trusting and functional partnerships that allow groups to pool resources, share 

information and manage ecosystems in an effective manner that protects our ocean 

resources for future generations. 

During the MPR process, OCNMS has made great strides in improving relationships with 

its partners. OCNMS is committed to maintaining and growing these relationships once 

the collaborative process of developing the revised management plan is completed and the 

real work of implementing the management plan begins. 
30 

MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS 

4.8. SCOPING IDEAS CONSIDERED BUT NOT DEVELOPED AS 

ALTERNATIVES 

Most of the 37 topics identified through public scoping are addressed in some manner in 

the DMP (section 5). However, a few topics or particular aspects of topics raised by the 

public were not incorporated into the DMP or into the other alternatives analyzed in this 

document. In most cases, these scoping topics were eliminated from further consideration 

early in the MPR process. The reasons for their elimination are provided below. It should 

be noted that any of these issues can be identified and considered again during future MPR 

cycles. 

4.8.1. Boundary expansion 

Several public comments requested that NOAA expand OCNMS’s boundary to include the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca and/or additional parts of the deep sea canyons on the western edge 

of the current sanctuary boundary. ONMS decided not to pursue boundary expansion for 

the following reasons: 

 Information on the characteristics of the deep sea canyons is not extensive. Thus, it 

is too early to say whether these canyons warrant inclusion in the sanctuary. The 

expansion of the sanctuary to include the canyons could be considered in the future 

when more information is available. 

 The availability of resources to effectively manage those areas is not certain. 

4.8.2. Alternative energy development 

ONMS received many public comments on specific types of alternative energy development 

in the sanctuary (e.g., wave energy, wind energy). Some comments were supportive of 

alternative energy development in the sanctuary, and others were opposed. Because marine 

spatial planning efforts are just getting underway nationally and regionally, ONMS decided 

to address ocean energy activities under the broad topic of marine spatial planning. Thus, the 

DMP includes a marine spatial planning action plan. ONMS plans to participate actively in 

state and regional marine spatial planning processes and believes that alternative energy 

project siting is better addressed within the context of these larger-scale planning processes. 

In addition, ONMS would likely be involved in any offshore commercial development 

through the ONMS permitting process. 

4.8.3. Compatibility determinations 

One of the goals of the NMSA is to facilitate human uses in sanctuaries that are compatible 

with the NMSA’s primary mandate of resource protection. ONMS received several public 

comments requesting that during the MPR process OCNMS determine which and to what 

extent different human uses are compatible with the goals and objectives of OCNMS. 

OCNMS’s existing permitting regulations and procedures already provide a framework for 

evaluation of compatibility of proposed activities in the sanctuary on a case-by-case basis. 

Thus, OCNMS did not opt to pursue development of a detailed compatibility determination 

process at this time. 
31 

MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS 

4.8.4. No-take zones/marine reserves 

ONMS received multiple public comments requesting the establishment of fishing and 

boating bans in the sanctuary, including “no-take zones”, marine reserves, bottom trawling 

bans, motorized boating bans, etc. In general, the theme that linked these comments was a 

need for improved resource protection and conservation efforts in the sanctuary. In the 

DMP, ONMS has addressed the need for improved conservation and protection through 

seven action plans that focus on spills, climate change, marine debris, wildlife disturbance, 

water quality protection, habitat protection and marine spatial planning. However, it was 

decided that ONMS would not initiate action on or explore the specific topic of creating 

no-take zones or marine reserves (both terms describe areas where all extractive activities, 

including fishing, are prohibited) as part of this MPR process. ONMS is, however, 

working to identify locations of habitats in the sanctuary that are important for various life 

stages of fish and other marine organisms, will share this information with other 

management authorities, and will continue to work within the context of existing fishery 

management frameworks to ensure that fishing practices are compatible with sustainable 

fisheries in the sanctuary. 

4.8.5. Aquaculture ban 

During the public scoping period, ONMS received many comments requesting that 

aquaculture be banned in the sanctuary. Some comments focused on the potential adverse 

impacts associated with farming Atlantic salmon, a non-native species. Since sanctuary 

designation no aquaculture permit applications have been received nor issued by the 

OCNMS Superintendent, and no aquaculture activities are known to occur within sanctuary 

boundaries. 

ONMS has addressed one aspect of the aquaculture issue in alternative C (section 7), which 

includes the consideration of a regulatory ban on the discharge of invasive species in the 

sanctuary. Atlantic salmon and a few other cultured organisms are classified as invasive 

species by the state of Washington and, as such, project proposals with these species would 

receive rigorous scrutiny and installations would require effective containment, as is the 

current practice in Washington state. Similar to the alternative energy topic, ONMS would 

treat any future aquaculture proposal as an offshore commercial development project that 

likely would be subject to the ONMS permitting process. It can be assumed that any 

aquaculture project proposed in the sanctuary would require an ONMS permit based on 

OCNMS regulations related to seabed disturbance (for anchoring/mooring aquaculture 

structures) and discharge. While efforts are being made to develop aquaculture 

technologies that do not require seafloor anchoring (i.e., a project that may not be subject to 

ONMS permitting), such technologies are not widely used at this time and are unlikely to 

be technologically and/or economically feasible in the near future in the dynamic ocean 

conditions of the outer Washington coast. During review of an aquaculture project’s 

permit application, OCNMS would consider all the potential impacts of any proposed 

aquaculture operation. Therefore, ONMS did not pursue specific regulatory actions related 

to aquaculture in any of the alternatives in this document. In addition, appropriate siting 

for aquaculture projects should also be addressed in regional marine spatial planning 

processes, in which OCNMS intends to participate. 
32 

MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS 

4.8.6. Harbors of refuge 

ONMS received one public comment requesting that harbors of refuge be established along 

the outer coast of Washington. In the context of oil spill response, a harbor of refuge is 

where a distressed, and possibly leaking, vessel goes to control the emergency situation and 

possibly limit environmental impacts of spilled oil. This issue was not considered in the 

management plan because there are no suitable locations for harbors of refuge in the 

sanctuary. Furthermore, this issue is being addressed by the Region 10 Regional Response 

Team/Northwest Area Committee, to which NOAA and OCNMS staffs contribute. 

 
33 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

5. DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

5.1. INTRODUCTION 

The OCNMS Draft Management Plan (DMP) is comprised of a series of 20 action plans 

(Table 3), which are grouped under five of the six priority issues. One priority issue, Fulfill 

Treaty Trust Responsibility, is not addressed directly through an action plan but instead is 

the sole focus of section two of this document. 

Table 3 Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan Action Plans 

A. Achieve Effective Collaborative and Coordinated Management. 

A1. Collaborative and Coordinated Sanctuary Management Action Plan 

A2. Community Involvement in Sanctuary Management Action Plan 

A3. Sanctuary Operations Action Plan 

B. Conduct Collaborative Research, Assessments and Monitoring to Inform Ecosystem-Based 

Management. 

B1. Habitat Mapping and Classification Action Plan 

B2. Physical and Chemical Oceanography Action Plan 

B3. Populations, Communities and Ecosystems Action Plan 

B4. Data Management, Sharing and Reporting Action Plan 

C. Improve Ocean Literacy 

C1. K-12 Education Action Plan 

C2. Higher Education Action Plan 

C3. Visitor Services Action Plan 

C4. Community Outreach Action Plan 

D. Conserve Natural Resources in the Sanctuary 

D1. Spills Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Restoration Action Plan 

D2. Climate Change Action Plan 

D3. Marine Debris Action Plan 

D4. Wildlife Disturbance Action Plan 

D5. Water Quality Protection Action Plan 

D6. Habitat Protection Action Plan 

D7. Marine Spatial Planning Action Plan 

E. Understand the Sanctuary’s Cultural, Historical and Socioeconomic Significance 

E1. Maritime Heritage Action Plan 

E2. Socioeconomic Values of Resources in the Sanctuary Action Plan 
34 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

These action plans represent OCNMS’s preferred alternative for a revised management 

plan and are analyzed as the preferred alternative in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Later in this document, sections seven (Description of 

Alternatives) and eight (Environmental Consequences of Alternatives) will specifically 

reference the strategies and activities described here in the DMP as the “preferred” 

alternative (alternative B). 

Regulatory changes that OCNMS is proposing during the management plan review (MPR) 

process are included as activities in relevant action plans and the environmental 

consequences of these regulatory changes are analyzed, as required under NEPA, in section 

eight of this document. Where potential regulatory changes appear in the action plans, it is 

noted that these regulatory changes will be proposed concurrently with the MPR process 

(most likely, the rulemaking process will be completed by the time the management plan is 

finalized). 

Because changes to OCNMS regulations involve a federal rulemaking process separate 

from the adoption of a revised management plan, proposed regulatory changes will be 

published in a Federal Register notice with its own public comment period. During this 

public comment period, the public may submit electronic comments on the proposed rule 

via the www.regulations.gov portal using the docket number identified in the Federal 

Register notice. 

In addition to the 20 action plans (section 5.2), section 5.3 provides a set of performance 

measures that OCNMS will use to assess its progress in implementing the management 

plan. Section 5.4 provides cost estimates for each strategy for the first five years of 

management plan implementation; however, it is possible that implementation of the 

management plan will extend beyond five years. 

The suite of strategies and activities in this DMP is ambitious and anticipated to be more 

than can be accomplished effectively with OCNMS’s recent annual budgets. To 

accommodate uncertainties associated with future funding and staffing levels, section 5.5 

provides an implementation table (Table 5) that indicates which strategies will be high, 

medium and low priorities for OCNMS to implement under different budget scenarios. 

5.2. ACTION PLANS 

The twenty action plans outline the specific work that OCNMS will undertake over the 

effective life of this management plan, which is anticipated to be five to ten years. 

OCNMS’s ability to implement these action plans will depend primarily on its success in 

forming the necessary partnerships as well as the availability of required resources. Each 

action plan includes a common set of elements: 

 Desired outcome statement 

 Links to relevant OCNMS goals (Section 1.3) and other action plans 

 Background information on the topic and why it is high priority for OCNMS 

 Strategies and activities 

 List of key partners 
35 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

A. Achieve Effective Collaborative and Coordinated Management 

A1. Collaborative and Coordinated Sanctuary Management Action Plan 

A2. Community Involvement in Sanctuary Management Action Plan 

A3. Sanctuary Operations Action Plans 

Introduction 

Collaboration and coordination are essential to achieving effective sanctuary management. 

Since OCNMS was designated in 1994, OCNMS management has fostered relationships 

with multiple government agencies, the Coastal Treaty Tribes, academic and educational 

institutions, local communities and groups involved in research, educational programming 

and resource protection efforts. The scope of these efforts has ranged from sharing 

information, to coordinating independent actions aimed at achieving a common goal, to 

developing close and durable partnerships. These efforts have enabled OCNMS 

management and its partners to accomplish far more than would have been possible by any 

single entity. 

Throughout the MPR process, the OCNMS Advisory Council (AC), the Olympic Coast 

Intergovernmental Policy Council (IPC) and the public have repeatedly expressed the need 

for improved collaboration and coordination between OCNMS and its multitude of 

partners. The three action plans presented here outline how OCNMS intends to improve 

and grow its relationships with other governments and government entities, nongovernment and grassroots organizations and local communities over the life of the 

management plan. 
36 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

A1. Collaborative and Coordinated Sanctuary Management Action Plan 

Desired Outcome: Improved communication, greater collaboration and stronger 

relationships between OCNMS and other agencies and governments with jurisdiction over 

resources in the sanctuary. 

Links to Goals: 

Goal A - Build and strengthen OCNMS’s partnerships with the Coastal Treaty Tribes and 

the Olympic Coast Intergovernmental Policy Council, and honor the OCNMS’s 

treaty trust responsibility. 

Goal B - Promote collaborative and coordinated management and stewardship of resources 

in the sanctuary. 

Background: 

Almost all of OCNMS’s research, education and stewardship efforts are done in 

collaboration with other agencies and organizations. Throughout the action plans there are 

references to collaborative and coordinated efforts associated with specific strategies and 

activities. This action plan, rather than calling out all of these project-level partnerships, 

instead focuses on how OCNMS will develop and improve its relationships with 

governments and government agencies at the leadership or management level. 

Thus, the focus of this action plan is on partnerships with entities that have jurisdiction 

over resources in the sanctuary (Figure 2) and with which OCNMS coordinates and 

collaborates at a managerial level, including the IPC (comprised of the Coastal Treaty 

Tribes and Washington state), NMFS, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Navy, the National Park 

Service, which manages Olympic National Park (ONP), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), which manages the Washington Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

and Canada. Active collaboration with these organizations will provide a more transparent 

and inclusive structure for management of Olympic Coast marine resources that span tribal, 

local, state, federal and international jurisdictions. 

During the MPR process, improving collaborative and coordinated sanctuary management 

repeatedly emerged as one of the highest priorities for OCNMS to address over the next 

five to ten years. Ongoing regional efforts such as the Washington Ocean Action Plan and 

the West Coast Governor’s Agreement on Ocean Health also have a strong focus on 

improving collaboration and coordination in order to address the complexity and enormity 

of current ocean management issues. 
37 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Figure 2 Diagram showing jurisdictional boundaries within OCNMS. 

Strategy CCM1: EXTERNAL EVALUATION 

Evaluate the contribution of OCNMS’s institutional relationships to the management of 

resources within OCNMS. 

Activity A: Bring in an independent organization to conduct an external 

evaluation of OCNMS’s institutional relationships in order to obtain fresh 

insights, and to assess and support programmatic improvements in management 

of resources in the sanctuary. 

Activity B: Report to the IPC and AC on the findings of the evaluation, and seek 

advice on potential improvements. 

Strategy CCM2: COASTAL TREATY TRIBES 

Consult with the Coastal Treaty Tribes (Makah, Quileute and Hoh Tribes and Quinault 

Indian Nation) in accordance with Executive Order 13175, and partner with tribal staff 

members to address sanctuary projects and management issues that are of interest to the 

tribes. 
38 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Activity A: Consult early and often with the Coastal Treaty Tribes on any changes to 

OCNMS regulations that could affect the tribes. 

Activity B: Ensure that individual tribes are kept informed about sanctuary projects, 

permit applications and management issues that may be of interest. 

Strategy CCM3: OLYMPIC COAST INTERGOVERNMENTAL POLICY COUNCIL 

Continue OCNMS’s partnership with the IPC.

Activity A: Implement the ONMS-IPC Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) by 

supporting quarterly IPC meetings, including an annual meeting with the ONMS 

Director and OCNMS staff. 

Activity B: The Sanctuary Superintendent will brief the IPC annually on the previous 

year’s progress in implementing the OCNMS management plan and on proposed 

annual operating plan activities for the coming year. 

Activity C: In 2012, the respective parties will review and update the ONMS-IPC 

MOA with the intent to initiate another five-year term. 

Strategy CCM4: WASHINGTON STATE 

Support implementation of the Washington Ocean Action Plan (OAP), the West Coast 

Governor’s Agreement on Ocean Health, and other applicable state initiatives. 

Activity A: Provide staff support and other resources to support Washington Ocean 

Caucus efforts on the Olympic Peninsula. 

Activity B: Meet at least once a year with the Washington state Ocean Caucus and 

OCNMS Advisory Council state representatives to discuss implementation of the OAP 

and OCNMS management plan. Identify how OCNMS research and conservation 

efforts can complement OAP implementation efforts. 

Strategy CCM5: DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR 

Enhance partnerships with Department of Interior agencies, particularly Olympic National 

Park (ONP), managed by the National Park Service, and the Washington Maritime 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex (WMNWR), managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

Activity A: Meet with ONP and WMNWR leadership no less than twice a year.

Activity B: On an annual basis review areas of existing and potential future collaboration. 

Strategy CCM6: UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Coordinate with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) on the protection and management of the 

Nation’s coastal waters and marine resources within OCNMS. 

Activity A: Meet annually with the USCG to discuss collaborative efforts undertaken 

as part of this strategy; jointly prepare an Annual Report on the previous year’s 

activities; and prepare a work plan for the coming year. 
39 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Activity B: Work with the USCG to develop an orientation plan for USCG personnel 

on joint USCG and OCNMS issues and regulations. 

Activity C: Review and update the OCNMS/USCG Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA-2002-117) prior to its expiration date (September 30, 2012). 

Strategy CCM7: UNITED STATES NAVY 

Improve collaboration and coordination with the U.S. Navy. 

Activity A: Coordinate with other NOAA agencies in providing NOAA comments on 

Navy environmental compliance documents.

Activity B: Periodically meet with the Navy to identify ways to share, combine and 

maximize resources to conduct mutually beneficial research activities (e.g., habitat 

mapping). 

Activity C: Collaborate with the Navy to establish a mechanism through which the 

Navy and NOAA can work together on an ongoing basis to ensure that Navy activities 

within OCNMS continue to be conducted in a manner that avoids to the maximum 

extent practicable any adverse impacts on resources in the sanctuary. 

Strategy CCM8: NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) 

Enhance OCNMS’s partnership with NMFS. 

Activity A: Meet annually with NMFS Northwest Region and Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center leadership.

Activity B: Work with NMFS to ensure that the Pacific Fishery Management Council 

is informed about relevant projects, events and issues in the sanctuary and vice-versa. 

Activity C: Coordinate with NMFS on issues of common interest within OCNMS 

boundaries, particularly ecosystem and habitat related research, policy and management 

actions. 

Activity D: On an annual basis, document areas of existing and potential future 

collaboration.

Strategy CCM9: OFFICE OF NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES 

OCNMS will fully participate as a member of the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

(ONMS).

Activity A: Participate in annual national and regional leadership and programmatic 

meetings. 

Activity B: Respond to agency requests for data and information.

Activity C: Locally implement national and regional initiatives. 

Activity D: Provide subject matter expertise to regional, national and international 

initiatives as appropriate. 
40 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Activity E: Request and apply national and regional subject matter expertise to 

OCNMS issues. 

Strategy CCM10: CANADIAN GOVERNMENT 

Work with the Canadian government to address transboundary issues. 

Activity A: Work with US and Canadian agencies, Coastal Treaty Tribes and First 

Nations, and conservation organizations to identify opportunities for advancing 

ecosystem-wide protection, research, education and outreach programs initiatives 

within the Juan de Fuca Eddy International Marine Ecosystem. 

Activity B: Work with Parks Canada and British Columbia Parks to evaluate options 

for improving transboundary coordination and cooperation on shared objectives with 

adjoining Canadian marine protected areas (Pacific Rim National Park Preserve and 

Race Rocks Ecological Reserve/Marine Protected Area), including potential 

designation as a sister sanctuary through the ONMS International Program. 

Activity C: Work with Fisheries and Oceans Canada on maritime safety and oil spill 

response issues through the Canada/U.S. Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service and the 

Pacific States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force. 

Links to Other Action Plans: Community Involvement in Sanctuary Management, 

Sanctuary Operations, Habitat Mapping and Characterization, Physical and Chemical 

Oceanography, Populations, Communities and Ecosystems, Data Management, Sharing 

and Reporting, K-12 Education, Higher Education, Visitor Services, Community Outreach, 

Spills Preparedness, Prevention, Response and Restoration, Climate Change, Marine 

Debris, Wildlife Disturbance, Water Quality Protection, Habitat Protection, Marine Spatial 

Planning, Maritime Heritage, Socioeconomic Values of Resources in the Sanctuary 

Key Partners: Parks Canada, British Columbia Parks, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Big 

Eddy International Marine Ecosystem Initiative and member organizations, Hoh, Makah 

and Quileute tribes, Quinault Indian Nation, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, 

Washington Departments of Natural Resources Fish and Wildlife, and Ecology, 

Washington Governor’s Office, Washington Ocean Caucus, Olympic National Park, 

Washington Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Complex, U. S. Coast Guard, U.S. Navy, 

NMFS-Northwest Region, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) and the 

ONMS West Coast Regional Office 
41 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

A2. Community Involvement in Sanctuary Management Action Plan 

Desired Outcome: Increased involvement of Olympic Peninsula communities in sanctuary 

management issues and ocean conservation. 

Links to Goals: 

Goal B- Promote collaborative and coordinated management and stewardship of resources 

in the sanctuary.

Background: 

In addition to strengthening its relationships with agencies and governments that have 

jurisdictional authority over resources in the sanctuary, OCNMS also recognizes the 

importance of improving 1) its partnerships with local communities and non-governmental 

organizations and 2) the involvement of these groups (and individual citizens) in the 

sanctuary management process. As with the Collaborative and Coordinated Sanctuary 

Management Action Plan, this action plan focuses on building relationships and improving 

the sanctuary management process. Descriptions of specific, project-level partnerships 

with community groups (e.g., beach clean-up activities) appear in the appropriate, topical 

action plans (i.e., Marine Debris Action Plan). 

OCNMS is mandated by the NMSA (Section 301(b)(7)) to involve communities and local 

organizations in the MPR process. The NMSA also mandates that OCNMS involve local 

communities and groups in its Advisory Council (AC). Currently, the local county 

governments have a shared seat on the OCNMS AC, which also includes a citizen-at-large 

seat. Additionally, several other AC seats are currently filled by local community members 

who have expertise in particular fields such as education, tourism, commercial fishing and 

conservation. 

During the public scoping phase of the MPR process, it became clear that: 

 OCNMS should work to improve local communities’ awareness of the 

sanctuary, 

 OCNMS should work to improve public involvement in the AC, 

 OCNMS should work to involve local communities in developing and shaping 

OCNMS education, research and stewardship programs, and 

 OCNMS programs would benefit from more overall success if local 

communities were more actively involved in implementing these programs. 

Community involvement is increasingly recognized as crucial to achieving effective marine 

resource protection, which is the primary goal of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. The 

state of Washington’s recent initiative to empower and fund local counties to form Marine 

Resources Committees (MRCs) on Washington’s outer coast underscores the importance of 

community-level involvement in ocean stewardship and conservation. MRCs are citizenbased organizations, the goal of which is to, “understand, steward, and restore the marine 
42 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

and estuarine ecological processes of the Washington coast in support of ecosystem health, 

sustainable marine resource-based livelihoods, cultural integrity, and coastal communities.” 

Other statewide and regional ocean conservation and management initiatives, including the 

West Coast Governor’s Agreement on Ocean Health, the Washington Ocean Action Plan 

and the recently-passed state marine spatial planning bill, also emphasize active community 

involvement in ocean management decision-making processes. This action plan seeks to 

support these statewide and regional efforts and improve the sanctuary management 

process through more effective community partnerships and involvement. In addition to 

the strategies listed in this section, OCNMS work under Action Plan C, Improve Ocean 

Literacy, also directly benefits OCNMS community relations and strengthens community 

involvement in OCNMS activities. 

Strategy COM1: ADVISORY COUNCIL 

Involve local communities in sanctuary management issues through the AC process. 

Activity A: Fill all AC seats (both voting and non-voting) and encourage improved AC 

member attendance. 

Activity B: Encourage stronger connections between AC members and local 

communities by increasing AC outreach efforts.

 Encourage AC members to post links to their organizations’ on-line calendars 

on the OCNMS website. 

 Encourage every AC member to forward AC meeting announcements to their 

organization’s distribution list. 

 Encourage AC members to include articles explaining the value of their 

involvement in the AC in their organizations’ outreach publications. 

 Work with AC members and OCNMS to host and attend social events in local 

communities on the outer coast (e.g., an annual open house). 

Activity C: Actively involve the AC in implementing the management plan. 

 Identify strategies in the management plan that particular AC members, due to 

their skills and interests, could help OCNMS implement. Put these AC 

members in contact with the staff in charge of these strategies. 

 Solicit the AC’s assistance in implementing management plan strategies through 

the establishment of standing subcommittees or working groups, as appropriate 

under the AC charter. 

 Annually report to the AC on management plan implementation, including 

status of performance measures. 

 Encourage the AC to provide advice on the success of management plan 

implementation efforts. 

Strategy COM2: MARINE RESOURCES COMMITTEES 

Continue and expand collaborative marine stewardship efforts with Clallam, Jefferson and 

Grays Harbor counties. 

Activity A: Participate in the North Pacific Coast Marine Resources Committee. 

Activity B: Participate in the Grays Harbor Marine Resources Committee. 
43 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Strategy COM3: NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS 

Continue and increase, to the extent practicable, collaborative efforts with nongovernmental organizations on the Olympic Coast. 

Activity A: Continue participation in/sponsorship of the Washington Clean Coast 

Alliance and the Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team (COASST). 

Activity B: Maintain and develop partnerships with environmental NGOs such as 

Surfrider, the Nature Conservancy, Oceana, the Marine Biology Conservation Institute, 

Ecotrust and others in order to build support for marine conservation efforts in the 

sanctuary and the California Current ecosystem. 

Activity C: Increase interactions and, if appropriate, develop partnerships with 

organizations representing commercial and recreational fishing industries and the 

shipping industry. 

Links to Other Action Plans: Community Outreach, Marine Debris, Data Management, 

Sharing and Reporting, Climate Change, Habitat Protection, Marine Spatial Planning 

Key Partners: Marine Conservation Biology Institute, Surfrider Foundation, the Nature 

Conservancy, Oceana, Ecotrust, Olympic Coast Alliance, other NGOs, Westport 

Charterboat Association, Marine Exchange of Puget Sound, and other marine shipping and 

coastal fishing organizations, Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council 

and its members, North Pacific Coast and Grays Harbor Marine Resources Committees, 

Clallam County, Jefferson County, Grays Harbor County 
44 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

A3. Sanctuary Operations Action Plan 

Desired Outcome: Improved efficiency and effectiveness in OCNMS management 

capacities and capabilities. 

Links to Goals: 

Goal H - Build, maintain, and enhance an operational capability and infrastructure. 

Background: 

In order to effectively achieve the strategies outlined in the other 19 action plans, OCNMS 

needs to maintain basic staffing, infrastructure and administrative functions. This action 

plan addresses these operational needs and details OCNMS’s plans to maintain its research 

vessel and on-water capabilities, maintain and train its staff and volunteers, maintain 

adequate facilities and other infrastructure, complete its annual budgeting process, manage 

contracts, maintain its regulatory program and report on management plan implementation 

progress. In effect, this Sanctuary Operations Action Plan supports all other action plans in 

the Draft Management Plan. 

Strategy OPS1: VESSEL INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS 

Maintain an on-water presence in the sanctuary to ensure effective and efficient sanctuary 

operations, including research and education activities. 

Activity A: Develop annual operational plans for aircraft and vessels (NOAA, charter) 

to support the revised management plan. 

Activity B: Maintain and implement operational guidelines and a vessel operator and 

crew member qualification plan. 

Activity C: Implement field operations to address activities identified in the other 

action plans. 

Strategy OPS2: FACILITIES 

Develop new and maintain current infrastructure for sanctuary offices, programs, research 

vessels, equipment, and field operations. 

Activity A: Provide office, field station, interpretive facilities, and warehouse facilities.

Activity B: Update and implement the OCNMS long-range facilities plan. Evaluate 

OCNMS’s current office, lab and warehouse space and determine if changes need to be 

made to the plan to meet program needs identified during MPR.

 Evaluate current office spaces to determine if they meet future needs as 

articulated in the revised management plan 

 Evaluate the need to refurbish/replace OCNMS’s Neah Bay field station 

 Evaluate the need for laboratory infrastructure 
45 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

 Evaluate OCNMS pier space needs 

 Evaluate the need for public meeting space and support infrastructure 

 Evaluate options for a satellite office on the Outer coast and/or a visitor center 

in the southern part of the sanctuary 

 Evaluate options for a joint visitor center in Port Angeles with the Feiro Marine 

Life Center and Olympic National Park 

 Explore opportunities to work with existing facilities on the outer coast, such as 

the University of Washington Olympic Natural Resources Center, in order to 

maintain an OCNMS staff presence on the outer coast 

Activity C: Develop the infrastructure to support and implement OCNMS’s long-range 

interpretive plan. 

Activity D: Implement OCNMS requirements of ONMS small boats requirements 

studies, as amended (including scheduled replacements of R/V Tatoosh and rigid hull 

inflatable boat).

Strategy OPS3: ANNUAL PLANNING 

Prepare annual budgets, and develop and implement annual operating plans (AOPs) in 

support of management plan activities. 

Activity A: Produce an annual operating plan and budget, per ONMS guidance and 

timelines. 

Activity B: Oversee budget, contracts and acquisitions in compliance with Federal 

Acquisition Regulations. 

Activity C: Submit required reports to ONMS headquarters. 

Strategy OPS4: SAFE OPERATIONS 

Maintain and, where appropriate, further develop procedures to ensure safe and responsible 

sanctuary operations. 

Activity A: Develop, maintain and periodically test an OCNMS continuity of 

operations plan. 

Activity B: Ensure compliance with NOAA directives, safety and workplace 

regulations, including those related to vessel safety. 

Activity C: Ensure compliance with NOAA directives and local, state and federal 

environmental compliance regulations.

 
46 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Strategy OPS5: STAFFING 

Recruit, retain and support staff in order to support ongoing programs and achieve the goals 

and objectives presented in the management plan.

Activity A: Support and maintain appropriate staffing to implement the OCNMS 

management plan. 

Activity B: Contract for support services that cannot be filled by limited federal 

positions and that are needed to implement the OCNMS management plan. 

Activity C: Improve training opportunities for staff, prioritizing training that will 

support management plan implementation. 

Activity D: Conduct an internal evaluation of the OCNMS information technology (IT) 

plan on an annual basis and work to ensure that IT services are adequate to support staff 

and program needs. 

Strategy OPS6: VOLUNTEER PROGRAM 

Maintain and enhance OCNMS’s volunteer programs in order to build connections with the 

community and achieve the goals and objectives of the management plan.

Activity A: Actively recruit and train volunteers to promote community stewardship 

and to assist in the implementation of the OCNMS management plan. 

Activity B: Improve training opportunities for volunteers, prioritizing training that will 

support management plan implementation. 

Strategy OPS7: PERMITTING AND CONSULTATIONS 

Implement the OCNMS permitting program based on OCNMS and national program 

regulations, guidance and performance measures; as well as other applicable laws, 

regulations and agreements.

Activity A: Review permit applications, conduct consultations with other agencies, 

governments and organizations, make permit decisions, develop appropriate 

documentation (that may include permits, NEPA analysis, mitigation recommendations, 

and decision memos) and maintain records in the ONMS database. 

Activity B: Brief the AC and IPC on major permit applications that constitute new or 

major activities in the sanctuary.

Activity C: Report to the Coastal Treaty Tribes, AC and IPC annually on the status of 

permit applications and decisions to OCNMS and associated tribal consultations.

Activity D: Formally articulate the current tribal consultation process for permits. 

Activity E: Work with the state and other interested agencies and/or Coastal Treaty 

Tribes to develop a programmatic agreement on how OCNMS interprets and meets the 

requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act in the context of 

sanctuary historic resources. 
47 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Strategy OPS8: VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE 

Promote knowledge and understanding of OCNMS’s regulations, along with other 

regulations and voluntary programs that apply to sanctuary waters. 

Activity A: Assess opportunities for educational signage about regulations at access 

points to the sanctuary (e.g., Neah Bay and La Push boat ramps).

Activity B: Develop interpretive materials to support enforcement efforts and promote 

public awareness of sanctuary regulations. 

Activity C: Distribute a flyer on the Area to Be Avoided to the maritime industry 

through direct mail and by including in the Vessel Traffic Service Puget Sound Users 

Manual. 

Activity D: Develop and distribute education materials on OCNMS’s overflight 

regulation at air shows and other events. 

Strategy OPS9: ENFORCEMENT 

Improve compliance with and enforcement of OCNMS’s regulations, other regulations, and 

voluntary programs that apply to sanctuary waters.

Activity A: Develop training opportunities for law enforcement professionals to 

promote and enhance their understanding of cultural and natural resources in the 

sanctuary and the regulations that protect them. 

Activity B: Maintain bi-annual meetings with law enforcement staff (as described in 

the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) 2009 report) and encourage increased 

presence of NOAA OLE and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 

law enforcement in the sanctuary. 

Activity C: Work with NOAA OLE and the ONMS to clarify OCNMS enforcement 

needs as identified in 2010 ONMS/OLE 3-year Strategy for Clarifying Enforcement 

Needs and Testing Enforcement Measures. 

Activity D: Promote active enforcement of the no-discharge regulation as it applies to 

abandoned vessels. 

Activity E: Encourage vessel owners to carry insurance that would cover the salvage of 

their vessel if it sank in the sanctuary. Discuss sanctuary regulations and concerns with 

insurance companies to evaluate issues related to issuing insurance policies to cover 

salvaging of sunken vessels.

Activity F: Engage the USCG, at the earliest opportunity, to develop removal strategies 

for vessel incidents that may result in vessel sinkings within sanctuary and to utilize the 

Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) to prevent or mitigate oil pollution impacts.

Activity G: Work with NMFS, Pacific Fishery Management Council, Coastal Treaty 

Tribes and other partners to monitor compliance with Essential Fish Habitat regulations 

in the sanctuary. 
48 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Activity H: Clarify aspects of the OCNMS regulations that are ambiguous or 

confusing, and delete clauses that are extraneous. These changes to OCNMS 

regulations are being proposed as a rulemaking concurrently with the publication of the 

DMP. Proposed regulatory changes include the following: 

 Replace the term “seabed” with the term “submerged lands” throughout the 

regulations to match the language used in the OCNMS designation document 

 Replace the term “traditional fishing” with “lawful fishing” throughout the 

OCNMS regulations 

 Delete the out-dated OCNMS address and replace it with OCNMS’s current 

address 

 Delete reference to leases/permits existing at the time of OCNMS designation 

(as none were found to exist) 

 Delete the term “federal project” from the definitions and replace this reference 

in the regulations with a reference to the specific “Quillayute River Project” 

 Clarify tribal welfare language 

Strategy OPS10: MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION REPORTING 

Establish reporting mechanisms/processes for management plan implementation and 

emerging issues. 

Activity A: Report to its partners and the public annually on the implementation of the 

management plan, particularly on performance measure achievement. 

Activity B: Report to its partners and the public annually on OCNMS’s response to 

emerging issues not anticipated in the management plan. 

Activity C: Annually document any clarifications, lessons learned, enhancements or 

recommended changes to existing strategies and activities. 

Activity D: Develop outreach materials that can be used by OCNMS staff, AC and IPC 

members to convey information about management plan implementation to partners, 

stakeholders and constituent groups.

Activity E: Collaborate with regional natural resource management agencies to 

develop a response strategy and/or plan for unusual natural resource events (e.g., 

unexpected wildlife mortality events) not anticipated in the management plan. 

Links to Other Action Plans: Collaborative and Coordinated Sanctuary Management, 

Community Involvement in Sanctuary Management, Habitat Mapping and 

Characterization, Physical and Chemical Oceanography, Populations, Communities and 

Ecosystems, Data Management, Sharing and Reporting, K-12 Education, Higher 

Education, Visitor Services, Community Outreach, Spills Preparedness, Prevention, 

Response and Restoration, Climate Change, Marine Debris, Wildlife Disturbance, Water 

Quality Protection, Habitat Protection, Marine Spatial Planning, Maritime Heritage, 

Socioeconomic Valuation of Resources in the Sanctuary 
49 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Key Partners: Advisory Council, Olympic Coast Intergovernmental Policy Council, West 

Coast sanctuaries, Makah, Quileute, Hoh Tribes and Quinault Indian Nation, Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries, NOAA Safety and Environmental Compliance Office , 

NOAA Small Boat Program, NOAA Workforce Management Office, NOAA Acquisition 

and Grants Office, Feiro Marine Life Center, Makah Cultural and Research Center, Ocean 

Shores Visitor Center, COASST program, State of Washington, ONP, FWS, ACOE, 

USCG, NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, 

Washington Pilots Association and others, Washington Department of Ecology, NMFS, 

Washington Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Washington Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation
50 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

B. Conduct Collaborative Research, Assessments and Monitoring to 

Inform Ecosystem-Based Management 

B1. Habitat Mapping and Classification Action Plan 

B2. Physical and Chemical Oceanography Action Plan 

B3. Populations, Communities and Ecosystems Action Plan 

B4. Data Management, Sharing and Reporting Action Plan 

Introduction 

The OCNMS 2008 Condition Report, along with comments received during MPR scoping, 

emphasized the importance of data to inform management decisions and also identified 

significant data gaps related to our understanding of natural resources and ecosystem processes 

within the sanctuary. The intent of these four action plans is to outline a comprehensive 

research and monitoring program for OCNMS to undertake in partnership with other entities. 

To maximize effectiveness of OCNMS’s efforts, these action plans place a strong emphasis on 

maintaining and further developing collaborative scientific research and monitoring programs 

that address diverse aspects of habitat characterization, living resources monitoring and 

oceanographic and water quality monitoring. Additionally, a strong emphasis is placed on the 

need to improve data management, sharing and reporting. 

The action plans presented here are ambitious, and OCNMS’s success in implementing them 

will in large part depend upon receipt of substantial grant funds (by OCNMS or its research 

partners). Activities that cannot be funded with the OCNMS budget alone are purposely 

included in the action plans because it is impossible to know how grant funding opportunities 

will change from year to year and what unforeseen funding sources might become available. 

OCNMS also hopes that, in publishing a broad and comprehensive framework for research in 

the sanctuary, other agencies, organizations and academic institutions might be encouraged to 

develop and fund research projects that OCNMS is unable to support. 
51 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

B1. Habitat Mapping and Classification Action Plan 

Desired Outcome: Improved understanding of OCNMS habitats. 

Links to Goals: 

Goal C - Investigate and enhance the understanding of ecosystem processes, and inform 

ecosystem-based management efforts, through scientific research, monitoring, and 

characterization. 

Background: 

The mapping and classification of habitats and characterization of habitat-species 

associations provide critical information to support management, research, monitoring, and 

education within OCNMS, as well as within larger, regional ocean management regimes. 

Thus far, only 25% of the OCNMS seafloor has been adequately mapped, and only 19% 

has been characterized to habitat type. There is a clear need to complete seafloor surveys 

and characterize and identify species-habitat associations in order to inform management 

decisions. 

Habitat mapping and characterization are high priorities for OCNMS, especially for 

recently discovered deep sea biogenic habitats that may be sensitive to anthropogenic 

disturbance. Mandates and needs for habitat mapping and characterization are highlighted 

in the NMSA, the West Coast Governor’s Ocean Action Plan, the Washington State 

Seafloor Mapping Workshop, and for groundfish fishery management plans (which involve 

the Pacific Fishery Management Council, NMFS, Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and Olympic Coast Intergovernmental 

Policy Council). 

Strategy MAP1: REGIONAL COORDINATION 

Develop and sustain partnerships to maximize and leverage seafloor and habitat mapping 

resources and to promote the use of established mapping standards. 

Activity A: Participate in regional forums to advance alignment and collaboration with 

broader mapping efforts, including initiatives of the Washington State Seafloor 

Mapping Committee and the West Coast Governors’ Agreement on Ocean Health. 

Activity B: Establish standards for the collection, assessment, verification, and 

application of seafloor mapping data in collaboration with regional forums. 

Strategy MAP2: SEAFLOOR HABITAT MAPPING 

Continue efforts to map seafloor habitats. 

Activity A: Conduct seafloor habitat mapping using the following considerations: 

 Collect high quality, high-resolution sonar data in areas where no seafloor data 

exists 
52 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

 Map contiguous areas 

 Map hard substrate areas and other areas of probable or known important 

biogenic habitat 

 Map habitats with known or potential use by species of concern 

 Map coastal areas less than 10 m water depth (i.e., areas most likely to be 

affected by oil spills) 

 Utilize opportunities to collect partial sonar data types (e.g., sidescan only); 

 Re-map areas where inadequate seafloor data exists 

 Utilize opportunities to leverage ship time, equipment, and mobilization 

expenses 

Activity B: Verify/ground truth sonar data through the collection and analysis of video, 

physical samples, or other methodologies. 

Strategy MAP3: HABITAT CLASSIFICATION 

Integrate observations from sonar data and ground truthing to classify habitats and generate 

derivative maps and Geographic Information System (GIS) products. 

Activity A: Apply the classification scheme of Greene et al. (1999) and link this 

classification scheme with NOAA’s Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification 

Structure. 

Activity B: Analyze data to generate derivatives of substrate data and geological 

features (e.g., seafloor morphology, slope, rugosity, stability/disturbance, tectonic 

features (faults) and submarine landslides). 

Activity C: Integrate habitat characterization information (as available) with biological, 

chemical, and ocean processes information to further understanding of habitat use. 

Strategy MAP4: MAPPING PRODUCTS 

Report and share seafloor habitat characterization data in formats useful for resource 

managers and the public. 

Activity A: Develop digital mapping products that include fully interpreted, classified 

and attributed geologic and habitat maps. 

Activity B: Provide Federal Geographic Data Committee standard metadata for all 

maps and map products. 

Activity C: Develop GIS products using ESRI software for export to open source GIS 

and Google Earth software, as well as other formats useful for public use and outreach. 

Activity D: Make mapping data available for integration and use in multiple 

applications, such as: 

 Marine spatial planning 

 Fisheries management 

 Living marine resource management 
53 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

 Assessing climate change and sea level change impacts 

 Improving earthquake and tsunami hazard assessments 

 Forecasting storm inundation and coastal erosion 

 Siting of offshore infrastructure (e.g., aquaculture, renewable energy facilities) 

Links to Other Action Plans: Collaborative and Coordinated Management, Marine 

Debris, Marine Spatial Planning, Habitat Protection

Key Partners: NOAA (National Ocean Service and NMFS), U.S. Geological Service, 

USFWS, Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, and Natural Resources, 

Makah, Quileute, and Hoh tribes, Quinault Indian Nation, Olympic Coast 

Intergovernmental Policy Council, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Washington 

State Seafloor Mapping Consortium, West Coast Governors’ Agreement on Ocean Health 

Seafloor Mapping Action Coordination Team, Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon 

Partnership, other NGOs, universities, international entities, U.S. Navy 
54 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

B2. Physical and Chemical Oceanography Action Plan 

Desired Outcome: Improved understanding of overall water quality in the sanctuary 

Links to Goals: 

Goal C - Investigate and enhance the understanding of ecosystem processes, and inform 

ecosystem-based management efforts, through scientific research, monitoring, and 

characterization. 

Background:

Near shore oceanographic conditions within OCNMS are poorly characterized with respect 

to temporal and spatial dynamics and ecological processes associated with changing 

conditions. Coastal ocean conditions off the Olympic Coast of Washington have a high 

degree of variability, which complicates a thorough characterization of regional 

oceanographic processes and limits predictive abilities. This variability can span time 

scales from diel (day vs. night) through decadal (e.g., Pacific Decadal or El Niño Southern 

Oscillations) and spatial scales of micro- (1 to 10 km) and meso- (10’s to 100’s of km). 

Such variability can have profound implications for the sanctuary’s living resources. For 

example, strong El Niño years bring increased sea surface temperature and decreased 

primary productivity within the sanctuary. 

Physical and chemical oceanographic data are useful to federal, tribal, university and statesponsored studies predicting harmful algal blooms, thereby helping assess potential threats 

to human health, shellfisheries, seabirds and marine mammals. These data are also used in 

the study of intertidal invertebrate and algae dynamics, in the ground truthing remote 

sensing data, in assisting with oil spill response and in improving our understanding of 

hypoxic conditions measured in near shore waters of Washington and Oregon. 

Additionally, expanded physical and chemical oceanographic monitoring programs are 

needed to address emerging concerns about ocean acidification. 

OCNMS currently deploys (seasonally) anywhere from 10 to 13 monitoring buoys in the 

sanctuary’s near shore environment to monitor water temperature, salinity, dissolved 

oxygen, currents and indicators of primary productivity. Additionally, OCNMS partners 

with and supports other agencies, organizations and academic institutions’ efforts to 

conduct oceanographic monitoring in the sanctuary. OCNMS has supported University of 

Washington and Northwest Association of Networked Ocean Observing Systems 

(NANOOS) efforts to build and deploy a year-round, real-time oceanographic monitoring 

buoy and glider system off the coast of La Push and has frequently encouraged and 

supported efforts of researchers to conduct ocean acidification, harmful algal bloom, and 

oceanographic conditions research projects in the sanctuary. OCNMS also looks for 

opportunities to incorporate oceanographic monitoring, where appropriate and feasible, into 

sanctuary permit requirements. 
55 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

However, much more oceanographic information is needed in order to 1) understand the 

effects of a changing climate on sanctuary ecosystems and the large-scale ocean processes 

that affect these ecosystems and 2) make informed sanctuary management decisions in 

response to a changing climate. Moreover, during the MPR process it became clear that 

obtaining this oceanographic information is a priority for all statewide and regional ocean 

management entities and ocean researchers. The sanctuary is in a unique position to serve 

as both a laboratory and classroom for conducting and sharing, respectively, oceanographic 

research. The aim of this action plan is to identify strategies that OCNMS can undertake in 

order to foster regional oceanographic research efforts and build a stronger base of 

knowledge related oceanographic processes in the sanctuary. 

Strategy OCEO1: COASTAL MOORING PROGRAM 

Continue the OCNMS water quality monitoring program to monitor key physical and 

chemical oceanographic parameters in coastal waters. As feasible, expand this monitoring 

to include additional instrumentation (including acoustic monitoring), parameters, 

locations, year-round data collection, and real-time data transmission. 

Activity A: Monitor coastal waters using seasonally-deployed (spring through fall), 

instrumented moorings. 

 Continue use of established seasonal mooring locations 

 Collect data on temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, currents, chlorophyll 

 Calibrate instrumentation annually, or as necessary 

 Process data within one year and make available via a central, publically 

accessible web site 

Activity B: Consult with partners to determine research and resource management 

questions that can be addressed with existing or expanded water quality monitoring 

efforts. 

Activity C: Secure funding for additions and improvements to the OCNMS coastal 

water quality monitoring program. Program improvements could include: 

 Additional sensors or parameters 

 Expanded spatial coverage 

 Expanded seasonal coverage, potentially to year-round data collection 

 Real-time data transmission 

Activity D: Support efforts to expand regional oceanographic monitoring programs 

(e.g., NANOOS, NDBC, UW), share data, and model oceanographic processes. 

 Support the NANOOS coastal sensor array (2 buoys, 1 glider) at La Push. 

 Participate as a partner in NANOOS meetings and conference calls. 

 Promote NANOOS as a data resource for OCNMS partners and the public. 

 Provide a link to NANOOS on the OCNMS website. 

 
56 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Strategy OCEO2: HYPOXIA 

Monitor dissolved oxygen levels and ecological impacts of hypoxic conditions (low oxygen 

concentration) in coastal waters. 

Activity A: Monitor, assess, and understand the spatial and temporal distribution of 

hypoxic conditions and their impacts on living organisms. 

Activity B: Expand monitoring to include additional locations, year-round data 

collection, and/or real-time data transmission, such as will be available with the La 

Push NANOOS buoy. 

Activity C: Promote collaborative efforts with the outer coast trustees and fishermen to 

collect field observations and conduct additional monitoring in response to identified 

hypoxic conditions. 

Strategy OCEO3: OCEAN ACIDIFICATION 

Investigate changing ocean chemistry, acoustics and other physio-chemical changes and 

impacts to living organisms associated with increasing carbon dioxide levels in the 

atmosphere. 

Activity A: Collaborate in regional efforts to monitor and model carbonate system 

variables to improve understanding of the extent and severity of ocean acidification. 

Activity B: Collaborate in research on the effects of ocean acidification on calcifying 

and non-calcifying organisms, including deep sea corals, plankton, intertidal 

invertebrates, and on trophic relationships between these organisms. 

Strategy OCEO4: HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS 

Collaborate in regional efforts to research and monitor harmful algal blooms (HABs). 

Activity A: Work within the Olympic Region Harmful Algal Blooms (ORHAB) 

partnership and support efforts to monitor, detect, understand and predict HABs in the 

sanctuary region. 

Activity B: Use the timing of known HAB events as opportunities to encourage and 

conduct research and monitoring to characterize the initiation, dynamics and extent of 

impacts to natural resources and humans. 

Links to other Action Plans: Climate Change, Populations, Communities and 

Ecosystems, Collaborative and Coordinated Sanctuary Management, Water Quality 

Protection 

Key Partners: ORHAB, ECOHAB-PNW, NOAA (NOS, NWFSC, PMEL, NDBC, 

NCCOS), NANOOS, NASA, Makah, Quileute and Hoh Tribes, Quinault Indian Nation, 

Washington Departments of Ecology, Health, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources, 

U.S. EPA, IPC, West Coast Governors’ Agreement on Ocean Health Research Action 

Coordination Team, University of Washington, Oregon State University/PISCO, Olympic 

National Park, other universities, international entities, and NGOs 
57 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

B3. Populations, Communities and Ecosystems Action Plan 

Desired Outcomes: 1) Improved understanding of health of and changes in sanctuary 

ecosystems; and 2) a more adaptive, ecosystem-based approach to research and 

management in the sanctuary. 

Links to Goals: 

Goal C - Investigate and enhance the understanding of ecosystem processes, and inform 

ecosystem-based management efforts, through scientific research, monitoring, and 

characterization. 

Background:

It is of significant interest to OCNMS, its Advisory Council and the IPC that data collected 

in the sanctuary be used to support adaptive and ecosystem-based management 

frameworks. Utilizing an ecosystem-based approach to ocean management is also a 

priority for NMFS, the Coastal Treaty Tribes and the state of Washington. For OCNMS 

and others to implement ecosystem-based management in the sanctuary, information about 

biological and physical resources in the sanctuary must be collected across multiple scales. 

This action plan focuses primarily on biological resources and understanding the 

interactions between organisms and the physical environment. The action plan details 

research and monitoring priorities on an expanding scale that includes individual taxa, 

functional groups, populations, communities, and ecosystems. The goal of this action plan 

is to develop the body of scientific knowledge about the sanctuary in such a way that 

ecosystem-based management decisions can be more effectively developed and 

substantiated. 

Strategy ECO1: WATER COLUMN COMMUNITIES 

Conduct and collaborate in investigations of water column communities. 

Activity A: Monitor and encourage others to monitor pelagic larval phases of species 

of commercial and ecological significance (e.g., Dungeness crab, razor clams, mussels, 

euphausiids, copepods). 

 Improve characterization of locations in water column, seasonal abundance and 

distribution of pelagic life phases of key marine species 

 Monitor pelagic zooplankton and forage fish abundance during on-water seabird 

and marine mammal surveys 

 Extend to year-round monitoring, as feasible 

 
58 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Strategy ECO2: INTERTIDAL 

Conduct and collaborate in research on the distribution and abundance of intertidal organisms. 

Activity A: Coordinate with Olympic National Park (ONP) to evaluate the utility of 

continued monitoring of sand and rocky intertidal sites on Makah and Quinault 

reservations following ONP protocols. 

Activity B: Monitor rocky intertidal sites on Makah and Quinault reservations 

following the Multi-Agency Rocky Intertidal Network (MARINe) protocols. 

 Incorporate data into the MARINe database 

 Report the findings of intertidal monitoring efforts on an annual basis 

Activity C: Expand intertidal monitoring efforts, as feasible, to assess indicator species 

and parameters for particular stressors (e.g., climate change, competition, functional 

group/trophic coverage). 

Strategy ECO3: SUBTIDAL 

Characterize the habitats and biota of the nearshore subtidal zone. 

Activity A: Develop a Subtidal Monitoring Plan based on recommendations of Subtidal 

Workshop hosted by OCNMS in 2002. 

Activity B: Based on the Subtidal Monitoring Plan, implement subtidal habitat 

characterization and monitoring projects. 

Activity C: As indicator species and parameters for particular stressors (e.g., climate 

change, competition, functional group/trophic coverage) are identified, establish 

subtidal monitoring efforts. 

Strategy ECO4: BENTHIC 

Investigate the abundance and distribution of benthic organisms, both epifauna and infauna, 

from subtidal to deeper shelf habitats. 

Activity A: Collect data on abundance and distribution of benthic organisms, including 

during conduct of seafloor mapping, coral and sponge surveys, and benthic recovery 

studies. 

Activity B: Analyze and interpret data collected through video monitoring and other 

techniques and maintain a database for benthic organism distribution, abundance, and 

other quantifiable measures. 

Activity C: Conduct surveys to identify distribution and abundance, characterize 

ecosystem values, and assess the condition of deep sea biogenic communities (e.g., corals 

and sponges). 

Activity D: As required in the Settlement Agreement between OCNMS and operators of 

the PC-1 submarine telecommunications cables, conduct benthic habitat monitoring on the 

PC-1 cable routes to evaluate recovery of habitats following remediation of the cables 

conducted in 2005. 
59 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Strategy ECO5: FISH 

Improve characterization of spatial and temporal distribution, abundance, and habitat use of fish. 

Activity A: Collaborate with tribal, state, federal, and university researchers to assess 

the distribution, abundance, and productivity of forage fish populations, including 

documentation of intertidal areas used for spawning. 

Activity B: Solicit the AC’s assistance, through establishment of an AC working 

group, in developing recommendations for pilot project (s) to investigate the abundance 

and distribution of fish. 

Activity C: Continue partnership with Reef Environmental Education Foundation 

(REEF) for monitoring subtidal sites for fish and macroinvertebrate trends. 

Strategy ECO6: MARINE BIRDS 

Improve characterization of spatial and temporal distribution, abundance, forage behavior 

and areas used by marine birds. 

Activity A: Work with partners to evaluate past efforts for at-sea surveys and make 

recommendations for future surveys for temporal and spatial abundance and on-water 

distribution of marine birds. 

 Key partners include WDFW, NMFS, UW, and USFWS 

 Evaluation should include survey methodology (e.g., distance sampling), area 

coverage, data management and analysis, and reporting 

 Data gaps and information needs should be identified. Potential information 

needs include: 

 Forage areas used throughout the year 

 Migration periods 

 Non-breeding seasons 

 Parallel monitoring of pelagic zooplankton and forage fish abundance 

during on-water seabird surveys 

 Conduct a power analysis of existing data to determine the minimum level of 

effort necessary to meet survey objectives (e.g., every 3-5 years vs. annual) 

Activity B: Conduct at-sea monitoring of marine bird species following 

recommendations developed through evaluation of past survey efforts. 

Activity C: Provide in-field staff assistance to USFWS in monitoring abundance, 

productivity, and habitat use at coastal seabird colonies. 

Activity D: Continue to participate in Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team 

(COASST) as a regional coordinator of volunteers. 

Activity E: Collaborate in update of the Catalog of Washington Seabird Breeding 

Colonies for colonies adjacent to and within OCNMS. 

Activity F: Work with partners to establish a small number of coastal viewing sites to 

produce colony maps and periodic counts of nesting seabirds at easily-viewed coastal 

colonies. 
60 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Strategy ECO7: MARINE MAMMALS 

Improve characterization of spatial and temporal distribution, abundance, forage behavior 

and areas for marine mammals. 

Activity A: Provide in-field staff assistance to support the state of Washington’s annual 

sea otter census. 

Activity B: Collaborate in studies designed to detect the influence of sea otters on the 

distribution/abundance of prey species and any resulting changes in kelp habitat. 

Activity C: Monitor temporal and spatial abundance and distribution of marine 

mammals, including identification of foraging areas used throughout the year. 

Collaborate in assessing need for expanded efforts to assess migration and nonbreeding time periods. 

Activity D: Monitor underwater acoustic environment and, as feasible, responses of 

marine mammals to acoustic disturbance. 

Strategy ECO8: STRANDING NETWORKS 

Participate in the regional marine mammal incident response networks. 

Activity A: Collaborate with other Northwest Marine Mammal Stranding Network 

(http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Marine-Mammals/Stranding-Information.cfm) 

participants to share information and resources. Goals of the Network are to: 

 Promote timely response and investigation of stranding events 

 Minimize direct interactions between stranded marine mammals, humans and 

domestic animals 

 Maximize collection of biological specimens for examination and other data 

 Improve the detection of signs of human interactions that may have contributed 

to stranding events 

Activity B: Participate in the regional sea otter stranding network. 

Strategy ECO9: ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES 

Collaborate in ongoing efforts by the NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center and 

others to develop and apply a comprehensive ecosystem model that identifies indicator 

species, trophic networks, and physical-biological coupling. 

Activity A: Evaluate indicator species identified by and currently used by OCNMS and 

regional co-managers (i.e., routine monitoring, 2008 OCNMS Condition Report). 

 Base this evaluation on an established or tested framework for selection of 

indicator species for ecosystem status assessment 

 Consult with co-managers and ecosystem model experts 

 Consider trophic networks and physical-biological coupling 

 Incorporate traditional ecosystem knowledge, as appropriate 

 Develop a formal report to summarize this evaluation 

 Include recommendations for a revised set of indicator or sentinel species for 

which monitoring can be conducted or encouraged by OCNMS 
61 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Activity B: Based on the revised set of indicator species (developed in Activity A), 

evaluate OCNMS’s research and monitoring priorities, and recommend changes, if 

appropriate. 

Activity C: Use defined indicators to evaluate ecosystem status and trends, and include 

this information in the next OCNMS Condition Report and provide it to ecosystem 

modelers. 

Activity D: Summarize the removal histories and biological metrics (length, weight, or 

age compositions) for indicator species. 

Links to other Action Plans: Habitat Mapping and Classification, Physical and Chemical 

Oceanography, Data Management, Sharing and Reporting, Collaborative and Coordinated 

Sanctuary Management, Habitat Protection 

Key Partners: NOAA (NMFS, NOS, PMEL, NWFSC), USFWS, ONP, USGS, USCG, 

MMS, U.S. Navy, OSU/PISCO, DFO, MARINe Washington Departments of Fish and 

Wildlife, Ecology, and Natural Resources, Olympic Coast Intergovernmental Policy 

Council, OCNMS Advisory Council, Makah, Quileute and Hoh tribes, Quinault Indian 

Nation, Marine Mammal Stranding Network, West Coast Governors’ Agreement on Ocean 

Health Ecosystem Indicators Action Coordination Team, Washington State Ocean Caucus, 

Puget Sound Partnership, REEF, COASST, Marine Resources Committees (Grays Harbor 

and North Pacific Coast), NGOs, Juan de Fuca International Marine Conservation 

Initiative, universities and colleges, coastal communities, international entities 
62 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

B4. Data Management, Sharing and Reporting Action Plan 

Desired Outcome: Improved awareness of the status of OCNMS resources and the 

sanctuary’s overall ecological health. 

Links to Goals: 

Goal C - Investigate and enhance the understanding of ecosystem processes, and inform 

ecosystem-based management efforts, through scientific research, monitoring, and 

characterization. 

Background: 

The importance of analyzing and sharing data collected by OCNMS in a timely manner has 

been emphasized throughout the MPR process. Because data management, sharing and 

reporting is a topic relevant to all research, assessment and monitoring strategies and 

activities, it was decided to consolidate a concise set of data management strategies into 

one action plan. 

Processing, analyzing and reporting OCNMS data collection efforts in a timely manner, has 

been a real challenge for OCNMS staff in recent years, particularly given decreasing 

resources to support this work. Often times, OCNMS receives funding to conduct research 

projects, but not the funding to support data processing and analysis after the fact. 

OCNMS’s ability to manage, share and report the data it collects directly affects its ability 

to support an ecosystem-based management framework and the ability of OCNMS partners 

to make informed management decisions. Thus, the goal of this action plan is to guide 

OCNMS in improving its data management, sharing and reporting efforts for the benefit of 

OCNMS and all its partners.

Strategy DAT1: DATA QUALITY CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT 

Develop and promote data management procedures. 

Activity A: Develop a data management plan that outlines OCNMS’s entire data 

management process. The data management plan should define quality control, data 

documentation, data collection, data processing, and data management (metadata) 

methods. 

Activity B: Encourage, and when OCNMS has authority ensure, the use of federal 

guidelines for data reporting (e.g., as promoted by the Biological and Chemical 

Oceanography Data Management Office) for research in the sanctuary. 

 
63 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Strategy DAT2: DATA DISTRIBUTION 

Provide easy and timely access to data collected or managed by OCNMS. 

Activity A: For data that is collected and managed by OCNMS, ensure timely and wide 

distribution of data, as data management procedures allow. 

 Focus on releasing data collected in the past 

 Make new data available in a timely manner (i.e., as it is processed) 

 Provide annual summaries of OCNMS data products 

Activity B: Encourage access to data, data derivatives, and data summaries through 

widely-used and appropriate web-based data portals. 

 Collaborate with partners who collect data in the sanctuary to identify common 

databases, data fields, etc. and to develop standardized databases to facilitate 

data retrieval, when feasible or practical 

 Participate in West Coast Observing System efforts related to metadata 

development 

 Upload data to the NOAA Coastal Data Development Center (NCDDC) web 

site for public access 

Activity C: Provide links on the OCNMS web site to data portals that host OCNMS 

data and notify regional natural resource managers of these portals. 

Activity D: Provide data managed by OCNMS to collaborators for their reports and 

summaries, and assist collaborators with the development of reporting products. 

Strategy DAT3: ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

Periodically evaluate data collection efforts by OCNMS to ensure that data are useful to 

OCNMS and other marine resource managers and that data needs are clear to staff and 

other researchers. 

Activity A: Solicit the AC’s and IPC’s assistance in developing recommendations for 

periodically assessing and updating OCNMS research activities and priorities based 

upon evolving scientific information and management needs, through the establishment 

of an AC working group or other available means. 

Activity B: Continue to periodically hold workshops or other similar forums to engage 

researchers (academic and otherwise) in discussions of methodologies and research 

questions best suited to meet the needs of OCNMS and other regional marine resource 

managers. 

Strategy DAT4: - CONDITION REPORT 

Publish a Condition Report on the sanctuary at a regular frequency, at a minimum prior to 

the next management plan review process. 

Links to other Action Plans: Collaborative and Coordinated Sanctuary Management, 

Habitat Mapping and Classification, Physical and Chemical Oceanography, Populations, 

Communities and Ecosystems, Climate Change, Marine Spatial Planning 
64 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Key Partners: NOAA (NMFS, NOS), USFWS, USGS, ONP, Washington Departments of 

Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, and Natural Resources, IPC, Makah, Quileute and Hoh tribes, 

Quinault Indian Nation, NANOOS, USFWS, Washington State Seafloor Mapping 

Consortium, OCNMS Advisory Council, NGOs, universities and colleges 
65 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

C. Improve Ocean Literacy 

C1. K-12 Education Action Plan 

C2. Higher Education Action Plan 

C3. Visitor Services Action Plan 

C4. Community Outreach Action Plan 

Introduction 

Enhancing the public’s awareness and appreciation of natural and cultural resources is a 

cornerstone of OCNMS’s mission, which follows directly from mandates of the NMSA. Over 

the next five to ten years, OCNMS, in partnership with the Coastal Treaty Tribes, non-tribal 

coastal communities, National Park Service, Seattle Aquarium, Feiro Marine Life Center, 

Ocean Shores Interpretive Center, E3 Washington, and others, proposes to continue and 

expand existing – and develop new – education and outreach programs around the concept of 

Ocean Literacy. 

Ocean Literacy, broadly defined, is an enduring understanding of the ocean’s influence on 

people and people’s influence on the ocean in a manner that encourages lifelong attitudes of 

ocean resource stewardship and personal commitment. In addition to conveying information 

about the sanctuary’s marine organisms, habitats and ecosystems, OCNMS’s Ocean Literacy 

program will work collaboratively to convey information about 

 Tribal culture and traditions, as well as treaty making and implementation 

 Climate change and ocean acidification 

 Cultural uses and socioeconomic values of sanctuary resources 

 Ocean management and policy frameworks, such as ecosystem-based management 

 Ocean stewardship 

Each action plan in this grouping addresses a different sector of the public served by OCNMS 

programs: K-12 students, post-secondary students, local communities and visitors (including 

the general public outside the sanctuary region). 
66 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

C1. K-12 Education Action Plan 

Desired Outcomes: 1) Improved understanding by teachers and students of Ocean Literacy 

principles and the ocean’s importance; 2) K-12 students in the sanctuary region are better 

prepared to enter careers that require an understanding of Ocean Literacy. 

Links to Goals: 

Goal D - Enhance Ocean Literacy, promote awareness of the sanctuary and foster a sense 

of ocean stewardship through outreach, education, and interpretation efforts. 

Background:

Engaging K-12 students and teachers in experiential education programs focused on the 

Olympic Coast marine environment is key to improving Ocean Literacy and fostering a 

lifelong respect for and understanding of the Olympic Coast and ocean ecosystems in 

general. The outer coast of the Olympic Peninsula is a remote and economically depressed 

region and the K-12 schools in the area do not have access to the resources necessary to 

provide students with hands-on marine science education. 

OCNMS is one of a very few organizations on the Olympic Peninsula with staff expertise 

in both marine science and environmental education and thus it is crucial that OCNMS 

maintain and build upon its K-12 Ocean Literacy programs. OCNMS’s collaborative K-12 

Ocean Literacy programs have been incredibly successful and OCNMS receives more 

requests for programs than can be accommodated. Local schools are depending upon 

OCNMS to provide marine science and education programs, and OCNMS has both a 

strong obligation and interest in providing local students with hands-on opportunities to 

learn about the sanctuary. 

Strategy ED1: K-12 PARTNERSHIPS 

Work in partnership with regional education organizations in order to leverage resources 

for K-12 Ocean Literacy programs. 

Activity A: Collaborate with partners, including recipients of NOAA funding (e.g., BWET grants) to maximize the effectiveness of NOAA resources and promote the 

NOAA Strategic Education Plan. 

Activity B: Promote education opportunities that bring NOAA science and education 

resources to educators and students in the region. These opportunities include, but are 

not limited to: Teacher At Sea, Get to Know NOAA, various data visualization 

products, distance learning and others. 

Activity C: Work directly with classroom teachers to integrate OCNMS and other 

Ocean Literacy programs into existing school curricula. 

Activity D: Promote the Ocean Literacy goals and strategies in the West Coast 

Governors’ Agreement on Ocean Health (which include incorporating Ocean Literacy 

into Washington State Learning Goals Standards). 
67 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Strategy ED2: PLACE-BASED EDUCATION 

Work collaboratively with rural schools and tribal communities adjacent to the sanctuary 

and within the sanctuary region to develop place-based education opportunities for K-12 

students. 

Activity A: Work with school districts, tribal partners, home-school organizations in 

local communities, non-profit and other education organizations to design and 

implement program curricula that 1) meet education standards, 2) fulfill needs 

identified by regional educators and, 3) emphasize place-based and hands-on learning. 

Activity B: Work with local area high schools to develop senior culminating projects 

that involve students in OCNMS programs, and engage the Pacific Education Institute 

in training OCNMS staff to be student mentors. 

Activity C: Collaborate with local schools to develop student citizen science projects in 

and adjacent to the sanctuary (e.g. beach clean-ups). 

Activity D: Develop summer youth programs and/or curricula to support summer youth 

programs. 

Strategy ED3: REGIONAL INITIATIVES 

Participate actively in relevant regional education organizations and initiatives. 

Activity A: To the greatest extent feasible, participate in meetings, conferences and 

projects of the Pacific Education Institute, E3 Washington, the Northwest Aquatic and 

Marine Educators, the Environmental Education Association of Washington and the 

Washington Science Teachers Association. 

Activity B: Work to promote regional environmental education initiatives in the 

sanctuary region (e.g., “no child left inside”). 

Strategy ED4: TECHNOLOGY 

Employ current and emerging technologies in order to make Ocean Literacy information 

and curricula more accessible and provide students with a richer educational experience. 

Activity A: Enhance OCNMS website to be a source of Ocean Literacy information 

such as NOAA-authored educational/curriculum materials and news articles on ocean 

issues. 

Activity B: Develop the capacity for high-quality video conferencing to enhance 

collaboration with partners and deliver education programming to geographically 

remote audiences. 

Activity C: Work cooperatively with other sanctuaries, the Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries and the National Estuarine Research Reserves to bring into classrooms live, 

interactive educational programs that utilize telepresence. 
68 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Links to Other Action Plans: Collaborative and Coordinated Sanctuary Management, 

Climate Change, Marine Debris, Wildlife Disturbance, Higher Education 

Key Partners: Makah, Quileute and Hoh Tribes and the Quinault Indian Nation, Olympic 

Coast Intergovernmental Policy Council, Seattle Aquarium, Olympic Park Institute, 

Olympic National Park, North Pacific Marine Resources Committee, Grays Harbor Marine 

Resources Committee, Feiro Marine Life Center, Port Townsend Marine Science Center, 

Port Angeles School District, Quillayute Valley School District, North Beach School 

District, Cape Flattery School District, Sequim School District, Quileute Tribal School, 

local home school organizations, University of Washington Olympic Natural Resources 

Center, West Coast Governors’ Agreement on Ocean Health Ocean Awareness and 

Literacy Action Coordination Team, Washington State Ocean Caucus, Washington Sea 

Grant, North Olympic Skills Center, the Pacific Education Institute, the Northwest Aquatic 

and Marine Educators, the Environmental Education Association of Washington and the 

Washington Science Teachers Association, Makah Cultural and Research Center, National 

Park Service Research Learning Centers, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, other 

sanctuaries
69 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

C2. Higher Education Action Plan. 

Desired Outcomes: 1) OCNMS becomes as a catalyst for higher education opportunities 

in marine fields; 2) post-secondary students in the sanctuary region have greater access to 

career-building opportunities in ocean research, education, policy and management 

Links to Goals: 

Goal D - Enhance Ocean Literacy, promote awareness of the sanctuary and foster a sense 

of ocean stewardship through outreach, education, and interpretation efforts. 

Background: 

Coastal rural and American Indian communities face a paradoxical challenge: they depend 

increasingly on science-based natural resource management in order to sustain resources 

and economies, yet lack of educational funding, opportunities, expertise and conflicting 

social problems create overwhelming educational challenges. Opportunities to learn basic 

and applied science and job skills in these communities are limited, and pathways to 

careers and success are not evident. In addition, connections between vocational, college 

and graduate students, and working experts are poorly defined. 

OCNMS is in a unique position to show leadership in the region in promoting careerbuilding opportunities in marine sciences, education, management and policy. The aim of 

this action plan is to identify ways in which OCNMS can collaborate with universities, 

colleges and community colleges to improve higher educational opportunities for students 

and encourage students to pursue ocean and marine-related fields. 

Strategy HED1: INTERNSHIP DEVELOPMENT 

Coordinate internship activities between local colleges, universities, community colleges 

and OCNMS to create learning opportunities within the areas of sanctuary operations, 

research, education and management. 

Activity A: Formalize an OCNMS internship coordinator staff role. 

Activity B: Develop appropriate guidelines for academic elements of OCNMS 

internships. 

Activity C: Establish an OCNMS summer internship program for undergraduates and 

Running Start students (http://www.k12.wa.us/runningstart/default.aspx) and advertise 

this program locally. 

Strategy HED2: VOLUNTEER POSITIONS 

Develop the necessary agreements and advertising instruments to recruit and utilize 

Americorps and/or Student Conservation Association volunteer positions at OCNMS. 

 
70 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Strategy HED3: COLLEGE PARTNERSHIPS 

Build partnerships with regional colleges, universities, foundations and other institutions in 

order to increase educational opportunities in ocean science, education, policy and 

management fields. 

Activity A: Participate in local career days and job fairs. 

Activity B: Develop opportunities with local colleges to provide OCNMS staff and 

other experts as lecturers, presenters and/or adjunct faculty. 

Activity C: Develop continuing education programs on ocean issues and explore 

opportunities for developing consortia between local colleges, Coastal Treaty Tribes, 

agencies and non-profits. 

Activity D: Develop opportunities for students to be involved in marine research – in 

person or via high-quality video conferencing with research vessels or stations. 

Activity E: Provide continuing education opportunities for teachers to receive 

academic credit and gain experience in order to enhance their understanding of marine 

science content areas and methods for hands-on science education. 

Activity F: Work collaboratively with foundations, local colleges and universities, 

tribal communities and other agencies to develop college scholarship funds for students 

from the Coastal Treaty Tribes who are interested in pursuing college degrees in marine 

policy, science, conservation, education and other related fields. 

Links to Other Action Plans: Collaborative and Coordinated Sanctuary Management, 

Community Involvement in Sanctuary Management, Sanctuary Operations, Climate 

Change 

Key Partners: Peninsula College, WWU Huxley Program on the Peninsula, Grays Harbor 

College, the University of Washington Olympic Natural Resources Center , North Olympic 

Skills Center, Olympic National Park, Olympic Park Institute, North Pacific Marine 

Resources Committee, Grays Harbor Marine Resources Committee, Makah, Quileute and 

Hoh Tribes and the Quinault Indian Nation, Olympic Coast Intergovernmental Policy 

Council, Seattle Aquarium, Olympic Park Institute, Feiro Marine Life Center, West Coast 

Governors’ Agreement on Ocean Health Ocean Awareness and Literacy Action 

Coordination Team , Washington Sea Grant, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 

AmeriCorps, American Indian College Fund (and other foundations), Makah Cultural and 

Research Center, National Park Service Research Learning Centers, Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries, Seattle Aquarium, other sanctuaries 
71 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

C3. Visitor Services Action Plan 

Desired Outcomes: 1) Improved awareness of OCNMS; 2) increased visitor awareness of 

ocean issues; and 3) an enriched and extended coastal travel experience. 

Links to Goals: 

Goal D - Enhance Ocean Literacy, promote awareness of the sanctuary and foster a sense 

of ocean stewardship through outreach, education, and interpretation efforts. 

Goal G - Facilitate wise and sustainable use in the sanctuary to the extent that such uses are 

compatible with resource protection. 

Background:

Improving the general public’s awareness of OCNMS, providing planning assistance and 

information to Olympic Coast visitors, providing high-quality educational experiences to 

visitors, encouraging visitors to the sanctuary to become better ocean stewards, and 

working with local communities to encourage sustainable tourism in the sanctuary region 

are all important aspects of OCNMS’s visitor services program. 

OCNMS’s current visitor services program is relatively small and the public scoping 

process made clear that the public would like to see a more robust OCNMS visitor services 

program. In recent years, funding for OCNMS visitor services activities has been 

drastically reduced. Thus, the goal of this action plan is to outline a series of strategies that 

can guide development of OCNMS’s visitor services program as resources become 

available. The action plan focuses on both using new technology (social networking, 

podcasts, interactive website tools, etc.) to disseminate information about OCNMS to a 

wider audience and working with partners to leverage limited resources. 

Strategy VISIT1: VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Actively collaborate with other agencies, tribal governments, tourism organizations and the 

private sector to provide services and products that contribute to high-quality educational 

experiences for visitors to the Olympic Peninsula. 

Activity A: Develop education and outreach materials, in a variety of media, to attract 

visitors, orient them to the region’s amenities, educate them on resources in the 

sanctuary and inspire a sense of stewardship for the environment. 

Activity B: Participate in regional forums and planning processes that contribute to a 

strong tourism economy for the Olympic Peninsula. 

Activity C: Offer technical assistance and training to partners and businesses that serve 

and educate visitors. 

Activity D: Provide funding, training and support to cooperative interpretation 

programs with OCNMS partners. 
72 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Activity E: Expand efforts to develop interpretation programs on the Makah, Quileute, 

Hoh and Quinault Indian reservations as a way of developing program capacity, 

tourism enterprise, and training and job opportunities for tribal members. 

Strategy VISIT2: LONG-RANGE INTERPRETIVE PLAN 

Develop and implement a Long-Range Interpretive Plan for OCNMS. 

Activity A: Actively involve partners and stakeholders in Long-Range Interpretive Plan 

development. 

Activity B: Work collaboratively to identify opportunities to develop additional visitor 

centers, wayside exhibits, informational signs, kiosks and aquarium/museum exhibits in the 

sanctuary region. 

Activity C: Work collaboratively to ensure that the Long-Range Interpretive Plan reflects 

the region’s specific needs as they relate to visitor service infrastructure development. 

Activity D: Coordinate with other sanctuaries in the West Coast Region also developing 

interpretive plans. 

Activity E: Include in the Long-Range Interpretive Plan specific strategies to enhance 

effectiveness of the Olympic Coast Discovery Center (OCDC). These strategies should 

identify ways to: recruit, train and retain volunteers; coordinate and collaborate with the 

Feiro Marine Life Center and Olympic National Park as they develop a larger and more 

expansive coastal visitor and education center in Port Angeles; maintain and update 

existing exhibits; attract new visitors; and increase development and enrichment activities 

for staff and volunteers. 

Strategy VISIT3: NEW TECHNOLOGY 

Utilize current and emerging technologies in order to educate and inform physical and 

virtual visitors to the Olympic Coast. 

Activity A: Complete an update and overhaul of the OCNMS website. 

Activity B: Integrate other appropriate technologies, as feasible, into the website including 

social networking resources, smartphone applications, podcasts, webcasts of video etc. 

Activity C: Update facilities, hardware and software to accommodate telepresence so that 

visitors to sanctuary and partner facilities can be linked to research vessels, other education 

centers etc. 

Links to Other Action Plans: Climate Change, Marine Debris, Wildlife Disturbance, 

Maritime Heritage, Collaborative and Coordinated Sanctuary Management

Key Partners: Makah, Quileute and Hoh Tribes and the Quinault Indian Nation, Olympic Coast 

Intergovernmental Policy Council, Makah Cultural and Research Center, Olympic National Park, 

Feiro Marine Life Center, Port Townsend Marine Science Center, Port Angeles School District, 

Ocean Shores Interpretive Center, OCDC volunteers, and the communities of Port Angeles, 
73 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Sequim, Neah Bay, La Push, Forks, Hoh River, Taholah, Ocean Shores, Westport and Pacific 

Beach, Makah Cultural and Research Center, West Coast Governors’ Agreement on Ocean Health 

Ocean Awareness and Literacy Action Coordination Team, National Park Service Research 

Learning Centers, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Seattle Aquarium, other sanctuaries 

 
74 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

C4. Community Outreach Action Plan 

Desired Outcomes: 1) Greater involvement of local communities in OCNMS programs 

and on-the-ground marine conservation efforts, and 2) a stronger connection between local 

communities and OCNMS. 

Links to Goals: 

Goal D - Enhance Ocean Literacy, promote awareness of the sanctuary and foster a sense 

of ocean stewardship through outreach, education, and interpretation efforts. 

Goal H - Build, maintain, and enhance an operational capability and infrastructure. 

Background: 

Effective community outreach is critical to the success of all OCNMS programs; and the 

need to improve OCNMS’s relationships with local communities on the Olympic Peninsula 

has repeatedly emerged as a high priority during the MPR process. The Community 

Involvement in Sanctuary Management action plan, presented earlier in the DMP, 

addresses ways in which OCNMS can facilitate more community involvement in OCNMS 

management and decision-making. The Community Outreach action plan focuses more on 

involving local citizens in specific OCNMS volunteer programs and improving OCNMS 

staff presence on the outer coast so that local communities develop a stronger connection 

with staff. While the Community Outreach action plan is housed within the “Improve 

Ocean Literacy” priority issue, the action plan has been written broadly so that it supports 

action plans related to research, living resources conservation and other program areas. 

Strategy OUT1: STEWARDSHIP AND CITIZEN SCIENCE 

Actively support marine stewardship and citizen science volunteer programs. 

Activity A: Provide training and staff support to OCNMS volunteers involved with the 

Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team, Washington CoastSavers, and other 

volunteer programs in the sanctuary. 

Activity B: Support efforts of the North Pacific Coast and Grays Harbor Marine 

Resources Committees to develop citizen science and marine stewardship efforts in the 

sanctuary. 

Activity C: Use traditional media and new technologies to advertise opportunities for 

community members to volunteer on OCNMS education and research projects. 

Strategy OUT2: STAFF PRESENCE ON OUTER COAST 

Assess needs and opportunities to develop a stronger OCNMS staff presence on the outer 

coast of the Olympic Peninsula. 

Activity A: Work with sanctuary partners who have existing facilities on the outer 

coast to explore office-sharing opportunities. 
75 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Activity B: Conduct feasibility and cost analyses of a “South Coast” satellite office in 

Grays Harbor County and a “West End” satellite office in Forks. 

Activity C: Evaluate opportunities for “storefronts” and/or visitor information centers 

in coastal communities. 

Strategy OUT3: COMMUNITY EVENTS 

Maintain an OCNMS staff presence at community events and meetings in the sanctuary 

region. 

Activity A: Develop an annual outreach plan that includes priorities for community 

events, staffing and volunteers, as well as priority themes and messages. 

Activity B: Attend (as invited) events, festivals and meetings in tribal and non-tribal 

communities in the sanctuary region. 

Activity C: Provide regular briefings to service clubs, local governments, chambers of 

commerce, tourism organizations, stakeholder groups and others on matters pertaining 

to the sanctuary. 

Activity D: Furnish expert speakers for public lecture series, community meetings and 

other forums in order to provide up-to-date information on sanctuary research, 

education, policies and management activities. 

Strategy OUT4: COMMUNITY-BASED EFFORTS 

Actively support the efforts of the North Pacific and Grays Harbor Marine Resources 

Committees (MRCs), regional watershed councils, salmon recovery teams, the Puget 

Sound Partnership, other community-based NGOs, and local and state governments in 

areas of marine research, education, and policy coordination. 

Activity A: Participate in relevant meetings of community-based organizations and 

initiatives in the sanctuary region. 

Activity B: Jointly pursue opportunities for community-based marine education, 

stewardship and research programs. 

Activity C: Use the OCNMS website, e-mail listserv and other media to communicate 

the efforts of community-based organizations working on ocean issues in the sanctuary 

region. 

Links to Other Action Plans: Community Involvement in Sanctuary Management, 

Maritime Heritage, Populations, Communities and Ecosystems, Climate Change, Marine 

Debris, Marine Spatial Planning, Collaborative and Coordinated Sanctuary Management

Key Partners: University of Washington Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team, 

Washington CoastSavers, Washington Clean Coast Alliance, Makah, Quileute and Hoh 

Tribes and the Quinault Indian Nation, Olympic Coast Intergovernmental Policy Council, 
76 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Makah Cultural and Research Center, Feiro Marine Life Center, Olympic National Park, 

Grays Harbor MRC, North Pacific MRC, Puget Sound Partnership, West Coast Governors’ 

Agreement on Ocean Health Ocean Awareness and Literacy Action Coordination Team, 

Washington State Ocean Caucus, Washington Sea Grant, Clallam, Jefferson and Grays 

Harbor counties, state of Washington, local organizations such as Rotary and Lions Clubs, 

Surfrider Foundation chapters, local kayaking groups and others 
77 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

D. Conserve Natural Resources in the Sanctuary 

D1. Spills Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Restoration Action Plan 

D2. Climate Change Action Plan 

D3. Marine Debris Action Plan 

D4. Wildlife Disturbance Action Plan 

D5. Water Quality Protection Action Plan 

D6. Habitat Protection Action Plan 

D7. Marine Spatial Planning Action Plan 

Introduction 

The primary mandate of the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries is to protect sanctuary 

resources. Therefore, it is OCNMS’s responsibility to reduce threats to sanctuary resource 

sustainability and condition. OCNMS also has a responsibility to facilitate compatible uses 

in the sanctuary in a manner that 1) is consistent with its treaty trust responsibilities, 2) 

promotes healthy and resilient natural resources, and 3) allows human uses to continue in a 

sustainable way. The seven action plans presented here highlight the primary resource 

conservation concerns that emerged from the MPR scoping process and the Living 

Resources Conservation working group that was formed as part of the MPR process. In 

many cases, the action plans indicate that further assessment of potential impacts to 

resources in the sanctuary is needed in order to determine if there is a need for additional 

management measures. 
78 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

D1. Spills Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Restoration Action Plan 

Desired Outcomes: 1) Increased protection of marine, cultural, and shoreline resources 

from the impacts of an oil or hazardous materials spill; 2) improved preparedness and 

coordination for responding to spills affecting marine resources within OCNMS. 

Links to Goals: 

Goal A - Build and strengthen OCNMS’s partnerships with the Coastal Treaty Tribes and 

the Olympic Coast Intergovernmental Policy Council, and honor the sanctuary’s 

treaty trust responsibility. 

Goal B - Promote collaborative and coordinated management and stewardship of resources 

in the sanctuary. 

Goal E - Maintain the sanctuary’s natural biological diversity and protect, and where 

appropriate, restore and enhance sanctuary ecosystems. 

Goal G - Facilitate wise and sustainable use in the sanctuary to the extent that such uses are 

compatible with resource protection. 

Background: 

The potential release of oil or other hazardous material from a marine accident is widely 

seen as the greatest threat to sanctuary resources and qualities. Prevention of spills is 

therefore one of the sanctuary’s highest priorities. As a steward of these vitally important 

natural resources, OCNMS must continue to collaborate with other agencies and user 

groups to reduce the potential for oil spills and improve contingency planning for spill 

response. 

Preventing, preparing for, and responding to hazardous spills continue to be high priorities 

for OCNMS. Additionally, better support for the damage assessment and restoration 

process is also a high priority. During the MPR process a spills working group was formed 

to bring together area experts to discuss OCNMS’s role in regional spills prevention, 

preparedness, response and restoration efforts. The strategies and activities below reflect 

the recommendations of this working group. 

Strategy SPILL1: ATBA MANAGEMENT, COMPLIANCE AND MONITORING 

Sustain or improve the maritime industry’s compliance with the Area to be Avoided 

(ATBA). 

Activity A: Work with the USCG to prepare a proposal to the International Maritime 

Organization Subcommittee on Safety to Navigation to implement legislation requiring 

that “restrictions apply to all vessels required to prepare a response plan pursuant to 

section 311(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)) (other 

than fishing or research vessels while engaged in fishing or research within the area to 

be avoided)” (Section 704, Coast Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2010 and 

2011). 
79 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Activity B: Monitor compliance with the ATBA by conducting monthly processing of 

radar data from the jointly operated Canada/U. S. Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service 

(CVTS), augmented with Marine Exchange of Puget Sound Automated Identification 

System (AIS) data. Analyze vessel traffic patterns, track and identify the type and 

status of vessels that travel within OCNMS and the ATBA. Archive data to be able to 

identify trends in activity. 

Activity C: Improve the OCNMS vessel monitoring program by developing the 

capability to view, analyze and archive vessel data within the entire sanctuary using 

AIS data. 

Activity D: Conduct directed outreach to non-compliant vessels. Send letters jointly 

signed by the OCNMS Superintendent and U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port 

requesting compliance with the ATBA. 

Activity D: Promote and facilitate reporting of ATBA compliance statistics and 

analysis to vessel traffic and oil spill prevention interests. This includes providing 

compliance data to Washington Department of Ecology (WDE) for inclusion within 

their annual Vessel Entry and Transit (VEAT) Report. 

Activity F: Make ATBA compliance information available to regional marine spatial 

planning efforts and to the public. 

Strategy SPILL2: REGIONAL VESSEL MANAGEMENT FORUMS 

Work within regional vessel management forums to analyze and reduce risks and hazards. 

Activity A: Encourage and collaborate in review and development of Standards of Care 

(SOC) that identify accepted best marine practices for engaging in coastal towing 

operations off the Olympic Coast. Actively participate in local public meetings and 

comment on the USCG’s proposed towing vessel inspection regulations with the goal 

of encouraging the earliest implementation of appropriate final rules. 

Activity B: After SOCs are developed, utilize ATBA monitoring information to advise 

the USCG and industry of apparent non-compliance with developed SOCs. 

Activity C: Encourage the USCG, in collaboration with the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) vessel traffic risk assessment, to analyze vessel traffic patterns and 

risks, particularly in the vicinity of Duntze Rock, Tatoosh Island, and Duncan Rock, 

and to determine whether additional protective measures (e.g., additional aids to 

navigation or new routing schemes) are required for safer navigation. 

Strategy SPILL3: REGIONAL PLANNING AND TRAINING EXERCISES 

Promote improved spill preparedness and response through OCNMS participation in 

training exercises and regional oil spill planning activities. 

 
80 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Activity A: Engage in regional efforts to promote, plan and conduct comprehensive 

drills and exercises. 

 Promote regular testing and coordination of multiple response assets, equipment 

deployment, wildlife recovery and treatment equipment, emergency response 

tug located at Neah Bay, USCG emergency towing resources, communication 

systems, and natural resource damage assessment resources in these drills and 

exercises 

 Integrate OCNMS assets, including staff and vessels, into regional emergency 

response drills, exercises, and area contingency planning 

Activity B: Develop training/exercises, in conjunction with key partners, that target 

specific issues and concerns relevant to OCNMS and partners to improve planning and 

overall readiness. 

 Training and exercise topics could include roles and responsibilities of various 

Incident Command System positions; dispersant consultation process; waste 

management tradeoffs; shoreline cleanup assessment technology training; 

shoreline treatment tactics; cleanup endpoints for different shoreline types; 

natural resource damage assessment; liaison function with key stakeholders; 

lessons learned from recent spills and exercises 

Activity C: Collaborate in planning and conduct, if feasible, an exercise to test debris 

removal from remote shoreline locations. 

 Test and evaluate issues and methods useful for pre-cleaning beaches and 

removing oily waste materials during response operations 

 If successful, promote regular exercise of safe and effective methods 

 Partner on debris removal projects with USCG and outer Olympic Coast land 

owners (Olympic National Park, Washington Maritime National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, Coastal Treaty Tribes) 

Activity D: Participate in technical workgroups and task forces of the Regional 

Response Team (RRT) and Northwest Area Committee (NWAC). 

 Support integration of OCNMS priorities, data, and equipment into the Northwest 

Area Contingency Plan 

 Key workgroups and task forces include Volunteers; Response Science and 

Technology; Geographical Response Plans; Wildlife; and Communications and 

Outreach (separate activities for key NWAC workgroups are provided below) 

Activity E: Assist in the review, development and improvement of Geographic 

Response Plans (GRPs) of the NWAC focusing on initial resource protection. 

 Potential areas for GRP improvement include protection of cultural resources, 

equipment appropriate for the operating environment, and additional shoreline 

protection strategies 

 
81 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Activity F: Participate in the Response Science and Technology workgroup of the 

NWAC to develop a Shoreline Operational Guide. 

 The Shoreline Operational Guide will address treatment tactics and cleanup 

endpoints for affected shorelines, proposed monitoring and other requirements 

for sensitive resources or habitats, and waste management guidelines 

 Promote integration of this Guide and its development into the Area Committee 

process 

Activity G: Participate in the Response Science and Technology workgroup of the 

NWAC to develop a dispersant use matrix that summarizes spatial and temporal data 

related to natural resources in the water column that could potentially be impacted by 

dispersed oil. 

 Provide data held by OCNMS 

 Facilitate assembly and incorporation of data from NMFS 

Activity H: Support NWAC efforts to promote a strong non-dedicated vessel program 

that includes use of local resources, including fishing vessels regularly based in Neah 

Bay, La Push, and the Grays Harbor area. 

Activity I: Participate in the Places of Refuge workgroup of the NWAC in the 

evaluation of areas adjacent to OCNMS. 

Activity J: Support development of a digital environmental sensitivity index database 

and maps of Washington’s outer Olympic Coast. 

Activity K: Participate in US/Canada transboundary spill response planning through 

the Pacific States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force. 

Strategy SPILL4: OUTER COAST TRUSTEES WORKING GROUP 

Promote improved regional preparedness for spill response through coordination of an ad 

hoc Outer Coast Trustees working group (state of Washington, Coastal Treaty Tribes, local 

governments, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Parks Canada) as a 

forum to share information and training opportunities. 

Activity A: Maintain a current contact list for natural and cultural resource trustees, 

natural resource managers, and spill response leads from agencies and organizations on 

the outer coast of Washington. 

 Include multiple means of communication (office and cell phone numbers, emails, 

agency emergency contact numbers, pagers) on contact list 

 Coordinate with RRT to regularly update the Northwest Area Contingency Plan 

Activity B: Identify opportunities for joint training and information sharing related to 

regional preparedness for spill response, and promote regional participation through the 

Outer Coast Trustees. 

Activity C: Identify emergency response plans developed by co-trustees and 

collaborate with co-trustees to minimize inconsistencies and maximize the effectiveness 

of these plans. 
82 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Strategy SPILL5: OCNMS ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSE PLAN 

Develop policies, tools and procedures for OCNMS staff and resource mobilization, 

OCNMS integration into an Incident Command Structure, and effective consultation on 

emergency response actions. 

Activity A: Develop an OCNMS Organizational Response Plan. 

 Ensure consistency between the OCNMS Organizational Response Plan and 

Northwest Area Contingency Plan (NWACP) 

 Integrate OCNMS information, policy and procedures into the NWACP, as 

appropriate 

 Identify OCNMS staff training requirements and needs for emergency response, 

and maintain appropriate training levels 

 As part of the plan, consider an outreach policy that explains how OCNMS will 

liaison with key stakeholders, the public, elected officials and co-trustees within 

their shared boundaries during spill responses 

 Develop a clear process or decision tool to identify steps for dispersant, in-situ 

burn, or shoreline chemical use decision-making by OCNMS to support 

consultation with co-trustees, the FOSC, and the RRT consistent with the 

NWACP 

 Identify training opportunities for OCNMS volunteers to improve their ability to 

participate in spill response 

Activity B: Develop a database that includes natural and cultural resource information 

useful for shoreline protection countermeasures, as well as evaluation of potential 

resource impacts from spilled petroleum products and associated response activities. 

 Assemble the most current and detailed data available for the region 

 Utilize effective technologies to access, display and analyze resource 

information 

 Collaborate with regional resource managers, co-trustees, response 

organizations and the RRT to share data, tools, and products 

 Regularly complete updates and improvements to these data and tools 

Activity C: Work with the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries and NOAA Office of 

Response and Restoration to regularly update and improve SHIELDS (Sanctuary 

Hazardous Incident Emergency Logistics Database System). 

 
83 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Strategy SPILL6: DAMAGE SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS 

Collaborate in regional efforts to develop plans, protocols, capacity and baseline data to 

support natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) efforts. 

Activity A: Collaborate with co-trustees of resources in the sanctuary to develop an 

Outer Coast NRDA Response Plan that includes: 

 Notification requirements 

 Prioritized objectives 

 Supplies and equipment for ephemeral data collection 

 Standardized protocols for ephemeral data collection 

 Identification of beach access points 

 Property access permissions 

 Cultural resource considerations and points of contact 

 Lists of response resources (vessels, aircraft, personnel) that could be hired for 

NRDA purposes (vs. spill response clean-up efforts) 

 Data quality objectives 

 Training recommendations and requirements 

Activity B: Collaborate with co-trustees to improve capabilities for NRDA work. 

 Integrate NRDA components into local and regional response exercises 

 Seek funding to support participation in NRDA planning and training 

opportunities 

 Review and revise response plans, as appropriate, following incidents that 

include NRDA efforts 

 Inventory, purchase, place, and maintain ephemeral data collection equipment 

on the outer coast 

Activity C: Collaborate with co-trustees to identify natural and cultural resources most 

vulnerable to oil spills and prioritize baseline data collection for species and services 

useful for NRDA. 

 Outline needed data and studies 

 Assemble existing data into a database for baseline information on natural and 

cultural resources 

 Determine who can conduct additional studies and sampling 

 Seek funding to support baseline data collection 

Activity D: Participate in any restoration projects, should they occur, within sanctuary 

boundaries or directly affecting the sanctuary through phases of planning, 

implementation, and monitoring. Coordinate with other trustees with responsibilities for 

affected resources and provide data and input to support decision-making. 

Links to other Action Plans: Collaborative and Coordinated Sanctuary Management, 

Marine Debris, Wildlife Disturbance, Sanctuary Operations, Marine Spatial Planning 
84 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Key Partners: USACE Seattle District; Puget Sound Harbor Safety Committee; Canadian 

Coast Guard Marine Communications and Traffic Services, Tofino; Marine Exchange of 

Puget Sound; Makah Office of Marine Affairs; Makah, Quileute and Hoh Tribes and 

Quinault Indian Nation; American Waterways Operators; U.S. Navy (for movement of 

reactor core by barge); Lower Columbia Region Harbor Safety Committee; United States 

Coast Guard Thirteenth District Commander; Sectors Seattle and Portland; Canadian Coast 

Guard Marine Communications and Traffic Services Tofino; Marine Exchange of Puget 

Sound; Washington Department of Ecology; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; 

Washington Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Archaeology 

and Historic Preservation; Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission; 

Washington Resource Damage Assessment Committee; marine resource committees 

(MRCs); other natural resource trustees; on-scene spill response organizations; NOAA 

Office of Response and Restoration; NOAA Restoration Center; Department of Interior 

NRDA staff; Canadian Coast Guard; Canadian First Nations; Transport Canada , Olympic 

National Park; Washington Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Complex/U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; U.S. Coast Guard; Clallam, Jefferson, and Grays Harbor counties; Parks 

Canada; NMFS; Northwest Area Committee and Regional Response Team members; 

OCNMS volunteers; academic institutions 
85 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

D2. Climate Change Action Plan 

Desired Outcomes: 1) OCNMS is a sentinel site in the Pacific Northwest for climate 

change monitoring, 2) OCNMS is a go-to source for climate change information on 

Washington’s outer coast marine ecosystems, and 3) OCNMS understands and is prepared 

for likely climate change impacts in the sanctuary region. 

Links to Goals: 

Goal C - Investigate and enhance the understanding of ecosystem processes, and inform 

ecosystem-based management efforts, through scientific research, monitoring, and 

characterization. 

Goal E - Maintain the sanctuary’s natural biological diversity and protect, and where 

appropriate, restore and enhance sanctuary ecosystems. 

Goal G - Facilitate wise and sustainable use the sanctuary to the extent that such uses are 

compatible with resource protection. 

Goal H- Build, maintain, and enhance an operational capability and infrastructure. 

Background:

The public repeatedly raised concerns about climate change and its potential effects on 

organisms and ecosystems within the sanctuary during the MPR scoping process. 

Additionally, the Olympic Coast Intergovernmental Policy Council (IPC) and the OCNMS 

Advisory Council (AC) identified climate change as a high priority to be addressed in the 

revised management plan. 

Climate change is an ecosystem management issue that cuts across all disciplines and will 

be addressed by all of OCNMS’s program areas over the next decade. Indeed, references 

to climate change can be found in strategies and activities throughout the management 

plan. Because climate change is expected to be such an important issue for the sanctuary, it 

was important to highlight the issue in its own action plan. Other action plans reference 

ways in which individual OCNMS programs will address aspects of the climate change 

topic, but this action plan is focused on how OCNMS will coordinate its efforts across 

program areas in order to address climate change in a holistic and interdisciplinary way. 

Strategy CLIM1: CLIMATE-SMART SANCTUARY PROGRAM 

Participate in the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Climate-Smart Sanctuaries 

program in order to become certified as a climate-smart sanctuary. 

 

Activity A: Conduct an audit of OCNMS’s carbon footprint and determine what 

changes are needed to ensure that OCNMS meets the minimum green operating 

standards outlined in the Climate-Smart Sanctuary guidelines. 

Activity B: Develop a Climate Change Site Scenario for OCNMS that synthesizes the 

best available information on climate change impacts to present a picture of what the 

sanctuary might look like in 50 to 100 years. 
86 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Activity C: Work with the AC and IPC to review (and revise if necessary) this Climate 

Change Action Plan based upon the findings of the Climate Change Site Scenario. 

Activity D: Brief the AC and IPC on OCNMS’s Climate-Smart Sanctuary certification 

process, and ensure that information compiled for Climate Smart Sanctuary 

certification is widely distributed to OCNMS partners and the public. 

Strategy CLIM2: SANCTUARY AS SENTINEL SITE 

Work to establish OCNMS as a sentinel site for long-term climate change research and 

monitoring in the Pacific Northwest. 

Activity A: Propose to NOAA leadership that OCNMS be designated as a sentinel site 

for climate change research and monitoring. 

Activity B: Work with the AC to establish a climate change working group to help 1) 

develop a climate change research prospectus describing specific climate change 

research priorities for the sanctuary, and 2) identify marine chemical, physical, and 

biological indicators of climate change that OCNMS and partners should consider 

monitoring. 

Activity C: Provide relevant scientific and technical information to the Washington 

Department of Ecology to support the State’s central climate change information 

clearinghouse and utilize this clearinghouse to support OCNMS research and planning 

efforts. 

Strategy CLIM3: RESILIENT ECOSYSTEMS 

Work with natural resource managers and local communities on the Olympic Peninsula to 

improve the resiliency of ecosystems in the face of climate change impacts. 

Activity A: Work with the AC to establish a climate change working group to provide 

recommendations to ONMS, and tribal, federal, state and local governments on 

potential management responses to climate change impacts. 

Activity B: Participate in the state of Washington’s integrated climate change response 

strategy as well as in other regional efforts to develop and understand climate change 

impacts to natural and cultural resources. 

Activity C: Host workshops and provide training for OCNMS staff and local 

communities on the outer coast on planning, mitigating for and managing climate 

change impacts.

 
87 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Strategy CLIM4: COMMUNICATING CLIMATE CHANGE 

Communicate information about climate change and its potential effects on the sanctuary 

and Washington’s outer coast to OCNMS partners and the public. 

Activity A: Ensure that information and data collected by OCNMS on climate change 

and its effects on the sanctuary are readily available to other resource managers and 

interested parties. 

Activity B: Provide local communities and the public with information about potential 

climate change impacts on the Olympic Coast and local, tribal, state and regional 

efforts to plan for climate change. 

Activity C: Work with tribal communities to develop public outreach materials that 

convey tribal perspectives on climate change and its potential effects on tribal 

communities. 

Activity D: Promote education and outreach elements in climate change research 

projects that occur within OCNMS. 

Activity E: Develop a Climate Literacy education and outreach plan and incorporate it 

into OCNMS’s Ocean Literacy Action Plan. 

Links to Other Action Plans: Collaborative and Coordinated Sanctuary Management, 

Physical and Chemical Oceanography, K-12 Education, Higher Education, Visitor 

Services, Data Management, Sharing, and Reporting 

Key Partners: Hoh, Makah, and Quileute tribes and Quinault Nation, Washington State 

Ocean Caucus, UW Climate Impacts Group, West Coast Governors’ Agreement on Ocean 

Health Climate Change Action Coordination Team, NOAA/PMEL, OCNMS Advisory 

Council, West Coast Regional Sanctuaries, Monterey Bay Research Institute, Grays Harbor 

and North Pacific Coast Marine Resources Committee, Washington Sea Grant, UW Friday 

Harbor Labs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympic National Park, NOAA Ocean 

Services, and non-governmental organizations, AC, NOAA (ONMS, NMFS, PMEL), 

NGOs, IPC, Washington Department of Ecology 
88 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

D3. Marine Debris Action Plan 

Desired Outcomes: 1) Increased identification of the types and locations of abandoned 

submerged and floating marine debris, and 2) reduced environmental and aesthetic impacts 

of debris on coastal beaches. 

Links to Goals: 

Goal E - Maintain the sanctuary’s natural biological diversity and protect, and where 

appropriate, restore and enhance Sanctuary ecosystems. 

Background: 

Manufactured materials disposed of in the ocean are known as marine debris; these debris 

are unsightly on our beaches, harmful to wildlife, and can reduce fishery profits. 

Removing marine debris from the ocean and beaches, and working with partners to reduce 

the production and disposal of materials that frequently become marine debris, are both 

important to protecting the health of the sanctuary and the wildlife that inhabit it. This 

action plan outlines the strategies and activities by which OCNMS will continue and 

expand its efforts to reduce marine debris in and prevent it from entering the sanctuary. 

OCNMS formally defines marine debris, in accordance with the NOAA Office of Response 

and Restoration Marine Debris Program’s definition, as “any persistent solid material that 

is manufactured or processed and directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, 

disposed of or abandoned into the marine environment.” Marine debris can be submerged 

or floating in the ocean; it can also be beached. Submerged marine debris includes sunken, 

derelict vessels. Marine debris removal and reduction, in addition to being a high priority 

for OCNMS, is also a high priority for the state of Washington, the Coastal Treaty Tribes, 

non-governmental organizations such as Surfrider and a wide range of other organizations 

and agencies. Affecting ocean and beach ecosystems all over the world, marine debris is a 

global ocean epidemic. Thus, in supporting local marine debris efforts, OCNMS is also 

helping to promote nation and worldwide awareness of the marine debris problem. 

Strategy MD1: SUBMERGED OR FLOATING DEBRIS 

Identify, locate, and remove lost or abandoned submerged or floating marine debris. 

Activity A: Promote use by tribal and non-tribal fishers of the Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) derelict fishing gear hotline, Northwest Straits Marine 

Conservation Initiative derelict fishing gear reporting system, or other systems 

established for reporting locations of lost fishing gear, sunken vessels, and other forms 

of submerged and floating marine debris. 

Activity B: Support programs that focus on Washington’s outer coast to locate 

abandoned submerged and floating marine debris, develop safe and minimal impact 

removal techniques, and remove known marine debris. 
89 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Activity C: Support local efforts to reduce generation of sea-based marine debris 

through improvements in opportunities for solid waste and marine debris disposal and 

recycling programs. 

Activity D: Record observations of abandoned submerged and floating marine debris 

made during OCNMS research and monitoring programs. Report relevant observations 

to WDFW, Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative and/or other appropriate 

reporting systems. 

Activity E: Maintain an OCNMS database and geographic information system (GIS) 

products for marine debris identified by OCNMS and others. Collaborate in efforts to 

prioritize removal of submerged and floating marine debris. 

Activity F: Collaborate with the U.S. Department of Defense to mitigate military use of 

expendable materials that become marine debris. 

Strategy MD2: BEACH DEBRIS 

Mitigate impacts of marine debris on coastal beaches. 

Activity A: Participate as an active partner in the Washington Clean Coast Alliance 

(WCCA). Engage coastal communities and volunteers in beach cleanups, including 

expansion of efforts to include multiple volunteer beach cleanup efforts on shores 

adjacent to the sanctuary throughout the year. 

Activity B: Conduct outreach to increase public understanding of the nature and scope 

of environmental impacts of marine debris, and encourage individual efforts to reduce 

sources of marine debris. 

Activity C: Collaborate with Olympic National Park and the Washington Maritime 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex to develop beach cleanup initiatives focused on 

refuge island shores and remote coastal areas of the park. 

Activity D: Promote inventory of marine debris from Washington’s outer coast 

beaches. Use marine debris data in public outreach efforts and to support regional 

efforts to reduce sea- and land-based sources of marine debris. 

Activity E: Support programs in coastal communities to identify potential sources of 

land-based marine debris, and improve garbage management, recycling opportunities 

and other programs with potential to reduce beach debris. 

Activity F: Collaborate with the U.S. Department of Defense to use military manpower 

and equipment to support beach cleanups and other marine debris removal efforts in the 

sanctuary. 

Links to Other Action Plans: Collaborative and Coordinated Sanctuary Management, 

Community Outreach, Community Involvement in Sanctuary Management, Habitat 

Protection, Spills 
90 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Key Partners: Hoh, Makah, and Quileute tribes and Quinault Nation, coastal communities, 

Washington Clean Coast Alliance, NOAA Marine Debris Program, West Coast Governors’ 

Agreement on Ocean Health Marine Debris Action Coordination Team, Washington state, 

Olympic National Park, Washington Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Complex, U.S. 

Department of Defense, North Pacific Coast and Grays Harbor marine resources 

committees, Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative, non-governmental 

organizations, and regional port authorities 
91 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

D4. Wildlife Disturbance Action Plan 

Desired Outcomes: 1) Minimized disturbance to wildlife in the sanctuary; 2) improved 

protection for wildlife potentially impacted by human activities. 

Links to Goals: 

Goal E - Maintain the sanctuary’s natural biological diversity and protect, and where 

appropriate, restore and enhance sanctuary ecosystems. 

Background: 

During the MPR public scoping process, numerous comments identified protection of 

wildlife, including minimization of wildlife disturbance from human activities, as an 

important topic for sanctuary management. The outer coast of Washington, particularly the 

northern portion, is recognized for its unique and abundant wildlife, relatively undeveloped 

condition, and productive ecosystem through state and federal designations – Washington 

Seashore Conservation Area, Olympic National Park’s coastal strip, Washington Maritime 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex, and Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. These 

extraordinary natural values were acknowledged and protected as early as 1907 when 

seabird colonies on the coast’s islands were first granted federal conservation protection 

under a seabird reserve system by President Theodore Roosevelt. 

The phrase ‘wildlife disturbance’ encompasses acoustic, physical and visual disturbances 

caused by human activities that can have physical and behavioral impacts on wildlife 

above, below and on the water surface. Overt responses of fish and wildlife species to 

disturbance include flushing birds from their nesting roosts, flushing of marine mammals 

from haul out areas, or even death. Sources of wildlife disturbance in OCNMS could 

include low-flying aircraft, motorized personal watercraft, fireworks, close approach to 

wildlife aggregation areas (either humans on foot or in a vessel) and other excessive 

anthropogenic noises that could originate from shipping, military exercises, or seismic 

exploration. Research has documented variability in disturbance distances and responses 

based on differing activities and vessel types, as well as on the species affected. In marine 

areas, these data have supported protective regulations to establish approach limits, speed 

restrictions and buffer zones around sensitive wildlife assemblages and habitats. Wildlife 

disturbance also can be minimized through outreach both to expand citizen familiarity with 

issues and to encourage appropriate behavior around wildlife. 

The focus of this action plan is on working collaboratively to improve outreach, education 

and enforcement efforts related to wildlife disturbance, as there are existing regulations 

(OCNMS, USFWS, NMFS) that address wildlife disturbance concerns and impacts. 

However, awareness and enforcement of these regulations is inadequate and greater efforts 

need to be made to improve: 

 Sanctuary users’ understanding of appropriate and mandated wildlife etiquette 

 Voluntary compliance with wildlife disturbance regulations so that impacts to 

wildlife are avoided 
92 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

 Enforcement of wildlife disturbance regulations so that future impacts to wildlife area 

reduced 

Strategy WD1: OUTREACH ON WILDLIFE DISTURBANCE 

Promote public understanding of wildlife disturbance issues through education and 

outreach programs. 

Activity A: Collaborate with other wildlife management agencies in the region to 

develop wildlife viewing guidelines addressing shore-based and vessel activities. 

Produce and distribute those outreach products that address wildlife viewing guidelines. 

Activity B: Collaborate on outreach efforts targeting specific user groups in order to 

improve public understanding of wildlife disturbance and the impacts of human 

behavior on wildlife. Promote best practices, guidelines and regulations that benefit 

wildlife, reduce disturbance, and enhance human enjoyment of natural resources. 

 Model programs include NOAA’s Ocean Etiquette and Watchable Wildlife 

 User groups include charter fishing and wildlife viewing operators, kayakers 

and surfers 

 During outreach efforts, identify legitimate uses of the airspace within the 

OCNMS wildlife disturbance mitigation (overflight restriction) zone 

Activity C: Collaborate in training regional interpreters, rangers, enforcement staff and 

volunteers on wildlife disturbance issues. 

Activity D: Improve OCNMS web site content related to visitor appreciation of 

wildlife and wildlife disturbance caused by human activities. 

Activity E: Maintain the OCNMS incident database to record times, locations, and 

other information for reported wildlife disturbance events. 

 Incident database entries will include reported overflight violations, as well as 

permitted and exempted low altitude flights 

 Include marine mammal ship strikes in the database 

 Incident database information will be shared with regional enforcement officers, 

permitting staff and concerned management entities to reinforce wildlife 

disturbance concerns 

Strategy WD2: OVERFLIGHT RESTRICTION ZONE 

Support and improve recognition of and compliance with the existing OCNMS wildlife 

disturbance mitigation (overflight restriction) zone. 

Activity A: Improve compliance with the OCNMS wildlife disturbance mitigation 

(overflight restriction) zone through collaboration with Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association (AOPA) and Washington Pilots Association (WPA) to improve outreach 

products for and communication with local pilots. 

 
93 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Activity B: Develop outreach products and orientation materials on the OCNMS 

wildlife disturbance mitigation (overflight restriction) zone and associated wildlife 

disturbance issues that are useful for regional enforcement officers. Organize and 

conduct regular training sessions for regional enforcement officers. 

Activity C: Support efforts by the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries to have the 

OCNMS wildlife disturbance mitigation (overflight restriction) zone posted on Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) aeronautical charts. 

Strategy WD3: MARINE MAMMAL DISTURBANCE 

Assess the potential for and occurrence of marine mammal disturbance and injury from 

human activities. 

Activity A: Participate and encourage activities to characterize the acoustic 

environment and potential acoustic impacts on marine mammals in the sanctuary 

including: 

 Supporting long-term acoustic monitoring to establish background sounds 

levels and changes over time 

 Collaborating with researchers and other agencies to identify potential 

emerging issues related to sources of underwater sound that could impact 

the sanctuary environment 

 Considering how proposed activities in and around sanctuary waters might 

generate underwater sound that could impact marine mammals 

Activity B: Identify degree of risk posed to marine mammals from ship strikes in the 

sanctuary by: 

 Coordinating with the marine mammal stranding network to identify 

potential increased incidences of ship strikes that may have occurred in the 

sanctuary 

 Supporting efforts to examine overlap areas of high marine mammal density 

and shipping lanes 

 Assessing acoustic impact mitigation strategies used by other sanctuaries 

and NOAA agencies and considering such strategies in OCNMS 

Activity C: Work with the Coastal Treaty Tribes and relevant agencies and 

organizations to identify existing conflicts between marine mammals and other 

activities in the sanctuary including: 

 Marine mammal entanglement in fishing and other gear occurring in 

sanctuary waters 

 New emerging conflicts such as those between long-line fishing operations 

and depredating sperm whales (i.e., whales that are taking or trying to take 

fish from fishing gear) 

Links to other Action Plans: Sanctuary Operations, Habitat Protection, Populations, 

Communities and Ecosystems, Visitor Services, Community Outreach, Collaborative and 

Coordinated Sanctuary Management, Physical and Chemical Oceanography
94 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Key Partners: Hoh, Makah, and Quileute tribes and Quinault Nation, Olympic National 

Park, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey 

Team, Washington Clean Coast Alliance; Grays Harbor and North Pacific Coast Marine 

Resource Committees, Surfrider, NMFS, Westport Charterboat Association, regional port 

authorities and marina facilities, Marine Mammal Stranding Network, U.S. Coast Guard, 

U.S. Navy, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Washington Pilots 

Association (WPA), regional airports, shipping industry, coastal communities 
95 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

D5. Water Quality Protection Action Plan 

Desired Outcome: High water quality to ensure protection of natural resources in the 

sanctuary 

Links to Goals: 

Goal E - Maintain the sanctuary’s natural biological diversity and protect, and where 

appropriate, restore and enhance sanctuary ecosystems. 

Background: 

OCNMS strives to maintain and improve water quality in the sanctuary. Water quality 

protection is critical to ensuring the health of marine organisms and habitats from the 

bottom to the top of the food chain. Given increasing concerns about ocean acidification, 

harmful algal blooms and hypoxic events, it is crucial that OCNMS do its utmost to 

identify, mitigate, reduce and/or remove, where possible, known causes of water quality 

degradation in the sanctuary. 

Strategy WQP1: VESSEL DISCHARGES 

Reduce, through regulatory changes, voluntary and outreach measures, and/or marina 

facilities improvements, the degradation of water quality caused by vessel wastewater and 

sewage discharges. 

Activity A: Work with the shipping industry and others to assess potential impacts of 

wastewater discharges from large vessels (300 gross tons or greater) and identify 

measures to prevent or mitigate those impacts. 

Activity B: During the management plan review process, publish a rulemaking 

proposing to modify OCNMS regulations to prohibit all discharges from cruise ships 

into sanctuary waters, except those necessary for vessel operations (e.g., clean vessel 

engine cooling water, clean vessel generator cooling water, clean bilge water, engine 

exhaust, and anchor wash). 

Activity C: Encourage regional port authorities, and assist in their efforts, to improve 

availability and use of sewage pump-out facilities for vessels. 

Activity D: Work collaboratively with coastal communities to develop and implement 

a water quality education and outreach program to promote best practices regarding 

vessel discharges from marine sanitation devices, or those vessels lacking marine 

sanitary devices. 

Activity E: In year five of management plan implementation review the progress made 

on activities WQP1 A-D, and evaluate if additional actions are warranted. 

 
96 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Strategy WQP2: CONTAMINANTS 

Support efforts to monitor contaminant levels, understand potential impacts of 

contaminants, and reduce, eliminate, or mitigate impacts of contaminants to natural 

resources in the sanctuary. 

Activity A: Support local, state, tribal and federal efforts to identify, characterize, and 

mitigate sources of contaminants within or entering waters of the sanctuary and 

accumulating in biota and habitats. 

Activity B: Support closure and remediation of the Warmhouse Dump (on Makah 

Tribe’s Reservation) to minimize contaminant release to marine waters. 

Links to other Action Plans: Physical and Chemical Oceanography, Collaborative and 

Coordinated Sanctuary Management

Key Partners: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington Department of 

Ecology, Hoh, Makah, and Quileute tribes and Quinault Nation, local governments, coastal 

communities, outer coast Marine Resources Committees, Olympic National Park, 

Washington Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Complex, West Coast Governors’ 

Agreement on Ocean Health Polluted Runoff Action Coordination Team, U.S. Department 

of Defense, non-governmental organizations, regional port authorities, cruise ship industry, 

shipping industry, commercial fishing interests
97 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

D6. Habitat Protection Action Plan 

Desired Outcomes: Human-caused degradation of marine habitats is minimized and 

mitigated, particularly for those habitats that 1) demonstrate high value to ecosystem 

functioning and productivity and 2) are most vulnerable to human disturbance. 

Links to Goals: 

Goal E - Maintain the sanctuary’s natural biological diversity and protect, and where 

appropriate, restore and enhance sanctuary ecosystems. 

Background: 

The phrase ‘habitat protection’ is used here to reference actions taken to prevent, mitigate, 

or eliminate degradation of marine habitats in the sanctuary. A fundamental premise of 

habitat protection actions is that healthy habitats support healthy marine populations and 

communities, including exploited fishery resources. Habitat protection actions must be 

supported by research and monitoring efforts that improve our understanding of functions 

and values of marine habitats, document how, when and where habitat degradation occurs, 

and evaluate the effectiveness of management responses. In addition, habitat protection 

actions need to be reinforced through outreach, both to expand citizen familiarity with 

issues and to encourage actions that individuals and organizations can take to minimize 

habitat impacts. 

This action plan focuses heavily on collaborative work to 1) understand potential habitat 

impacts in the sanctuary, 2) identify habitats of special concern critical to ecosystem 

functioning in the sanctuary, and 3) monitor for and prevent invasive species introductions. 

Strategy HP1: THREAT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION 

Assess existing and potential natural and human-caused threats to physical and biogenic 

marine habitats (e.g., deep sea corals and sponge, kelp and other macroalgae), and 

collaboratively develop appropriate management measures to protect and conserve physical 

and biological habitats. 

Activity A: Identify, in consultation with co-management authorities, existing and 

potential impacts and threats to, as well as relative vulnerability of, physical and 

biogenic marine habitats in the sanctuary. Recommend and/or implement monitoring 

to assess relative habitat vulnerabilities to, and impacts and threats from natural 

disturbances and human activities, including cumulative impacts. 

Activity B: Recommend, and/or implement collaboratively with co-managers, 

management measures that minimize and mitigate human-caused impacts to physical 

and biogenic marine habitats. 

Activity C: Monitor the recovery rates of habitats, associated biological communities, 

and habitat-forming biogenic structures following disturbance by human activities. 
98 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Strategy HP2: HABITATS OF SPECIAL IMPORTANCE 

Develop criteria to identify marine habitats of special importance. Collaborate with comanagers to identify and implement management measures necessary for protection of 

habitats of special importance. 

Activity A: Develop criteria, in collaboration with natural resource co-managers, for 

habitat types of special importance to ecosystem function or managed species and identify 

the locations of such habitats. 

Activity B: Develop and implement, in collaboration with natural resource co-managers, 

potential management strategies for protection of habitats of special ecosystem value. 

Activity C: Participate in Pacific Fishery Management Council processes, including 

identification and review of essential fish habitat (EFH) and habitat areas of particular 

concern (HAPC) through OCNMS representation on the EFH Review Committee. 

Activity D: Collaboratively develop and evaluate recommendations for HAPC site and 

EFH conservation areas. 

Activity E: Assist Olympic National Park with designation and management of intertidal 

reserve areas as identified in the Park’s 2008 General Management Plan. 

Strategy HP3: INVASIVE SPECIES 

Reduce the potential for introduction of invasive species in the sanctuary region, monitor 

distributions of known invasive species, and support programs to mitigate impacts of 

invasive species to natural and cultural resources. 

Activity A: Through OCNMS monitoring, stewardship and outreach programs, support 

the work of Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and other agencies to 

prevent introduction of invasive species. 

Activity B: Engage in regional efforts to monitor for the presence and distribution of 

invasive species, including volunteer monitoring, where appropriate. 

Activity C: Support regional efforts to develop a response protocol(s) for non-native 

invasive species and to reduce ecological and economic impacts of invasive species. 

Links to Other Action Plans: Water Quality Protection, Populations, Communities and 

Ecosystems, Habitat Mapping and Classification, Collaborative and Coordinated Sanctuary 

Management 

Key Partners: ONP, USFWS, USGS, NOAA (NMFS, NOS), Washington Departments of 

Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, and Natural Resources, Washington Invasive Species Council, 

Hoh, Makah, and Quileute tribes and Quinault Nation, IPC, North Pacific Coast and Grays 

Harbor Marine Resources Committee, NGOs, universities and colleges, coastal 

communities, Pacific Fishery Management Council, academic organizations, Department 

of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, local governments, and coastal communities 
99 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

D7. Marine Spatial Planning Action Plan 

Desired Outcome: Improved integration of best available science into OCNMS decision 

making. 

Links to Goals: 

Goal E - Maintain the sanctuary’s natural biological diversity and protect, and where 

appropriate, restore and enhance Sanctuary ecosystems. 

Goal G - Facilitate wise and sustainable use in the sanctuary to the extent that such uses are 

compatible with resource protection. 

Background: 

Throughout the MPR process, the issue of human development in the sanctuary – and how 

to facilitate human activities in the sanctuary that are compatible with the primary OCNMS 

priority of resource protection – has repeatedly arisen. The ocean is a busy place; there are 

many activities occurring in sanctuary waters and many activities that may be proposed in 

the near future. It is a complex task to facilitate human use of the sanctuary while 

maintaining adequate protection for resources. Each human use and its potential associated 

impacts need to be analyzed and understood; likewise, the cumulative impacts of all human 

uses need to be considered. Moreover, OCNMS needs to understand potential conflicts 

between human uses. Thus, in order to make sound decisions about human use 

development in the sanctuary, OCNMS cannot consider each human use in isolation. 

OCNMS also needs to consider human uses in the sanctuary within the context of regional 

human use patterns and development. Currently, there are significant regional and national 

efforts being made to address human use development in the ocean and balance 

development of ocean resources with the protection of these resources; these efforts are 

commonly described as “marine spatial planning”. The White House Council on 

Environmental Quality describes coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP) as: 

“...a comprehensive, adaptive, integrated, ecosystem-based, and 

transparent spatial planning process, based on sound science, for analyzing 

current and anticipated uses of ocean, coastal and Great Lakes areas. 

CMSP identifies areas most suitable for various types of classes of activities 

in order to reduce conflicts among uses, reduce environmental impacts, 

facilitate compatible uses, and preserve critical ecosystem services to meet 

economic, environmental, security and social objectives. In practical terms, 

CMSP provides a public policy process for society to better determine how 

the ocean, coasts, and Great lakes are sustainably used and protected now 

and for future generations.” 

OCNMS decisions about human use planning and permitting in the sanctuary should be 

made within the context of regional marine spatial planning efforts. And, conversely, those 

making marine spatial planning decisions about human uses on a regional scale should 

consider OCNMS and its role in promoting marine conservation and ocean stewardship in 
100 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

their decision-making process. This action plan explains how OCNMS will integrate itself 

into regional and other marine spatial planning efforts in order both to make and promote 

sound decisions about compatible human use development in the sanctuary and the 

northwest region. 

Strategy MSP1: MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING – Investigate how recent initiatives in 

marine spatial planning can improve sanctuary management by participating in regional 

marine spatial planning processes. 

Activity A: Work with the IPC and AC to develop a plan to integrate sanctuary efforts 

into regional marine spatial planning processes. 

Activity B: Make existing OCNMS spatial data available to existing marine spatial 

tools, such as the Multipurpose Marine Cadastre. 

Activity C: Identify, prioritize and collect spatial data on marine uses and resources 

that contribute to regional marine spatial planning processes and improve OCNMS 

decision-making. 

Activity D: Support the state of Washington’s efforts to develop a statewide Marine 

Spatial Plan, as well as other regional and federal marine spatial planning efforts that 

may emerge in the future. 

Activity E: Participate in planning processes and site evaluations for proposed 

development projects in or immediately adjacent to OCNMS and utilize existing (or 

collaborate in collecting new) natural and cultural resource information to avoid, 

minimize, and mitigate user conflicts and impacts to habitats and natural and cultural 

resources. 

Links to Other Action Plans: Collaborative and Coordinated Sanctuary Management, 

Community Involvement in Sanctuary Management, Habitat Mapping and Classification, 

Habitat Protection, Wildlife Disturbance, Sanctuary Operations 

Key Partners: Hoh, Makah, and Quileute tribes and Quinault Nation, Department of 

Interior (National Parks, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), NMFS, Washington State 

Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, and Ecology, Washington State 

Ocean Caucus, West Coast Governors’ Agreement on Ocean Health Renewable Ocean 

Energy Action Coordination Team, local governments, coastal communities and nongovernmental organizations 
101 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

E. Understand the Sanctuary’s Cultural, Historical and Socioeconomic 

Significance 

E1. Maritime Heritage Action Plan 

E2. Socioeconomic Values of Resources in the Sanctuary Action Plan 

Introduction 

Characterizing, protecting, and enhancing public awareness of the sanctuary’s maritime 

heritage (including living cultures, cultural resources, and local and customary knowledge) 

is an important role of OCNMS – and a role mandated by Section 110 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. Additionally, facilitating compatible and sustainable human 

uses of sanctuary resources is also an important role of OCNMS. In many cases, OCNMS 

does not have a strong understanding of the cultural, historical and socioeconomic 

significance of its resources. Thus, over the next five to ten years, OCNMS needs to work 

collaboratively with tribal and non-tribal communities, as well as with experts in 

archeology, anthropology, history, social sciences and economics to build this 

understanding and communicate maritime heritage messages effectively to the public. 
102 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

E1. Maritime Heritage Action Plan 

Desired Outcomes: 1) Improved understanding of the cultural and historic resources in the 

sanctuary region; and 2) Improved communication between OCNMS, the Washington State 

Historic Preservation Office, the Makah Tribal Historic Preservation Office, and the 

Quileute, Hoh and Quinault cultural resource management representatives. 

Links to Goals: 

Goal F - Enhance understanding and appreciation of the Olympic Coast’s maritime heritage 

(living cultures, traditions, and cultural resources). 

Background: 

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) mandates that sanctuaries “enhance public 

awareness, understanding, appreciation, and wise and sustainable use of the marine 

environment, and the natural, historical, cultural and archeological resources of the 

National Marine Sanctuary System (NMSA, Section 301(b)(4)).” The NMSA also 

mandates that sanctuaries comply with the federal archeological program, of which the 

National Historic Preservation Act is the primary tenant. It is important that OCNMS 

continue to characterize and understand the cultural and historical resources in the 

sanctuary, particularly in light of the unique American Indian cultural context within which 

the sanctuary resides. While OCNMS’s maritime heritage program is small in size, it can 

play a significant role in understanding and communicating the outer coast’s rich cultural 

heritage to the public. The aim of this action plan is to define OCNMS’s unique role in 

working collaboratively with tribal and non-tribal communities on the outer coast to: 

 Continue and develop efforts to understand the region’s rich cultural heritage 

 Improve the public’s understanding of the significance of the region’s maritime 

heritage 

 Incorporate local and customary knowledge (knowledge gained by experience and 

collected by tribal and non-tribal individuals and communities) into sanctuary 

management processes 

 Gain an improved understanding of the past in order to make better ocean 

management decisions and policies today 

One reason that OCNMS’s maritime heritage program is especially important to develop is 

that the sanctuary area is also the usual and accustomed areas of four Coastal Treaty Tribes. 

In this way, OCNMS is unique within the national marine sanctuary system; and the 

interconnectedness between the American Indians of the Olympic Peninsula and the ocean 

resources that are now a part of the sanctuary presents OCNMS with a unique opportunity 

and responsibility to work with the Coastal Treaty Tribes on maritime heritage projects and 

to communicate to the public the significance of tribal cultures. The non-tribal fishing 

communities adjacent to the sanctuary also possess a rich cultural heritage that OCNMS 

has a role in exploring and communicating. In addition to the cultural heritage of the 

region, a multitude of physical cultural resources exist in the sanctuary. Heavily-used 
103 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

historical and contemporary trade routes run through OCNMS and there are hundreds of 

shipwrecks supposed to have occurred in the sanctuary, only a handful of which have been 

verified, mapped and assessed. 

This action plan identifies several specific ways in which OCNMS can more fully develop its 

maritime heritage program, improve its understanding of this heritage, and improve the way 

it communicates information about maritime and cultural heritage to the public. 

Strategy MH1: CULTURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

Work collaboratively to locate, inventory, assess, interpret and protect cultural resources in 

the sanctuary, and develop further the cultural resource components of OCNMS’s 

permitting and compliance program.

Activity A: Identify priorities for future cultural resource surveys in the sanctuary and 

assess the resources needed to complete those surveys and implement OCNMS’s 

maritime heritage program. 

Activity B: Work with partners to develop uniform guidelines/protocols for cultural 

resource data collection in the sanctuary. 

Activity C: In consultation with the Coastal Treaty Tribes, the state of Washington 

Historic Preservation Office, the state of Washington Department of Historic 

Preservation and Archeology, Olympic National Park and others develop a 

programmatic agreement describing the way in which OCNMS’s routine activities will 

comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Activity D: Pursue research funding and partnerships with academic institutions and 

tribal communities to support the study and analysis of existing cultural resource 

collections (e.g., at the Makah Cultural and Research Center and other tribal centers) in 

order to test hypotheses and answer questions about past and future changing ecological 

conditions on the Olympic Peninsula. 

Strategy MH2: LOCAL AND CUSTOMARY KNOWLEDGE 

Work with tribal and non-tribal partners to explore ways to gather, share and apply (when 

appropriate) traditional ecological knowledge, local and customary knowledge, and 

information obtained from cultural resource analyses. 

Activity A: In collaboration with the Coastal Treaty Tribes, develop a program to 

survey and map “traditional cultural properties” in marine areas of interest to each tribe. 

This would include working with individual tribes to develop survey protocols to 

address the nature of properties surveys, survey methodology, the sensitivity of survey 

data, disclosure and non-disclosure limitations, disposition of the data, and products 

derived from the data. 

Activity B: Work with the Coastal Treaty Tribes, non-tribal communities and other 

partners to host scholarly and educational events that bring together natural science, 

social science and tribal knowledge experts to discuss pressing sanctuary management 

issues and ways in which traditional ecological knowledge could help to resolve those 

issues.
104 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Activity C: Collect, analyze and share (as agreed) historical accounts and oral histories 

from historic (tribal and non-tribal) user groups of resources in the sanctuary, including 

community members, fishermen, divers, and others, in order to improve understanding 

of the role that maritime heritage played in the sanctuary’s past and collect information 

relevant to current/future resource management in OCNMS. Ensure that information 

collected from local communities as part of historical and cultural research projects is 

shared with these communities in a timely manner once projects are completed. 

Strategy MH3: PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF TREATY RIGHTS

Work collaboratively with the Coastal Treaty Tribes to improve the public’s understanding 

of treaty rights and how traditional lifeways form a vital connection between the past, the 

present and the future, with a focus on marine areas. 

Activity A: Work with the Coastal Treaty Tribes to create protocols for developing, 

reviewing and communicating information about treaty rights and tribal cultures to 

sanctuary visitors, volunteers, staff, partners and local communities.

Activity B: Maintain ongoing communications with Coastal Treaty Tribes about 

opportunities to collaborate on events such as community festivals (Makah Days, 

Quileute Days, Chief Taholah Days, etc), special events like Tribal Journeys and other 

commemorations or significant celebrations within tribal communities.

Activity C: Work collaboratively with the Coastal Treaty Tribes, Olympic National 

Park and other partners in the development of an OCNMS Long-Range Interpretive 

Plan that emphasizes appropriate messages and content relating to treaty rights, 

traditional and contemporary tribal communities, cultures and cultural values. 

 Identify opportunities for projects, facilities and program development with 

each Coastal Treaty Tribe (e.g., maps with American Indian place names, 

wayside exhibits on each of the tribes, new visitor centers, publications) that 

would be located or distributed on tribal reservations and other locations 

 Identify opportunities for interpreting traditional culture and cultural values at 

the Olympic Coast Discovery Center 

 Continue to incorporate information about the Coastal Treaty Tribes into the 

standard training for sanctuary volunteers (including AC members) 

Links to Other Action Plans: Collaborative and Coordinated Sanctuary Management, 

Community Outreach, K-12 Education, Higher Education, Visitor Services

Key Partners: Makah, Quileute and Hoh Tribes and the Quinault Indian Nation, Olympic 

Coast Intergovernmental Policy Council, Olympic National Park, Olympic Park Institute, 

OCNMS Advisory Council, Washington State Historic Preservation Office, Washington 

Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation, Makah Cultural and Research 

Center, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Puget Sound Maritime Historical 

Society, Washington State Historical Society, Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, 

Museum of History and Industry, commercial and sport fishermen, divers, local residents, 

historians and history organizations, Puget Sound Maritime Historical Society, Museum of 

History and Industry and Westport Maritime Museum 
105 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

E2. Socioeconomic Values of Resources in the Sanctuary Action Plan 

Desired Outcome: Improved ecological, social, and economic resilience for the Olympic 

Peninsula. 

Links to Goals: 

Goal G - Facilitate wise and sustainable use in the sanctuary to the extent that such uses are 

compatible with resource protection. 

Background: 

Socioeconomic valuation of sanctuary resources is critical to sanctuary management. 

Social science data are used to examine the human dimension of marine resource 

management; to understand consumptive and non-consumptive human use patterns; to 

assess economic impacts of proposed activities; and to understand the attitudes, perception 

and beliefs of resource users. Each of these factors is not only directly relevant to the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) and laws such as the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), but is also critical to devising policies and management strategies that 

result in ecological, social, and economic resilience. Currently, very little socioeconomic 

or human use information exists for OCNMS. Thus, at this time OCNMS is not able to 

analyze socioeconomic effects of the sanctuary and sanctuary management as 

comprehensively as is needed, nor is it able to pursue an ecosystem-based management 

(EBM) framework. EBM, to be effective, requires integrating both natural and social 

science data into ecosystem management decisions. 

With improved information about the socioeconomic values of resources in the sanctuary, 

an improved understanding of what human uses are occurring in the sanctuary, and an 

improved understanding of what human uses might be proposed in the sanctuary, OCNMS 

will be better equipped to make sound sanctuary management decisions. Moreover, 

ecosystem-based management frameworks require management agencies to consider 

humans and human uses as part of ecosystems. To develop an effective ecosystem-based 

management framework, OCNMS management needs to develop a better understanding of 

socioeconomics and human uses in the sanctuary. Thus, this action plan is focused on 

socioeconomic and human use research and assessment and is intended to complement the 

Habitat Mapping and Classification Action Plan, Physical and Chemical Oceanography 

Action Plan, Populations, Communities and Ecosystems Action Plan, and Data 

Management, Sharing and Reporting Action Plan. 

Strategy SV1: EXISTING SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION 

Foster analysis and dissemination of existing socioeconomic data about Olympic Coast 

marine resources and human use patterns, including consumptive, non-consumptive and 

passive human use patterns. 
106 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Activity A: Identify key socioeconomic players in the sanctuary region and begin 

targeted outreach effort to communicate OCNMS goals, and its role as a facilitator, 

in regional socioeconomic characterization. 

Activity B: Further develop the existing annotated bibliography of references 

relevant to socioeconomic valuation of marine resources on the Olympic Peninsula, 

and make this annotated bibliography widely available (post it on OCNMS website). 

Activity C: Review and summarize information on West-Coast wide efforts to 

collect data on human use patterns in the marine and coastal environment. 

Activity D: Make existing socioeconomic data widely available in user-friendly 

formats (such as GIS layers).

Strategy SV2: NEW SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION 

Develop partnerships in order to collect, assemble, and analyze new information about 

human uses/activities occurring in the sanctuary and their socioeconomic values. 

Activity A: Submit a formal request to the Coastal Treaty Tribes expressing 

OCNMS’s interest in partnering to assess and apply information on human use 

patterns and socioeconomic values.

Activity B: Work with the AC to form a working group to make recommendations on 

developing a common understanding of the human dimension of marine spatial 

planning and management in the OCNMS, and prioritizing socioeconomic data needs.

Activity C: Encourage the working group to initiate a small, joint (partnership 

driven) human use mapping project in order to develop an initial (general) 

socioeconomic characterization of the sanctuary region. This should be done using 

as many known resources as possible to minimize cost, time, and to build on or 

create new partnerships in the region. The socioeconomic characterization should 

address consumptive, non-consumptive, and passive use.

Activity D: Develop a joint proposal for a more extensive socioeconomic study or 

expanded (more detailed) human use mapping project and pursue funding for this 

proposal. Look for opportunities to leverage capacity and share costs, e.g., through 

the West Coast Governor’s agreement, the Sea Grant Program, and the state of 

Washington.

Links to Other Action Plans: Marine Spatial Planning, Populations, Communities and 

Ecosystems, Data Management, Sharing and Reporting, Collaborative and Coordinated 

Sanctuary Management, Community Involvement in Sanctuary Management, Community 

Outreach 

Key Partners: Makah, Quileute, Hoh Tribes and Quinault Indian Nation, state of 

Washington, Olympic Coast Intergovernmental Policy Council, NMFS/NWFSC, 

Ecotrust and other NGOs, outer coast Marine Resource Committees, Olympic National 

Park, county Economic Development Councils and the Olympic Peninsula Tourism 

Commission 
107 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

5.3. PERFORMANCE MEASURES 

Performance evaluation is an integral component of ONMS efforts to improve sanctuary 

management. The performance measures proposed here are designed to serve three 

purposes: 1) to better understand OCNMS’s ability to meet its objectives; 2) to track 

OCNMS’s success in addressing the issues identified in this management plan; and 3) to 

identify tangible examples of how OCNMS is contributing to both the performance targets 

developed for the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries and to achieving the mission of 

the NMSA. 

With implementation of the revised OCNMS management plan, OCNMS staff will monitor 

these performance measures over time, collecting data on progress towards their 

achievement. Results will be compiled for the AC, IPC, and other interested parties on an 

annual basis (see Sanctuary Operations Action Plan, Strategy OPS10). Accomplishments, 

as well as any inabilities to achieve outcomes will be reported, including potential 

strategies for mitigating shortfalls. This internal review represents one of the primary 

benefits of the performance evaluation process: the ability to provide feedback about why 

particular actions are or are not meeting stated targets and how they can be altered to do so. 

This process, where appropriate will mesh with other programmatic evaluation tools, such 

as the OCNMS Condition Report. 

Eight performance measures (and associated outcomes) are listed below. Under each 

outcome and performance measure, a list of the relevant priority issues addressed is 

provided (see section 4.5). OCNMS may opt to modify or augment these performance 

measures in the future. 

In some cases, it is difficult to measure the achievement of the priority issues (e.g., Improve 

Ocean Literacy, Achieve Effective Collaborative and Coordinated Sanctuary 

Management). In these cases, the performance measures provided are serving as proxies 

for difficult to measure outcomes. 

OUTCOME 1: OCNMS is recognized by its partners and constituents as an organization 

that effectively seeks and considers information and opinions from external sources in its 

management and decision making. 

Performance Measure 1: Maintain undiminished or improve ratings of OCNMS’s 

effectiveness as evaluated by key partners and constituents through a brief 

annual survey (e.g., using a web survey tool) designed to assess their 

involvement in sanctuary management processes and the perceived 

effectiveness of this involvement in sanctuary management processes over the 

past year. This survey should use the same survey questions each year so that 

results can be compared over time. 

Relevant Priority Management Need (s): Achieve Effective Collaborative and 

Coordinated Management 
108 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

OUTCOME 2: Increased involvement of communities on the Olympic Peninsula in 

sanctuary management issues and ocean conservation. 

Performance Measure 2: Demonstrate an increase in 1) individual public 

attendance at OCNMS-hosted public meetings and events (e.g., open houses, 

Advisory Council meetings), and 2) volunteer hours in OCNMS-led education, 

stewardship and research efforts (e.g., Discovery Center, COASST, intertidal 

monitoring). This measure will be evaluated on an annual basis. 

Relevant Priority Management Need(s): Achieve Effective Collaborative and 

Coordinated Management, Improve Ocean Literacy 

OUTCOME 3: Increase the area of sanctuary seafloor where efforts to map, groundtruth, 

characterize, and/or analyze habitats have been completed. 

Performance Measure 3: Map, groundtruth, characterize, and/or analyze 300 

square nautical miles of sanctuary seafloor each year. 

Relevant Priority Management Need(s): Conduct Collaborative Research, 

Assessments and Monitoring to Inform Ecosystem-Based Management 

OUTCOME 4: OCNMS will support collaborative and coordinated management through 

timely sharing of data collected by OCNMS. 

Performance Measure 4: On an annual basis, track the progress made analyzing 

and distributing each data set that OCNMS collects. For each data set, report 

on 1) the date(s) the data were collected, 2) the expected annual and ultimate 

end product(s), 3) data sharing methods, 4) the time taken to analyze the data, 

5) the time to disseminate the data, and 6) if necessary, when OCNMS 

anticipates completing a final analysis, report and dissemination. 

Relevant Priority Management Need(s): Conduct Collaborative Research, 

Assessments and Monitoring to Inform Ecosystem-Based Management 

OUTCOME 5: Determine the effectiveness of sanctuary Ocean Literacy programs whose 

audiences include sanctuary users, students, teachers, volunteers and partner organizations. 

Performance Measure 5: Track progress made during each year toward improving 

the quality of Ocean Literacy programs and their impacts on participants in 

improving their understanding of ocean processes and resources and enhancing 

their commitment to act as stewards. 

Relevant Priority Management Need(s): Improve Ocean Literacy, Achieve 

Effective Collaborative and Coordinated Management 

 
109 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

OUTCOME 6: Communicate the importance of the sanctuary and its unique resources, 

and the unique role of NOAA and Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary as a marine 

resource manager using a wide variety of media and methods to reach broad audiences. 

Performance Measure 6: Track effort and outputs of outreach programs, using 

tools appropriate for the media, communication methods and audiences. 

Relevant Priority Management Need(s): Achieve Effective Collaborative and 

Coordinated Sanctuary Management, Improve Ocean Literacy 

OUTCOME 7: OCNMS is prepared for an oil or hazardous spill in or near the sanctuary. 

Performance Measure 7: On an annual basis, 1) summarize and evaluate OCNMS 

participation in regional response planning efforts and spill drills, and 2) 

confirm that all OCNMS staff that have completed their assigned oil spill 

response training plan on an annual basis. 

Relevant Priority Management Need(s): Conserve Natural Resources in the 

Sanctuary 

OUTCOME 8: The condition of water quality, habitat and living resources in the 

sanctuary is maintained or improved. 

Performance Measure 8: Every five years, evaluate if the condition of sanctuary 

resources has been maintained or improved, as assessed through an OCNMS 

Condition Report. 

Relevant Priority Management Need(s): Conserve Natural Resources in the 

Sanctuary 

 
110 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

5.4. COST ESTIMATES AND TIMELINES 

Cost estimates for each strategy were developed to provide a general sense of the scope and 

scale of the work being proposed in the DMP and the resources necessary to accomplish 

this work (Table 4). These estimates are not proposed budgets. Estimates were developed 

based upon a series of assumptions that included a fixed cost of labor, and fixed estimates 

for travel time, supplies, printing, and other costs. These estimates do not account for 

inflation, staff merit pay increases, increases in cost of living, variable fuel and utility costs, 

etc, nor do these estimates differentiate between funds from the OCNMS base budget 

versus other funding sources (e.g., external grants, partnership with other agencies). 

Table 4 List of Cost Estimates Associated with the Action Plan Strategies (in thousands of dollars). 

Strategies Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 

CCM1 External Evaluation $8 $37 $4 $0 $0 

CCM2 Coastal Treaty Tribes $55 $55 $55 $55 $55 

CCM3 Olympic Coast Intergovernmental Policy 

Council $165 $165 $165 $165 $165 

CCM4 State of Washington $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 

CCM5 Department of Interior $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 

CCM6 US Coast Guard $9 $9 $9 $9 $14 

CCM7 US Navy $16 $9 $9 $9 $9 

CCM8 NMFS $24 $24 $24 $24 $24 

CCM9 Office of National Marine Sanctuaries $107 $107 $107 $107 $107 

CCM10 Canadian Government $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 

COM1 Advisory Council $51 $51 $51 $51 $51 

COM2 Marine Resources Committees $13 $13 $13 $13 $13 

COM3 Non-Governmental Organizations $17 $17 $17 $17 $17 

OPS1 Vessel Infrastructure and Operations $148 $306 $306 $306 $306 

OPS2 Facilities $211 $165 $165 $165 $165 

OPS3 Annual Planning $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 

OPS4 Safety Operations $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 

OPS5 Staffing $104 $104 $104 $104 $104 

OPS6 Volunteer Program $92 $92 $92 $92 $92 

OPS7 Permitting and Consultations $48 $30 $30 $30 $30 
111 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

 

Strategies (cont.) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 

OPS8 Voluntary Compliance $32 $16 $16 $16 $16 

OPS9 Enforcement $18 $25 $18 $18 $18 

OPS10 Management Plan Implementation 

Reporting $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 

MAP1 A Regional Coordination $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 

MAP2 A Seafloor Habitat Mapping $37 $218 $218 $218 $218 

MAP3 A Habitat Classification $42 $67 $67 $67 $67 

MAP4 A Mapping Products $30 $30 $56 $56 $56 

OCEO1 Coastal Mooring Program $286 $286 $286 $286 $286 

OCEO2 Hypoxia $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 

OCEO3 Ocean Acidification $21 $21 $21 $21 $21 

OCEO4 Harmful Algal Blooms $17 $17 $17 $17 $17 

ECO1 Water Column Communities $0 $41 $41 $41 $41 

ECO2 Intertidal $14 $28 $28 $28 $28 

ECO3 Subtidal $10 $70 $70 $70 $70 

ECO4 Benthic $337 $34 $337 $34 $337 

ECO5 Fish $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 

ECO6 Marine Birds $50 $78 $137 $82 $82 

ECO7 Marine Mammals $13 $110 $225 $110 $90 

ECO8 Stranding Networks $17 $17 $17 $17 $17 

ECO9 Ecosystem Processes $23 $1 $71 $0 $0 

DAT1 Data Quality Control and Management $7 $2 $2 $2 $2 

DAT2 Data Distribution $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 

DAT3 Adaptive Management $0 $13 $3 $3 $3 

DAT4 Condition Report $0 $0 $0 $0 $36 

ED1 K-12 Partnerships $52 $52 $52 $52 $52 

ED2 Place-Based Education $118 $118 $118 $118 $118 

ED3 Regional Initiatives $19 $19 $19 $19 $19 
112 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

 

Strategies (cont.) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 

ED4 Technology $52 $52 $52 $52 $52 

HED1 Internship Development $58 $58 $58 $58 $58 

HED2 Volunteer Positions $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 

HED3 College Partnerships $59 $59 $59 $59 $59 

VISIT1 Visitor Experience $186 $186 $186 $186 $186 

VISIT2 Long-Range Interpretive Plan $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 

VISIT 3 New Technology $294 $294 $294 $294 $294 

OUT1 Stewardship and Citizen Science $154 $154 $154 $154 $154 

OUT2 Staff Presence on Outer Coast $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 

OUT3 Community Events $74 $74 $74 $74 $74 

OUT4 Community-Based Efforts $43 $43 $43 $43 $43 

SPILL1 ATBA Management, Compliance and 

Monitoring $11 $20 $72 $36 $36 

SPILL2 Regional Vessel Management Forums $12 $4 $4 $0 $0 

SPILL3 Regional Planning and Training 

Exercises $39 $26 $21 $20 $26 

SPILL4 Outer Coast Trustees Working Group $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 

SPILL5 OCNMS Organizational Response 

Plan $3 $2 $2 $2 $2 

SPILL6 Damage Survey and Assessment 

Protocols $5 $9 $20 $5 $5 

CLIM1 Climate-Smart Sanctuary Program $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 

CLIM2 Sanctuary as Sentinel Site $36 $36 $36 $36 $36 

CLIM3 Resilient Ecosystems $73 $73 $73 $73 $73 

CLIM4 Communicating Climate Change $101 $101 $101 $101 $101 

MD1 Submerged or Floating Debris $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 

MD2 Beach Debris $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 

WD1 Outreach on Wildlife Disturbance $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 

WD2 Overflight Restriction Zone $12 $0 $0 $0 $0 

WD3 Marine Mammal Disturbance $0 $0 $12 $7 $0 
113 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Strategies (cont.) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 

WQP1 Vessel Discharges $6 $16 $0 $0 $0 

WQP2 Contaminants $3 $2 $2 $2 $2 

HP1 Threat Assessment and Mitigation $40 $0 $411 $16 $108 

HP2 Habitats of Special Importance $37 $25 $34 $25 $34 

HP3 Invasive Species $11 $13 $11 $11 $11 

MSP1 Marine Spatial Planning $87 $95 $98 $98 $98 

MH1 Cultural Resource Conservation $92 $92 $92 $92 $92 

MH2 Local and Customary Knowledge $90 $90 $90 $90 $90 

MH3 Public Understanding of Treaty Rights $28 $28 $28 $28 $28 

SV1 Existing Socioeconomic Information $0 $39 $0 $0 $0 

SV2 New Socioeconomic Information $0 $13 $21 $57 $0 

TOTAL $4,228 $4,462 $5,431 $4,452 $4,819 
114 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

5.5. IMPLEMENTATION TABLE 

The action plans in the DMP comprise a body of work that, to fully implement, would 

require resources well beyond what is currently available –and expected to be available – 

to OCNMS and ONMS. Cost estimates developed by OCNMS staff for each action plan 

indicate that OCNMS would need an annual base budget ranging between $4.2 and $5.4 

million (and a staff of approximately 40 people) in order to accomplish all of the work in 

the action plans. OCNMS currently operates with an annual budget of around $1.5 

million, not including in-kind support from other NOAA offices or grants from NOAA or 

other agencies and organizations. OCNMS staff is the equivalent of 16 full-time staff 

(including federal employees and contracted support services). The amount of in-kind 

support and grant funding OCNMS receives each year varies greatly. All of the strategies 

in the action plans are important in helping OCNMS meet its goals and objectives. 

However, given funding limitations, it was necessary to prioritize the strategies to show 

which are most likely to be implemented under various budget scenarios. In this way, 

OCNMS hopes to implement the management plan in as transparent a manner as possible. 

OCNMS staff worked with the OCNMS Advisory Council, the Olympic Coast 

Intergovernmental Policy Council and ONMS leadership in order to develop the 

implementation table that follows (Table 5), which shows which strategies will be high, 

medium and low priorities for OCNMS to complete under three different hypothetical 

budget scenarios: 

 

 OCNMS remains level funded 

 OCNMS receives a moderate increase in base funding 

 OCNMS receives a significant increase in base funding 

A considerable number of OCNMS projects are grant-funded. It is difficult to predict what 

grant funding will be available and how much of it OCNMS will receive on an annual 

basis. Grant funds are typically geared toward one specific activity (and cannot be put 

toward other activities). OCNMS will use the implementation table to guide staff efforts, 

but acknowledge that successful acquisition of grant funding for particular projects might 

also influence how OCNMS allocates its staff resources year to year. 

 
115 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

5.5.1. Explanation of Implementation Table 

Strategy Status 

The status of the strategy indicates the amount of work completed on the strategy at the 

time of MPR. Certain strategies and activities have been partially or wholly implemented 

prior to or during the MPR process. Many of these represent ongoing initiatives that will 

continue. Other strategies are new as part of the updated management plan and have not 

been worked on at all. 

Funding Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 

Implementation at various budget scenarios indicates the priority of a strategy or action 

plan and subsequent level of effort based on resources available. As stated previously, full 

implementation of the management plan exceeds the resources available to OCNMS, 

therefore requiring some prioritization of the strategies. As more resources become 

available (i.e., the budget grows), a greater level of implementation is possible. This table 

outlines to what extent implementation could occur with OCNMS’s existing resources and 

how increases in resources would affect the amount of implementation possible for each 

strategy. 

Partnership Coordination 

Implementation of most of the strategies in the DMP will require some input or 

coordination from partners, particularly the Coastal Treaty Tribes, other government 

agencies, research institutions, and NGOs. The table outlines the level of involvement 

expected from partners to achieve full implementation of each strategy. Many action plans 

and strategies are completely dependent on involvement from other agencies or dependent 

on research conducted by an outside institution. 

Internal/External Funding Sources 

Funding for implementation of many strategies will require a mix of internal 

ONMS/OCNMS funds as well as funding from external sources such as grants, or in-kind 

work from partner agencies. The table highlights the probable source of funding as either 

primarily internal (either at base of increased level), external or a mix of both. The table 

notes where it is anticipated that the current OCNMS base budget would be sufficient to 

fund a strategy. The table also notes where a significant increase to OCNMS’s base budget 

would be required to fund a strategy. 
116 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Table 5 OCNMS Management Plan Implementation Table

 

Action Plans 

Strategy Status Level Funding: Scenario 1 Moderate Increase: Scenario 2 Substantial Increase: Scenario 3 Partnership Coordination Internal/external Funding Sources 

Collaborative and Coordinated Sanctuary Management 

CCM1 External Evaluation  L L M  

CCM2 Coastal Treaty Tribes  H H H  

CCM3 Olympic Coast IPC  H H H  

CCM4 Washington State  H H H  

CCM5 Department of Interior  H H H  

CCM6 US Coast Guard  H H H  

CCM7 US Navy  H H H  

CCM8 NMFS  M H H  

CCM9 Office of National Marine Sanctuaries  H H H  

CCM10 Canadian Government  L M M  

Community Involvement in Sanctuary Management 

COM1 Advisory Council  H H H  

COM2 Marine Resource Committees  M M M  

COM3 Non-government Organizations  H H H  

Sanctuary Operations 

OPS1 Vessel Infrastructure and Operations  H H H  

OPS2 Facilities  H H H  

OPS3 Annual Planning  H H H  

OPS4 Safe Operations  H H H  

OPS5 Staffing  H H H  

OPS6 Volunteer Program  M H H  

OPS7 Permitting and Consultation  H H H  

OPS8 Voluntary Compliance  M M M  

OPS9 Enforcement  L L H  

OPS10 Implementation Reporting  H H H  

Habitat Mapping and Classification 

MAP1 Regional Coordination  H H H  

MAP2 Seafloor Habitat Mapping  H H H  

MAP3 Habitat Classification  H H H  

MAP4 Mapping Products  H H H  

Table Legend

Strategy Status: 

 – Existing w/o significant 

modification 

  – Existing w/ significant 

modification 

 – New or future (Not yet 

implemented.) 

Implementation 

Ranking: 

H – High 

M – Medium 

L – Low 

Necessary Partnership 

Coordination: 

 – Not possible w/o partners 

  – Significant reliance on partners 

 – Little reliance on partners 

Primary Funding Sources: 

 – External (e.g. Grants) 

  – Internal and External 

 – Internal (increased budget) 

 – Internal (base budget) 
117 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

 

Action Plans 

Strategy Status Level Funding: Scenario 1 Moderate Increase: Scenario 2 Substantial Increase: Scenario 3 Partnership Coordination Internal/external Funding Sources 

Physical and Chemical Oceanography 

OCEO1 Coastal Mooring Program  H H H  

OCEO2 Hypoxia  M H H  

OCEO3 Ocean Acidification  H H H  

OCEO4 Harmful Algal Blooms  M M H  

Populations, Communities and Ecosystems 

ECO1 Water Column Communities  L M H  

ECO2 Intertidal  M H H  

ECO3 Subtidal  L M H  

ECO4 Benthic  M H H  

ECO5 Fish  L L M  

ECO6 Marine Birds  M H H  

ECO7 Marine Mammals  M M H  

ECO8 Stranding Network  L L M  

ECO9 Ecosystem Processes  M M H  

Data Management, Sharing and Reporting 

DATA1 Data Quality Control and Management  H H H  

DATA2 Data Distribution  H H H  

DATA3 Adaptive Management  L M H  

DATA4 Condition Report  M H H  

K-12 Education 

ED1 K-12 Partnerships  H H H  

ED2 Place-Based Education  M M H  

ED3 Regional Initiatives  L L M  

ED4 Using Technology  L L M  

Higher Education 

HED1 Internship Development  L L M  

HED2 Volunteer Positions  L L M  

HED3 College Partnerships  L L L  

Visitor Services 

VISIT1 Visitor Experience  L M H  

VISIT2 Long-Range Interpretive Plan  M M M  

VISIT 3 New Technology  L L L  

Community Outreach 

OUT1 Stewardship and Citizen Science  L M M  

OUT2 Staff Presence on Outer Coast  L L M  

OUT3 Community Events  M M M  

OUT4 Community-Based Efforts  L M H  

Spills Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Restoration 

SPILL1 ATBA Management, Compliance and 

Monitoring  H H H  

SPILL2 Regional Vessel Management Forums  L M H  

SPILL3 Regional Planning and Training 

Exercises  H H H  
118 

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

 

Action Plans 

Strategy Status Level Funding: Scenario 1 Moderate Increase: Scenario 2 Substantial Increase: Scenario 3 Partnership Coordination Internal/external Funding Sources 

SPILL4 Outer Coast Trustees Working Group  M M M  

SPILL5 OCNMS Organizational Response 

Plan  H H H  

SPILL6 Damage Survey and Assessment 

Protocols  H H H  

Climate Change 

CLIM1 Climate Smart Sanctuary Program  L L M  

CLIM2 Sanctuary as Sentinel Site  M H H  

CLIM3 Resilient Ecosystems  L L M  

CLIM4 Communicating Climate Change  L L H  

Marine Debris 

MD1 Assessment and Removal  H H H  

MD2 Mitigating Impacts  H H H  

Wildlife Disturbance 

WD1 Outreach on Wildlife Disturbance  L L M  

WD2 Overflight Restriction Zone  L L L  

WD3 Marine Mammal Disturbance  M M M  

Water Quality 

WQP1 Vessel Discharges  H H H  

WQP2 Contaminants  L L L  

Habitat Protection 

HP1 Threat Assessment and Mitigation  M H H  

HP2 Habitats of Special Importance  H H H  

HP3 Invasive Species  M H H  

Marine Spatial Planning 

MSP1 Marine Spatial Planning  L M H  

Maritime Heritage 

MH1 Cultural Resource Conservation  L L M  

MH2 Local and Customary Knowledge  L L M  

MH3 Public Understanding of Treaty Rights  L L L  

Socioeconomic Values of Sanctuary Resources 

SV1 Existing Socioeconomic Information  L L L  

SV2 New Socioeconomic Information  L L L  

Table Legend

Strategy Status: 

 – Existing w/o significant 

modification 

  – Existing w/ significant 

modification 

 – New or future (Not yet 

implemented.) 

Implementation 

Ranking: 

H – High 

M – Medium 

L – Low 

Necessary Partnership 

Coordination: 

 – Not possible w/o partners 

  – Significant reliance on partners 

 – Little reliance on partners 

Primary Funding Sources: 

 – External (e.g. Grants) 

  – Internal and External 

 – Internal (increased budget) 

 – Internal (base budget) 
119 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

6. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

The Affected Environment section describes the setting in which Olympic Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary’s (OCNMS) management plan will be implemented. This section 

focuses on those resources that are most likely to be affected by specific actions and 

regulatory changes being considered in the management plan alternatives. OCNMS’s 

original Final Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan (NOAA 1993) also 

contains an in-depth affected environment section, which is incorporated here by reference. 

The more recent OCNMS Condition Report (ONMS 2008) is also incorporated by 

reference. 

6.1. PHYSICAL SETTING 

The physical setting of the sanctuary is the structural and dynamic foundation for its 

biological processes. Through the physical setting and the linkages between its geography, 

geology and oceanography, regional and large-scale ecosystem processes connect with and 

directly impact local productivity and biodiversity patterns in the sanctuary. 

OCNMS spans 2,408 square nautical miles (8,259 square kilometers) of marine waters and 

the submerged lands thereunder off Washington state’s Olympic Peninsula coast (Figure 3). 

In the north, OCNMS lies at the western entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, a large 

waterway between United States and Canada that connects the Pacific Ocean with the Salish 

Sea. 

The sanctuary boundary, as defined in the OCNMS regulations (15 CFR 922, Subpart O), 

extends from Koitlah Point due north to the United States/Canada international boundary 

seaward to the 100 fathom isobath (approximately 180 meters depth). The seaward 

boundary of the sanctuary generally follows the 100 fathom isobath in a southerly direction 

to a point due west of the Copalis River, cutting across the heads of Nitinat, Juan de Fuca, 

and Quinault Canyons. The shoreward boundary of the sanctuary is the mean lower low 

water line when adjacent to American Indian lands and state lands. When adjacent to 

federally managed lands, the sanctuary includes intertidal areas to the mean higher high 

water line. The coastal boundary of the sanctuary cuts across the mouths of but does not 

extend up rivers and streams. 

Extending seaward 25 to 40 nautical miles (46 to 74 kilometers), the sanctuary covers 

much of the continental shelf and the heads of three major submarine canyons, in places 

reaching depths of over 1,400 meters (750 fathoms or 4,500 feet). The sanctuary borders a 

largely undeveloped coastline, enhancing the protection provided by both the 104 

kilometer-long (65 mile) coastal strip of Olympic National Park (ONP) that includes 72 

kilometers (48 miles) of designated wilderness coast, as well as the approximately 600 

offshore islands and emergent rocks within the Washington Maritime National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex. 
120 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Figure 3 Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary
121 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

OCNMS lies in the northern portion of the Oregonian biogeographic province that extends 

from Point Conception, California, to Cape Flattery, Washington (Airame et al. 2003). The 

province is characterized by a narrow continental shelf, mountainous shoreline, steep rocky 

headlands, sandy pocket beaches with sea stack islands, many small and a few large rivers, 

and small estuaries with barrier islands. The province is also noted as exhibiting the 

greatest volume of upwelling in North America. This nutrient-rich upwelling zone drives 

high primary productivity and supports a multitude of marine habitats. The sanctuary 

resides within the California Current System (CCS) and represents one of North America’s 

most productive marine ecosystems.

6.1.1. Geography and Geology 

The Olympic Coast is located at a tectonically active boundary known as the Cascadia 

Subduction Zone, where the edge of the North American continental plate meets and 

overrides the Juan de Fuca oceanic plate. The geologic activity in the area creates potential 

hazards such as earthquakes and associated submarine landslides, tsunamis and volcanic 

eruptions (McGregor and Offield 1986). 

The continental shelf extends 7 to 35 nautical miles (13 to 64 kilometers) from the outer 

coast of Washington and provides a relatively shallow coastal environment between the 

near shore and the shelf break at about the 100-fathom (180-meter) contour. The majority 

of the sanctuary overlays the continental shelf. The shelf is composed primarily of soft 

sediment and glacial deposits of cobble, gravel and boulders, punctuated by rock outcrops. 

As described in Section 6.2.4, the majority of the sanctuary seafloor has not yet been 

adequately mapped or characterized, so a full understanding of sediments and habitat 

distribution remains elusive (Intelmann 2006). 

Sanctuary boundaries include portions of the Nitinat, Juan de Fuca, and Quinault 

submarine canyons that cut into the continental shelf along the western boundary of the 

sanctuary (Figure 3). The Quinault Canyon is the deepest, descending to 1,420 meters (777 

fathoms or 4,660 feet) at its deepest point within the sanctuary. The Juan de Fuca Canyon 

Trough transects the northern portion of the sanctuary angling toward the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca. These canyons are dynamic areas where massive submarine landslides occur on the 

steep side walls and canyon bottoms collect sediment deposited from above. These 

canyons also serve as conduits for dense, cold, nutrient-rich seawater that is pulled toward 

shore into sunlight, an upwelling that feeds surface productivity at the base of the food 

web. 

Broad beaches, dunes, and ridges dominate the coastline from Cape Disappointment, on the 

north side of the Columbia River, to the Hoh River, and rocky shores with smaller stretches 

of beach dominate to the north. Wave action has eroded the shoreline through time to form 

steep, tall cliffs at various places along the coast. Forested hills and sloping terraces are 

found near river mouths. In many places, a wave-cut platform, underwater with the tides, 

fronts the ocean where small islands, sea stacks, and rocks dot the platform's surface. 

 
122 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

6.1.2. Oceanography 

The area around the sanctuary is characterized by distinct patterns in oceanographic 

circulation, winter storms, water flows influenced by topography and land-sea interactions. 

Large-scale processes are the predominant controlling factors for seasonal upwellingdownwelling fluctuations that produce a highly dynamic oceanographic environment. 

Large-scale movements of oceanic water masses, such as the California Current, which 

flows southward beyond the continental shelf, connect the sanctuary with the broader 

seascape of the eastern North Pacific Ocean and influence climate and marine productivity 

for the region. 

A general characterization of ocean climate and behavior for the sanctuary region was 

developed recently from satellite imagery (Pirhalla et al. 2009; Figure 4). Winter months 

(November-mid-February) are characterized by strong winds from the south (which forces 

downward transport of surface waters), heavy rainfall, and northward transport of the 

Columbia River discharge of fresh water and suspended materials. A spring transition 

period with variable conditions typically occurs in March. A spring/early summer bloom 

period occurs in April-June, when strengthened upwelling, increased surface water 

temperatures, and the Juan de Fuca outflow encourage increased plankton growth. During 

the summer/early fall period, offshore transport of surface waters, continued upwelling, 

increased light and temperature, with available nutrients out of the Juan de Fuca Strait 

combine to promote chlorophyll (phytoplankton) production along the entire Olympic 

Coast. A relaxation in upwelling, decrease in nutrients and chlorophyll, and shift toward 

northward flow of surface waters typify the fall transition period. 

On shore, the visible rise and fall of tides follow a mixed, semidiurnal pattern with two 

high-water and low-water phases per day. A mixed pattern means consecutive highs and 

lows have different tidal heights. The tidal range on the outer coast of Washington is large, 

averaging about 11.5 feet (3.5m) between high and low tides. Ocean surface water 

temperatures average about 9°C (48°F) in winter and 15°C (58°F) in summer. 
123 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Figure 4 Schematic of general physical factors controlling ocean surface response during January, 

May, July, and September (from Pirhalla et al. 2009). 

6.1.3. Water Quality 

Water quality within OCNMS is largely representative of natural ocean conditions, with 

relatively minor influence from human activities at sea and on land (ONMS 2008). By 

conventional measures, marine water quality within OCNMS is not notably compromised, 

in part because there have been few point sources of pollution in the vicinity, such as 

sewage outfalls or industrial discharge sites, and because there are no large industrial 

developments or large population centers adjacent to OCNMS. 

Stressors that may impact water quality in the sanctuary include hypoxic (low oxygen) 

conditions and harmful algal blooms. Results of increased water quality monitoring efforts 

in recent years indicate more frequent occurrence of hypoxic conditions as well as greater 

depression in oxygen levels than previously recorded (Chan et al. 2008; ONMS 2008), 

phenomena that have been tentatively linked to climate change impacts on ocean systems. 

Harmful algal blooms that impact wildlife and human populations are a naturally occurring 

phenomena subject to monitoring since the 1990’s. There is insufficient data to define an 
124 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

increased frequency or linkage of harmful algal blooms to human activities, such as 

nutrient inputs and stimulation of plankton growth (ONMS 2008). A large-volume oil spill 

is generally considered the greatest threat to water quality in the sanctuary – a lowprobability but high-impact threat. Another water quality concern is increased sediment 

loading in rivers due to upland development (primarily road building and logging) that may 

have impacted nearshore habitats (see section 6.2.2). 

Another source of pollutants that may negatively impact water quality is intentional 

discharges from vessels (e.g. sewage, graywater, ballast and bilge water). Vessel traffic 

volume through the sanctuary is high, as most vessels using the Strait of Juan de Fuca en 

route to the ports in Puget Sound and Vancouver, Canada, transit OCNMS. Certain vessel 

classes, particularly cruise ships, are capable of generating waste quantities on par with 

small cities. The following sections evaluate vessel traffic in OCNMS and the quantity and 

types of vessel discharges in the context of existing regulations. 

6.1.3.1. Vessel Discharges 

Wastewater is generated on all vessels through their normal operation. The quantity 

generated and the types of discharges vary depending on vessel size, function, and 

condition. The following sections review the regulatory context for vessel discharges to 

marine areas and the common types of vessel discharges, and provide an analysis of the 

annual inputs of specific discharges produced by the range of vessel types that use the 

sanctuary. Section 8 describes the potential direct and indirect environmental effects these 

discharges have on water quality and marine life within the sanctuary. 

Sewage (also referred to as blackwater) is defined as human body wastes and the wastes 

from toilets and other receptacles intended to receive or retain body wastes. Sewage from 

vessels is generally more concentrated than sewage from land-based sources, as it is diluted 

with less water when flushed (e.g., three quarts versus three to five gallons) and is not 

typically combined with graywater (NOAA 2008). Sewage is generally directed to a 

marine sanitation device (MSD). MSDs (described in more detail below) may either: a) 

hold untreated waste until it can be legally discharged into the ocean (beyond 3 nmi from 

shore) or pumped to a land based treatment facility, or b) treat the waste by reducing 

bacteria concentrations through chemical means and reducing the amount of solids by 

mechanical maceration or microbial decomposition prior to its discharge as treated effluent. 

Graywater originates from a variety of sources, such as showers, sinks, galleys, food waste 

pulpers and laundry, and often contains pathogen and nutrient concentrations equal to or 

higher than untreated domestic sewage (EPA 2008a). Graywater may be discharged 

immediately upon generation, diverted to a wastewater treatment apparatus or pumped to a 

long term holding tank. An individual vessel’s ability to hold or treat wastewater can be 

highly variable, and capacities for various vessel types have not been accurately 

characterized in available literature. 

Bilge water is the mixture of fresh water and seawater, oily fluids, lubricants, cleaning 

agents, paint and metal shavings and other similar wastes that accumulate in the lowest part 

of a vessel from a variety of different sources including the main and auxiliary engines; 
125 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

boilers, evaporators and related auxiliary systems; equipment and related components; and 

other mechanical and operational sources found throughout the machinery spaces of a 

vessel. Bilge water may also originate from onboard spills, wash waters generated during 

the daily operation of a vessel, or waste water from operational sources (e.g., condensate 

from air coolers, etc.) that collect in the bilge (EPA 2008a). 

Ballast water is water that is intentionally taken on board and stored in ballast tanks to 

provide stability under a range of loading scenarios. Ballast water may contain a variety of 

marine organisms that can be transported and discharged outside their native range where 

they pose a risk to local ecosystems. 

The OCNMS boundary lies between 25 and 40 nmi from shore. As outlined below, under 

current federal, state, and local regulations and agreements, treated or untreated sewage and 

graywater discharges by cruise ships and other vessels are allowed throughout a large 

portion of the sanctuary. Bilge water that lacks oily waste and ballast water may also be 

discharged in the sanctuary. 

Regulatory Context for Vessel Discharges - Sewage 

Sewage, graywater, and other vessel discharges are regulated through a framework of 

overlapping international treaties and standards, national laws and regulations, and local 

and area-specific rules. In general, the purpose of such rules and regulations is to protect 

water quality. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

(MARPOL) was created in 1973 to regulate marine debris including oil, chemicals, 

harmful substances in package form, and sewage and garbage that enter the marine 

environment from either accidental or operational causes. State and federal laws also 

regulate certain types of discharges from vessels under authority of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act, also informally called the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C.1251 et 

seq.), and other regulations. 

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted Annex IV of MARPOL in 2003, 

and revisions that now apply to all vessels over 400 Gross Tons (GT) or certified to carry 

more than 15 persons require an approved sewage treatment system and prohibit discharge 

of treated sewage within three nmi from shore and untreated sewage within 12 nmi from 

shore (IMO 2002). Although the United States did not ratify MARPOL Annex IV, it does 

apply to most foreign flagged ships. In 2009 74% of the vessels included in the analysis of 

sewage discharges below (Table 6) were foreign flagged. 

The U.S. regulates such discharges under the CWA. Section 312 of the CWA (33 U.S.C 

1322) requires federal performance standards for MSDs, which have been described by the 

U.S. Coast Guard (33 CFR Part 159). Standards for discharge from MSDs were developed 

by the U.S. EPA and are described in 40 CFR Part 140. Standards for discharge from 

MSDs were developed by the U.S. EPA and are described in 40 CFR Part 140. 

Collectively, CWA Section 312 and its implementing regulations: require all vessels with 

toilet facilities to have operable MSDs; allow discharges of treated sewage any distance 

from shore; and allow discharges of treated or untreated sewage beyond three miles from 

shore or at land based pump-out facilities. Within state waters, vessel discharges must 
126 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

meet Washington state water quality standards, yet most MSDs do not meet those 

standards. Thus, the state of Washington guides vessels to pumpout onshore to treatment 

facilities or to withhold discharges until outside of state waters. 

Washington state does not have regulations that specifically address sewage discharge from 

ships but does require that state water quality standards be met for these discharges. 

Because traditional MSDs are not designed to meet those standards, Washington state 

guides vessels to pump out onshore for treatment or to hold sewage until outside of state 

waters. 

In 2004, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was developed between the NorthWest 

CruiseShip Association, Port of Seattle and the Washington Department of Ecology 

(WDE), which prohibits sewage and graywater discharges from cruise ships within state 

waters, up to the border with Canada and 3 nmi from shore off the West Coast, except for 

ships using advanced water treatment systems. In 2007, this MOU was modified to 

eliminate any discharge into waters of the sanctuary of residual solids from either a Type II 

marine sanitation device (MSD) or an advanced waste water treatment system (WDE 

2009). In 2010, OCNMS proposed amendment of this voluntary agreement to prohibit all 

discharges from cruise ships into waters of the sanctuary, but this amendment was opposed 

by the cruise ship industry, primarily to avoid complicating the MOU with multiple 

boundaries subject to differing MOU provisions. Representatives from the NorthWest 

CruiseShip Association have confirmed that affiliated organizations currently avoid all 

wastewater discharges in OCNMS, a practice that is consistent with regulatory 

requirements in national marine sanctuaries in California (John Hansen, North West and 

Canada Cruise Association). 

In addition, OCNMS regulations specifically prohibit discharge in the sanctuary of any 

material or matter, including primary treated sewage (e.g., separation of solids) and oily 

wastes from bilge pumping, but OCNMS regulations include exceptions for biodegradable 

effluent incidental to vessel use and generated by marine sanitation devices (MSDs) and 

water generated by routine vessel operations (e.g., cooling water, deck wash down and 

graywater). 

Another measure that indirectly limits discharges near the coast and in the sanctuary is the 

Area to be Avoided (ATBA), a vessel traffic measure that applies to vessels above 1600 

GT and those carrying petroleum and hazardous materials as cargo. The ATBA routes 

these vessels 25 miles off the coast except at the approach to the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

(Figure 8; see section 6.4.2). The ATBA covers approximately 70% of OCNMS. Thus, 

the majority of the discharges from large commercial vessels estimated in Table 6 and 

Table 7 would take place in the 30% of the sanctuary that is outside the ATBA. 

Marine Sanitation Devices 

The CWA requires that any vessel with installed toilet facilities must also have an operable 

MSD. Three general types of MSDs are available and in use. Type I MSDs rely on 

maceration and chemical disinfection for treatment of the waste prior to its discharge into 

the water, and are only legal in vessels under 65 feet in length (EPA 2010a). Type II 
127 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

MSDs utilize aeration and aerobic bacteria in addition to maceration for the breakdown of 

solids. As with Type I MSDs, the waste is chemically disinfected, typically with chlorine, 

ammonia or formaldehyde, prior to discharge. Type II MSDs are legal in any size class of 

vessel, and there are a variety of different types (EPA 2008b). Type III MSDs are storage 

tanks, may contain deodorizers and other chemicals, predominantly chlorine, and are used 

to retain waste until it can be disposed of at an appropriate pump-out facility or at sea. 

Most MSDs do not have the same nutrient removal capability as land-based treatment 

plants. Thus, even treated vessel wastewater can have elevated nutrient concentrations. 

Advanced wastewater treatment systems (AWTS) are a complex form of Type II MSD that 

meet a higher standards and testing regime as set out in federal law, and utilize techniques 

such as ultrafiltration and UV sterilization to provide more effective treatment. AWTS 

have been installed on some larger passenger vessels, and often combine blackwater with 

all or portions of graywater. The performance of these units far surpasses the standards for 

fecal coliform bacteria as well as other conventional pollutants set forth for Type II MSDs. 

However, due to the concentrated sewage material coming into these systems, some 

pollutants such as ammonia often have higher levels than sewage from land-based 

treatment plants. 

Regulatory Context for Vessel Discharges - Graywater 

Currently, there are no existing or proposed international regulations regarding graywater. 

The CWA and its implementing regulations and other broadly applicable federal 

regulations regarding vessel discharges, neither explicitly prohibit nor explicitly allow 

graywater discharges from vessels. Current OCNMS regulations allow discharge of 

graywater as water generated by routine vessel operations. Under voluntary measures 

defined in the MOU between the NorthWest CruiseShip Association, Port of Seattle, and 

WDE, cruise ships represented by the association will not discharge graywater (treated or 

untreated) in waters subject to the MOU, with exceptions for vessels with AWTS. 

Beginning in 2008, graywater discharges from cruise ships were subject to National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting under a Vessel General 

Permit that requires graywater from cruise ships be treated prior to discharge if discharging 

within one nmi from shore. This treated graywater must meet strict standards for fecal 

coliform and chlorine concentrations that far exceed the standards for MSD effluent (EPA 

2008b). The Vessel General Permit does not have treatment requirements for cruise ships 

when discharging underway (i.e., greater than one nmi from shore and when traveling 

faster than 6 knots). Graywater discharges from non-passenger vessels, with the exception 

of recreational vessels, commercial fishing vessels and non-recreational vessels less than 

79 feet in length, are now subject to the (NPDES permitting through the Vessel General 

Permit. Under this permit, there are not specific discharge standards, however captains are 

required to minimize graywater discharges while in port and within 1 nmi from shore (EPA 

2008b). 

Discharge Volume Estimation Methods 

In order to evaluate the potential for water quality impacts to the sanctuary from vessel 

discharges, estimates of discharges generated by classes of vessels that transit OCNMS 

were calculated based on the time a given vessel class spent in sanctuary during 2009 
128 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

(vessel days) and published waste generation rates. Vessel days for a given vessel class 

was calculated by determining the cumulative time that individual vessels of a specified 

class were within sanctuary boundaries. Sewage generation rates used for estimates 

provided in Table 6 were based on information from MSD manufacturers. Additional 

details regarding discharge volume estimation methods can be found in Appendix K. 

Although many vessels do have wastewater holding tanks and may not discharge while 

operating in the sanctuary, it is not possible to accurately characterize the times, locations, 

and volumes of sewage and other discharges that actually occur in the sanctuary. For the 

purpose of this document, analysis was conducted on the potential to discharge to sanctuary 

waters based on estimated waste generation rates and residence time in the sanctuary. 

Discharge volumes are equal to waste generation rates, which can be considered a worstcase scenario because discharges may or may not occur in waters of the sanctuary. One 

factor that would influence wastewater discharges into waters of the sanctuary is average 

transit time. Large, commercial vessels that comply with the ATBA (vessels >1,600 GT, 

and tugs with tank barges) would transit waters of the sanctuary only at the western 

approach to the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Figure 8). For cruise ships (passenger vessels 

>1,600 GT), the average transit time in OCNMS is 74 minutes (1.2 hours; Table 11). 

Commercial vessels average about 170 minutes in OCNMS. Public vessels and tank 

vessels average roughly 200 minutes in OCNMS (Table 11). While the estimated potential 

wastewater discharge volumes represent a threat to water quality, actual discharges may not 

occur or impact OCNMS water quality because transit times provide relatively short 

windows of opportunity for wastewater discharges to occur in OCNMS. 

Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharges 

The cruise ship industry is rapidly expanding in the Pacific Northwest, with the number of 

passengers through the Port of Seattle increasing from 120,000 to nearly 900,000 between 

2000 and 2009 (WDE 2010). In 2009, 280 cruise ships passed through OCNMS (VEAT 

2009), representing 14 vessel days in sanctuary waters (see Passenger Vessels >1,600 GT 

in Table 6). If the passenger numbers on these cruises continues to increase, there will be a 

proportional increase in wastewater generation. The largest cruise ships are capable of 

carrying a combined population of about 4,000 passengers and crew (WDE 2009). 

Estimates of potential wastewater discharges from cruise ships (i.e., passenger vessels 

>1,600 GT) presented in Table 6 and 7 assume an average of 2,921 passengers and crew on 

board, the average reported for cruise ships using the Port of Seattle (WDE 2009). Despite 

cruise ships spending relatively little cumulative time in the sanctuary (vessel days) 

compared to other large vessel classes, the potential sewage discharge volume from cruise 

ships is higher than that estimated for all other large vessel classes and represents 63% of 

all potential sewage discharges in the sanctuary (Table 6). The average graywater 

generation rate of 67 gallons/person/day (EPA 2008a) could potentially result in millions of 

gallons of graywater discharged from cruise ships into the sanctuary annually, which 

dwarfs potential discharges from all other vessel classes and represents 75% of the all 

potential graywater discharges in the sanctuary (Table 7). 
129 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Commercial (non passenger) Vessels Wastewater Discharges 

The typical composition of sewage and graywater discharges from non-passenger vessels 

has not been as extensively studied as that from cruise ships. Most commercial, nonpassenger vessels are equipped with Type I or Type II MSDs, so the composition of 

sewage discharges in terms of constituents and concentrations are likely to be similar to the 

cruise ship discharges evaluated by the EPA (2008a) except for cruise ships equipped with 

AWTS. The estimated total amount of sewage discharged in the sanctuary by nonpassenger carrying, commercial vessels (including commercial fishing vessels, commercial 

vessels and tank vessels) is between 71,991 and 392,676 gallons per year (Table 6). In 

sum, these vessels produced about 20% of the potential sewage and 23% of the potential 

graywater discharges into the OCNMS in 2009. 

Table 6 Potential Gallons of Sewage Discharges in Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary in 2009 

Vessel Classification 

Number of 

Transits 

through 

OCNMS 

Number 

of 

People 

Aboard 

Vessel 

Days in 

OCNMS 

Sewage 

Discharge 

Volume 

(low) a

Sewage 

Discharge 

Volume 

(avg) b

Sewage 

Discharge 

Volume 

(high) c

Percent 

contribution 

Commercial Fishing 

Vessel 3,006 4 1,577 34,694 

 

94,620 

 

189,240 9.5% 

Charter Fishing 

Vessel 

 

1,148 11 287 16,732 

 

45,633 

 

91,266 4.6% 

Recreational Fishing 

Vessel 

 

10,351 3 2,588 39,851 

 

108,686 

 

217,371 10.9% 

Commercial Vessel 

< 300GT 

 

249 4 34 752 

 

2,052 

 

4,104 0.2% 

Commercial Vessel 

300-1599 GT 

 

65 12 10 653 

 

1,782 

 

3,564 0.2% 

Commercial Vessel 

> 1600 GT 

 

4,272 15 280 23,117 

 

63,045 

 

126,090 6.3% 

Passenger Vessel 

< 300 GT 

 

14 300 1 1,320 

 

3,600 

 

7,200 0.4% 

Passenger Vessel 

300-1599 GT 

 

9 500 1 2,200 

 

6,000 

 

12,000 0.6% 

Passenger Vessel 

> 1600 GT 

 

280 2,921 14 231,343 

 

630,936 

 

1,261,872 63.3% 

Public Vessel 

< 300 GT 

 

16 2 2 23 

 

63 

 

126 0.0% 

Public Vessel 

300-1599 GT 

 

75 8 10 458 

 

1,248 

 

2,496 0.1% 

Public Vessel 

> 1600 GT 

 

157 15 17 1,427 

 

3,893 

 

7,785 0.4% 

Tank Vessel 

1,401 15 145 11,996 

 

32,715 

 

65,430 3.3% 

Tug with tank barge 

189 4 35 779 

 

2,124 

 

4,248 0.2% 

TOTAL 21,232 N/A 5,003 365,345 996,396 1,992,792 100% 

a. Low sewage discharge volume estimate is based on a waste generation rate of 5.5 gallons/person/day. 

b. The average sewage discharge volume estimate is based on a waste generation rate of 15 

gallons/person/day. 

c. The maximum sewage generation rate is based on a 30 gallon/person/day. 
130 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Although the number of transits and vessel days for non-passenger vessels are many times 

greater than that of cruise ships, the total combined discharge volume from non-passenger 

vessels is much less because these vessels have substantially fewer passengers. 

Table 7 Potential Gallons of Graywater Discharges in OCNMS in 2009 

Vessel Classification 

Number of 

Transits 

through 

OCNMS 

Number 

of 

People 

Aboard 

Vessel 

Days in 

OCNMS 

Graywater 

Discharge 

Volume 

(low) a

Graywater 

Discharge 

Volume 

(avg.) b

Graywater 

Discharge 

Volume 

(high) c

Percent 

Contribution 

Commercial Fishing 

Vessel 3,006 4 1,577 227,088 422,636 

 

750,652 11.2%

Charter Fishing 

Vessel

 

1,148 11 287 Graywater potential discharges were not estimated for 

charter and recreational fishing vessels, due to 

uncertainties about vessel equipment and practices. Recreational 

Fishing Vessel

 

10,351 3 2,588 

Commercial Vessel 

< 300GT

 

249 4 34 4,925 9,166 16,279 0.2%

Commercial Vessel 

300-1599 GT

 

65 12 10 4,277 7,960 

 

14,137 0.2%

Commercial Vessel 

> 1600 GT

 

4,272 15 280 151,308 281,601 

 

500,157 7.5%

Passenger Vessel 

< 300 GT

 

14 300 1 8,640 16,080 

 

28,560 0.4%

Passenger Vessel 

300-1599 GT

 

9 500 1 14,400 26,800 

 

47,600 0.7%

Passenger Vessel 

> 1600 GT

 

280 2,921 14 1,514,246 2,818,181 

 

5,005,426 74.9%

Public Vessel 

< 300 GT

 

16 2 2 151 281 

 

500 0.0%

Public Vessel 

300-1599 GT

 

75 8 10 2,995 5,574 

 

9,901 0.1%

Public Vessel 

> 1600 GT

 

157 15 17 9,342 17,387 

 

30,881 0.5%

Tank Vessel 

1,401 15 145 78,516 146,127 

 

259,539 3.9%

Tug with tank barge 

189 4 35 5,098 9,487 

 

16,850 0.3%

TOTAL 21,232 N/A 5,003 2,020,986 3,761,280 6,680,482 100% 

a. Low graywater discharge volume estimate is based on a waste generation rate of 36 gallons/person/day. 

b. The graywater average discharge volume estimate is based on a waste generation rate of 67 gallons/person/day. 

c. The maximum graywater generation rate is based on a 119 gallon/person/day. 

Charter and Personal Recreational Vessel Wastewater Discharges 

OCMNS is a popular recreational fishing area in the Pacific Northwest that spans 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife marine management units 2, 3, 4 and 4B. 

Private and charter vessels using the sanctuary originate primarily from the ports of Neah 

Bay, La Push, and Westport. In 2009, there were over 40,000 angler trips to the sanctuary. 

Of these trips about half were conducted on small private or charter vessels that typically 
131 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

carry 6 or fewer passengers. The remaining trips were conducted on larger charter vessels 

that carried an average of 10-13 passengers. Reliable data regarding the type(s) of MSDs 

(if any) installed on these vessels is unavailable. The majority of these vessels are under 65 

feet, so they could use any approved Type I, II, or III MSD, or could have no MSD of any 

type. 

The annual sewage discharge estimates for recreational and charter fishing vessels are 

between 56,583 and 308,637 gallons based upon waste generation rates used for other 

vessel classes (Table 6). Thus, these vessel classes potentially could contribute as much as 

15.5% of sewage discharged to sanctuary waters. This likely overestimates true sewage 

discharges because these vessels are typically on day trips and may hold waste using a 

Type III MSD until it can be discharged at a shore-side pump-out facility. Waste 

generation rates may also be substantially lower due to the estimated short duration of 

fishing trips (six hours). Graywater discharge estimates were not calculated for 

recreational fishing vessels, as most would not have galleys or sinks, and therefore would 

not generate sizeable volumes of graywater. 

Bilge Water Discharges 

Bilge water is the mixture of fresh water and seawater, oily fluids, lubricants, cleaning 

fluids and other wastes that accumulate in the bilge, or lowest part of a vessel hull, from a 

variety sources including leaks, engines and other parts of the propulsion system and other 

mechanical and operation sources found throughout the vessel (EPA 2008a). All vessels 

accumulate bilge water through their normal operation, but the generation rates depend on 

a variety of factors including hull integrity, vessel size, engine room design, preventative 

maintenance and the age of the vessel (EPA 2008a; EPA 2010b). In addition to oil and 

grease, bilge water may also contain a variety of other solid and liquid contaminants, such 

as rags, metal shavings, soaps, detergents, dispersants and degreasers (EPA 2008a). 

Several national and international regulations govern allowable discharges of bilge water in 

an effort to reduce oil contamination of the oceans. These regulations require that ships 

have in operation oily-water separating equipment and that discharges may not exceed 15 

parts per million oil. OCNMS regulations prohibit all discharge of oily waste from bilge 

pumping. Because sanctuary regulations do not specify a limit, this has been interpreted by 

ONMS as prohibiting any detectable amount of oil as evidenced by a visible sheen (EPA 

2008a; 73 FR 70488). Under current OCNMS regulations discharge of bilge water that 

does not leave a visible sheen is allowed. No estimates are available for bilge water 

discharge volumes in the sanctuary. 

Ballast Water Discharges 

Ballast water from ships has been a major source of non-native species introduction around 

the world. The current best practice for managing ballast water is an at-sea exchange of 

ballast water, wherein coastal water taken at or near a port is replaced with less biologically 

productive open oceanic water. Fewer organisms are present in open ocean water than in 

coastal waters. This practice is not 100% effective as some non-native organisms can 

survive until discharged in a foreign port or coastal area (NOAA 2008). 
132 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

OCNMS is partially protected from the introduction of non-native species through existing 

federal, state and international regulations associated with ballast water management. In July 

2004, the U.S. Coast Guard published a final rule that changed the national voluntary Ballast 

Water Management program to a mandatory one requiring all vessels equipped with ballast 

water tanks and bound for ports or places of the United States to conduct a mid-ocean ballast 

water exchange (more than 200 nmi offshore), retain their ballast water onboard, or use an 

alternative, environmentally sound, ballast water management method approved by the 

USCG (69 FR 44952). The state of Washington’s regulation has this same requirement for 

mid-ocean exchange that applies vessels 300 gross tons or larger that have traveled outside 

the economic exclusion zone (EEZ). For vessels that do not leave the EEZ, ballast water 

exchanges must be conducted beyond 50 nmi from shore (WDFW 2009). These measures 

substantially reduce the risk of invasive species introductions. Washington State ballast 

water management regulations only apply to vessels bound for American ports; however 

Canada has adopted the 2004 IMO International Convention for the Control and 

Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediment (Transport Canada 2010). This 

agreement provides the same restrictions as Washington state regulations, and all ships 

calling on Canadian ports are required to comply (IMO 2004). In summary, these regulations 

and agreements prohibit discharge of all ballast water that originates from distant nearshore 

areas but do allow discharge into the sanctuary and other WA state waters of ballast water 

that originates from an open ocean exchange. 

6.1.4. Climate/Meteorology 

The maritime climate off the Olympic Coast is influenced by topography, location along 

the windward coast, prevailing westerly winds, and the position and intensity of high and 

low pressure centers over the North Pacific Ocean (Phillips and Donaldson 1972). The 

strong oceanic influence creates a climate of western Washington characterized by 

relatively mild winters and moderately dry, cool summers. In the late spring and summer, 

westerly to northwesterly winds associated with the North Pacific high pressure system 

produce a dry season. In late fall and winter, southwesterly and westerly winds associated 

with the Aleutian low pressure system provide ample moisture and cloud cover for the wet 

season beginning in October. Moist air transported across the ocean rises and cools on the 

windward terrestrial slopes, giving rise to relatively high rainfalls in western Washington. 

Annual rainfall amounts greater than 100 inches (254 cm) per year on the western portions 

of the Olympic Peninsula contribute to seasonally high inputs of river waters to the marine 

system. 

Large-scale oceanographic and atmospheric events across the Pacific basin also influence of 

Olympic Coast waters. For example, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation is primarily driven 

by sea surface temperatures along the equatorial Pacific Ocean and is a major source of 

inter-annual climate and ecosystem productivity variability in the Pacific Northwest, with 

events lasting 6 to 18 months. Likewise, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a long-term cycle 

in ocean temperature with warm or cool phases that can each last 20 to 30 years, influences 

the climate in the Pacific Northwest. Climatic cycles such as these are natural events and 

often are associated with strong fluctuations in weather patterns and biological resources. 
133 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

6.1.5. Climate Change 

Over the next century, climate change is projected to profoundly impact coastal and marine 

ecosystems on a global scale, with anticipated effects on sea level, temperature, storm 

intensity and current patterns. At a regional scale, we can anticipate significant shifts in the 

species composition of ecological communities, seasonal flows in freshwater systems, rates 

of primary productivity, sea level rise, coastal flooding and erosion, and wind-driven 

circulation patterns (Scavia et al. 2002). Rising seawater temperatures may give rise to 

increased algal blooms, major shifts in species distributions, local species extirpations, and 

increases in pathogenic diseases (Epstein et al. 1993, Harvell et al. 1999). A better 

understanding of ocean responses to global scale climatic changes is needed in order to 

improve interpretation of observable ecosystem fluctuations, such as temperature changes, 

hypoxic events and ocean acidification that may or may not be directly coupled to climate 

change. 
134 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

6.2. BIOLOGICAL SETTING 

Habitats are where organisms make their lives, where they survive, find food, water, 

shelter, and space. The collected habitats of an area create the place for the living 

ecosystem. Healthy marine habitats are the foundation of healthy communities of marine 

life. 

OCNMS is comprised of a broad diversity of habitats, some we can see from land, others 

hidden beneath the water, including rocky shores, sandy beaches, nearshore kelp forests, 

sea stacks and islands, open ocean or pelagic waters, as well as the continental shelf 

seafloor and submarine canyons. In addition to aquatic habitats in the sanctuary, islands 

and pinnacles, or sea stacks, along the coast provide nesting and resting sites for California 

and Steller sea lions, harbor and elephant seals, and thousands of seabirds. 

6.2.1. Intertidal Habitats 

Most accessible to people is the intertidal zone, a habitat that alternates between the dry 

and wet worlds where rock benches, tide pools and surge channels are formed amid 

boulders and rocky outcrops. These substrates provide both temporary and permanent 

homes for an abundance of “seaweeds” (e.g., macroalgae and seagrasses), invertebrates 

such as sea stars, hermit crabs, nudibranchs, snails, and sea anemones, and intertidal fish. 

Between rocky headlands are numerous sand-covered beaches and mixed rock/cobble 

benches that host an array of intertidal invertebrates and fishes – food for both shorebirds 

and humans. Surf smelt spawn at high tide on sand-gravel beaches where surf action bathes 

and aerates the eggs. 

Natural conditions in intertidal habitats of the Pacific Northwest challenge their inhabitants 

with extreme fluctuations in temperature, salinity and oxygen, along with powerful 

physical forces such as wave action and sand scouring. Yet, rocky shores of the Olympic 

Coast have among the highest biodiversity of marine invertebrates and macroalgae of all 

eastern Pacific coastal sites from Central America to Alaska (Suchanek 1979; Dethier 

1992; PISCO 2002; Blanchette et al. in press). Macroalgae or seaweeds are highly diverse 

in the region, with an estimated 120 species thought to occur within the sanctuary rocky 

intertidal zone (Dethier 1988). 

With limited exceptions, nearshore and intertidal habitats in the sanctuary are remarkably 

undisturbed by human use and development (e.g., armoring, wetlands alteration, dredging, 

and land-based construction) that have modified shorelines in more urbanized areas. The 

remote location, low levels of human habitation, protections provided by the wilderness 

designation of Olympic National Park’s coast, and restricted access to tribal reservations 

have allowed these coastal habitats to persist largely intact. At the few locations where 

shoreline armoring has been employed or where human visitation has focused on intertidal 

areas for food collection and recreation, impacts do not appear to be dramatic or 

widespread (Erickson and Wullschleger 1998; Erickson 2005). 
135 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Monitoring conducted by Olympic National Park since 1989 indicates that these habitats 

are healthy and do not appear to be changing substantially in response to human influences. 

Large-scale disturbances related primarily to extreme winter weather cause periodic 

damage to mussel beds (Paine and Levin 1981) and other intertidal species. Coastal 

ecologists recently have designed studies to better detect changes that may result from 

effects of global climate change, such as sea level rise, increasing acidity and temperatures, 

and changes in storm frequency and magnitude. Local trends in these parameters are 

uncertain, however, and no definitive results have yet been published. 

Relatively few non-indigenous or exotic species have been reported in the sanctuary, and, 

of those, only a few are invasive and therefore threatening to community structure and 

function (ONMS 2008). OCNMS-led rapid assessment intertidal surveys in 2001 and 2002 

and a larvae settlement study (deRivera et al. 2005) identified a few non-indigenous 

species. One invasive species of concern, the green crab, has been found at sites both north 

and south of the sanctuary, but no green crab have be found through routine monitoring 

near the sanctuary. A program to prevent introduction and spread of invasive species is 

managed by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Degradation of intertidal habitats, in the form of marine debris, is visible to even the casual 

visitor to the shore. The majority of this debris is plastic that ranges from large floats to 

beverage bottles to tiny fragments the size of sand particles. Much of the debris originates 

from commercial fisheries, both international and domestic. 

6.2.2. Nearshore Habitats 

In nearshore areas, canopy kelp beds form a productive, physically complex and protected 

habitat with a rich biological community association of fish, invertebrates and sea otters. 

Annual monitoring and quantification of the floating kelp canopy has been conducted 

since 1989 by the Washington Department of Natural Resources and in collaboration with 

OCNMS since 1995. Although the canopy changes every year, these kelp beds are 

generally considered stable, and the area covered by floating kelp has been increasing 

along the outer coast and western portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Figure 5). This 

increase may be due in part to a growing population of sea otters and subsequent decline 

in grazing sea urchins or may be influenced by changes in oceanographic conditions. In 

contrast, extensive logging of the Olympic Peninsula, an area of very high rainfall, has 

markedly increased sediment loads in rivers in the past. Long-term residents along the 

coast have noted a reduction in kelp beds near river mouths, which may have been 

associated with siltation of nearshore habitat and reduced light penetration (Chris 

Morganroth III, personal communication in Norse 1994). Recently documented, 

widespread hypoxic, or low oxygen conditions in nearshore areas off Oregon and 

Washington coasts have stressed and killed marine life. Such hypoxic conditions appear 

to be increasing in severity and frequency and may result from anomalous weather and 

oceanographic patterns. 
136 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Figure 5 Kelp Distribution 

Nearshore habitats off sand beaches that occur all along the outer Olympic Coast and 

dominate the southern shores of the sanctuary tend to be less diverse, lacking macroalgae 

and physically complex substrate. These are high energy environments where the inshore 

shelf is relatively shallow. Nutrients delivered by upwelling currents support 

phytoplankton biomass that is grazed and recycled by zooplankton. Wind and wave action 

support transport and retention of productive waters near shore, which sustains sand beach 

infaunal communities of amphipods, worms, and razor clams. 

Relatively few exotic or non-indigenous species have been reported in the sanctuary and, of 

those, only a few are invasive and therefore threatening to community structure and 

function in the nearshore. Observations by coastal ecologists from Olympic National Park 

and OCNMS of increased amounts of the invasive brown algae Sargassum muticum, the 

documented range expansion of invasive ascidians (tunicates or sea squirts) (deRivera et al. 

2005), and the encroachment of the invasive green crab to areas both south and north of the 

sanctuary all suggest that negative impacts from non-indigenous species may increase in 

the future. 

6.2.3. Pelagic (Water Column) Habitats 

The pelagic habitat, or water column of the open ocean, is the most extensive habitat of the 

sanctuary. Many fish, seabird, and marine mammal species are pelagic and have relatively 

little association with seafloor or nearshore habitats. Phytoplankton at the base of the food 
137 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

web is most abundant in the euphotic, or sunlit, layer near the surface of the water column. 

This primary productivity supports a food chain based on grazing zooplankton, fish, and 

marine bacteria. Ocean productivity can be nutrient limited and is influenced by largescale oceanographic currents and cycles. Seabirds can serve as indicators of productivity - 

poor survival of one year’s young can indicate nutrient poor and low productivity cycles in 

the coastal marine system. Naturally occurring harmful algal blooms of plankton put 

humans and some marine wildlife at risk of biotoxin poisoning, either from plankton or 

from shellfish consumption. 

In some marine areas of the world, pelagic habitats have been degraded by chemical 

contaminants and wildlife conflicts with vessel traffic and noise pollution. Whereas 

variability in contaminant concentrations complicates characterization of water column 

pollutants, contaminants in animal and plant tissues can provide an integrated measure of 

bioavailability of compounds that are present at low or variable levels in the marine system. 

In the sanctuary, chemical concentrations were recently measured in a variety of 

invertebrates and sea otters for a study of sea otter health (Brancato et al. 2009), the West 

Coast Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, and for NOAA’s Status and 

Trends, Mussel Watch Program. Contaminant concentrations were found to be low in all 

organisms, with very few exceptions (ONMS 2008). 

The potential for contamination of pelagic habitats by petroleum products is a concern 

reinforced by experience and justified by the volume of large vessel traffic at the western 

end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Four of the five largest oil spills in Washington state 

history have occurred in or moved into the area now designated as the sanctuary. In the 

decade before sanctuary designation, two major oil spills released more than 325,000 

gallons of petroleum products that impacted marine ecosystems and human communities 

on the outer Washington coast. 

Noise pollution, or the cumulative acoustic signature of human activities, is an aspect of the 

pelagic habitat of OCNMS that has been has not been well characterized or evaluated for 

potential impacts on wildlife in the sanctuary. 

6.2.4. Seafloor Habitats 

The ocean floor of the sanctuary covers over 3,300 square miles and is comprised of a 

variety of physically and biologically complex habitats. These habitats are shaped by the 

geology and topography of the seafloor and enhanced by living organisms like corals and 

sponges. Prior to development of remote sensing techniques, water depth measurements 

and bottom samples provided spot data that was extrapolated to create crude seafloor maps. 

Modern exploration and detailed habitat mapping involves carefully planned and costly 

surveys from large vessels using sophisticated technology. Thus far, OCNMS has 

completed high resolution habitat mapping for about 25 percent of its seafloor, while 

information on remaining areas lacks resolution and specificity for development of accurate 

seafloor habitat maps (Figure 6). As a result, generalizations about the sanctuary’s seafloor 

habitats and their biological communities are difficult to make. 

 
138 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Figure 6 Habitat Map 

The northern portion of the sanctuary is dominated by the Juan de Fuca Canyon and trough 

(the shallower extensions of the canyon closer to the Strait of Juan de Fuca), which are 

complex, glacially carved features containing a mixture of soft sediments, with significant 

cobble and boulder patches and scattered large glacial erratics (boulders) deposited during 

ice retreat. High-relief, submerged topographic features serve as fish aggregation areas. 

Low-resolution surveys have revealed a generally wide and featureless continental shelf in 

the southern portion of the sanctuary dominated by soft substrates (sand and mud bottoms, 

to pebble and cobble) with scattered areas of rock outcrop and spires. The head of the 

Quinault Canyon also lies within the sanctuary boundary. 

Detailed information on historic and current conditions in the sanctuary’s seafloor habitats 

is limited because technological challenges and expense have limited the areas that have 

been directly viewed. Thus, to a large extent the current condition of seafloor habitats must 

be inferred. The most widespread anthropogenic impact to seafloor habitats is likely to 

have resulted from the bottom trawl fishery that uses gear known to reduce complexity, 

alter the physical structure of seafloor habitats, and damage biogenic habitat, or habitat 

formed by living organisms, such as corals and sponges (NRC 2002; Auster et al. 1996, 

Auster and Langton 1999, Norse and Watling 1999, Thrush and Dayton 2002). Bottom 

trawling and long-line fishing has occurred widely throughout OCNMS for several 

decades, likely over all but the roughest of seafloor habitats. Where biologically-structured 

habitats existed on the sanctuary seafloor, it is likely they have been altered by fishing 
139 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

practices, except perhaps in the roughest of terrain that fishermen avoided. Recovery of 

biologically-structured habitats is expected to occur very slowly, even in the absence of 

future pressures, due to low growth and reproductive cycles of the habitat-forming 

organisms such as corals. 

In recent years, fishery management measures that restrict footrope gear size and limit 

areas open to bottom trawlers, and in some places long-line and pot gear, have mitigated 

widespread seafloor impacts of bottom trawling and focused trawl effort more toward soft 

seafloor substrates where gear impacts on the physical habitat are less of a concern. 

Analysis of seafloor habitat data used for groundfish Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 

designation indicates that approximately six percent of the sanctuary is hard substrate with 

potential to host biologically structured habitat. Of this, 29 percent lies within the Olympic 

2 EFH conservation area (Figure 7). Recent surveys by OCNMS researchers have 

documented corals and other biologically-structured habitat in other areas (Brancato et al. 

2007), which indicates this analysis may underestimate the historic or current distribution 

of biologically-structured habitat. 

Figure 7 Potential historic distribution of biologically structured habitat 

associated with hard substrate overlaid on Olympic 2 EFH Conservation 

Area (data from Curt Whitmire, NOAA) 

Submarine cable installations in OCNMS have been monitored and shown to cause acute 

and localized seafloor impacts, short-term habitat disturbance in soft sediments and more 
140 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

persistent physical disturbance in hard substrates (Brancato and Bowlby 2002). Cable 

trenching, however, impacts a very small portion of the sanctuary seafloor. 

Sediment contaminant levels (i.e., heavy metals and organic pollutants) in OCNMS are 

generally low and do not appear to be increasing (ONMS 2008). Marine debris does 

compromise seafloor habitat quality, but its impacts in OCNMS are not well-documented. 

Rough waters and complex seabed features increase the potential for fishing gear 

entanglement and loss. Studies from Puget Sound and beyond reveal that abandoned 

fishing gear can remain for decades, potentially entangling and killing species that 

encounter the gear (NRC Inc. 2008). Assessment of derelict fishing gear on the seafloor 

has been limited to coastal areas around Cape Flattery and sites viewed for characterization 

of seafloor habitat and seafloor community studies. These later studies have documented 

lost fishing gear, most commonly long-line gear entangled on seafloor features and corals 

(Brancato et al. 2007). 

6.2.5. Benthic Invertebrates 

The majority of the sanctuary’s seafloor where bottom dwelling, or benthic invertebrates 

live is composed of sand and mud. This submerged habitat is home to a variety of 

invertebrates similar to those found in intertidal areas – brittle stars, sea urchins, worms, 

snails, and shrimp. Dungeness crab and razor clams have long sustained commercial and 

recreational harvest off the Olympic Coast. 

Hard-bottom substrates harbor rich invertebrate assemblages, including deepwater coral 

and sponges (Brancato et al. 2007). These living organisms with branching, upright 

structure are, in turn, habitat where other invertebrates and fish find hiding places, 

attachment sites, food sources, and breeding and nursery grounds in relatively inhospitable 

and otherwise featureless environment (Whitmire and Clarke 2007). The distribution of 

such deepwater communities, as well as their species richness and basic biology, are not 

well documented but are currently under scientific investigation. 

Human activities that impact seafloor habitats (described in section 6.2.4) can also harm 

benthic invertebrates. Submarine cable installation and buoy anchors can physically 

disturb and displace benthic invertebrates, but the cumulative area of impact is relatively 

small given small size of most anchors and the narrow path of disturbance and relatively 

few cables installed in the area (Brancato and Bowlby 2002). The most widespread human 

impact to benthic invertebrates likely results from bottom contact fishing gear, especially 

bottom trawl fisheries with footropes and roller gear that repeatedly traverse relatively wide 

swaths of the seafloor. 

6.2.6. Fishes 

Among the many species of fish that inhabit OCNMS are commercially important ones that 

include at least 30 species of rockfish, 15 or more species of flatfish, Pacific halibut, 

Pacific whiting (or hake), sablefish, and salmon. Five species of Pacific salmon (chinook, 

sockeye, pink, chum and coho) occur along the outer coast of Washington and breed in the 

Olympic Peninsula’s rivers and streams. Three similar salmonid species found in 
141 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

freshwater systems (sea-run cutthroat trout, bull trout, and steelhead) spend portions of 

their lives in nearshore marine waters. Nearshore habitats of the sanctuary presumably are 

important for salmon that spawn in adjacent streams and rivers, but juvenile salmon use of 

nearshore habitats off the Olympic Coast is not well understood. The sanctuary also is part 

of the migration corridor of both juvenile and adult salmonids from California, Oregon, 

British Columbia, and Washington rivers beyond the Olympic Peninsula. Migratory 

species, such as sharks, albacore, sardines, mackerel, and anchovies, are important 

resources for tribal and non-tribal fishers that are found in the sanctuary seasonally. 

Federal and Washington state listings of candidate, sensitive, threatened, or endangered 

species are definitive indicators that some fish populations are not healthy. Olympic Coast 

populations of Ozette sockeye and bull trout have been on the federal list of threatened 

species in 1999. Thirteen species of rockfish are identified as state species of concern, and 

three of these are also federal species of concern. In recent decades, West Coast groundfish 

stocks and fisheries were in crisis, with steep declines in commercial ex-vessel value, 

overcapitalization, and several groundfish stocks depleted by a combination of fishing and 

natural factors (NMFS 2002). Four species of rockfish found in the sanctuary have been 

classified as overfished by the NMFS Service (NMFS 2006a). And there have been 

increasing concerns that our limited ability to forecast groundfish production from single 

species investigations is missing important natural and fishery-induced changes in the 

ecosystem and will not be able to forecast truly sustainable harvest policies (NMFS 2002). 

For example, age structure, an important measure of population integrity, has been affected 

by fisheries. Some rockfish populations have been shown to have reduced numbers of 

larger, older fish, a factor that could affect their recovery rate (PFMC 2008a). Older 

rockfish produce more eggs and more robust juveniles (Berkeley et al. 2004). However, in 

most cases, the status of the larger, older fish within the population is unknown because it 

has not been determined whether the older fish are simply missing because they have been 

removed from the population, or are not fully represented in fishery or stock assessment 

surveys. 

However, professional fisheries managers generally are optimistic that sustainable fisheries 

off the outer coast of Washington are possible under new management regimes following 

these historical stock declines. Recent fishery management measures implemented to 

reduce fishing effort, monitor and minimize bycatch, and reduce impacts to habitat appear 

to have assisted initial recovery of some overfished groundfish stocks and provide evidence 

for an improving trend (ONMS 2008). 

6.2.7. Seabirds 

Seabirds are the most conspicuous members of the offshore fauna of the Olympic Coast. 

Sea stacks and islands provide critical nesting habitat for 19 species of marine birds and 

marine-associated raptors and shorebirds, including seven alcid species (including murres, 

puffins, murrelets), three cormorant species, four gull and tern species, two storm-petrel 

species, two raptors and one shorebird, the Black Oystercatcher. Productive offshore waters 

also attract large feeding aggregations of marine birds that breed in other regions of the 

world but travel great distances to “winter” in sanctuary waters. The Sooty Shearwater, for 
142 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

example, breeds off New Zealand and Chile in the austral summer and congregates along 

the Pacific coast in its non-breeding season. Black-footed and Laysan Albatross travel far 

from their breeding grounds in Hawaii and Japan to forage in the eastern Pacific. Nearer to 

shore, sand and gravel beaches are foraging areas for shorebirds, crows, gulls and a host of 

other birds. The coastline also forms an important migratory pathway for millions of birds 

that pass through each year, guiding waterfowl, cranes, shorebirds and raptors toward 

northern breeding areas during the spring and southward as winter approaches. 

Seabirds are relatively numerous, conspicuous, and forage across multiple habitat types and 

trophic levels. For these reasons, they are often considered indicators of ocean conditions, 

and the status of their populations provides insight into ecosystem health (Parrish and 

Zador 2003, Piatt et al. 2007). Many feed on forage fish, a critical link in the food chain, 

but one that is difficult to quantify by direct observation or sampling. Populations of five 

species of marine birds that breed in the sanctuary are declining in the area, which has led 

to their inclusion on federal or state species of concern lists: Common Murre, Marbled 

Murrelet, Tufted Puffin, Cassin’s Auklet, and Brandt’s Cormorant. Trends and common 

concerns for these seabirds are long-term declines in their population sizes (Wahl and 

Tweit 2000, Wahl et al. 2005, Raphael 2006); vulnerability to human disturbances such as 

oil spills, habitat disruption and fisheries bycatch (Piatt et al. 2002, Raphael 2006); and 

susceptibility to natural disturbances such as ENSO events (Graybill and Hodder 1985, 

Wilson 1991, Piatt et al. 2002, Wahl et al. 2005). Although some population levels appear 

to be stabilizing at values lower than historical levels, a longer time series is needed to 

determine a trend (Lance and Pearson 2008). 

A closer examination of the Common Murre population provides insight into some factors 

affecting the status of all seabirds on the Washington coast. The murre population declined 

dramatically in 1982 and 1983, coinciding with a severe El Niño-Southern Oscillation 

(ENSO), and has not recovered to pre-1983 levels since that time (Warheit and Thompson 

2004). Aside from declines associated with ENSO events, it has been suggested that the 

population has not recovered due to a combination of oil spills, disturbance at breeding 

colonies (e.g., historic Naval bombing practices), and gillnet mortality (Warheit and 

Thompson 2004). During the Nestucca spill in 1988 and Tenyo Maru spill in 1991, over 

70% of bird carcasses recovered were Common Murres, mortalities that represented a 

sizable proportion of the total Washington state Common Murre population (The Tenyo 

Maru Oil Spill Natural Resource Trustees 2000). Although the Common Murre population 

showed signs of recovery through the 1990s, the number of birds has diminished greatly 

relative to pre-spill numbers, and modest declines have been found in recent years 

(Manuwal et al. 2001). At the breeding colony on Tatoosh Island, Common Murre 

populations have also been affected by an influx of avian predators, including Bald Eagles, 

Peregrine Falcons and nest-depredating Glaucous-winged Gulls (Parrish et al. 2001). These 

multiple stressors affecting the sluggish recovery of Common Murres may be indicative of 

the challenges facing the long-term recovery of other seabirds. 

Age structure and mortality rates are also in question in some bird populations on the coast. 

Common Murres on Tatoosh Island have experienced documented breeding failures during 

recent years, partially attributed to oil spills and observed heavy predation by raptors and 
143 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

gulls, but also possibly due to low food supply during critical breeding periods (Parrish et 

al. 2001, Warheit and Thompson 2003). Because they are long-lived, an occasional year of 

poor productivity may not impact the population significantly, but multiple years or 

successive years of breeding failure would likely have future impacts on the population. 

Recent demographic studies of Marbled Murrelets in the region have indicated that they 

have had low nesting success in recent years (Raphael and Bloxton 2008), which may 

inhibit their recovery or at least slow the rate of recovery. 

6.2.8. Marine Mammals 

Twenty-nine species of marine mammals have been sighted in Olympic Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary. Whales, because of their size, abundance and visibility, are commonly 

seen in the sanctuary. Sea otters, harbor and elephant seals, and Steller and California sea 

lions aggregate along the shore and haul out on land at many locations along the coast 

throughout the year. The humpback whale and the killer whale (also called orca) forage 

offshore, and some 20,000 gray whales travel through the sanctuary on their annual 

migrations between breeding and calving grounds off the Baja Peninsula and summer 

feeding grounds in the northern Pacific. Eleven marine mammal species are on either 

federal or state species of concern lists across their range (Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife 2008). 

The sea otter is often considered a keystone species because of the strong top-down 

influence they have on the nearshore kelp ecosystem. Sea otters are of high scientific 

interest because they were extirpated from Washington state by commercial pelt hunters by 

1911, then were reintroduced in 1969 and 1970 (Lance et al. 2004). This population has 

been counted annually since 1989 and has shown increases the past few years, with a peak 

of 1,121 animals in 2008 (Jameson and Jeffries 2008). The rate of population growth, 

however, has been slower than expected (Laidre et al. 2002; Lance et al. 2004). The sea 

otter remains a federal species of concern and an endangered species within Washington 

state, and the population remains vulnerable because of its small size, limited genetic 

diversity, existing exposure to pathogens, and extreme risks to oil spills. 

Most wildlife populations in the sanctuary are relatively healthy and unburdened by 

contaminants, pathogens or related maladies. There are, however, notable exceptions. 

Although no negative health effects have been documented, the sea otter population has 

been shown to carry several potentially lethal pathogens- 80 percent of the otters tested 

positive for the distemper viral complex Morbillivirus and 60 percent tested positive for the 

protozoan Toxoplasma gondii (Brancato et al. 2009). Fat-soluble contaminants are 

generally considered to bioaccumulate or increase in concentration when moving up the 

food web (Cockcroft et al. 1989). Overall, tissue concentrations of assayed contaminants 

were relatively low in Washington sea otters (Brancato et al. 2009). However, other top 

predators in the region, such as killer whales, have been shown to carry high contaminant 

loads (e.g., PCBs and PBDEs) in their blubber (Ross et al. 2000, Ross 2006), though the 

population effects of such high contaminant loads are unknown. 

 
144 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

6.3. CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL SETTING 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary has a rich maritime heritage where lives, 

languages, communities and cultures are continuously shaped by the sea. The native Makah, 

Quileute, Hoh and Quinault peoples traditionally lived at the water's edge, thriving on the 

riches of the ocean plants, fish, shellfish, seabirds and marine mammals. The waters off the 

Washington coast linked native peoples along the coast as they traveled by canoe. These 

waters were highways that were traversed by canoes and, more recently, ships supporting 

communities and industries along the shores of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound 

and beyond. Historically, local maritime activity ranged from fur hunting, whaling and 

fishing, to coastal trade with smaller coastal communities. The rugged Olympic Coast could 

be treacherous, especially during winter storms when high winds and strong currents pushed 

ships dangerously close to the rocky islands, reefs and shoreline. Fog, too, led to collisions 

with disastrous results. Over 180 ships were reported wrecked or lost at sea in or near 

sanctuary waters in the years between 1808 and 1972. 

6.3.1. American Indian Cultural Resources 

The modern shoreline of the Olympic Peninsula contains dozens of late prehistoric 

archaeological sites that are rich in materials documenting the character of the maritime 

environment and the use of this environment by the region’s native peoples. Nearshore 

coastal forests adjacent to the sanctuary contain mid-Holocene shorelines and older 

prehistoric archaeological sites. These older sites are rich in materials documenting the 

character of maritime paleo-environments, the history of environmental change, and the 

record of use of these environments by the region’s native peoples. 

The earliest dated archaeological site on the Washington Coast occurs adjacent to the 

sanctuary on the Makah Indian Reservation, establishing human presence for the last 6,000 

years. The recent investigation of paleoshoreline sites on the Makah Reservation reveals 

high sea-stand village sites inland along the Sooes and Waatch river valleys, in some cases 

greater than 10 meters above current sea level and kilometers from the current ocean shore 

(Wessen 2003). These sites indicate complex interactions with marine resources of the 

period and yield important clues to large-scale ocean and climate regimes, marine wildlife 

and fish populations, habitat distribution and cultural patterns of marine resource use. The 

Makah Cultural and Research Center in Neah Bay houses an extraordinary collection of 

artifacts from the Ozette archaeological site, a Makah village that was partially buried by a 

mudslide nearly 500 years ago and excavated in the 1970s. 

Other tangible records of prehistoric human occupation include petroglyphs both above the 

intertidal zone and within it, middens of shells and other discarded domestic materials, and 

canoe runs, or channels cleared of boulders to facilitate landing of dugout watercraft. 

Research and preservation of coastal native languages, traditional cultural properties, and 

traditional practices of song, dance and activities like whaling also enhances awareness in 

native and non-native peoples of the region’s rich ocean-dependent heritage. The recent 

resurgence of the canoe culture in the annual “Tribal Journeys” celebration transfers 

knowledge and understanding of coastal culture to new generations. 
145 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

6.3.2. Historical and Archaeological Resources 

Historical-era resources are generally affiliated with archaeological remains of the western 

cultures that appeared in the region by the mid-nineteenth century. A combination of 

fierce weather, isolated and rocky shores, and thriving ship commerce have made the 

Olympic Coast a graveyard for ships of many descriptions. 

6.3.2.1. Historical Contexts 

Excepting earlier fleeting visits, the earliest European presence in the vicinity of the 

Olympic Peninsula occurred in the 1770s with James Cook's expedition. By the 1790s, 

Spain attempted to use the region as a buffer against encroaching Russian and English fur 

hunters. In 1792, the Spanish established a short-lived palisaded settlement known as 

Nunez Gaona near the mouth of the Strait of Juan de Fuca in Neah Bay to support their 

main base on Vancouver Island. This Spanish settlement lasted less than a year. 

As the British settled Canada's Pacific Northwest, Americans also continued their westward 

migrations into the United States northwestern territories of Washington and Oregon. A 

need for timber to support the population explosion resulting from California's 1849 Gold 

Rush led to the settlement and exploitation of the timber resources around Puget Sound and 

the Olympic Peninsula. An increase in shipping around Cape Flattery resulted in an 

increase in ship losses. The U.S. Lighthouse Board built lighthouses at both Destruction 

Island and Tatoosh Island to reduce the hazards to the increased shipping. 

The encroachment of settlers had a profound impact on the native tribes’ traditional way of 

life. The United States pressured the tribes to move to reservations in order to make way 

for American settlement. In 1855, the Treaty of Neah Bay set aside land at Cape Flattery 

as a reservation for the Makah tribe. Tatoosh Island was appropriated for the lighthouse 

and was not returned to the tribe until 1984. In 1855-1856, the ancestors of the Hoh Tribe, 

Quileute Tribe and the Quinault Indian Nation signed the Treaty of Olympia with the U.S. 

Government. The Hoh and Quileute reservations were subsequently established by 

Executive Order. 

Throughout the 1850s and 1860s, settlers moved onto lands formerly used by American 

Indians. The remoteness and lack of access roads to areas near the coast prevented an 

influx of large numbers of settlers, but small western communities, such as Port Angeles 

and Port Townsend began to appear near American Indian communities that persisted in 

Neah Bay, La Push, and Taholah. Grays Harbor, too, became a center of timber export. 

By the last quarter of the nineteenth century, small sailing vessels and steamers used for 

fishing, whaling and local commerce were commonly seen alongside native canoes. 

Since the mid-1990s, NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries has compiled and 

periodically updated a database of historic ship and military aircraft losses that includes 

 



 The term "historical" refers to cultures that have written language. 
146 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

known archaeological resources in the vicinity of Olympic Coast National Marine 

Sanctuary. Approximately 207 historic ships have been documented as being lost in what 

is now the sanctuary between the early-nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries 

(Schwemmer 2008). As the rate of shipping increased with the growing regional economy 

and settlement, so too did the rate of shipwreck increase off the Olympic Peninsula. An 

assessment of the database indicates that the majority of losses were weather-related, 

including founderings, collisions and groundings. Many ships simply vanished after sailing 

past Tatoosh lighthouse, their resting place never known. 

Ship types ranged from clippers and multi-sail rigged windjammers, to steam freighters, 

small gasoline powered fishing boats and barges. There are a number of ships that have 

entered local lore that are still remembered by local citizens of the peninsula. Examples 

include: 

SS Skagway - On December 16, 1929 the Dollar line steam freighter, Skagway, caught fire 

and drifted into the rocks around Fuca Pillar at Cape Flattery. The rocks where she went 

down have since been referred to as Skagway Rocks. 

W.J. Pirrie - The five-masted iron ship Pirrie had been reduced to a sailing barge after 

almost forty years of sailing when it hit the rocks during a storm on November 11, 1920. 

Sixteen crew (including the captain's wife and young child) drowned and were washed 

ashore around Cape Johnson. Because the ship had Chilean registry at the time of its 

sinking, she became known as the "Chilean Wreck" and is so commemorated by a 

monument at the site where most of the bodies were recovered. 

SS Pacific - Perhaps one of the greatest shipwreck mysteries of the Olympic Coast involves 

the sidewheel steamer Pacific, lost in 1851. The ship was steaming for Panama out of 

Victoria and reportedly carrying miners from the British Columbia gold fields when she 

collided with another ship. Only two of almost three hundred passengers survived. 

Treasure salvors have sought the ship in the past in the belief that the miners on board may 

have been carrying unreported gold in their baggage and on their persons. The ship has not 

yet been located. 

Two locally well-known wrecks (among several others) occurred in the vicinity of La Push. 

One of the earliest recorded local wrecks was the Russian brig St. Nicholas on Rialto Beach 

in 1808. Several of the crew were captured by Native Americans and their ordeal was a 

well-told story. The earliest steam shipwreck in the sanctuary region was the Southerner in 

1854. A wooden sidewheel steamer built in 1846, Southerner was a veteran of the Civil 

War and was a passenger steamer when it sprang a leak and the captain was forced to run 

her ashore at First Beach at Quillayute (now LaPush). The large island situated at the 

mouth of Quillayute River, originally called Alekistet Island by the Quileute tribe, was 

renamed James Island by the white settlers to honor Francis W. James who scaled it in 

order to watch over the remains of the ship and protect it from illegal salvage (Terrell no 

date). 
147 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

6.3.2.2. Archaeological Resources 

In compliance with Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act, OCNMS 

undertook five surveys to document historical shipwrecks between 1995 and 2001. 

Utilizing acoustic and magnetic remote sensing and diver target identification, the research 

design identified areas of high probability for finding historically-reported shipwrecks near 

the southern shore of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the vicinity of Tatoosh Island, Cape 

Flattery to Portage Head, as well as select areas at Cape Alava, LaPush/Quilleyute Needles 

and Destruction Island. 

Often searching in difficult and dangerous nearshore areas, the teams were able to locate 

remains associated with at least eight historic shipwrecks. A draft final report was 

compiled and a draft manuscript is presently on file at OCNMS. The report concludes that 

the majority of the wreck remains in nearshore waters have been severely degraded due to 

heavy storm and wave impact. Several of the sites, which were found using sidescan sonar, 

could not be safely dived or documented by marine archaeologists. 

Thus far, two historic shipwreck sites have been documented by the OCNMS. The remains 

of the World War II/Korean War troopship General M.C. Meigs at Portage Head was 

examined by diving archaeologists in 1997. Although scattered and broken in half, much 

material remaining should be documented further. Also, in 1997 a team investigated the 

nearshore remains of a nineteenth-century bark, the Austria at Cape Alava. Almost all 

wooden remains have been destroyed by the environment, but the team was able to locate 

the orientation of the wreck by the locations of significant objects such as the ship's anchor, 

anchor chains and hawseholes. The site subsequently has been used as an educational tool 

to teach students about the maritime heritage resources of the sanctuary. 

A final recommendation in the report was that several of the sites should be further studied 

but that OCNMS's future efforts should be directed towards locating historical shipwreck 

remains in deeper water. The lack of exposure to winter storms suggest a better probability 

of preservation of submerged archaeological remains (Terrell no date). 

6.3.2.3. Maritime Cultural Landscape 

The National Historic Preservation Act, which directs federal agencies like NOAA to 

inventory and manage heritage resources, and if appropriate, nominate those properties to 

the National Register of Historic Places. The act also recommends that agencies interpret 

the cultural landscape of a region. A search of National Register listings indicate three 

properties adjacent to the OCNMS. They are: 

 Ozette Indian Village Archaeological Site 

 Tatoosh Island 

 Wedding Rock Petroglyphs 

In addition to archaeological remains that exhibit the tribes' relationship with the sea, the 

region's Indian cultural landscape may contain (among other things) such elements of 

culture as stories, dances, traditional knowledge and practices, traditional place names and 
148 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

language. Even the tribe's renewed interest in canoe construction and navigation and 

whaling represent the prehistoric and tribal maritime cultural landscape. 

So it is with historic maritime cultural landscapes. Archaeological remains of shipwrecks 

are but one component. Historic structures on land, while technically outside of sanctuary 

boundaries, remain as important tangible fragments of the past and provide insight into past 

human interactions with the ocean. These include historic lighthouses at Tatoosh and 

Destruction islands, lifesaving station remnants at Waadah Island and LaPush, wartime 

defense sites at Cape Flattery and Anderson Point, and sites of coastal patrol cabins 

scattered along the Olympic Coast. Homesteads, resorts, graves, and memorials also 

reflect a human dimension to the coast now largely reclaimed by time, the forest, or the sea. 

The oral traditions, stories, fishing practices and local lore also are components of the 

historical maritime cultural landscape. 
149 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

6.4. HUMAN/SOCIOECONOMIC SETTING 

The Olympic Peninsula has a rich history supporting diverse commercial, recreational, 

cultural, research and education activities. Western and American Indian populations alike, 

including the Hoh, Makah, Quileute, and Quinault peoples, utilize plant, fish, and shellfish 

resources, as well as the access and transportation routes within and adjacent to the 

sanctuary as an integral part of economic and socioeconomic activities. This section 

describes the character of the sanctuary and adjacent areas, including the population, 

overall economy, employment, and housing. For the purposes of this analysis, the 

discussion of the affected environment is focused on those areas immediately adjacent to 

the sanctuary. Additional discussion focuses on the commercial activity dependent on the 

sanctuary area. 

6.4.1. Population, Housing, Income, and Employment 

Table 8 shows information on population, housing, poverty, and income in counties 

immediately adjacent to the sanctuary. Despite the recent economic recession, populations, 

housing, and incomes in Clallam, Grays Harbor, and Jefferson counties have increased over 

the last decade. However, the percentage of the population with an income below the 

poverty level in each county has also increased over same period. 

Table 8 Population, Housing, Poverty, and Incomea 

Clallam County Grays Harbor County Jefferson 

County

2000 2009 2000 2009 2000 2009

Population 64,525 71,413 67,194 71,797 25,953 29,676 

Housing Units 30,683 33,972 32,489 34,692 14,144 16,291 

Area in Square Miles 1,739 1,739 1,917 1,917 1,814 1,814 

Total Population Density per sq. mi. 37.1 41.1 35.1 37.5 14.3 16.4 

Median Household Income $37,420 $47,537 $34,724 $41,787 $39,519 $50,463 

Poverty Status (% below poverty level) 12.1% 13.6% 15.0% 15.9% 10.7% 12.4% a Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000; Washington State Office of Financial Management 2009. 

Table 9 shows information from the 2000 census on population, housing, poverty, and 

income in American Indian communities in the vicinity of the OCNMS. All Coastal Treaty 

Tribes have experienced, and in many cases still experience high unemployment and 

poverty rates. Much of the tribal culture and economy is resource-based and focused on 

commercial fishing, timber, and tourism. 

Table 10 shows information on 2008 employment in counties adjacent to OCNMS. The 

government service, wholesale/retail trade, manufacturing, and healthcare sectors dominate 

employment in the three counties, providing 68 percent, 71 percent, and 71 percent in 

Jefferson, Clallam, and Grays Harbor counties, respectively. By contrast, only 1 percent, 

2.8 percent, and 3.6 percent of employment relies on the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and 

hunting sector in Jefferson, Clallam, and Grays Harbor, respectively. Tourism, driven by 
150 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

the natural beauty and resources of the Olympic Peninsula, is a growing economic driver, 

and its impact is spread across several of the employment sectors shown, including fishing 

and hunting, retail trade, arts, entertainment and recreation, and accommodation and food 

service. 

Table 9 Population, Housing and Income for American Indian Tribes adjacent to OCNMS 

Population, Housing and Income Makah 

Tribe 

Quileute 

Tribe Hoh Tribe Quinault Nation 

Population 1,356 371 102 1,370 

Housing Units 534 128 33 406 

Area in Square Miles 47.0 1.6 0.7 316.3 

Total Population Density 28.9 236.6 137.1 4.3 

Median Household Income $24,091 $21,750 $21,875 $26,488 

Poverty Status (% below poverty level) 26.8% 34.5% 42.0% 31.5% 

Employment opportunities on American Indian reservations are much less diverse, given 

the smaller populations, and cultural and geographic isolation from major population 

centers. Much of the mainland adjacent to the sanctuary consists of sparsely populated 

areas under federal or tribal management, as well as sizeable tracts of privately-owned 

timberlands. The public areas outside tribal reservations are managed by the National Park 

Service, or administered by state or county governments. 

The Coastal Treaty Tribes are dependent economically, culturally, and spiritually upon 

natural resources found on their reserved lands and within their usual and accustomed 

hunting, fishing, and gathering areas. Much of the tribal economies are resource-based, 

focused on commercial fishing, timber, and tourism. Commercial fishing is one of the 

mainstays of the tribal economies, with emphasis on Dungeness crab, groundfish, salmon and 

steelhead, blackcod (sablefish), and razor clams (see section 6.4.3). 

As with the rest of the Olympic Peninsula, while natural resources continue to support the 

area economy, tourism is growing in importance for the Coastal Treaty Tribes, particularly 

recreational fishing, nature viewing, and active water sports (surfing and kayaking; section 

6.4.8). The Quinault Indian Nation runs a successful casino in Ocean Shores. The 

Quileute Tribe runs a very popular resort and marina, and more recently with the 

overwhelming success of the Twilight books and movies has become a popular tourist 

destination. The Makah Tribe also runs an important regional marina and one of the most 

popular museums in Washington state, the Makah Cultural and Historical Center. 

The following sections describe the importance that the resources within the boundaries of 

the sanctuary play in the economic and socioeconomic lives of the coast’s residents, 

residents of Puget Sound, as well as the wider community dependent on sanctuary access. 

The potential for effects on the human/socioeconomic setting derive mostly from these 

activities. 
151 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Table 10 Employment in counties adjacent to OCNMS (2008) 

 JEFFERSON COUNTY CLALLAM COUNTY GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY 

 

Avg. # of 

Employees Wages Paid 

Avg. # of 

Employees Wages Paid 

Avg. # of 

Employees Wages Paid 

 

(Percent of 

Workforce) 

(Percent of 

Total) 

(Percent of 

Workforce)l 

(Percent of 

Total) 

(Percent of 

Workforce) 

(Percent of 

Total) 

Agric., Forestry, Fishing & 

Hunting 1.2% 1.0% 2.4% 2.8% 3.6% 3.6%

Mining 0.6% 0.8% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3%

Utilities 0.7% 1.6% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Construction 6.9% 7.8% 5.7% 6.2% 5.8% 7.2%

Manufacturing 8.3% 11.9% 6.1% 8.2% 16.4% 20.6%

Wholesale/Retail Trade 12.6% 10.3% 16.7% 13.9% 14.0% 11.9%

Transp. & Warehousing 0.7% 0.6% 2.0% 2.1% 2.4% 2.4%

Information 1.6% 1.9% 1.3% 1.4% 0.9% 1.0%

Fin., Ins., & Real Estate 3.9% 3.5% 3.4% 3.1% 3.5% 3.4%

Professional & Tech. 

Services 2.6% 2.7% 2.4% 2.6% 1.5% 1.8%

Management of Companies 

& Enterprises 0.0% 0.7% 1.4% 0.2% 0.3%

Administrative & Waste 

Services 1.7% 1.2% 1.9% 1.3% 2.0% 1.7%

Educational Services 1.7% 1.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Health Care & Social 

Assistance 15.7% 14.3% 11.2% 9.2% 9.0% 9.5%

Arts, Entertainment,& 

Recreation 1.3% 0.8% 1.0% 0.5% 0.9% 0.4%

Accommodation & Food 

Services 12.2% 5.2% 9.6% 4.0% 8.7% 3.5%

Other Services, except 

Public Administration 5.1% 3.7% 4.9% 3.0% 5.5% 2.7%

Government 23.3% 31.5% 30.3% 40.0% 25.2% 29.5%

Not Elsewhere Classified 0.1% 0.1%

 
152 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

6.4.2. Maritime Transportation 

Maritime transportation within the sanctuary includes both vessels in transit, simply 

passing through the sanctuary under way to another destination, and vessels that are within 

the boundaries of the sanctuary for a particular purpose. An understanding of vessel 

activity is necessary for sanctuary management for a number of reasons, both from a 

perspective of potential impacts from vessel activities and also from a more general 

perspective of characterizing human activities within the sanctuary. In very broad terms 

most vessels found within the sanctuary can be described as large commercial vessels, 

commercial fishing vessels and recreational vessels. 

The sanctuary lies at the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, a major international 

waterway linking the important North American ports of Seattle, Tacoma, and Vancouver, 

Canada, with trading partners all around the Pacific Rim. Every year, approximately 

10,000 large commercial vessels transits occur at the western end of the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca. The uses of sanctuary waters for maritime transportation, along with commercial 

fishing, are the most significant commercial uses of the sanctuary. The total numbers of 

transits of vessels that participated in the Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service (CVTS) off 

the Olympic Coast in 2009 are summarized in Table 11, along with the duration of their 

transit. These data were derived from observations by the Canadian Coast Guard Marine 

Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS) Tofino Radar facility. Public vessels are 

those engaged in work for the government or public institutions (e.g., Coast Guard, 

research, spill response). 

Cruise ship operations generally utilize the sanctuary for purposes of transit, simply passing 

through the sanctuary inbound to the Ports of Seattle and Vancouver, Canada or outbound 

to Alaska and other cruise destinations in the Pacific, or other U.S. or foreign ports. 

However, the economic impact of the cruise ship industry in the region is substantial, and 

includes spending and jobs related to ship supplies, repairs and maintenance, fuel, 

stevedoring, port costs, pilotage, hotel accommodations for passengers and crew, local 

tours and shopping, restaurants, buses, taxis and air transportation. The Port of Seattle 

estimates that the cruise industry in 2008 produced 1,955 direct jobs, 1,125 induced jobs, 

and 701 indirect jobs in the Puget Sound area alone from ships transiting the sanctuary. 

The Port of Seattle also estimates the cruise industry generated $312.5 million in business 

revenue and $16.1 million of state and local taxes in the Puget Sound (POS 2009). The 

Northwest Cruise Ship Association estimates that in British Columbia alone, the estimated 

spending by the ships, passengers and crew is in excess of $500 million (Canadian) per 

year. The Association estimates similar numbers for Alaska, where recent studies cite 

more than $700 million (US) in annual economic benefits directly tied to the industry. 

Vessel traffic in northern portion of the sanctuary is managed through a 1979 formal 

agreement between the Canadian and United States Coast Guards. This agreement created 

the Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service (CVTS). The purpose of the CVTS is to provide 

for the safe and efficient movement of vessel traffic while preventing collisions and 

groundings, and therefore minimizing the risk of environmental damage that would follow. 
153 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Table 11 All Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service (CVTS) Vessel Transits in 2009. For transits in 

OCNMS, the cumulative time and average transit time in OCNMS for all vessels of a given 

classification combined is provided for each vessel class. 

Vessel Classification Total 

Transits 

OCNMS 

Transits 

Cumulative 

Time 

(minutes) 

Cumulative 

Time (days) 

Avg Time 

(hours) 

Commercial Vessel < 300 GT 354 249 49,272 

 

34.2 3.3 

Commercial Vessel 300-1599 GT 246 65 14,229 

 

9.9 3.6 

Commercial Vessel > 1600 GT 6,449 4,272 403,534 

 

280.2 1.6 

Fishing Vessel < 300 GT 915 243 37,927 

 

26.3 2.6 

Fishing Vessel 300-1599 GT 146 63 11,814 

 

8.2 3.1 

Fishing Vessel > 1600 GT 125 81 15,431 

 

10.7 3.2 

Passenger Vessel < 300 GT 15 14 1,208 

 

0.8 1.4 

Passenger Vessel 300-1599 GT 9 9 1,170 

 

0.8 2.2 

Passenger Vessel > 1600 GT 451 280 20,727 

 

14.4 1.2 

Public Vessel < 300 GT 42 16 3,064 

 

2.1 3.2 

Public Vessel 300-1599 GT 227 75 14,926 

 

10.4 3.3 

Public Vessel > 1600 GT 291 157 24,912 

 

17.3 2.6 

Recreational Vessel < 300 29 13 1,454 

 

1.0 1.9 

Recreational Vessel 300-1599 42 36 3,813 

 

2.6 1.8 

Tank Vessel 1,734 1,401 209,360 

 

145.4 2.5 

Tug with tank barge-laden 104 94 29,447 

 

20.4 5.2 

Tug with tank barge-unladen 100 95 21,568 

 

15.0 3.8 

TOTAL 11,279 7,163 863,856 

 

599.9 2.0 

As part of the agreement, Tofino Traffic in Canada provides CVTS coverage for the 

offshore approaches to the Strait of Juan de Fuca and along the Washington State coastline 

from 48 degrees north. Seattle Traffic in the U.S. provides CVTS coverage for both the 

Canadian and US waters of Strait of Juan de Fuca 

(http://www.uscg.mil/d13/cvts/purposeandobjective.asp). In addition to the marine 

communications and traffic services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard, the main 

features of the CVTS within the boundaries of the sanctuary are a number of International 

Maritime Organization (IMO) vessel routing measures. These include a traffic separation 

scheme with western and south-western approaches, a recommended route for smaller, 
154 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

slower moving vessels that normally do not use the traffic separation scheme, and an Area 

to be Avoided (ATBA)(Figure 8). 

When the sanctuary was designated in May 1994, NOAA worked with the U.S. Coast 

Guard to propose that the IMO approve and adopt an ATBA off the Olympic Coast. This 

ATBA, which went into effect in June 1995 and was updated in 2002, advises operators of 

vessels above 1600 gross tons and those carrying petroleum and hazardous materials as 

cargo to maintain a 25-mile buffer from the coast. This distance narrows as the vessel 

traffic lanes converge at the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. It is important to note 

that the boundaries of the ATBA and of the Sanctuary are not contiguous. The ATBA 

compliance rate has consistently been very high and was estimated to be 98.9% in 2009 

(WDE 2010). OCNMS works with the USCG to notify non-compliant vessels with a 

formal letter requesting that they adhere to the ATBA in the future. 

Just as marine transportation forms a vital economic link for Pacific Rim trade, the 

sanctuary forms a vital link among resource management agencies, enforcement 

organizations and the maritime transportation industry. 

Figure 8 Vessel Traffic Management System 
155 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

6.4.3. Commercial Fishing 

Commercial fisheries within the sanctuary are major components of the coastal economy 

and provide valuable food resources to the Northwest and beyond. Commercial and tribal 

fishers, as well as the business that support these fisheries, are significant stakeholders in 

the health of the fisheries. 

The commercial fishing industry in Washington state is structured around a multi-species 

fishery. Groundfish, halibut, albacore, salmon, and shellfish are all major species groups 

important to the industry. In 2006, non-tribal commercial fishing generated nearly $150 

million in personal income and supported over 3,500 direct and indirect jobs in Washington 

state. These figures include only fisheries conducted off the coast of Washington and do 

not include commercial fishing by Coastal Treaty Tribes. When these segments are added, 

the harvest value is nearly $100 million. Though not directly correlated to the boundaries 

of the OCNMS, the Washington coast accounted for over 60% of the harvest value of 

commercial fisheries in 2006. Including in-state processing, the wholesale value of fishery 

products caught in Washington waters was an estimated $101 million in 2006 (WDFW 

2008a). 

Relative to uses of the OCNMS, commercial fishing activity can be described in two 

categories: those commercial fishing vessels that are transiting through the area on way to 

their fishing grounds, home port or to another port for services; and those that are 

conducting operations in the sanctuary. Commercial fishing activity in the sanctuary 

includes both tribal and non-tribal fleets. The Makah, Quileute and Quinault fishers work 

respectively from the ports of Neah Bay, La Push and Grays Harbor. The Hoh Tribe does 

not currently have an ocean fishing fleet. Non-tribal fishermen work out of both Oregon 

and Washington ports. 

Some groundfish species have been depleted in the past and have recovered quickly (e.g., 

English sole, Pacific whiting, and lingcod), while others are rebuilding more slowly (e.g., 

Pacific ocean perch) (PFMC 2008a). For depleted species, rebuilding programs are in 

place, with anticipated stock recovery period from several to over 80 years for different 

species. All species considered depleted are on track to be rebuilt by their respective 

schedules, which take into account their different life histories. Recent fishery 

management measures implemented to reduce fishing effort, monitor and minimize 

bycatch, and reduce impacts to habitat appear to have assisted initial recovery of some 

overfished groundfish stocks and provide evidence for an improving trend. 

There are some indications that the biomass off Washington of several rockfish species is 

high (per unit area) compared to Oregon and California, and this information has been 

taken into account for the management of some stocks (e.g., black rockfish). Survey data 

collected during NMFS trawl surveys have not been quantitatively analyzed to determine if 

other groundfish stocks off Washington or in the sanctuary are more abundant than those 

off Oregon and California. 
156 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

The commercial Dungeness crab fishery has over 200 Washington coastal commercial 

Dungeness crab license holders. Dungeness crab landing data back to 1950 shows a large 

fluctuation in landings, averaging 4,300 metric tons (9.5 million pounds) per year, with 

variability likely due to varying ocean conditions including water temperature, food 

availability and ocean currents. A fishery for pink shrimp off Washington peaked in 1988, 

with landings just over 18 million pounds and about 100 vessels involved. Within a few 

years, a dramatic decline in local abundance drove many fishers out of the fishery. Since 

2000, the Washington coastal fishery has been stable, with landings of seven to eight 

million pounds annually and about 25 fishers participating. Most shrimp and crab fishing 

occurs off the central and southern coast of Washington. 

 

The Pacific halibut female spawning biomass is estimated at three to four times above the 

historical minimum in the mid-1970s, indicating that the halibut population is in good 

condition (NMFS 2004). Catch limits in Area 2A (Washington, Oregon and California) for 

commercial, treaty and recreational halibut fishing are approximately double limits 

imposed in the early 1990s. 

Chinook and coho salmon are the main salmon species managed by PFMC and American 

Indian tribes off Washington’s outer coast. In odd-numbered years, fisheries are also 

conducted near the Canadian border for pink salmon, which are primarily of Frasier River 

origin. Managing ocean salmon fisheries is an extremely complex task, due to the wide 

oceanic distribution of the salmon, wide variability and difficulty in estimating population 

sizes, and significant differences between model estimates and actual returns. In the past 

decade, landings from the ocean troll fishery off Washington (excluding the area south of 

Willapa Bay) varied five-fold for chinook and nine-fold for coho between low and high 

catch years, but no clear trends in landings are evident (PFMC 2008b). Salmon at all life 

history stages are affected by a wide variety of natural and human-caused factors in the 

ocean and on land, including ocean and climatic conditions, habitat degradation and loss, 

and predators (including humans). Other challenges to a sustainable salmon fishery off the 

Washington coast include judging the effects of different regional fisheries on salmon 

stocks, recovering salmon under the Endangered Species Act, dividing the harvest fairly, 

impacts from salmon aquaculture, competition between wild and hatchery salmon, and 

restoring freshwater habitat (PFMC 2008b). 

Fisheries management policies enacted on the West Coast and within the sanctuary have 

been progressive steps to incorporate ecosystem-based fishery management concepts and 

improve trends toward restoring historical population levels. A variety of recent fishery 

management actions off the Washington coast, such as trawl footrope gear restrictions, 

low-rise nets that reduce bycatch, monitoring of bycatch, protection of Essential Fish 

Habitat, implementation of stock rebuilding plans, and establishment of temporary area 

closures (Rockfish Conservation Areas) to promote recovery of species under rebuilding 

plans, have provided early indications that depleted stocks can recover and these fisheries 

can be sustainably practiced. OCNMS’s role in this management regime has been 

development of detailed seafloor habitat maps and participating in evaluation of essential 

fish habitat designations for groundfish. 
157 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

6.4.4. Developed Environment 

The shoreline and submerged lands of the sanctuary are largely undeveloped, but there are 

a number of manmade structures that do exist within or immediately adjacent to the 

sanctuary. 

The La Push harbor at the mouth of the Quillayute River is the only port immediately 

adjacent to the sanctuary. The La Push marina is managed by the Quileute Tribe and 

supports their tribal fishers, as well as other non-tribal commercial and recreational fishers. 

The entrance to the harbor is maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as 

part of the Quillayute River Navigation Project. Activities related to this project include 

the maintenance of the entrance channel, the boat basin and a protective jetty (USACE 

2009). OCNMS regulations include an exception to allow for continued harbor 

maintenance associated with this project (15 CFR 922.152(a)(4)(iv). 

There are several submarine cables that have been installed within the sanctuary, many of 

which were in place at the time OCNMS was designated in 1994. Since 1994 three fiber 

optic cables have been installed in the sanctuary (Figure 9). When OCNMS was studying 

the recovery of the seafloor habitat following the 1999 installation of the Pacific Crossing 

cables (PC-1), sections of the cables were found to be exposed and suspended above the 

seafloor. In response to concerns about long-term cable integrity and conflicts with 

fisheries, PC-1 cables were recovered throughout the sanctuary and reinstalled in 2006 in 

an effort to comply with permit conditions, minimize risk to the cables, and reduce 

conflicts with fisheries. 

Figure 9 Location of the Alaska United and 

Pacific Crossing Fiber Optic Cables 
158 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

There are several year round and seasonal buoys within OCNMS, primarily navigational 

aids and monitoring/research buoys. The U.S. Coast Guard maintains navigational aids 

within the sanctuary; the National Data Buoy Center maintains weather observation 

platforms; and various agencies and academic institutions deploy research moorings. 

6.4.5. Department of Defense Activities 

In or adjacent to the sanctuary, the military has pre-established training areas that are part 

of the Northwest Training Range Complex. These training areas include two warning areas 

(W-237A and W-237B) and two military operation areas (MOA Olympic A and B) that are 

designated training and operating areas for the Pacific Fleet air and surface forces (Figure 

10). Military activities in these areas consist of subsurface, offshore surface, aerial training 

activities, and other military operations as discussed in the sanctuary’s original 

environmental impact statement (NOAA 1993). 

Military operations that are exempt from sanctuary regulations include: 

 Hull integrity tests and other deepwater tests 

 Live firing of guns, missiles, torpedoes and chaff 

 Activities associated with the Quinault Underwater Tracking Range, including the 

in-water testing of non-explosive torpedoes 

 Anti-submarine warfare operations 

Figure 10 Military Operating Areas 
159 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Potential effects associated with Navy research, development, testing and evaluation, and 

fleet training activities are currently being evaluated in separate environmental impact 

statements (EIS) via the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The Navy’s 

Underwater Warfare Center (NUWC) Division Keyport operates and maintains the 

Quinault Underwater Tracking Range located in Navy Operations Area W-237A. This 

range is instrumented to track and test surface vessels, submarines and various undersea 

vehicles. It is the policy of NUWC Division Keyport not to test in the presence of 

cetaceans. The Navy has proposed expansion of the Quinault Range’s area more than 50-

fold to support existing and future needs in manned and unmanned vehicle programs 

development (U.S. Navy 2010). The expansion would coincide with the existing W-237A 

Military Warning Area boundary and one surf-zone access site. The Navy has no plan 

under this EIS to extend any permanent bottom-mounted instrumentation by the proposed 

action, but has proposed temporary (up to two years) installations on the seafloor. Navy 

fleet training activities are being evaluated under a separate, ongoing NEPA process that 

addresses the Northwest Training Range Complex that addresses large ocean areas off 

Washington, Oregon and California (U.S. Navy 2008). During scoping for these NEPA 

analyses, the OCNMS Advisory Council requested that this review consider a wide variety 

of issues, including disturbance to birds, fish, and mammals from increased activity and 

noise; damage to seafloor habitats and wildlife from cables, anchors, targets, torpedoes and 

unmanned undersea vehicles; accidental discharges of pollutants; interference with tribal 

fishing and subsistence harvest activities; and restrictions on the ability of sanctuary and 

affiliated scientists to conduct research. 

6.4.6. U.S. Coast Guard/Homeland Security Activities 

The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) protects U. S. coastlines by enforcing Federal law related to 

vessel safety, fishing, entry of illegal immigrants, drug trafficking and ocean dumping. The 

USCG also conducts search and rescue operations, assumes the lead in responding to spills 

of oil and hazardous waste into marine waters, and responds to complaints of improper 

conduct and vessel operation. USCG coverage of the sanctuary is shared by the 13th Coast 

Guard District’s Sector Seattle and Sector Portland. 

Sector organization allows complementary Coast Guard assets to be coordinated under one 

command, focused on the primary areas of prevention and response. Sector Commanders 

fulfill a number of functions, such as Captain of the Port, Federal Maritime Security 

Coordinator, Federal On-Scene Coordinator, Officer-in-Charge of Marine Inspection, and 

Search and Rescue Mission Coordinator. Sector Seattle combines the legacy Vessel Traffic 

Service, Group, and Marine Safety Office into one consolidated organization with missions 

that include maritime safety, maritime security, protection of natural resources, maritime 

mobility, and national defense. 

OCNMS also works closely with USCG Group/Air Station Port Angeles. Group/Air 

Station Port Angeles is responsible for Neah Bay and Quillayute River Small Boat Stations; 

the 110-foot Patrol Boat USCGC Cuttyhunk; and seven 87-foot Patrol Boats. In addition, 

the Group/Air Station Port Angeles maintains three MH-65C Dolphin short-range rescue 

helicopters. 
160 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Certain activities carried out by the USCG necessary to respond to emergencies threatening 

life, property, or the environment, or necessary for law enforcement purposes are exempt 

from the prohibitions set forth in sanctuary regulations (15 CFR 922.152 (c) and (d)). 

However, other activities such as routine maintenance of aids to navigation and training 

exercises are not exempt from sanctuary regulations. Recognizing that many of these 

routine activities are necessary to support OCNMS management objectives and ensure safe 

navigation at sea, the USCG and OCNMS have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, 

which establishes a consultation process whereby USCG and OCNMS mutually agree upon 

procedures for conducting activities that support the sanctuary’s mission that might 

otherwise be prohibited by sanctuary regulations. 

6.4.7. Recreational Fishing 

Recreational fisheries within the sanctuary are major components of the coastal economy, 

providing valuable recreational opportunity and food resources to the Northwest and 

beyond. Recreational fishers, as well as the business that support these fisheries, are 

significant stakeholders in the health of the fisheries. Recreational fisheries in the 

sanctuary include shore-based (surf casting, razor clamming, and intertidal collection) and 

vessel-based activities managed primarily by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

and Olympic National Park. In the entire state of Washington, recreational fishing, 

including finfishing and shellfishing, supported nearly 12,000 direct and indirect jobs in 

2006 and produced over $390 million in personal income in 2006. Overall in 2006, 

recreational fishing in Washington state produced about $355 million in trip-related 

spending and $549 million in equipment expenditures, which includes the personal income 

generated. Of the jobs supported by recreational fishers, state residents accounted for more 

than 90 percent of the spending that supports these jobs (WDFW 2008b). 

Vessel-based recreational fishers typically operate in the sanctuary from marinas and boat 

launch ramps in La Push and Neah Bay, or farther afield in Westport and Seiku. The 

sanctuary overlaps WDFW marine management areas 2, 3, 4, and 4B. In 2009, nearly 

100,000 angler trips were documented in these areas, of which about 60% were on private 

vessels and 40% on charter vessels (WDFW Ocean Sampling Program data). 

6.4.8. Recreation and Tourism 

Over three million visitors are drawn to the Olympic Peninsula each year, attracted by 

beautiful scenery, the wilderness character of the landscape, spectacle of wildlife and 

opportunity to challenge themselves in a natural environment. Many of these visitors reach 

the 65 miles of coastline that the sanctuary shares with Olympic National Park. Nature 

viewing, hiking, camping and surfing are popular pursuits along this coastal wilderness 

strip. Wildlife watching is superb, with rewarding birding and whale watching 

opportunities available year round. In addition, Cape Flattery, on the Makah Indian 

reservation is the northwestern-most point in the lower 48 United States, and a spectacular 

and very popular destination. 

Most recreational boating in the sanctuary is sport fishers conducting day trips from the 

Neah Bay and La Push marinas. Other marinas that support smaller vessels that frequent 
161 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

the sanctuary include Westport, Seiku and Snow Creek. Other recreational boating activity 

is associated with the non-consumptive uses such as diving, kayaking, wildlife viewing and 

sightseeing. Most recreational activity takes place during summer months, with 

recreational fishing largely concentrated around limited fishery openings managed by the 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Active water sports include sea and surf 

kayaking and surfing. Recreational use of OCNMS is not well characterized, but due to the 

remoteness and occasionally harsh conditions along the Olympic Coast, these recreational 

uses are relatively less common than in other coastal areas. A few dive charter operators 

serve the Olympic Coast, but ocean conditions and isolation require advanced skills and 

open-water experience. 

Another recreational activity in the sanctuary is overflights from private pilots. An 

overflight is broadly defined as an aircraft (helicopter, plane, or other type of aircraft) that 

flies over sanctuary waters. Low overflights have the potential to cause wildlife 

disturbance. In order to protect nesting seabirds and marine mammals from disturbance 

from low flying aircraft, OCNMS has a regulation prohibiting aircraft from flying below 

2,000 feet within one nautical mile of the shoreline or the offshore islands (15 CFR § 

922.152(a)(6). Low overflights are the most frequently observed violation of sanctuary 

regulations. 

The socioeconomic importance of recreation and tourism on Washington’s coastal 

communities is substantial. Statewide in Washington in 2008, travel and tourism generated 

over $14 billion in direct spending and over 145,000 tourism-related jobs - approximately 3 

percent of all jobs and 2 percent of all earnings in the state. Over 80 percent of 2008 

traveler trips had some form of leisure or recreation as the main purpose of the trip, and 

over half of those trips focused on something other than visiting relatives or friends. While 

direct correlation of recreation and tourism spending to the national marine sanctuary 

cannot be determined, it is known that travel and tourism generated over $1 billion in direct 

spending in the coastal region of the state. In addition, travel and tourism represent a much 

higher proportion of overall spending and employment in Washington’s rural counties, 

including the coastal counties adjacent to OCNMS, than in urban counties (DOC 2009). 

6.4.9. Research and Monitoring 

Characteristics that identified the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary as a candidate 

for sanctuary designation make it an important resource and site for scientific 

investigations. These characteristics include relatively undeveloped shoreline, high 

ecosystem productivity and high biodiversity. Research in the sanctuary is conducted by 

numerous governments, tribes, agencies and academic institutions for a variety of purposes. 

Much of this research is “basic” research to gain understanding of marine populations and 

systems, yet some efforts relate to resource management issues, such as fishery 

management. Emergent issues, such as hypoxic conditions and ocean acidification, are 

receiving increased attention, for which the sanctuary may become a focus area for 

research. 
162 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

OCNMS’s research program focuses on and supports scientific investigations that improve 

our understanding of the sanctuary’s marine ecosystems and historical and cultural 

resources in order to provide managers with the information necessary to make informed 

decisions. In 2002, OCNMS staff and members of the Sanctuary Advisory Council drafted 

a Science Framework document intended to guide the sanctuary in prioritizing and 

implementing a sound research and monitoring strategy. 

OCNMS promotes and helps coordinate research programs in partnership with federal and 

state agencies, academia, and tribal governments across multiple habitat ecosystems and 

geographic/oceanographic features. This includes accessible areas such as intertidal sites 

to more difficult monitoring locations, such as deep-sea environments and pelagic 

environments. 

OCNMS support for research and monitoring ranges from limited financial support to 

access to research vessels, either OCNMS or NOAA ships. Expertise from sanctuary staff 

is available, and logistical support is made available on a case-by-case basis. 

6.4.10. Education and Outreach 

OCNMS is an important regional educational asset. It is used as a living classroom by 

many regional school groups and a training ground for many local educators. Part of the 

Sanctuary's mission is to organize and present educational resources reflecting what we 

know about this place. We strive to improve the understanding of future generations of 

citizens - students - now in school classrooms. We assist teachers educate tomorrow's 

scientists and endeavor to help people in local communities and around the globe see their 

role in enjoying and protecting the Sanctuary. 

Education is essential in protecting marine sanctuaries. We teach science of protecting 

marine resources. We encourage people who live both near and far from the ocean to take 

appropriate actions. We introduce young people to the skills required to become ocean 

citizens, perhaps even to pursue ocean–related careers. 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary regularly conducts unique education events and 

programs as well as ongoing outreach events in communities throughout the region. Each 

OCNMS staff has expertise in some aspect of science, education and marine protection that 

is regularly shared through informative and current presentations on topics of local interest. 

Olympic Coast Sanctuary education programs use a wide range of media to present 

information. We offer our services to teacher and students of all ages; we use the Internet, 

print media, video, and other high-tech ways of presenting our messages. We also assist 

others, offering training to naturalists and accurate information to print and broadcast 

media. It has been said that the greatest threat is not what we put into the ocean or take out 

of the ocean. The greatest threat to the seas is our ignorance, and our brightest hopes hinge 

on expanding our understanding. 
163 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

6.4.11. Passive Users 

Economists have long recognized a special class of non-market economic values for natural 

resources and the environment referred to generally as nonuse or passive use economic 

value. These values are widely accepted as legitimate values to include in benefit-cost 

analyses of environmental regulations and in damage assessment cases. The term passive 

use, instead of nonuse, has become more popular because it is recognized that for people to 

have value for something they must have some knowledge about what they are valuing. 

People learn about natural resource or the environment they are asked to value through 

books, newspapers, magazines, newsletters, radio, television, and other media sources. The 

people do not actually visit the sites and directly use the resources protected themselves, 

they consume them passively through the many indirect sources. The values have been 

referred to in the literature as option value, bequest value, and existence value to clarify 

people’s underlying motives for their willingness to pay. In other words, people have been 

shown to place a value on the ecological status and “health” of places that they only know 

indirectly through various media and other channels, not through direct visitation or 

consumptive use. 

 
164 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

7. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

OCNMS staff has worked over the past 24 months with its Advisory Council (AC), the 

Olympic Coast Intergovernmental Policy Council (IPC) and the public to review and 

consider revisions to the current management plan for OCNMS. During this time, the IPC, 

AC and OCNMS staff held public meetings, formed working groups and held workshops to 

consider a variety of topics that needed to be addressed in the revised management plan. 

The AC, IPC and OCNMS staff reviewed and analyzed all of the recommendations that 

emerged. This detailed analysis resulted in the development of three alternatives to the 

proposed action. These alternatives are: 

1. A no-action alternative (alternative A) 

2. An alternative that contains the strategies and activities (the Draft 

Management Plan presented in section 5.0) that OCNMS staff, the AC 

and the IPC agree are priorities to meet the need for this action 

(alternative B) 

3. An alternative that contains several additional or modified activities to 

those presented in section 5.0 (alternative C). 

The preferred alternative (alternative B) is presented in full in Section 5 as the proposed 

draft management plan. A summary of each alternative is provided in Table 12. 

Regulatory changes that OCNMS is proposing in alternatives B and C are included as 

activities in relevant action plans, and the environmental consequences of these regulatory 

changes are analyzed, as required under NEPA, in section 8 of this document. These 

changes to OCNMS regulations involve a federal rulemaking process separate from the 

adoption of a revised management plan but these processes will run concurrently. , 

proposed regulatory changes will be published in a Federal Register notice with its own 

public comment period. A federal register notice announcing a public comment period for 

this proposed rulemaking will be announced at the same time, or close to the same time, as 

the federal register notice for release of this document for public comment. 

 
165 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Table 12 Summary of three alternatives analyzed 

Alternative Description 

alternative A (no action) 

 No revisions or changes to original OCNMS 1994 management plan

 No changes to original OCNMS goals (there were no objectives 

identified in the 1994 management plan)

 No changes to OCNMS regulations

 No action plans or performance measures

 Continuation of existing OCNMS programs

alternative B (preferred) 

 Set of 20 action plans presented in section 5 (Draft Management Plan)

 Includes the revised goals and objectives presented in section 1.3

 Includes activities that describe changes to regulations being proposed 

during the management plan review process: 

- A regulatory ban of cruise ship discharges, excepting specific 

routine discharges necessary for vessel operation.

- Replace the term “traditional fishing” with “lawful fishing”

- Technical clarification to update OCNMS address

- Technical clarifications to address inconsistent use of terms

- Technical clarifications that delete terms that no longer apply 

- Technical clarification of the tribal welfare clause

alternative C 

 Set of 20 action plans presented in section 5 (Draft Management Plan)

 Includes the revised goals and objectives presented in section 1.3

 Includes the regulatory changes described in alternative B, as well as 

the following actions: 

- Evaluate options to make compliance with the ATBA mandatory, 

- A regulatory ban of all large ship discharges (including cruise 

ships), excepting 1) vessels that lack sufficient holding capacity for 

sewage and graywater, and 2) specific routine discharges 

necessary for vessel operation.

- A regulatory ban on the discharge of invasive species in the 

sanctuary

- A regulatory change that would reduce the overflight floor over the 

sanctuary from 2000 feet to 1000 feet

 
166 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

7.1. ALTERNATIVE A (NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE) 

The no-action alternative (alternative A) would be to adopt the existing OCNMS 

management plan – without revision – as OCNMS’s management plan for the next five to 

ten years. This management plan (OCNMS1993) was published in 1993 and officially 

adopted in 1994 at the time of sanctuary designation (it is therefore referred to as the 1994 

management plan). It was OCNMS’s first management plan and dates from the time of 

sanctuary designation. Under the no action alternative, there would be no changes made to 

the existing management plan: no changes to existing OCNMS regulations, no changes to 

the existing OCNMS goals (there are no objectives in the 1994 management plan), and no 

inclusion of any additional information (such as the performance measures, cost estimates, 

budgets, action plans that are included in alternatives B and C). 

The current 1994 management plan broadly outlines the resource protection, research, 

education, administrative and visitor services necessary at the time of the sanctuary’s 

designation. The focus of this management plan is on the initiation of sanctuary research, 

education and protection programs. Because this management plan was written at the time 

of sanctuary designation, when OCNMS staff and programs were emerging, the guidance 

provided in the 1994 management plan is purposefully general in nature. It does not 

specifically address cultural resources, local and customary knowledge or the 

socioeconomic values of resources in the sanctuary, though it in no ways prohibits work on 

these topic from occurring. 

Because the 1994 management plan is written so broadly, any of the non-regulatory actions 

(administrative, resource protection, research, education and outreach, visitor services, 

maritime heritage) detailed under alternatives B and C (i.e., in the 20 action plans) could 

conceivably be implemented under alternative A (no action) – even though alternative A 

does not technically include the action plans. Thus, in the Environmental Consequences 

discussion (section 8.0), the environmental and human effects of the alternative B and C 

non-regulatory actions are considered under alternative A (as well as under alternatives B 

and C). 

While, conceivably, OCNMS could choose to implement the non-regulatory aspects of 

alternatives B and C (i.e., the action plans) even if the no action alternative was chosen, 

OCNMS does not believe that the no-action alternative would adequately address the 

purpose and need for revising the management plan. To implement the action plans 

without officially revising the management plan would undermine the transparency that 

OCNMS aims to achieve with the management plan review process. Implementing the 

action plans without incorporating them into the official OCNMS management plan would 

reduce OCNMS’s accountability and most likely confuse members of the public interested 

in understanding OCNMS’s structure and work efforts. Moreover, because the 20 action 

plans in the DMP do not correspond directly to the structure of the original 1994 

management plan, it would be difficult for the public and OCNMS partners to understand 

how the action plans and original management plan relate to one another. 
167 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

The environmental and socioeconomic consequences of alternative A are analyzed in 

Section 8.0 of this document. 

7.2. ALTERNATIVE B (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

The preferred alternative (alternative B) would be to adopt the Draft Management Plan 

(DMP) presented in Section 5.0 of this document in place of the existing 1994 OCNMS 

management plan. The DMP is comprised of 20 action plans organized under five of the 

six priority issues described in Section 4.0 (priority management need one – treaty trust 

responsibility – does not encompass action plans per se, but is discussed in detail in Section 

2.0): 

1. Treaty Trust Responsibility 

2. Achieve Effective Collaborative and Coordinated Management 

3. Conduct Collaborative Research, Assessments and Monitoring to Inform 

Ecosystem-Based Management 

4. Improve Ocean Literacy 

5. Conserve Natural Resources in the Sanctuary 

6. Understand the Sanctuary’s Cultural, Historical and Socioeconomic 

Significance 

The action plans describe the work that OCNMS staff would undertake over the next five 

to ten years, which includes both regulatory and non-regulatory activities. There are 

several regulatory changes associated with alternative B and they would be proposed in the 

same timeframe as the DMP. These regulatory changes, which include technical 

clarifications to the OCNMS regulations and a ban on cruise ship discharges, are noted in 

the relevant action plans and their impacts are analyzed in Section 8.0 (Environmental 

Consequences). All regulatory changes are proposed as a separate rulemaking process that 

will be announced in the Federal Register. OCNMS is synchronizing the rulemaking and 

management plan review processes to streamline these efforts; and this DEA will be used 

to support both processes. 

Each action plan is comprised of a series of strategies and activities. In addition to the 20 

actions plans, the DMP contains cost estimates for each strategy, a suite of performance 

measures by which OCNMS would evaluate its effectiveness in implementing the 

management plan, and an implementation table that shows the level of priority (high, 

medium, low) for each strategy under three budget scenarios: a level-funded budget, a 

moderately-increased budget and a substantially-increased budget. Alternative B provides 

substantially more detail about the work that OCNMS will undertake than does the no 

action alternative A, which provides only broad descriptions of OCNMS program areas. 

Moreover, by including performance measures, cost estimates, and an implementation plan, 

alternative B would create a high level of accountability that alternative A would not. 

Alternative B, in addition to encompassing all the actions proposed in section 5.0 (Draft 

Management Plan), also includes the revised OCNMS goals and objectives presented in 
168 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Section 1.3. If the preferred alternative is chosen, these goals and objectives would replace 

the goals in the original 1994 management plan. 

Alternative B (preferred) is the alternative that best meets the purpose and need for revising 

the OCNMS management plan. Alternative B and the 20 action plans it encompasses 

address all of the primary needs identified, including: 

 Updating an out-of-date management plan 

 Addressing recent changes in regional ocean governance 

 Filling data gaps 

 Incorporating new technologies 

 Addressing issues that have emerged over the past 16 years 

Moreover, the suite of regulatory and non-regulatory activities in alternative B would 

address these needs in a manner that best complements the existing programs, policies and 

regulations of OCNMS’s key ocean management and conservation partners in the region. 

Over 100 regional experts were involved in developing and refining the action plans 

presented in alternative B. These action plans identify a clear and precise role for OCNMS 

in each of the 20 topic areas they cover – a role that would not duplicate the efforts of 

others and would provide for the most effective use of OCNMS’s limited resources. 

The environmental and socioeconomic consequences of alternative B are analyzed in 

Section 8.0 of this document. 

7.3. ALTERNATIVE C (NOT PREFERRED) 

Alternative C would be built on alternative B (preferred) by adopting the DMP (and 20 

action plans) presented in Section 5.0, but with several modifications to specific action 

plans and strategies. The modifications included in alternative C follow: 

1. In the Spills Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Restoration Action Plan, 

Strategy SPILL1: ATBA Management, Compliance and Monitoring would be 

modified to include the following new non-regulatory activity: 

“Work collaboratively with other Federal agencies and the International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) to evaluate options to make compliance with the ATBA 

mandatory.” 

Currently, the Olympic Coast ATBA is an International Maritime Organization 

(IMO) voluntary vessel routing measure. Under alternative B (preferred), it would 

remain voluntary and OCNMS would work with the USCG to prepare a proposal to 

the International Maritime Organization Subcommittee on Safety to Navigation 

implementing legislation requiring that “restrictions apply to all vessels required to 

prepare a response plan pursuant to section 311(j) of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)) (other than fishing or research vessels while 

engaged in fishing or research within the area to be avoided)” (Section 704, Coast 

Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011). 
169 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Currently, compliance with the ATBA is voluntary and, under Alternative B 

(preferred), it would remain voluntary. Under alternative C, OCNMS would work 

with its partners over the next five to ten years to evaluate options to make the 

ATBA mandatory. Options to consider could include both domestic federal 

regulations under the authority of the USCG (i.e., Port and Waterways Safety Act) 

and the ONMS (i.e., National Marine Sanctuaries Act), and IMO vessel routing 

measures under the authority of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the 

Sea. 

Under Alternative C, OCNMS would not immediately pursue domestic or 

international regulatory changes, but would work to develop a new regulation(s) 

that mandates compliance with the ATBA during the management plan 

implementation process (i.e., over the next five to ten years). Once a proposed 

regulatory change is agreed upon, it would go through its own separate process. 

Interest in strengthening the ATBA has come up repeatedly since its original 

adoption in 1994. In 2002 OCNMS, working with the USCG and the IMO, 

modified the original provisions based on the results of a USCG Port Access Routes 

Study completed in 2000 (USCG 2000). This study evaluated the need for 

modifications to vessel routing and traffic management measures in the Strait of 

Juan de Fuca and adjacent waters, including the sanctuary. Recommendations 

included three that applied to sanctuary waters: (1) a proposal to amend the IMOadopted ATBA ‘‘Off the Washington Coast’’ to increase its size and extend its 

applicability to commercial ships of 1,600 gross tons and above; (2) a proposal for 

recommended routes in the United States waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca for 

smaller, slower moving vessels that normally do not use the traffic separation 

scheme; and (3) a proposal amending the existing traffic separation schemes (TSSs) 

‘‘In the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Its Approaches,’’ (66 F.R. 6514). All 3 

proposals were approved by the International Maritime Organization in May 2002 

(67 F.R. 70933). 

Interest in strengthening the ATBA was also expressed during the public scoping 

comment period for MPR and by a member of the public during a public comment 

period at an AC meeting. In 2007 the Washington State Oil Spill Advisory Council 

requested that OCNMS consider extending ATBA applicability to cover unladen oil 

barges (which carry some residual oil). Similar concerns recently have led Senator 

Maria Cantwell (WA-D) to include provisions in legislation to strengthen the 

ATBA through expansion of the vessels covered by this voluntary measure (Section 

704, Coast Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011). Given that a 

hazardous spill is perhaps the most significant threat to resources in the sanctuary, 

considering an alternative that strengthens the ATBA is reasonable. 

The Advisory Council working group focused on Spills Prevention, Preparedness, 

Response and Restoration did not consider a recommendation to strengthen the 

ATBA because the current voluntary ATBA has such a high compliance rate 
170 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

(98.9% compliance in 2009, WDE 2010). For this reason the ATBA expansion is 

not included in OCNMS’s preferred alternative. 

2. In the Wildlife Disturbance Action Plan, Strategy WD2: Overflight Restriction 

Zone would be modified to include the following regulatory activity: 

“During the management plan review process, modify OCNMS regulations to 

reduce the overflight floor over the sanctuary from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet.” 

This new activity would represent a change to OCNMS regulations that is not 

proposed under alternative B (preferred). Under alternative B (preferred) the 

overflight floor (minimum altitude) would remain at 2,000 feet. 

Of the four West Coast sanctuaries with overflight regulations, OCNMS is the only 

one with a 2,000 foot overflight regulation; the other three sanctuaries have a 1,000 

foot overflight regulation. Existing literature suggests that a 1,000 foot restriction is 

generally adequate to protect wildlife. However, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) has a policy for noise-sensitive areas that recommends a 

2,000 foot minimum altitude over national parks and wildlife refuges (FAA AC 91-

36d), such as Olympic National Park (ONP) and the Washington Maritime National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex (WMNWRC), the jurisdictions of which overlap with the 

sanctuary. This FAA policy is advisory in nature and is not enforceable. The 

current OCNMS regulation was established for consistency with this advisory. In 

recent years, OCNMS staff has been considering the possibility of reducing the 

overflight regulation from 2,000 to 1,000 feet because it is less restrictive to the 

public and could still meet the objective of protecting wildlife in the sanctuary. 

This alternative is not preferred because, while lowering the elevation is not 

expected to have significant adverse impacts on wildlife in the sanctuary, it is 

neither expected to improve resource protection for wildlife. In addition, the 

aesthetic climate of the wilderness coastline of ONP could be degraded by lowering 

the enforceable minimum altitude for overflights. Moreover, changing OCNMS’s 

overflight regulation in this way would make it inconsistent with overflight 

advisories over adjacent National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife lands, 

which might lead to confusion for pilots. 

3. In the Water Quality Protection Action Plan, Strategy WQP1: Vessel Discharges, 

Activity B (cruise ship discharge regulatory ban) would be revised to state: 

Activity B: During the management plan review process, modify OCNMS 

regulations to prohibit: 

 all discharges from cruise ships into waters of the sanctuary except clean 

vessel engine cooling water, clean vessel generator cooling water, clean 

bilge water, anchor wash. (existing language for alternative B) 
171 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

 all discharges (except when limited by sewage or graywater holding 

capacity) from vessels 300 gross tons and above into waters of the 

sanctuary, except clean vessel engine cooling water, clean vessel generator 

cooling water, clean bilge water, anchor wash. 

Under alternative B (preferred), this activity would be directed solely toward 

prohibiting cruise ship discharges. Under alternative C, this regulatory action 

would be expanded to address all vessels 300 gross tons and above for all 

discharges, with noted exceptions required for operations and vessels that lack 

sufficient holding tank capacity for sewage or graywater to hold effluent while 

within the sanctuary. 

Interest in water quality and the effects of vessel discharges (including cruise ship 

discharges) in the sanctuary were expressed during the MPR public scoping period 

and during subsequent public comment periods at AC meetings. The Living 

Resource Conservation Working Group’s findings to the Advisory Council 

recommended a regulatory prohibition on cruise ship discharges in OCNMS and 

several non-regulatory activities to address other discharge concerns. OCNMS staff 

considered a broader prohibition of discharges from additional vessel classes. 

Prohibiting all discharges from large vessels in the sanctuary would be consistent 

with the NMSA’s primary objective of resource protection and could meet the need 

to update the current management plan to reflect the development of issues since 

the publication of the 1994 management plan. A discharge ban on all large vessels 

would reduce the volume of wastewater discharged to the sanctuary and would 

avoid singling out one industry (i.e., cruise ship) in the analysis. 

This is not the preferred alternative for addressing vessel discharges because vessels 

other than cruise ships generate a proportionally smaller discharge volume relative 

to that generated by cruise ships. Cruise ships carry many passengers, whereas 

most other large vessels traversing or working in the sanctuary have relatively small 

crews and thus do not generate nearly the volume of discharge that cruise ships do. 

Given the current knowledge on vessel discharge impacts to the marine 

environment and the existing state of Washington regulation prohibiting all vessel 

discharges within three miles of the shoreline, NOAA believes that eliminating 

discharges from cruise ships in the sanctuary would provide ample protection of 

sanctuary resources at this time. Additionally, there are specific, non-regulatory 

actions proposed in the actions plans under alternative B and C that would address 

additional discharges. 

4. In the Habitat Protection Action Plan, Strategy HP3: Invasive Species would be 

modified to include the following new activity: 

“During the management plan review process, modify OCNMS regulations to ban 

the discharge of invasive species in the sanctuary.” 
172 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

OCNMS defines the term “invasive species” according to the state of Washington 

Invasive Species Council definition, “invasive species include non-native 

organisms that cause economic or environmental harm and are capable of 

spreading to new areas of the state. Invasive species does not include domestic 

livestock, intentionally planted agronomic crops, or non-harmful exotic organisms". 

The Washington Invasive Species Council maintains an updated list of invasive 

species (aquatic and terrestrial) for the state of Washington. OCNMS would 

implement this regulation according to the most current version of this list. 

It should be noted that several of the national marine sanctuaries in California 

implemented similar regulatory bans, but these sanctuaries banned discharge of 

introduced (not invasive) species and defined introduced species as, “any species 

(including but not limited to any of its biological matter capable of propagation) 

that is non-native to ecosystems of the sanctuary; or any organism into which 

altered genetic matter, or genetic matter from another species, has been transferred 

in order that the host organism acquires the genetic traits of the transferred genes.” 

OCNMS has chosen to use the Washington Invasive Species Council definition of 

invasive species so that an OCNMS discharge ban on invasive species would 

complement and be consistent with state of Washington efforts toward invasive 

species. Additionally, the Washington Invasive Species Council has formal, 

established and scientifically supported procedures for identifying which species 

meet their definition. The council works consistently to update and refine this list 

as necessary. Thus, OCNMS, in using the council’s definition, would also be able 

to use and refer sanctuary users to the State’s list of invasive species. Using the 

state’s list of invasive species would reduce confusion for sanctuary users trying to 

adhere to both state and OCNMS invasive species regulations. 

This new management plan activity represents an additional change to OCNMS 

regulations that is not proposed under alternative B (preferred). Under alternative B 

there would be no regulatory changes related to the discharge of invasive species. 

Concern about preventing the introduction of invasive species was expressed during 

the MPR public scoping period. In particular, there was concern about the potential 

culture of invasive species in the sanctuary, such as Atlantic salmon, which is 

defined as a regulated invasive species by the Washington Invasive Species 

Council. While cultured species are regulated and have been managed in 

Washington waters for many decades, some cultured species, such as Atlantic 

salmon, are known to have escaped culture pens and caused impacts to native 

species (Naylor et al. 2005). 

The Living Resources Conservation Working Group and the Collaborative 

Research, Assessments and Monitoring Working Group of the Advisory Council 

both considered recommending actions to address the issue of invasive, non-native 

species. However, the Living Resources Conservation Working Group, after 

reviewing existing state and regional regulations and policies related to invasive 
173 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

species, concluded that an OCNMS regulation related to invasive, non-native 

species was unnecessary. However, a regulation to prevent the introduction of 

invasive, non-native species would be consistent with the NMSA’s primary 

objective of resource protection, and it could meet the need to update the current 

management plan to reflect issues that have developed since the publication of the 

1994 management plan. 

This alternative is not preferred, however, for several reasons: 

 One of the primary vectors for invasive species introductions in the sanctuary is 

ballast water. The state of Washington has extensive ballast water regulations, 

the aim of which is to prevent the introduction of invasive species 

(http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/ballast/ballast.htm). These regulations are known to 

be some of the strongest in the nation. These state regulations prevent the 

exchange of ballast water in or near sanctuary waters because vessels traveling 

into the U.S. from another country are required to exchange ballast water more 

than 200 nmi from shore, and vessels traveling along the U.S. coast must 

exchange ballast water further than 50 nmi from shore. OCNMS believes that 

existing state regulations are the most effective way to address this issue and 

that banning the discharge of non-native species would not strengthen 

protections already provided by WA state ballast water regulations. 

 The other primary vector for non-native species invasions into the sanctuary is 

the potential spread of invasive species from populations adjacent to the 

sanctuary (i.e., European green crab). A regulation would not address the 

potential movement or range expansion of existing invasive species into the 

sanctuary (unless a person was caught carrying a European green crab into the 

sanctuary, which is highly unlikely). The most effective strategy to address a 

range expansion of an invasive species is monitoring for their presence and 

working with partners to establish eradication plans. 

 Another potential vector for introduction of invasive species would be an 

aquaculture facility within the sanctuary. However, there are currently no 

aquaculture facilities in the sanctuary, nor are any foreseen at this time. Any 

development of aquaculture within the sanctuary is unlikely due to dynamic 

ocean conditions of the outer Washington coast. Further, an aquaculture 

operation, which required a sanctuary, permit due to seabed disturbance, 

discharge, or otherwise, would allow OCNMS to consider all the potential 

impacts of the operation, including potential impacts from the culture of 

invasive species. Thus, it is not necessary for OCNMS to enact a specific 

invasive species regulation of this nature. That being said, OCNMS should 

continue to stay abreast of aquaculture technology developments and, if 

necessary, revisit this issue during the next management plan review process. 
174 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

In addition to these four modifications, alternative C also encompasses the revised OCNMS 

goals and objectives presented in Section 1. Should alternative C be selected, these goals 

and objectives would replace the goals in the original 1994 management plan. 

The environmental and socioeconomic consequences of these modifications are analyzed in 

Section 8 of this document. 

 
175 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

8. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

This section evaluates the environmental consequences of the proposed action of revising 

the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) management plan. Because each 

management plan alternative (described in section 7) is comprised of numerous smaller 

actions, the term “action(s)” is used in this section not only to reference the overall 

proposed action of revising the management plan but also to reference the smaller 

individual actions that comprise each alternative. 

The environmental effects of the no-action alternative (alternative A), the proposed 

management plan revision (alternative B-preferred), and alternative C are summarized 

(Table 13) and then evaluated within the context of the physical, biological, historic and 

cultural, and human and socioeconomic sanctuary setting. Information about the 

biological, physical, historic, cultural and socioeconomic sanctuary setting can be found in 

the Affected Environment discussion (section 6). 

Alternative A (no action) includes only non-regulatory actions (i.e., no changes to OCNMS 

regulations are proposed). Alternatives B and C are comprised of both non-regulatory and 

regulatory actions (i.e., they include proposed changes to existing OCNMS regulations). 

Both the regulatory and non-regulatory actions associated with alternatives B and C are 

analyzed in sections 8.1 through 8.4. Section 8.4 (effects to the historic and cultural 

setting) serves a dual purpose, fulfilling OCNMS’s compliance requirements both under 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA). Section 8.5 discusses the cumulative effects of all three alternatives within the 

context of other known activities occurring within the sanctuary region. 

Characterizing Effects 

NEPA requires consideration of the effects of major federal actions on the quality of the 

human environment (42 U.S.C. 4332 (c)). Effects are characterized as negligible, less than 

significant or significant, and are also characterized by type (adverse or beneficial), 

context, intensity, duration (short- or long-term). Effects can be further characterized by 

whether they affect resources directly or indirectly. The following definitions and 

characterizations were used for this analysis: 

 Negligible effects – those effects for which virtually no effect to a resource can be 

detected (whether beneficial or adverse). 

 Less than significant effects – effects that are identifiable but which do not rise to 

the level of “significant” as defined below. 

 Significant effects – effects that would result in an alteration in the health of a 

physical, biological, historic/cultural or socioeconomic resource. Long-term (see 

below) or permanent effects with a high intensity of alteration to a resource, 

whether beneficial or adverse, would be considered significant. The significance 

threshold is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the context 

and intensity of each action. Context normally refers to the setting (e.g., the local 
176 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

and regional status of the resource being affected), and intensity refers to the 

severity of the effect. Significant effects can be adverse or beneficial, and direct or 

indirect. Consideration of the accumulation of several individually less than 

significant effects could result in a determination of significance for cumulative 

effects. 

 Adverse effects – effects that negatively affect the health of a resource. 

 Beneficial effects –effects that positively affect the health of a resource. 

 Short-term effects – effects lasting one year or less. 

 Long-term effects – effects that last longer than one year and/or are potentially 

permanent. 

 Direct effects – effects that occur at the same time and place as the action. 

 Indirect effects – effects that occur later in time or are farther removed from the 

place where the action occurs, but are reasonably foreseeable. 

 Cumulative effects – effects that result from the incremental impact of an action 

when added to other actions in the past, present, or foreseeable future, regardless of 

who undertakes such action. 

Analysis of the environmental consequences of the three alternatives is based largely on 

review of existing literature and studies, information provided by experts at OCNMS, 

ONMS and other agencies, and best professional judgment. Environmental consequences 

of the proposed actions are considered within the context of the revised management plan’s 

five to ten-year planning horizon. Thus, when assessing the effects of an action, the action 

is only presumed to occur for, at most, ten years. 
177 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

Action Plan (AP) Abbreviations: 

CCM – Collaborative and Coordinated Management AP 

COM – Community Involvement in Sanctuary Management AP 

OPS – Sanctuary Operations AP 

MAP – Habitat Mapping and Classification AP 

OCEO – Physical and Chemical Oceanography AP 

ECO – Populations, Communities and Ecosystems AP 

DAT – Data Management, Sharing and Reporting AP 

ED – K-12 Education AP 

HED – Higher Education AP 

VISIT – Visitor Services AP 

OUT – Community Outreach AP 

SPILL – Spills Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Restoration AP 

CLIM – Climate Change AP 

MD – Marine Debris AP 

WD – Wildlife Disturbance AP 

WQP – Water Quality Protection AP 

HP – Habitat Protection AP 

MSP – Marine Spatial Planning AP 

MH – Maritime Heritage AP 

SOCIO – Socioeconomic Values of Resources in the Sanctuary 
178 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

Table 13 Summary of Analyzed Actions 

Action Alternative(s) That Contain This Action Relevant Action Plans Effect of Action Resources Affected 

Structural changes to the format of the OCNMS management plan, and revisions to OCNMS goals and objectives 

B, C All 20 Action Plans Negligible None 

Routine office activities, including meetings, education, visitor and training programs that take place in existing OCNMS or other facilities 

A, B, C All 20 Action Plans Negligible None 

Use of Information Technology (includes internet technology, data management technology) 

A, B, C All 20 Action Plans Negligible None 

Routine outreach activities that do not occur in the sanctuary (fair booths, community events) 

A, B, C All 20 Action Plans Negligible None 

Routine education, outreach and visitor activities A, B, C ED, OUT, VISIT, HED, 

CLIM, MD, WD 

Less than Significant, Beneficial, Indirect, Short-term 

Biological, Physical, Historic and Cultural and Socioeconomic 

Routine research activities A, B, C MAP, OCEO, ECO, 

DATA, SOCIO 

Less than Significant, Beneficial, Indirect, Short-term 

Biological, Physical, Historic and Cultural and Socioeconomic 

Routine maritime heritage activities A, B, C MH Less than Significant, Beneficial, 

Indirect, Short-term 

Historic and Cultural 

Routine resource protection and stewardship activities A, B, C SPILL, MD, CLIM, HP, 

WQP, MSP, WD 

Less than Significant, Beneficial, Indirect, Short-term 

Biological, Physical, Historic and Cultural 

Sediment sampling (for habitat mapping and community characterization) 

A, B, C MAP, ECO Less than Significant, Adverse, 

Direct, Short-term 

Biological, Physical, Historic and Cultural 
179 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

Action Alternative(s) That Contain This Action Relevant Action Plans Effect of Action Resources Affected 

Operating sonar (for hydrographic surveying) A, B, C MAP Less than Significant, Adverse, 

Direct, Short-term 

Biological 

Anchoring research buoys A, B, C OCEO Less than Significant, Adverse, 

Direct, Short-term 

Biological, Physical, Historic and Cultural 

Operating vessels in sanctuary A, B, C OPS, MAP, OCEO, 

ECO, 

Less than Significant, Adverse, Direct and Indirect, Short-term 

Biological, Physical 

Conducting wildlife research, monitoring and assessments 

A, B, C ECO Less than Significant, Adverse, 

Direct, Short-term 

Biological 

Beach and intertidal activities (student field trips, beach debris removal) 

A, B, C ED, OUT, MD, ECO Less than Significant, Adverse, 

Direct, Short-term 

Biological, Physical 

Encouraging visitor use of beaches and intertidal areas A, B, C VISIT Less than Significant, Adverse, 

Direct, Short-term 

Biological, Physical 

Evaluate options to make compliance with the ATBA mandatory 

C SPILL Less than Significant, Beneficial, 

Indirect, Long-term Less than Significant, Adverse, Direct, Long-term 

Biological, Physical, Socioeconomic 

Replace the term “traditional fishing” with “lawful fishing” 

B, C OPS Negligible None 

Technical clarifications to OCNMS regulations B, C OPS Negligible None Alteration of overflight regulation (reducing overflight floor from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet 

C WD Less than Significant, Adverse, 

Direct, Short-term 

Physical, Socioeconomic 
180 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

Action Alternative(s) That Contain This Action Relevant Action Plans Effect of Action Resources Affected 

Including a new regulation to ban discharge of invasive species 

C HP Less than Significant, Beneficial, 

Indirect, Long-term Less than Significant, Adverse, Direct, Short-term 

Biological, Physical Socioeconomic 

Expanding discharge regulation to include ban on cruise ship discharge 

B, C WQP Less than Significant, Beneficial, 

Indirect, Long-term Less than Significant, Beneficial, Direct, Long-term 

Biological, Physical Socioeconomic 

Expanding discharge regulation to include ban on large vessel discharges 

C WQP Less than Significant, Beneficial, 

Indirect, Long-term Less than Significant, Adverse, Direct, Short-term 

Biological, Physical, Socioeconomic 
181 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

8.1. PHYSICAL SETTING 

The purpose of this section is to discuss the effects of all three alternatives on physical resources 

in the sanctuary. An overview of the sanctuary’s physical setting and the resources encompassed 

within it is provided in the Affected Environment discussion (section 6.1). 

8.1.1. Actions with Negligible Effects to the Physical Setting 

There are several actions that would occur under all three alternatives that are expected to have a 

negligible effect on the physical setting. These actions include: 

 Routine office and classroom activities, including meetings, visitor, education and 

training programs that take place in existing OCNMS or other facilities 

 Use of Information Technology (IT) resources, including internet technology, data 

management programs, phone and e-mail technology 

 Routine outreach activities that do not occur in the sanctuary, including staffing fair 

booths and attending community events 

These actions are expected to have a negligible effect on physical resources because these 

actions all occur within existing facilities, and no construction or physical development is 

anticipated to be required to conduct these actions. Additionally, these actions would not involve 

any direct or indirect interaction between the people and physical resources within the sanctuary. 

Another action proposed under alternatives B and C involves modifications to OCNMS 

regulations and also would have negligible effects on physical resources: 

 Replace the term “traditional fishing” with “lawful fishing” 

 Technical changes to OCNMS regulations as outlined in the Sanctuary Operations Action 

Plan (strategy OPS 9, activity H) 

The current OCNMS regulations define the term “traditional fishing” as “using a fishing method 

that has been used in the sanctuary before the effective date of sanctuary designation (July 22, 

1994), including the retrieval of fishing gear” and provide an exception for traditional fishing 

operations to three of the regulatory prohibitions – prohibitions on discharge of certain fishingrelated materials, disturbance to historical resources, and disturbance to the seabed. OCNMS 

regulations could be interpreted to mean that fishing methods or operations that do not fall within 

the definition of “traditional fishing” are not allowed to discharge materials mentioned above, or 

disturb historical resources or the seabed. The precise language of these three exceptions is as 

follows: 

 “Discharging or depositing, from within the boundary of the Sanctuary, any material or 

other matter except fish, fish parts, chumming materials or bait used in or resulting from 

traditional fishing operations in the Sanctuary.” (15 CFR 922.152(2)(i)) 

 “Moving, removing or injuring, or attempting to move, remove or injure, a Sanctuary 

historical resource. This prohibition does not apply to moving, removing or injury 

resulting incidentally from traditional fishing operations.” (15 CFR 922.152(3)) 
182 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

 “Drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of the Sanctuary; or 

constructing, placing or abandoning any structure, material or other matter on the seabed 

of the Sanctuary, except as an incidental result of... Traditional fishing operations.” (15 

CFR 922.152(4)(ii)) 

As part of this action, NOAA proposes to replace the term “traditional fishing” with the term 

“lawful fishing” in these three places to: 1) use a term that is more clearly understood; and 2) 

eliminate the distinction between fishing methods that were used before OCNMS designation 

from those that have since been authorized. Despite the definition provided in the current 

OCNMS regulations, and because of its varied connotation, the term “traditional” in OCNMS 

regulations may be incorrectly interpreted (e.g., equating traditional fishing with Native 

American fishing techniques). Additionally, there is ambiguity associated with the extent of gear 

modification or uniqueness of design or practice that would constitute a new or non-traditional 

fishing method. By replacing the word “traditional” with “lawful” NOAA would unambiguously 

recognize fishing activities authorized by governmental fisheries management authorities. This 

change would also be consistent with terms used in the regulations for other national marine 

sanctuaries on the West Coast. 

In recent decades, findings of overfishing and habitat damage from fisheries in U.S. waters have 

led to gear modifications, mandated stock rebuilding plans, and emergence of an ecosystem 

approach to fishery management. Before they are authorized, new fishing techniques, gear 

modifications, or targeted species proposed to federal, tribal and state authorities are evaluated 

for habitat and ecosystem impacts. This work occurs on a regular basis. While many of the new 

fishery practices (e.g. gear modifications, rebuilding measures etc.) are anticipated to have fewer 

impacts to sanctuary resources, it is possible that a new, lawful fishery or fishery practice may 

have a negative impact on sanctuary resources (e.g., a test fishery that has unanticipated 

impacts). In such cases, the proper way to address any concerns related to potential new 

fisheries or fishing methods within the sanctuary would be through the interagency consultation 

process pursuant to section 304(d) of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1434(d)). 

This change is expected to have a negligible effect because Federal, state, tribal and regional 

fishery management authorities currently analyze and attempt to mitigate impacts associated 

with lawful fishing, including that which has occurred traditionally in the sanctuary, and those 

authorities are expected to do the same in the future. Since the scope and impacts of any such 

future management actions are speculative at this point, it is not possible, and would be 

inappropriate, to speculate on any additional impact analysis in this document. 

Other proposed changes to OCNMS regulations identified in strategy OPS 9, activity H would 

not affect the physical resources within the sanctuary because the changes are language 

clarifications that do not alter the meaning or intent of the regulations. 

Alternatives B and C also contain some structural changes to the management plan that 

alternative A does not include. Under alternatives B and C, the management plan would contain 

performance measures, cost estimates and an implementation table. Alternatives B and C would 

also include a revised suite of goals and objectives for OCNMS. While these structural 
183 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

modifications do provide additional clarity and detail to the alternatives, they would have a 

negligible effect on physical resources in the sanctuary. 

8.1.2. Actions with Beneficial Effects to the Physical Setting 

There are several actions that would occur under one or more of the alternatives that are expected 

to have a beneficial effect on physical resources within the sanctuary. These actions include: 

 Routine activities conducted as part of OCNMS’s resource protection, research, visitor 

services, outreach, education and administrative program areas (alternatives A, B and C) 

 A regulatory ban on discharges from cruise ships (alternatives B and C) 

 A regulatory ban on discharges from large vessels (alternative C) 

 An expansion of the voluntary Area-to-be-Avoided program (alternative C) 

 A regulatory ban on the discharge of invasive species (alternative C) 

8.1.2.1. Routine Activities Effects to the Physical Setting 

Many of the routine and general education, outreach, research, resource protection, 

administrative, and visitor services actions that would take place under all three alternatives 

would have an indirect, short-term, and less than significant, beneficial effect on physical 

resources within the sanctuary. These routine actions are non-regulatory actions involving the 

continuation of OCNMS’s primary program areas, including: 

 Routine resource protection activities (e.g., marine debris removal) 

 Routine research activities (e.g., water quality monitoring) 

 Routine outreach services activities (e.g., citizen science programs) 

 Routine education activities (e.g., phytoplankton identification classes) 

 Routine visitor services activities (e.g., operating Olympic Coast Discovery Center) 

 Routine administrative activities (e.g., enforcement of regulations and permitting) 

These routine, non-regulatory activities are described in greater detail in the 20 action plans 

presented in section 5. All of these program areas have less than significant, indirect, and 

beneficial effects on physical resources because they promote ocean literacy, improved 

understanding of resources, and improved ocean stewardship. By promoting these principles 

with partners, local communities and the general public, OCNMS has the opportunity to 

influence the behavior and decision-making of individuals, communities, organizations and 

agencies in ways that could indirectly benefit physical resources. For example, if a citizen visits 

an OCNMS fair booth and learns about the importance of marine debris removal, s/he may be 

more likely to participate in a beach clean-up activity. In turn, increased participation in beach 

clean-ups could result in less trash on the beach. 

While all of these routine actions are beneficial, it is not expected that their effects would be 

significant because the anticipated intensity of effects associated with these actions is low. Thus, 

it is not likely a significant improvement in physical resources could be achieved as a result of 

these types of indirect beneficial actions over the five to ten year implementation period for the 

management plan. 
184 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

8.1.2.2. Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharges - Effects to the Physical Setting 

Under alternative A, no regulatory modifications are proposed and no additional beneficial effect 

to the physical setting would be expected. Alternative B proposes a regulatory ban on all 

discharges within OCNMS from cruise ships (except clean vessel deck wash down, clean vessel 

engine cooling water, clean vessel generator cooling water, clean bilge water, or anchor wash) 

that would have a direct, long-term, beneficial, less-than-significant impact on physical resources 

(i.e., water quality) because it would prohibit discharges that are potentially harmful by 

introduction of contaminants, including nutrients that could stimulate harmful algal blooms and 

intensification of low oxygen conditions. This regulatory change is discussed in the Water 

Quality Action Plan in section 5.2. For the purpose of this regulation and consistency with 

regulations for other West Coast national marine sanctuaries, cruise ships are considered to be 

vessels with 250 or more passenger berths for hire. 

Cruise ships generate a variety of wastewater discharges that have the potential to harm the 

marine environment. The discharges of highest concern in OCNMS are sewage, graywater, and 

bilge water. Sewage discharges from ships, particularly those not using Advanced Water 

Treatment Systems (AWTS), can contain nutrients that create biological and chemical oxygen 

demand and could contribute to algae blooms that, in turn, could intensify low dissolved oxygen 

levels known to occur in the sanctuary. 

Properly functioning marine sanitation devices (MSDs; described in section 6.1.3 and Appendix 

K) decrease nutrient concentrations in sewage through chemical or biological or other treatment 

technologies. Current federal regulations require that all cruise ships treat sewage wastes using a 

Type II MSD. An initial study conducted in 2000 in Alaska of cruise ship waste water 

discharges showed high rates of failure in the ability of conventional MSDs to meet legal 

discharge standards (EPA 2008a). Since this study, improvements have been made. Routine 

monitoring of MSD performance on cruise ships has increased, and AWTS have been installed 

on the majority of cruise ships that transit through OCNMS. It should be noted, however, that 

while AWTS may be installed, they may not always be properly functioning or continuously 

operated. Nevertheless, most cruise ships that transit through OCNMS operate in Alaskan 

waters, and their systems have generally performed well at treating effluent monitored by Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation and the US Coast Guard since 2001 (ADEC 2010). 

These monitored parameters include fecal coliform bacteria (an indicator of potential pathogens), 

pH, chlorine, biological oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and other chemical constituents. 

In 2009, exceedance of discharge standards applied to cruise ships occurred most commonly 

with ammonia, less frequently for nickel, copper and zinc, and rarely/never for other 

contaminants (ADEC 2010). 

Naturally low availability of nutrients in summer months may limit primary productivity in areas 

off the Washington coast (Partridge 2007), and significant nutrient inputs, such as nitrogen in 

ammonia, during summer months could have ecosystem-level effects through alteration of 

natural primary production cycles. In northern waters of the sanctuary, the Juan de Fuca Eddy is 

an area of high primary productivity as well as a source of harmful algal blooms that impact the 

Washington coast. This eddy lies off the western entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca where 
185 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

large vessel traffic is most concentrated (Figures 8 and 11). Increased supply of nutrients to this 

area, with its retentive circulation pattern, could stimulate plankton growth, and transfer of 

organic materials generated via algal blooms toward the seafloor and subsequent decay can lead 

to depletion of dissolved oxygen (DO) in deep waters. Hypoxic (low DO) conditions can stress 

or kill organisms such as invertebrates and fish. Because cruise ship traffic through the 

sanctuary is highest in summer months when initiation of harmful algal blooms and low oxygen 

conditions are most prevalent, there is cause for concern about intensification of these 

phenomena given the volume of nutrient rich wastewaters potentially discharged by cruise ships. 

Another water quality concern is that discharges from properly functioning MSDs also can contain 

high concentrations of formaldehyde or chlorine, which are typically used as sterilizing agents. 

Although they reduce the pathogenicity of discharges, these chemicals themselves pose a threat to 

water quality (NOAA 2008). Given these complexities, it is difficult to determine the degree to 

which wastewater discharges from cruise ships are compromising water quality of the sanctuary. 

Graywater discharges, including water from galley, laundry and baths or showers, also have 

potential to degrade water quality. EPA (2008a) evaluated graywater discharges from various 

sources on cruise ships and compared the concentrations of a wide range of constituents to 

untreated domestic wastewater or sewage. Most graywater discharges from cruise ships had 

constituent levels in a similar range to untreated domestic waste water, yet levels for nutrients, 

biological oxygen demand, and fecal coliforms were many times higher than typical domestic 

graywater. Nutrients in graywater could negatively impact water quality in the same manner and 

in combination with discharges of treated sewage from cruise ships. 

Discharge of bilge water from cruise ships has the potential to introduce oils, detergents, 

degreasers, solvents, and other harmful chemicals into the marine environment that can harm 

water quality and generate oxygen demand. 

Analysis of time in OCNMS and wastewater generation rates indicates a worst-case potential for 

an estimated 0.2 to 1.3 million gallons of treated sewage and 1.5 to 5.0 million gallons of 

graywater to have been discharged by cruise ships (passenger vessels >1,600 GT) into the 

sanctuary in 2009 (Tables 6 and 7). As discussed in section 8.4.2.2, the volume of wastewater 

actually discharged from cruise ships in the sanctuary is uncertain. While industry 

representatives have stated that cruise ships currently avoid all discharges in the sanctuary, this 

has not been verified. Under alternative B, all sewage, graywater, bilge and ballast water 

discharges would be prohibited from cruise ships (except clean vessel deck wash down, clean 

vessel engine cooling water, clean vessel generator cooling water, clean bilge water, or anchor 

wash), and potential water quality impacts from these discharges would be eliminated. The 

nutrient and chemical concentrations in both untreated and treated wastewater varies depending 

on the waste streams and performance of wastewater treatment system used. Thus, it is difficult 

to quantify specific reductions in individual nutrients or chemicals that would be achieved under 

any proposed alternative. 

The water quality of the sanctuary is generally considered to be good and influenced primarily 

by natural processes (ONMS 2008). Implementing alternative B would result in less than 
186 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

significant improvement of water quality over the next 10 years. Elimination of nutrient 

contributions from cruise ship discharges would ensure that water quality conditions are not 

degraded by the inputs of additional nutrients, chemical contaminants, and biological and 

chemical oxygen demand associated with wastewater discharges. 

As discussed in Section 6.1.3.1, ballast water discharges within the OCNMS have the potential 

to introduce potentially harmful invasive species. Although alternative B would ban ballast 

water discharges from cruise ships operating in the sanctuary, this aspect of alternative B could 

have negligible effects on water quality because the U.S. federal, Washington and Canadian 

rules currently prohibit all ballast water discharges in OCNMS unless ballast water was 

exchanged greater than 50 nmi from shore. Open ocean ballast water provides a significantly 

reduced risk of introduced species. 

Discharge of any bilge water other than clean bilge water from cruise ships would also be 

prohibited under alternative B. Untreated bilge water discharges can harm water quality and 

the marine environment through the introduction of oils, solvents, and other harmful chemicals, 

with oils being the contaminant of most consistent concern. Because OCNMS regulations 

currently ban oily bilge water discharges, limiting bilge water discharges from cruise ships to 

clean bilge water (i.e., treated bilge water that does not leave a visible sheen) would have little 

to no impact because the regulations are consistent. 

8.1.2.3. Wastewater Discharges from Vessels over 300 gross tons - Effects to the Physical 

Setting 

Under alternative C, wastewater discharges from large vessels over 300 gross tons (GT) would 

be banned (except clean vessel engine cooling water, clean vessel generator cooling water, 

clean bilge water, anchor wash), in addition to prohibitions on discharges from cruise ships 

proposed in alternative B. Thus, alternative C encompasses a greater range of vessel classes 

but does not regulate any additional types of discharges beyond those covered in alternative B. 

OCNMS regulations under both alternatives B and C would eliminate discharge of all ballast 

water in OCNMS from cruise ships and large vessels even if an open ocean exchange had 

occurred. These regulations also might alter the quality of bilge water discharged in the 

OCNMS as existing OCNMS regulations allow discharge of bilge water that does not include 

“oily waste” and new regulations would allow discharge only of “clean bilge water”, which 

could be interpreted to be more restrictive than the existing OCNMS regulatory language. 

It is estimated that the more inclusive discharge ban proposed under alternative C could result 

in a potential reduction of sewage discharges of roughly 74%, a 11% reduction (by volume) 

over alternative B (Table 14). Under Alternative C, graywater discharges could potentially be 

reduced by 88%, an 13% reduction over alternative B (Table 14). The same beneficial effects 

expected by implementing alternative B (discussed above) would be realized under alternative 

C. Due to reduced volumes of discharge in the sanctuary, the magnitude of the positive effects 

may be greater under alternative C than under alternative B. However, alternative C is still 

expected to have less than significant effects on the overall water quality of OCNMS because 

the sanctuary’s water quality is already considered good and, given the sanctuary’s large size, 
187 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

the discharge reduction achieved under alternative C would not likely result in a substantial 

improvement of water quality (i.e., from ‘good’ to ‘excellent’). 
188 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

Table 14 Comparison of estimated potential discharges (in gallons) under alternatives A, B and C 

Vessel 

Classification 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Sewage Discharge 

Volume (avg) 

Graywater Discharge 

Volume (avg) 

Sewage Discharge 

Volume (avg) 

Graywater Discharge 

Volume (avg) 

Sewage Discharge 

Volume (avg) 

Graywater Discharge 

Volume (avg) 

Commercial Fishing Vessel 94,620 422,636 94,620 422,636 94,620* 422,636 * Charter Fishing Vessel 45,633 not estimated 45,633 not estimated 45,633 not estimated Recreational Fishing Vessel 108,686 not estimated 108,686 not estimated 108,686 not estimated Commercial Vessel < 300GT 2,052 9,166 2,052 9,166 2,052 9,166 Commercial Vessel 300-1599 GT 

 1,782 7,960 1,782 7,960 prohibited prohibited 

Commercial Vessel > 1600 GT 

 63,045 281,601 63,045 281,601 prohibited prohibited 

Passenger Vessel < 300 GT 3,600 16,080 prohibited prohibited 3,600 16,080 Passenger Vessel 300-1599 GT 

 6,000 26,800 prohibited prohibited prohibited prohibited 

Passenger Vessel > 1600 GT 

 630,936 2,818,181 prohibited prohibited prohibited prohibited 

Public Vessel < 300 GT 63 281 63 281 63 281 Public Vessel 300-1599 GT 1,248 5,574 1,248 5,574 prohibited prohibited Public Vessel > 1600 GT 3,893 17,387 3,893 17,387 prohibited prohibited 
189 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

Vessel 

Classification 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Sewage Discharge 

Volume (avg) 

Graywater Discharge 

Volume (avg) 

Sewage Discharge 

Volume (avg) 

Graywater Discharge 

Volume (avg) 

Sewage Discharge 

Volume (avg) 

Graywater Discharge 

Volume (avg) 

Tank Vessel 32,715 146,127 32,715 146,127 prohibited prohibited Tug with tank barge 2,124 9,487 2,124 9,487 2,124 9,487 TOTAL DISCHARGE 996,396 3,761,280 365,460 943,099 256,778 457,650 DECREASE from Status Quo - - 630,936 2,818,181 739,619 3,303,629 Percent reduction in potential discharge from Status Quo 

0% 0% 63% 75% 74% 88% 

* A number of Commercial Fishing Vessels that transit the sanctuary are > 300 GT and would also be affected by Alternative C. These are not included because the data 

that was used in the analysis does not provide tonnage. 
190 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

8.1.2.4. Area-to-be-Avoided - Effects to the Physical Setting 

Currently, the Olympic Coast Area to be Avoided (ATBA) is an International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) voluntary vessel routing measure for vessels 1,600 gross tons and above. 

The ATBA has been in place since 1994, and its compliance rate has been high, estimated to be 

98.9% in 2009 (WDE 2010). To maintain the high compliance rate, OCNMS works with the 

USCG to notify non-compliant vessels, then send a formal letter requesting vessel owners or 

operators to adhere to the ATBA in the future. 

Under alternatives A and B, the ATBA would remain voluntary and continue to apply to all ships 

and barges carrying cargoes of oil or hazardous materials and all ships 1,600 gross tons and 

above solely in transit. It would also apply to additional classes of vessels based on recent 

legislation. The Coast Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 calls on NOAA 

to work with the USCG to revise the ATBA so that existing restrictions apply to additional 

vessels. This change would apply to vessels between 400 GT and 1,600 GT, other than fishing 

or research vessels while engaged in fishing or research within the area to be avoided. 

Thus, under alternatives A and B, the ATBA is expected to continue to have a less than 

significant, beneficial, indirect, long-term effect on physical resources by keeping ships that pose 

a spill risk (i.e., potentially large-scale shoreline impacts of a fuel or materials spill) further 

offshore. The effect is considered less than significant because, while it reduces the risk of a 

spill occurring in the sanctuary and increases the response time between a spill and when oil 

would impact the shore, the ATBA does not directly prevent spills from occurring. Another 

impact of vessel traffic on the physical environment, underwater noise, also is not addressed 

under alternatives A and B. Effects of vessel noise (and effects of noise pollution, in general) are 

discussed in section 8.5, Cumulative Effects. 

Under alternative C, OCNMS would work with its partners to evaluate options to make 

compliance with the ATBA mandatory. This could have an additional beneficial effect (beyond 

alternatives A and B) on physical resources. 

In order to understand the extent and potential significance of this beneficial effect, OCNMS 

evaluated ATBA compliance rates and identified the population of vessels that have not 

voluntarily complied with the ATBA. OCNMS further evaluated responses from the ATBA 

Monitoring and Outreach program to evaluate response from industry on reasons for noncompliance. 

The transits of vessels for which the ATBA applies off the Olympic Coast in 2009 are 

summarized in Table 15. Figure 11 shows the tracklines for all 8,849 transits (vessels for which 

the ATBA applies) that were monitored by Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service (CVTS). Of 

these transits, 6,128 entered OCNMS Figure 12, with a total of 68 transiting within the ATBA 

(Figure 13). In 2009 the ATBA voluntary compliance rate was estimated at near 99%. 
191 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

Figure 11 CVTS Radar Coverage-all 2009 transits 

(8,849 transits) 

Figure 12 CVTS Radar Coverage - OCNMS 2009 transits 

(6,128 transits) 
192 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

Table 15 All Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service (CVTS) Vessel Transits in 2009 

Vessel Type 

Transits in and out of 

the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca recorded by the 

CVTS2

1

Transits 

passing 

through the 

Sanctuary3

2

Transits passing 

through the ATBA 

within the 

Sanctuary4

3

Estimated ATBA 

Compliance Rate5

4

Articulated Tank Barges 265 257 1 99.6% 

Bulk Carriers 2747 1776 19 98.9% 

Cable Layers 23 10 0 100.0% 

Chemical Tankers 325 240 1 99.6% 

Container Ships 2412 1575 15 99.0% 

Cruise Ships 450 280 2 99.3% 

Fishing Vessels (in transit) 111 81 4 95.0% 

General Cargo Ships 487 366 5 98.6% 

Heavy Load Carriers 15 14 1 92.9% 

Hopper Dredger 2 2 0 100.0% 

Liquefied Petroleum Gas Carriers 

(LPG) and Liquified Natural Gas 

(LNG) Carriers 

6 3 0 100.0% 

Non-oil Tankers 73 57 1 98.2% 

Oil Tankers 1056 838 7 99.2% 

Ore-Bulk-Oil Vessels (OBO) 12 7 0 100.0% 

Refrigerated Ships 6 4 0 100.0% 

Roll-on Roll-off Vessels (RORO) 353 201 2 99.0% 

Vehicle Carriers 402 323 1 99.7% 

Tugs with Chemical Barges 3 3 1 66.7% 

Tugs with Oil Barges 101 91 8 91.2% 

8849 6128 68 98.9% 

In 2009, there were a total of 68 non-compliant transits, representing 59 different vessels, 

through OCNMS (Figure 13). This is the population of vessels to which the potential mandatory 

ATBA provisions would have applied if in effect in 2009. The change from voluntary to 

mandatory would increase resource protection to the sanctuary if it would result in increased 

compliance to the ATBA provisions. In 2009 37 letters were sent to non-compliant vessels, this 

accounted for 54% of the 68 non-compliant vessels. In some instances tracking data may show a 

 

2

 The vessel transits in this column were provided by the CVTS and include commercial vessels greater than 1600 

gross tons, or tugs with laden oil or chemical barges. 

3

 This column includes a subset of the CVTS vessel transits through the sanctuary. 

4

 This column includes a subset of the sanctuary vessel transits that also go through the ATBA. These are vessels 

potentially not complying with the provisions of the ATBA. These are identified both by CVTS radar and by Seattle 

Marine Exchange AIS. 

5

 This column shows the percentage of vessels transiting through the Sanctuary that stayed out of the ATBA 

{Column 4 = 1 – (Column3/Column2)}. This is used as an estimate of compliance with ATBA provisions. 
193 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

vessel just inside the boundaries of the ATBA, in some of these cases letters are not sent. Of 

letters sent out in 2009 OCNMS received 14 replies from vessel owners and/or agents. In all but 

a single case the responses acknowledged the ATBA incursion, and replied that they had taken 

action to educate their vessel(s) and committed to future compliance. In the single case where 

the vessel’s master did not agree with the determination that their vessel was in the ATBA, they 

commented that they approached, but did not enter the ATBA. A review of the vessel track 

shows that the vessel entered, but only for a very short period of time. Even in this instance the 

vessel owners agreed to take action to ensure that all the vessels in their fleet would avoid the 

ATBA in the future. 

The sanctuary has concluded that changing the ATBA provisions from voluntary to mandatory 

would have negligible effects on physical resources in the sanctuary, based on the level of 

observed cooperation by the maritime community and the lack of documented cases where 

mariners have elected to ignore the voluntary nature of the ATBA. In addition, modification of 

the ATBA would require submitting a U.S. government proposal to the Marine Safety 

Committee of the IMO. When considering vessel routing measures used for the purposes of 

environmental protection the IMO balances the need for natural resource protection with the 

protection of traditional freedoms of navigation. Given the current high rate of compliance 

NOAA does not believe a request to change the ATBA from voluntary to mandatory would be 

favorably received. For these reasons, changing the voluntary nature of the ATBA is not 

included in OCNMS’s preferred alternative. 

Figure 13 CVTS Radar Coverage – ATBA 2009 transits 

(68 transits) 
194 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

8.1.2.5. Invasive Species Discharge Regulation - Effects to the Physical Setting 

Under alternative C, OCNMS would establish a new regulation banning the discharge of 

invasive species in the sanctuary, in addition to conducting a series of non-regulatory actions to 

address invasive species. Under alternatives A and B, this regulation would not be pursued, and 

invasive species would be addressed solely through non-regulatory actions (e.g., monitoring). 

Banning the direct discharge or release of invasive species in the sanctuary would have a 

beneficial, long-term effect on physical resources in the sanctuary. 

Invasive species can affect physical resources in several ways. Some invasive species, such as 

certain invasive tunicates, are sedentary for at least part of their lives and affix to substrates, thus 

altering the physical environment. Invasive species also can also affect water quality (e.g., by 

altering nutrient levels or turbidity). By prohibiting the discharge of invasive species in the 

sanctuary, OCNMS would be complementing and expanding the area addressed by state of 

Washington regulations developed to prevent the introduction of invasive species into state 

waters. In most cases, the effects of this new regulation on physical resources would be indirect 

because the regulation would prohibit discharge of organisms, effects of which would likely 

occur at locations and times removed from the initial introduction of the organism. 

The beneficial effect of this action on physical resources is assumed to be less than significant 

because the state of Washington already implements ballast water regulations that reduce the risk 

of invasive species introductions within the sanctuary. Ballast water is a primary invasive 

species transport vector in marine environments. Over 80 percent of the world's commodities are 

transported via ships, and these ships results in an annual transfer of an estimated 10 to 12 billion 

tons of ballast water across the globe (Global Ballast Water Programme 2003). The World 

Resources Institute estimates that every day, 3,000 aquatic species are transported around the 

globe in the ballast water of ships (IMO 2010). 

The current Washington state regulations require that vessels travelling to Washington from 

outside of the United States exchange their ballast water at a distance greater than 200 nmi from 

shore and in waters greater than 2000 meters. Vessels that are traveling between U.S. ports on 

the West Coast must exchange ballast water at a distance greater than 50 nmi from shore and in 

waters at least 200 meters deep. Because the sanctuary, at its widest, extends 40 nmi from shore, 

no ballast water exchanges should be occurring in the sanctuary. 

Thus, it is assumed that an OCNMS invasive species discharge ban would have an added 

beneficial effect primarily on invasive species introductions that occur through vectors other than 

ballast water. These vectors could include people disposing of exotic aquarium fish or carrying 

an invasive species on their boats. Current Washington state regulations prohibit release of any 

classified aquatic nuisance species (lists were developed for the state’s administrative code) or 

any unclassified aquatic species with potential to be a nuisance species. These types of 

introductions often occur unintentionally and due to a lack of understanding and awareness of 

invasive species concerns. Thus, an OCNMS regulation prohibiting invasive species 

introductions alone would complement state regulations but likely not have a significant 
195 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

beneficial effect. It is likely that the routine, non-regulatory resource protection activities that 

would occur under all three alternatives and would be focused on invasive species monitoring, 

education and outreach would be as effective in preventing these types of invasive species 

introductions (e.g., by educating people about the threats posed by invasive species) than would 

an invasive species regulation. 

8.1.3. Actions with Adverse Effects to the Physical Setting 

One regulatory change proposed under alternative C could have an adverse effect to the physical 

setting - reducing the OCNMS overflight regulation from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet. 

Several non-regulatory actions being considered under alternatives A, B and C would result in 

some adverse effects to physical resources in the sanctuary. Alternative A (i.e., continued 

management using the 1994 OCNMS management plan) does not define many of these actions 

with the level of detail provided in alternatives B and C. However, because the original 1994 

OCNMS management plan is so broad and general in nature, this analysis assumes that any 

adverse effects associated with these activities would occur under alternative A. 

8.1.3.1. Overflight Floor Reduction – Effects to the Physical Setting 

A lowering of the overflight floor would not likely alter the number or type of planes flying over 

the sanctuary, but this regulatory change could affect the physical setting of the sanctuary by 

increasing the noise detectable and visual impact to visitors to the shoreline adjacent to the 

sanctuary, much of which is designated wilderness within Olympic National Park. Federal 

wilderness lands are characterized as areas of undeveloped land retaining its primeval character 

and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and 

managed to preserve its natural conditions, and where the imprint of man’s work is substantially 

unnoticeable and there are outstanding opportunities for solitude. The 2,000 foot FAA advisory 

that applies to national parks and wildlife refuges mitigates the visual and acoustic impact to 

wildlife as well as visitors. Based on its effect to the aesthetic value of the ONP wilderness 

shoreline, this alternative would have an adverse, direct, and short-term effect on physical 

resources. 

8.1.3.2. Seabed Disturbance from Research Activities - Effects to the Physical Setting 

Alternatives A, B and C consider research, monitoring and assessment actions related to habitat 

mapping, and water quality and oceanographic monitoring that may necessitate disturbance of 

the seafloor in the sanctuary. Seafloor disturbance typically would occur when: 

 Anchoring water quality and oceanographic monitoring buoys 

 Collecting benthic sediment samples to support habitat mapping and characterization 

efforts and to identify infaunal communities 

In regards to anchoring monitoring buoys, in recent years there have been 13 buoys seasonally 

deployed by OCNMS in the sanctuary. There are additional research buoys permitted and installed 

by other entities in the sanctuary, but the environmental effects of these buoys are evaluated when 

permit applications to install them are evaluated. The effects of these non-OCNMS buoys are 

therefore only considered within the context of cumulative effects (section 8.5). 
196 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

OCNMS buoys are anchored with two steel blocks (120 pounds each; approximately 30cm x 

30cm x 10cm) that sit on less than 0.5 m2

 of seafloor and approximately 2m of iron chain linked 

to ropes and floats. The adverse effect caused by these weights and chain is direct but less than 

significant because the anchors are relatively small in size and few in number, so they impact a 

miniscule percentage of sanctuary seafloor; anchors are deployed on soft rather than rocky 

seafloor (soft seafloor habitats are more disturbance tolerant and recover more quickly than hard 

seafloor habitats); the anchor chain typically is held off the seafloor by a subsurface float (as 

evidenced by rusty and polished links on the chain); and weights generally remain in place 

without dragging. The effects are short-term because the anchors are retrieved, and it is expected 

that the habitats where the anchors sit recover relatively quickly (within a year) following this 

physical disturbance. If the connection to the mooring floats is broken, there is a risk that 

weights could be abandoned, which would cause localized but longer-term effects where the 

weights sit on the seafloor. This occurs infrequently, and the steel used in the anchors is not 

acutely toxic to biota. 

For habitat characterization work, benthic sediment sampling is performed for each unique 

benthic habitat type to verify, or ground-truth, and refine interpretations of remotely-collected 

data. Benthic sediment samples are collected using grab samplers with a footprint that impacts 

less than 0.5 m2 of seabed and a physical sample removed from an area 0.1m2 or less. Samples 

are collected at intervals of approximately 2000 meters until that sediment type can be reliably 

identified with remotely-collected data. In addition, benthic samples from sedimentary areas 

occasionally are collected from subtidal areas to identify the community of animals living in the 

sediments. Sampling may affect the seafloor by physical removal of samples (sediment grabs or 

ROV sampling) or inadvertent contact with the seafloor (video sleds or ROV/AUV equipment). 

The adverse effects to the seafloor from benthic sediment sampling are expected to be direct and 

less than significant because the sampling devices impact a small area of the seafloor (generally 

0.5m2

 or less) in areas of sedimentation (not hard substrate), disturbance is limited to the upper 

few centimeters of sediment, and sampling is done at wide spatial and temporal intervals, 

therefore, the intensity of effect is low. The effects of this sediment sampling are short-term 

given the area impacted and substrates targeted. If seafloor sampling activities inadvertently 

impacts hard substrate, long-term effects may result if coral/sponge habitat is damaged because 

this biogenic habitat recovers slowly. However, this is not a planned activity, the damage is not 

anticipated, and the extent is expected to be de minimis. 

Currently, approximately 25% of the OCNMS seafloor has been mapped and characterized. 

Under alternatives A, B and C habitat mapping and characterization efforts as well as benthic 

research would continue and efforts may increase (dependent upon resources). Therefore, 

additional localized, short-term effects to physical resources would be anticipated; however, the 

intensity of the effects is low as described above. To the extent that the level of effort increases, 

there is potential for additional adverse effects to physical resources; however, these are less than 

significant. 
197 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

8.1.3.3. Operating Vessels in Sanctuary - Effects to the Physical Setting 

Several actions being considered under alternatives A, B and C involve the operation of vessels 

in the sanctuary, which has the potential to cause adverse effects to physical resources. Actions 

that involve the operation of OCNMS vessels (or vessels operating on behalf of OCNMS) 

include: 

 On-water enforcement activities 

 Research, monitoring and assessment activities 

 Outreach and education activities 

OCNMS operates a 38’, diesel powered research vessel and a rigid-hull inflatable boat. OCNMS 

research and monitoring projects also involve the use of other NOAA or contracted vessels. 

OCNMS’s RV Tatoosh (Figure 14) is occasionally used (no more than five times per year) for 

training, outreach and education activities (e.g., trips in the sanctuary for OCNMS volunteers). 

Additionally, the OCNMS vessels are occasionally used to investigate potential regulatory 

violations (less than five times per year, on average). 

During a typical calendar year, OCNMS research vessels are operating in the sanctuary about 

300 hours total. The exact number of hours varies from year to year based upon funding and 

operational and vessel repair needs. These vessels contribute to noise pollution in the sanctuary, 

may collide with marine life, and pose a risk of hazardous materials spills or of sinking. In some 

years, non-OCNMS vessels operate in the sanctuary on behalf of OCNMS in order to conduct 

research or enforcement activities but the number of hours varies considerably from year to year. 

These vessels also may contribute to noise pollution in the sanctuary, may collide with marine 

life, and pose a risk of hazardous materials spills or of sinking. 

The effects of operating OCNMS research vessels in the sanctuary are direct, adverse and less 

than significant because vessels are maintained and operated according to rigorous NOAA safety 

guidelines, have a good safety record, and carry relatively small amounts of hazardous materials. 

Thus, the risk of a hazardous materials spill or vessel sinking is low. OCNMS ensures that any 

research or enforcement vessels operating in the sanctuary on its behalf are maintained and 

operated by qualified organizations (often other government agencies). 

Because OCNMS vessels and those acting on behalf of OCNMS operate in the sanctuary an 

average of a few hundred hours per year, it is expected that the effects of noise pollution from 

these activities is less than significant. Noise pollution can alter the physical environment of the 

sanctuary and cause both direct effects (e.g., distract an organism from its current path) and 

indirect effects (e.g., alter travel paths in a way that steers organisms away from necessary food 

sources) to biological resources (discussed in Section 8.2). If noise from human activities is 

elevated to levels considered “pollution” or chronic disturbance, it is more likely to result from 

the cumulative effect of all the vessels operating in the sanctuary, including the numerous vessels 

not operating on behalf of OCNMS. The cumulative effects of noise pollution are discussed in 

Section 8.5. 
198 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

Figure 14 The OCNMS Research Vessel Tatoosh 

8.1.3.4. Conducting Activities in Intertidal Areas - Effects to the Physical Setting 

Alternatives A, B and C also consider actions that could cause adverse effects to shore and 

intertidal physical resources. These actions include: 

 Beach and intertidal educational and interpretive programs 

 Intertidal monitoring surveys 

 Marine debris removal projects 

 Encouraging visitation to beaches and intertidal areas 

OCNMS actions in the intertidal zone are expected to have direct, but less than significant, 

adverse effects on physical resources. Interpretive efforts that encourage visitation to beaches 

and intertidal zones can cause trampling. Intertidal educational and interpretive programs 

typically involve small groups that traverse intertidal habitat and can trample invertebrates and 

algae on rocky surfaces. In intertidal habitats, biological organisms are considered elements of 

the physical habitat. OCNMS-led intertidal survey teams also can cause trampling damage. 

Marine debris removal on beaches sponsored by OCNMS and its partners can cause trampling 

disturbance of intertidal habitats and also result in debris being dragged along the shore, thus 

causing physical disturbance. 

These adverse effects are less than significant because the habitat disturbance that occurs is 

widely distributed in space and time, and generally caused by small groups of people. Therefore, 

the effects are low intensity and short-term. Moreover, participants in OCNMS stewardship, 

interpretive, educational and research programs typically are instructed on proper beach etiquette 

and ways to minimize their impacts on intertidal habitats. The purpose of these actions is to 

improve ocean literacy, educate people on becoming better stewards of ocean ecosystems, reduce 
199 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

the impacts of marine debris, and improve our understanding of intertidal community ecology – 

all of which are outcomes that beneficially influence long-term efforts to protect these resources. 

The overwhelmingly beneficial effects of these activities outweigh the less than significant, 

adverse effects that may occur. 

8.1.4. Summary of Effects to Physical Setting 

In general, the majority of actions being considered under alternatives A, B and C would have a 

primarily beneficial, less than significant effect on physical resources in the sanctuary. This is 

because many of the actions, while important to achieving OCNMS’s goals and objectives, are 

relatively small in scale and are not expected to cause a significant improvement to physical 

resources over the life of the management plan (five to ten years). There is not a significant 

difference between the beneficial effects to physical resources of the three alternatives. 

Alternative C would have a greater overall beneficial effect on physical resources, due to the 

several additional actions it considers; but, as discussed above, this effect would not be 

significant. Alternative C 

Water quality in the sanctuary, according to the 2008 OCNMS Condition Report, is “good”. It is 

unlikely that the proposed reductions in discharges would cause a substantial improvement in 

water quality over the next 10 years. However, reducing wastewater discharges could alleviate 

stress on sanctuary ecosystems. Thus, reducing wastewater discharge in the sanctuary could have 

a less than significant, beneficial effect by helping maintain the high water quality in the 

sanctuary into the future. 

Regarding adverse effects to physical resources, several are associated with the actions being 

considered under the three alternatives, but none of these adverse effects would be significant. 

There is not a significant difference between the adverse effects to physical resources of the three 

alternatives. 

 
200 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

8.2. BIOLOGICAL SETTING 

8.2.1. Actions with Negligible Effect to Biological Setting 

There are several actions that would occur under all three alternatives that are expected to have a 

negligible effect on biological resources within the sanctuary. These actions include: 

 Routine office and classroom activities, including meetings, visitor, education and 

training programs that take place in existing OCNMS or other facilities 

 Use of Information Technology (IT) resources, including internet technology, data 

management programs, phone and e-mail technology 

 Routine outreach activities that do not occur in the sanctuary, including staffing fair 

booths and attending community events 

These actions are expected to have a negligible effect on biological resources because these 

actions all occur within existing facilities, and no construction or physical development is 

required to conduct these actions. Additionally, because these actions are all administrative in 

nature, they do not involve any direct or indirect interaction between the people conducting the 

actions and biological resources. 

There are several actions proposed only under alternatives B and C that involve modifications to 

OCNMS regulations that would have negligible effects on biological resources. These include: 

 Technical changes to OCNMS regulations as outlined in the Sanctuary Operations Action 

Plan (strategy OPS 9, activity H) 

 Replace the term “traditional fishing” with “lawful fishing” 

 Reducing the OCNMS overflight regulation from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet (alternative C) 

The technical changes to OCNMS regulations would not affect the biological resources within 

the sanctuary because the changes are language clarifications that do not alter the meaning or 

intent of the regulations. 

The current OCNMS regulations define the term “traditional fishing” as “using a fishing method 

that has been used in the sanctuary before the effective date of sanctuary designation (July 22, 

1994), including the retrieval of fishing gear” and provide an exception for traditional fishing 

operations to three of the regulatory prohibitions – prohibitions on discharge of certain fishingrelated materials, disturbance to historical resources, and disturbance to the seabed. OCNMS 

regulations could be interpreted to mean that fishing methods or operations that do not fall within 

the definition of “traditional fishing” are not allowed to discharge materials mentioned above, or 

disturb historical resources or the seabed. 

As part of this action, NOAA proposes to replace the term “traditional fishing” with the term 

“lawful fishing” in these three places to: 1) use a term that is more clearly understood; and 2) 

eliminate the distinction between fishing methods that were used before OCNMS designation 

from those that have since been authorized. By replacing the word “traditional” with “lawful” 

NOAA would unambiguously recognize fishing activities authorized by governmental fisheries 
201 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

management authorities. This change is expected to have a negligible effect because Federal, 

state, tribal and regional fishery management authorities currently analyze and attempt to 

mitigate impacts associated with lawful fishing, including that which has occurred traditionally 

in the sanctuary, and those authorities are expected to do the same in the future. Since the scope 

and impacts of any such future management actions are speculative at this point, it is not 

possible, and would be inappropriate, to speculate on any additional impact analysis in this 

document. See Section 8.1.1 for more discussion on the regulatory change to replace the phrase 

“traditional fishing” with “lawful fishing”. 

 

A lowering of the overflight floor from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet would not affect biological 

resources because there is evidence that wildlife disturbance from overflights occurs primarily at 

elevations below, but not above, 1,000 feet. Low overflights in the sanctuaries pose a risk of 

harmful disturbance to marine mammals and seabirds. Examples of harmful disturbance include 

movement and evacuation in response to low overflights where the young (pups, chicks, eggs) are 

crushed during an evacuation or exposed to predation as a consequence of loss of parental 

protection. Studies of overflights have confirmed that low altitude overflights do cause wildlife 

disturbance, but effects vary with plane type, elevation, flight pattern and wildlife species (Parrish 

et al. 2005). For example, helicopters tend to cause more disturbance than fixed wing planes; 

repeated passes cause more disturbance than a single pass. Based on observed disturbance caused 

by overflights, various authors have recommended a buffer (or distance aircraft should stay from 

wildlife) ranging from 500 to 5,000 feet, depending on the species under consideration (Parrish et 

al. 2005). Existing altitude restrictions from various locations for protection of various species 

from aircraft disturbance range from 500 to 2,000 feet (ONMS 1997). 

Wildlife biologists and pilots who regularly conduct surveys off the coast of Washington 

typically request a permit from OCNMS to fly between 600 and 1,000 feet altitude to optimize 

their capabilities for census and behavioral observations. Because the purpose of these flights is 

to observe undisturbed wildlife (seabirds and marine mammals) for census counts, disturbance 

would be counterproductive to their purposes. Their personal observations over several decades 

of work are that wildlife disturbance does not commonly occur with species found off the 

Olympic Coast for flights above 1,000 feet. It is assumed that a lowering of the overflight floor 

to 1,000 feet would not increase the number of low altitude flights over the sanctuary, and that 

flights at or above 1,000 feet do not normally cause observable disturbance to wildlife. 

Therefore, modification of the OCNMS overflight regulation to 1,000 feet would have negligible 

effects on biological resources within the sanctuary. 

In addition, alternatives B and C also contain some structural changes that alternative A does not 

include. Under alternatives B and C, the management plan would contain performance 

measures, cost estimates and an implementation table. Alternatives B and C also would include 

a revised suite of goals and objectives for OCNMS. While these structural changes would have a 

negligible effect on biological resources, these modifications do provide additional clarity and 

detail to alternatives B and C. 
202 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

8.2.2. Actions with Beneficial Effects to the Biological Setting 

There are several actions that would occur in one or more of the alternatives that are expected to 

have a beneficial effect on biological resources within the sanctuary. These actions include: 

 Routine activities that are conducted as part of OCNMS’s resource protection, research, 

visitor services, outreach, education and administrative program areas 

 A regulatory ban on cruise ship discharge (alternatives B and C) 

 A regulatory ban on discharges from large vessels (alternative C) 

 An expansion of the voluntary Area-to-be-Avoided program (alternative C) 

 A regulatory ban on the discharge of invasive species (alternative C) 

8.2.2.1. Routine activities - Effects to the Biological Setting 

Many of the routine and general education, outreach, research, resource protection, 

administrative, and visitor services actions would take place under all three alternatives. These 

routine actions (detailed throughout the 20 action plans in section 5) are non-regulatory actions 

involving the continuation of OCNMS’s primary program areas, including: 

 Routine resource protection activities (e.g., marine debris removal) 

 Routine research activities (e.g., intertidal and water quality monitoring) 

 Routine outreach services activities (e.g., citizen science programs) 

 Routine education activities (e.g., teacher training classes) 

 Routine visitor services activities (e.g., operating the Olympic Coast Discovery Center) 

 Routine administrative activities (e.g., enforcement of regulations and permitting) 

All of these program areas have less than significant, short-term, indirect, and beneficial effects 

on biological resources because they promote ocean literacy, improved understanding of natural 

resources, and improved ocean stewardship. By promoting these principles with partners, local 

communities and the general public, OCNMS has the opportunity to influence the behavior and 

decision-making of individuals, communities, organizations and agencies in ways that benefit 

biological resources. For example, if a citizen visits an OCNMS fair booth and learns about the 

importance of marine debris removal, he/she may be more likely to participate in a beach cleanup activity and less likely to dispose of trash in or near the ocean. In turn, increased participation 

in beach clean-ups could result, over time, in less trash on the beach, which could result in fewer 

impacts of marine debris to wildlife. 

While all of these routine actions are beneficial, it is not expected that their effects would be 

significant. The expected implementation period of the management plan is no more than 10 

years; thus, for the purposes of this analysis, the actions proposed within all three management 

plan alternatives are not projected to last longer than 10 years. It is not likely a significant 

improvement in biological resources could be achieved on such a short timeframe as a result of 

these types of indirect, beneficial actions. 
203 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

8.2.2.2. Vessel Discharges - Effects to the Biological Setting 

Alternatives B and C both contain modifications to OCNMS vessel discharge regulations. Under 

alternative A, none of these regulatory modifications would be made and thus, no additional 

beneficial effect to the biological setting would be expected. Alternative B proposes a regulatory 

ban on discharges from cruise ships, with specific types of clean discharges allowed. Alternative 

C proposes a cruise ship discharge ban, along with a ban on discharges from large vessels (over 

300 gross tons), with specific types of clean discharges allowed. In addition alternatives B and C 

also contain non-regulatory strategies (in the Water Quality Protection Action Plan) related to 

reducing impacts from vessel discharges, e.g., work with partners to improve availability of 

sewage pump-out facilities. Section 8.2,1reviews the expected effects of these non-regulatory 

actions on biological resources. It is presumed that these non-regulatory activities could take 

place under alternative A, though alternative A does not identify them explicitly. 

By reducing the amount of wastewater being discharged into the sanctuary through regulatory 

modifications, both alternatives B and C would have a beneficial and long-term effect on 

biological resources in the sanctuary. The effect would be long-term because the changes to 

regulations would presumably remain in place for the foreseeable future (i.e., beyond one 

management plan cycle). The reduction in wastewater discharges that could be achieved under 

alternatives B and C is documented in detail in section 8.1.2. It is estimated that alternative B 

potentially could result in wastewater discharge reductions of up to 3.4 million gallons (sewage 

and graywater combined) from cruise ships per year (Table 14). Alternative C potentially could 

result in a reduction of up to 4.0 million gallons of wastewater discharged in the sanctuary per 

year (Table 14). It is important to note that estimated reductions in discharge volumes are based 

on estimated wastewater generation rates in the sanctuary, not on actual practice or knowledge of 

where wastewaters are actually discharged. 

Sewage and graywater discharges can negatively affect biological resources in a variety of ways. 

Wastewater can contain harmful bacteria, protozoa, and viruses. These pathogens have the 

potential to contaminate commercial or recreational shellfish beds and to harm wildlife and 

humans. Analysis of graywater discharges from cruise ships revealed that levels of nutrients, 

biological oxygen demand, and fecal coliforms were many times higher than typical domestic 

graywater (EPA 2008a). Nutrients and biological oxygen demand in graywater could negatively 

impact water quality in the same manner and in combination with discharges of treated sewage 

from cruise ships. Fecal coliforms are an indicator of pathogens. In general, pathogen 

concentrations are not currently a concern in the sanctuary (ONMS 2008), yet there are clear 

indications that sea otters have been exposed to pathogens that have compromised health in sea 

otter populations off California and elsewhere (Brancato et al. 2009). Pathogens can also affect 

human health through consumption of contaminated shellfish. Prohibiting the introduction of 

pathogens from cruise ship and large vessel sewage and graywater discharges could help reduce 

further pathogen exposure and prevent health impacts to humans and wildlife in the sanctuary. 

Wastewater discharges from vessels can also indirectly affect biological resources. Wastewater 

contains nutrients that can stimulate algal blooms, including species harmful to humans. 

Transfer of organic materials generated via algal blooms toward the seafloor and subsequent 
204 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

decay can lead to depletion of dissolved oxygen (DO) in deep waters. Hypoxic (low DO) 

conditions can stress or kill organisms such as invertebrates and fish. Naturally low availability 

of nutrients in summer months may limit primary productivity in areas off the Washington coast 

(Partridge 2007), and significant nutrient inputs during summer months could have ecosystemlevel effects through alteration of natural primary production cycles. In northern waters of the 

sanctuary, the Juan de Fuca Eddy is an area of high primary productivity as well as a source of 

harmful algal blooms that impact the Washington coast. This eddy lies off the western entrance 

to the Strait of Juan de Fuca where large vessel traffic is most concentrated (Figures 8 and 11). 

Increased supply of nutrients to this area, with its retentive circulation pattern, could alter 

productivity patterns and have ecosystem-level effects on the marine life that benefits from this 

productivity. In addition, an increased occurrence of harmful algal blooms could impact wildlife 

and human populations of the area. 

While there is a risk that wastewater discharges could affect the biological setting, it is difficult 

to determine what volume or content of wastewater would trigger effects. No significantly 

adverse effects attributable to wastewater discharge in the sanctuary have been documented, and 

the 2008 Condition Report rated water quality in the sanctuary as “good” (ONMS 2008). 

Because the reduction in wastewater discharge that would be achieved under alternatives B and 

C can be considered relatively small when compared to the total volume of water in the 

sanctuary (i.e., this wastewater becomes diluted once it is discharged), it is unlikely that this 

reduction in wastewater would result in a significant improvement in water quality or biological 

resource health (i.e., an elevation from “good” to “excellent” rating for water quality in future 

condition reports). Thus, the beneficial effects to biological resources of modifying OCNMS 

discharge regulations under alternatives B and C would be less than significant. While the 

effects of changing the vessel discharge regulations under alternatives B and C may not be 

significant within the context of this NEPA analysis, these regulatory changes are still beneficial 

to biological resources. The goal of more stringent vessel discharge regulations under 

alternatives B and C would be a precautionary approach - to reduce overall stress on sanctuary 

ecosystems, maintain existing good water quality conditions in the sanctuary, and prevent the 

future degradation of water quality that could occur should wastewater discharge increase in the 

sanctuary region. 

8.2.2.3. Area-to-be-Avoided- Effects to the Biological Setting 

Currently, the Olympic Coast Area to be Avoided (ATBA) is an International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) voluntary vessel routing measure. Under alternatives A and B, it would 

remain voluntary and continue to apply to all ships and barges carrying cargoes of oil or 

hazardous materials, and all ships 1,600 gross tons and above solely in transit. It would also 

apply to additional classes of vessels based on recent legislation. The Coast Guard Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 calls on NOAA to work with the USCG to revise the ATBA 

so that existing restrictions apply to additional vessels. This change would apply to vessels 

between 400 GT and 1,600 GT, other than fishing or research vessels while engaged in fishing or 

research within the area to be avoided. 

Because the ATBA would continue as a monitored, voluntary measure without changes to the 

existing program, ATBA activities under alternatives A and B are expected to have a less than 
205 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

significant, beneficial, indirect, long-term effect on biological resources by keeping ships further 

offshore and shifting vessel traffic noise away from the continental shelf and much of the 

sanctuary. The effect is considered less than significant because, while the ATBA reduces the 

risk of a spill occurring in the sanctuary, it does not directly prevent spills from occurring and 

does not eliminate vessel traffic noise from the sanctuary. 

Under alternative C, OCNMS would work with its partners to evaluate options to make 

compliance with the ATBA mandatory. This could have an additional beneficial effect (beyond 

alternatives A and B) on physical resources. 

In order to understand the extent and potential significance of this beneficial effect, OCNMS 

evaluated ATBA compliance rates and identified the population of vessels that have not 

voluntarily complied with the ATBA. OCNMS further evaluated responses from the ATBA 

Monitoring and Outreach program to evaluate response from industry on reasons for noncompliance. This analysis is discussed in 8.1.2.4. 

This analysis concluded that changing the ATBA provisions from voluntary to mandatory would 

have negligible effects on physical resources in the sanctuary, based on the level of observed 

cooperation by the maritime community and the lack of documented cases where mariners have 

elected to ignore the voluntary nature of the ATBA. In addition, modification of the ATBA 

would require submitting a U.S. government proposal to the Marine Safety Committee of the 

IMO. When considering vessel routing measures used for the purposes of environmental 

protection the IMO balances the need for natural resource protection with the protection of 

traditional freedoms of navigation. Given the current high rate of compliance NOAA does not 

believe a request to change the ATBA from voluntary to mandatory would be favorably 

received. For these reasons, the ATBA expansion is not included in OCNMS’s preferred 

alternative. 

8.2.2.4. Invasive Species Discharge Regulation - Effects to the Biological Setting 

Under alternative C, OCNMS would establish a new regulation banning the discharge of 

invasive species in the sanctuary, in addition to conducting a series of non-regulatory actions to 

address invasive species (detailed in the Habitat Protection Action Plan). Under alternatives A 

and B, this regulation would not be pursued, and the issue of invasive species would be 

addressed solely through non-regulatory actions. Section 8.2.2.1 provides analysis of the 

environmental consequences of these non-regulatory strategies. 

By banning the discharge of invasive species in the sanctuary, OCNMS could have a beneficial, 

long-term, indirect effect on biological resources in the sanctuary. Invasive species can 

adversely impact other organisms in a number of ways, including outcompeting native species 

for habitat and food sources; spreading diseases to native species; altering the chemistry or 

physical structure of the environment in a way that inhibits the growth and health of native 

species; breeding with native species and thus causing alterations in native species genetics; 

and/or preying aggressively upon native species and thus causing reductions in native species 

populations. Different invasive species cause different, often unpredictable, effects in different 

ecosystems. 
206 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

By prohibiting the discharge of invasive species in the sanctuary, OCNMS would be 

complementing state of Washington regulations that aim to prevent the introduction of invasive 

species into state waters. In most cases, the effects on biological resources of this new OCNMS 

regulation would be indirect because the regulation would prohibit discharge of organisms, 

effects of which would likely occur at locations and times removed from the initial introduction 

of the organism. 

The beneficial effect of this action on biological resources is assumed to be less than significant 

because the state of Washington already implements comprehensive ballast water and aquatic 

nuisance (invasive species) programs that dramatically reduce the risk of invasive species 

introduction within the sanctuary. Because of Washington state regulations outlined in Section 

8.1.2.5, no ballast water discharges or exchanges should be occurring in the sanctuary (except of 

mid-ocean exchanged ballast water), and no release of potentially invasive species should be 

occurring in state waters within three miles of shore. Because an OCNMS regulation banning 

discharge of invasive species would not increase protections provided by existing state, federal, 

and Canadian regulations related to invasive species, this regulation was not included in the 

preferred management plan alternative (alternative B). 

8.2.3. Actions with Adverse Effects to the Biological Setting 

Several non-regulatory actions being considered under alternatives A, B and C would result in 

some adverse effects to biological resources. Alternative A (i.e., continued management using 

the 1994 OCNMS management plan) does not define these actions in the level of detail provided 

under alternatives B and C. However, because the original 1994 OCNMS management plan is 

so broad and general in nature, this analysis assumes that the adverse effects discussed below 

could occur under the alternative A. 

8.2.3.1. Conducting Wildlife Research, Assessments and Monitoring - Effects to the 

Biological Setting 

Alternatives A, B and C consider a variety of wildlife research, assessment and monitoring 

actions in order to collect data on species, community and population status, health and trends. 

This information is critical to effective ecosystem management decision making by OCNMS and 

others. Wildlife research, assessments and monitoring actions in the sanctuary (under all three 

alternatives) could affect biota in the water column, as well as in benthic, intertidal and subtidal 

habitats. 

In many cases, conducting research, assessments and monitoring does not cause any adverse or 

beneficial effect to biological resources (e.g., using binoculars to count sea otters at a distance of 

100 – 200 yards). However, in some cases, actions taken while studying biota can cause direct, 

adverse impacts such as disturbance, minor injury or death. For example, seafloor habitat studies 

may require collection of organisms for species identification or age analysis. Flying over 

marine bird colonies for census purposes can disturb the birds. Research may involve tagging 

organisms, which causes minor, temporary injury to the organism. 
207 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

Most wildlife studies in the sanctuary are designed and led by entities other than OCNMS. 

OCNMS personnel assist with these efforts and, when appropriate, issue research permits for 

studies in the sanctuary. The primary exceptions to this are intertidal monitoring, deep sea coral 

investigations, and oceanographic monitoring buoys in the sanctuary, all efforts that OCNMS 

staff routinely lead. Adverse effects of these activities are discussed in greater detail below. 

When applying for a sanctuary research permit, applicants must document how they will comply 

with all applicable federal and state laws, such as the Endangered Species Act and the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. OCNMS reviews permit applications on a case-by-case basis and 

ensures that adequate NEPA analysis (by the applicant or OCNMS) is conducted prior to permit 

issuance. In all cases, OCNMS and its partner agencies ensure that wildlife studies are designed 

to minimize the adverse impacts to biota. Particularly with studies of marine birds and 

mammals, researchers avoid or minimize wildlife disturbance to the greatest extent possible. In 

order to get an accurate census, aircraft are operated in a manner that minimizes the intensity and 

duration of disturbance to the animals being studied. Thus, the adverse effects of these actions 

are assumed to be direct, but less than significant and short-term. 

8.2.3.2. Operating Hydrographic Sonar in the Sanctuary - Effects to the Biological Setting 

All three alternatives (A, B and C) consider actions that utilize sonar in support of hydrographic 

surveying of the sanctuary. Hydrographic survey data collection in the sanctuary uses active 

sonar in varying frequency ranges to map the seafloor. These systems are typically either hullmounted multibeam or towed side-scan sonar systems. The acoustic impacts of sonar-generated 

noise can have short or long-term adverse effects on marine mammals, but the effects are 

difficult to measure. 

Acoustic noise generated by sonar frequencies can adversely affect marine mammals in several 

ways. The acoustic noise can cause marine mammals to change their migrating behavior (e.g., 

causing them to move off of their normal migrating route) or can cause marine mammals to alter 

their own vocalizations, which they use to communicate with each other and locate food. 

Alterations in their vocalization patterns (type of calls, duration of calls, frequency of calls) can 

in turn cause changes in mating, feeding and social behavior. Currently, researchers are 

investigating the long-term effects of these behavioral changes, many of which are not known. 

The echosounders most frequently used for coastal surveys within OCNMS are higher frequency 

echosounders (e.g., 100-400 kHz; Table 16). Because most marine mammals cannot hear above 

100 kHz (Table 17), the risk of injury to most marine mammals from echosounder sonar is low. 

However, OCNMS does occasionally use sonar devices at frequencies as low as 50 kHz when 

working in deep water. Additionally, there are marine mammal species, such as toothed whales 

(e.g., Orcinus orca), with hearing ranges that extend above 100 kHz. Thus, there can be an 

overlap in marine mammal hearing and sonar frequency ranges that may increase the potential 

for harm to some marine mammals (National Research Council 2003, NOAA 2004). 

The sound from echosounders commonly used for coastal surveys attenuates much more quickly 

than the lower frequency sound used in deep water. Because the intensity level of sound 

dissipates rapidly and echosounder frequencies are out of peak hearing ranges for most marine 
208 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

mammals, the likelihood of adverse effects to marine life is very low with the exception of those 

select species whose hearing ranges overlap with the common echosounder frequencies 

employed by NOAA in routine hydrographic survey work (Wartzok and Ketten 1999). 

The species at most risk from OCNMS sonar use is the killer whale (Orcinus orca) whose upper 

hearing range is 120 kHz. In conducting hydrographic surveys, OCNMS works to minimize and 

mitigate for all potential adverse effects to marine organisms continues to work with NOAA to 

develop and refine an understanding of each species’ sensitivity to sound with the goal of 

mitigating for underwater sonar noise pollution. 

Table 16 Echosounder specifications for equipment most commonly used by OCNMS for hydrographic surveys 

Echosounder Frequency (kHz) Transmit Beamwidth Across Track 

L-3 Klein 3000 100-500 40° 

Klein 5000 455 ~ 

Reson Seabat 7111 100 150° 

Reson Seabat 8160 50 150° 

Reson 7125 200/400 150° 

Kongsberg Simrad EM1002 95 150° 

Table 17 Protected and/or listed marine species of concern for impact by sonar within OCNMS 

Species Upper Frequency limit (kHz) Peak Sensitivity (kHz) 

Killer Whale 120 15-30 

Humpback Whale 5 <1 

Fin Whale 5 <1 

North Pacific Right Whale 5 <1 

Steller Sea Lion 30 ~ 

Green Sea Turtle 2 ~ 

Leatherback Turtle 2 ~ 

Loggerhead Turtle 2 ~ 

Salmon spp. 3 ~ 

Trout, Sturgeon, Pacific Euchalon 3 ~ 

Because of these efforts to minimize the adverse effects of sonar use on marine mammals and 

other organisms, OCNMS believes that its use of sonar in support of hydrographic surveying has 

a less than significant, adverse effect on organisms (particularly marine mammals) in the 

sanctuary. Because typical sonar frequencies may disturb but are not likely to injure animals 

physically, these effects are considered short-term and direct. 
209 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

In general, the ocean is becoming a much noisier place and concern about the cumulative effects 

of underwater noise pollution is increasing. The potential cumulative effects of noise pollution 

in the sanctuary are discussed in section 8.5. 

8.2.3.3. Seabed Disturbance from Research Activities - Effects to the Biological Setting 

Alternatives A, B and C consider research, monitoring and assessment actions related to habitat 

studies and mapping and oceanographic monitoring that may necessitate disturbance of the 

seafloor in the sanctuary. Because virtually all seafloor substrates in the sanctuary host some 

living organisms, disturbing the seafloor can adversely affect biological resources. Seafloor 

disturbance would occur when: 

 Anchoring water quality and oceanographic monitoring buoys 

 Collecting benthic sediment samples to support habitat mapping and characterization 

efforts and to identify infaunal communities 

Similar to adverse effects to the physical setting, adverse effects to the biological resources 

caused by buoy anchors are direct but less than significant, for several reasons. The anchors are 

relatively small in size (Figure 15) and few in number, so they impact a miniscule percentage of 

sanctuary seafloor. Anchors are deployed on soft rather than rocky seafloor, and soft seafloor 

habitats are more disturbance tolerant and biological resources there would likely recover more 

quickly than hard seafloor habitats. Moreover, the anchors generally remain in place without 

dragging and disturbing a large area of seafloor. Surface dwelling organisms may be crushed 

when the weights are deployed, and subsurface organisms may be blocked from access to 

overlying water. Most macrofauna inhabiting seafloor substrate are located in the upper, 

oxygenated layer of sediment. These effects are short-term because the anchors are retrieved, 

and it is expected that the soft seafloor habitats where the anchoring occurs are repopulated with 

biological organisms relatively quickly (within a year) following this disturbance. If the 

connection to the mooring floats is broken, there is a risk that weights could be abandoned, 

which would cause longer-term effects. These effects are less than significant because the area 

impacted is small, the anchors are constructed of non-toxic materials for the anchor weights, and 

anchors are lost infrequently. 

Similar to adverse effects to the physical setting, the adverse effects to biological resources 

caused by benthic sediment sampling are expected to be direct and less than significant because 

the sampling devices impact a small area of the seafloor (generally 0.1m2 or less) in areas of 

sedimentation (not hard substrate), and sampling is conducted at wide spatial and temporal 

intervals. The organisms inhabiting the sediment sample normally are collected and analyzed, 

and they do not survive. While a few organisms may die, the overall populations of these 

organisms are not likely to be affected adversely because a minuscule area of the seafloor is 

sampled on an occasional basis. 
210 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

Figure 15 Picture of OCNMS mooring anchor 

Collection of sediment samples allows OCNMS to refine its habitat mapping and classification 

methods to rely less on physical sediment sampling in the future. This work also improves 

understanding of organism distribution relative to different sediment types or areas. The effects 

of this sediment sampling are short-term given the limited area impacted and types of substrates 

targeted. If seafloor sampling activities inadvertently impact hard substrate, long-term effects 

may result – particularly if coral/sponge habitat is damaged because this habitat recovers slowly. 

However, this is not a planned activity, the damage is not anticipated, and the extent is expected 

to be de minimis. 

 
211 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

8.2.3.4. Operating Vessels in Sanctuary - Effects to the Biological Setting 

Several actions being considered under alternatives A, B and C involve the operation of vessels 

in the sanctuary, which has the potential to cause direct and indirect adverse effects to biological 

resources. These actions include: 

 On-water enforcement activities 

 Research, monitoring and assessment activities 

 Outreach and education activities 

OCNMS vessel operations are described in section 8.1.3. OCNMS vessels contribute to noise 

pollution in the sanctuary, can collide with marine life, and pose a risk of hazardous materials 

spills or of sinking, all of which could affect biological resources. 

The risk of a hazardous materials spill or vessel sinking is low because these vessels are 

maintained and operated according to rigorous NOAA safety guidelines, have a good safety 

record, and carry relatively small amounts of hazardous materials (fuels and fluids). Vessel 

captains operate with sensitivity to avoid disturbance or injury to marine life. Given the 

relatively small size of OCNMS vessels, vessel captains are acutely concerned about collisions 

with floating objects (i.e., logs, floats), seabirds (which can be sucked into the engine water 

intakes or clog the propulsion jets), and marine mammals. On water visibility from OCNMS 

vessels is excellent, and operations are limited to daylight in moderate seas, which provides 

better marine mammal sighting conditions. Moreover, vessel captains are trained to watch for 

marine mammals and seabirds and maneuver the vessel away from them. All of these conditions 

support a low risk of vessel strikes. The severity of vessel strikes, the conservation status of the 

species hit, and the number of vessel strikes in a given year are all factors that could influence 

the significance of vessels strikes as a potential adverse effect. Twenty-nine species of marine 

mammal have been sighted in the sanctuary, eight of which are listed on the Endangered Species 

List. In its 16-year history, no OCNMS owned or contracted vessel has struck a marine mammal 

or been responsible for a hazardous materials spill. 

Given this track record, an OCNMS vessel strike or hazardous materials spill would be an 

unexpected event. Under all three alternatives, the effects of operating OCNMS research vessels 

on biological resources would be considered direct (a vessel strike or fuel spill) and less than 

significant, adverse effect on the population of the species affected. 

Because OCNMS vessels and those acting on behalf of OCNMS operate in the sanctuary an 

average of a few hundred hours per year with operations widely distributed in space and time, it 

is expected that the effects on biological resources of noise pollution from these activities is less 

than significant. Noise pollution can cause both direct biological effects (e.g., distract an 

organism from its current path) and indirect effects (e.g., alter travel paths in a way that steers 

organisms away from necessary food sources). If noise from human activities is elevated to 

levels considered “pollution” or chronic disturbance, it is more likely to result from the 

cumulative effect of all the vessels operating in the sanctuary, including the numerous vessels 

not operating on behalf of OCNMS. The cumulative effects of noise pollution are discussed in 

section 8.5. 
212 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

8.2.3.5. Conducting Activities in Intertidal Areas - Effects to the Biological Setting 

Alternatives A, B and C also consider actions that could cause adverse effects to shore and 

intertidal biological resources. These actions include: 

 Beach and intertidal educational and interpretive programs 

 Intertidal monitoring surveys 

 Marine debris removal projects 

 Encouraging visitation to beaches and intertidal areas 

OCNMS actions in the intertidal zone may have direct, but less than significant, adverse effects 

on biological resources. Intertidal educational and interpretive programs typically involve small 

groups that traverse intertidal habitat and can trample invertebrates and algae on rocky surfaces. 

Interpretive efforts that encourage visitation to beaches and intertidal zones can also lead to 

trampling. Intertidal survey teams also can cause trampling damage. Marine debris removal 

sponsored by OCNMS and its partners can cause disturbance of intertidal habitats, or result in 

debris being dragged along the shore, thus causing disturbance. 

These adverse effects are less than significant because the disturbance to biological organisms 

that occurs is widely distributed in space and time and generally limited because there are small 

groups of people. Moreover, participants in OCNMS stewardship, interpretive, educational and 

research programs generally are instructed on proper beach etiquette and ways to minimize their 

impacts on intertidal habitats. The purpose of these actions is to improve ocean literacy, educate 

people on becoming better stewards of ocean ecosystems, reduce the impacts of marine debris, 

and improve our understanding of intertidal community ecology – all of which are outcomes that 

beneficially influence long-term efforts to protect these resources. These overwhelmingly 

beneficial effects of these activities outweigh the minimal adverse effects that may occur. 

8.2.4. Summary of Effects to Biological Resources 

Within the context of this NEPA analysis, the majority of actions being considered under 

alternatives A, B and C would have a primarily beneficial, less than significant effect on 

biological resources in the sanctuary. This is because many of the actions, while important to 

achieving OCNMS’s goals and objectives, are relatively small in scale and are not expected to 

cause a significant improvement to biological resources over the life of the management plan 

(five to ten years). There is not a substantive difference in the beneficial effects to biological 

resources of the three alternatives. Alternative C would have a greater overall beneficial effect 

on biological resources, due to the several additional regulatory and non-regulatory actions it 

considers, but this effect would not be significant. 

Several adverse effects to biological resources are associated with the actions being considered 

under the three alternatives, but none of the effects would be significant. There is not a 

substantive difference between the adverse effects to biological resources of the three 

alternatives. 
213 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

8.3. HISTORICAL/CULTURAL SETTING 

8.3.1. Actions with Negligible Effect to the Historical/Cultural Setting 

There are several actions that would occur under all three alternatives that are expected to have a 

negligible effect on the historical/cultural setting. These actions include: 

 Routine office and classroom activities, including meetings, visitor, education and 

training programs that take place in existing OCNMS or other facilities 

 Use of Information Technology (IT) resources, including internet technology, data 

management programs, phone and e-mail technology 

 Routine outreach activities that do not occur in the sanctuary, including staffing fair 

booths and attending community events 

These actions are expected to have a negligible effect on the historical/cultural setting because 

these actions all occur within existing facilities, and no construction or physical development is 

anticipated to be required to conduct these actions. Additionally, because these actions are all 

administrative in nature, they would not involve any direct or indirect interaction between the 

people and historical/cultural resources. 

There are several actions proposed under alternatives B and C that involve modifications to 

OCNMS regulations that would also have negligible effects on the historical/cultural setting. 

These include: 

 Technical changes to OCNMS regulations as outlined in the Sanctuary Operations Action 

Plan (strategy OPS 9, activity H) 

 Replace the term “traditional fishing” with “lawful fishing” 

 Reducing the OCNMS overflight regulation from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet (alternative C 

only) 

The technical changes to OCNMS regulations would not affect historical/cultural resources 

within the sanctuary because the changes are language clarifications that do not alter the meaning 

or intent of the regulations. 

The current OCNMS regulations define the term “traditional fishing” as “using a fishing method 

that has been used in the sanctuary before the effective date of sanctuary designation (July 22, 

1994), including the retrieval of fishing gear” and provide an exception for traditional fishing 

operations to three of the regulatory prohibitions – prohibitions on discharge of certain fishingrelated materials, disturbance to historical resources, and disturbance to the seabed. OCNMS 

regulations could be interpreted to mean that fishing methods or operations that do not fall within 

the definition of “traditional fishing” are not allowed to discharge materials mentioned above, or 

disturb historical resources or the seabed. 

As part of this action, NOAA proposes to replace the term “traditional fishing” with the term 

“lawful fishing” in these three places to: 1) use a term that is more clearly understood; and 2) 

eliminate the distinction between fishing methods that were used before OCNMS designation 
214 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

from those that have since been authorized. By replacing the word “traditional” with “lawful” 

NOAA would unambiguously recognize fishing activities authorized by governmental fisheries 

management authorities. This change is expected to have a negligible effect because Federal, 

state, tribal and regional fishery management authorities currently analyze and attempt to 

mitigate impacts associated with lawful fishing, including that which has occurred traditionally 

in the sanctuary, and those authorities are expected to do the same in the future. Since the scope 

and impacts of any such future management actions are speculative at this point, it is not 

possible, and would be inappropriate, to speculate on any additional impact analysis in this 

document. See Section 8.1.1 for more discussion on the regulatory change to replace the phrase 

“traditional fishing” with “lawful fishing”. 

A lowering of the overflight floor from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet would not affect 

historical/cultural resources within the sanctuary because this change in regulation would not 

affect the number or type of aircraft flying over the sanctuary and flights will not have physical 

interaction with maritime heritage resources. 

Finally, alternatives B and C also contain some structural changes to the management plan that 

alternative A does not include. Under alternatives B and C, the management plan would contain 

performance measures, cost estimates and an implementation table. Alternatives B and C also 

would include a revised suite of goals and objectives for OCNMS. While these structural 

modifications to the document would have a negligible effect on the historical/cultural setting, 

they are important to note because these modifications do provide additional clarity and detail to 

alternatives B and C. 

8.3.2. Actions with Beneficial Effects to the Historical/Cultural Setting 

There are several routine activities that would occur in one or more of the alternatives that are 

expected to have a beneficial effect on historical/cultural resources within the sanctuary. These 

actions include: 

 Routine education, outreach visitor service, resource protection and administrative 

activities 

 Routine research activities 

 Routine maritime heritage activities 

8.3.2.1. Routine Education, Outreach, Visitor Services, Resource Protection and 

Administrative Activities 

Many of the routine education, outreach, visitor services, resource protection and administrative 

actions that would take place under all three alternatives would have an indirect, short-term, and 

less than significant, beneficial effect on historical/cultural resources within the sanctuary. These 

routine actions are non-regulatory actions involving the continuation of OCNMS’s primary 

program areas, including: 

 Routine resource protection activities (e.g., beach cleanups) 

 Routine outreach services activities (e.g., public events) 
215 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

 Routine education activities (e.g., maritime heritage presentations) 

 Routine visitor services activities (e.g., operating Olympic Coast Discovery Center) 

 Routine administrative activities (e.g., enforcement of regulations and permitting) 

All of these program areas have less than significant, indirect and beneficial effects on 

historical/cultural resources because they promote ocean and cultural resource literacy, 

improved understanding of heritage resources, and improved ocean stewardship. By promoting 

these principles with partners, local communities and the general public, OCNMS has the 

opportunity to influence the behavior and decision-making of individuals, communities, 

organizations and agencies in ways that benefit historical/cultural resources. For example, if a 

citizen visits an OCNMS fair booth and learns about the importance of not disturbing 

archaeological remains, s/he may be more likely to act responsibly near historic/cultural 

resources. They might also share that perspective with others, which could result in better 

protection of resources, such as shipwreck remains or shoreline midden sites. 

While these routine actions are beneficial, it is not expected that their effects would be 

significant within the context of NEPA. The expected implementation period of the 

management plan is not expected to be more than 10 years. It is not likely that a substantial 

improvement in historical/cultural resources could be achieved on such a short timeframe as a 

result of these types of indirect, beneficial actions. 

8.3.2.2. Routine Research Activities 

Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) directs federal agencies that 

manage public bottomlands to inventory the historical and archaeological resources within the 

management areas and to assess the significance of those resources for possible inclusion onto 

the National Register of Historic Places. Under all three alternatives considered, routine 

hydrographic mapping would be conducted to identify and map habitats, as well as biological 

and historical resources. Such research activities would have a beneficial, indirect, and less 

than significant effect on historical/cultural resources because they would improve 

understanding of what historic and cultural resources exist in the sanctuary. Improved 

understanding of resources alone may not directly affect these resources in a beneficial way. 

However, subsequent actions resulting from this research, such as listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places, would benefit the resources. The beneficial effect of these research 

activities is expected to be less than significant because there is no assurance that resources 

will be found or that they can be effectively protected in the harsh sanctuary environment. 

 
216 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

8.3.2.3. Routine Maritime Heritage Activities 

As noted above, Section 110 of the NHPA requires agencies to inventory historical and 

archaeological properties. ONMS is also directed by the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to 

comply with the Federal Archaeology Program which includes laws, regulations and guidelines 

that are administered by the Department of the Interior. The Secretary of Interior's Standards and 

Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716) recommend the following 

activities to inventory historical and archaeological properties: 

 Identification of the resources through: 

o Archival Research - the OCNMS database contains much of this research 

o Field Survey - beach surveys and remote sensing of submerged sanctuary 

environment 

o Reporting of Results - results should be reported upon to professional 

communities and the public 

 Evaluation of identified resources to determine the historical significance of the resource 

 Registration of significant resources to the National Register of Historic Places and, if 

appropriate, as a National Historic Landmark 

Actions outlined in section 5.2 in Strategy MH1 – Cultural Resource Conservation are expected 

to have a beneficial effect on historic and cultural resources because they will improve 

knowledge and understanding of these resources and thus indirectly improve OCNMS’s ability 

to protect and interpret these resources. Additionally, should resources be identified that are 

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, this designation would provide added 

protections for the resources. The effects of these actions are expected to be less than significant 

at this time because the number and nature of historic resources in the sanctuary that would 

benefit from these actions are unknown. Should significant historic resources be found in the 

sanctuary, OCNMS would work with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and other 

partners to develop appropriate management plans for these resources in accordance with NEPA 

and the NHPA. 

8.3.3. Actions with Adverse Effects to the Historical/Cultural Setting 

Several actions being considered under alternatives A, B and C could result in adverse effects to 

historical/cultural resources in the sanctuary. These include the following actions that may 

necessitate disturbance of the seafloor in the sanctuary: 

 Anchoring water quality and oceanographic monitoring buoys 

 Collecting benthic sediment samples to support habitat mapping and characterization 

efforts and to identify infaunal communities 

These actions are described in Section 8.1.3. Both actions have the potential for damaging 

historical/cultural resources on the seabed. The impacts described in Section 8.1.3 (impacts to 

physical setting) apply here. These activities could cause adverse effects to historic/cultural 

resources by physically damaging historic resources resting on the seafloor of which OCNMS is 

unaware. Because these operations impact only the upper few centimeters in a very limited area 
217 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

on the seafloor and the total area subject to these operations is small over a 5- to 10-year period, 

these effects would be less than significant. 

It should be noted that these two actions (sediment sampling and anchoring buoys) refer to OCNMS 

efforts only. It is possible that an outside party could apply for an OCNMS permit to conduct 

sediment sampling, anchor research buoys or conduct some other seafloor disturbance activity in 

the sanctuary that is on a scale larger than work conducted by OCNMS. Permit applications of this 

kind will be analyzed for potential impacts to historic and cultural resources (as well as biological 

and physical resources). OCNMS might deny or place specific restrictions on a permit in order to 

ensure the protection of resources (see 8.5 Cumulative Effects, Actions for Future Analysis). 

8.3.3.1. Compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA - Effect to the Historical/Cultural 

Setting 

On April 27, 2010, OCNMS published a federal register notice (Appendix C) that notified the 

public of OCNMS’s intent to coordinate its responsibilities under Section 106 of NHPA with its 

ongoing NEPA process, including the use of NEPA documents and public and stakeholder meetings 

to meet the NHPA Section 106 requirements. Section 8.3 of this document addresses the 

“Historical/Cultural Setting” and is intended to fulfill NHPA Section 106 requirements for 

OCNMS’s revised management plan. It should be noted that Section 106 of NHPA addresses only 

historic properties and resources as defined in the NHPA. The analysis in this document 

encompasses additional cultural resources that are included in order to satisfy NEPA analysis 

requirements. 

In the process of developing this document, OCNMS identified consulting parties and requested 

information about historic properties and resources in the sanctuary that should be considered in 

this impacts analysis. No information was provided during the DEA drafting process. Should more 

information on the effects of revising the management plan on historic resources and properties 

come to light once the DMP/DEA is published, a more detailed analysis will be provided in the 

final Environmental Assessment. 

8.3.4. Summary of Effects to Historical/Cultural Setting 

In general, the majority of actions being considered under alternatives A, B and C would have a 

primarily beneficial, less than significant effect on historical/cultural resources in the sanctuary. 

The effects are expected to be less than significant because many of the actions, while important 

to achieving OCNMS’s goals and objectives, are relatively small in scale and are not expected to 

cause a significant improvement to historical/cultural resources over the life of the management 

plan (five to ten years). There is not a significant difference between the beneficial effects to 

historical/cultural resources of the three alternatives. 

Regarding adverse effects to historical/cultural resources, some are associated with actions being 

considered under the three alternatives, but none of these adverse effects would be significant. 

There is not a significant difference between the adverse effects to historical/cultural resources of 

the three alternatives. 
218 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

8.4. HUMAN/SOCIOECONOMIC SETTING 

The purpose of this section is to discuss the socioeconomic effects of all three alternatives on 

human activities. An overview of the sanctuary’s human/socioeconomic setting and the 

activities encompassed within this setting is provided in the Affected Environment discussion. 

8.4.1. Actions with Negligible Effects to the Human/Socioeconomic Setting 

There are several actions that would occur under all three alternatives that are expected to have a 

negligible effect on the human/socioeconomic setting within or around the sanctuary. These 

actions include: 

 Routine planning, operational and administrative activities 

 Use of Information Technology (IT) resources, including internet technology, data 

management programs, phone and e-mail technology 

 Workshops and planning meetings to plan future efforts 

None of these actions would have a direct impact on human activities within the sanctuary. 

Additionally, because these actions are all administrative in nature, they do not involve any 

direct or indirect interaction between the people conducting the actions and human activities 

within the sanctuary. 

Other actions proposed under alternatives B and C that involve modifications to OCNMS 

regulations would also have negligible effects on the historical/cultural setting. These include: 

 Technical changes to OCNMS regulations as outlined in the Sanctuary Operations Action 

Plan (strategy OPS 9, activity H) 

 Replacing the term “traditional fishing” with “lawful fishing” 

The technical changes to OCNMS regulations proposed in alternatives B and C would have 

negligible effects on the human/socioeconomic setting within or around the sanctuary because 

the changes are language clarifications that do not alter the meaning or intent of the regulations. 

The current OCNMS regulations define the term “traditional fishing” as “using a fishing method 

that has been used in the sanctuary before the effective date of sanctuary designation (July 22, 

1994), including the retrieval of fishing gear” and provide an exception for traditional fishing 

operations to three of the regulatory prohibitions – prohibitions on discharge of certain fishingrelated materials, disturbance to historical resources, and disturbance to the seabed. OCNMS 

regulations could be interpreted to mean that fishing methods or operations that do not fall within 

the definition of “traditional fishing” are not allowed to discharge materials mentioned above, or 

disturb historical resources or the seabed. 

As part of this action, NOAA proposes to replace the term “traditional fishing” with the term 

“lawful fishing” in these three places to: 1) use a term that is more clearly understood; and 2) 

eliminate the distinction between fishing methods that were used before OCNMS designation 

from those that have since been authorized. By replacing the word “traditional” with “lawful” 
219 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

NOAA would unambiguously recognize fishing activities authorized by governmental fisheries 

management authorities. This change is expected to have a negligible effect because Federal, 

state, tribal and regional fishery management authorities currently analyze and attempt to 

mitigate impacts associated with lawful fishing, including that which has occurred traditionally 

in the sanctuary, and those authorities are expected to do the same in the future. Since the scope 

and impacts of any such future management actions are speculative at this point, it is not 

possible, and would be inappropriate, to speculate on any additional impact analysis in this 

document. See Section 8.1.1 for more discussion on the regulatory change to replace the phrase 

“traditional fishing” with “lawful fishing”. 

Finally, alternatives B and C also contain some structural changes that alternative A does not 

include. Under alternatives B and C, the management plan would contain performance measures, 

cost estimates and an implementation table. Alternatives B and C also would include a revised 

suite of goals and objectives for OCNMS. While these structural modifications would have a 

negligible effect on the human/socioeconomic setting in the sanctuary, they are important to note 

because these modifications do provide additional clarity and detail to alternatives B and C. 

8.4.2. Actions with Beneficial Effects to the Human/Socioeconomic Setting 

There are several actions that would occur in one or more of the alternatives that are expected to 

have a beneficial effect on human/socioeconomic setting within and around the sanctuary. These 

actions include: 

 Routine activities that are conducted as part of OCNMS’s resource protection, research, 

visitor services, outreach, education and administrative program areas 

 A regulatory ban on cruise ship discharge (alternatives B and C) 

8.4.2.1. Routine activities 

Many of the routine and general education, outreach, research, resource protection, 

administrative, and visitor services actions that would take place under all three alternatives 

would have an indirect, short-term, less than significant and beneficial effect on the 

human/socioeconomic setting within the sanctuary. These routine actions are non-regulatory 

actions involving the continuation of OCNMS’s primary program areas, including: 

 Routine resource protection activities (e.g., marine debris removal) 

 Routine research activities (e.g., water quality monitoring) 

 Routine outreach services activities (e.g., citizen science programs) 

 Routine education activities (e.g., phytoplankton identification classes) 

 Routine visitor services activities (e.g., operating Olympic Coast Discovery Center) 

 Routine administrative activities (e.g., improving collaboration with IPC and AC) 

These program areas are expected to have less than significant, indirect, and beneficial effects on 

the human/socioeconomic setting because they would advance regional ocean governance 

through improved coordination and collaboration, and improve the value of the sanctuary for 

educational and research activities. Providing education programs and curricula to schools in 
220 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

disadvantaged communities on the outer coast could provide an economic benefit to those 

communities, which otherwise might have to fund development of such education programs or 

curricula. Additionally, providing signage and interpretive programs about the sanctuary could 

provide an economic benefit to local communities by enhancing tourism opportunities. 

While all of these routine actions would be beneficial, it is not expected that their effects would 

be significant. The expected implementation period of the management plan is no more than 10 

years; thus, the actions proposed within all three management plan alternatives are not projected 

to last longer than 10 years. It is not likely a significant improvement on the 

human/socioeconomic setting would be achieved on such a short timeframe as a result of these 

types of indirect beneficial actions. 

Additionally, it should be noted that the very existence of the sanctuary and its routine work 

programs have a beneficial and intangible effect on the human environment that cannot be 

measured in dollars without conducting a complex and costly economic study of the non-use 

values of the sanctuary. This was deemed unnecessary by NOAA given the expected low 

negative impact of the proposed actions on the human/socioeconomic setting. In simple terms, 

OCNMS has both ecological and aesthetic values. The ecosystem provides ecological services 

that benefit human beings (e.g., primary productivity at the base of the marine food web). In 

addition, the sanctuary is a place where people can visit and experience a marine environment in 

a relatively undeveloped condition, with terrestrial wilderness at their back and the vast Pacific 

Ocean stretching beyond the horizon. Such experiences have an unquantifiable intrinsic value. 

Under all three alternatives, the intrinsic societal benefit of maintaining the sanctuary’s 

programs, while difficult to quantify, is an important consideration. 

For nonconsumptive users and passive users, ecosystem conditions are important for determining 

benefits. Resource protection is known to change the status of the habitats protected and often 

results in positive changes to community structure and increased biodiversity. One of the main 

benefits is protection of a naturally functioning ecosystem (i.e., a more natural system minimally 

influenced by human beings) that is expected to have benefits for passive and nonconsumptive 

users. Naturally functioning marine ecosystems composed of diverse biological assemblages are 

hypothesized to be more likely to adapt to the increasingly acidic ocean conditions expected as a 

result of climate change, and are perhaps less likely to develop hypoxic conditions. Should this 

hypothesis be correct, the socioeconomic benefits to passive and nonconsumptive users of 

protecting naturally functioning marine ecosystems such as OCNMS would be substantial. 

Additionally, the resulting resilience of the sanctuary ecosystem, in combination with greater 

public awareness of this resilience through OCNMS education and outreach programs, can be 

expected to further increase benefits flowing to passive and non-consumptive users over time. 

Passive and nonconsumptive user groups may even have a willingness to pay for these increased 

benefits. Even if the per capita socioeconomic benefit to passive and nonconsumptive users of 

these ecosystem services is relatively small, the overall magnitude of these benefits is still 

potentially large. The probable size of the passive user community is in the order of many 

millions of users throughout Washington State and the nation, and the cost of passive use is 

generally small relative to other use costs. 
221 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

8.4.2.2. Cruise Ship Discharges - Effects to the Human/Socioeconomic Setting 

At present, the four national marine sanctuaries off California have regulations that prohibit 

discharge of wastewater from cruise ships. OCNMS has proposed (in alternatives B and C), but 

does not currently have, a similar regulation. Representatives from the NorthWest CruiseShip 

Association polled participating cruise ship lines and found that represented vessels currently do 

not discharge to OCNMS waters for several reasons (John Hansen, NWCSA, personal 

communication). The opportunity is limited – the average transit time through OCNMS for 

cruise ships is 1.2 hours (Table 11). In order to avoid discharges until passing out of the 

sanctuary, holding tank capacity of about 800 to 4,500 gallons for treated sewage would be 

required. According to the EPA, cruise ship capacity to hold sewage (untreated or treated) 

ranges from 0.5 to 170 hours, with an average holding capacity of 62 hours (EPA 2008). In 

order to avoid graywater discharges until passing out of the sanctuary, holding tank capacity of 

about 5,000 to 18,000 gallons for graywater would be required. According to the EPA, cruise 

vessel capacity to hold graywater varies significantly. According to responses to EPA’s 2004 

cruise ship survey, graywater holding capacity ranges from 5 to 90 hours, with an average 

holding capacity of 56 hours (EPA 2008). Based on comparison of transit times through 

OCNMS with EPA’s estimates, it is assumed that cruise ships have sufficient holding tank 

capacity to retain sewage and graywater while within the sanctuary. Therefore, avoidance of 

wastewater discharges during this small time window would not negatively impact vessel 

operations. 

Because cruise ships in the sanctuary typically are in transit to other locations and would already 

be spending the fuel and time necessary to traverse the sanctuary, no additional fuel costs are 

anticipated as a result of the proposed regulations. In acknowledgement of water quality 

concerns that influenced California sanctuary prohibitions on cruise ship discharges, 

continuation of wastewater discharges in OCNMS might garner negative publicity for an 

industry that seems to have improved its practices and public image regarding environmental 

stewardship. Furthermore, for vessel captains, regulatory consistency between national marine 

sanctuaries on the West Coast is desirable as it reduces the complexity of operations that span 

multiple jurisdictions with diverse regulatory requirements and limitations (John Hansen, 

NorthWest CruiseShip Association, personal communication). In sum, restrictions on discharges 

from cruise ships under alternatives B and C could be considered to have a net positive effect on 

the human/socioeconomic setting. Thus, the socioeconomic effect of a cruise ship discharge ban 

is expected to be less than significant. In addition, NOAA does not expect there to be any 

significant effect on employment, incomes, or housing due to the cruise ship discharge 

regulations proposed under alternatives B and C. As a result, NOAA expects less than 

significant, beneficial, direct, short term or long-term effects on the socioeconomics of the 

regulated community. 

 
222 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

8.4.3. Actions with Adverse Effects to the Human/Socioeconomic Setting 

There are some actions being considered under alternatives B and C that would result in adverse 

effects to the human/socioeconomic setting, including: 

 Reducing the OCNMS overflight regulation from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet (alternative C) 

 A regulatory ban on discharges from large vessels (alternative C) 

 Evaluate options to make compliance with the Area-to-be-Avoided mandatory 

(alternative C) 

 Regulatory ban on the discharge of invasive species (alternative C) 

For purposes of this analysis, adverse effects to the human/socioeconomic setting are those that 

negatively affect the overall economy, business activity, employment, incomes, or housing for 

those populations adjacent to or dependent on the sanctuary. Adverse effects could result if these 

regulations caused the communities described in section 6 to: 

 Experience reduced employment levels 

 Experience decreased wages to cover potential increased costs of regulatory compliance 

 Experience a decrease in business activity in or near coastal communities 

 Incur increased operational costs by altering routes to avoid discharges in the sanctuary 

The significance of any adverse socioeconomic effects must be carefully considered. There exist 

some administrative definitions of significance. Presidential Executive Order 12866 defines a 

significant impact for Federal Regulations as any impact of $100 million or more. When the 

impact of a Federal Regulation is expected to have impacts of $100 million or more, then the 

requirement is that the Federal agency proposing the regulation must conduct a benefit-cost 

analysis of the regulation. None of the actions proposed under any of the three alternatives 

considered here would cause this level of socioeconomic impact. 

Frequently, a threshold of $1 million is used to define the socioeconomic significance of an 

action. If the action causes an economic loss of $1 million or more then it is considered 

significant. If it causes an economic loss of less than $1 million then it is not considered 

significant. Within the context of this analysis, a $1 million threshold makes sense and is applied 

when considering the effects of actions on large industries (e.g., the cruise ship industry). 

However, this threshold does not necessarily make sense when considering economic effects on 

the small rural communities adjacent to the sanctuary, which have high poverty and 

unemployment rates. An economic loss of less than $1 million dollars could be significant in 

these communities. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) considers impacts of five percent or more of a 

fishing community’s income or employment to be significant. Fishing communities are defined 

as Census Designated Places or cities that depend directly or indirectly on the recreational and 

commercial fisheries for at least 20 percent of either their income or employment, or in which 20 

percent of the population living in the community is directly or indirectly dependent on the 

fisheries. For the purposes of this analysis, the communities directly adjacent to the sanctuary 
223 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

are considered to be fishing communities. Neah Bay, La Push and Westport (which is not 

directly adjacent to the sanctuary but is a community quite close to the sanctuary) have been 

identified by NMFS as fishing communities (NMFS 2007). Taholah, WA is not identified in 

NMFS’s Community Profiles for West Coast and Pacific Fisheries as a fishing community; 

however, for the purposes of this analysis, OCNMS considers Taholah to be a fishing community 

given the importance of fishing to the Quinault Indian Nation. When evaluating socioeconomic 

effects specifically to fishing communities, OCNMS has considered the NMFS significance 

standard of five percent or more of a fishing community’s income or employment. 

8.4.3.1. Regulatory Reduction in Overflight Floor (alternative C) 

A modification of the OCNMS overflight regulation to lower the floor from 2,000 feet to 1,000 

feet would provide regulatory consistency between national marine sanctuaries on the West 

Coast but simultaneously create an OCNMS regulation that is inconsistent with the FAA 

advisory for the same air space that applies to the national park and national wildlife refuges off 

the outer coast of Washington. OCNMS believes that a lower flight floor would not alter the 

number or type of planes flying over the sanctuary, but it could affect the socioeconomic setting 

of the sanctuary by increasing the noise detectable and visual impact to visitors on the shoreline 

adjacent to the sanctuary, much of which is designated wilderness within Olympic National Park. 

Federal wilderness lands are characterized as areas of undeveloped land retaining its primeval 

character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation. Designated 

wilderness is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions, and where the 

imprint of man’s work is substantially unnoticeable, and there are outstanding opportunities for 

solitude. The 2,000 foot FAA advisory that applies to national parks and wildlife refuges 

mitigates the visual and acoustic impact to wildlife as well as human visitors. Based on 

inconsistency between this proposed regulation and FAA advisory for the same area as well as 

its affect to the aesthetic value of the ONP wilderness shoreline, this alternative would have a 

less than significant, adverse, direct, and short-term effect on human/socioeconomic resources 

because potential confusion concerning overflight regulations and advisories may be introduced 

and the wildness aesthetic may be compromised. The effects are considered less than significant 

because they are unlikely to cause socioeconomic impacts to Olympic National Park, local 

communities or the aviation industry on the order of $1 million or greater. 

8.4.3.2. Changes to Vessel Discharge Regulation (alternative C) 

Alternative A (no action) does not propose additional discharge regulations on vessels in the 

sanctuary. As a result, no significant adverse short-term or long-term direct or indirect impacts 

on the human/socioeconomic setting are expected to occur from alternative A. Alternative B 

does propose a ban on cruise ship discharges, but this action is expected to have a beneficial, 

long-term, direct effect on the human/socioeconomic setting and thus is not discussed within the 

context of adverse effects. 

The large commercial vessel discharge regulation proposed under alternative C does have the 

potential to cause some adverse effects to the human/socioeconomic resources. Alternative C 

proposes an expansion of discharge regulations to include a ban on all discharges from large 

vessels (over 300 gross tons), with the exception of some clean discharges required for vessel 

operation and an exception for vessels that would not be able to comply based on their existing 
224 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

design, i.e., sewage or graywater holding capacity. Affected vessels 300 gross tons and above 

could include public vessels, commercial vessels, passenger vessels (other than cruise ships), 

fishing vessels and tank vessels. These vessels operate in a wide range of the activities described 

in section 6 (Human/Socioeconomic Setting). 

Some large vessel operators could incur additional costs, related to changes in operating 

procedures, to comply with OCNMS vessel discharge regulations under alternative C in order to 

continue their activities in the sanctuary. These effects would be applicable to: 

 Large commercial vessels using the sanctuary for transit 

 Commercial fishing vessels using the sanctuary for transit or for fishing operations 

 Defense-related vessels using the sanctuary for transit or for training 

 Research-related vessels using the sanctuary for transit or for research 

Impacts to U. S. Navy vessel should be negligible as their current policy is that “While transiting 

National Marine Sanctuaries, ships and submarines shall avoid any adverse impacts on Sanctuary 

resources and qualities. Ships and submarines shall minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, 

any solid waste, sewage, or bilge water discharges” (Section 22-922-2.2.10 Prohibited Discharge 

Zones for U.S. Navy Shipboard Wastes, of OPNAVINST 5090.1C, U.S. Navy 2007). 

Many large commercial vessels are in the sanctuary only as a function of transiting to and from 

Puget Sound and Canadian ports. Most of these transiting vessels would be within the sanctuary 

for short time periods (Table 11) and are believed to have sufficient holding capacity allowing 

them to hold sewage and graywater without modifications to the vessel. However, operational 

procedures for securing overboard discharges would need to be developed and implemented. 

Since the practice of calling on Puget Sound and Canadian ports is expected to continue 

compliant with the CVTS and ATBA, with or without implementation of alternative C, impacts 

to vessels that currently comply with the ATBA (vessels >1,600 GT) would be negligible. For 

all vessels, no additional costs related to fuel and transit time are expected to occur with 

implementation of alternative C. Rather, alternative C would simply prompt large commercial 

vessels to hold their sewage until they are outside the sanctuary boundary. 

Most large commercial vessels traversing the sanctuary have relatively small crews (4-15 people) 

and thus do not generate sewage in volumes comparable to cruise ships. The duration of transits 

through OCNMS for vessels impacted by alternative C is approximately 1.2 to 3.6 hours, which 

varies by vessel size and class (Table 11). In order to avoid discharges within the sanctuary, an 

estimated holding tank capacity of between 5 and 30 gallons for treated sewage would be 

required. Most large commercial vessels have sufficient capacity to hold this volume of 

wastewater. Due to the typically small size of crews on large commercial vessels traversing the 

sanctuary, the volume of graywater generated and potentially discharged in the sanctuary also is 

relatively small. Large commercial vessels typically have sufficient storage capacity for 

graywater to allow vessel operations for 20 to 48 hours without discharge, although there is 

significant variation among vessels (Pruitt 2004). 
225 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

For other vessels such as public research, and commercial fishing vessels that remain in the 

sanctuary to perform their allowed functions, residence times in the sanctuary may vary 

substantially. As an example the NOAA Ship McArthur II, a 224 foot 1,914 GT research vessel, 

occasionally conducts research cruises within OCNMS. The McArthur II has a combined 

sewage and graywater holding tank of 4,000 gallons, which for a typical crew of 37 provides a 

wastewater holding capacity of approximately 2 days. Without the exception for vessels that 

would not be able to comply based on their existing design, the McArthur II would be required to 

break from research operations every other day to transit to an area where discharge of sewage 

and graywater were legal. With this exception, under this alternative, there would be an 

allowance for the vessel’s existing design and holding tank capacity. 

For commercial fishing vessels, time spent in the sanctuary is a combination of transit and 

fishing time. Table 11 estimates that the average duration of commercial fishing vessel transits 

(vessels not actively fishing) ranges from 2.6 to 3.2 hours. Holding tank capacity of about 3 to 

14 gallons for sewage and 17 to 56 gallons for graywater would be required in order to avoid 

discharges while in the sanctuary during transits. However, fishing vessels that are actively 

fishing could spend a significantly longer period of time in the sanctuary. Based on NOAA 

Vessel Monitoring Data (VMS) data, there were 153 fishing trips, or approximately 5% of 

fishing trips in 2009, that exceed two days. The VMS data analyzed by the sanctuary does not 

include the tonnage of the vessel, so the number of these vessels that are 300 GT or above (those 

affected by alternative C) is unknown. However, another vessel data set analyzed by OCNMS 

does include tonnage. Of the fishing vessels participating in the Cooperative Vessel Traffic 

System (CVTS), 23% were 300 GT or above (Table 11). Based on this information it is 

reasonable to conclude that there are fishing vessels greater than 300 GT that would be in the 

sanctuary for a period of time that would exceed their holding tank capacity. See Appendix K 

for a description of VMS and CVTS data. Again, the exemption for existing vessel design would 

mitigate the impact of this alternative. 

While the exemption for existing vessel design greatly mitigates the potential impact from this 

regulation, there would be some minimal costs involved in complying with the regulation. 

Vessel operators would need to establish procedures for securing overboard sewage and 

graywater discharge. These costs would vary based on vessel design and operations. The 

adverse effects of this alternative would be less than significant, direct and long-term. The 

effects are considered less than significant because, given the exception for existing vessel 

design and the capacity of most vessels to adhere to the proposed regulation without major 

modifications to their structures or routes, it is unlikely that this regulatory change would cause a 

loss of $1 million or more to any industry. 

 
226 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

8.4.3.3. Area-to-be-Avoided - Effects to the Human/Socioeconomic Setting 

Currently, the Olympic Coast Area to be Avoided (ATBA) is an International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) voluntary vessel routing measure for vessels 1,600 gross tons and above. 

The ATBA has been in place since 1994, and its compliance rate has been high, estimated to be 

98.9% in 2009 (WDE 2010). To maintain the high compliance rate, OCNMS works with the 

USCG to notify non-compliant vessels with a formal letter requesting that they adhere to the 

ATBA in the future. 

Under alternative C, OCNMS would work with its partners to evaluate options to make 

compliance with the ATBA mandatory. In order to understand the extent and potential 

significance of changing the voluntary nature of the ATBA, OCNMS evaluated ATBA 

compliance rates and identified the population of vessels that have not voluntarily complied with 

the ATBA. OCNMS further evaluated responses from the ATBA Monitoring and Outreach 

program to evaluate response from industry on reasons for non-compliance. 

The transits of vessels for which the ATBA applies off the Olympic Coast in 2009 are 

summarized in Table 15. Figure 11 shows the tracklines for all 8,849 transits (vessels for which 

the ATBA applies) that were monitored by Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service (CVTS). Of 

these transits, 6,128 entered OCNMS (Figure 12), with a total of 68 transiting within the ATBA 

(Figure 13). In 2009 the ATBA voluntary compliance rate was estimated at near 99%. 

To better understand the reasons for non-compliance for these 68 transits OCNMS reviewed 

responses from these vessels (see 8.1.2.4). The sanctuary has concluded that changing the 

ATBA provisions from voluntary to mandatory would have a minimal impact in the behavior of 

shipping in the sanctuary. There would be some increased costs to both the government and the 

maritime industry in implementing a mandatory ATBA provision. The effect of this alternative 

would be less than significant, adverse and long-term. The effect is expected to be less than 

significant because, given the nearly perfect compliance rate with the ATBA that already exists, 

there is no indication that this change to the ATBA would lead to a loss of $1 million or more to 

the shipping industry. 

8.4.3.4. Regulatory Ban on Invasive Species Discharge 

Alternative C would include a ban on the discharge of invasive species in the sanctuary. It is 

assumed that this action could have some adverse effect on the human setting because it would 

restrict people from farming invasive species (e.g., Atlantic salmon) in the sanctuary, although 

OCNMS could consider granting a permit for an aquaculture project on a case-by-case basis. An 

OCNMS permit would be required for any aquaculture project in the sanctuary because such a 

project would trigger OCNMS’s discharge and/or seafloor disturbance regulations. Therefore, 

potential impacts of invasive species would be an additional consideration for OCNMS 

permitting if such a project were proposed. It is assumed that the adverse socioeconomic effect 

of this regulation would be less than significant because OCNMS has never received an 

application from any entity seeking to farm an invasive species in the sanctuary and knows of no 

plans under development at this time. Thus, OCNMS, through this regulatory change, would not 

expect to cause any significant (>$1 million) economic losses to the aquaculture industry. It is 
227 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

also important to note that a ban on discharging invasive species in the sanctuary would not be 

equivalent to a ban on aquaculture in the sanctuary. Farming operations involving native species 

would be considered but, as noted above, likely would require an OCNMS permit. 

Beyond potential aquaculture operations, OCNMS is unaware of any current human activities in 

the sanctuary that involve or in any way require the discharge of invasive species. Ballast water 

discharge in the sanctuary is already prohibited by the state of Washington ballast water 

discharge regulations (except mid-ocean exchanged ballast water). Thus, an OCNMS invasive 

species discharge ban would have no additional socioeconomic effect on the shipping industry. 

Moreover, an OCNMS invasive species discharge ban would not require ship operators to 

conduct any additional vessel inspections or ballast water analyses. Thus, it is assumed that 

there would be no socioeconomic effect on commercial or recreational fishing operations in the 

sanctuary from the enactment of an invasive species discharge ban. 

8.4.4. Summary of Effects to Human/Socioeconomic Setting 

In general, the majority of actions being considered under alternatives A, B and C would have 

some beneficial, less than significant effects on the human/socioeconomic setting in the 

sanctuary. There is not a substantial difference in the beneficial effects expected from the three 

alternatives. 

The actions under both alternatives A and B are expected to have solely beneficial effects on the 

human/socioeconomic setting. The actions under alternative C are expected to have primarily 

beneficial effects on the human/socioeconomic setting, but also may have some less than 

significant, adverse effects. 

The beneficial effects of all three alternatives are considered less than significant because, while 

the actions under these alternatives are critical to achieving OCNMS’s goals and objectives, they 

are relatively small in scale and are not expected, to cause a large and measurable improvement 

to the socioeconomic health of local communities over the life of the management plan (five to 

ten years). That is not to say that revising the OCNMS management plan will not contribute

positively to local and regional socioeconomic improvements by promoting tourism on the 

Olympic Peninsula, providing resources to local school systems for educational programs etc. 

Regarding adverse effects to human/socioeconomic setting, the additional actions being 

considered under alternative C would have a less than significant adverse, direct, short and longterm effects on the socioeconomics of local communities. These effects could include minor 

increases in operating costs or foregone economic opportunities. No significant macroeconomic 

or fiscal impacts are expected. It is important to note that, while significant effects on local 

economies are not expected as the result of any of the three management plan alternatives, that 

does not necessarily mean that there would or wouldn’t be significant effects on certain 

individuals or groups. Certainly if a person were among those who are impacted it could feel 

significant to that person. OCNMS has no basis for judging significance in this context. This 

analysis simply provides OCNMS’s best estimates of the extent of potential effects on 

communities overall. 
228 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

8.5. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The National Environmental Policy Act and the White House Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) require that federal agencies consider the cumulative environmental effects of the 

action(s) they propose. The cumulative effect of the proposed action is the incremental 

environmental effect that the proposed action has when added to other past, present and future 

actions in the affected environment. Cumulative effects are critical to explore because it is often 

the combined effect of many actions in one area or region that causes the most significant 

adverse effects. 

Analyzing cumulative effects and assessing their significance can be challenging. OCNMS 

considers cumulative effects to be significant if they exceed the capacity of a resource 

(socioeconomic, biological, physical, historic and/or cultural) to sustain itself and remain 

productive. In order to analyze cumulative effects, OCNMS followed informal CEQ guidelines 

as documented in Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act

(CEQ 1997). In these guidelines, CEQ presents an 11-step process for reviewing and assessing 

cumulative impacts. 

Actions identified under alternatives A, B and C as causing any beneficial or adverse effects to 

resources were reviewed to identify potential cumulative issues. The geographic scope and time 

frame for the cumulative effects analysis are the same as for the management plan review, i.e., 

the existing boundaries of OCNMS and a 5-10 year time frame. In conducting this analysis 

OCNMS utilized the findings from the 2008 Condition Report as a baseline (ONMS 2008). 

 

Process for Reviewing and Assessing Cumulative Impacts (CEQ 1997) 

Step 1 – Identify the potentially significant cumulative effects issues associated with the 

proposed action and define the assessment goals. 

Step 2 – Establish the geographic scope for the analysis 

Step 3 – Establish the time frame for the analysis 

Step 4 – Identify other actions affecting the resources, ecosystems, and human 

communities of concern 

Step 5 – Characterize the resources described in the affected environment in terms of their 

response to change and capacity to withstand stresses. 

Step 6 – Characterize the stresses affecting these resources and their relation to regulatory 

thresholds 

Step 7 – Define a baseline condition for the resources 

Step 8 – Identify the important cause-and-effect relationships between human activities and 

the resources 

Step 9 – Determine the magnitude and significance of cumulative effects 

Step 10 – Modify or add alternatives to avoid, minimize or mitigate significant cumulative 

effects. 

Step 11 – Monitor the cumulative effects of the selected alternative and adapt management.
229 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

The analysis of cumulative effects considers the present effects of past actions to the extent that 

they are relevant and useful in analyzing whether the reasonably foreseeable effects of the 

Proposed Action and future projects would collectively result in a significant effect on the 

environment. The following projects include only those with some potential to contribute to the 

cumulative effects: 

 Seafloor disturbance 

 Noise pollution 

 Vessel operations 

 Trampling 

 Invasive species regulations 

 Vessel discharge regulations 

 Climate change 

 Marine Resource Protection 

8.5.1.1. Cumulative Effects of Seafloor Disturbance 

There are two primary types of OCNMS operations that disturb the seafloor - anchoring of 

research moorings and bottom grab samples. Analysis of these actions has found them to be less 

than significant, adverse, direct and short-term to the biological, physical and historic and 

cultural setting of the sanctuary. Other non-OCNMS actions within the boundaries of the 

sanctuary that also disturb the seafloor and which contribute to the cumulative impacts to these 

resources include the installation of cables, bottom contact fishing gear, the Quillayute River 

Harbor Project, the abandonment of sunken vessels, some Naval operations, and the conduct of 

non-OCNMS research activities. 

The 2008 Condition Report concluded that selected habitat loss or alteration has taken place 

from human activities, and the most significant impact likely has resulted from bottom contact 

fisheries that have been conducted for years over broad areas (ONMS 2008). The area of the 

seafloor disturbed by OCNMS actions is miniscule compared other activities. Therefore, the 

actions of OCNMS do not significantly contribute to the cumulative effects of seafloor 

disturbance. 

8.5.1.2. Cumulative Effects of Noise Pollution 

OCNMS operations under all three alternatives would contribute to noise in the sanctuary 

include vessel and survey operations. However, OCNMS activities are small in scope and 

intensity compared with existing traffic. Additional sources of noise pollution in the sanctuary 

include commercial shipping and military operations. The primary source of low-frequency 

ocean noise is commercial shipping (NRC 2003). In 2009 there were approximately 7,000 

transits of large vessels (over 300 GT) in the sanctuary (Table 11). An additional source of noise 

pollution in the sanctuary is military operations. Both the Northwest Training Range Complex 

and the Quinault Underwater Test Range overlap with the boundaries of OCNMS. Both of these 

military operating areas have been subject to recent NEPA analysis. While the cumulative 

effects of noise pollution with the sanctuary have not been documented, OCNMS believes that 

its contribution to these the cumulative effect would be less than significant, adverse, direct and 

short-term under all three alternatives, due to the separation in time and space from these vessel 
230 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

operations and the large areas of the sanctuary that have excluded large vessel transits, e.g., the 

ATBA. 

8.5.1.3. Cumulative Effects of Vessel Operations 

In addition to noise pollution, the operation of vessels within the sanctuary can have an effect on 

physical and biological setting by providing a potential source of water pollution. Additional 

effects can occur through harassment of wildlife and/or ship strikes. Current level of OCNMS 

operations is at approximately 12.5 vessel days (300 hours of operations). This is out of an 

approximate total of 5,000 vessel days occurring annually in the sanctuary (Table 6). The nature 

of these operations is generally disbursed with some concentrations occurring at harbor 

entrances, popular fishing grounds, and in vessel traffic lanes. The 2008 Condition Report 

concluded that water quality in the sanctuary is in good condition (ONMS 2008). Therefore, the 

cumulative effects of OCNMS vessel operations under all three alternatives would be less than 

significant, adverse, direct and short-term. 

8.5.1.4. Cumulative Effects of Trampling 

OCNMS actions that occur in the intertidal zone have the potential to have an adverse effect 

through trampling. These actions include: 

 Beach and intertidal educational and interpretive programs 

 Intertidal surveys 

 Marine debris removal projects 

 Encouraging visitation to beaches and intertidal areas 

Other actions that would contribute to this type of impact include Olympic National Park and 

school group interpretive activities, and impacts from the general public’s visitation to intertidal 

areas. 

The 2008 Condition Report found that while selected habitat loss or alteration has taken place 

from human activities, that these impacts are unlikely to cause substantial or persistent 

degradation to living resources (ONMS 2008). Therefore, the cumulative effects of intertidal 

activities under all three alternatives would be less than significant, adverse, direct and shortterm. 

8.5.1.5. Cumulative Effects of Invasive Species Regulations 

Alternative C includes a new regulation, which would ban the discharge of invasive species in 

the sanctuary. Other actions that would have an impact on the cumulative effect of this 

regulation include current state of Washington regulations restricting the introduction of invasive 

species in state waters. Because the addition of an OCNMS invasive species discharge ban 1) 

would be largely redundant with state of Washington regulations and 2) would likely not add any 

significant additional protections for resources in the sanctuary, the cumulative effects of the 

invasive species regulation would be beneficial, indirect, long-term and less than significant. 
231 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

8.5.1.6. Cumulative Effects of Vessel Discharges 

Alternatives B and C both contain regulations which would prohibit certain discharges from 

different classes of vessels in order to support efforts to maintain water quality in the sanctuary. 

Other actions that would have an effect on water quality in the sanctuary include an existing 

Washington State and Northwest CruiseShip Association Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) that restricts cruise ship discharges in state waters, state of Washington ballast water 

regulations that restrict vessel discharges in and adjacent to state waters, the IMO Area-to-beAvoided, and federal (EPA) water quality regulations (e.g., Clean Water Act). 

The 2008 Condition Report found water quality in the sanctuary to be in “good” condition 

(ONMS 2008). Furthermore, preceding analyses of potential OCNMS vessel discharge 

regulation changes indicate that these potential regulatory changes would have only a small 

added benefit to water quality in the sanctuary because existing regulations (state, federal and 

IMO) already provide substantial protection of water quality in most of the sanctuary. The 

cumulative effect of potential changes to OCNMS vessel discharge regulations in conjunction 

with existing state and federal water quality protection regulations would be beneficial, indirect, 

long-term and less than significant. 

8.5.1.7. Cumulative Effects of Climate Change 

Climate change is, by nature, a cumulative effects issue. No single point source or event has 

caused climate change. Rather, the changing climate is cumulatively affected by many actions 

all over the globe. The United States government has identified climate change as a significant 

problem of national and international concern. The White House Council on Environmental 

Quality is currently developing guidelines that federal agencies can use to address the issue of 

climate change in the NEPA process. Through the management plan review process, OCNMS 

has addressed the issue of climate change in detail by developing a Climate Change Action Plan 

and Sanctuary Operations Plan that would be implemented under alternatives B and C. Both of 

these action plans discuss ways in which OCNMS would reduce its carbon footprint and work 

with local communities in the sanctuary region to understand and address the issue of climate 

change. 

The burning of fossil fuels contributes to the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. 

The build-up of greenhouse gases in the environment in turn influences climate. Alternatives A, 

B and C contain actions that require the burning of fossil fuels to support the operation of 

sanctuary vessels and vehicles. Additionally, there is a significant volume of marine shipping 

and vessel operations that occur in the sanctuary. Insufficient data exist to characterize the 

specific effect or contribution of fossil fuel burning in the sanctuary region on or to global 

climate change. However, given the small scale of OCNMS activities that involve fossil fuel 

burning, it is unlikely that OCNMS greenhouse gas contributions under alternatives A, B or C 

would cause a significant change in the cumulative effect of fossil fuel burning in the sanctuary 

region. Under all three alternatives, OCNMS would continue to maintain a small staff, a small 

fleet of vehicles and vessels, and would engage in no commercial or industrial-scale fossil fuel 

burning activities. Thus, the cumulative effects of all three alternatives on climate change are 

assumed to be adverse, but less than significant. 
232 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

8.5.1.8. Cumulative Effects of Marine Resource Protection 

Alternatives A, B and C consider actions that would provide protection for marine resources in 

the sanctuary. The National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also provide 

protections for marine resources in and adjacent to the sanctuary through the management of 

Olympic National Park and the Washington Maritime Wildlife Refuge Complex. Thus, there is a 

less than significant, beneficial, cumulative effect of having multiple federal protection structures 

(park, refuge and sanctuary) for marine resources in the sanctuary. This cumulative effect under 

all three alternatives is assumed to be less than significant because the combined 

park/refuge/sanctuary area represents a relatively small area of the Pacific Ocean in which these 

types of protections for marine resources are provided. 

8.5.1.9. Actions for Future Analysis 

Many of the actions and strategies under all three alternatives provide broad management 

direction. Where actions are specific and adequately defined, the environmental consequences 

have been analyzed. Conversely, actions that are broad and general in nature would be analyzed 

in future environmental and cultural compliance documents, once sufficiently specific actions are 

proposed and defined. Examples of actions that may be analyzed in the future include: 

 Construction of visitor centers, storage facilities, staff offices, interpretive signage and 

vessels 

 Potential maritime archeological investigations 

 Potential discovery of maritime archeological sites that could require development of 

preservation and protection plans 

 Potential submerged marine debris removal projects (e.g., removing buried crab pots, 

abandoned vessels, etc.) 

 Potential OCNMS permit applications to conduct a variety of human development 

activities in the sanctuary (e.g., fiber optic cable installations, alternative energy projects 

etc.) 

Alternatives B and C both provide guidance for future expansion of OCNMS programs. Specific 

details for how these programs may expand would not be developed until the resources to 

support such expansions are available. At that time, appropriate environmental and cultural 

review and compliance documentation would be developed in accordance with NEPA, NHPA, 

NOAA guidelines, as well as ESA, CWA, and other federal laws. Additionally, OCNMS cannot 

anticipate the nature of permit applications it may receive to conduct prohibited activities in the 

sanctuary. Permit applications must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, and an appropriate 

level of environmental and cultural compliance documentation would be determined on a caseby-case basis. 
233 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

8.6. SUMMARY OF EFFECTS 

Effects to the physical, biological, historical/cultural, and human/socioeconomic settings were 

analyzed for each of the three alternatives being considered (Table 18). Effects were classified 

as beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect, short-term or long-term and significant or less than 

significant (terms all of which are defined in the introduction to section 8.0). The types of 

actions analyzed (Table 13) included, but were not limited to: 

 Routine OCNMS resource protection, research, education, outreach, visitor services, 

maritime heritage, administration activities 

 Potential changes to OCNMS regulations (related to vessel discharges, invasive species etc.) 

 OCNMS vessel operations 

 Research and monitoring activities that can cause seafloor and wildlife disturbance and 

disturbance to the intertidal zone 

 Continuation and potential expansion of the Area-to-be-Avoided 

Additionally, the cumulative effects of the actions proposed under all three alternatives were 

analyzed within the context of other federal and non-federal activities occurring in the sanctuary. 

In all cases, the effects of all three alternatives were found to be less than significant (Table 18). 

Table 18 Comparison of effects of the three alternatives on physical, biological, historic/cultural and 

socioeconomic resources 

Setting Effects of Alternative A Effects of Alternative B Effects of Alternative C 

Physical Less than significant, adverse 

and beneficial 

Less than significant, adverse 

and beneficial 

Less than significant, adverse 

and beneficial 

Biological Less than significant, adverse 

and beneficial 

Less than significant, adverse 

and beneficial 

Less than significant, adverse 

and beneficial 

Historic/Cultural Less than significant, adverse 

and beneficial 

Less than significant, adverse 

and beneficial 

Less than significant, adverse 

and beneficial 

Human/ 

Socioeconomic 

Less than significant, adverse 

and beneficial 

Less than significant, adverse 

and beneficial 

Less than significant, adverse 

and beneficial 

Cumulative Less than significant, adverse 

and beneficial 

Less than significant, adverse 

and beneficial 

Less than significant, adverse 

and beneficial 

As the environmental consequences analysis demonstrates, revision of OCNMS’s management 

plan (under all three alternatives) would have an overall beneficial effect on resources in the 

sanctuary (biological, physical, historic/cultural and socioeconomic). Because the management 

plan is a broad, guidance document, these beneficial effects would in many cases be indirect, 

occurring as OCNMS takes actions that improve 1) public understanding of marine conservation 

issues, 2) scientific understanding of sanctuary ecosystems and historic and cultural resources, 3) 

marine stewardship and maritime heritage programs, 4) OCNMS regulations in order to reduce 

potential stressors on marine resources (e.g., vessel discharges, oil spills and potential invasive 
234 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 

species introductions). These effects would be less than significant because they alone are not 

likely to result in a substantial, measurable improvement of resource health over the relatively 

short life of the management plan (five to ten years). 

Measurable changes in the health of resources in the sanctuary will likely occur over a longer 

period of time, and as the result of incremental changes in human behavior that OCNMS hopes 

to influence through the continuation and development of its research, resource protection, 

education, outreach, visitor and maritime heritage programs. To say these beneficial effects are 

less than significant is not to say that they are not critical to OCNMS’s mission or to resource 

protection efforts in the sanctuary. Revising the management plan, particularly as discussed 

under the preferred alternative (B), would provide a strategic and detailed path forward for 

OCNMS and its partners to achieve more effective management and protection of resources in 

the sanctuary. However, within the context of NEPA, these beneficial effects do not meet the 

criteria of “significant”. 

In addition to these beneficial effects, some actions proposed under all three alternatives would 

cause direct and indirect adverse effects on resources. These adverse effects include, for 

example, disturbance to wildlife in order to monitor and understand the health of species in the 

sanctuary, disturbance to the seafloor in order to install water quality monitoring buoys. In all 

cases, adverse effects were found to be less than significant because OCNMS conducts these 

activities on a small scale, in a manner that substantially minimizes impacts to resources, and in a 

manner minimizes costs for sanctuary users. 

Cumulative effects of actions under all three alternatives were also found to be less than 

significant. For the most part, this is because the effects of OCNMS actions (beneficial and 

adverse) are small in scale. Thus, the addition of these effects to those of other similar activities 

occurring in the sanctuary would not significantly alter the cumulative effects of these activities 

overall. In some cases, there was little information available to assess the effects of other 

entities’ activities in the sanctuary. In such cases, the information available suggested that the 

cumulative effects would be less than significant. Should additional information about these 

activities become available in the future, it would be incorporated into future OCNMS NEPA 

cumulative effects analyses. 

 
235 

PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED 

9. PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED 

This list includes all people and agencies that assisted OCNMS in developing the action plans in 

the Draft Management Plan or in reviewing aspects of the environmental effects analysis. 

 

Olympic Coast National Marine 

Sanctuary Advisory Council 

Bob Boekelheide 

Bob Bohlman (Vice Chair) 

Chip Boothe (Chair) 

Captain Scott Bornemann 

Ginny Broadhurst 

Diane Butorac 

John Calambokidis 

Al Carter 

Mike Doherty 

Kevin Duffy 

Steve Fradkin 

Doug Fricke 

Caroline Gibson 

Joe Gilbertson 

Garth Griffin 

Mike Gurling 

Karen Gustin 

Jennifer Hagen 

George Hart 

Frank Holmes 

Dave Hudson 

Phil Johnson 

Ed Johnstone 

Steve Joner 

Joel Kawahara 

Jody Kennedy 

Dr. Terrie Klinger 

Fayette Krause 

Katie Krueger 

Ellen Matheny 

John Miller 

Mel Moon, Jr. 

Roy Morris 

Corey Niles 

Meri Parker

Captain Scott Pollock 

Rebecca Post 

David Price 

David Roberts 

Kevin Ryan 

Dana Sarff 

Joe Schumacker 

Brady Scott (Secretary) 

Teresa Scott 

Fan Tsao 

Lee Whitford 

Gene Woodwick 

Olympic Coast Intergovernmental Policy 

Council 

 

Citizen 

 Nancy Messmer 

Coastal Maritime Archeological Resources 

 Carl Harrington 

Ecotrust 

 Charles Steinbeck 

Feiro Marine Life Center 

 Betsy Wharton 

 Deborah Moriarty 

 David Morris 

Friends of the Earth 

 Fred Felleman 

Forks High School 

 John Hunter 

Foss Maritime 

 Bruce Reed
236 

PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED 

Grays Harbor College 

 Lorena Marchant 

 Sarah Shaw 

Hoh Tribe 

 Warren Scarlett 

 Joe Gilbertson 

 David Hudson 

Hoh River Residents’ Association 

 John Richmond 

Makah Tribe 

 Micah McCarty 

 Steve Joner 

 Sue Wolf 

 Dana Sarff 

 Greg Arnold 

 Chad Bowechop 

 Janine Bowechop 

 Meri Parker 

Marine Exchange of Puget Sound 

 Bob Bohlman 

 John Veentjer 

Marine Spill Response Corporation 

 John Bowles 

 Craig Cornell 

NOAA Office of Response and 

Restoration 

 Doug Helton 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Northwest Region 

Kevin Duffy 

Garth Griffin 

Frank Lockhart 

Brent Norberg 

Yvonne deReynier 

Natural Resources Consultants, Inc. 

 Jim Riedel 

 Tim Gallo 

 Jeff June 

North Pacific Coast Marine Resources 

Committee 

 Rich Osbourne 

North Pacific Fishing Vessel Owners’ 

Association 

 Leslie Hughes 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

 Jason Cope 

 Phil Levin 

 Vera Trainer 

Northwest Cruise Ship Association 

 Donna Spalding 

 John Hansen 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

 Rob Jones 

 Eric Wilkins 

 Craig Bowhay 

 Debbie Preston 

Olympic Coast Alliance 

 John Woolley 

Oceana 

 Ben Enticknap 

Ocean Shores Interpretive Center 

 Gene Woodwick 

Ocean Shores School District 

 Karen Rasmussen 

 Beth Rockey 
237 

PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED 

Olympic National Park 

 Steve Fradkin 

 Judy Lively 

 Deanna Butterworth 

 Dave Conca 

 Paul Gleeson 

 Colin Smith 

 Kathy Steichen 

 Karen Gustin 

 Jacilee Wray 

Olympic Park Institute 

 Kent Chapple 

 Shannon Walz 

 Randall Walz 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

Pacific Merchant Shipping 

 Mike Moore 

Port Angeles School District 

 Dan Lieberman 

Quileute Tribe 

 Jennifer Hagen 

 Katie Krueger 

Mel Moon 

Chris Morganroth III 

Quinault Indian Nation 

 Tom Gibbons 

Ed Johnstone 

Joe Schumacker 

Reef Environmental Education 

Foundation 

 David Jennings 

Seattle Aquarium 

 Karen Matsumoto 

Surfrider Foundation 

 Jody Kennedy 

 Sharon Serrano 

The Nature Conservancy 

 Jacques White 

Tombolo Institute 

 Gary Greene 

U.S. Coast Guard 

 Scott Bornemann 

 Scott Knutsen 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 Deanna Lynch 

 Sue Thomas 

 Kevin Ryan 

U.S. Geological Survey 

 Sam Johnson 

University of Washington 

 Dr. Barbara Hickey 

 Dr. Jan Newton 

 Dr. Julia Parrish 

Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife 

 Greg Bargmann 

 Michele Culver 

Dan Doty 

 Steve Jeffries 

 Allen Pleus 

 Heather Reed 

Washington Department of Ecology 

 Chip Boothe 

 Diane Butorac 

Jennifer Hennessey 

 Amy Jankowiac 

 Rebecca Post 

Spencer Reeder 

Washington State Historic Preservation 

Office 

 Rob Whitlam 
238 

PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED 

Washington State Maritime Cooperative 

 Tom Callahan 

Washington State Oil Spill Advisory 

Council 

 Jerry Joyce 

Washington State University 

 Katherine Baril 

Westport Historical Seaport 

 Les Bolton 

Wright Brothers Aviation

 Jeff Wells 

Western Washington University 

 Nancy Bluestein-Johnson 

 
239 

REFERENCES 

10. REFERENCES 

ADEC (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation). 2000. 2000 Cruise ship initiative 

Part 2 Report. http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/cruise_ships/pdfs/acsireport2.pdf, 

(accessed July 14, 2010). 

ADEC (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation). 2010. Alaska DEC Large Cruise 

Ship 2009 Wastewater Sampling Results. May 10 2010 

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/cruise_ships/pdfs/2009_Large_Sampling_Report.pdf

(accessed October 26, 2010). 

Airame, S., J.E. Dugan, K.D. Lafferty, H. Leslie, D. A. McArdle, and R.R. Warner. 2003. 

Applying ecological ecriteria to marine reserve design: a case study from the California 

Channel Islands. Ecol. App. 13(1): S170-184. 

Au, W.W.L. and M.C. Hastings. 2008. Principles of Marine Bioacoustics. New York: Springer. 

Auster, P. J., R. J. Malatesta, R.W. Langton, L. Watling, P.C. Valentine, C.L.S. Donaldson, E.W. 

Langton, A.N. Shepard and I.G. Babb. 1996. The impacts of mobile fishing gear on 

seafloor habitats in the Gulf of Maine (Northwest Atlantic): implications for conservation 

of fish populations. Reviews in Fisheries Science 4: 185-202. 

Auster, P.J., and R.W. Langton. 1999. The effects of fishing on fish habitat. In: Benaka, L. (ed), 

pp. 150-187. Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat and Rehabilitation. American Fisheries 

Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Berkeley, S. A., C. Chapman, S.M. Sogard. 2004. Maternal age as a determinant of lavral growth 

and survival in a marine fish, Sebastes melanops. Ecology Letters 85: 1258-1264. 

Brancato, M. S., J. W. Davis, R. Jameson. C.E. Bowlby and L. Milonas. 2009. Chemical 

Contaminants, Pathogen Exposure and General Health Status of Live and Beach-Cast 

Washington Sea Otters (Enhydra lutris kenyoni). Lacy, WA, Department of Interior, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1: 175. 

Brancato, M.S., C.E. Bowlby, J. Hyland, S.S. Intelmann,and K. Brenkman. 2007. Observations 

of Deep Coral and Sponge Assemblages in Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, 

Washington. Cruise Report: NOAA Ship McArthur II Cruise AR06-06/07. Marine 

Sanctuaries Conservation Series NMSP-07-03. U.S. Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Sanctuary Program, Silver 

Spring, MD. 48 pp. 

Chan, F., J.A. Barth, J. Lubchenco, A. Kirincich, H. Weeks, W.T. Peterson, and B.A. Menge. 

2008. Emergence of anoxia in the California Current large marine ecosystem. Science 

319: 920. 

Cockcroft V.G., A.C. Kock, D.A. Lord, G.J.B. Ross. 1989. Organochlorines in bottlenose 

dolphins Tursiops truncatus from the east coast of South Africa. South African Journal 

of Marine Science 8: 207-217. 

deRivera, C.E., G.M. Ruiz, J. Crooks, K. Wasson, S. Lonhart, P. Fofonoff, B. Steves, S. Rumrill, 

M.S. Brancato, S. Pegau, D. Bulthuis, R.K. Preisler, C.G. Schoch, C.E. Bowlby, A. 

DeVogelaere, M. Crawford, S.R. Gittings, A.H. Hines, L. Takata, K. Larson, T. Huber, 

A.M. Leyman, E. Collinetti, T. Pascot, S. Shull, M. Anderson and S. Powell. 2005. 

Broad-scale non-indigenous species monitoring along the west coast in national marine 

sanctuaries and national estuarine research reserves. Report to National Fish and Wildlife 
240 

REFERENCES 

Foundation. Smithsonian Institute, National Estuarine Research Reserve System, 

National Marine Sanctuary Program, Washington, D.C. 125 pp. 

Dethier, M. N. 1988. A Survey of Intertidal Communities of the Pacific Coastal Area of Olympic 

National Park, Washington: Final Report. Final Report, National Park Service, Friday 

Harbor. 

DOC. 2009. Washington State Travel Impacts, 1991-2009p. Prepared for the Washington State 

Department of Commerce by Dean Runyan Associates, Portland, Oregon, January 2009. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Phase 1 Final Rule and Technical 

Development Document of Uniform Discharge Standards. Graywater: Nature of 

Discharge. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/unds/TDDdocuments/appAgraywater.pdf. 

(accessed July 14, 2010). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. MARPOL 73/78 Overview. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/OCPD/marpol.html. (accessed July 14, 2010). 

EPA (U.S Environmental Protection Agency). 2008a. Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report. 

EPA842-R-07-005. U.S. EPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/cruise_ships/pdf/0812cruiseshipdischargeassess.pdf . 

(accessed July 1, 2010). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008b. National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) Vessel General Permit (VGP) for Discharges Incidental 

to the Normal Operation of Vessels Fact Sheet.  

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/vessel_vgp_factsheet.pdf .  (accessed July 

14,2010). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010a. Evaluation of Improved Type I Marine 

Sanitation Devices. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r10008/600r10008.pdf. (accessed 

June 22, 2010). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010b. Draft Report to Congress: Study of 

Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other 

Non-Recreational Vessels Less than 79 Feet. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/vessels/reportcongress.cfm. (accessed July 14, 2010). 

Epstein, P. R., T. E. Ford, and R. R. Colwell. 1993. Health and climate change: Marine 

ecosystems. The Lancet 342:1216-1219. 

Erickson, A. and J. G. Wullschleger 1998. A preliminary assessment of harvest on the Olympic 

Coast. Port Angeles, WA, Olympic National Park: 15 pp. 

Erickson, A. 2005. Effects of human trampling in the barnacle zone along a gradient of use in 

Olympic National Park. Master’s Thesis. University of Washington Seattle, WA. 50 pp. 

Global Ballast Water Programme. 2003. Global Project Task Force (GPTF), Fourth Meeting, 

Beijing, China. 28-30 October 2002 Proceedings. IMO London. 

Graybill, M.R. and J. Hodder. 1985. Effects of the 1982-83 El Nino on Reproduction of six 

species of seabirds in Oregon. Pp. 205-210 in: Wooster, W.S., and Fluharty, D.L.,. Eds., 

El Niño North. Washington Sea Grant Program, University of Washington, Seattle. 

Harvell CD, K. Kim, J. M. Burkholder, R.R. Colwell, P.R. Epstein, D.J. Grimes, E.E. Hofmann, 

E.K. Lipp, A.D. M. E. Osterhaus, R.M. Overstreet, J.W. Porter, G.W. Smith, G.R. Vasta. 

1999. Diseases in the ocean: emerging pathogens, climate links, and anthropogenic 

factors. Science 285: 1505-1510. 
241 

REFERENCES 

Intelmann, S.S. 2006. Habitat mapping effort at the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary – 

current status and future needs. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series. National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Sanctuary Program, Silver 

Spring, MD, U.S. Department of Commerce. 29 pp. 

IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2002. Prevention of Pollution by Sewage From 

Ships. http://www.imo.org/environment/mainframe.asp?topic_id=237. (accessed July 1, 

2010). 

IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2004. International Convention for the Control and 

Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments. (accessed July 14, 2010). 

IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2006. Alien flotillas: the expansion of invasive 

speciesthrough ship ballast water. 

http://earthtrends.wri.org/features/view_feature.php?fid=67&theme=7 (accessed July 14, 

2010). 

Laidre, K., R.J. Jameson, S. J. Jeffries, R. C. Hobbs, C. E. Bowlby, and G. R. VanBlaricom. 

2002. Estimates of carrying capacity for sea otters in Washington state. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 30: 1172-1181. 

Lance, M. M., S. F. Pearson, and M. G. Raphael. 2008. 2007 at-sea marbled murrelet population 

monitoring Research Progress Report WA Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife 

Science Division, Olympia, WA. 24 pp. 

Lance, M.M., S.A. Richardson and H.L. Allen. 2004. Washington state recovery plan for the sea 

otter. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 91 pp. 

Loehr, L.C., C.J. Beegle-Krause, K. George, C.D. McGee, A.J. Mearns, M.J. Atkinson. 

2006. The Significance of Dilution in Evaluating Possible Impacts of Wastewater 

Discharges From Large Cruise Ships. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52: 681-688. 

Malakoff, D. 2010. Changing Oceans: A push for quieter ships. Science 328: 1502-3. 

Manuwal, D. A., H. R. Carter, T. S. Zimmerman, and D. L. Orthmeyer, editors. 2001. Biology 

and Conservation of the Common Murre in California, Oregon, Washington, and British 

Columbia. Volume 1: Natural history and populations trends. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Biological Resources Division, Information and Technology Report, Washington, D.C. 

McGregor, B.A. and T.W. Offield. 1986. The Exclusive Economic Zone: An Exciting New 

Frontier. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Naylor, R., Hindar, K, Fleming, IA, Goldburg, R, Williams, S, Volpe, J, Whoriskey, F, Eagle, J, 

Kelso, D. 2005. Fugitive Salmon: Assessing the Risks of Escaped Fish from Net-Pen 

Aquaculture. Bioscience 55(5): 427-437. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2002. Research Plan for West Coast Groundfish. 

Seattle, WA. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004. Pacific halibut fisheries; catch sharing plan. 

Final rule: annual management measures for Pacific halibut fisheries. Federal Register 

69(39): 9231-9241. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2006a. Report on the Status of the U.S. Fisheries for 

2006. Report to Congress., NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1993. Olympic Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary Final Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan Vol. 1 FEIS. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Washington, D.C. 
242 

REFERENCES 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2004. Final Report of the NOAA 

International Symposium: “Shipping Noise and Marine Mammals: A Forum for Science, 

Management and Technology,” 18-19 May 2004, Arlington, VA. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2008. Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary, Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. March 2008. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 

Norse, E. (ed). 1994. Global marine biological diversity: a strategy for building conservation 

into decision making. Center for Marine Conservation. Island Press. 383 pp. 

Norman, K., J. Sepez, H. Lazrus, N. Milne, C. Package, S. Russell, K. Grant, R.P. Lewis, J. 

Primo, E. Springer, M. Styles, B. Tilt, and I. Vaccaro. 2007. Community profiles for 

West Coast and North Pacific fisheries–Washington, Oregon, California, and other U.S. 

states. U.S. Dept. Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-85, 602 p. 

NRC (National Research Council). 2002. Effects of Trawling and Dredging on Seafloor Habitat. 

Washington, D.C., National Academy Press: 126 pp. 

NRC (National Research Council). 2003. Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals. Washington, 

D.C.: National Academy Press. 

NRC, Inc. (Natural Resources Consultants, Inc.). 2008. Rates of marine species mortality caused 

by derelict fishing nets in Puget Sound, Washington. Prepared for Northwest Straits 

Initiative. May 15, 2009. 14pp. 

ONMS (Office of National Marine Sanctuaries). 2008. Olympic Coast National Marine 

Sanctuary Condition Report 2008. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 

72 pp. 

ONMS (Office of National Marine Sanctuaries). 2005. Our National Marine Sanctuaries 

Strategic Plan, 2005 – 2015. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 

20 pp. 

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 2008a. Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish 

Fishery. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation, Volume 1. March 2008. Pacific 

Fisheries Management Council, Portland, OR. 

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 2008b. Review of 2007 Ocean Salmon Fisheries. 

February 2008 Pacific Fisheries Management Council, Portland, OR. 

Paine, R.T. and S. A. Levin. 1981. Intertidal Landscapes: Disturbance and the Dynamics of 

Pattern. Ecological Monographs, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 145-178. 

Parrish, J.K. and S.G. Zador. 2003. Seabirds as Indicators: An Exploratory Analysis of Physical 

Forcing in the Pacific Northwest Coastal Environment. Estuaries 26(4): 1044-1057. 

Parrish, J. K., M. Marvier, and R. T. Paine. 2001. Direct and indirect effects: interactions 

between bald eagles and common murres. Ecological Applications 11:1858-1869. 

Parrish, J.K., P. Ayers, K. Litle, and J. Dolliver. 2005. Overflight Monitoring in the West Coast 

National Marine Sanctuaries. Report to the West Coast National Marine Sanctuaries. 

University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 

Partridge, V. 2007. Condition of coastal waters of Washington State, 2000-2003, a statistical 

summary. WA State Department of Ecology, Environmental Assessment Program. 

Publication No. 07-03-051. 
243 

REFERENCES 

PISCO (Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans). 2002. PISCO Coastal 

Connections, vol. 1. 

Piatt, J. F., K. J. Kuletz, A.E. Burger, S.A. Hatch, T.P. Birt, M.L. Arimitsu, G.S. Drew, A.M.A. 

Harding, and K.S. Bixler. 2007. Status Review of the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus 

marmoratus) in Alaska and British Columbia. Anchorage, AK, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Pirhalla D.E., V. Ransibrahmanakul, R. Clark, A. Desch, T. Wayne, and M. Edwards. 2009. An 

Oceanographic Characterization of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary and 

Pacific Northwest: Interpretive Summary of Ocean Climate and Regional Processes 

through Satellite Remote Sensing. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 90. 

Prepared by NCCOS’s Coastal Oceanographic Assessments, Status and Trends Division in 

cooperation with the National Marine Sanctuary Program. Silver Spring, MD. 53 pp.

POS (Port of Seattle). 2009. Seattle sets new record for cruise ships in 2009. 

http://www.portseattle.org/news/press/2009/10_26_2009_01.shtml (accessed July 1, 

2010). 

Pruitt R. 2004. Celebrity Cruises. Personal communication with Paul Sorenson of BST 

Associates. October, 2004. Referenced in NOAA, Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Farallones, 

and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries Draft Environmental Impact Statement: 

Prepared as part of the Joint Management Plan Review (JMPR), Vol. IV: U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, National Marine Sanctuary 

Program, October, 2006. 

Raphael, M. G. 2006. Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet under the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Conservation Biology 20: 297-305. 

Raphael, M.G. and T.D. Bloxton. 2008. Breeding ecology of the marbled murrelet in 

Washington State. Project update 2004-2007. Report. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. Olympia, WA. 32 pages. 

Ross, P. S., G. M. Ellis, M.G. Ikonomou, L.G. Barrett-Lennard, and R.F. Addison. 2000. High 

PCB concentrations in free-ranging Pacific killer whales, Orcinus orca: Effects of age, 

sex and dietary preference. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40(6): 504-515. 

Ross, P. S. 2006. Fireproof killer whales (Orcinus orca): flame-retardant chemicals and the 

conservation imperative in the charismatic icon of British Columbia, Canada." Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63(1): 224-234. 

Scavia, D., J.C. Field, D.F. Boesch, R.W. Buddemeier, V. Burkett, D.R. Cayan, M. Fogarty, 

M.A. Harwell, R.W. Howarth, C. Mason, D.J. Reed, T.C. Royer, A.H. Sallenger and J.G. 

Titus. 2002. Climate change impacts on U.S. Coastal and Marine Ecosystems. Estuaries 

and Coasts 25: 1559-2723. 

Schwemmer, Robert. 2008. Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Historic Shipwreck 

Database. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Mss. Santa Barbara: 

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. 

Suchanek, T.H. 1979. The Mytilus californianus community: studies on the composition, 

structure, organization, and dynamics of a mussel bed. PhD thesis, University of 

Washington. 

The Tenyo Maru Oil Spill Natural Resource Trustees. 2000. Final restoration plan and 

environmental assessment for the Tenyo Maru oil spill. Restoration Plan Cooperating 

Agencies: Makah Indian Tribe; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacy, WA. 70 pages. 
244 

REFERENCES 

Terrell, Bruce. n.d. Western Olympic Peninsula Maritime Archaeological Survey; a Synthesis of 

Five Surveys. Unpublished manuscript on file at Olympic Coast National Marine 

Sanctuary offices. 

Thrush, S.F., P.K. Dayton. 2002. Disturbance to marine benthic habitats by trawling and 

dredging: implications for marine biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology and 

Systematics 33: 449-479. 

Transport Canada. 2010. A guide to Canada’s Ballast Control and Regulations. 

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/tp-tp13617-preface-2086.htm#a3a 

(accessed July 14, 2010). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2009. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fiscal Years 

2009 – 2014, Biennial Quillayute River Navigation Project Maintenance Dredging, La 

Push, Washington. Public Notice, Reference: CENWS-OD-TS-NS-31. April 29, 2009.

USCG (U.S. Coast Guard). 2000. Port Access Route Study Strait of Juan de Fuca and Adjacent 

Waters. USCG Thirteenth District, Seattle, Washington. Docket # USCG-1999-4974. 

November 2000. 

USCG (U.S. Coast Guard). 2009. Marine Sanitation Device. 

 http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg5213/msd.asp. (accessed July 14, 2010). 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National 

Marine Sanctuary Program. 2008. Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Final 

Management Plan / Final Environmental Impact Statement. Silver Spring, MD. 

U.S. Navy 2007. Navy Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual. OPNAVINST 

5090.1C. Washington, D.C. U.S. Navy 2008. 

U.S. Navy. 2010. NAVSEA NUWC Keyport Range Complex Extension, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement/ Overseas Environmental Impact Statement. May 2010. 

Urick, R. J. 1983. Principles of Underwater Sound (3rd Edition). Los Altos, CA: Peninsula 

Publishing. 

Wahl, T. R., and B. Tweit. 2000. Seabird abundances off Washington, 1972-1998. Western Birds

31:69-88. 

Wahl, T. R., B. Tweit, and S. G. Mlodinow (eds). 2005. Birds of Washington, Status and 

Distribution, 1st Ed. edition. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 

Warheit, K. I., and C. W. Thompson. 2003. Common Murre Uria aalge. Pages 12-11 - 21-13 in 

E. M. Larsen, J. M. Azerrad, and N. Norstrom, editors. Management Recommendations 

for Washington's Priority Species - Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 

Wartzok, D. and D.R. Ketten. 1999. Marine Mammal Sensory Systems. In Biology of Marine 

Mammals, eds. J.E. Reynolds and S.A. Rommel, 117-175. Washington, D.C.: 

Smithsonian Institutional Press. 

WDE (Washington Department of Ecology). 2009. 2008 Assessment of Cruise ship 

Environmental Effects in Washington. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0910047.pdf

(accessed July 14, 2010). 

WDE (Washington Department of Ecology). 2010. VEAT 2009 - Vessel Entry and Transits for 

Washington Waters. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/1008004.html

(accessed September 7, 2010). 

WDFW. (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2008. Final Report: Economic 

Analysis of the Non-Treaty Commercial and Recreational Fisheries in Washington State, 
245 

REFERENCES 

December 2008. Prepared for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife by TCW 

Economics, Sacramento, California, December 2008. 

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2008b. (recreational fishing reference 

from Heather Reed) 

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2009. Chapter 220-150: Washington 

State Ballast Water Management rules. 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/ballast/2009_rules/wac_220-

150_ballast_water_rules_072609.pdf (accessed July 14, 2010). 

Wessen, G. C. 2003. An assessment and plan for a program of studies addressing prehistoric 

archaeological sites associated with paleoshorelines on the Olympic Coast of 

Washington. Neah Bay, WA. The Makah Cultural and Research Center. 56pp. 

Whitmire, C. E. and M. E. Clarke. 2007. State of deep sea coral ecosystems in the U.W. Pacific 

Coast: California to Washington. In: S. E. Lumsden, T. F. Hourigan, A. W. Bruckner and 

G. Dorr. (eds). The State of Deep Coral Ecosystems in the United States. Silver Spring, 

MD. NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP-3: 109-154. 

Wilson, U. W. 1991. Responses of three seabird species to El Niño events and other warm 

episodes on the Washington Coast, 1979-1990. The Condor. 93: 853-858. 
246 

APPENDIX A – DESIGNATION DOCUMENT 

APPENDIX A – DESIGNATION DOCUMENT 

ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT 

On May 11, 1994 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published the 

final Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Regulations (59 FR 24586). This official 

government document also served as the notice of the Sanctuary’s designation, the culmination 

of long and involved public process. The following excerpt from the complete documents is the 

“Designation Document”. You find a complete copy of the original 1994 document at 

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/fr/59_FR_24586.pdf http://olympiccoast.noaa.gov. 

Designation Document for the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary 

Under the authority of Title III of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (the 

``Act''), 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq., the waters off the Olympic Coast of Washington State including 

the U.S. portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca west of Koitlah Point, and the submerged lands 

thereunder, as described in Article II, are hereby designated as the Olympic Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary for the purposes of protecting and managing the conservation, ecological, 

recreational, research, educational, historical and aesthetic resources and qualities of the area. 

Article I. Effect of Designation 

The Act authorizes the issuance of such final regulations as are necessary and reasonable to 

implement the designation, including managing and protecting the conservation, recreational, 

ecological, historical, research, educational, and aesthetic resources and qualities of the Olympic 

Coast National Marine Sanctuary. Section 1 of Article IV of this Designation Document lists 

activities that either will be regulated on the effective date of designation or may have to be 

regulated at some later date in order to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities. Listing does not 

necessarily mean that a type of activity will be regulated; however, if an activity is not listed, it 

may not be regulated, except on an emergency basis, unless section 1 of Article IV is amended to 

include the type of activity by the same procedures by which the original designation was made. 

Article II. Description of the Sanctuary Area 

The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary boundary encompasses approximately 2500 

square nautical miles (approximately 8577 sq. kilometers) of coastal and ocean waters, and the 

submerged lands thereunder, off the central and northern coast of the State of Washington. The 

Sanctuary boundary extends from Koitlah Point due north to the United States/Canada 

international boundary seaward to the 100 fathom isobath. The seaward boundary of the 

Sanctuary approximates the 100 fathom isobath in a southerly direction from the U.S./Canada 

international boundary to a point due west of the Copalis River, cutting across the heads of 

Nitnat, Juan de Fuca, and Quinault Canyons. 
247 

APPENDIX A – DESIGNATION DOCUMENT 

The shoreward boundary of the Sanctuary is the mean lower low water line when adjacent to 

Indian reservations and State and county lands. When adjacent to Federally managed lands, the 

coastal boundary extends to the mean higher high water line. The coastal boundary cuts across 

the mouths of all rivers and streams. The precise boundary of the Sanctuary is set forth in 

Appendix A of this Designation Document. 

Article III. Characteristics of the Sanctuary Area That Give It Particular Value 

The Sanctuary is a highly productive, nearly pristine ocean and coastal environment that is 

important to the continued survival of several ecologically and commercially important species 

of fish, seabirds, and marine mammals. Its rugged and undeveloped coastline makes the region 

one of the more dramatic natural wonders of the coastal United States, paralleling the majestic 

splendor of such terrestrial counterparts as Yosemite National Park and the Grand Tetons. The 

region's high biological productivity is fueled by seasonal enhanced upwelling along the edge of 

the continental shelf, especially at submarine canyons, during periods of high solar radiation. 

The diversity of habitats that make up the Sanctuary support a great variety of biological 

communities. This unusually large range of habitat types include offshore islands and rocks; 

some of the most diverse kelp beds in the world; intertidal pools; erosional features such as rocky 

headlands, seastacks, and arches; interspersed exposed beaches and protected bays; submarine 

canyons and ridges; the continental shelf, including a broad shallow plateau extending from the 

mouth of the Juan de Fuca canyon; and continental slope environments. The numerous seastacks 

and rocky outcrops along the Sanctuary shoreline, coupled with a large tidal range and wave 

splash zone, support some of the most diverse and complex intertidal zones in the United States. 

The Sanctuary provides an essential habitat for a wide variety of marine mammals and birds, and 

is of particular interest due to the presence of endangered and threatened species that live or 

migrate through the region. Twenty seven species of marine mammals are reported to breed, rest 

within, or migrate offshore of the Olympic Peninsula. Of particular interest is the migration route 

of the endangered California gray whale, the threatened northern sea lion, the occasional 

presence of the endangered right, fin, sei, blue, humpback, and sperm whales, and the 

reintroduced resident population of sea otters. 

In addition, the seabird colonies of Washington's outer coast are among the largest in the 

continental United States and include a number of species listed as endangered or threatened 

including the short-tailed albatross, peregrine falcon, brown pelican, Aleutian Canada goose, 

marbled murrelet, and one of the largest populations of bald eagles in the continental United 

States. 

The high biological productivity of the coastal and offshore waters in the Sanctuary support 

valuable fisheries that contribute significantly to the State and tribal economies. The 

commercially important species of fish include five species of salmon, groundfish, and shellfish. 
248 

APPENDIX A – DESIGNATION DOCUMENT 

In addition to the Sanctuary's value with respect to its biological resources, the region 

encompasses significant historical resources including Indian village sites, ancient canoe runs, 

petroglyphs, Indian artifacts, and numerous shipwrecks. 

The diversity and richness of marine resources suggests that the marine sanctuary designations 

will provide exceptional opportunities for scientific research in the areas of species interactions, 

population dynamics, physiological ecology, linkages between terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems, and marine anthropology. The scientific research encouraged by the Sanctuary 

management plan will, in turn, help support an intensive public education and awareness 

program that will address the diverse, complex, and sensitive ecosystems in Washington's coastal 

and oceanic environments. 

Article IV. Scope of Regulations 

Section 1. Activities Subject to Regulation 

The following activities are subject to regulation, including prohibition, to the extent necessary 

and reasonable to ensure the protection and management of the conservation, ecological, 

recreational, research, educational, historical and aesthetic resources and qualities of the area: 

a. Exploring for, developing, or producing oil, gas or minerals (e.g., clay, stone, sand, 

metalliferous ores, gravel, non-metalliferous ores or any other solid material or other 

solid matter of commercial value) within the Sanctuary; 

b. Discharging or depositing from within the boundary of the Sanctuary, any material or 

other matter; 

c. Discharging or depositing, from beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary, any material or 

other matter; 

d. Taking, removing, moving, catching, collecting, harvesting, feeding, injuring, destroying 

or causing the loss of, or attempting to take, remove, move, catch, collect, harvest, feed, 

injure, destroy or cause the loss of, a marine mammal, sea turtle, seabird, historical 

resource or other Sanctuary resource; 

e. Drilling into, dredging, or otherwise altering the seabed of the Sanctuary; or 

constructing, placing, or abandoning any structure, material or other matter on the 

seabed of the Sanctuary; 

f. Possessing within the Sanctuary a Sanctuary resource or any other resource, regardless 

of where taken, removed, moved, caught, collected or harvested, that, if it had been 

found within the Sanctuary, would be a Sanctuary resource; 

g. Flying a motorized aircraft above the Sanctuary; 

h. Operating a vessel (i.e., watercraft of any description in the Sanctuary; 

i. Interfacing with, obstructing, delaying or preventing an investigation, search, seizure or 

disposition of seized property in connection with enforcement of the Act or any 

regulation or permit issued under the Act. 
249 

APPENDIX A – DESIGNATION DOCUMENT 

Section 2. Emergencies 

Where necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction of, loss of, or injury to a Sanctuary 

resource or quality, or minimize the imminent risk of such destruction, loss or injury, any and all 

activities, including those not listed in Section 1 of this Article, are subject to immediate 

temporary regulation, including prohibition. 

Article V. Effect on Leases, Permits, Licenses, and Rights 

Pursuant to section 304(c)(1) of the Act, 16 U.S.C. 1434(c)(1), no valid lease, permit, license, or 

other authorization issued by any Federal, State, or local authority of competent jurisdiction, or 

any right of subsistence use of access, may be terminated by the Secretary of Commerce or 

designee as a result of this designation. The Secretary of Commerce or designee, however, may 

regulate the exercise (including, but not limited to, the imposition of terms and conditions) of 

such authorization or right consistent with the purposes for which the Sanctuary is designated. 

In no event may the Secretary or designee issue a permit authorizing, or otherwise approve: (1) 

Exploration for, development or production of oil, gas or minerals within the Sanctuary; (2) the 

discharge of primary treated sewage (except for regulation, pursuant to section 304(c)(2) of the 

Act, of the exercise of valid authorizations in existence on the effective date of Sanctuary 

designation and issued by other authorities of competent jurisdiction); (3) the disposal of dredged 

material within the Sanctuary other than in connection with beach nourishment projects related 

to harbor maintenance activities; or (4) bombing activities within the Sanctuary. Any purported 

authorizations issued by other authorities after the effective date of Sanctuary designation for any 

of these activities within the Sanctuary shall be invalid. 

Article VI. Alteration of This Designation 

The terms of designation, as defined under Section 304(a) of the Act, may be modified only by 

the same procedures by which the original designation is made, including public hearings 

consultation with interested Federal, State, and local agencies, review by the appropriate 

Congressional committees and the Governor of the State of Washington, and approval by the 

Secretary of Commerce or designee. 
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

53161 

Vol. 73, No. 179 

Monday, September 15, 2008 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 922 

Initiation of Review of Management 

Plan/Regulations of the Olympic Coast 

National Marine Sanctuary; Intent To 

Prepare Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement and Management Plan; 

Scoping Meetings 

AGENCY: Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean 

Service (NOS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce (DOC). 

ACTION: Initiation of Review of 

Management Plan/Regulations; Intent to 

Prepare Environmental Impact 

Statement; Scoping Meetings. 

SUMMARY: Olympic Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS or 

sanctuary) was designated in May 1994. 

It spans 3,310 square miles of marine 

waters off the rugged Olympic 

Peninsula coast, covering much of the 

continental shelf and the heads of 

several major submarine canyons. The 

present management plan was written 

as part of the sanctuary designation 

process and published in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement in 

1993. In accordance with Section 304(e) 

of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 

as amended, (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1431 et 

seq.), the Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS) of the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) is initiating a 

review of the OCNMS management 

plan, to evaluate substantive progress 

toward implementing the goals for the 

Sanctuary, and to make revisions to the 

plan and regulations as necessary to 

fulfill the purposes and policies of the 

NMSA. NOAA will conduct public 

scoping meetings to gather information 

and other comments from individuals, 

organizations, tribes, and government 

agencies on the scope, types and 

significance of issues related to the 

Sanctuary’s management plan and 

regulations. The scoping meetings are 

scheduled as detailed below. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before November 14, 

2008. 

Scoping meetings will be held on: 

(1) September 29, 6–9 p.m., Peninsula 

College Longhouse, South Campus, 

Port Angeles, WA. 

(2) September 30, 6–9 p.m., Makah 

Marina Conference Center, Bayview Ave, Neah Bay, WA. 

(3) October 1, 6–9 p.m., A-Ka-Lat 

Center, La Push Road, La Push, WA. 

(4) October 2, 6–9 p.m., Ocean Shores 

Convention Center, 120 W Chance a 

La Mer, NW., Ocean Shores, WA. 

(5) October 3, 6–9 p.m., Westport 

Maritime Museum, 2201 Westhaven 

Drive, Westport, WA. 

(6) October 4, 2–5 p.m., Governor Hotel, 

Washington Room, 621 S. Capitol 

Way, Olympia, WA. 

(7) October 5, 7–10 p.m., Seattle 

Aquarium, Pier 59, 1483 Alaskan 

Way, Seattle, WA. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

sent to the Olympic Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary (Management Plan 

Review), 115 Railroad Ave. East, Suite 

301, Port Angeles, WA 98362, or faxed 

to (360) 457–8496. Electronic comments 

may be sent to 

ocnmsmanagementplan@noaa.gov. 

Comments will be available for public 

review at the street address mentioned 

above. All comments received are a part 

of the public record. All Personal 

Identifying Information (for example, 

name, address, etc.) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. NOAA will accept 

anonymous comments. Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, Wordperfect, or 

Adobe PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George Galasso, 360.457.6622 Ext. 12, 

ocnmsmanagementplan@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

proposed revised management plan will 

likely involve changes to existing 

policies of the Sanctuary in order to 

address contemporary issues and 

challenges, and to better protect and 

manage the Sanctuary’s resources and 

qualities. The review process is 

composed of four major stages: (1) 

Information collection and 

characterization; (2) preparation and 

release of a draft management plan/ 

environmental impact statement, and 

any proposed amendments to the 

regulations; (3) public review and 

comment; (4) preparation and release of 

a final management plan/environmental 

impact statement, and any final 

amendments to the regulations. In the 

event that the potential impacts of new 

actions described in the management 

plan do not warrant the need for an 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

NOAA will publish the appropriate 

environmental analysis and notify the 

public. NOAA anticipates completion of 

the revised management plan and 

concomitant documents will require 

approximately thirty-six months. 

Preliminary Priority Topics 

NOAA, in consultation with the 

Intergovernmental Policy Council (State 

of Washington and the Coastal Treaty 

Tribes who have jurisdiction of 

resources within the sanctuary), has 

prepared a list of preliminary priority 

topics. This list represents our best 

professional judgment of the most 

important issues NOAA should consider 

in preparation of a new OCNMS 

management plan. We are interested in 

the public’s comments on these topics, 

as well as any other topics of interest to 

the public or other agencies. It is 

important to note that this list does not 

preclude or in any way limit the 

consideration of additional topics raised 

through public comment, governmentto-government consultations, and 

discussions with partner agencies. 

Improved Partnerships—Recent 

initiatives for regional ocean 

management, including the formation of 

the Olympic Coast Intergovernmental 

Policy Council (IPC), the Washington 

Ocean Action Plan and the West Coast 

Governors Agreement on Ocean Health, 

provide the sanctuary with new 

opportunities to strengthen 

partnerships, particularly with the four 

coastal treaty tribes and the state of 

Washington in their role as 

governments. The sanctuary will work 

in active partnership to provide a more 

transparent, cooperative and 

coordinated management structure of 

Olympic Coast marine resources within 

tribal, state and federal jurisdictions. 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS-1

APPENDIX B - INITIATION OF REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT PLAN/REGULATIONS 250
53162 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 179 / Monday, September 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Characterization and Monitoring— 

There is a need to develop an 

understanding of baseline conditions of 

marine resources within the sanctuary, 

ecosystem functions, and status and 

trends of biological and socioeconomic 

resources to effectively inform 

management. OCNMS, in conjunction 

with IPC and other entities, will work to 

resolve these needs. 

Spill Prevention, Contingency 

Planning and Response—The risk from 

vessel traffic and other hazards remains 

a significant threat to marine resources. 

The potential for a catastrophic oil spill 

remains a primary concern and while 

advances in maritime safety have been 

made since the sanctuary was 

designated, better coordination is 

needed for response to these threats. Oil 

spills cause immediate and potentially 

long-term harm to marine resources as 

well as socioeconomic impacts to 

coastal communities. 

Climate Change—Climate change is 

widely acknowledged, yet there is 

considerable uncertainty about current 

and future consequences at local, 

ecosystem and oceanic scales. Increased 

coordination and cooperation among 

resource management agencies is 

required to improve planning, 

monitoring and adaptive management to 

address this phenomenon. 

Ocean Literacy—Enhancing the 

public’s awareness and appreciation of 

marine, socio-economic, and cultural 

resources is a cornerstone of the 

sanctuary’s mission. Recent regional 

initiatives offer opportunities for the 

sanctuary, in conjunction with IPC and 

other entities, to expand educational 

contributions and reach a larger 

audience. 

Marine Debris—Coastal marine debris 

is a persistent and poorly diagnosed 

problem within the sanctuary that 

negatively impacts natural and 

socioeconomic resources and qualities. 

Condition Report 

In preparation for management plan 

review, NOAA has produced an 

Olympic Coast National Marine 

Sanctuary 2008 Condition Report. The 

Condition Report provides a summary 

of resources in OCNMS, pressures on 

those resources, the current condition 

and trends, and management responses 

to the pressures that threaten the 

integrity of the marine environment. 

Specifically, the Condition Report 

includes information on the status and 

trends of water quality, habitat, living 

resources and maritime archaeological 

resources and the human activities that 

affect them. The report serves as a 

supporting document for the 

Management Plan Review Process, to 

inform constituents who desire to 

participate in that process. 

Additionally, the Olympic Coast 

Intergovernmental Policy Council (IPC) 

has requested that an IPC authored 

addendum be distributed with the 

Condition Report. The IPC is composed 

of the state of Washington, the Hoh, 

Makah, Quileute Indian Tribes and 

Quinault Indian Nation, and was formed 

to provide a forum for resource 

managers to exchange information, 

coordinate policies, and develop 

recommendations for resource 

management within the sanctuary. 

The Hoh, Makah, Quileute Indian 

Tribes and Quinault Indian Nation 

signed treaties with the U.S. government 

and exist as domestic sovereigns. Since 

the affirmation of treaty fishing rights in 

U.S. v. Washington, tribal, state and 

federal governments developed a unique 

management approach for fisheries in 

western Washington. This addendum 

explains this co-management approach, 

its underlying legal framework, and 

Washington Coastal Treaty Tribes’ 

historic and present use of marine 

resources. 

The condition report and the IPC 

addendum will be made available to the 

general public in advance of scoping 

meetings and on the Internet at: 

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/ 

condition/welcome.html. 

Scoping Comments 

Scoping meetings provide an 

opportunity to make direct comments to 

NOAA on the management of the 

sanctuary’s natural and cultural 

resources, including administrative 

programs. We encourage the public to 

participate and welcome any comments 

related to the sanctuary. In particular, 

we are interested in hearing about the 

public’s view on: 

• The sanctuary’s potential 

management priorities for the next five 

to ten years. 

• Effectiveness of the existing 

management plan in protecting 

sanctuary resources. 

• Sanctuary programs, activities and 

needs, including but not limited to 

resource protection programs, research 

and monitoring programs, education, 

volunteer, and outreach programs. 

• Implementation of regulations and 

permits. 

• Adequacy of existing boundaries to 

protect sanctuary resources. 

• Assessment of the existing 

operational and administrative 

framework (staffing, offices, vessels, 

etc.). 

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

(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 

Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program). 

Dated: September 4, 2008. 

Daniel J. Basta, 

Director for the Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries. 

[FR Doc. E8–21489 Filed 9–12–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2008–0593–200818b; FRL– 

8714–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans Alabama: 

Volatile Organic Compounds and Open 

Burning 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of 

revisions to the Alabama State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management on January 

8, 2008. The revisions include 

modifications to Alabama’s Volatile 

Organic Compounds and Control of 

Open Burning and Incineration 

regulations, found at Alabama 

Administrative Code Chapters 335–3–1 

and 335–3–3, respectively. This 

proposed action is being taken pursuant 

to section 110 of the Clean Air Act. 

This SIP revision also contains a letter 

addressing the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), which EPA will consider 

separately. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 15, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04– 

OAR–2008–0593,’’ by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: harder.stacy@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 404–562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2008– 

0593,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Stacy 

Harder, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS-1

APPENDIX B - INITIATION OF REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT PLAN/REGULATIONS 251
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22047 

Issued in Fort Worth, TX on April 19, 

2010. 

Anthony D. Roetzel, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO 

Central Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9749 Filed 4–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 922 

Intent To Initiate Consultation and 

Coordinate the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s 

Responsibilities Under Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) With the Ongoing National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

Process Supporting the Review of the 

Olympic Coast National Marine 

Sanctuary Management Plan 

AGENCY: Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean 

Service (NOS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce (DOC). 

ACTION: Consultation under Section 106 

of the NHPA in conjunction with 

Review of Management Plan/ 

Regulations and associated NEPA public 

process. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

304(e) of the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act, as amended, (NMSA) 

(16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), the Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) of 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) has initiated a 

review of the Olympic Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS or 

sanctuary) management plan, to 

evaluate substantive progress toward 

implementing the goals for the 

Sanctuary, and to make revisions to the 

plan and regulations as necessary to 

fulfill the purposes and policies of the 

NMSA (73 FR 53161). The management 

plan review process occurs concurrently 

with a public process under the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). This 

notice confirms that NOAA will 

coordinate its responsibilities under 

NEPA with those under section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA, 16 U.S.C. 470). 

DATES: Comments may be submitted at 

any time. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

sent to the Olympic Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary (Management Plan 

Review), 115 Railroad Ave. East, Suite 

301, Port Angeles, WA 98362, or faxed 

to (360) 457–8496. Electronic comments 

may be sent to 

ocnmsmanagementplan@noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George Galasso, 360.457.6622 Ext. 12, 

ocnmsmanagementplan@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OCNMS 

was designated in May 1994. It spans 

3,310 square miles of marine waters off 

the rugged Olympic Peninsula coast, 

covering much of the continental shelf 

and the heads of several major 

submarine canyons. The present 

management plan was written as part of 

the sanctuary designation process and 

published in the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement in 1993. 

In September 2008, NOAA published 

a Notice of Intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement under 

the authority of NEPA (73 FR 53161). 

The management plan review process is 

composed of four major stages: (1) 

Information collection and 

characterization; (2) preparation and 

release of a draft management plan/ 

environmental impact analysis 

document; (3) public review and 

comment; (4) preparation and release of 

a final management plan/environmental 

impact analysis document, and any final 

amendments to the regulations. NOAA 

anticipates completion of the revised 

management plan and concomitant 

documents will require approximately 

thirty-six months from the date of 

publication of the original notice of 

intent (37 FR 53161; September 15, 

2008). The proposed revised 

management plan will likely involve 

changes to existing policies of the 

Sanctuary in order to address 

contemporary issues and challenges, 

and to better protect and manage the 

Sanctuary’s natural resources and 

qualities and historic properties. 

This notice confirms that NOAA will 

coordinate its responsibilities under 

section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA, 16 U.S.C. 470) 

with its ongoing NEPA process, 

pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(a)— 

coordination with NEPA—including the 

use of NEPA documents and public and 

stakeholder meetings to also meet the 

section 106 requirements. The NHPA 

specifically applies to any agency 

undertaking that has an adverse effect 

on historic properties. Pursuant to 36 

CFR 800.16(1)(1), historic properties 

includes: ‘‘any prehistoric or historic 

district, site, building, structure or 

object included in, or eligible for 

inclusion in, the National Register of 

Historic Places maintained by the 

Secretary of the Interior. The term 

includes artifacts, records, and remains 

that are related to and located within 

such properties. The term includes 

properties of traditional religious and 

cultural importance to an Indian tribe 

* * * and that meet the National 

Register criteria.’’ 

In coordinating its responsibilities 

under the NHPA and NEPA, NOAA 

intends to identify consulting parties; 

identify historic properties and assess 

the effects of the undertaking on such 

properties; initiate formal consultation 

with the Washington State Historic 

Preservation Officer, appropriate Tribal 

Historic Preservation Officers, the 

Advisory Council of Historic 

Preservation, and other consulting 

parties; involve the public in 

accordance with NOAA’s NEPA 

procedures, and develop in consultation 

with identified consulting parties 

alternatives and proposed measures that 

might avoid, minimize or mitigate any 

adverse effects on historic properties 

and describe them in any 

Environmental Assessment or Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

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

U.S.C. 470. 

(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 

Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program) 

Dated: April 15, 2010. 

Daniel J. Basta, 

Director for the Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9203 Filed 4–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–NK–M 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR PARTS 52 AND 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0730; FRL–9142–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Wisconsin; Redesignation 

of the Manitowoc County and Door 

County Areas to Attainment for Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

Wisconsin’s requests to redesignate the 

Manitowoc County and Door County, 

Wisconsin nonattainment areas, to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, because the requests meet the 

statutory requirements for redesignation 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WDNR) submitted these 

requests on September 11, 2009. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS


APPENDIX C - INITIATION OF SECTION 106 CONSULTATION 252
Federal Register Presidential Documents

Vol. 58, No. 207

Thursday, October 28, 1993

Title 3—

The President

Executive Order 12875 of October 26, 1993

Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

The Federal Government is charged with protecting the health and safety,

as well as promoting other national interests, of the American people. However, the cumulative effect of unfunded Federal mandates has increasingly

strained the budgets of State, local, and tribal governments. In addition,

the cost, complexity, and delay in applying for and receiving waivers from

Federal requirements in appropriate cases have hindered State, local, and

tribal governments from tailoring Federal programs to meet the specific

or unique needs of their communities. These governments should have

more flexibility to design solutions to the problems faced by citizens in

this country without excessive micromanagement and unnecessary regulation

from the Federal Government.

THEREFORE, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution

and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to reduce

the imposition of unfunded mandates upon State, local, and tribal governments; to streamline the application process for and increase the availability

of waivers to State, local, and tribal governments; and to establish regular

and meaningful consultation and collaboration with State, local, and tribal

governments on Federal matters that significantly or uniquely affect their

communities, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Reduction of Unfunded Mandates. (a) To the extent feasible

and permitted by law, no executive department or agency (‘‘agency’’) shall

promulgate any regulation that is not required by statute and that creates

a mandate upon a State, local, or tribal government, unless:

(1) funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the State, local,

or tribal government in complying with the mandate are provided by the

Federal Government; or

(2) the agency, prior to the formal promulgation of regulations containing

the proposed mandate, provides to the Director of the Office of Management

and Budget a description of the extent of the agency’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected State, local, and tribal governments, the

nature of their concerns, any written communications submitted to the agency

by such units of government, and the agency’s position supporting the

need to issue the regulation containing the mandate.

(b) Each agency shall develop an effective process to permit elected officials

and other representatives of State, local, and tribal governments to provide

meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals

containing significant unfunded mandates.

Sec. 2. Increasing Flexibility for State and Local Waivers. (a) Each agency

shall review its waiver application process and take appropriate steps to

streamline that process.

(b) Each agency shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law,

consider any application by a State, local, or tribal government for a waiver

of statutory or regulatory requirements in connection with any program

administered by that agency with a general view toward increasing opportunities for utilizing flexible policy approaches at the State, local, and tribal

level in cases in which the proposed waiver is consistent with the applicable

Federal policy objectives and is otherwise appropriate.

(c) Each agency shall, to the fullest extent practicable and permitted by

law, render a decision upon a complete application for a waiver within


APPENDIX D –ENHANCING THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PARTNERSHIP (EO 12875) 253
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 207 / Thursday, October 28, 1993 / Presidential Documents

120 days of receipt of such application by the agency. If the application

for a waiver is not granted, the agency shall provide the applicant with

timely written notice of the decision and the reasons therefor.

(d) This section applies only to statutory or regulatory requirements of

the programs that are discretionary and subject to waiver by the agency.

Sec. 3. Responsibility for Agency Implementation. The Chief Operating Officer

of each agency shall be responsible for ensuring the implementation of

and compliance with this order.

Sec. 4. Executive Order No. 12866. This order shall supplement but not

supersede the requirements contained in Executive Order No. 12866 (‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’).

Sec. 5. Scope. (a) Executive agency means any authority of the United

States that is an ‘‘agency’’ under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered to be independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(10).

(b) Independent agencies are requested to comply with the provisions

of this order.

Sec. 6. Judicial Review. This order is intended only to improve the internal

management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does

not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at

law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

Sec. 7. Effective Date. This order shall be effective 90 days after the date

of this order.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 26, 1993.

œ–

[FR Citation 58 FR 58093]


APPENDIX D –ENHANCING THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PARTNERSHIP (EO 12875) 254
Federal Register Presidential Documents

Vol. 59, No. 32

Wednesday, February 16, 1994

Title 3—

The President

Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994

Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the

laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1–1.Implementation.

1–101. Agency Responsibilities. To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and consistent with the principles set forth in the report

on the National Performance Review, each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing,

as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations

and low-income populations in the United States and its territories and

possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

and the Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands.

1–102. Creation of an Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice.

(a) Within 3 months of the date of this order, the Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘Administrator’’) or the Administrator’s

designee shall convene an interagency Federal Working Group on Environmental Justice (‘‘Working Group’’). The Working Group shall comprise the

heads of the following executive agencies and offices, or their designees:

(a) Department of Defense; (b) Department of Health and Human Services;

(c) Department of Housing and Urban Development; (d) Department of Labor;

(e) Department of Agriculture; (f) Department of Transportation; (g) Department of Justice; (h) Department of the Interior; (i) Department of Commerce;

(j) Department of Energy; (k) Environmental Protection Agency; (l) Office

of Management and Budget; (m) Office of Science and Technology Policy;

(n) Office of the Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Policy;

(o) Office of the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy; (p) National

Economic Council; (q) Council of Economic Advisers; and (r) such other

Government officials as the President may designate. The Working Group

shall report to the President through the Deputy Assistant to the President

for Environmental Policy and the Assistant to the President for Domestic

Policy.

(b) The Working Group shall: (1) provide guidance to Federal agencies

on criteria for identifying disproportionately high and adverse human health

or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations;

(2) coordinate with, provide guidance to, and serve as a clearinghouse

for, each Federal agency as it develops an environmental justice strategy

as required by section 1–103 of this order, in order to ensure that the

administration, interpretation and enforcement of programs, activities and

policies are undertaken in a consistent manner;

(3) assist in coordinating research by, and stimulating cooperation among,

the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human

Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other

agencies conducting research or other activities in accordance with section

3–3 of this order;

(4) assist in coordinating data collection, required by this order;

(5) examine existing data and studies on environmental justice;


APPENDIX E – EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898 255
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 1994 / Presidential Documents

(6) hold public meetings as required in section 5–502(d) of this order;

and

(7) develop interagency model projects on environmental justice that

evidence cooperation among Federal agencies.

1–103. Development of Agency Strategies. (a) Except as provided in section

6–605 of this order, each Federal agency shall develop an agency-wide

environmental justice strategy, as set forth in subsections (b)–(e) of this

section that identifies and addresses disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities

on minority populations and low-income populations. The environmental

justice strategy shall list programs, policies, planning and public participation

processes, enforcement, and/or rulemakings related to human health or the

environment that should be revised to, at a minimum: (1) promote enforcement of all health and environmental statutes in areas with minority populations and low-income populations; (2) ensure greater public participation;

(3) improve research and data collection relating to the health of and environment of minority populations and low-income populations; and (4) identify

differential patterns of consumption of natural resources among minority

populations and low-income populations. In addition, the environmental

justice strategy shall include, where appropriate, a timetable for undertaking

identified revisions and consideration of economic and social implications

of the revisions.

(b) Within 4 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency shall

identify an internal administrative process for developing its environmental

justice strategy, and shall inform the Working Group of the process.

(c) Within 6 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency shall

provide the Working Group with an outline of its proposed environmental

justice strategy.

(d) Within 10 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency

shall provide the Working Group with its proposed environmental justice

strategy.

(e) Within 12 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency

shall finalize its environmental justice strategy and provide a copy and

written description of its strategy to the Working Group. During the 12

month period from the date of this order, each Federal agency, as part

of its environmental justice strategy, shall identify several specific projects

that can be promptly undertaken to address particular concerns identified

during the development of the proposed environmental justice strategy, and

a schedule for implementing those projects.

(f) Within 24 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency

shall report to the Working Group on its progress in implementing its

agency-wide environmental justice strategy.

(g) Federal agencies shall provide additional periodic reports to the Working Group as requested by the Working Group.

1–104. Reports to the President. Within 14 months of the date of this

order, the Working Group shall submit to the President, through the Office

of the Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Policy and the

Office of the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, a report that

describes the implementation of this order, and includes the final environmental justice strategies described in section 1–103(e) of this order.

Sec. 2–2. Federal Agency Responsibilities for Federal Programs. Each Federal

agency shall conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially

affect human health or the environment, in a manner that ensures that

such programs, policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding

persons (including populations) from participation in, denying persons (including populations) the benefits of, or subjecting persons (including populations) to discrimination under, such programs, policies, and activities,

because of their race, color, or national origin.


APPENDIX E – EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898 256
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 1994 / Presidential Documents

Sec. 3–3.Research, Data Collection, and Analysis. 

3–301. Human Health and Environmental Research and Analysis. (a) Environmental human health research, whenever practicable and appropriate,

shall include diverse segments of the population in epidemiological and

clinical studies, including segments at high risk from environmental hazards,

such as minority populations, low-income populations and workers who

may be exposed to substantial environmental hazards.

(b) Environmental human health analyses, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall identify multiple and cumulative exposures.

(c) Federal agencies shall provide minority populations and low-income

populations the opportunity to comment on the development and design

of research strategies undertaken pursuant to this order.

3–302. Human Health and Environmental Data Collection and Analysis.

To the extent permitted by existing law, including the Privacy Act, as

amended (5 U.S.C. section 552a): (a) each Federal agency, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall collect, maintain, and analyze information

assessing and comparing environmental and human health risks borne by

populations identified by race, national origin, or income. To the extent

practical and appropriate, Federal agencies shall use this information to

determine whether their programs, policies, and activities have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority

populations and low-income populations;

(b) In connection with the development and implementation of agency

strategies in section 1–103 of this order, each Federal agency, whenever

practicable and appropriate, shall collect, maintain and analyze information

on the race, national origin, income level, and other readily accessible and

appropriate information for areas surrounding facilities or sites expected

to have a substantial environmental, human health, or economic effect on

the surrounding populations, when such facilities or sites become the subject

of a substantial Federal environmental administrative or judicial action.

Such information shall be made available to the public, unless prohibited

by law; and

(c) Each Federal agency, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall collect, maintain, and analyze information on the race, national origin, income

level, and other readily accessible and appropriate information for areas

surrounding Federal facilities that are: (1) subject to the reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act,

42 U.S.C. section 11001–11050 as mandated in Executive Order No. 12856;

and (2) expected to have a substantial environmental, human health, or

economic effect on surrounding populations. Such information shall be made

available to the public, unless prohibited by law.

(d) In carrying out the responsibilities in this section, each Federal agency,

whenever practicable and appropriate, shall share information and eliminate

unnecessary duplication of efforts through the use of existing data systems

and cooperative agreements among Federal agencies and with State, local,

and tribal governments.

Sec. 4–4. Subsistence Consumption of Fish and Wildlife. 

4–401. Consumption Patterns. In order to assist in identifying the need

for ensuring protection of populations with differential patterns of subsistence

consumption of fish and wildlife, Federal agencies, whenever practicable

and appropriate, shall collect, maintain, and analyze information on the

consumption patterns of populations who principally rely on fish and/or

wildlife for subsistence. Federal agencies shall communicate to the public

the risks of those consumption patterns.

4–402. Guidance. Federal agencies, whenever practicable and appropriate,

shall work in a coordinated manner to publish guidance reflecting the latest

scientific information available concerning methods for evaluating the human

health risks associated with the consumption of pollutant-bearing fish or


APPENDIX E – EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898 257
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 1994 / Presidential Documents

wildlife. Agencies shall consider such guidance in developing their policies

and rules.

Sec. 5–5. Public Participation and Access to Information. (a) The public

may submit recommendations to Federal agencies relating to the incorporation of environmental justice principles into Federal agency programs or

policies. Each Federal agency shall convey such recommendations to the

Working Group.

(b) Each Federal agency may, whenever practicable and appropriate, translate crucial public documents, notices, and hearings relating to human health

or the environment for limited English speaking populations.

(c) Each Federal agency shall work to ensure that public documents,

notices, and hearings relating to human health or the environment are concise, understandable, and readily accessible to the public.

(d) The Working Group shall hold public meetings, as appropriate, for

the purpose of fact-finding, receiving public comments, and conducting inquiries concerning environmental justice. The Working Group shall prepare

for public review a summary of the comments and recommendations discussed at the public meetings.

Sec. 6–6. General Provisions. 

6–601. Responsibility for Agency Implementation. The head of each Federal

agency shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with this order. Each

Federal agency shall conduct internal reviews and take such other steps

as may be necessary to monitor compliance with this order.

6–602. Executive Order No. 12250. This Executive order is intended to

supplement but not supersede Executive Order No. 12250, which requires

consistent and effective implementation of various laws prohibiting discriminatory practices in programs receiving Federal financial assistance. Nothing

herein shall limit the effect or mandate of Executive Order No. 12250.

6–603. Executive Order No. 12875. This Executive order is not intended

to limit the effect or mandate of Executive Order No. 12875.

6–604. Scope. For purposes of this order, Federal agency means any agency

on the Working Group, and such other agencies as may be designated

by the President, that conducts any Federal program or activity that substantially affects human health or the environment. Independent agencies are

requested to comply with the provisions of this order.

6–605. Petitions for Exemptions. The head of a Federal agency may petition

the President for an exemption from the requirements of this order on

the grounds that all or some of the petitioning agency’s programs or activities

should not be subject to the requirements of this order.

6–606. Native American Programs. Each Federal agency responsibility set

forth under this order shall apply equally to Native American programs.

In addition, the Department of the Interior, in coordination with the Working

Group, and, after consultation with tribal leaders, shall coordinate steps

to be taken pursuant to this order that address Federally-recognized Indian

Tribes.

6–607. Costs. Unless otherwise provided by law, Federal agencies shall

assume the financial costs of complying with this order.

6–608. General. Federal agencies shall implement this order consistent

with, and to the extent permitted by, existing law.

6–609. Judicial Review. This order is intended only to improve the internal

management of the executive branch and is not intended to, nor does it

create any right, benefit, or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural,

enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies,

its officers, or any person. This order shall not be construed to create

any right to judicial review involving the compliance or noncompliance


APPENDIX E – EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898 258
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 1994 / Presidential Documents

of the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any other person with

this order.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

February 11, 1994.

œ–

[FR Citation 59 FR 7629]


APPENDIX E – EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898 259
260 

APPENDIX F – SECRETARIAL ORDER 3206 

APPENDIX F – SECRETARIAL ORDER 3206 

SECRETARIAL ORDER NO. 3206 

SIGNATURE DATE: June 5, 1997 

Subject: American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act 

Sec. 1 Purpose and Authority. This Order is issued by the Secretary of the Interior and the 

Secretary of Commerce (Secretaries) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 

'1531, as amended (the Act), the federal-tribal trust relationship, and other federal law. Specifically, 

this Order clarifies the responsibilities of the component agencies, bureaus and offices of the 

Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce (Departments), when actions taken 

under authority of the Act and associated implementing regulations affect, or may affect, Indian 

lands, tribal trust resources, or the exercise of American Indian tribal rights, as defined in this Order. 

This Order further acknowledges the trust responsibility and treaty obligations of the United States 

toward Indian tribes and tribal members and its government-to-government relationship in dealing 

with tribes. Accordingly, the Departments will carry out their responsibilities under the Act in a 

manner that harmonizes the Federal trust responsibility to tribes, tribal sovereignty, and statutory 

missions of the Departments, and that strives to ensure that Indian tribes do not bear a 

disproportionate burden for the conservation of listed species, so as to avoid or minimize the 

potential for conflict and confrontation. 

Sec. 2 Scope and Limitations. (A) This Order is for guidance within the Departments only and is 

adopted pursuant to, and is consistent with, existing law. 

(B) This Order shall not be construed to grant, expand, create, or diminish any legally enforceable 

rights, benefits or trust responsibilities, substantive or procedural, not otherwise granted or created 

under existing law. Nor shall this Order be construed to alter, amend, repeal, interpret or modify 

tribal sovereignty, any treaty rights, or other rights of any Indian tribe, or to preempt, modify or 

limit the exercise of any such rights. 

(C) This Order does not preempt or modify the Departments' statutory authorities or the authorities 

of Indian tribes or the states. 

(D) Nothing in this Order shall be applied to authorize direct (directed) take of listed species, or any 

activity that would jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or destroy or adversely 

modify designated critical habitat. Incidental take issues under this Order are addressed in Principle 

3(C) of Section 5. 

(E) Nothing in this Order shall require additional procedural requirements for substantially 

completed Departmental actions, activities, or policy initiatives. 
261 

APPENDIX F – SECRETARIAL ORDER 3206 

(F) Implementation of this Order shall be subject to the availability of resources and the 

requirements of the Anti-Deficiency Act. 

(G) Should any tribe(s) and the Department(s) agree that greater efficiency in the implementation 

of this Order can be achieved, nothing in this Order shall prevent them from implementing 

strategies to do so. 

(H) This Order shall not be construed to supersede, amend, or otherwise modify or affect the 

implementation of, existing agreements or understandings with the Departments or their agencies, 

bureaus, or offices including, but not limited to, memoranda of understanding, memoranda of 

agreement, or statements of relationship, unless mutually agreed by the signatory parties. 

Sec. 3 Definitions. For the purposes of this Order, except as otherwise expressly provided, the 

following terms shall apply: 

(A) The term "Indian tribe" shall mean any Indian tribe, band, nation, pueblo, community or other 

organized group within the United States which the Secretary of the Interior has identified on the 

most current list of tribes maintained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

(B) The term "tribal trust resources" means those natural resources, either on or off Indian lands, 

retained by, or reserved by or for Indian tribes through treaties, statutes, judicial decisions, and 

executive orders, which are protected by a fiduciary obligation on the part of the United States. 

(C) The term "tribal rights" means those rights legally accruing to a tribe or tribes by virtue of 

inherent sovereign authority, unextinguished aboriginal title, treaty, statute, judicial decisions, 

executive order or agreement, and which give rise to legally enforceable remedies. 

(D) The term "Indian lands" means any lands title to which is either: 1) held in trust by the United 

States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or individual; or 2) held by any Indian tribe or individual 

subject to restrictions by the United States against alienation. 

Sec. 4 Background. The unique and distinctive political relationship between the United States 

and Indian tribes is defined by treaties, statutes, executive orders, judicial decisions, and 

agreements, and differentiates tribes from other entities that deal with, or are affected by, the federal 

government. This relationship has given rise to a special federal trust responsibility, involving the 

legal responsibilities and obligations of the United States toward Indian tribes and the application of 

fiduciary standards of due care with respect to Indian lands, tribal trust resources, and the exercise 

of tribal rights. 

The Departments recognize the importance of tribal self-governance and the protocols of a 

government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes. Long-standing Congressional and 

Administrative policies promote tribal self-government, self-sufficiency, and self-determination, 

recognizing and endorsing the fundamental rights of tribes to set their own priorities and make 

decisions affecting their resources and distinctive ways of life. The Departments recognize and 

respect, and shall consider, the value that tribal traditional knowledge provides to tribal and federal 
262 

APPENDIX F – SECRETARIAL ORDER 3206 

land management decision-making and tribal resource management activities. The Departments 

recognize that Indian tribes are governmental sovereigns; inherent in this sovereign authority is the 

power to make and enforce laws, administer justice, manage and control Indian lands, exercise tribal 

rights and protect tribal trust resources. The Departments shall be sensitive to the fact that Indian 

cultures, religions, and spirituality often involve ceremonial and medicinal uses of plants, animals, 

and specific geographic places. 

Indian lands are not federal public lands or part of the public domain, and are not subject to federal 

public land laws. They were retained by tribes or were set aside for tribal use pursuant to treaties, 

statutes, judicial decisions, executive orders or agreements. These lands are managed by Indian 

tribes in accordance with tribal goals and objectives, within the framework of applicable laws. 

Because of the unique government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the United 

States, the Departments and affected Indian tribes need to establish and maintain effective working 

relationships and mutual partnerships to promote the conservation of sensitive species (including 

candidate, proposed and listed species) and the health of ecosystems upon which they depend. Such 

relationships should focus on cooperative assistance, consultation, the sharing of information, and 

the creation of government-to-government partnerships to promote healthy ecosystems. 

In facilitating a government-to-government relationship, the Departments may work with intertribal 

organizations, to the extent such organizations are authorized by their member tribes to carry out 

resource management responsibilities. 

Sec. 5 Responsibilities. To achieve the objectives of this Order, the heads of all agencies, bureaus 

and offices within the Department of the Interior, and the Administrator of the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce, shall be responsible for 

ensuring that the following directives are followed: 

Principle 1. THE DEPARTMENTS SHALL WORK DIRECTLY WITH INDIAN TRIBES 

ON A GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT BASIS TO PROMOTE HEALTHY 

ECOSYSTEMS.

The Departments shall recognize the unique and distinctive political and constitutionally based 

relationship that exists between the United States and each Indian tribe, and shall view tribal 

governments as sovereign entities with authority and responsibility for the health and welfare of 

ecosystems on Indian lands. The Departments recognize that Indian tribes are governmental 

sovereigns with inherent powers to make and enforce laws, administer justice, and manage and 

control their natural resources. Accordingly, the Departments shall seek to establish effective 

government-to-government working relationships with tribes to achieve the common goal of 

promoting and protecting the health of these ecosystems. Whenever the agencies, bureaus, and 

offices of the Departments are aware that their actions planned under the Act may impact tribal trust 

resources, the exercise of tribal rights, or Indian lands, they shall consult with, and seek the 

participation of, the affected Indian tribes to the maximum extent practicable. This shall include 

providing affected tribes adequate opportunities to participate in data collection, consensus seeking, 

and associated processes. To facilitate the government-to-government relationship, the 
263 

APPENDIX F – SECRETARIAL ORDER 3206 

Departments may coordinate their discussions with a representative from an intertribal organization, 

if so designated by the affected tribe(s). 

Except when determined necessary for investigative or prosecutorial law enforcement activities, or 

when otherwise provided in a federal-tribal agreement, the Departments, to the maximum extent 

practicable, shall obtain permission from tribes before knowingly entering Indian reservations and 

tribally-owned fee lands for purposes of ESA-related activities, and shall communicate as necessary 

with the appropriate tribal officials. If a tribe believes this section has been violated, such tribe may 

file a complaint with the appropriate Secretary, who shall promptly investigate and respond to the 

tribe. 

Principle 2. THE DEPARTMENTS SHALL RECOGNIZE THAT INDIAN LANDS ARE 

NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME CONTROLS AS FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS.

The Departments recognize that Indian lands, whether held in trust by the United States for the use 

and benefit of Indians or owned exclusively by an Indian tribe, are not subject to the controls or 

restrictions set forth in federal public land laws. Indian lands are not federal public lands or part of 

the public domain, but are rather retained by tribes or set aside for tribal use pursuant to treaties, 

statutes, court orders, executive orders, judicial decisions, or agreements. Accordingly, Indian tribes 

manage Indian lands in accordance with tribal goals and objectives, within the framework of 

applicable laws. 

Principle 3. THE DEPARTMENTS SHALL ASSIST INDIAN TRIBES IN DEVELOPING 

AND EXPANDING TRIBAL PROGRAMS SO THAT HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS ARE 

PROMOTED AND CONSERVATION RESTRICTIONS ARE UNNECESSARY.

(A) The Departments shall take affirmative steps to assist Indian tribes in developing and 

expanding tribal programs that promote healthy ecosystems.

The Departments shall take affirmative steps to achieve the common goals of promoting healthy 

ecosystems, Indian self-government, and productive government-to-government relationships under 

this Order, by assisting Indian tribes in developing and expanding tribal programs that promote the 

health of ecosystems upon which sensitive species (including candidate, proposed and listed 

species) depend. 

The Departments shall offer and provide such scientific and technical assistance and information as 

may be available for the development of tribal conservation and management plans to promote the 

maintenance, restoration, enhancement and health of the ecosystems upon which sensitive species 

(including candidate, proposed, and listed species) depend, including the cooperative identification 

of appropriate management measures to address concerns for such species and their habitats. 

(B) The Departments shall recognize that Indian tribes are appropriate governmental entities 

to manage their lands and tribal trust resources.
264 

APPENDIX F – SECRETARIAL ORDER 3206 

The Departments acknowledge that Indian tribes value, and exercise responsibilities for, 

management of Indian lands and tribal trust resources. In keeping with the federal policy of 

promoting tribal self-government, the Departments shall respect the exercise of tribal sovereignty 

over the management of Indian lands, and tribal trust resources. Accordingly, the Departments shall 

give deference to tribal conservation and management plans for tribal trust resources that: (a) govern 

activities on Indian lands, including, for the purposes of this section, tribally-owned fee lands, and 

(b) address the conservation needs of listed species. The Departments shall conduct government-togovernment consultations to discuss the extent to which tribal resource management plans for tribal 

trust resources outside Indian lands can be incorporated into actions to address the conservation 

needs of listed species. 

(C) The Departments, as trustees, shall support tribal measures that preclude the need for 

conservation restrictions.

At the earliest indication that the need for federal conservation restrictions is being considered for 

any species, the Departments, acting in their trustee capacities, shall promptly notify all potentially 

affected tribes, and provide such technical, financial, or other assistance as may be appropriate, 

thereby assisting Indian tribes in identifying and implementing tribal conservation and other 

measures necessary to protect such species. 

In the event that the Departments determine that conservation restrictions are necessary in order to 

protect listed species, the Departments, in keeping with the trust responsibility and government-togovernment relationships, shall consult with affected tribes and provide written notice to them of the 

intended restriction as far in advance as practicable. If the proposed conservation restriction is 

directed at a tribal activity that could raise the potential issue of direct (directed) take under the Act, 

then meaningful government-to-government consultation shall occur, in order to strive to harmonize 

the federal trust responsibility to tribes, tribal sovereignty and the statutory missions of the 

Departments. In cases involving an activity that could raise the potential issue of an incidental take 

under the Act, such notice shall include an analysis and determination that all of the following 

conservation standards have been met: (i) the restriction is reasonable and necessary for 

conservation of the species at issue; (ii) the conservation purpose of the restriction cannot be 

achieved by reasonable regulation of non-Indian activities; (iii) the measure is the least restrictive 

alternative available to achieve the required conservation purpose; (iv) the restriction does not 

discriminate against Indian activities, either as stated or applied; and, (v) voluntary tribal measures 

are not adequate to achieve the necessary conservation purpose. 

Principle 4. THE DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE SENSITIVE TO INDIAN CULTURE, 

RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY.

The Departments shall take into consideration the impacts of their actions and policies under the Act 

on Indian use of listed species for cultural and religious purposes. The Departments shall avoid or 

minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse effects upon the noncommercial use of listed sacred 

plants and animals in medicinal treatments and in the expression of cultural and religious beliefs by 

Indian tribes. When appropriate, the Departments may issue guidelines to accommodate Indian 
265 

APPENDIX F – SECRETARIAL ORDER 3206 

access to, and traditional uses of, listed species, and to address unique circumstances that may exist 

when administering the Act. 

Principle 5. THE DEPARTMENTS SHALL MAKE AVAILABLE TO INDIAN TRIBES 

INFORMATION RELATED TO TRIBAL TRUST RESOURCES AND INDIAN LANDS, 

AND, TO FACILITATE THE MUTUAL EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION, SHALL 

STRIVE TO PROTECT SENSITIVE TRIBAL INFORMATION FROM DISCLOSURE.

To further tribal self-government and the promotion of healthy ecosystems, the Departments 

recognize the critical need for Indian tribes to possess complete and accurate information related to 

Indian lands and tribal trust resources. To the extent consistent with the provisions of the Privacy 

Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Departments' abilities to continue to assert 

FOIA exemptions with regard to FOIA requests, the Departments shall make available to an Indian 

tribe all information held by the Departments which is related to its Indian lands and tribal trust 

resources. In the course of the mutual exchange of information, the Departments shall protect, to 

the maximum extent practicable, tribal information which has been disclosed to or collected by the 

Departments. The Departments shall promptly notify and, when appropriate, consult with affected 

tribes regarding all requests for tribal information relating to the administration of the Act. 

Sec. 6 Federal-Tribal Intergovernmental Agreements. The Departments shall, when 

appropriate and at the request of an Indian tribe, pursue intergovernmental agreements to formalize 

arrangements involving sensitive species (including candidate, proposed, and listed species) such as, 

but not limited to, land and resource management, multi-jurisdictional partnerships, cooperative law 

enforcement, and guidelines to accommodate Indian access to, and traditional uses of, natural 

products. Such agreements shall strive to establish partnerships that harmonize the Departments' 

missions under the Act with the Indian tribe's own ecosystem management objectives. 

Sec. 7 Alaska. The Departments recognize that section 10(e) of the Act governs the taking of 

listed species by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes and that there is a need to study the 

implementation of the Act as applied to Alaska tribes and natives. Accordingly, this Order shall not 

apply to Alaska and the Departments shall, within one year of the date of this Order, develop 

recommendations to the Secretaries to supplement or modify this Order and its Appendix, so as to 

guide the administration of the Act in Alaska. These recommendations shall be developed with the 

full cooperation and participation of Alaska tribes and natives. The purpose of these 

recommendations shall be to harmonize the government-to-government relationship with Alaska 

tribes, the federal trust responsibility to Alaska tribes and Alaska Natives, the rights of Alaska 

Natives, and the statutory missions of the Departments. 

Sec. 8 Special Study on Cultural and Religious Use of Natural Products. The Departments 

recognize that there remain tribal concerns regarding the access to, and uses of, eagle feathers, 

animal parts, and other natural products for Indian cultural and religious purposes. Therefore, the 

Departments shall work together with Indian tribes to develop recommendations to the Secretaries 

within one year to revise or establish uniform administrative procedures to govern the possession, 

distribution, and transportation of such natural products that are under federal jurisdiction or control. 
266 

APPENDIX F – SECRETARIAL ORDER 3206 

Sec. 9 Dispute Resolution. (A) Federal-tribal disputes regarding implementation of this Order 

shall be addressed through government-to-government discourse. Such discourse is to be respectful 

of government-to-government relationships and relevant federal-tribal agreements, treaties, judicial 

decisions, and policies pertaining to Indian tribes. Alternative dispute resolution processes may be 

employed as necessary to resolve disputes on technical or policy issues within statutory time 

frames; provided that such alternative dispute resolution processes are not intended to apply in the 

context of investigative or prosecutorial law enforcement activities. 

(B) Questions and concerns on matters relating to the use or possession of listed plants or listed 

animal parts used for religious or cultural purposes shall be referred to the appropriate Departmental 

officials and the appropriate tribal contacts for religious and cultural affairs. 

Sec. 10 Implementation. This Order shall be implemented by all agencies, bureaus, and offices of 

the Departments, as applicable. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service shall implement their specific responsibilities under the Act in accordance 

with the guidance contained in the attached Appendix. 

Sec. 11 Effective Date. This Order, issued within the Department of the Interior as Order No. 

3206, is effective immediately and will remain in effect until amended, superseded, or revoked. 

This Secretarial Order, entitled "American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act," and its accompanying Appendix were issued 

this 5th day of June, 1997, in Washington, D.C., by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 

Commerce. 

/s/ Bruce Babbitt 

Secretary of the Interior 

/s/ William M. Daley 

Secretary of Commerce 

Date: June 5, 1997 

 
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 / Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Presidential Documents 27655

Executive Order 13084 of May 14, 1998

Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

The United States has a unique legal relationship with Indian tribal governments as set forth in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes,

Executive orders, and court decisions. Since the formation of the Union,

the United States has recognized Indian tribes as domestic dependent nations

under its protection. In treaties, our Nation has guaranteed the right of

Indian tribes to self-government. As domestic dependent nations, Indian

tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers over their members and territory.

The United States continues to work with Indian tribes on a governmentto-government basis to address issues concerning Indian tribal self-government, trust resources, and Indian tribal treaty and other rights.

Therefore, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution

and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish

regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian tribal

governments in the development of regulatory practices on Federal matters

that significantly or uniquely affect their communities; to reduce the imposition of unfunded mandates upon Indian tribal governments; and to streamline

the application process for and increase the availability of waivers to Indian

tribal governments; it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) ‘‘State’’ or ‘‘States’’ refer to the States of the United States of America,

individually or collectively, and, where relevant, to State governments, including units of local government and other political subdivisions established

by the States.

(b) ‘‘Indian tribe’’ means an Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation,

pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges

to exist as an Indian tribe pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian

Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a.

(c) ‘‘Agency’’ means any authority of the United States that is an ‘‘agency’’

under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered to be independent

regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).

Sec. 2. Policymaking Criteria. In formulating policies significantly or uniquely

affecting Indian tribal governments, agencies shall be guided, to the extent

permitted by law, by principles of respect for Indian tribal self-government

and sovereignty, for tribal treaty and other rights, and for responsibilities

that arise from the unique legal relationship between the Federal Government

and Indian tribal governments.

Sec. 3. Consultation. (a) Each agency shall have an effective process to

permit elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments

to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory

policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.

(b) To the extent practicable and permitted by law, no agency shall promulgate any regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of the Indian tribal governments, and

that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on such communities, unless:

APPENDIX G – EXECUTIVE ORDER 13084 267
27656 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 / Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Presidential Documents

(1) funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the Indian tribal

government in complying with the regulation are provided by the Federal

Government; or

(2) the agency, prior to the formal promulgation of the regulation,

(A) in a separately identified portion of the preamble to the regulation

as it is to be issued in the Federal Register, provides to the Director

of the Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent

of the agency’s prior consultation with representatives of affected Indian

tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and

the agency’s position supporting the need to issue the regulation; and

(B) makes available to the Director of the Office of Management and

Budget any written communications submitted to the agency by such

Indian tribal governments.

Sec. 4. Increasing Flexibility for Indian Tribal Waivers. (a) Agencies shall

review the processes under which Indian tribal governments apply for waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements and take appropriate steps to

streamline those processes.

(b) Each agency shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law,

consider any application by an Indian tribal government for a waiver of

statutory or regulatory requirements in connection with any program administered by that agency with a general view toward increasing opportunities

for utilizing flexible policy approaches at the Indian tribal level in cases

in which the proposed waiver is consistent with the applicable Federal

policy objectives and is otherwise appropriate.

(c) Each agency shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law,

render a decision upon a complete application for a waiver within 120

days of receipt of such application by the agency. The agency shall provide

the applicant with timely written notice of the decision and, if the application

for a waiver is not granted, the reasons for such denial.

(d) This section applies only to statutory or regulatory requirements that

are discretionary and subject to waiver by the agency.

Sec. 5. Cooperation in developing regulations. On issues relating to tribal

self-government, trust resources, or treaty and other rights, each agency

should explore and, where appropriate, use consensual mechanisms for developing regulations, including negotiated rulemaking.

Sec. 6. Independent agencies. Independent regulatory agencies are encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order.

Sec. 7. General provisions. (a) This order is intended only to improve the

internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and

does not, create any right, benefit, or trust responsibility, substantive or

procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States,

its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other

person.

(b) This order shall supplement but not supersede the requirements contained in Executive Order 12866 (‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’), Executive Order 12988 (‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’), OMB Circular A–19, and the

Executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994, on Government-to-Government

Relations with Native American Tribal Governments.

(c) This order shall complement the consultation and waiver provisions

in sections 4 and 5 of the Executive order, entitled ‘‘Federalism,’’ being

issued on this day.

APPENDIX G – EXECUTIVE ORDER 13084 268
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 / Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Presidential Documents 27657

[FR Doc. 98–13553

THE WHITE HOUSE,

May 14, 1998.

(d) This order shall be effective 90 days after the date of this order.

œ–

Filed 5–18–98; 11:24 am]

Billing code 3195–01–P

APPENDIX G – EXECUTIVE ORDER 13084 269
Presidential Documents

57881 

Federal Register 

Vol. 74, No. 215 

Monday, November 9, 2009 

Title 3— 

The President 

Memorandum of November 5, 2009 

Tribal Consultation 

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments And Agencies 

The United States has a unique legal and political relationship with Indian 

tribal governments, established through and confirmed by the Constitution 

of the United States, treaties, statutes, executive orders, and judicial decisions. In recognition of that special relationship, pursuant to Executive Order 

13175 of November 6, 2000, executive departments and agencies (agencies) 

are charged with engaging in regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of Federal policies that 

have tribal implications, and are responsible for strengthening the government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes. 

History has shown that failure to include the voices of tribal officials in 

formulating policy affecting their communities has all too often led to undesirable and, at times, devastating and tragic results. By contrast, meaningful 

dialogue between Federal officials and tribal officials has greatly improved 

Federal policy toward Indian tribes. Consultation is a critical ingredient 

of a sound and productive Federal-tribal relationship. 

My Administration is committed to regular and meaningful consultation 

and collaboration with tribal officials in policy decisions that have tribal 

implications including, as an initial step, through complete and consistent 

implementation of Executive Order 13175. Accordingly, I hereby direct each 

agency head to submit to the Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), within 90 days after the date of this memorandum, a detailed 

plan of actions the agency will take to implement the policies and directives 

of Executive Order 13175. This plan shall be developed after consultation 

by the agency with Indian tribes and tribal officials as defined in Executive 

Order 13175. I also direct each agency head to submit to the Director 

of the OMB, within 270 days after the date of this memorandum, and 

annually thereafter, a progress report on the status of each action included 

in its plan together with any proposed updates to its plan. 

Each agency’s plan and subsequent reports shall designate an appropriate 

official to coordinate implementation of the plan and preparation of progress 

reports required by this memorandum. The Assistant to the President for 

Domestic Policy and the Director of the OMB shall review agency plans 

and subsequent reports for consistency with the policies and directives 

of Executive Order 13175. 

In addition, the Director of the OMB, in coordination with the Assistant 

to the President for Domestic Policy, shall submit to me, within 1 year 

from the date of this memorandum, a report on the implementation of 

Executive Order 13175 across the executive branch based on the review 

of agency plans and progress reports. Recommendations for improving the 

plans and making the tribal consultation process more effective, if any, 

should be included in this report. 

The terms ‘‘Indian tribe,’’ ‘‘tribal officials,’’ and ‘‘policies that have tribal 

implications’’ as used in this memorandum are as defined in Executive 

Order 13175. 

The Director of the OMB is hereby authorized and directed to publish 

this memorandum in the Federal Register. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PRESDOCO0


APPENDIX H – PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM OF NOVEMBER 5, 2009 270
57882 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 215 / Monday, November 9, 2009 / Presidential Documents 

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or 

benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any 

party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its 

officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. Executive departments 

and agencies shall carry out the provisions of this memorandum to the 

extent permitted by law and consistent with their statutory and regulatory 

authorities and their enforcement mechanisms. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, November 5, 2009. 

[FR Doc. E9–27142 

Filed 11–6–09; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 3110–01–P 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PRESDOCO0OB#1.EPS</GPH>

APPENDIX H – PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM OF NOVEMBER 5, 2009 271
Presidential Documents

67249

Federal Register

Vol. 65, No. 218

Thursday, November 9, 2000

Title 3—

The President

Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000

Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the

laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish regular

and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the

development of Federal policies that have tribal implications, to strengthen

the United States government-to-government relationships with Indian tribes,

and to reduce the imposition of unfunded mandates upon Indian tribes;

it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) ‘‘Policies that have tribal implications’’ refers to regulations, legislative

comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions

that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the

relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the

distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government

and Indian tribes.

(b) ‘‘Indian tribe’’ means an Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation,

pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges

to exist as an Indian tribe pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian

Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a.

(c) ‘‘Agency’’ means any authority of the United States that is an ‘‘agency’’

under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered to be independent

regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).

(d) ‘‘Tribal officials’’ means elected or duly appointed officials of Indian

tribal governments or authorized intertribal organizations.

Sec. 2. Fundamental Principles. In formulating or implementing policies

that have tribal implications, agencies shall be guided by the following

fundamental principles:

(a) The United States has a unique legal relationship with Indian tribal

governments as set forth in the Constitution of the United States, treaties,

statutes, Executive Orders, and court decisions. Since the formation of the

Union, the United States has recognized Indian tribes as domestic dependent

nations under its protection. The Federal Government has enacted numerous

statutes and promulgated numerous regulations that establish and define

a trust relationship with Indian tribes.

(b) Our Nation, under the law of the United States, in accordance with

treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and judicial decisions, has recognized

the right of Indian tribes to self-government. As domestic dependent nations,

Indian tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers over their members and

territory. The United States continues to work with Indian tribes on a

government-to-government basis to address issues concerning Indian tribal

self-government, tribal trust resources, and Indian tribal treaty and other

rights.

(c) The United States recognizes the right of Indian tribes to self-government

and supports tribal sovereignty and self-determination.

Sec. 3. Policymaking Criteria. In addition to adhering to the fundamental

principles set forth in section 2, agencies shall adhere, to the extent permitted

by law, to the following criteria when formulating and implementing policies

that have tribal implications:


APPENDIX I – EXECUTIVE ORDER 13175 272
67250 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Presidential Documents

(a) Agencies shall respect Indian tribal self-government and sovereignty,

honor tribal treaty and other rights, and strive to meet the responsibilities

that arise from the unique legal relationship between the Federal Government

and Indian tribal governments.

(b) With respect to Federal statutes and regulations administered by Indian

tribal governments, the Federal Government shall grant Indian tribal governments the maximum administrative discretion possible.

(c) When undertaking to formulate and implement policies that have tribal

implications, agencies shall:

(1) encourage Indian tribes to develop their own policies to achieve program objectives;

(2) where possible, defer to Indian tribes to establish standards; and

(3) in determining whether to establish Federal standards, consult with

tribal officials as to the need for Federal standards and any alternatives

that would limit the scope of Federal standards or otherwise preserve the

prerogatives and authority of Indian tribes.

Sec. 4. Special Requirements for Legislative Proposals. Agencies shall not

submit to the Congress legislation that would be inconsistent with the policymaking criteria in Section 3.

Sec. 5. Consultation. (a) Each agency shall have an accountable process

to ensure meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development

of regulatory policies that have tribal implications. Within 30 days after

the effective date of this order, the head of each agency shall designate

an official with principal responsibility for the agency’s implementation

of this order. Within 60 days of the effective date of this order, the designated

official shall submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a

description of the agency’s consultation process.

(b) To the extent practicable and permitted by law, no agency shall promulgate any regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and that is not required

by statute, unless:

(1) funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the Indian tribal

government or the tribe in complying with the regulation are provided

by the Federal Government; or

(2) the agency, prior to the formal promulgation of the regulation,

(A) consulted with tribal officials early in the process of developing the

proposed regulation;

(B) in a separately identified portion of the preamble to the regulation

as it is to be issued in the Federal Register, provides to the Director of

OMB a tribal summary impact statement, which consists of a description

of the extent of the agency’s prior consultation with tribal officials, a summary

of the nature of their concerns and the agency’s position supporting the

need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the

concerns of tribal officials have been met; and

(C) makes available to the Director of OMB any written communications

submitted to the agency by tribal officials.

(c) To the extent practicable and permitted by law, no agency shall promulgate any regulation that has tribal implications and that preempts tribal

law unless the agency, prior to the formal promulgation of the regulation,

(1) consulted with tribal officials early in the process of developing the

proposed regulation;

(2) in a separately identified portion of the preamble to the regulation

as it is to be issued in the Federal Register, provides to the Director of

OMB a tribal summary impact statement, which consists of a description

of the extent of the agency’s prior consultation with tribal officials, a summary

of the nature of their concerns and the agency’s position supporting the


APPENDIX I – EXECUTIVE ORDER 13175 273
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Presidential Documents 67251

need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the

concerns of tribal officials have been met; and

(3) makes available to the Director of OMB any written communications

submitted to the agency by tribal officials.

(d) On issues relating to tribal self-government, tribal trust resources,

or Indian tribal treaty and other rights, each agency should explore and,

where appropriate, use consensual mechanisms for developing regulations,

including negotiated rulemaking.

Sec. 6. Increasing Flexibility for Indian Tribal Waivers.

(a) Agencies shall review the processes under which Indian tribes apply

for waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements and take appropriate

steps to streamline those processes.

(b) Each agency shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law,

consider any application by an Indian tribe for a waiver of statutory or

regulatory requirements in connection with any program administered by

the agency with a general view toward increasing opportunities for utilizing

flexible policy approaches at the Indian tribal level in cases in which the

proposed waiver is consistent with the applicable Federal policy objectives

and is otherwise appropriate.

(c) Each agency shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law,

render a decision upon a complete application for a waiver within 120

days of receipt of such application by the agency, or as otherwise provided

by law or regulation. If the application for waiver is not granted, the agency

shall provide the applicant with timely written notice of the decision and

the reasons therefor.

(d) This section applies only to statutory or regulatory requirements that

are discretionary and subject to waiver by the agency.

Sec. 7. Accountability.

(a) In transmitting any draft final regulation that has tribal implications

to OMB pursuant to Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, each

agency shall include a certification from the official designated to ensure

compliance with this order stating that the requirements of this order have

been met in a meaningful and timely manner.

(b) In transmitting proposed legislation that has tribal implications to

OMB, each agency shall include a certification from the official designated

to ensure compliance with this order that all relevant requirements of this

order have been met.

(c) Within 180 days after the effective date of this order the Director

of OMB and the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs

shall confer with tribal officials to ensure that this order is being properly

and effectively implemented.

Sec. 8. Independent Agencies. Independent regulatory agencies are encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order.

Sec. 9. General Provisions. (a) This order shall supplement but not supersede

the requirements contained in Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning

and Review), Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), OMB Circular

A–19, and the Executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994, on Governmentto-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments.

(b) This order shall complement the consultation and waiver provisions

in sections 6 and 7 of Executive Order 13132 (Federalism).

(c) Executive Order 13084 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian

Tribal Governments) is revoked at the time this order takes effect.

(d) This order shall be effective 60 days after the date of this order.


APPENDIX I – EXECUTIVE ORDER 13175 274
67252 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Presidential Documents

Sec. 10. Judicial Review. This order is intended only to improve the internal

management of the executive branch, and is not intended to create any

right, benefit, or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable

at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, or any person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

November 6, 2000.

œ–

[FR Doc. 00–29003

Filed 11–8–00; 8:45 am]

Billing code 3195–01–P


APPENDIX I – EXECUTIVE ORDER 13175 275
American Indian and Alaska Native Policy 

of the 

U. S. Department of Commerce 

Introduction 

In recognition of the unique status of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments, the 

Department of Commerce hereby proclaims its American Indian and Alaska Native Policy. This policy 

outlines the principles to be followed in all Department of Commerce interactions with Native American an

Alaska Native tribal governments. This policy is based on the United States Constitution, Federal treati

policy, law, court decisions, and the ongoing political relationship among the tribes and the Federal 

government. 

d 

es, 

ut 

rnment 

sues 

ions with 

y 

mmunity, 

onstitute a 

, 

 as 

and 

ly 

m 

or 

elationship 

h 

Acknowledging the government wide fiduciary obligations to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes b

also supporting tribal autonomy, the Department of Commerce espouses a government-to-gove

relationship between the Federal government and American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. 

This policy pertains to Federally recognized tribes and provides guidance to Commerce personnel for is

affecting American Indians and Alaska Natives. This policy does not apply to Commerce interact

state recognized tribes, Indian, or Alaska Natives who are not members of tribes with respect to matters

provided for by statute or regulation. 

This policy is for internal management only and shall not be construed to grant or vest any right to any part

in respect to any federal action not otherwise granted or vested by existing law or regulation. 

Definitions 

Indian tribe (or tribes). Any Indian tribe, band, nation, Pueblo, or other organized group or co

including any Alaska Native Village (as defined in, or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims

Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)), which is acknowledged by the Federal government to c

tribe with a government-to-government relationship with the United States and eligible for the programs

services, and other relationships established by the United States for Indians because of their status

Indians and tribes. 

Tribal government. The recognized government of an Indian tribe and any affiliated or component B

government of such tribe that has been determined eligible for specific services by Congress or official

recognized by inclusion in 25 CFR part 83, “Indian entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services fro

the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs,” as printed in the Federal Register. 

 Policy Principles 

The following policy statements provide general guidance to U.S. Department of Commerce employees f

actions dealing with American Indian and Alaska Native governments. 

1. The Department recognizes and commits to a government-to-government r

with American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal governments. 

Commerce recognizes that the tribal right of self-government flows from the inherent sovereignty of 

tribes and nations and that Federally recognized tribes have a unique and direct relationship wit

the Federal governments. Commerce further recognizes the rights of each tribal government to set 

its own priorities and goals for the welfare of its membership and that Commerce will deal with each

tribal government, when appropriate to meet that tribes’s needs. 

APPENDIX J – DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE POLICY 276
2. The Department acknowledges the policy commitments of the U.S. Congress and the 

Chief Executive as precedence. 

Commerce recognizes the U.S. Congress passed House concurrent Resolution #331, in 1988, 

declaring the Policy “To Acknowledge the Contribution of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations to 

Reaffirm the Continuing Government-to-Government Relationship between Indian Tribes and the 

United Sates Established in the Constitution.” And, additionally, incorporates the Policy 

Memorandum of the White House, issued April 29, herein, as so much guides the Executive 

Departments and Agencies in the “Government-to-Government relations with Native American trib

Governments.” 

al 

overnment 

orts, 

onstitution 

stands 

nd 

ommerce 

ffective 

gencies, 

3. The Department acknowledges the trust relationship between the Federal g

and American Indian and Alaska Native tribes as established by specific statutes, 

treaties, court decisions, executive orders, regulations, and policies. 

Commerce, in keeping with the fiduciary relationship, recognizes its trust responsibility and will 

consult and work with tribal governments prior to implementing any action when developing 

legislation, regulations, and/or polices that will affect tribal governments, their development eff

and their lands and resources. 

4. The Department acknowledges the commerce clause of the United States C

is also known as the “Indian Commerce Clause” 

Commerce recognizes the “Commerce Clause” of the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, 

Clause 3) is also known as the “Indian Commerce Clause” and states: “To regulate Commerce with

foreign nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes;”. Commerce under

that trade and commerce were the original building blocks that established 

government-to-government relationships with the Indian tribes. Commerce pledges to honor the 

constitutional protections secured to Indian Commerce. 

5. The Department will consult and work with tribal governments before making 

decisions or implementing policy, rules or programs that may affect tribes to ensure 

that tribal rights and concerns are addressed. 

Commerce recognizes that as a sovereign government, the tribe is responsible for the welfare a

rights of its membership and has the right to regulate commerce within its tribal boundaries. 

Therefore, Commerce will involve tribes and seek tribal input at the appropriate level on policies, 

rules, programs, and issues that may affect a tribe. 

6. The Department will identify and take appropriate steps to remove any impediments 

to working directly and effectively with tribal governments. 

Commerce recognizes there may be legal, procedural, organizational, and other impediments that 

affect its working relationship with tribes. Commerce will apply the requirements of Executive 

Orders Nos. 12875 (“Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership”) and 12866 (“Regulatory 

Planning and Review”) and the “Regulatory Flexibility Act” to design solutions and tailor Federal 

programs, when appropriate, to address specific or unique needs of tribal communities. C

will use the National Performance Review and government reorganization to implement e

means for direct cooperation with tribal governments. 

7. The Department will work cooperatively with other federal departments and a

where appropriate, to further the goals of this policy. 

APPENDIX J – DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE POLICY 277
Commerce recognizes the importance of interagency cooperation. Therefore, Commerce will 

encourage and strive for communication, coordination, and cooperation among all governmental 

agencies to ensure that the rights of tribal governments are fully recognized and upheld. 

8. The Department will work with tribes to achieve their goal of economic 

self-sufficiency. 

 their 

tions. 

ibes 

Commerce recognizes the importance of economic independence to tribal self-determination and 

tribal self-sufficiency and pledges to assist tribes with developing strong and stable economies to 

participate in today’s national and global marketplace. Therefore Commerce will make every effort 

to ensure that eligible tribes have access to Commerce programs that will help them meeting

economic goals. 

9. The Department will internalize this policy to the extent that it will be incorporated 

into ongoing and long-term planning and management processes, as well as 

day-to-day opera

Commerce recognizes that policies are not relevant or successful unless they are acted upon and 

properly implemented. Commerce will effectively and fully incorporate all of the principles of this 

policy into all operations and basic tenets of its mission. Commerce will identify the office or 

individual to coordinate this policy and act as liaison with American Indian and Alaska Native tr

in implementing and working with the policy and principles. 

10. The effective date of this Departmental policy is upon signing by the Department of 

Commerce after consultation with tribal governments. 

Therefore, the Secretary of the Department of Commerce hereby directs all Commerce agencies, 

bureaus, and their components to implement this policy by incorporating all the above principles in

their planning and management activities, their legislative and regulatory initiatives, as well as their

policy development. 

APPENDIX J – DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE POLICY 278
American Indian and Alaska Native Policy 

of the 

U. S. Department of Commerce 

“All men were made by the Great Spirit Chief. They are all brothers. The earth is the mother of all people, 

and all people should have equal rights upon it. ... Let me be a free man–free to travel, free to stop, free to 

work, free to trade, where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my 

fathers, free to think and talk and act for myself and I will obey every law, or submit to the penalty.” 

 Chief Joseph, Nez Perce Nation 

From the Secretary of Commerce: 

In the great mosaic of our country, we all know it takes work, cooperation, and knowledge to make our 

dreams reality. This policy offers cooperation, access to information, which is knowledge, and my pledge to

create an environment that will foster dreams, free will, and productivity, it is time for our nations to realiz

that we are interdependent. With that wisdom, we must work together to build a strong future for all of us. 

e 

/s Ronald H. Brown, Secretary of Commerce Date: March 30, 1995 

 

APPENDIX J – DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE POLICY 279
280 

APPENDIX K – DISCHARGE ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY 

APPENDIX K – DISCHARGE ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY 

Information regarding vessel transits, including distance and time in the sanctuary was obtained 

from three different sources of information: 

 Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service (CVTS) radar data 

 NMFS Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) satellite data 

 WDFW Recreational Fishing Data, collected by Port Sampling Staff 

This information was used to develop estimates on vessel discharges in the sanctuary in 2009. 

2009 was chosen for analysis because it was the most recent period for which complete 

information existed for each of the three data sources. While each of these data sources collects 

data for different purposes and contains different information, they have in common information 

that lends itself to an overall assessment of vessel usage with the sanctuary. In order to develop 

discharge estimates certain data was estimated. 

Table 19 Comparison of Vessel Data Sources 

Data 

Source Type of Vessel # of Transits Spatial Information 

Time in 

Sanctuary # of Passengers 

CVTS 

Vessels participating in 

vessel traffic system - 

mostly large 

commercial vessels 

YES – each transit 

has a unique ID YES 

YES– needed to 

be calculated 

based on point 

data 

NO – estimated 

NMFS 

Commercial fishing 

vessels required by 

fisheries management 

plan to carry VMS 

system 

NO– estimated 

number of transits 

was calculated 

YES 

YES– needed to 

be calculated 

based on point 

data 

NO – estimated 

WDFW 

Washington State 

recreational fishers 

(includes charter 

vessels) 

YES – summarized 

by boat trip 

PARTIALLY – 

reported by Marine 

Areas, estimated 

% time within 

OCNMS. 

NO – time per 

trip was 

estimated 

YES – summarized 

by angler trips 

Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service (CVTS) Radar Data 

This data is collected by the Canadian Coast Guard Marine Communications and Traffic 

Services (MCTS) and includes all vessels that participate in the Cooperative Vessel Traffic 

(CVTS). This data is forwarded to OCNMS, which imports the information into a Geographic 

Information System (GIS) system. For each class of vessel class, the number of “vessel days per 

year” (the total combined time all vessels within a given class spent within OCMNS waters in 

2009) was calculated from CVTS data. The range of the CVTS radar does not cover the whole 

sanctuary (Figure 16) but it does cover the northern portion of the sanctuary where vessels 

complying with the ATBA (estimated at >98% of vessels) are transiting sanctuary waters. 

Vessels in compliance with the ATBA can traverse a small portion of the sanctuary in the south, 
281 

APPENDIX K – DISCHARGE ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY 

so the time estimates calculated by this method can provide a small underestimate of time in 

sanctuary, which in turn could result in an underestimate of total discharge. This is the 

sanctuary’s primary source of vessel traffic data. This data was used for the following Vessel 

Classes (Table 6 and Table 7): 

 Commercial Vessels < 300 GT 

 Commercial Vessels 300-1599 GT 

 Commercial Vessels > 1600 GT 

 Passenger Vessels < 300 GT 

 Passenger Vessels 300-1599 GT 

 Passenger Vessels > 1600 GT 

 Public Vessels < 300 GT 

 Public Vessels 300-1599 GT 

 Public Vessels > 1600 GT 

 Tank Vessels < 1600 GT 

 Tank Vessels > 1600 GT 

 Tug with Tank Barge

Figure 16 Extent of the Canadian Coast Guard Radar Coverage on the West Coast of Vancouver Island
282 

APPENDIX K – DISCHARGE ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY 

NMFS Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) satellite data 

National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Region and the Pacific Fisheries Management 

Council have a vessel monitoring program to monitor compliance with areas closed to fishing. 

The program utilizes a satellite based Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) that reports the position 

of participating vessels. NMFS provided OCNMS with point data for VMS participating vessels 

within the sanctuary during 2009. There were 52,015 points, representing 171 individual vessels 

that met these criteria. Not all information from the VMS database was provided for the 

analysis, e.g., while unique vessel ID’s were provided they cannot be used to identify the 

vessel’s name. The data points were sorted by time, then boat ID. Transit ID’s were then added, 

incrementing the transit ID number any time the boat ID changed, or the boat ID was the same 

but the time jumped by more than 6 hours. Each transit ID contains a continuous set of points 

for one boat with no more than 6 contiguous hours of missing points. Therefore, for the 

purposes of this analysis a transit is defined by time in the sanctuary, not the duration of time 

between port calls. If a fishing vessel is fishing part time in the sanctuary and part time out, then 

their fishing trip might be broken into multiple transits. This analysis resulted in an estimate of 

3,006 fishing transits in the sanctuary for a total of 1,577 vessel days for 2009. This information 

was used for the Commercial Fishing Vessel Class (Table 6 and Table 7): 

WDFW Recreational Fishing 

Data 

As part of their Port Sampling 

Program, WDFW collects 

information on recreational fishing 

activity. This data is reports both 

boat trips and angler trips, by 

WDFW Marine Areas (Figure 17). 

The sanctuary boundaries include all 

of Marine Areas 3 and 4 and 

approximately 28% on 4B and 29% 

of Marine Area 2. For the purpose 

of this analysis we assumed boat 

trips and angler trips were equally 

distributed throughout the reporting 

area, and that each boat trip lasted 

an estimated six hours. Actual 

distribution will vary according to 

the location of preferred fishing 

areas, distance from port and 

weather conditions. 

Figure 17 WDFW Marine Areas and OCNMS Boundary 
283 

APPENDIX K – DISCHARGE ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY 

After estimating the number of boat trips in OCNMS in 2009 (10,351 private and 1,148 charter) 

(Table 20) we calculated an average for number of anglers per trip (2.8 private and 10.6 charter) 

(Table 21). This information was used to for the following Vessel Class (Table 6 and Table 7): 

 Charter Fishing Vessel 

 Recreational Fishing Vessel 

Table 20 Recreational Fishing Boat Trips, within OCNMS, for 2009 

2009 Marine 

Area 

Boat Trips in entire Marine 

Area Boat Trips in OCNMS 

Private Charter Total

% of 

area in 

OCNMS

Private Charter Total

Neah Bay-straits 4B 6,401 34 6,435 28% 1,792 10 1,802

Neah Bay -coast 4 3,607 120 3,727 100% 3,607 120 3,727

La Push 3 2,760 343 3,103 100% 2,760 343 3,103

Westport 2 7,556 2,329 9,885 29% 2,191 675 2,867

Total 20,324 2,826 23,150 10,351 1,148 11,498

Table 21 Recreational Fishing Angler Trips, within OCNMS, for 2009 

Marine 

Area 

Boat Trips in entire Marine 

Area Angler Trips in OCNMS 

Average 

anglers/vessel in 

OCNMS 

Private Charter Total % of area 

in OCNMS Private Charter Total Private Charter

4B 16,905 127 17,032 28% 4,733 36 4,769 2.6 3.7

4 10,497 742 11,239 100% 10,497 742 11,239 2.9 6.2

3 7,832 2,157 9,989 100% 7,832 2,157 9,989 2.8 6.3

2 20,869 31,814 52,683 29% 6,052 9,226 15,278 2.8 13.7

Total 56,103 34,840 90,943 29,114 12,161 41,275 2.8 10.6

 
284 

APPENDIX K – DISCHARGE ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY 

Annual discharge volume (ADV) Calculation 

Annual discharge volume (ADV) estimates for each vessel class was calculated using Equation 

1 based on the number of vessel days per year in the OCNMS, the number of people aboard 

(including passengers and crew), and the average wastewater generation rate per person. It is 

difficult to estimate the exact quantity of sewage generated per person per day because variable 

volumes of water are used to flush different types of toilets. Product information for three 

popular type II MSDs (The Tank MSD®, Ahead Tank®, and Orca®) suggest wastewater 

generation rates of 5.5, 9.2, and 30 gallons of blackwater generated per person per day, 

respectively. Measured sewage wastewater generation rates of cruise ships in Alaska in 2004 

ranged from 1.1 gallons to 27 gallons per person per day (EPA 2008a), indicating that the 

wastewater generation rate estimates provided by MSD manufacturers fall within a reasonable 

range. Because of the potential variability in waste generation rate, a minimum, average, and 

high estimate, based on hypothetical sewage generation rates of 5.5, 15 and 30 gallons of waste 

per person per day are reported in Table 6. The average waste generation rate was calculated as 

the mean of the MSD product information rates identified above. 

Some vessels have the ability to hold treated sewage effluent for a period of hours to days, 

depending holding tank size. However, even with these systems, the overall average discharge 

rate must equal the waste generation rate. For this reason, the discharge rate used in calculations 

is assumed to equal the waste generation rate. Because recreational fishing vessels, in general, 

have minimal kitchen and showering capacity and are day use only, this vessel class was not 

included in estimates of graywater discharges. 

The volume of graywater generated on vessels less than 79 feet varied widely depending on type 

of vessel, ranging from a few to several hundred gallons/vessel/day. Estimated graywater 

generation rates 36, 67, and 119 gallons/person/per day (U.S. EPA 2008a) are reported in Table 7. 

 

ܴܩܹ ൈ ܰ ൈ ܻ ܦܸ ൌ ܸܦܣ

Equation 1 

where: 

ADV: Annual Discharge Volume 

VDY: Vessel Days per Year 

N: Number of passengers aboard vessel 

WGR: Waste generated per person per day 
285 

APPENDIX K – DISCHARGE ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY 

Wastewater Treatment System Descriptions 

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also informally called the Clean Water Act or CWA 

(33 U.S.C.1251 et seq.), requires that any vessel with installed toilet facilities must also have an 

operable MSD. Three general types of MSDs are available and in use. Type I and II MSDs treat 

the wastewater before its discharge or transfer. Type III MSDs are storage tanks which retain 

waste until it can be disposed of at an appropriate pump-out facility or at sea. 

 Type I MSDs rely on maceration and chemical disinfection for treatment of the waste 

prior to its discharge into the water, and are only legal in vessels under 65 feet in length 

(U.S. EPA 2010a). USCG regulations dictate that effluent from Type I MSDs may not 

have a fecal coliform count greater than 1,000 per 100 milliliters, nor visible floating 

solids (USCG 2009). 

 Type II MSDs provide an advanced form of the same type of treatment used by Type I 

MSDs and have a greater capacity to reduce fecal coliform counts and suspended solids. 

Different from Type I MSDs which rely solely on maceration to break down solid waste, 

Type II MSDs utilize aeration and aerobic bacteria in addition to maceration for the 

breakdown of solids. As with Type I MSDs, the waste is chemically disinfected, 

typically with chlorine, ammonia or formaldehyde, prior to discharge. Type II MSDs are 

legal in any size class of vessel, and there are a variety of different types (U.S. EPA 

2008b). USCG regulations prohibit discharge of effluent from Type II MSDs with fecal 

coliform counts greater than 200 per 100 milliliters or suspended solids greater than 150 

milligrams per liter (USCG 2009). 

 Advanced wastewater treatment systems (AWTS) are an advanced form of Type II MSD 

that utilize techniques such as reverse osmosis and UV sterilization to provide more 

effective treatment. The performance of these units far surpasses the standards for fecal 

coliform bacteria, as well as other pollutants, set forth for Type II MSDs. In addition, 

AWTS typically produce ‘clean’ discharge waste that contains substantially lower 

concentrations of hazardous treatment chemicals (U.S. EPA 2008a). 

 Type III MSDs, commonly called holding tanks, flush sewage from the marine head into 

a tank that may contain deodorizers and other chemicals, predominantly chlorine. The 

contents of the holding tank are stored until they can be properly disposed of at a shoreside pump-out facility, or discharged off shore. Storing wastewater in holding tanks can 

increase fecal coliform counts and total suspended solids (ADEC 2000). Type III MSDs 

can be equipped with a discharge option, usually called a Y-valve, which directs the 

sewage into either the holding tank or directly overboard. 
[Page intentionally left blank] 

http://olympiccoast.noaa.gov