83554 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1This rule uses ‘‘Tribes and Indigenous 

communities’’ and other related phrases to refer 

broadly to federally recognized Tribes, Native 

American Tribes that are not federally recognized, 

and other Indigenous groups and organizations. 

When appropriate to reference the federally 

recognized Tribe in this area, the Santa Ynez Band 

of Chumash Indians, the rule specifically names 

that Tribe. When appropriate to reference federally 

recognized Tribes more broadly, the EIS uses the 

terms ‘‘federally recognized Tribe(s)’’ or ‘‘federally 

recognized Tribal Nation(s).’’ As such, use of the 

term ‘‘Tribe’’ or ‘‘Tribal’’ is not intended to refer 

only to federally recognized Tribes unless otherwise 

specified. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 922 

[Docket No. 240829–0230] 

RIN 0648–BL31 

Chumash Heritage National Marine 

Sanctuary 

AGENCY: Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean 

Service, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NOAA is designating 

Chumash Heritage National Marine 

Sanctuary (CHNMS) in the waters along 

and offshore of the coast of central 

California to recognize the national 

significance of the area’s ecological, 

historical, archaeological, and cultural 

resources and to manage this special 

place as part of the National Marine 

Sanctuary System. The sanctuary 

boundary encompasses 4,543 square 

miles (mi2) (3,431 square nautical miles 

(nmi2)) of submerged lands and marine 

waters from approximately two miles 

southeast of the marina at Diablo 

Canyon Power Plant in San Luis Obispo 

County to Naples along the Gaviota 

Coast in Santa Barbara County. NOAA 

is establishing the terms of designation 

for CHNMS and the regulations to 

implement the national marine 

sanctuary designation. NOAA has also 

published a final environmental impact 

statement (final EIS), final management 

plan, and Record of Decision. 

DATES: Effective Date: Pursuant to 

section 304(b) of the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 

1434(b)), the designation and 

regulations shall take effect and become 

final after the close of a review period 

of forty-five days of continuous session 

of Congress, beginning on the date on 

which this Federal rulemaking is 

published, which is October 16, 2024. 

During that same review period, the 

Governor of the State of California may 

certify to the Secretary of Commerce 

that the designation or any of its terms 

are unacceptable, in which case the 

designation or the unacceptable term 

will not take effect in State waters of the 

sanctuary. The public can track days of 

Congressional session at the following 

website: https://www.congress.gov/daysin-session. NOAA will publish an 

announcement of the effective date of 

the final regulations in the Federal 

Register. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final EIS and 

management plan described in this rule 

and the Record of Decision (ROD), and 

additional background materials are 

available at: https://sanctuaries.

noaa.gov/chumash-heritage/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Ingulsrud, West Coast Regional 

Policy Analyst, 99 Pacific Street, Suite 

100F, Monterey, CA 93940, 831–647– 

6450, laura.ingulsrud@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

A. Background 

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

(NMSA; 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) 

authorizes the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary) to designate and protect as 

national marine sanctuaries areas of the 

marine environment that are of special 

national significance due to their 

conservation, recreational, ecological, 

historical, scientific, cultural, 

archaeological, educational, or esthetic 

qualities. Day-to-day management of 

national marine sanctuaries has been 

delegated by the Secretary to ONMS. 

NOAA is designating CHNMS in the 

waters along and offshore of the coast of 

central California to recognize the 

national significance of the area’s 

ecological, historical, archaeological, 

and cultural resources and to manage 

this special place as part of the National 

Marine Sanctuary System. The 

sanctuary boundary will encompass 

4,543 mi2 (3,431 nmi2) of submerged 

lands and marine waters from 

approximately two miles southeast of 

the Diablo Canyon marina in San Luis 

Obispo County to Naples along the 

Gaviota Coast in Santa Barbara County. 

This boundary reflects NOAA’s Final 

Preferred Alternative, which is 

described in the final environmental 

impact statement (final EIS) as 

Alternative 4 (Combined Smallest) and 

Sub-Alternative 5b (Gaviota Coast 

Extension), plus a small area (151 mi2, 

114 nmi2) in the center of the Santa 

Lucia Bank analyzed as part of the 

Initial Boundary Alternative, thereby 

creating a straight line across the 

northern section of the new sanctuary. 

NOAA has also included in the final 

management plan a framework to 

provide collaborative co-stewardship 

with the local Tribes and Indigenous 

communities 1 in this area for CHNMS. 

The specific area being designated as 

a national marine sanctuary includes 

the coastline of central California from 

approximately two miles southeast of 

Diablo Canyon marina, south along the 

San Luis Obispo County coast and a 

portion of Santa Barbara County to 

approximately two miles south of Dos 

Pueblos Creek near the township of 

Naples along the Gaviota Coast. Roughly 

116 miles of the mainland coast (132 

miles if including the shoreline of 

offshore rocks and islands) are part of 

the sanctuary designation. The 

sanctuary’s boundaries also include the 

State waters off the Gaviota coast, the 

offshore marine waters from the western 

end of Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary (CINMS), and northwards, 

including about half of the Santa Lucia 

Bank, to approximately 55 miles west of 

the Santa Maria River mouth, and then 

east and then north to the point of origin 

at south of the Diablo Canyon marina. 

This area out to approximately 60 miles 

(51 nmi) from shore includes numerous 

offshore features such as the Santa Lucia 

Bank, portions of its escarpment, 

Rodriguez Seamount, Arguello Canyon, 

and other offshore features and 

resources. Coastal watersheds drain into 

this area via multiple outlets, including 

the Santa Maria and Santa Ynez river 

mouths and several other coastal 

streams and rivers. Strong coastal winds 

drive seasonal upwelling which fuels 

the area’s high biological productivity, 

supporting dense aggregations of marine 

life. Specifically, winds offshore of 

Point Arguello/Point Conception initiate 

a powerful upwelling process that 

nourishes other nearby productive 

ecosystems, such as those located 

within CINMS. The presence of a 

biogeographic transition zone around 

Point Conception, where temperate 

waters from the north meet waters from 

the subtropics, creates an area of 

nationally-significant biodiversity in sea 

birds, marine mammals, invertebrates, 

and fishes. 

For more than 10,000 years, the 

productive and diverse ecosystems in 

the region have been essential to the 

way of life of Indigenous Peoples in the 

region, in particular the Chumash, one 

of the few ocean-going bands among the 

First Peoples of the Pacific Coast. Tribal 

connections to the region include 

traditional and ancestral homelands, 

customary uses of marine resources for 

food and cultural connections, and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83555 

stewardship of resources and 

ecosystems within ancestral waters. 

Coastal landscapes and seascapes, 

including viewsheds, are integral and 

sacred elements of Native American 

cultural connections to the region. 

Additionally, during the last glacial 

maximum, the region’s coastline 

extended beyond the present-day coast 

to include now-submerged areas that 

were likely inhabited by ancestors of 

California Tribes before the last sea level 

rise. As ocean-going Indigenous peoples 

on the California coast, the Chumash 

traveled to sea, to the Channel Islands, 

and along the coast in traditional 

redwood plank canoes called ‘‘tomols.’’ 

Coastal Chumash traditionally harvested 

an array of marine resources such as 

abalone and other shellfish, Olivella 

shells, fish, kelp and other seaweeds, 

and marine mammals. Today, Chumash 

Peoples undertake ocean voyages in 

tomol canoes to honor their ancestors’ 

crossings to the offshore islands and to 

continue to honor ceremonial sites 

within their historic areas. 

The marine environment of the 

sanctuary has provided and continues to 

provide a special sense of place to its 

changing coastal communities and 

visitors because of its historical, 

archaeological, cultural, aesthetic, and 

biological resources. The Indigenous 

peoples along this coast were the first 

people living in present-day California 

to have contact with Europeans when 

Spanish explorers arrived on the Pacific 

Coast in the mid-1500s. Subsequent 

waves of Spanish, Mexican, English, 

Russian, and American explorers and 

settlers traveled to this region over the 

next 300 years. The region was shaped 

by development of a mission system 

from San Diego to San Francisco, the 

California gold rush in the mid-1800s, 

ranching for cattle and the hide/tallow 

trade, military training and operations, 

a coastal and offshore oil boom, and, 

more recently, coastal and offshore 

renewable energy development. 

Maritime shipping has been prominent 

in this portion of California, with 

treacherous weather and currents 

leading to over 200 reported ship and 

aircraft wrecks; at least 20 prominent 

shipwrecks alone have been found in 

the area between Point Conception and 

Point Sal. Two shipwrecks that lie 

within the sanctuary—the Yankee Blade 

and the McCulloch—have been listed on 

the National Register of Historic Places; 

the Montebello, also on the National 

Register, lies to the north of the 

sanctuary’s boundaries. 

Coastal tourism, recreational 

activities, and commercial fishing are 

prominent components of the coastal 

and marine economy in this region, 

particularly in San Luis Obispo County. 

Coastal and offshore energy and military 

activities are more prominent in the 

portion of this region along the Santa 

Barbara County coastline. Public access 

to the sanctuary, in particular through 

State and local parks, is available along 

the coastline of both counties, as well as 

from public harbors in Morro Bay, Port 

San Luis and Santa Barbara. Private 

land holdings in both counties and a 

large military base in Santa Barbara 

County limit access as well as human 

use and exploitation of natural habitats. 

Marine research is a small but growing 

sector of the ocean uses in this area. 

B. Need for Action 

The NMSA authorizes the Secretary to 

designate national marine sanctuaries to 

meet the purposes and policies of the 

NMSA, which are available at 16 U.S.C. 

1431(b), including: 

• 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; 

• To provide authority for 

comprehensive and coordinated 

conservation and management of these 

marine areas, and activities affecting 

them, in a manner which complements 

existing regulatory authorities; 

• 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; 

• 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; and, 

• To create models of, and incentives 

for, ways to conserve and manage these 

areas, including the application of 

innovative management techniques. 

The nationally significant natural 

resources, physical features and 

habitats, and the cultural and historical 

resources within the sanctuary warrant 

long-term protection and management 

to reduce threats that would adversely 

affect their historical, cultural, 

archaeological, ecological, recreational, 

and educational value. For example, 

many threatened or endangered species, 

such as blue whales, snowy plovers, 

black abalone, white sharks, and 

leatherback sea turtles, rely on habitats, 

physical features, or prey found in the 

sanctuary. This area also contains 

hundreds of known or suspected 

shipwrecks of historical importance, 

including several on the National 

Register of Historic Places. Moreover, 

this region and its abundant resources 

have been home to coastal, ocean-going 

Indigenous Peoples for tens of 

thousands of years, and submerged 

village sites may exist along 

paleoshorelines in the submerged lands 

of the sanctuary. Various levels of 

human development and activity can 

cause harm to these natural, cultural 

and historical resources from: new 

offshore energy development; 

decommissioning and removal of 

coastal and offshore industrial facilities; 

sound, discharges and whale strikes 

from vessel traffic; plastics, marine 

debris and pollutants from coastal 

runoff; and most of all, acute and 

cumulative impacts of climate change. 

Accordingly, NOAA is designating 

this area as a national marine sanctuary 

to: (1) manage and protect nationallysignificant natural resources, physical 

features and habitats, and cultural and 

historical resources through a regulatory 

and nonregulatory framework; (2) 

document, characterize, monitor, study, 

and conserve these resources; (3) 

provide interpretation of their natural, 

cultural, historical, and educational 

value to the public; (4) promote public 

stewardship and responsible use of 

these resources for various purposes to 

the extent compatible with the 

sanctuary’s principal goal of resource 

protection; (5) develop a coordinated, 

community-based, ecosystem-based 

management regime with partner 

Federal agencies, State and local 

governments, the federally recognized 

Tribe, and other Indigenous 

organizations; and (6) develop and carry 

out an innovative collaborative 

management structure to involve 

Indigenous communities, including 

federally recognized Tribes, other 

Indigenous groups and organizations, 

and individuals and communities with 

knowledge of Indigenous culture, 

history, and environment, in important 

management programs and initiatives of 

the sanctuary. 

Designating a new national marine 

sanctuary along the coast of central 

California allows NOAA to complement 

and supplement existing Federal and 

State resource management programs, 

policies, and regulations. For instance, 

discharge regulations to establish more 

comprehensive water quality protection 

across the geographic range for 

sanctuary protection under NMSA will 

bolster existing authorities under the 

Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 

et seq.). NOAA has well-regarded and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83556 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

2https://nmssanctuaries.blob.core.windows.net/ 

sanctuaries-prod/media/chumash/2023-proposedchumash-heritage-nms-draft-management-plan.pdf. 

3https://nmssanctuaries.blob.core.windows.net/ 

sanctuaries-prod/media/chumash/2023-proposedchumash-heritage-nms-deis.pdf. 

successful programs to conduct 

outreach, education, and 

communication that will recognize and 

promote this area’s nationallysignificant natural, historical, and 

cultural properties. NOAA can assist the 

region’s scientific expertise and 

technological resources to enhance 

ongoing research, and provide a hub for 

the coordination of these activities. 

Through its focus on various initiatives 

benefiting the marine and coastal 

economy, NOAA’s designation of the 

area as a national marine sanctuary 

enhances and facilitates public 

stewardship of natural, historical, and 

cultural resources. Lastly, designating 

this national marine sanctuary provides 

expanded conservation of key resources 

within the California Current Large 

Marine Ecosystem, and creates a 

collaborative framework to involve 

Indigenous communities in region-wide 

management. 

C. Designation Process 

1. Notice of Intent To Designate a 

National Marine Sanctuary 

In July 2015, a broad community 

consortium led by the Northern 

Chumash Tribal Council submitted a 

nomination through the Sanctuary 

Nomination Process. The nomination 

identified opportunities for NOAA to 

expand upon existing local and State 

efforts to study, interpret, and manage 

the area’s unique cultural and biological 

resources. The nomination also 

highlighted the maritime history and 

cultural heritage of Chumash Peoples, 

who, along with other Indigenous 

communities, have deep cultural 

connections to this area of central 

California. NOAA completed its review 

of the nomination and, on October 5, 

2015, added the area to the inventory of 

successful nominations eligible for 

designation. All nominations submitted 

to NOAA can be found at: https://

www.nominate.noaa.gov/nominations. 

On November 10, 2021, NOAA began 

the sanctuary designation process for 

the proposed CHNMS by publishing a 

notice of intent (86 FR 62512) to prepare 

a draft EIS as well as other pertinent 

designation materials such as a draft 

management plan, terms of designation, 

and a proposed rule, as required by 

NMSA and the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.). The notice of intent also 

announced NOAA’s intent to fulfill its 

responsibilities under the requirements 

of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA; 54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.) and 

Executive Order 13175. 

Following the notice of intent, NOAA 

conducted three virtual public meetings, 

hearing oral comments from 100 

participants, and received thousands of 

written comments during an 83-day 

public comment period. The majority of 

comments supported the goals of 

sanctuary designation, including 

protecting the cultural heritage of 

Chumash Tribal communities and 

protecting the coastal California 

ecosystem’s health and resilience. Many 

commenters also noted the importance 

of managing the area to promote 

recreation and tourism to support the 

local economy, to foster education and 

research programs, and to establish a 

shared management approach with 

Indigenous communities. Commenters 

also voiced concerns about overlapping 

existing and potential uses of the area 

such as fishing and offshore energy 

development. Overall, comments 

covered a diversity of other topics 

including views on: the proposed 

boundary and name for the proposed 

sanctuary; alternatives to consider for 

the boundary and name for the 

proposed sanctuary; activities that 

should be regulated; what nonregulatory programs the proposed 

sanctuary should have; and different 

ways to structure collaborative or comanagement with Native American 

Tribes. More detail about the scoping 

comments is contained in the final EIS, 

section 3.11 and Appendix B. 

2. Public Comment on Draft Designation 

Materials 

After the close of the public scoping 

process, NOAA engaged in an 18-month 

process to evaluate the comments 

received; to determine which activities 

might require regulations, which should 

best be addressed through nonregulatory actions of the management 

plan, and which warranted no action; 

and to assess the potential 

environmental impacts of sanctuary 

designation on the natural and human 

environment. NOAA held public 

meetings and workshops to gain 

information on certain areas, such as 

research and monitoring, wildlife 

disturbance, recreation and tourism, 

education, and water quality. NOAA 

held formal government-to-government 

consultation meetings with the one 

federally recognized Tribe in the region, 

the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash 

Indians (SYBCI), and also held 

engagement meetings with other nonfederally recognized Tribes and 

Indigenous organizations in the region. 

Three documents were released for 

public comment on August 25, 2023— 

a draft management plan,2 a proposed 

rule with terms of designation and 

proposed regulations (88 FR 58123), and 

a draft environmental impact 

statement.3 The Department of Defense 

(DoD), the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM), the Bureau of 

Safety and Environmental Enforcement 

(BSEE) and SYBCI served as cooperating 

agencies in reviewing and assisting with 

their expertise in development of the 

draft EIS. NOAA held three public 

workshops in September 2023 (two inperson and one virtual) to present the 

recommended actions, explain its 

analysis, and answer questions, and it 

held three public comment meetings in 

September and October 2023 (two inperson and one virtual) to receive oral 

public comments on the draft 

designation materials. The public 

comment period closed on October 25, 

2023; comments were received orally at 

public meetings, in writing, via email, 

and through the comment portal 

regulations.gov (docket #NOAA–NOS– 

2021–0080). On request, NOAA also 

conducted meetings with several 

stakeholder groups following the close 

of the public comment period for the 

express and limited purpose of 

receiving clarifications, primarily on 

technical issues, regarding the public 

comments submitted by the groups. 

Meeting summaries are available on the 

public rulemaking docket at 

regulations.gov (docket #NOAA–NOS– 

2021–0080). 

In total, NOAA received 2,292 

separate oral and written public 

comment submissions, that totaled more 

than 110,500 comments including 

campaign letters and petition signatures. 

NOAA reviewed all comments, 

organizing them into nearly 500 

separate, substantive issues that each 

received a written response (see 

Appendix A of the final EIS, Response 

to Comments and section V of this final 

rule). The comments and NOAA’s 

responses to those comments have 

guided development of the final terms 

of designation and regulations as 

outlined in this final rule, the final 

management plan, and the final EIS. 

Each of those documents are outlined in 

sections below, including a discussion 

of the Final Preferred Alternative. 

3. Development of Terms of Designation 

and Regulations 

Section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA 

requires that the terms of designation 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83557 

include the geographic area included 

within the sanctuary; the characteristics 

of the area that give it conservation, 

recreational, ecological, historical, 

research, educational, or aesthetic value; 

and the types of activities that would be 

subject to regulation by the Secretary to 

protect these characteristics. Section 

304(a)(4) also specifies that the terms of 

designation may be modified only by 

the same procedures by which the 

original designation was made. 

The purpose and need for the 

sanctuary provide the overarching basis 

for developing the regulations. NOAA 

developed this rulemaking and the 

sanctuary terms of designation based on 

information received during public 

scoping comments, cooperating agency 

review, and government-to-government 

consultation with Tribal Nations under 

Executive Order 13175, as well as 

feedback from interagency coordination, 

comments received through the public 

comment process on the draft 

designation materials, from analysis of 

issues and potential impacts as 

explained in the final EIS, and internal 

staff analysis and expertise. 

Comments from the scoping and the 

public review processes from Tribal 

representatives, representatives of other 

Indigenous groups, governmental 

agencies, users such as the fishing 

industry and offshore wind energy, 

telecommunications and oil and gas 

industries, other interested 

organizations, and the public addressed 

the need for regulations and exemptions 

for certain activities. NOAA consulted 

with the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council as required under NMSA 

section 304(a)(5). NOAA also 

considered existing regulations for other 

west coast national marine sanctuaries, 

including Monterey Bay, Greater 

Farallones, Channel Islands, and 

Olympic Coast national marine 

sanctuaries, and developed terms of 

designation and a set of regulations that 

are generally consistent with other 

sanctuary provisions in similar resource 

areas. In developing the regulations, 

NOAA evaluated resource sensitivity, 

industry practices, and feasibility of 

implementing certain regulations, to 

balance resource protection regulations 

with existing and future compatible 

activities that may occur in the 

sanctuary. 

Following publication of the proposed 

rule, in consideration of public 

comments and further review, NOAA 

made changes to the terms of 

designation and the regulations which 

are described in detail in section III of 

this final rule. NOAA provides a 

detailed discussion of the final 

regulations in section IV, subsection A 

through I, of this rule. The text of the 

final regulations are presented at the 

end of this rule. 

4. Development of Final Management 

Plan and Framework for Tribal 

Collaborative Co-Stewardship 

When designating a national marine 

sanctuary, NOAA also develops and 

presents a management plan that 

describes the management activities and 

initiatives that it proposes to conduct. 

The final management plan for the 

designation of CHNMS describes actions 

that NOAA will take to manage the 

sanctuary, summarized in 12 action 

plans, such as research and monitoring, 

education and outreach, sanctuary 

resource protection, and sanctuary 

operations, as well as practical programs 

to address certain issue areas, such as 

climate change, offshore energy, water 

quality, and wildlife disturbance. 

NOAA has developed the final 

management plan for the Final Preferred 

Alternative it is designating. 

In addition to engaging in 

government-to-government consultation 

with the federally recognized SYBCI, as 

described in section VI Classification 

below, NOAA has conducted meetings 

with non-federally recognized Tribes 

and Indigenous organizations along the 

central California coast, including the 

Northern Chumash Tribal Council, yak 

tityu tityu yak ti5hini Northern 

Chumash Tribe, Coastal Band of the 

Chumash Nation, Xolon Salinan Tribe, 

Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis 

Obispo Counties, Wishtoyo Chumash 

Foundation, and Barbaren ̃o/Venturen ̃ o 

Band of Mission Indians. After the draft 

designation materials were released, 

NOAA also met with many of these 

same organizations as part of 

consultations conducted under Section 

106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, in which some of 

these organizations participated as 

additional consulting parties. Close, 

deliberate collaboration between NOAA 

and these Indigenous organizations has 

been an essential element of this 

sanctuary designation process. NOAA 

has incorporated input from federally 

recognized Indian Tribes and all 

interested Indigenous community 

entities throughout the sanctuary 

designation process, as well as toward 

sanctuary management after 

designation. The final management plan 

includes an Indigenous Cultural 

Heritage Action Plan that describes how 

sanctuary management would involve 

Tribal and Indigenous perspectives and 

collaboration in a number of specific 

sanctuary management actions. 

Additionally, NOAA is including in 

the final management plan a framework 

for collaborative co-stewardship of the 

new sanctuary with federally recognized 

Native American Tribes and nonfederally recognized Indigenous groups. 

A detailed explanation of that 

framework and an outline of 

opportunities for Tribal and Indigenous 

community collaboration in 

management of the sanctuary are found 

in the introduction to the final 

management plan. In summary, the 

framework, revised based on the public 

comments, has built upon extensive 

input from representatives from the 

SYBCI and non-federally recognized 

Indigenous organizations in this coastal 

area. NOAA envisions relying on 

government-to-government consultation 

with federally recognized Tribes; an 

Intergovernmental Policy Council 

involving federally recognized Tribes 

and the State of California; and a 

Sanctuary Advisory Council (to be 

established after designation) that has 

one or more voting seats for federally 

recognized Tribes and one or more 

voting seats to represent the knowledge, 

history, and culture of Indigenous 

communities more broadly. NOAA also 

intends to work with the Sanctuary 

Advisory Council, after sanctuary 

designation, on the establishment of an 

Indigenous Cultures Advisory Panel as 

a working group of the Sanctuary 

Advisory Council. The Indigenous 

Cultures Advisory Panel will provide 

advice to the Sanctuary Advisory 

Council, with coordination and 

communication with other groups as 

appropriate, about cultural issues 

important to these coastal Tribes and 

Indigenous groups. NOAA also 

envisions a role for one or more nonprofit foundations to support joint 

projects between NOAA and federally 

recognized Tribes and/or non-federally 

recognized Indigenous groups. 

The following substantive changes 

were made to the draft management 

plan, as reflected in the final 

management plan and described in 

more detail in EIS Section 3.2.3: 

• The Framework for Indigenous 

Collaborative Co-Stewardship in the 

Introduction was revised to clarify 

collaborative management roles and 

responsibilities; 

• Nearly all action plans were 

enhanced with new or clarified 

activities, or potential partners, based 

on public comments; and 

• A Boundary Adjustment Action 

Plan was added that calls for a process 

to consider, analyze, and support future 

decision-making on possible expansion 

of the boundary of the sanctuary, or 

expansion of Monterey Bay National 

Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), or 

designation of a new sanctuary, to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83558 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

protect resources to the north (up to the 

MBNMS boundary), offshore (west of 

CHNMS), and within Morro Bay 

Estuary. Strategy RP–7 regarding 

consideration of expanded conservation 

in Morro Bay Estuary, was removed 

from the Resource Protection Action 

Plan and integrated into the Boundary 

Adjustment Action Plan. 

Implementation of this action plan 

would not in and of itself result in an 

expansion of the sanctuary boundaries, 

but rather would set the stage for NOAA 

to gather information to ultimately 

decide if pursuing such a change is 

warranted. Any subsequent boundary 

adjustments would be guided by Section 

304 of the NMSA and would require a 

separate public process under the 

NMSA and NEPA. 

5. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement 

In accordance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.) and the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 

1434), NOAA has released a final EIS for 

the national marine sanctuary 

designation in advance of the 

publication of this final rule. The final 

EIS (https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/ 

chumash-heritage) has been revised 

based on public comment and 

interagency consultation. The final EIS 

describes the purpose and need for the 

proposed action of designating a 

national marine sanctuary in the coastal 

and offshore waters of central 

California—the purpose of this 

regulatory action—and evaluates the 

potential environmental consequences 

of the designation of a national marine 

sanctuary; identifies a range of 

alternatives, including the preferred 

alternative; includes a comparison of 

the beneficial and adverse impacts 

among alternatives; and provides an 

assessment of resources and uses in the 

area. 

The final EIS analyzed the Initial 

Boundary Alternative (7,573 mi2; 5,718 

nmi2; 152 miles of mainland coast), 

which generally represented the 

boundary identified in the original 

nomination and in the notice of intent 

(86 FR 62512) but with some 

adjustments described in section 3.2 of 

the final EIS, and four alternatives that 

are smaller than the Initial Boundary 

Alternative, including: 

• Alternative 1, Bank to Coast, which 

focused management from the Santa 

Lucia Bank to the coast (6,098 mi2; 

4,605 nmi2; 152 miles of mainland 

coast); 

• Alternative 2, Cropped Bank to 

Coast (5,553 mi2; 4,194 nmi2; 115 miles 

of mainland coast), largely copied 

Alternative 1, however it excluded the 

waters from Cambria to Hazard Canyon 

Reef, which would be the most direct 

path to onshore points of 

interconnection at Morro Bay for the 

installation of subsea electrical 

transmission lines from the Morro Bay 

WEA; 

• Alternative 3, Diablo to Gaviota 

Creek, excluded more (relative to 

Alternative 2) northern waters that 

BOEM had identified for potential 

offshore wind development by removing 

the Diablo Canyon Call Area from the 

boundaries of the proposed sanctuary, 

and focused management on the area 

from the Diablo Canyon Call Area and 

nuclear power plant south to Gaviota 

Creek (5,804 mi2; 4,382 nmi2; 98 miles 

of mainland coast), but it included 

offshore waters west of the Santa Lucia 

Bank (based on public comment, the 

boundary for Alternative 3 was adjusted 

slightly smaller nearshore, south of 

Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP), to 

ensure its original intent could be 

achieved; see Section III.B for more 

information); 

• Alternative 4, Combined Smallest, 

excluded both the western and northern 

offshore areas focusing management on 

the smallest area (4,328 mi2; 3,268 nmi2; 

98 miles of mainland coast) (based on 

public comment, the boundary for 

Alternative 4 was adjusted slightly 

smaller nearshore, south of DCPP, to 

ensure its original intent could be 

achieved; see Section III.B for more 

information). 

The final EIS also analyzed two small 

expansion areas: 

• Sub-Alternative 5a, Morro Bay 

Estuary (2.5 mi2; 1.9 nmi2; 11 miles of 

mainland coast), would include the 

tidally-influenced portions of Morro Bay 

Estuary and could be added to the 

Initial Boundary Alternative or 

Alternative 1 (but would not be added 

to alternatives 2–4); 

• Sub-Alternative 5b, Gaviota Coast 

Extension (64 mi2; 48 nmi2; 18 miles of 

mainland coast), would include in the 

proposed sanctuary the State waters 

from Gaviota Creek to the township of 

Naples, a potential addition to any of 

the action alternatives. 

The final EIS also included a ‘‘No 

Action Alternative’’ in which NOAA 

would not designate the area as a 

national marine sanctuary. NOAA also 

identified a Final Preferred Alternative 

in the final EIS (see Section 5.4.9 in the 

final EIS and subsection 6 below). 

NOAA indicated in the proposed rule 

and the draft EIS (e.g., sections 3.1.1 and 

3.9.2) that, based on public comments 

received on the draft designation 

documents and NOAA’s experience 

administering the National Marine 

Sanctuary System, pursuant to NEPA 

and the Administrative Procedure Act, 

NOAA may choose to select a new 

alternative in the final rule and final EIS 

that is within the geographic and 

regulatory scope of these alternatives 

considered in the draft EIS, and that is 

a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule. 

The final EIS evaluated and 

considered the potential impacts of 

implementing the final regulations and 

conducting the various management 

programs and initiatives described in 

the final management plan. 

The final EIS focused on eight issue 

areas: physical resources; biological 

resources; commercial fishing and 

aquaculture; cultural heritage and 

maritime heritage resources; 

socioeconomics, human uses, and 

environmental justice; offshore energy; 

marine transportation; and homeland 

security and Department of Defense 

(DoD) activities. 

NOAA has provided a section in the 

final EIS (see Section 1.5) to outline the 

substantive changes it made between 

the draft and the final EIS. A brief 

summary of some of those changes 

include: 

• Changing the preferred alternative; 

• Minor changes to the boundary for 

Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 south of 

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant to 

ensure the intent behind those 

alternatives can be met; 

• Excluding the small harbor area at 

Vandenberg Space Force Base; 

• Clarifying regulations to reflect that 

oil and gas leaseholders are excepted 

from certain regulations, regardless of 

whether they are producing oil and gas 

at the time of sanctuary designation, to 

align with the scope of oil and gas rights 

under existing leases or lease units; 

• Changes to streamline and clarify 

the certification process; 

• Pulling together into one section in 

Chapter 4.6 the information about 

submarine fiber optic cables that had 

been distributed throughout the draft 

EIS; and 

• Changes to various appendices to 

the EIS, including the addition of 

Appendix A, Response to Comments. 

6. Final Preferred Alternative 

In accordance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.) and based on public 

comments on the draft designation 

materials and further review, NOAA has 

revised its Agency-Preferred Alternative 

from the draft EIS and has selected its 

Final Preferred Alternative as 

Alternative 4, plus Sub-Alternative 5b, 

plus a small area analyzed as part of the 

Initial Boundary Alternative in the 

center of the Santa Lucia Bank, thereby 

creating a straight line across the 

northern section of the new sanctuary 

(see Figure 5–1a in the final EIS). The 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83559 

Final Preferred Alternative covers 4,543 

mi2 of coastal and ocean waters, and 

spans 116 miles of California coast off 

the counties of San Luis Obispo and 

Santa Barbara. The sanctuary spans a 

maximum distance of 60 miles from 

shore, and reaches a maximum depth of 

11,580 feet below sea level. Describing 

the boundary in a clockwise fashion, the 

Final Preferred Alternative starts along 

the coast two miles southeast of the 

breakwater for the Diablo Canyon Power 

Plant marina, then runs south along the 

mean high water line through San Luis 

Obispo County and northern and 

western Santa Barbara County to the 

eastern end of the Naples Marine 

Conservation Area on the Gaviota Coast. 

Along this stretch, the harbor areas at 

Port San Luis and Vandenberg Space 

Force Base near Point Arguello are 

excluded from the sanctuary. Offshore, 

the boundary extends from the western 

edge of Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary, around important 

features like Rodriguez Seamount, most 

of Arguello Canyon, and about half of 

the Santa Lucia Bank and part of its 

escarpment. At a point approximately 

55 miles offshore of the Santa Maria 

River mouth, the boundary extends east 

43 miles, then due north for 12 miles to 

the point of origin south of the Diablo 

Canyon Power Plant marina. 

NOAA has evaluated the adverse and 

beneficial impacts from the Initial 

Boundary Alternative, as well as the 

various alternatives that considered 

smaller and larger boundaries. This 

evaluation has included careful review 

of over 110,000 comments submitted on 

the draft designation materials (see final 

EIS Appendix A, Response to 

Comments). The Final Preferred 

Alternative provides significant 

beneficial impacts on cultural heritage 

and maritime heritage resources through 

inclusion of Sub-Alternative 5b along 

the Gaviota Coast. It provides other 

beneficial but less-than-significant 

impacts in nearly all resource areas, 

such as: physical resources; biological 

resources; commercial fishing and 

aquaculture; cultural heritage and 

maritime heritage resources; 

socioeconomics, human uses, and 

environmental justice; and DoD and 

homeland security activities, largely 

through sanctuary regulations that 

would limit the scale and scope of 

offshore development activities and 

other human uses that could harm 

natural, historical, and cultural 

resources. NOAA has considered the 

adverse impacts of the Final Preferred 

Alternative and finds them to be an 

acceptable balance between resource 

use and conservation of sanctuary 

resources. This alternative has no 

significant adverse impacts and the least 

amount of adverse but less-thansignificant impacts on development of 

offshore renewable energy, and 

telecommunications and submarine 

fiber optic cables, as well as on marine 

transportation (compared to the Initial 

Boundary Alternative and all other 

action alternatives). 

NOAA has reconsidered offshore 

wind industry concerns regarding the 

sanctuary in the particular context of 

the Morro Bay leases, in conjunction 

with existing infrastructure and 

competing uses of the proposed 

sanctuary area (see Figure 5–2 in the 

final EIS), and in light of the purposes 

and policies of the NMSA and 

Administration priorities. Adopting the 

Final Preferred Alternative allows 

offshore wind developers to complete 

siting and permitting for subsea 

electrical transmission cables from the 

three Morro Bay offshore wind leases to 

landing sites at both Morro Bay and 

Diablo Canyon without having to route 

cables through the new sanctuary. The 

Final Preferred Alternative is the most 

manageable boundary at this time and 

will allow NOAA to focus on numerous 

core activities outlined in the 

management plan without the need to 

focus resources on myriad permitting 

issues related to offshore wind 

development. This avoids any 

perception of risk that a sanctuary 

permit review of proposed cables could 

delay or otherwise interfere with 

development of these renewable energy 

projects. Additionally, accommodating 

cable routes to landing sites at both 

Morro Bay and Diablo Canyon would 

allow space for the cable routes to make 

siting adjustments (‘‘micro siting’’) to 

avoid sensitive resources or certain 

seafloor features or hazards. See also the 

discussion in subsection B to this 

section of the final rule and response to 

Comment BO–1 in Appendix A for 

additional explanation of NOAA’s 

identification of the Final Preferred 

Alternative. 

As explained further in subsection 

III.F of the final rule, NOAA anticipates 

initiating a process, ‘‘Phase 2,’’ to 

consider establishing additional 

sanctuary protection 5–7 years after 

designation consistent with NOAA’s 

timeline for the first management plan 

review process, which is also a 

reasonable period of time for developers 

to obtain permits and easements from 

other agencies for subsea electrical 

transmission cables. This Phase 2 

process would commence no later than 

January 2032 and would inform 

NOAA’s consideration of future options 

for sanctuary protection of this area (see 

also the Boundary Adjustment Action 

Plan in the final management plan). Any 

future sanctuary designation or 

expansion could then recognize any 

existing cables or other permitted 

structures as existing structures via a 

sanctuary certification process. 

Including the Gaviota Coast extension 

within the Final Preferred Alternative 

would provide additional protection of 

important coastal resources. It would 

include waters off three popular State 

beaches and parks—Gaviota, Refugio, 

and El Capita ́n—and would ensure that 

Kashtayit and Naples State Marine 

Conservation Areas are entirely within 

the sanctuary. It would include beaches, 

kelp forests, and rocky and soft 

substrate reefs. As discussed in Section 

4.5 of the final EIS, that portion of the 

Gaviota Coast was home to numerous, 

large Chumash villages at the time of 

European first contact. Ensuring 

conservation of these resources is an 

important benefit to including this subalternative in the Final Preferred 

Alternative. The continued presence 

and use of offshore structures and 

development in this area, such as 

pipelines and cables related to the Santa 

Ynez Unit oil and gas development, 

could be accommodated via the 

certification process included in the 

regulations. Repair, replacement, or 

removal of the structures necessary for 

existing oil and gas production could be 

considered via an ONMS authorization 

process. 

In identifying the Final Preferred 

Alternative, NOAA considered which 

boundary alternative would be most 

manageable while simultaneously 

maximizing the principal purposes for 

the proposed sanctuary. The Final 

Agency-Preferred Alternative includes 

numerous coastal, nearshore, and 

offshore living resources and habitats of 

national significance, including a large 

portion of the Santa Lucia Bank, most of 

Arguello Canyon and all of the 

Rodriguez Seamount. The Final 

Preferred Alternative allows NOAA to 

focus its management on some of the 

key areas historically important to the 

SYBCI and other Chumash bands and 

natural resources important to their 

heritage. 

The draft EIS and the proposed rule 

provided notice to the public that, based 

on public comments received on the 

draft designation materials and NOAA’s 

experience administering the national 

marine sanctuary program, pursuant to 

NEPA and the Administrative Procedure 

Act, NOAA may choose to identify an 

alternative in the final rule and final EIS 

that is within the geographic and 

regulatory scope of the alternatives 

considered in the draft EIS and that is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83560 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule. 

Alternative 4 and Sub-Alternative 5b, 

plus the small additional area in the 

center of the Santa Lucia Bank (and part 

of the Initial Boundary Alternative), and 

impacts associated with these 

alternatives, are thoroughly discussed in 

the draft EIS and summarized in the 

proposed rule. NOAA received public 

comments on these Alternatives that it 

carefully considered in identifying the 

Final Preferred Alternative. 

II. Terms of Designation for Chumash 

Heritage National Marine Sanctuary 

Section 304(a)(4) of NMSA as 

amended, 16 U.S.C. 1434(a)(4), requires 

that the terms of designation be 

described at the time a new sanctuary is 

designated, including the geographic 

area to be included within the 

sanctuary, the characteristics of the area 

that give it conservation, recreational, 

ecological, historical, research, 

educational, or aesthetic value, and the 

types of activities that will be subject to 

regulation to protect those 

characteristics. 

The following represents the terms of 

designation: 

Preamble 

Under the authority of the NMSA, 

approximately 4,500 mi2 (3,400 nmi2) of 

the coast of central California’s San Luis 

Obispo and Santa Barbara counties are 

hereby designated as a National Marine 

Sanctuary for the purpose of providing 

long-term protection and management 

of the ecological, cultural, and historical 

resources and the conservation, 

recreational, scientific, educational, and 

aesthetic qualities of the area. 

Article I: Effect of Designation 

The NMSA authorizes the issuance of 

such regulations as are necessary and 

reasonable to implement the 

designation, including managing and 

protecting the ecological, cultural, and 

historical resources and the 

conservation, recreational, scientific, 

educational, and aesthetic qualities of 

Chumash Heritage National Marine 

Sanctuary (the ‘‘Sanctuary’’). Section 1 

of article IV of these terms of 

designation lists those activities that 

may have to be regulated on the 

effective date of designation, or at some 

later date, in order to protect Sanctuary 

resources and qualities. Listing an 

activity does not necessarily mean that 

it 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 by the same procedures by 

which the original Sanctuary 

designation was made. 

Article II: Description of the Area 

Chumash Heritage National Marine 

Sanctuary covers approximately 4,500 

mi2 (3,400 nmi2) in central California. 

The Sanctuary’s shoreline is 

approximately 116 miles long along the 

mainland, and 132 miles long when also 

counting the shoreline of offshore rocks 

and islands. The boundary begins at the 

mean high water line approximately two 

miles southeast of Diablo Canyon 

marina in San Luis Obispo County, and 

extends to the south along the mean 

high water line to approximately two 

miles east of Dos Pueblos Canyon near 

the township of Naples along the 

Gaviota Coast, in Santa Barbara County. 

The boundary then shifts due south 

offshore to the State waters line, then to 

the west along the State waters line to 

approximately the outfall of Gaviota 

Creek, then in a southwest direction 

along the western end of Channel 

Islands National Marine Sanctuary, 

southward to include Rodriguez 

Seamount and shifting to the northwest 

in an arc reaching approximately 60 

miles due west of Purisima Point and, 

at a distance approximately 55 miles 

west of the Santa Maria River mouth, it 

turns due east for 43 miles then due 

north for 12 miles to the point of origin 

at mean high water line at the coastline 

approximately two miles southeast of 

the Diablo Canyon marina. Port San 

Luis and the small harbor area at 

Vandenberg Space Force Base are not 

included in the Sanctuary. The 

Sanctuary includes offshore waters and 

seafloor features such as Rodriguez 

Seamount, Arguello Canyon, and large 

portions of the Santa Lucia Bank. The 

boundary coordinates are defined by 

regulation (see 15 CFR 922.230 and 

appendix A to 15 CFR part 922, subpart 

V). 

Article III: Special Characteristics of 

the Area 

For well over 10,000 years, First 

Peoples along North America have 

resided on the coast and in inland 

valleys adjacent to central California. 

Caves and other village sites at the 

nearby Channel Islands indicate 

occupation in this region as much as 

13,000 years before present. At that 

time, due to glaciation at northern 

latitudes, the sea level was as much as 

10 miles offshore from the present 

coastline. Paleoshorelines may exist in 

this area that could provide further 

evidence of early human occupation. 

The Native Americans who live in this 

coastal area today, the Chumash and 

Salinan, can trace generations of family 

lineages in this region, that, when 

coupled with other historical accounts 

and archaeological data, show this coast 

and ocean area have supported their 

people, cultures, and heritage for 

thousands of years. 

The special characteristics of the coast 

east of Point Conception, consisting of 

a south-facing coast with a channel 

sheltered by offshore islands, allowed 

Chumash to develop and make use of 

the plank canoe, called a ‘‘tomol,’’ for 

fishing and trade with other Chumash 

groups. Chumash villages north of Point 

Conception could not as easily make use 

of the plank canoe in the rougher 

waters, but relied on the abundance of 

shellfish in this area and reed canoes, 

also used by Salinans. Between the 

Santa Maria River through the Gaviota 

Coast, 14 Chumash villages existed at 

the time of contact with Europeans, 

nearly 500 years ago. The largest 

Chumash village on the California coast 

at that time was ‘‘Mikiw,’’ located on 

the west bluff of Dos Pueblos Canyon. 

Numerous sites exist further north along 

the Sanctuary’s coast, many on private 

lands and undisclosed. Most of the 

inhabited sites were located at the 

mouths of rivers or along the seashore 

where there was an abundance of food. 

The range of sites documented along or 

near the Sanctuary’s coast includes rock 

art, shrines, village sites, camp sites, 

cemeteries, organic remains, evidence of 

trade systems, and evidence of various 

forms of subsistence, including hunting, 

fishing, and extraction. 

Serial use and development along this 

coastline, beginning with Indigenous 

Peoples, then Spanish exploration and 

occupation, Russian fur trading, 

ranching and the trade for hides and 

tallow, discovery of gold, commercial 

fishing, and onshore and offshore oil 

and gas development have all had a 

hand in shaping this region’s coast and 

human use of resources. All of these 

uses have been dependent on marine 

transportation, and as a result over 200 

ship and aircraft wrecks are recorded in 

this area, including several of national 

significance such as the Yankee Blade. 

Commercial fishing for numerous 

abundant fish stocks and commercial 

fishermen are also part of the rich 

maritime heritage in the central coast 

region. 

The natural resources of the ocean 

have been a principal element of most 

of the human occupation and 

exploitation of the region. Strong and 

persistent coastal winds drive 

upwelling, an oceanographic process 

critical to the highly productive marine 

ecosystem. Large kelp forests, vast 

sandy beaches, rocky shorelines, 

shallow and deep reefs, and coastal 

wetlands are interconnected, codependent biological communities 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83561 

prominent in this region. Important, 

large-scale features include the Santa 

Lucia Bank, a highly productive, 

approximately 1,000-square mile area 

about half of which is within the 

Sanctuary, and thriving deep sea 

communities at Rodriguez Seamount 

and in Arguello Canyon. These 

productive waters complement other 

protected portions of the California 

Current by serving as critical foraging 

habitat for huge populations of 

shearwaters from New Zealand, 

humpback whales born offshore of 

Central America, leatherback sea turtles 

that migrate from and back to 

Indonesian islands, and albatross from 

Hawaii. More sedentary, local species 

depend on healthy communities in the 

Sanctuary, including the endangered 

snowy plover and black abalone, and 

commercially-important fish species 

like Dungeness crab, sablefish, spot 

prawn, squid, salmon, and lingcod. An 

estimated 33 species of marine 

mammals are found in the area, 18 of 

which can be seen on a regular basis. 

The Sanctuary is considered a seabird 

hot spot, with a higher richness of bird 

species than other sanctuaries offshore 

California. At least 400 species of fish 

have been documented in the area, 

which is also a higher richness of 

species than in nearby areas, likely 

because the Sanctuary includes warmer 

waters south and east of the ecological 

transition zone around Point 

Conception—Point Arguello and colder 

waters to the north. 

The nationally significant ecological 

transition zone in the area around Point 

Conception—Point Arguello, where 

species more common in sub-tropical 

waters to the south meet with species 

more common in colder temperate 

waters to the north, is a central feature 

of the Sanctuary. The northern range of 

many warmer water species and the 

southern range of many colder water 

species meet in the area between Point 

Conception and Point Arguello. 

Increasing ocean temperatures and other 

impacts from climate change intensify 

the need to study biogeographic shifts in 

this area and affirm the importance of 

protecting the habitats on which these 

species depend. 

Rodriguez Seamount, 45 mi southwest 

of Point Conception, formed 10–12 

million years ago through volcanic 

activity. It rises more than a mile above 

the seafloor to a relatively shallow 

depth of around 2,000 ft. below sea 

level. Scientists consider it to be 

relatively rare in that it may once have 

been an island, rising to possibly 200 ft. 

above sea level; due to sea level rise and 

seafloor subsidence, the seamount is 

now fully submerged. From its time as 

an island, it has remnants of sandy 

beach features and from its time as a 

seamount, it has large coral and sponge 

colonies. Preliminary studies indicate a 

high percentage of invertebrate species 

as well as fish species found on 

Rodriguez Seamount that are not found 

on other nearby seamounts. Some 

surveys have uncovered substantial 

aggregations of coral colonies, with large 

individuals likely decades old, 

indicating a low level of disturbance to 

date. A special management zone for 

Rodriguez Seamount has been 

designated by Sanctuary regulations to 

allow for special protection in the water 

column 500 ft. above the seamount and 

to complement regulations adopted 

separately under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act to protect benthic habitats. 

The area contains dramatic coastlines 

consisting of rocky shorelines, large 

bluffs, and sweeping sandy beaches. 

Other than an approximately 10-mile 

stretch of urban development along the 

coast from Port San Luis through 

Oceano, most of the 116 miles of 

Sanctuary coastline is undeveloped due 

to State and county park ownership, a 

large stretch owned by the U.S. 

Government as a military installation, 

and private landholdings of large and 

small ranches or dispersed single-family 

dwellings. This lack of development 

creates a sense of wildness and highlyvalued aesthetics of a natural coastal 

setting worthy of national marine 

sanctuary designation. 

Article IV: Scope of Regulations 

Section 1. Activities Subject to 

Regulation 

The following activities are subject to 

regulation, including prohibition, as 

may be necessary to ensure the 

protection and effective management of 

the ecological, cultural, historical, 

conservation, recreational, scientific, 

educational, or aesthetic resources or 

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 physical 

matter of commercial value) within the 

Sanctuary; 

b. Discharging or depositing, from 

within or into the boundary of the 

Sanctuary, or from beyond the boundary 

of the Sanctuary, any material or other 

matter; 

c. Taking, removing, moving, 

catching, collecting, harvesting, feeding, 

injuring, destroying, attracting, 

possessing, or causing the loss of, or 

attempting to take, remove, move, catch, 

collect, harvest, feed, injure, destroy, 

attract, or cause the loss of, a marine 

mammal, sea turtle, bird, historical 

resource, or other Sanctuary resource; 

d. Drilling into, dredging, or 

otherwise altering the submerged lands 

of the Sanctuary; or constructing, 

placing, or abandoning any structure, 

material, or other matter on or in the 

submerged lands of the Sanctuary; 

e. Flying a motorized aircraft above 

the Sanctuary; 

f. Operating a vessel (i.e., water craft 

of any description) within the 

Sanctuary; 

g. Aquaculture or kelp harvesting 

within the Sanctuary; 

h. Introducing or otherwise releasing 

from within or into the Sanctuary an 

introduced species; and, 

i. Interfering with, obstructing, 

delaying, or preventing an investigation, 

search, seizure, or disposition of seized 

property in connection with 

enforcement of the NMSA or any 

regulation or permit issued under the 

NMSA. 

Listing an activity here means the 

Secretary of Commerce can regulate the 

activity, after complying with all 

applicable regulatory laws, without 

going through the designation 

procedures required by paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of section 304 of the NMSA, 16 

U.S.C. 1434(a) and (b). No term of 

designation issued under the authority 

of the NMSA may take effect in 

California State waters within the 

Sanctuary if the Governor of California 

certifies to the Secretary of Commerce 

that such term of designation is 

unacceptable within the review period 

specified in the NMSA. 

Section 2. Emergencies 

Where necessary to prevent or 

minimize the destruction of, loss of, or 

injury to a Sanctuary resource or 

quality, or to minimize the imminent 

risk of such destruction, loss, or injury, 

any and all activities, including those 

not listed in section 1, 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 

NMSA, no valid lease, permit, license, 

approval, or other authorization issued 

by any Federal, State, or local authority 

of competent jurisdiction, or any right of 

subsistence use or access, may be 

terminated by the Secretary of 

Commerce or designee as a result of this 

designation or as a result of any 

Sanctuary regulation if such 

authorization or right was in existence 

on the effective date of this designation. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83562 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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) The exploration 

for, development of, or production of 

oil, gas, or minerals within the 

Sanctuary; (2) the discharge of primarytreated sewage except for regulation, 

pursuant to section 304(c)(1) 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; or (3) the disposal of 

dredged material within the Sanctuary 

other than at sites authorized by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

prior to the effective date of designation. 

The disposal of dredged material does 

not include the beneficial use of 

dredged material. 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 IV does not authorize the 

direct regulation of lawful fishing 

activities (commercial and recreational) 

within the Sanctuary, such as setting 

catch quotas, establishing spatial 

closures for fishing, or setting fishing 

seasons. However, all activities listed in 

article IV could apply to a person 

engaged in the act of fishing, such as, 

but not limited to, vessel operations, 

wildlife disturbance, discharges, 

introduction of an introduced species, 

or disturbance of cultural or historical 

resources. Aquaculture and kelp 

harvesting, by contrast, are subject to 

direct regulation under these terms of 

designation. Fishing in the Sanctuary 

may be regulated by other Federal or 

State authorities of competent 

jurisdiction, and designation of the 

Sanctuary shall have no effect on any 

fishery management regulation, permit, 

or license issued thereunder. 

Article VI: Alteration of This 

Designation 

The terms of designation, as defined 

under section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA, 

may be modified only by the same 

procedures by which the original 

designation is made, including public 

hearings, consultations with interested 

Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local 

authorities and agencies, review by the 

appropriate congressional committees, 

and approval by the Secretary of 

Commerce, or his or her designee. 

[End of terms of designation] 

III. Changes From Proposed to Final 

Rule 

Based on public comments received 

between August 25 and October 25, 

2023, NOAA’s responses to those 

comments, internal deliberations, 

interagency consultations, and Tribal 

consultation, NOAA has made the 

following changes to the proposed rule 

and, where appropriate, corresponding 

changes to the final EIS and 

management plan. 

A. Sanctuary Boundary and Preferred 

Alternative 

NOAA has revised its AgencyPreferred Alternative from the draft EIS 

and now identifies its Final Preferred 

Alternative as Alternative 4, plus SubAlternative 5b, plus a small area 

analyzed as part of the Initial Boundary 

Alternative in the center of the Santa 

Lucia Bank, thereby creating a straight 

line across the northern section of the 

new sanctuary (see Figure 5–1a in the 

final EIS). The reasons for selecting this 

as the Final Preferred Alternative are 

discussed in detail in Section I, 

subsection C.6 of this final rule, Section 

5.4.9 in the final EIS, and in various 

responses to comments, in particular 

response to Comment BO–1 (see 

Appendix A of the final EIS). 

B. Changes to Boundaries for 

Alternatives 3 and 4, and Exclusion of 

the Harbor Area at Vandenberg Space 

Force Base 

An original primary purpose of 

Alternative 3 (and Alternative 4, which 

is a composite smallest boundary that 

omits the ocean areas excluded from 

either Alternative 1 or 3) was to exclude 

areas from the sanctuary identified or 

potentially necessary for offshore wind 

development, specifically an additional 

potential wind energy area (WEA) in 

Federal waters and corridors to allow 

subsea electrical transmission cables to 

connect to both Morro Bay and Diablo 

Canyon grid connections without 

passing through the sanctuary. 

Following public comment on the draft 

designation materials, pursuant to 

NEPA, minor alterations were made to 

the nearshore boundary of Alternative 3 

(and Alternative 4) to ensure the intent 

of this alternative could be met. 

Concerns that drove this change include 

consideration of the following clarifying 

information received in public 

comments: the need for access to the 

Diablo Canyon grid connections and 

necessary landing site sufficient to 

allow for gentle turns (rather than sharp 

angles) for cables; the ability to cross 

existing submarine fiber optic cables at 

roughly right angles; regulatory 

challenges routing cables through the 

special marine protected areas in State 

waters; space to make minor siting 

adjustments (‘‘micro siting’’) to cable 

routes to avoid sensitive resources or 

certain seafloor features or hazards; and 

space to achieve the offshore wind 

industry’s intent for the distance 

between cables to be at least three times 

the water depth, in line with 

recommendations of the International 

Cable Protection Committee. The 

resulting changes to the boundary 

include shifting the boundary that first 

intercepts the coast in the north one 

mile to the southeast so that it originates 

now about two miles southeast of the 

Diablo Canyon marina breakwater. The 

boundary also is shifted due south from 

this coastal point and then due west to 

create more space in which cables could 

be planned and permitted without 

needing to pass through the sanctuary. 

This same shift was made for 

Alternative 4. In both alternatives, these 

shifts reduce the potential size of the 

sanctuary by 148 square miles, and 

reduce the total distance along the coast 

by one mile. These changes are 

consistent with the intent of these 

Alternatives and with the purposes and 

goals of the draft designation materials. 

See maps in Chapter 3 of the final EIS, 

and see sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the final 

EIS for more information on why these 

boundary adjustments constitute minor 

variations qualitatively within the 

geographic and regulatory scope of 

alternatives assessed in the draft EIS. 

NOAA also intended to exclude from 

the sanctuary the waters of all harbors, 

which typically host and require 

activities that can be inconsistent with 

sanctuary regulations. Morro Bay, the 

private marina at Diablo Cove and Port 

San Luis were all excluded in boundary 

alternatives. NOAA inadvertently failed 

to exclude the military harbor area at 

Vandenberg Space Force Base from 

sanctuary alternatives. The exclusion 

area would be roughly 0.1 square miles, 

and would be defined by the breakwater 

at the harbor area, and a line 0.1 mile 

due east, and then turning due north 

until it intercepts the MHWL at the 

coast. NOAA is excluding this small 

area from the final sanctuary boundary. 

This is a technical correction that is 

consistent with the purposes and goals 

of the draft designation materials. See 

maps in Chapter 3 of the final EIS, and 

see Section 3.2.1 of the final EIS, 

footnote 3, for more information. 

C. Terms of Designation 

NOAA made changes to the final 

terms of designation based on public 

comment and responses to those 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83563 

comments, changes to other designation 

materials to ensure consistency, and its 

final actions on this designation. First 

NOAA modified Article II to describe 

the area being designated in 

conformance with the Final Preferred 

Alternative (rather than the AgencyPreferred Alternative from the draft 

phase). NOAA made changes to Article 

III to more accurately describe the 

Indigenous communities’ historical uses 

of the area, including the number and 

general area of known or suspected 

historical village sites. In that section, 

NOAA has also clarified that about half 

of the Santa Lucia Bank will be in the 

final boundary, rather than nearly all of 

it as described in the proposed rule. In 

Article V, NOAA is removing a clause 

that could create confusion regarding its 

limitation on future permit decisions, 

and in particular removing unnecessary 

language about permitting existing oil 

and gas activities. In this section of the 

Terms of Designation in the proposed 

rule, NOAA had inadvertently included 

language from the regulations describing 

existing oil and gas activities that would 

not require a permit. However, Article V 

mandates that certain activities can not 

receive a permit for any reason, and one 

of those activities is oil, gas or mineral 

development, new or existing. The 

language explaining what activity 

constitutes existing oil and gas 

development, that would be exempt 

from permitting, is irrelevant in this 

section and has been removed. Were 

that language included in the final rule, 

it would imply NOAA intends to issue 

permits for existing oil and gas 

production, and it does not; rather, it is 

excepting existing oil and gas 

production from sanctuary permitting. 

Note, however, that construction, repair, 

replacement, or removal of existing oil 

and gas infrastructure that would 

disturb the submerged lands or 

potentially lead to discharges would 

still require an ONMS authorization or 

other approval. Lastly, NOAA is adding 

clarification in this section that NOAA’s 

use of the term ‘‘fishing’’ means both 

commercial and recreational fishing. 

D. Final Regulations 

NOAA’s intent with designation of 

this sanctuary has been to allow existing 

oil and gas production to continue after 

sanctuary designation. Based on public 

comments and interagency discussion, 

NOAA is clarifying the exception to the 

prohibition on oil, gas and mineral 

exploration, development, and 

production (922.232(a)(1)) to reflect that 

leaseholders can continue to develop oil 

and gas resources as allowed under 

existing leases and lease units. The 

language in the proposed rule had 

limited this exception to production 

from reservoirs under production from 

Platforms Irene and Heritage at the time 

of sanctuary designation. The revised 

language will now read: ‘‘(1) Exploring 

for, developing, or producing oil, gas, or 

minerals within the Sanctuary, except 

for oil and gas production, which 

includes well abandonment, pursuant to 

leases or lease units in effect upon the 

effective date of Sanctuary designation’’. 

This change ensures that any reservoir 

that was temporarily shut in at the time 

of designation, or any reservoir not yet 

developed but within a lease or lease 

unit in effect on the date of Sanctuary 

designation could still be developed 

pursuant to such lease or lease unit and 

meet this exception to the regulatory 

prohibition on oil, gas or mineral 

development in the sanctuary. 

NOAA has also made a technical 

clarifying revision to 15 CFR 

922.232(a)(2)(iii) to more accurately 

describe the nature of exceptions to this 

regulation. This change is a minor 

conforming amendment consistent with 

the intent, purposes, and policies of the 

proposed rule. 

Because the prohibition on discharges 

within or into the sanctuary 

(922.232(a)(2)(i)) has similar language to 

allow through regulatory exception 

discharges into reservoirs that are 

incidental and necessary to oil and gas 

production, NOAA revised the 

exception to this discharge prohibition 

to now read: ‘‘H. Discharges incidental 

and necessary to oil and gas production 

within or into reservoirs contained 

within existing leases or lease units in 

effect on the effective date of Sanctuary 

designation from Platform Irene or 

Platform Heritage, including well 

abandonment’’. 15 CFR 

922.232(a)(2)(i)(H). This clarification 

ensures sanctuary designation will not 

require oil and gas developers to seek 

sanctuary approval for discharges into 

reservoirs incidental and necessary to 

oil and gas development allowed under 

existing leases or lease units. Discharges 

from platforms or pipelines into the 

sanctuary are not covered by this 

exception and would require sanctuary 

review and approval; existing, permitted 

discharges at the time of sanctuary 

designation can be certified as an 

existing activity. 

The prohibition on disturbance of the 

submerged lands of the sanctuary 

(922.232(a)(3)) also has an exception to 

describe existing oil and gas 

development. Consistent with other 

exceptions, NOAA revised the 

exception to allow for drilling, 

maintaining, or abandoning a well 

necessary for purposes related to oil and 

gas production pursuant to existing 

leases or lease units in effect on the 

effective date of Sanctuary designation 

from Platform Irene or Platform 

Heritage. 15 CFR 922.232(a)(3)(vi). 

These changes reflect technical 

corrections and clarifications, based on 

discussions with the expert agency 

(Department of the Interior) that are 

consistent with the proposed rule and 

that reflect the intended scope of the 

proposed rule. 

In response to public comment and to 

implement technical and procedural 

corrections and clarifications consistent 

with the purposes of the proposed rule, 

NOAA made changes to the 

Certification Process (922.234) to allow 

existing, permitted activities in effect at 

the time the sanctuary is designated. 

These changes include clarifying that 

applicants/permit holders have 120 

days after the effective date of sanctuary 

designation to notify NOAA regarding 

any Federal-, State- or locally-issued 

lease, permit, license, approval, other 

authorization or right of subsistence use 

or access. NOAA also clarified that 

when considering imposing any 

conditions on a certification, the ONMS 

Director may seek and consider the 

views of other persons or entities, but 

will not hold a public hearing. NOAA 

added a clause to clarify that the ONMS 

Director can amend, suspend or revoke 

the certification when the underlying 

permit is amended, suspended or 

revoked, but NOAA also removed 

language that allowed an already-issued 

certification to be reopened at any time. 

While these revisions constitute changes 

from certification procedures at some 

other sanctuary sites, they have been 

made in response to site-specific needs 

and concerns, including the anticipated 

number of certification requests. NOAA 

will coordinate with the Federal, State 

or local agency that issued an 

underlying permit should concerns arise 

in the future about an existing activity. 

Based on interagency coordination, 

NOAA is including a section of the 

regulations describing two 

memorandums of agreement NOAA will 

enter into for interagency coordination 

to address regulatory or statutory 

issues—introduced species aquaculture 

projects and the Sunken Military Craft 

Act. See Section IV, subsection H of this 

final rule for a description of these 

memoranda of agreement. This addition 

is a clarification of intended agency 

procedures on coordination and 

constitutes a minor technical and 

procedural update that is consistent 

with the purposes and policies of the 

proposed rule. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83564 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

4The boundary would initiate approximately two 

miles southeast of the breakwater at the private 

marina at Diablo Canyon Power Plant at MHWL. 

The detailed legal boundary description is included 

in § 922.230 and the coordinates are located in 15 

CFR part 922, subpart V, appendix A. 

E. Finalizing the Name for the 

Sanctuary 

The draft designation materials 

indicated that the name for the 

sanctuary was not yet final and would 

depend on the final boundary selected, 

among other factors. NOAA’s 

assessment has shown it is reasonably 

and historically accurate to consider the 

final boundary identified for this 

sanctuary, extending from just south of 

Diablo Canyon in the north through 

most of the Gaviota Coast, as lying along 

the coastline that has historically been 

considered the ancestral lands of 

Chumash Peoples. Given the extensive 

public comment in support of the name 

‘‘Chumash Heritage,’’ and given that this 

boundary is least likely to overlap with 

ancestral lands and waters of Salinan 

Peoples, NOAA is designating this 

sanctuary with the name ‘‘Chumash 

Heritage National Marine Sanctuary.’’ 

F. Phase 2 for Considering Sanctuary 

Conservation in This Region 

NOAA is adding this section to the 

final rule to express the importance of 

and its commitment to ‘‘Phase 2,’’ to 

evaluate and consider establishing 

additional sanctuary protection 5–7 

years after designation consistent with 

NOAA’s timeline for the first sanctuary 

management plan review process. As 

noted elsewhere, the selection of the 

Final Preferred Alternative, while 

providing significant beneficial impacts 

for marine conservation, is the boundary 

least likely to create potential regulatory 

uncertainty perceived by offshore wind 

developers because they are not 

expected to require sanctuary permits 

for subsea electrical transmission cables 

to shore. NOAA anticipates initiating 

the review process to consider 

expanding sanctuary protections 5 to 7 

years after designation consistent with 

NOAA’s timeline for the first 

management plan review process. This 

timeframe would provide a reasonable 

amount of time for offshore wind 

developers to obtain permits and 

easements from other agencies to 

develop their subsea electrical 

transmission cables, and possibly install 

some of those cables. NOAA has 

included a Boundary Adjustment 

Action Plan in the final management 

plan that envisions commencing, in 

January 2032, formal consideration of 

expanding sanctuary conservation for 

resources north of the current boundary 

up to the MBNMS boundary, west of the 

current boundary to include areas 

within the Initial Boundary Alternative, 

and into Morro Bay Estuary. Sanctuary 

conservation in the future, if warranted, 

could involve expanding CHNMS 

boundaries, shifting the boundaries for 

MBNMS, or designating a new 

sanctuary, or some combination of 

these. A future designation or expansion 

would require a separate public process 

under the NMSA and NEPA. 

NOAA acknowledges that some 

important studies may need to begin 

soon after CHNMS designation to help 

collect information on the nationallysignificant resources in these areas, the 

potential threats to those resources, and 

the appropriateness of a national marine 

sanctuary to address those threats. As 

resources are available, NOAA will 

begin those studies and 

characterizations. 

This approach allows NOAA to work 

more closely with the Salinan and 

northern Chumash Tribes and 

Indigenous communities, and other 

interested parties, on various 

conservation options for the resources 

in this region. NOAA considers these 

steps and other potential actions to be 

part of ‘‘Phase 2 Sanctuary 

Conservation’’ for this region. 

IV. Summary of Final Regulations 

A. Adding New Subpart V 

NOAA is amending 15 CFR part 922 

by adding a new subpart (subpart V) 

that contains site-specific regulations for 

the sanctuary. This subpart includes the 

boundary, contains definitions of 

common terms used in the new subpart, 

identifies prohibited activities and 

exceptions, and establishes procedures 

for certification of existing uses and 

permitting otherwise prohibited 

activities. 

B. Sanctuary Boundary 

NOAA’s designation of Chumash 

Heritage National Marine Sanctuary 

consists of an area of approximately 

4,500 square miles (mi2) (3,400 square 

nautical miles (nmi2) of coastal and 

ocean waters along the central coast of 

California and the submerged lands 

thereunder. The northern boundary 

commences approximately two miles 

southeast of the Diablo Canyon marina 

at the mean high water line (MHWL) 

and extends for 116 miles south along 

the MHWL through the remainder of 

San Luis Obispo County coast, 

excluding Port San Luis (at the port’s 

boundary for International Regulations 

for Preventing Collisions at Sea 

(COLREGS) demarcation line (33 CFR 

80.1130), and then further south and 

east to include the coast of western 

Santa Barbara County, excluding the 

small harbor area at Vandenberg Space 

Force Base (as defined by the existing 

breakwater to a point 0.1 mile due east 

of the end of the breakwater and then 

due north to the MHWL at the 

shoreline), to approximately two miles 

east of Dos Pueblos Canyon along the 

Gaviota Coast near the township of 

Naples. The boundary then shifts due 

south offshore to the State waters line, 

to the west along the State waters line 

to approximately Gaviota Creek, then in 

a southwest direction along the western 

end of CINMS, southward to include 

Rodriguez Seamount and shifting to the 

northwest in an arc reaching 

approximately 60 miles due west of 

Purisima Point and, at a distance 

approximately 55 miles west of the 

Santa Maria River, it turns due east for 

43 miles and then due north for 12 

miles to the point of origin at MHWL at 

the coastline approximately two miles 

southeast of Diablo Canyon marina.4

C. Definitions 

This rule incorporates and adopts 

common terms defined in the national 

regulations at 15 CFR 922.11. In 

addition, NOAA is including two sitespecific definitions. 

NOAA is defining ‘‘beneficial use of 

dredged material’’ to distinguish 

between suitable dredge material that is 

discharged into the sanctuary for the 

purpose of protecting or restoring 

habitat of the sanctuary, which could be 

permitted, versus disposal of dredge 

material at a new disposal site within 

the sanctuary for purposes other than 

habitat protection or restoration, which 

would not be permittable. Dredged 

material eligible for this definition can 

come from a public harbor adjacent to 

the sanctuary, which is Port San Luis. 

Beneficial use of dredged material is not 

disposal of dredged material. 

NOAA is defining the ‘‘Rodriguez 

Seamount Management Zone’’ to define 

the special marine area immediately on 

top of, around, and adjacent to the 

Rodriguez Seamount. This definition is 

necessary because NOAA is including a 

regulation that specifically prohibits the 

collection, or other injury, of any 

sanctuary resource below 1,500 ft. water 

depth in this area from any activity 

other than from lawful fishing. This 

corresponds to the water depth about 

500 ft. above the very top of the 

seamount. Existing fishing regulations, 

separately established under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(MSA), already restrict bottom trawling 

in much of the Rodriguez Seamount 

Management Zone. This special area, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83565 

5Final Programmatic EIS for Oil and Gas 

Decommissioning Activities on the Pacific OCS 

(BSEE & BOEM, 2023) 

entirely within the boundaries of the 

sanctuary, is bounded by geodetic lines 

connecting a heptagon generally 

centered on the top of the Rodriguez 

Seamount, and consists of 

approximately 570 mi2 (430 nmi2) of 

ocean waters and the submerged lands 

thereunder. The northeast corner of this 

zone is located approximately 27 miles 

southwest of Point Conception off the 

coast of Santa Barbara County. Exact 

coordinates for the Rodriguez Seamount 

Management Zone boundary are 

provided in appendix B to subpart V. 

D. Prohibited and Regulated Activities 

NOAA is supplementing and 

complementing existing management of 

this area by adopting the following 

regulations in § 922.232 to protect 

sanctuary resources and qualities. 

1. Prohibition on Exploring for, 

Developing, or Producing Oil, Gas, or 

Minerals 

The central California coast has 

hosted oil and gas development for over 

100 years and the area being designated 

as a national marine sanctuary has 

hosted oil and gas development for 

nearly 40 years. There have been oil 

spills from platforms and pipelines in 

this area, and spills from onshore 

development and onshore pipeline 

transportation, all of which have caused 

significant environmental harm. 

Additional information about these spill 

incidents is contained in section 4.7 of 

the final EIS. NOAA is prohibiting 

exploration, development, and 

production of offshore oil and gas 

resources within the sanctuary to reduce 

the risk of offshore spills from oil and 

gas development in the area. Oil and gas 

production pursuant to existing leases 

and lease units in effect on the effective 

date of sanctuary designation, 

specifically from Platform Irene (as part 

of the Point Pedernales Unit 

development) and Platform Heritage (as 

part of the Santa Ynez Unit 

development), including well 

abandonment, and including 

transportation in pipelines of product to 

shore, would be allowed to continue 

after sanctuary designation until those 

leases and lease units are terminated. 

Constructing and operating offshore 

platforms and pipelines also can cause 

direct impacts on natural, historical, 

and cultural resources, particularly from 

disturbance to the seafloor and benthic 

species. Those impacts would also be 

prevented because this regulation would 

not allow new oil and gas exploration, 

development, or production. Any 

construction, repair, replacement, or 

removal of existing oil and gas 

infrastructure that would disturb the 

submerged lands or potentially lead to 

discharges would require an ONMS 

authorization or other approval. 

Most if not all of the platforms and 

pipelines within the sanctuary are likely 

to be decommissioned and removed 

within 10 years of sanctuary 

designation.5 The prohibition on new 

oil and gas development would not 

preclude the removal of these structures 

and restoration, if necessary, or any 

damage caused by removal, although a 

sanctuary permit, authorization, or other 

approval would be required in order to 

allow disturbance to the submerged 

lands during decommissioning, 

removal, and restoration activities. If 

any structures were proposed to be left 

behind after facilities removal, NOAA 

would need to approve that structure 

through a sanctuary permit or 

authorization. NOAA would be 

integrally involved in the planning and 

conduct of such decommissioning, 

removal, and restoration activities for 

structures within the sanctuary. 

This prohibition would also not allow 

for development, including exploratory 

activities, of any seafloor minerals. 

While seafloor mining has not been 

proposed in this area, this regulation 

would ensure that the disturbance to 

benthic habitat and species likely to 

result from seafloor mining would not 

occur in the sanctuary. 

2. Prohibition on Discharges 

This prohibition on discharges 

(NOAA uses ‘‘discharge’’ in this rule to 

refer to both ‘‘discharge and deposit’’ as 

used in the regulation) has three main 

elements: prohibition on any discharge 

within or into the sanctuary; discharge 

from beyond the sanctuary boundary 

that subsequently enters and injures 

sanctuary resources; and discharges 

from cruise ships. Each is explained in 

separate paragraphs below. All three 

sub-elements of this prohibition are 

consistent with discharge prohibitions 

in adjacent national marine sanctuaries. 

The prohibition on discharges within 

or into the sanctuary is in recognition 

that various substances can be 

discharged from vessels or from 

infrastructure or individuals along the 

shoreline that can harm sanctuary 

resources or quality. The discharge 

regulations bolster existing authorities 

such as the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) that provide some, 

yet incomplete, protection of resources 

from the adverse effects of discharges. 

Establishing a cohesive regulatory 

framework across nearshore and 

offshore waters of the sanctuary will 

provide value to boaters and others 

using sanctuary waters. Section 4.2.1 of 

the final EIS contains a detailed 

discussion of water quality and 

discharges that constitute key sources of 

water pollution in the area, and a brief 

summary of key points is provided here. 

While sewage is largely well-regulated 

from onshore facilities, and while the 

EPA has established a No Discharge 

Zone within three miles of the 

California coastline, NOAA’s 

prohibition will complement this 

regulatory framework and apply 

throughout the entire geographic region 

of the sanctuary; it will also provide 

additional enforcement authority to 

protect sanctuary resources. Moreover, 

NOAA will commit staff time towards 

education and outreach to help promote 

compliance with this important 

regulation. Furthermore, the prohibition 

would extend throughout the sanctuary 

to ensure discharge of sewage from 

vessels does not cause acute or 

cumulative impacts on natural resources 

or water quality. 

Oil discharged from vessels or from 

shore can cause acute toxicity in 

organisms, and can foul feathers of 

seabirds, leading to illness or death. 

Discharging other debris from vessels, 

by accident or on purpose, can lead to 

long-term impacts on resources. A 

chronic accumulation of plastics in 

marine ecosystems, for instance, can 

lead to an accumulation of plastic in 

marine organisms including those that 

are eventually ingested by humans. 

NOAA is including some exceptions 

for this prohibition consistent with 

those exceptions at adjacent sanctuaries. 

For instance, NOAA is excepting 

discharge of fish, fish parts, chumming 

materials, or bait used in and resulting 

from lawful fishing activities within the 

sanctuary. NOAA is also excepting 

discharge of sewage waste from a vessel 

that has been treated by a Type I or 

Type II marine sanitation device, as 

these systems provide effective 

treatment for sewage as to mitigate any 

impact their discharge can have on 

marine resources. Normal vessel 

operations can also involve washing 

down the deck or the anchor, which is 

excepted provided the wash down 

qualifies as ‘‘clean’’ per the definition at 

15 CFR 922.11. There are also normal 

discharges from operating motorized 

vessels that are excepted, such as clean 

vessel engine cooling water, clean vessel 

generator water, and clean bilge water, 

as well as exhaust from an engine or 

generator. Provided that these 

discharges are clean, they may be 

discharged within or into the sanctuary. 

The more common threat to sanctuary 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83566 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

resources can come from oily bilge 

water, soiled by oil that drips or leaks 

into an engine compartment. Oily bilge 

water may not be discharged into the 

sanctuary under this prohibition, and 

would have to be disposed of at onshore 

pumpout stations. NOAA will 

coordinate with harbormasters to ensure 

existing onshore pumpout facilities 

remain operable, and, if necessary, to 

explore if other facilities are needed. 

NOAA is excepting the disposal of 

dredged material within the sanctuary at 

disposal sites approved by the EPA 

prior to designation. The sanctuary 

boundaries do not include the two 

known EPA-approved dredge disposal 

sites used for Morro Bay dredging. 

NOAA is not aware of any other such 

sites within the sanctuary. Nonetheless, 

this exception would allow an agency to 

demonstrate, after sanctuary 

designation, that a disposal site 

approved by the EPA existed prior to 

sanctuary designation. 

Within the sanctuary, NOAA will also 

consider allowing via permit the 

beneficial use of material removed from 

dredging Port San Luis, specifically to 

protect or restore habitat such as a 

sandy beach. The beneficial use of 

dredged material for habitat protection 

or restoration purposes is different from 

the disposal, or discarding, of dredged 

material. A proposed project involving 

the beneficial use of dredged material 

from Port San Luis may be eligible for 

approval by NOAA if the project 

demonstrates a sanctuary habitat 

protection or restoration purpose and if 

the permit requirements and criteria are 

met. 

NOAA is excepting routine discharges 

from U.S. Coast Guard operations, 

which is consistent with NOAA’s 

approach at two other national marine 

sanctuaries offshore California, Cordell 

Bank and Greater Farallones National 

Marine Sanctuaries. One part of the 

exception would allow U.S. Coast Guard 

vessels that lack sufficient holding tank 

capacity and lack a Type I or II marine 

sanitation device to discharge sewage 

and non-clean graywater beyond 3 nmi 

from shore. A second part of the 

exception would allow discharge of 

ammunition, pyrotechnics, and other 

material directly related to training from 

beyond 12 nmi from shore from U.S. 

Coast Guard vessels and aircraft 

conducting training activities for search 

and rescue and live ammunition fire in 

the sanctuary. NOAA recognizes that 

these exceptions are necessary to ensure 

existing U.S. Coast Guard patrols, 

operations, and training can be 

maintained in the new sanctuary. U.S. 

Coast Guard patrol vessels provide a 

tremendous benefit to NOAA by 

assisting with enforcement of national 

marine sanctuary regulations. Moreover, 

the U.S. Coast Guard is an essential 

element of marine safety to all mariners 

operating offshore in central California, 

and they also provide enforcement of 

other Federal laws, conduct drug 

smuggling interdiction activities, and 

protect the homeland. ONMS has 

developed plans with U.S. Coast Guard 

District 11 leadership through informal 

discussions and NMSA section 304(d) 

consultation to limit discharges into 

other west coast national marine 

sanctuaries and anticipates similar 

approaches could be explored for U.S. 

Coast Guard operations in the sanctuary. 

Therefore, NOAA considers the 

discharge exception for U.S. Coast 

Guard vessels appropriate. 

Finally, NOAA is including an 

exception that would allow discharges 

incidental and necessary to normal oil 

and gas production activities from 

Platforms Irene and Heritage into 

reservoirs of existing leases and lease 

units in effect at the time of sanctuary 

designation. These could include drill 

mud to maintain well pressure and 

control during drilling as well as other 

materials necessary to force oil and gas 

products from one part of the reservoir 

into producing wells. The last step in 

the life of an oil and gas well is to 

abandon the well, with the operator 

pumping cement into the well to 

prevent release of hydrocarbons in the 

future; this activity would be part of the 

exception. Use of the depleted 

reservoirs for injection or storage of any 

material not considered incidental and 

necessary to normal oil and gas 

production would not be covered by the 

exception but could be considered via 

permit processes. 

Discharges from beyond the boundary 

of the sanctuary would also be 

prohibited when those discharges 

subsequently enter the sanctuary and 

harm a sanctuary resource or quality. 

An example of this could be a spill from 

an onshore oil pipeline that flows down 

a creek, enters the sanctuary at the 

MHWL, and injures seabirds, fish, algae, 

or the sanctuary seafloor or other 

habitat. Unlike a discharge directly 

within or into the sanctuary, for a 

discharge to violate this prohibition, the 

discharge must injure a sanctuary 

resource or quality. This prohibition 

could also be applied to a spill or other 

discharge that originated from the 

marine environment and subsequently 

entered the sanctuary and injured a 

sanctuary resource or quality. The same 

exceptions that are included for the subelement prohibiting discharge directly 

within or into the sanctuary would also 

apply for a discharge from beyond the 

boundary, except for the exception for 

dredge disposal and the exception for 

discharges incidental and necessary to 

oil and gas production. NOAA intends 

that dredge disposal discharges beyond 

the boundary of the sanctuary need to 

be designed in such a manner that they 

do not enter the sanctuary and injure 

sanctuary resources or qualities. 

The third sub-element of this 

discharge regulation would prohibit 

discharge from cruise ships. Across 

most national marine sanctuaries, 

NOAA has applied consistent 

regulations that allow for fewer 

exceptions for cruise ship discharges 

than for other vessel discharges within 

or into sanctuaries because cruise ships 

can generate very large volumes of 

waste or other discharges. Even if 

treated, the volume of sewage and 

graywater, for instance, on a cruise ship 

of more than 2,000 passengers can reach 

several million gallons a day. Sewage 

discharge may contain bacteria or 

viruses that can cause disease in 

humans and wildlife, and can cause 

excessive growth and decomposition of 

oxygen-depleting plant life, resulting in 

harm or death to organisms. Section 

4.2.1 of the final EIS provides additional 

detail on these sorts of discharges. The 

only exceptions for cruise ships 

discharging within CHNMS would be 

for clean vessel engine cooling water, 

clean vessel generator cooling water, 

vessel engine or generator exhaust, clear 

bilge water, or anchor wash; in essence, 

discharges directly linked to propelling 

and operating the vessel itself. 

3. Prohibition on Drilling Into or 

Altering the Submerged Lands 

The seabed is a large and important 

habitat in the ecosystem within the 

sanctuary, and NOAA is prohibiting 

activities that would drill into, dredge, 

or otherwise alter or disturb the 

submerged lands of the sanctuary. This 

prohibition would include constructing, 

placing or abandoning any structure, 

material, or other matter on the 

submerged lands. This is a common 

regulatory prohibition that NOAA has 

applied to most national marine 

sanctuaries. The purpose is to prevent 

activities that cause harm to habitat and 

species on or near the seafloor, such as 

drilling into or dredging into the 

seafloor. The regulation includes 

exceptions for certain activities 

including disturbance during the 

conduct of lawful fishing activities, kelp 

harvesting, or anchoring a vessel. NOAA 

is also excepting from this prohibition 

the installation of an aid to navigation, 

as well as the repair, replacement, or 

other maintenance on existing 

structures, specifically docks, piers, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83567 

6https://nmssanctuaries.blob.core.windows.net/ 

sanctuaries-prod/media/archive/library/pdfs/ 

subcable_final_guidance_2011.pdf. 

breakwaters, or jetties. Also, NOAA is 

including an exception for maintenance 

dredging of the entrance channels for 

Port San Luis in existence at the time 

the sanctuary is designated. Vandenberg 

Space Force Base periodically conducts 

dredging near its coastal loading dock, 

within and adjacent to the small harbor 

excluded from the sanctuary, and 

typically relies on onshore disposal of 

the sand. Future dredging disturbance 

beyond the harbor exclusion, thus 

within the sanctuary, would be 

exempted with the general exemption 

for existing Department of Defense 

activities as well as via this exception 

for harbor maintenance dredging. 

NOAA has also included an exception 

to allow for drilling, maintaining, and 

abandoning wells incidental and 

necessary to normal oil and gas 

production activities pursuant to 

existing leases or lease units in effect at 

the time of sanctuary designation from 

Platforms Irene or Heritage. 

For these exceptions, NOAA has 

considered both the anticipated level of 

disturbance to the submerged lands and 

the purpose of the specified activities, 

most of which are related to maritime 

safety. The proposed exceptions are 

intended to further the policy of the 

NMSA to facilitate public and private 

uses of sanctuary resources to the extent 

compatible with the primary objective 

of resource protection. However, in 

order to conserve and protect 

populations of coral and sponge 

colonies, NOAA will not apply any of 

these exceptions within the Rodriguez 

Seamount Management Zone. The only 

exception that would apply within the 

Rodriguez Seamount Management Zone 

is the exception for seabed disturbance 

conducted during lawful fishing activity 

as regulated under the MSA. Note, 

however, that most of the Rodriguez 

Seamount Management Zone has been 

designated by the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council as groundfish 

essential fish habitat under the MSA, 

and areas in and around the zone are 

currently closed to bottom trawling 

under regulations at 50 CFR part 660, 

subpart C. 

Certain currently proposed or 

contemplated future activities could 

result in disturbance to the submerged 

lands in the area proposed for sanctuary 

designation. Procedures described 

below in the section on General Permits, 

Authorizations, Certifications, and 

Special Use Permits could be used to 

allow such an activity that is otherwise 

prohibited, provided that the applicable 

criteria and requirements are met and 

that any permit conditions can be 

satisfied by developers. Examples of 

such activities that would be prohibited 

by the seabed disturbance regulation 

unless a sanctuary general permit, 

ONMS authorization, or certification 

were issued include construction and 

operation of subsea electrical 

transmission cables from wind 

development in Federal waters beyond 

the sanctuary, or construction and 

operation of wind platforms in State 

waters near Vandenberg Space Force 

Base. Disturbance of submerged lands 

during repair and maintenance of 

existing structures not listed as being 

exempted, such as oil pipelines to shore 

from Platform Irene, or trans-oceanic 

fiber optic telecommunications cables, 

would also require a permit, 

authorization, or certification from 

NOAA before proceeding. 

With respect to subsea electrical 

transmission cables, BOEM cannot issue 

leases, rights of way, or easements for 

wind development within national 

marine sanctuaries per the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 

43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(10). As discussed in 

the final EIS, if, despite the boundaries 

selected for CHNMS, offshore wind 

developers require cable routing 

through the new sanctuary, NOAA 

intends to coordinate with BOEM on 

potential integration of NMSA 

authorities and BOEM’s OCSLA 

authorities. NOAA has well-tested 

procedures to review and allow 

scientific collection, site assessment, 

and characterization activities through a 

sanctuary general permit for research 

purposes under 15 CFR part 922, 

subpart D, and 15 CFR 922.233 of this 

rule. NOAA is revising its 2011 Policy 

and Permitting Guidelines for 

Submarine Cables 6 and should be 

releasing those in advance of any permit 

needs for subsea electrical transmission 

cables in this region, should developers 

propose cable routes within CHNMS 

(see Section IV.H.4 of this final rule 

preamble for more information). Wind 

developers and the public will have a 

chance to comment on those guidelines. 

Otherwise, NOAA’s selection of the 

Final Preferred Alternative provides the 

best opportunity to reduce the 

permitting needs and the risks offshore 

wind developers perceive with the 

sanctuary permit process. 

NOAA acknowledges that the 

telecommunications industry has 

already made a large investment in 

submarine fiber optic cables in the area, 

with more cables being possible in the 

future. The following most likely 

permitting approach would be relevant 

to telecommunications cables that may 

be proposed or presently lie within the 

final sanctuary boundary. The following 

would also be relevant to any other type 

of submarine cable that may be 

proposed within the final sanctuary 

boundary. Sanctuary general permits, 

authorizations, and special use permits 

are only issued after satisfaction of 

permit review criteria and necessary 

reviews under NEPA, NHPA, and other 

environmental compliance processes are 

completed. 

• For existing submarine cables 

within the sanctuary, NOAA could issue 

a certification of the existing Federal-, 

State- or locally-issued permit. If that 

underlying permit allows for repair and 

maintenance, or subsequent removal, 

NOAA can certify the permitted 

activity(ies) and avoid further permit 

review unless the underlying project or 

permit significantly changes. 

• For the installation of a submarine 

cable on the outer continental shelf 

within the sanctuary, NOAA could issue 

an ONMS authorization of a permit 

issued by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) under section 10 of 

the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 

403), under 15 CFR 922.36 and 

922.232(e) of this rule. NOAA is also 

evaluating whether there may be 

additional valid Federal, State, or local 

permits, licenses, or approvals that may 

also be authorized in this context. 

• For installation of cables within 

State waters of the sanctuary, NOAA 

could similarly consider authorizing, 

under 15 CFR 922.36 and 922.232(e) of 

this rule, a lease issued by the State 

Lands Commission or a coastal 

development permit issued by the 

California Coastal Commission. 

• Because historically USACE 

permits have had a limited time period 

and not applied to the entire lifetime of 

a cable project, NOAA has relied on the 

special use permit under section 310 of 

the NMSA to authorize the continued 

presence of the cable on or in the seabed 

within the sanctuary. However, as 

described in Section IV.H.4 of this final 

rule preamble, NOAA issued a Federal 

Register Notice on August 16, 2024 (89 

FR 66689) date that modified the SUP 

category for the continued presence of 

commercial subsea cables in the 

following way: for a two-year period 

beginning on August 16, 2024, the SUP 

category does not apply to sanctuaries 

designated after August 16, 2024, 

including Chumash Heritage National 

Marine Sanctuary. In other words, for 

the duration specified in the notice (and 

subject to extension), the continued 

presence of commercial subsea cables in 

Chumash Heritage National Marine 

Sanctuary is not subject to the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83568 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements of section 310 of the 

NMSA. 

• To allow any necessary 

maintenance and repair associated with 

a cable that might cause a disturbance 

of the submerged lands of the sanctuary, 

NOAA could rely on the initial ONMS 

authorization of the USACE section 10 

permit and/or State permit for the cable 

installation depending on whether it 

included future repair and maintenance. 

Alternatively, NOAA could issue an 

ONMS authorization of a separate 

USACE and/or State permit that is 

issued specifically for the maintenance 

and repair activity. As a third option for 

repair and maintenance of cables that 

pre-existed the sanctuary designation, 

NOAA could rely on its certification of 

the underlying permit if that permit 

authorized repair to and maintenance of 

the cable. 

NOAA has coordinated with USACE 

regarding this approach in Federal 

waters, and intends to continue that 

coordination throughout the designation 

process and as plans for cabling in the 

area are developed. Regular 

coordination with State agencies has 

occurred in the past and NOAA would 

conduct specific coordination meetings 

related to submarine cable permitting as 

necessary. In sum, NOAA’s final 

regulations contain several permitting 

mechanisms that provide NOAA with 

flexibility in its approach to any 

individual permitting request (see also 

section H of this preamble below and 

section 3.2.2 of the final EIS). 

Decommissioning and removal 

activities that would disturb the 

sanctuary seabed, such as oil and gas 

platform removal, would require a 

permit, authorization, or certification 

from NOAA before proceeding. Further, 

NOAA has already commented, or could 

comment in the future as appropriate, to 

Federal, State, and local agencies 

leading regulatory review of these 

actions; also, some of these examples 

have been discussed with BOEM and 

BSEE, as cooperating agencies under 

NEPA for this designation, given the 

relevance to their authorities. 

4. Prohibition on Possessing, Moving, 

Removing, or Injuring or Attempting To 

Possess, Move, Remove, or Injure a 

Sanctuary Historical Resource 

NOAA is prohibiting possessing, 

moving, removing, or injuring, or 

attempting to possess, move, remove, or 

injure a sanctuary historical resource, as 

defined at 15 CFR 922.11. This 

prohibition reduces the risk of direct 

harm to sanctuary historical and 

cultural resources. ‘‘Moving’’ and 

‘‘injuring’’ include any changes to the 

position or State of historical resources, 

as well as covering, uncovering, moving, 

or taking artifacts from a shipwreck, 

even if the artifacts are not located 

directly on a shipwreck. Sanctuary 

historical resources include cultural and 

archaeological resources and artifacts. 

This sanctuary prohibition would apply 

within both State and Federal waters of 

the sanctuary and is necessary to ensure 

conservation of historical resources on 

the more than 100 ship and aircraft 

wrecks thought to exist in the sanctuary, 

as well as other known or unknown 

historical resources, such as resources 

that may be associated with submerged 

Native settlements. 

5. Prohibition on Taking Any Marine 

Mammal, Sea Turtle or Bird Within or 

Above the Sanctuary 

This prohibition ensures conservation 

of important populations of marine 

mammals, sea turtles, and birds that are 

found in or above the sanctuary. The 

regulation would not apply should a 

person be authorized to take a marine 

mammal, sea turtle, or bird by NOAA or 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), or the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act (MBTA). The term ‘‘take’’ 

including ‘‘taking’’ is defined in the 

national sanctuary regulations at 15 CFR 

922.11. 

6. Prohibition on Possessing Within the 

Sanctuary (Regardless of Where Taken, 

Moved, or Removed From) Any Marine 

Mammal, Sea Turtle, or Bird 

This regulation is a companion to the 

preceding prohibition and would 

restrict a person’s ability to possess any 

marine mammal, sea turtle, or bird 

within the sanctuary, except as allowed 

by the MMPA, ESA, or MBTA, or as 

necessary for valid law enforcement 

purposes. 

7. Prohibition on Deserting a Vessel 

Aground, at Anchor, or Adrift in the 

Sanctuary or Leaving Harmful Matter 

Aboard a Grounded or Deserted Vessel 

in the Sanctuary 

Other adjacent national marine 

sanctuaries, similar to the proposed 

CHNMS, have considerable boating 

traffic along the coast and from local 

harbors. NOAA responds to dozens of 

vessel sinkings, groundings, and 

discharges each year in some of these 

national marine sanctuaries, many with 

significant response and restoration 

costs and damage to sanctuary 

resources. Along with responding to 

those incidents, NOAA has adopted this 

regulation as a means to prevent a 

vessel’s sinking, grounding, or other 

incident, given that prevention is much 

less expensive than responding to 

incidents and can optimally prevent 

impacts and damage to sanctuary 

resources as well as to private property. 

NOAA is prohibiting deserting a vessel 

aground within the sanctuary for the 

same reasons. In the definition of the 

term ‘‘deserting’’ in the national 

sanctuary regulations at 15 CFR 922.11, 

NOAA has clarified conditions that 

constitute deserting a vessel. Finally, 

with this proposed regulation NOAA is 

prohibiting leaving harmful matter 

aboard a grounded or deserted vessel in 

the sanctuary; the intent is to minimize 

additional damage to sanctuary 

resources. The sanctuary regulations at 

15 CFR 922.11 also define ‘‘harmful 

matter.’’ 

8. Prohibition on Attracting Any White 

Shark Within the Sanctuary 

White sharks function as a key species 

in coastal ecosystems in three broad 

areas in the world, with California and 

Baja California forming one of those 

population centers. Several different 

areas within the sanctuary have 

important populations of adult and subadult white sharks, and may offer 

linkage to other white shark aggregation 

areas in CINMS, MBNMS, and Greater 

Farallones National Marine Sanctuary 

(GFNMS). Including this regulation 

provides similar levels of protection to 

these central California white shark 

aggregation sites within CHNMS by 

preventing harm or behavioral 

disturbance to white sharks. The 

regulation applies the definition of 

‘‘attract’’ in the national sanctuary 

regulations at 15 CFR 922.11. The 

prohibition against attracting white 

sharks is intended to address 

harassment and disturbance related to 

human interaction from research 

activities directed at white sharks or 

shark diving programs known generally 

as adventure tourism, or from 

recreational boaters who may approach 

a white shark. NOAA has concluded 

these activities can degrade the natural 

environment, impacting the species as a 

whole, or adversely impacting 

individual sharks from repeated 

encounters with humans and boats. A 

similar prohibition against attracting 

great white sharks was promulgated for 

MBNMS in 1996 and GFNMS in 2008, 

and, at those sanctuaries, NOAA has not 

observed the inadvertent attraction of 

white sharks from lawful fishing 

activities. NOAA would have the ability 

to issue permits for activities that 

involve attracting a white shark if the 

permit procedures and requirements are 

met, as described below. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83569 

9. Prohibition on Moving, Removing, 

Taking, Collecting, Catching, 

Harvesting, Disturbing, Breaking, 

Cutting or Otherwise Injuring a 

Sanctuary Resource Located Below 

1,500 ft. Water Depth Within the 

Rodriguez Seamount Management Zone; 

Prohibition on Possessing Any 

Sanctuary Resource, the Source of 

Which Is Below 1,500 ft. Water Depth 

Within the Rodriguez Seamount 

Management Zone 

NOAA is adopting a regulatory 

framework for Rodriguez Seamount that 

is similar to its approach for Davidson 

Seamount in MBNMS. With the CHNMS 

regulations, NOAA is creating the 

Rodriguez Seamount Management Zone 

to ensure conservation of diverse and 

rare resources found on the seamount, 

including coral and sponges and other 

invertebrates, or living in the water 

column immediately above it. The 

seamount has seafloor features that 

suggest it may have been exposed above 

sea level millions of years ago, and its 

uncommon geomorphologic and benthic 

habitat features could be damaged 

without further protection. The top of 

the seamount is at approximately 2,000 

ft. water depth, so under the regulation 

there will be a buffer of 500 ft. above the 

top of the seamount to protect 

organisms that migrate above the 

seamount diurnally. 

This prohibition does not apply to 

lawful fishing activity that is regulated 

under the MSA and its implementing 

regulations. NOAA, through 

conservation actions under the MSA, 

has prohibited bottom trawling on and 

around Rodriguez Seamount since June 

2006. Additional protections provided 

to the seamount by the sanctuary 

regulations would protect the high 

biodiversity and deep-sea habitat on the 

seamount. Long life histories and slow 

growth of deep-sea communities mean 

that these habitats have long recovery 

times following injuries and adverse 

impacts; additional protections for 

resources 1,500 ft. below sea level 

(roughly 500 ft. above the top of the 

seamount) will add critical additional 

risk mitigation for these sensitive 

resources. 

10. Prohibition on Introducing or 

Otherwise Releasing From Within or 

Into the Sanctuary an Introduced 

Species, Except Striped Bass Released 

During Catch and Release Fishing 

Activity 

NOAA is prohibiting introducing or 

otherwise releasing an introduced 

species, as that term is defined in the 

national sanctuary regulations at 15 CFR 

922.11, into the sanctuary. NOAA has 

adopted the same introduced species 

regulation at other national marine 

sanctuaries offshore of California to 

prohibit the release of an introduced 

species into the sanctuary. Releases and 

subsequent spreading of introduced 

species have devastated marine 

ecosystems across the globe; most 

notably the alga Sargassum horneri has 

become a disruptive introduced species 

at nearby CINMS and has the potential 

to cause ecological and economic harm. 

This and other introduced species are 

potentially spread by vessels and have 

proliferated in the Santa Barbara 

Channel. Removing or otherwise 

eradicating introduced species once 

they have established local populations 

is extremely difficult; hence, 

preventative and deterrence measures 

offer added benefits against the harms 

caused from introducing such species 

within national marine sanctuaries. The 

exemption for catch and release of 

striped bass recognizes the State of 

California has size limits for striped 

bass, an introduced but now established 

species harvested by recreational 

fishermen. Releasing a striped bass will 

not be a violation of this prohibition. 

11. Prohibition on Interfering With, 

Obstructing, or Preventing an 

Investigation, Search, or Other 

Enforcement Activity 

NOAA adopts a regulation, similar to 

regulations at other local national 

marine sanctuaries, to prohibit 

interfering with various sanctuary 

enforcement activities. This regulation 

will assist in NOAA’s enforcement of 

the sanctuary regulations and strengthen 

sanctuary management. 

E. Exemption for Emergencies 

The prohibitions for CHNMS would 

not apply to any activity necessary to 

respond to emergencies that threaten 

life, property, or the environment. 

However, this exemption for 

emergencies does not apply to the 

prohibitions on the development of oil, 

gas, or minerals; attracting a white 

shark; introducing an introduced 

species; or interfering with an 

investigation or other enforcement 

activity. 

F. Department of Defense Exemption 

NOAA is establishing a broad 

exemption to allow existing activities 

carried out or approved by the various 

branches of the Department of Defense 

(DoD) as specifically identified in 

Chapter 4.9 or Appendix I to the final 

EIS. NOAA has coordinated with the 

DoD to include in Appendix I to the 

final EIS a list of the existing activities 

that occur in or immediately adjacent to 

the sanctuary that would qualify for this 

exemption. 

The area overlaps with the Point 

Mugu sea range and is adjacent to 

Vandenberg Space Force Base, which 

conducts both military missions from 

the base as well as hosting commercial 

space launches. All launches from the 

base or within the proposed sanctuary 

that are carried out or approved by DoD 

would be included in this exemption. 

With respect to commercial and civil 

launches from the base and associated 

activities, DoD has informed NOAA 

that: 

• DoD approval is required for these 

activities. 

• DoD conducts NEPA reviews for 

these activities. Other Federal agencies, 

such as the Federal Aviation 

Administration and/or the U.S. Coast 

Guard, may be cooperating agencies for 

purposes of these NEPA reviews. 

• DoD also conducts all required 

natural and cultural resource 

consultations for these activities. 

• Civil partners and commercial 

providers conducting these activities are 

required to comply with DoD best 

management practices. 

NOAA advises that based on public 

comments received, additional 

coordination with DoD, and NOAA’s 

experience administering the National 

Marine Sanctuary System, pursuant to 

NEPA and the Administrative Procedure 

Act, final EIS Appendix I reflects minor 

changes to the list of exempted activities 

based on DoD’s administrative record of 

environmental compliance for the 

exempted activities. These minor 

conforming changes were made to 

ensure that the list of exempted 

activities in Appendix I reflects the 

most current information as to the 

existing activities that DoD carries out 

or approves and includes references to 

the environmental compliance materials 

that DoD provided. As such, these 

minor changes are consistent with the 

purposes of the proposed rule and do 

not alter the no adverse impacts 

conclusion in final EIS Section 4.9. 

New DoD activities that would not 

otherwise be prohibited by the CHNMS 

regulations would not require an 

amendment to the list of exempted 

activities. For those new DoD activities 

that would otherwise be prohibited by 

the CHNMS regulations, NOAA has 

included in the regulations a process 

whereby the ONMS Director, upon 

consultation with the appropriate 

counterpart at the DoD, can also exempt 

such new activities carried out by the 

DoD. An activity is considered to be a 

new activity, and not covered by the 

exemption for existing DoD activities, if 

the activity is new or modified in any 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83570 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

way (including change in location, 

frequency, duration, or technology used) 

from the activities described or listed in 

section 4.9 or Appendix I, and the 

activity is likely to cause adverse effects 

on sanctuary resources or qualities that 

are substantially greater or different in 

kind than the effects of the activities 

described or listed in section 4.9 or 

Appendix I. 

A new activity that is not covered by 

the exemption for existing DoD 

activities could be conducted if a 

sanctuary general permit or ONMS 

authorization, as applicable, were 

issued for the proposed activity. In 

addition, NOAA commits to working 

with the DoD to consider exempting 

new activities from the CHNMS 

regulatory prohibitions through 

subsequent rulemaking procedures, for 

instance in subsequent management 

plan and regulatory review processes for 

CHNMS. Any changes to the list of 

exempted DoD activities could only 

occur after compliance with all 

applicable laws, such as the 

Administrative Procedure Act and 

NEPA, as necessary, and after public 

notice and comment, as applicable. 

NOAA is willing to work with the 

DoD to create a mechanism whereby 

new activities that are likely to injure 

sanctuary resources, and thereby also 

require section 304(d) consultation, 

could be handled in a single, 

consolidated review. 

This final regulation also contains 

language common to regulations for 

other national marine sanctuaries about 

obligations of the DoD in the event an 

incident results in threatened or actual 

destruction, loss of, or injury to a 

sanctuary resource or quality. NOAA 

recognizes that this broad exemption is 

necessary to ensure military readiness 

for the DoD to conduct existing training, 

operations, and military readiness 

activities in the area proposed to be 

designated as a national marine 

sanctuary. The United States military 

has been able to maintain readiness and 

conduct training and other operations in 

other national marine sanctuaries based 

on similar broad exemptions. 

G. Emergency Regulations 

NOAA is not including any sanctuaryspecific regulation to allow for 

development of emergency regulations 

to address urgent threats to sanctuary 

resources. Rather, the emergency 

regulation provision included in the 

regulations of general applicability, 

which apply to all national marine 

sanctuaries (see 15 CFR 922.7), would 

also apply to CHNMS. Emergency 

regulations are used when there is an 

imminent risk to sanctuary resources 

and a temporary regulation or 

prohibition is necessary to prevent or 

minimize the destruction or loss of 

those resources, or otherwise minimize 

the imminent risk of such destruction, 

loss, or injury. 

H. General Permits, Certifications, 

Authorizations, Special Use Permits, 

Memorandums of Agreement 

1. Sanctuary General Permits 

NOAA is including authority to issue 

sanctuary general permits to allow 

certain activities that would otherwise 

violate prohibitions in the sanctuary’s 

regulations. This language would not 

allow issuance of a sanctuary general 

permit for oil, gas, or mineral 

exploration, development, or 

production; introducing an introduced 

species; or interfering with an 

investigation or other enforcement 

activity; or as further limited in 

§ 922.232(f) of the proposed regulations. 

National marine sanctuary programwide regulations describe, at 15 CFR 

922.30, different purposes for which a 

sanctuary general permit could be 

issued, three of which would apply to 

this proposed sanctuary: ‘‘Research— 

activities that constitute scientific 

research or scientific monitoring of a 

national marine sanctuary resource or 

quality,’’ ‘‘Education—activities that 

enhance public awareness, 

understanding, or appreciation of a 

national marine sanctuary or national 

marine sanctuary resource or quality,’’ 

and ‘‘Management—activities that assist 

in managing a national marine 

sanctuary.’’ 

NOAA is adding to the list at § 922.30, 

an additional purpose specific to 

CHNMS for which a sanctuary general 

permit could be issued: ‘‘Native 

American cultural or ceremonial 

activities—activities within Chumash 

Heritage National Marine Sanctuary that 

will promote or enhance local Native 

American cultural or ceremonial 

activities; or will promote or enhance 

education and training related to local 

Native American cultural or ceremonial 

activities.’’ NOAA has adopted this 

general permit category to address a 

need identified during scoping. 

Specifically, NOAA received a scoping 

comment letter stating that Indigenous 

peoples should be allowed to conduct 

the following cultural activities in the 

proposed sanctuary, subject to all other 

applicable law: collecting culturallysignificant resources including bones, 

feathers, shells, animals, and plants; 

burials of cremated remains in 

biodegradable receptacles; survey and 

other work at submerged Indigenous 

living sites, like villages or caves, 

including collecting artifacts like stone 

bowls or pestles. ONMS may be able to 

allow some of these activities to occur 

within the proposed sanctuary under 

existing authorities and the current 

general permit categories at § 922.30 

(e.g., a research or education permit may 

be appropriate to authorize survey 

activities at submerged Indigenous 

living sites). However, ONMS is 

including this additional general permit 

category for CHNMS to ensure that 

activities to promote or enhance Native 

American cultural or ceremonial 

activities may be allowed to occur 

within the sanctuary, consistent with 

the purpose and need of the 

designation. The permit category will be 

recipient neutral; i.e., any person, as 

that term is defined in 15 CFR 922.11, 

would be able to apply for a permit 

under the proposed category. However, 

permits may only be issued for those 

activities that will promote or enhance 

local Native American cultural or 

ceremonial activities or education and 

training related to such activities. 

NOAA has determined that this permit 

category would further the purposes and 

policies of the NMSA by facilitating 

uses of sanctuary resources compatible 

with the primary objective of resource 

protection, and by enhancing public 

awareness, understanding, appreciation, 

and wise and sustainable use of the 

historical, cultural, and archaeological 

resources of the proposed sanctuary. 

The regulations will require 

compliance with 15 CFR part 922, 

subpart D, in the national regulations for 

permit application processes, review 

procedures, amendments, and other 

permitting stipulations. These national 

permitting regulations include a list of 

factors NOAA considers in deciding 

whether or not to issue the permit, such 

as whether the activity must be 

conducted within the sanctuary, or 

whether the activity will be compatible 

with the primary objective of protection 

of sanctuary resources and qualities. 

NOAA will be able to impose specific 

terms and conditions through a permit 

as appropriate. 

2. Certifications 

Under 16 U.S.C. 1434(c), NOAA may 

not terminate any valid lease, permit, 

license or right of subsistence use or 

access (‘‘permit or right’’) that is in 

existence on the date of designation of 

a sanctuary. However, NOAA may 

regulate the exercise of such permit or 

right consistent with the purposes for 

which the sanctuary is designated. Preexisting activities specifically 

authorized by a valid Federal, State, or 

local lease, permit, license, or rights of 

subsistence use or access might be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83571 

occurring within CHNMS that would 

otherwise be prohibited by sanctuary 

regulations. Therefore, NOAA has 

included § 922.234 to describe the 

process by which it could certify an 

existing valid lease, permit, license, or 

right of subsistence use or access within 

the sanctuary boundaries, consistent 

with 16 U.S.C. 1434(c) and 15 CFR 

922.10. In compliance with the NMSA, 

the regulations at § 922.234 State that 

certification is the process by which 

such activities existing prior to the 

designation of the sanctuary that violate 

sanctuary prohibitions may be allowed 

to continue. NOAA may, however, 

further regulate the exercise of such 

activities by applying additional terms 

and conditions as a condition of the 

certification to achieve the purposes for 

which the sanctuary would be 

designated. Requests for certifying 

permitted existing uses would have to 

be received by NOAA within 120 days 

of the effective date of the designation. 

As referenced in the proposed rule 

preamble, NOAA further clarifies that 

pre-existing structures on the 

submerged lands of the sanctuary, 

including pipelines, cables, and oil and 

gas structures, are subject to the 

certification requirements. 

3. ONMS Authorizations 

Pursuant to § 922.36 in the national 

regulations and § 922.232(e) in the 

CHNMS regulations, NOAA will have 

the authority to consider allowing an 

activity otherwise prohibited by 

§ 922.232 if such activity is specifically 

authorized by any valid Federal, State, 

or local lease, permit, license, approval, 

or other authorization issued after the 

effective date of sanctuary designation. 

This ‘‘ONMS authorization authority’’ 

will apply to most of the proposed 

prohibitions as outlined in § 922.232(e) 

and as limited in § 922.232(f). However, 

NOAA could not issue an authorization 

to allow for exploration, development, 

or production of oil, gas, or minerals, or 

for interfering with an investigation or 

other enforcement action. In general, an 

ONMS authorization could not be 

issued to allow for an introduction of an 

introduced species; however, NOAA 

proposes a process by which an ONMS 

authorization for aquaculture projects 

raising an introduced species approved 

by the State of California could be 

issued after making certain findings. 

NOAA has previously adopted a 

memorandum of agreement (MOA) with 

the State of California for considering 

aquaculture projects raising an 

introduced species in State waters of 

MBNMS and intends to update that 

MOA to address future aquaculture 

projects raising an introduced species 

that may be proposed within CHNMS. 

4. Special Use Permits 

NOAA has the authority under the 

NMSA to issue special use permits 

(SUPs) at national marine sanctuaries, 

as established by section 310 of the 

NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1441) and by 15 CFR 

922.31. SUPs can be used to authorize 

specific activities in a sanctuary if such 

authorization is necessary to establish 

conditions of access to, and use of, any 

sanctuary resource or to promote public 

use and understanding of a sanctuary 

resource. Section 310 of the NMSA 

establishes four requirements for SUPs: 

(1) activities must be compatible with 

the purposes for which the sanctuary is 

designated and with protection of 

sanctuary resources; (2) SUPs shall not 

authorize the conduct of any activity for 

a period of more than five years unless 

otherwise renewed; (3) activities carried 

out under the SUP must be conducted 

in a manner that does not destroy, cause 

the loss of, or injure sanctuary 

resources; and (4) permittees are 

required to purchase and maintain 

comprehensive general liability 

insurance, or post an equivalent bond, 

against claims arising out of activities 

conducted under the SUP and to agree 

to hold the United States harmless 

against such claims. The NMSA 

authorizes NOAA to assess and collect 

fees for the conduct of any activity 

under an SUP, including costs incurred, 

or expected to be incurred, in issuing 

the permit and the fair market value use 

of sanctuary resources; for instance, for 

use of the seabed to protect a buried 

cable from anchor damage. 

Implementing regulations at 15 CFR 

922.35 provide additional detail on 

assessment of fees for SUPs. Like with 

sanctuary general permits, NOAA can 

place conditions on SUPs specific to the 

activity being permitted. 

The activities that may qualify for a 

SUP are set forth in the Federal Register 

(78 FR 25957 (May 3, 2013); 82 FR 

42298 (Sept. 7, 2017)). Categories of 

SUPs may be changed or added to 

through public notice, and no SUP may 

be issued for any category of activity 

unless ONMS has published a notice in 

the Federal Register that such category 

of activity is subject to the requirements 

of section 310 of the NMSA. NOAA is 

not proposing any new SUP category as 

part of the designation of CHNMS. 

However, as memorialized in a 

Federal Register Notice issued on 

August 16, 2024 date (89 FR 66689), 

NOAA modified the SUP category for 

the continued presence of commercial 

subsea cables in the following way: for 

a two-year period beginning on August 

16, 2024 date, the SUP category does not 

apply to sanctuaries designated after 

August 16, 2024 date. In other words, 

via this notice, NOAA informed the 

public that for the duration specified in 

the notice, the continued presence of 

commercial subsea cables in sanctuaries 

designated after August 16, 2024 date is 

not subject to the requirements of 

Section 310 of the NMSA. The duration 

specified in the notice may be further 

extended via subsequent Federal 

Register Notices. The purpose of this 

modification is to afford NOAA 

adequate time to evaluate the need for 

updating this SUP category, to publish 

any proposed updates to the category 

and/or to implement guidance for the 

category, to consider and respond to 

public comment, and to finalize any 

updates to the category. NOAA will 

publish Federal Register Notices of any 

such subsequent proposed or final 

updates. See the Notice (89 FR 66689) 

for more information. (Need to update 

based on content of FRN). 

As further described in the August 16, 

2024 date Federal Register Notice, the 

modification of the SUP category for the 

continued presence of commercial 

subsea cables was effective 

immediately, however, at the time of 

modification, NOAA also initiated a 

request for public comments on its 

evaluation of this SUP category 

generally. Any comments received 

pursuant to that request will be 

considered and addressed when NOAA 

publishes any proposed updates to the 

SUP category and/or to implementing 

guidance for the category. See 89 FR 

66689 for additional information. 

SUP categories that are potentially 

relevant to known activities at the 

proposed CHNMS include the discharge 

of cremated human remains, and 

discharges from fireworks displays. 

5. Memoranda of Agreement 

NOAA is including a section of the 

regulations describing two memoranda 

of agreement it will enter into for 

interagency coordination to address 

regulatory or statutory issues— 

introduced species aquaculture projects 

and the Sunken Military Craft Act. 

Regarding introduced species, NOAA 

has previously established an agreement 

to coordinate with State agencies on 

review of aquaculture projects that 

could include introduced species into 

MBNMS and GFNMS. NOAA would 

revise and update that to include 

CHNMS. This regulation also 

acknowledges that sunken military craft 

in CHNMS will continue to be 

administered by the respective Secretary 

concerned pursuant to the Sunken 

Military Craft Act. NOAA will enter into 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83572 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

7https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/ 

whales-and-carbon-sequestration-can-whales-storecarbon. 

a Memorandum of Agreement with the 

appropriate agencies regarding 

collaboration on implementing the 

Sunken Military Craft Act. The ONMS 

Director will request approval from the 

respective Secretary concerned for any 

terms and conditions of ONMS 

authorizations that may involve sunken 

military craft in CHNMS. 

I. Other Conforming Amendments 

The general regulations in 15 CFR 

part 922, subpart A, for general 

information and 15 CFR part 922, 

subpart D, for National Marine 

Sanctuary permitting are also amended 

so that the regulations are accurate and 

up-to-date. The modified sections to 

conform to adding a new sanctuary are: 

• Section 922.1 Purposes and 

applicability of the regulations 

• Section 922.4 Boundaries 

• Section 922.5 Allowed activities 

• Section 922.6 Prohibited or 

otherwise regulated activities 

• Section 922.30 National Marine 

Sanctuary general permits 

• Section 922.36 National Marine 

Sanctuary authorizations 

• Section 922.37 Appeals of 

permitting decisions 

V. Response to Comments 

This final rule includes NOAA’s 

responses to some comments from 

Appendix A of the final EIS. These 

comments and responses are included 

in this preamble because they address 

the significant issues raised in public 

comments on the proposed rule and 

offer additional information about why 

certain changes were made to the rule, 

the terms of designation, the 

regulations, or the management plan. 

The final rule retains the numbering/ 

naming of the comment from Appendix 

A so readers can track the comments 

that have been included in this 

preamble and more efficiently find other 

related comments/responses in 

Appendix A that have not been 

included in this preamble. As such, 

cross-references have been retained here 

for completeness. For a full scope of all 

of the comments received on the draft 

designation documents, including the 

draft EIS and the draft management 

plan, and their responses, please review 

Appendix A of the final EIS. 

1. Comment GN–1: An overwhelming 

majority of comments (>98%) voiced 

support for the proposed sanctuary, its 

goals and objectives, and the proposed 

regulations. Commenters encouraged 

NOAA to proceed with the sanctuary 

designation process due to the 

importance of resources in the study 

area and the need to provide additional 

protection of these resources. 

Response: NOAA agrees with the 

view that this sanctuary area contains 

nationally significant natural, historical, 

and cultural resources worthy of 

protection. Numerous opportunities 

exist to collaborate on the management 

of this area with a diversity of Native 

American Tribes and Indigenous 

organizations. The new sanctuary would 

help both the State and Federal 

governments achieve their biodiversity 

conservation goals that have been 

established. The sanctuary would 

promote various forms of engagement 

with and use of the sanctuary and its 

resources (e.g., cultural activities, 

fishing, recreation, and research), while 

establishing additional regulations and 

non-regulatory programs to conserve the 

area’s nationally-significant resources. It 

would help promote mitigation and 

adaptations in response to climate 

change, from establishing conservation 

actions, to promoting ‘‘blue carbon’’ 

ecosystem components, such as kelp 

forests and whale populations.7 NOAA, 

working in collaboration with partners, 

would bring outreach activities, 

education programs, and research and 

monitoring to aid our understanding of 

the area and promote co-stewardship. 

2. Comment GN–2: General 

opposition to the overall sanctuary 

process was expressed for a variety of 

reasons, including the potential that it 

could lead to additional regulations or 

potentially restricted access. 

Response: NOAA has followed a very 

deliberate public process for designation 

of the new sanctuary. The process is 

consistent with NOAA’s contemporary 

practice for designating other national 

marine sanctuaries and consistent with 

the provisions of the NMSA, in 

particular Section 304 (Procedures for 

Designation and Implementation), 16 

U.S.C. 1434. Preceding the designation 

process, NOAA conducted an extensive 

public review at the five-year interval 

for the original nomination of the 

sanctuary; the proposed designation 

process began in November, 2021 with 

publication of the Notice of Intent (NOI) 

to conduct scoping and prepare an EIS, 

which provided for additional 

opportunity for public input during the 

scoping phase. NOAA received more 

than 14,300 comments and 22,000 

comments, respectively, in these two 

public processes, nearly all in favor of 

designation and additional protections. 

Many of the comments formed the basis 

of alternatives and regulations proposed 

for designation. NOAA continued this 

highly public process with various 

public workshops preceding the release 

of the draft designation documents. 

More than 110,000 comments were 

received on the draft designation 

materials. NOAA has diligently 

reviewed, considered, and responded to 

the issues raised in those comments 

throughout this appendix. 

The designation materials include the 

rule, the final EIS and the final 

management plan. These materials have 

been revised through the extensive 

public process outlined above. Only the 

regulations that are necessary to address 

threats to sanctuary resources are 

included in the designation. See also the 

Regulations and Permitting section of 

comments and responses. Regarding 

concerns about restricted access, 

NOAA’s sanctuary regulations impose 

no limits on public access to sanctuary 

waters (see response to Comment SE–8), 

and will encourage responsible use and 

enjoyment of the sanctuary (see, for 

example, the management plan’s Blue 

Economy Action Plan). 

3. Comment GN–6: There is a concern 

that once NOAA is given control, 

nothing can stop it from imposing more 

restrictions like eliminating recreational 

uses that belong to everyone. No 

specific human uses should be banned. 

Most of what NOAA says it will allow 

can be done right now, without giving 

NOAA control of the oceans and 

beaches that belong to everyone. 

Response: NOAA has only developed 

regulations for the sanctuary to restrict 

or eliminate human activities that can 

harm sanctuary resources. Any limits on 

recreation or other activities would be to 

reduce harm to resources, such as 

discharge of untreated sewage from a 

recreational vessel. Sensible exceptions 

are included in the regulations for 

activities that on their face could be 

prohibited, but for which NOAA has 

concluded they could nonetheless 

continue, such as exceptions to the 

submerged lands disturbance regulation 

for anchoring a vessel. The proposed 

exceptions are intended to facilitate 

public and private uses of sanctuary 

resources to the extent compatible with 

the primary objective of resource 

protection. Any future change in these 

regulations would require that NOAA 

conduct a public review process that 

mirrors the extensive process it has 

undertaken for this initial designation of 

the sanctuary. 

4. Comment BO–1: NOAA should 

close the gap created between Cambria 

and Montan ̃ a de Oro, including the 

waters off Morro Rock, by designating 

the final sanctuary with the Initial 

Boundary Alternative or Alternative 1 

rather than the Agency-Preferred 

Alternative. Many reasons were given 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83573 

including the area’s important 

ecological characteristics and 

connectivity to other sanctuaries, sacred 

significance to Indigenous communities, 

and the importance for NOAA to have 

regulatory oversight for offshore wind 

and other types of uses or development 

and overall resource protection in this 

area. 

Response: NOAA acknowledges that a 

final sanctuary boundary that originates 

at the southern end of MBNMS (at 

Cambria) and extends southward, 

‘‘closing the gap,’’ as achieved by the 

Initial Boundary Alternative or 

Alternative 1, would protect important 

ecological characteristics, historical 

resources, and sacred Indigenous 

heritage resources in that area. However, 

as discussed in detail in Section 5.4.9 in 

the final EIS, NOAA has included a 

Final Preferred Alternative with the 

coastal boundary and offshore waters of 

Alternative 4, plus Sub-Alternative 5b, 

plus a small area to more fully protect 

the Santa Lucia Bank that had been part 

of the Initial Boundary Alternative (see 

Figure 5–1 in Section 5.4.9 of the final 

EIS). This alternative has been 

identified after thorough consideration 

of public and Indigenous community 

comments, NOAA’s responses to those 

comments, Administration priorities, 

and consultation among Federal 

agencies. 

The reasons for further reducing the 

final sanctuary boundary at this time 

center around clarifying information 

provided by the three Morro Bay 

offshore wind energy lease holders 

during the public comment period, and 

NOAA’s consideration of this 

information in light of renewable energy 

and conservation goals, the purposes 

and policies of the NMSA, and the 

purpose and need of the proposed 

sanctuary. NOAA also considered 

public comments supporting offshore 

wind energy development, as well as 

the State of California’s support for 

sanctuary designation and the State’s 

goal for transitioning to 100% clean 

energy. In public comments, the 

leaseholders identified a need to 

develop between 15–24 subsea electrical 

transmission cables between offshore 

leases and two landing sites at Morro 

Bay and Diablo Canyon grid 

connections. Presently they estimate 

landing roughly half of the cables at 

each grid connection. The three 

leaseholders’ current design 

requirements may mean they will seek 

access to a portion of the seabed 

between 30–45 miles wide, narrowing 

as cables approach land and shallower 

water. Their comments on the draft EIS 

note that subsea electrical transmission 

cables need broad gradual bends (rather 

than sharp turns) and need to cross 

other cables at largely 90-degree angles. 

With these parameters, all of the 

boundaries analyzed in the EIS for 

CHNMS would be expected to require 

cable routing from the Morro Bay leases 

through the sanctuary to shore, except 

for Alternative 4. While the draft EIS 

anticipated the leaseholders may need 

to route cables to DCPP and that NOAA 

could rely on its permitting process to 

review such cable placement, the lease 

holders expressed persistent concerns. 

Several of the Morro Bay leaseholders 

expressed persistent concerns with the 

NOAA permit process for submarine 

cables and whether or not, in the end, 

they would be able to obtain permit 

approvals from NOAA to construct 15– 

24 subsea electrical transmission cables 

within the sanctuary from the offshore 

leases to onshore grid connections. They 

also expressed concerns that existing 

sanctuary permitting procedures could 

jeopardize their ability to obtain 

financing for their development, and 

they sought to avoid the introduction of 

any permitting risk that NOAA might be 

unable in the future to approve one, 

several or all permit requests for cables 

in the sanctuary. 

In considering an area for designation, 

the NMSA requires NOAA to, ‘‘enhance 

public awareness, understanding, 

appreciation, and wise and sustainable 

use of the marine environment . . .,’’ 16 

U.S.C. 1431(b)(4), and to evaluate, 

among other factors, the manageability 

of the area, the negative impacts 

produced by management restrictions 

on resources development, and 

socioeconomic effects of sanctuary 

designation. 16 U.S.C. 1433(b). At this 

final designation phase, NOAA has 

reconsidered offshore wind industry 

concerns regarding the sanctuary in the 

particular context of the Morro Bay 

leases, in conjunction with existing 

infrastructure and competing uses of the 

proposed sanctuary area, and in light of 

the purposes and policies of the NMSA 

as referenced above. including any 

potential, negative impacts produced by 

Sanctuary management restrictions on 

resources development, as well as the 

sustainable use of the marine resources 

to support renewable energy, climate 

change mitigation, and conservation 

goals. NOAA has identified this 

adjusted boundary, which would further 

the purpose and need of the sanctuary 

designation while also supporting 

renewable energy goals of the 

Administration and the State of 

California through allowing offshore 

wind developers to complete siting and 

permitting for subsea electrical 

transmission cables from the three 

Morro Bay offshore wind leases to 

landing sites at both Morro Bay and 

Diablo Canyon without having to route 

cables through the new sanctuary, given 

their permitting uncertainty concerns as 

described above. The Final Preferred 

Alternative would be the most 

manageable boundary at this time and 

would allow the new sanctuary to focus 

on numerous core activities outlined in 

the management plan without the need 

to focus resources on myriad permitting 

issues related to offshore wind 

development. If NOAA decides to adopt 

sanctuary protections at a later time for 

additional areas (see the final 

management plan’s Boundary 

Adjustment Action Plan), such a process 

would be informed by an improved, 

more certain understanding of offshore 

wind development in this area. 

The Final Preferred Alternative meets 

the purposes and need for the 

designation as described in Chapter 2 of 

the final EIS, and it meets the 

designation standards identified in 

Section 303 of the NMSA. NOAA also 

acknowledges and affirms its 

commitment to respecting Indigenous 

Knowledge and promoting costewardship in this area while 

advancing climate and conservation 

goals. This final sanctuary boundary 

would allow protection of nationallysignificant natural, ecological, 

historical, and cultural resources along 

116 miles of the California coast, out to 

nearly 60 miles from shore and a 

maximum depth of 11,580 feet. The 

total area within the Final Preferred 

Alternative is 4,543 square miles, 

making it one of the largest national 

marine sanctuaries in the National 

Marine Sanctuary System, if the Final 

Preferred Alternative is selected. 

The draft EIS and the proposed rule 

provided notice to the public that, based 

on public comments received on the 

draft designation documents and 

NOAA’s experience administering the 

National Marine Sanctuary System, 

pursuant to NEPA and the 

Administrative Procedure Act, NOAA 

may choose to identify an alternative in 

the final rule and final EIS that is within 

the geographic and regulatory scope of 

the alternatives considered in the draft 

EIS. Alternatives 4 and 5b along with 

the small, additional area included over 

the Santa Lucia Bank (analyzed in the 

Initial Boundary Alternative), and 

impacts associated with these 

alternatives, are thoroughly discussed in 

the draft EIS. NOAA received public 

comments on these alternatives that it 

carefully considered in identifying the 

Final Preferred Alternative. As 

explained in Section 3.6 of the final EIS, 

the minor variation in the boundary for 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83574 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Alternative 4 south of DCPP is also 

within the scope of alternatives 

discussed in the draft EIS and does not 

result in environmental impacts not 

previously considered. The Final 

Preferred Alternative is thus within the 

geographic and regulatory scope of the 

alternatives considered in the draft EIS. 

Based on this information, NOAA has 

determined that there are no substantial 

changes to the proposed action that are 

relevant to environmental concerns, nor 

are there significant new circumstances 

or information relevant to 

environmental concerns and bearing on 

the proposed action or its impacts. As 

such, preparation of a supplemental EIS 

is not required. 

NOAA considers the Final Preferred 

Alternative to be Phase 1 for 

establishing national marine sanctuary 

protection for this important coastline 

and these nationally-significant 

resources. At the first management plan 

review process beginning on or before 

January 2032, NOAA commits to 

evaluating and considering the need for 

and suitability of several potential 

boundary adjustments to protect 

additional areas, including moving the 

CHNMS boundary to the southern end 

of MBNMS. Resources worthy of and 

requiring sanctuary protection would be 

assessed at that time and the 

appropriateness of expanding the 

sanctuary would be evaluated. Any 

subsequent boundary adjustments 

would be guided by Section 304 of the 

NMSA and would require a separate 

public process under the NMSA and 

NEPA. A ‘‘Boundary Adjustment Action 

Plan’’ has been added to the final 

management plan. 

5. Comment BO–4: NOAA should 

protect the waters from Morro Rock 

north because, as it has noted for other 

sections of the proposed sanctuary, this 

area includes numerous State parks— 

Morro Bay, Estero Bluffs, Harmony 

Headland—as well as other State 

conservation areas, such as Morro 

Strand State Beach Campground, 

Cayucos State Beach and White State 

Marine Conservation Area, all of which 

could benefit from adjacent sanctuary 

protection. By protecting adjacent areas, 

a larger overall protected zone is 

created, each side supporting the other. 

Response: NOAA will consider future 

protection of this area as part of the 

Phase 2 process, which will inform 

NOAA’s consideration of future options 

for sanctuary protection of this area (see 

Boundary Adjustment Action Plan 

under EIS Section 3.2.3 and Section 

5.4.9 for more information on Phase 2). 

As contemplated in the new ‘‘Boundary 

Adjustment Action Plan’’, NOAA 

anticipates conducting studies about 

resources that may warrant sanctuary 

protection prior to 2032, when it will 

formally initiate a process to consider 

adjusting the sanctuary’s boundary. 

6. Comment BO–5: NOAA should not 

close the gap at this time, rather create 

a sanctuary expansion action plan to 

consider expanding the sanctuary over 

that area in the future, after offshore 

cables are built and can be certified by 

NOAA as an acceptable, existing use. 

Response: NOAA agrees with the 

premise of the comment and has 

included a new ‘‘Boundary Adjustment 

Action Plan’’ in the final management 

plan for the sanctuary. 

7. Comment BO–6: NOAA should 

include the Gaviota Coast Extension 

(Sub-Alternative 5b) in the final 

sanctuary boundary because of 

important biological and cultural 

resources, and the value that area holds 

for coastal recreation. 

Response: The boundary for the Final 

Preferred Alternative includes the 

Gaviota Coast Extension (SubAlternative 5b). The EIS recognizes that 

there are important resources in this 

area that would benefit from sanctuary 

protection, such as biological resources, 

cultural resources, and coastal 

recreation. 

8. Comment BO–7: NOAA should 

include Morro Bay Estuary (SubAlternative 5a) in the final sanctuary 

boundary as it is important to 

Indigenous communities and is an 

important part of the overall ecosystem. 

Response: At this time, NOAA is not 

including the estuary within the 

sanctuary and will consider if future 

sanctuary protection of the estuary is 

warranted as part of the new ‘‘Boundary 

Adjustment Action Plan.’’ NOAA is 

open to considering a future boundary 

expansion to include the Morro Bay 

Estuary through a separate process 

under Section 304 of the NMSA. 

9. Comment BO–9: Any final 

boundary needs to include the deep 

water portions removed by Alternatives 

1, 2 and 4, because that area is a newlydiscovered ecological hotspot, is 

important to bird species, and may hold 

important seafloor habitats not yet 

discovered. 

Response: NOAA considered the 

inclusion of these areas in the Initial 

Boundary Alternative. The Final 

Preferred Alternative for the sanctuary 

does not include the area west of the 

Santa Lucia Bank, beyond 

approximately 65 miles from shore. 

NOAA fully considered existing 

resource information for this area. The 

public comments did not provide 

substantial new information about why 

that area should be included in the final 

sanctuary boundary relative to the 

reasons NOAA provided for excluding it 

in Section 5.4.9 in the draft EIS. NOAA 

still has concerns about the extra 

management burden without existing 

evidence regarding clearly nationallysignificant natural or maritime heritage 

resources in the area. Data are also 

unclear as to the threats to resources 

found in this area and NOAA lacks 

information that would support why a 

sanctuary designation is the proper 

management tool to protect these 

resources. As outlined in the new 

‘‘Boundary Adjustment Action Plan’’ in 

the final management plan, if new data 

demonstrate that significant living 

marine, submerged maritime heritage 

and/or cultural resources in this area 

would benefit from sanctuary 

protections, NOAA could consider a 

boundary expansion in the future. See 

also the response to Comment BR–5. 

10. Comment BO–14: NOAA should 

create an exclusion zone for the existing 

harbor area off Vandenberg Space Force 

Base (VSFB) so that the military’s 

current harbor-related activities are not 

within the sanctuary. 

Response: NOAA’s intent is to 

exclude existing coastal harbors from 

the boundaries of the sanctuary in 

recognition that there can be numerous 

activities and structures necessary 

within a harbor that may otherwise be 

inconsistent with a national marine 

sanctuary and are best managed by local 

authorities. The Initial Boundary 

Alternative in the draft EIS excluded 

three harbors—Morro Bay, the private 

marina at Diablo Canyon Power Plant 

and all of Port San Luis, and should 

have also excluded an area that contains 

the existing harbor activities at VSFB. 

The analysis of all alternatives in the 

final EIS and the boundary for the Final 

Preferred Alternative excludes this 

small area from the sanctuary (see final 

EIS Figure 3–3). This is a technical 

correction that is consistent with the 

purposes and goals of the draft 

designation materials. This change is 

also a minor variation of the boundary 

alternatives previously presented, the 

impacts of which are encompassed in 

the scope of alternatives in the draft EIS, 

and is thus qualitatively within the 

spectrum of alternatives assessed in the 

draft EIS. Based on this information, 

NOAA has determined that there are no 

substantial changes to the proposed 

action that are relevant to 

environmental concerns, nor are there 

significant new circumstances or 

information relevant to environmental 

concerns and bearing on the proposed 

action or its impacts. As such, 

preparation of a supplemental EIS is not 

required for this minor change. See final 

EIS Section 4.9 for more information. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83575 

11. Comment BO–16: NOAA should 

reconsider an alternative that it rejected 

that would have created buffer zones 

around the harbors and along their 

shorelines so that harbor-related 

activities would not occur within the 

sanctuary. 

Response: As explained in the draft 

EIS, NOAA considered but eliminated 

from detailed study the request for large 

exclusion zones around the two main 

public harbors in the study area—Morro 

Bay and Port San Luis (see EIS Section 

3.9.6). None of the facts have changed 

related to consideration of exclusion 

areas for those harbors. In the Final 

Preferred Alternative, NOAA is 

excluding all waters and the submerged 

lands that fall within the two existing 

harbors along this stretch of coast (Port 

San Luis and Vandenberg Space Force 

Base). Note the waters off Morro Bay 

Harbor and Diablo Canyon Power Plant 

marina are not part of the Final 

Preferred Alternative. Activities that 

occur within the harbors are not affected 

by sanctuary regulations (with limited 

exceptions—e.g., the ‘‘enter and injure’’ 

element of the discharge regulation 

could be relevant if, for instance, a 

hazardous discharge originated within a 

harbor and flowed beyond the harbor 

into the sanctuary and injured 

resources). Further, all existing dredge 

material disposal sites authorized by the 

USEPA are being excepted by regulation 

(see 15 CFR 922.232(a)(2)(i)(G)); 

presently NOAA is only aware of dredge 

material disposal sites offshore Morro 

Bay that would meet this regulatory 

exception; but as noted above, the 

waters off Morro Bay Harbor are not 

included in the Final Preferred 

Alternative. Other regulations have 

exceptions for activities that are often 

commonplace in a sanctuary near a 

harbor, such as: maintenance dredging 

of harbor entrance channels; anchoring 

a vessel; installing or maintaining an 

authorized navigational aid; discharging 

fish or fish parts during the conduct of 

lawful fishing activities. NOAA believes 

that the final boundary and the 

regulations, with appropriate 

exceptions, accommodate existing 

harbor activities and this alternative is 

not necessary. See also response to 

Comment BO–27. 

12. Comment BO–17: NOAA should 

exclude the entire area of the State 

tidelands granted to Port San Luis 

Harbor District (along the shoreline from 

Point San Luis to approximately South 

Palisades Park in Shell Beach to three 

miles offshore). The Harbor District has 

authority for uses of the submerged 

lands within this area and applying 

sanctuary regulations would create an 

unnecessary redundancy. 

Response: NOAA has already 

excluded from the sanctuary a very large 

area within (shoreward of) the 

COLREGS line for Port San Luis, 

approximately 1.6 square miles under 

the Initial Boundary Alternative, 

alternatives 1–4, and the Final Preferred 

Alternative. No specific plans or 

development proposals have been 

provided to NOAA to indicate that the 

sanctuary’s overlapping State tidelands 

granted to Port San Luis Harbor District 

would create conflicts. The State of 

California has granted certain State 

tidelands to various locally-organized 

harbor districts for the purposes of 

creating public access for commercial or 

recreational activities through harbor 

facilities. The State’s mandate for use of 

these areas is not concentrated on 

resource conservation, research and 

monitoring, education and outreach and 

the other various mandates Congress has 

established for the National Marine 

Sanctuary System. Thus, the regulations 

and other sanctuary management 

programs that NOAA could pursue in 

these waters are not redundant with the 

purpose of the waters and State 

tidelands granted to Port San Luis 

Harbor District by the State. See also 

response to Comment BO–27. 

13. Comment BO–18: NOAA should 

designate the final boundary for the 

sanctuary with an exclusion zone along 

the coast of Pismo Beach, out to two 

miles offshore. 

Response: NOAA considered but did 

not conduct a detailed analysis of this 

alternative because there was 

inadequate justification as to why a 

separate, special exclusion area was 

needed for the coastal waters and 

submerged lands off the city of Pismo 

Beach. In the absence of such 

justification, this broad exclusion would 

not meet the purpose and need of the 

sanctuary (see EIS Section 3.9.6). Note 

that NOAA has included a regulatory 

exception for any disturbance of the 

submerged lands that might occur due 

to repair and maintenance of any 

existing pier or dock in the sanctuary 

(see 15 CFR 922.232(a)(3)(iv)), so any 

repair and maintenance of the Pismo 

Pier would not require a permit review 

by the sanctuary. Many national marine 

sanctuaries include the waters and 

submerged lands offshore of coastal 

cities and have developed numerous 

successful collaborative programs with 

those local governments. For example, 

the Water Quality Action Plan for 

CHNMS includes strategies, modeled off 

similar successful programs in Monterey 

Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

(MBNMS), that showcase collaboration 

with cities and other municipalities to 

help ensure healthy and safe marine 

water quality for public enjoyment and 

for marine species such as those caught 

by recreational fishermen. See also 

response to Comment BO–27. 

14. Comment BO–20: NOAA should 

designate a new ‘‘Alternative 6’’ limited 

to the shoreline boundary of Alternative 

4 but only extending offshore to 120 ft 

water depth, deep enough to include the 

likely location of paleoshorelines to 

concentrate the new sanctuary on 

coastal features important to local 

Indigenous Peoples. 

Response: NOAA is not adopting this 

suggestion in the final sanctuary action 

because ‘‘Alternative 6’’ would not meet 

the purpose and need of designating a 

new sanctuary. The purpose and need 

includes not just protection and 

conservation of cultural heritage 

features, but also protection of 

ecological and ecosystem resources of 

the area. Note however that the Final 

Preferred Alternative adopts a portion of 

the request from this comment—the 

shoreline boundary is Alternative 4 

(with a minor modification described in 

Section 3.5.1 of the final EIS), with the 

addition of the shoreline of SubAlternative 5b. 

15. Comment BO–22: The proposed 

sanctuary boundary is too large. Just 

because cultural artifacts may exist 

somewhere within its broad borders 

does not seem to be a good use of 

taxpayer money. Significant cultural 

sites should first be identified and 

studied to determine if special 

protections are warranted, then a small 

sanctuary could be proposed to protect 

those unique and culturally historic 

sites. 

Response: NOAA disagrees with the 

premise of the comment. The purposes 

of the sanctuary include much more 

than conservation of individual, 

submerged cultural sites. The EIS 

identifies other purposes, including 

conservation of nationally-significant 

ecological resources, protecting 

important physical oceanographic 

processes, promoting multiple uses of 

the sanctuary, conserving and studying 

historical shipwrecks, and creating a 

framework for ecosystem-based and 

community-based conservation. 

Nonetheless the Final Preferred 

Alternative does adopt largely the 

‘‘Combined Smallest’’ boundary, with 

several small additions included. 

16. Comment BO–27: Special 

boundary exclusions should be 

minimized, as they will distract from 

NOAA’s ability to manage the whole of 

the ecosystem and result in adjacent 

development that can harm sanctuary 

resources. 

Response: Largely, NOAA agrees with 

the comment. Numerous small, special 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83576 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

exclusions within a sanctuary for 

different purposes and needs could 

create significant challenges managing 

the ecosystem as a whole and could 

complicate enforcement. This practice 

generally is avoided in national marine 

sanctuaries. To aid overall management, 

the Final Preferred Alternative does not 

have small inclusion or exclusion areas 

that were recommended in other 

comments, other than the existing 

coastal harbors, as has been the practice 

for many other national marine 

sanctuaries. These areas are excluded in 

recognition that there can be numerous 

activities and structures necessary 

within a harbor that may otherwise be 

inconsistent with a national marine 

sanctuary and are best managed by local 

authorities. 

17. Comment PN–2: NOAA should 

provide more justification for the 

sanctuary designation, including: 

specific requests and documentation of 

the benefits of the sanctuary to the 

Federal government; documentation of 

consistency with designation criteria; 

and justification for the national 

significance of resources throughout the 

geographic extent of the sanctuary. 

Response: NOAA documented the 

anticipated beneficial impacts of the 

proposed sanctuary on the appropriate 

resources and sectors in Chapter 4 of the 

EIS. Regarding documentation of the 

designation criteria, NOAA has 

determined that the sanctuary would 

effectively manage and conserve 

nationally-significant biological, 

ecological, physical, cultural, etc. 

resources consistent with NOAA’s 

mandate under the NMSA. In particular, 

Chapter 2 of the EIS describes the 

national significance of the resources in 

the sanctuary area, with reference to the 

national significance criteria that NOAA 

applied in considering the nomination 

of CHNMS. Further discussion of the 

nationally significant resources in the 

Initial Boundary Alternative (in other 

words, the full geographic extent of the 

area considered for sanctuary 

designation) is contained throughout 

Chapter 4. NOAA’s documentation of 

the affected environment demonstrates 

the presence and importance of 

nationally-significant resources 

throughout the Initial Boundary 

Alternative. As explained in the EIS, an 

assessment and basis for why the 

proposed sanctuary meets the 

designation standards and factors is 

discussed throughout the EIS; in 

particular, see chapters 2 and 3 and 

Appendix E.1. 

While current technical/scientific/ 

cultural surveys do not permit the level 

of mapping detail requested by one 

commenter at this time, it is also not 

necessary to generate this information 

and not required by the NMSA or 

NEPA. NOAA has extensively 

demonstrated the national significance 

of resources throughout the area. The 

entirety of the area supports ecosystem 

connectivity necessary for the health of 

the biological resources, and NOAA has 

learned from Tribes and Indigenous 

groups about the cultural significance 

throughout the area. 

18. Comment RP–1: Stronger 

regulations should be adopted, 

including restrictions on fishing, speed 

limits for ships, designating areas to be 

avoided, regulation of recreational 

activities, imposing a requirement to 

decommission and dismantle all 

offshore energy platforms and turbines, 

and removing exceptions for existing oil 

and gas production. Providing 

exceptions or exemptions would 

increase the risk of damage to the 

marine environment. The proposed 

regulations are not strong enough to 

meet the purposes of the NMSA or the 

need for the proposed sanctuary, and 

activities which could be harmful to the 

sanctuary should not be granted 

permits. 

Response: Under the NMSA, a 

purpose and policy of sanctuaries is 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.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1431(b)(6). 

NOAA believes that the regulations 

effectively balance resource protection 

goals while allowing for compatible 

uses in the sanctuary, and therefore, the 

regulations meet the purpose and need 

of the sanctuary. Once designated, 

NOAA will monitor and evaluate threats 

to sanctuary resources and consider, 

where appropriate, the need to propose 

additional regulatory actions. The 

management plan identifies many nonregulatory, programmatic measures (e.g., 

voluntary vessel speed reduction) 

whereby NOAA would address threats 

to sanctuary resources. See topicspecific comments and responses (e.g., 

fishing, oil, and gas) for additional 

details regarding specific regulations. 

Regarding decommissioning of oil and 

gas platforms, NOAA’s regulations 

would accommodate the processes and 

requirements of the State and of the 

Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement (BSEE) (see response to 

Comment OG–15). Although the 

regulations prohibit abandoning 

structures on the submerged lands of the 

sanctuary, as well as other activities that 

could occur during and after 

decommissioning, NOAA could issue 

permits, authorizations, or certifications 

(as appropriate) to enable the removal 

and/or disposal, in a manner compatible 

with the sanctuary’s purposes, of 

structures related to oil and gas 

development. Regarding OSW turbines, 

BOEM, BSEE, or California State 

requirements may govern 

decommissioning and removal, and 

NOAA would also, in reviewing any 

permit proposals for such structures, 

consider terms and conditions 

reasonably necessary to protect 

sanctuary resources (see responses to 

Comments RP–2 and RP–11). 

See Section 3.9.7 of the final EIS for 

NOAA’s explanation on why the 

regulations do not address issues 

regarding fishing restrictions, vessel 

speed limits, designating areas to be 

avoided, and regulation of recreational 

activities. 

19. Comment RP–5: The proposed 

regulations would duplicate other 

Federal and State laws (e.g., Clean 

Water Act, CEQA) and duplicate 

authorities of other councils and 

government agencies (e.g., California 

Coastal Commission, California State 

Lands Commission, USACE). These 

overlapping authorities are burdensome, 

difficult for members of the public to 

understand, and a waste of 

governmental resources. Rather than 

adding layers of regulation, NOAA 

needs to coordinate and collaborate 

within the existing regulatory system. In 

addition, existing regulations are 

already enforced by the California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(CDFW) and Pacific Fisheries 

Management Council (PFMC). 

Response: In developing sanctuary 

regulations, NOAA carefully considers 

the role that existing State and Federal 

laws and authorities play with relation 

to the sanctuary’s purpose, including 

those listed in Appendix F of the EIS. 

NOAA is guided by the NMSA, which 

in Section 301(b)(2) states that one 

purpose of national marine sanctuaries 

is ‘‘to provide authority for 

comprehensive and coordinated 

conservation and management of these 

marine areas, and activities affecting 

them, in a manner which complements 

existing regulatory authorities.’’ 16 

U.S.C. 1431(b)(2). Through successful 

coordinated management of CINMS, 

MBNMS, and Greater Farallones 

National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS), 

NOAA has decades of experience 

implementing and refining sanctuary 

regulations that harmonize with and 

augment California State laws and 

jurisdictions, as well as Federal laws 

and authorities. Further, the proposed 

regulations are largely modeled off of 

and consistent with regulations for other 

California national marine sanctuaries. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83577 

NOAA looks forward to continued 

partnership with State and Federal 

agencies to leverage resources and 

achieve greater resource management 

effectiveness and efficiencies. NOAA 

does not consider sanctuary regulations 

to be overly burdensome, and has 

provided several logical exceptions and 

permitting options to allow the 

continuation of activities that are 

compatible with the sanctuary’s goals. 

Non-regulatory programs at CHNMS 

will be a central focus of how NOAA 

manages the new sanctuary, for instance 

various education and outreach 

initiatives to help the public understand 

and support the protections put in place 

for the new sanctuary (see the Education 

and Outreach Action Plan in the final 

management plan). Also, see responses 

to comments GN–2 (opposition to 

sanctuary), GN–11, and WQ–9 

(duplicative regulations), and final EIS 

Section 2.2.1. Final EIS Section 2.2.1 

provides a detailed discussion of why a 

comprehensive management approach 

offered by national marine sanctuary 

designation is needed to protect the 

resources of this area, including specific 

examples of the sanctuary regulatory 

and non-regulatory programs that could 

help fill existing gaps in protection and 

management. 

20. Comment RP–6: Shipwrecks do 

not need additional protections. 

Response: NOAA believes that 

providing supplemental, coordinated 

management (consistent with the 

NMSA) of historical resources, 

including shipwrecks, will provide 

more comprehensive protection for 

these nationally-significant maritime 

heritage resources. Protection of 

shipwrecks under complementary 

statutes (e.g., NMSA and Sunken 

Military Craft Act) and programs are not 

mutually exclusive. Also, the State of 

California’s protection of shipwrecks 

only extends to 3 nautical miles (nmi) 

from shore, while the Federal protection 

provided by sanctuary regulations (see 

15 CFR 922.232(a)(4) extends much 

further offshore, up to 59 miles 

(depending on the boundary 

alternative). See also Section 4.5.3 of the 

final EIS, which provides a detailed 

discussion of the beneficial impacts that 

sanctuary designation would provide for 

maritime heritage resources, stemming 

from additional regulatory protection to 

prevent harm to these resources, as well 

as improved coordination, research and 

monitoring, and enhancing community 

collaboration. 

21. Comment RP–7: The proposed 

prohibition on drilling into or altering 

submerged lands should be removed. 

Response: The seabed protection 

regulation (15 CFR 922.232(a)(3)) will 

provide core protection to the 

sanctuary’s submerged lands. It is 

central to addressing known and future 

threats to sanctuary resources and thus 

to meeting the resource protection and 

management needs of the sanctuary. 

NOAA provides important exceptions to 

this prohibition, such as for conducting 

lawful fishing activities or kelp 

harvesting, anchoring a vessel, dredging 

entrance channels for existing harbors, 

and maintaining an existing dock, pier, 

breakwater or jetty. For other activities, 

with some exceptions, that might 

disturb the seabed, NOAA may issue a 

permit to allow the activity to occur. For 

more information about sanctuary 

permits, see Section 3.2.2 of the final 

EIS and regulations at 15 CFR 922 

Subpart D. See also responses to 

Comments OG–13 and OG–14. 

22. Comment OG–1: The final 

regulations and management plan must 

permanently prohibit any and all oil 

and gas development or mining, current 

or in the future. The sanctuary should 

require cancellation of existing leases, 

and hasten decommissioning of existing 

platforms, pipelines, and other 

infrastructure. Continued oil and gas 

activities risk harmful oil spills and 

harm endangered species. No permits or 

authorizations for any oil and gas or 

mining should ever be allowed in the 

new sanctuary. 

Response: NOAA lacks authority to 

terminate valid leases, permits, licenses, 

or rights of subsistence use or access 

that exist at the time of sanctuary 

designation, although NOAA may 

regulate the exercise of those leases, 

permits, licenses, and rights consistent 

with the purposes for which the 

sanctuary is designated. See 16 U.S.C. 

1434(c). Final sanctuary regulations do 

not prohibit oil and gas development 

pursuant to leases in effect at the time 

of sanctuary designation. Oil and gas 

operators have rights to that 

development, as set forth in lease 

agreements pursuant to OCSLA. 

Sanctuary regulations will, however, 

otherwise prohibit new oil and gas 

exploration, production, or 

development after sanctuary 

designation. Likewise, the regulations 

will prohibit exploring for, producing, 

or developing minerals in the sanctuary, 

and thus no mining in the sanctuary 

would be allowed. Furthermore, the 

regulations will provide that NOAA 

cannot issue permits or authorizations 

that would allow for any further 

exceptions to the prohibition on 

exploring for, producing, or developing 

oil, gas, or minerals in the sanctuary 

(see 15 CFR 922.232(f)). 

23. Comment OG–2: Any platforms 

that are no longer producing at the time 

the sanctuary is designated, regardless 

of the reason, should be 

decommissioned, not restarted. For 

instance, Exxon is working to restart 

offshore oil platforms that are outside 

all alternative boundaries, but the 

infrastructure (i.e., pipelines) is located 

within the boundaries of SubAlternative–5b (Gaviota Coast 

Extension). The sanctuary should 

evaluate the safety of restarting this shut 

down pipeline within its boundaries, in 

particular because operators of those 

platforms have had spills in the past 

and there is risk of spills in the future. 

Response: NOAA will coordinate with 

operators and BSEE and any State 

agencies as appropriate to ensure 

development from an existing oil and 

gas platform that may recommence after 

sanctuary designation does so in a 

manner that minimizes the risk of oil 

spills or any other potential impact on 

sanctuary resources. See also response 

to Comment OG–1. 

24. Comment OG–3: NOAA’s final 

rule needs to make clear that 

exploration for oil and gas reserves 

includes any high energy seismic testing 

and is thus prohibited. 

Response: NOAA has always 

considered exploration for oil and gas 

reserves to include high energy seismic 

survey testing from equipment towed 

behind a vessel or operated 

autonomously from a vessel or from 

shore for the purpose of locating oil and 

gas reserves in the submerged lands. 

That activity would be prohibited in the 

sanctuary. However, other seismic 

survey work would not be prohibited if 

its purpose was for identifying other 

geological features such as a fault. Thus, 

the purpose for the survey work matters. 

Note however that any high energy 

survey work for purposes other than 

exploration for oil and gas reserves 

might be a violation of the sanctuary’s 

regulations if that activity might take, 

harm or otherwise disturb a marine 

mammal, sea turtle or bird (see 15 CFR 

922.232(a)(5)). 

25. Comment OG–4: The final 

sanctuary regulations should ban any 

and all oil-related pipelines that could 

be proposed to cross the sanctuary 

borders. 

Response: Any new oil or gas 

pipeline, except within the limited 

exception described in the response to 

Comment OG–1, would be prohibited 

within sanctuary boundaries and could 

not be permitted. The prohibition on oil 

and gas development (15 CFR 

922.232(a)(1)) extends to ancillary 

facilities related to exploration or 

development of hydrocarbons within 

the sanctuary. NOAA does not consider 

this prohibition to apply per se to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83578 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

abandonment, decommissioning or 

removal of existing pipelines, which can 

be permitted. Nor does this prohibition 

extend to disturbance of the seabed due 

to repair and maintenance of existing 

pipelines, for which the proposed 

sanctuary regulations would allow 

NOAA to issue a permit. 

26. Comment OG–8: NOAA’s 

proposed regulations impermissibly 

terminate the development potential of 

the Santa Ynez Unit leases by limiting 

existing oil and gas development to 

reservoirs under development at the 

time of designation. The leaseholder has 

a right to develop any reservoir within 

that lease area and the regulations need 

to be changed to reflect this. If NOAA 

is concerned about seafloor 

penetrations, it could limit development 

to only those seafloor penetrations at the 

time of designation. 

Response: Leases (and lease units) 

issued to Exxon to develop the Santa 

Ynez Unit (and Freeport-McMoRan to 

operate the Point Pedernales project) 

allow development of any reservoir or 

geological formation within the 

boundary of the lease (or lease unit). 

Therefore, NOAA has amended the 

proposed language for the exception to 

the general prohibition on oil and gas 

development to remove the term 

‘‘existing reservoirs under production 

prior to the effective date of Sanctuary 

designation’’ and replaced it with 

‘‘existing leases or lease units in effect 

on the effective date of Sanctuary 

designation’’ (see 15 CFR 922.232(a)(1)). 

Accordingly, production can continue 

pursuant to any lease or lease unit in 

effect at the time of designation through 

this exception to the prohibition on oil 

and gas development. 

27. Comment OG–14: The regulatory 

exceptions for certain oil and gas 

activities should be expanded to include 

platform abandonment and 

decommissioning. Discharges during 

decommissioning and removal would be 

analogous to those that occur during 

regular oil and gas operations, which 

have an exception. No rationale is 

provided why this should require 

permits when other activities are 

excepted. Both BSEE and California 

State Lands Commission leases assert a 

lessee has a right to abandonment and 

decommissioning. 

Response: As stated in responses to 

other comments, NOAA is granting an 

exception to allow existing oil and gas 

activities including discharges or 

drilling into reservoirs far below the 

seabed. Discharges or drilling within or 

into such reservoirs are not expected to 

cause any direct impact on living 

marine resources. Conversely, 

discharges within or into the sanctuary 

waters, or disturbance directly onto or 

in the upper layers of the submerged 

lands could harm such sanctuary 

resources, and thus are activities that 

NOAA believes are important to 

regulate in order to further the purposes 

of the sanctuary. Therefore, NOAA is 

not providing an exception for those 

discharges or disturbances to the 

submerged lands. Abandonment, 

decommissioning, and removal 

activities for oil and gas platforms and 

pipelines could have discharges within 

or into sanctuary waters and 

disturbance directly onto or in the 

upper layers of the submerged lands, 

activities for which NOAA is 

consistently exercising regulatory 

control and not allowing via regulatory 

exception. New discharges that have not 

been permitted at the time of sanctuary 

designation, including those which may 

be necessary during abandonment, 

decommissioning, and removal 

activities or from routine oil and gas 

production activities, would require a 

sanctuary general permit or ONMS 

authorization. Like other Federal and 

State agencies, NOAA is interested in 

seeing these facilities ultimately 

removed and their past development 

sites restored. It is important that NOAA 

has the ability to review those activities 

within the sanctuary to ensure potential 

impacts on sanctuary resources are 

avoided or feasibly mitigated. See also 

response to Comment OG–12. 

28. Comment OG–20: NOAA should 

require full removal of all oil and gas 

development platforms, other 

infrastructure such as pipelines and 

cables, and any remaining residue, like 

shell mounds and debris, as required by 

lease agreements and Federal law. 

Response: As stated in revised Section 

4.7.1 of the final EIS, NOAA 

understands that the baseline position 

of Federal and State agencies 

responsible for decommissioning and 

removal of facilities for oil and gas 

development is to require full removal. 

NOAA has no objections to this as the 

baseline assumption. NOAA also 

anticipates that alternatives to full 

removal for all facilities will be 

analyzed once specific plans for 

facilities are completed. See also 

response to OG–21. 

29. Comment OW–1: All aspects of 

offshore wind development are 

incompatible with a national marine 

sanctuary and the regulations and 

management plan need to clearly 

explain that such development is 

inherently incompatible with a national 

marine sanctuary. These are industrial 

facilities, like oil and gas platforms and 

pipelines, that can harm myriad 

sanctuary resources in diverse ways 

during construction, operation, and 

removal. There has been no research on 

adverse impacts and no proof of safe 

installation and operation methods. 

Response: NOAA’s final designation 

materials (response to comments, final 

EIS, final management plan) for the 

sanctuary do not make any policy 

statements that offshore wind 

development is inherently incompatible 

with the sanctuary. Any decision about 

whether a particular offshore wind 

development project is compatible with 

the sanctuary will be made on a caseby-case basis, as needed, for a particular 

proposed project or permit reviews. For 

instance, in anticipation of sanctuary 

designation, NOAA is participating in 

the review with other State and Federal 

agencies of the CADEMO offshore 

floating wind project, in State waters off 

Vandenberg Space Force Base. Based on 

that review and consultation with 

agency partners, if the sanctuary is 

designated, NOAA will make a final 

decision on the compatibility of that 

project’s offshore wind platforms and 

subsea electrical transmission cables to 

shore. Depending on the final boundary 

for the sanctuary and the design of cable 

routes to shore, NOAA may also request 

to serve as a cooperating agency with 

BOEM when it initiates environmental 

review of the construction and 

operation plan(s) for the wind farm 

leases off Morro Bay. Participating and 

coordinating in these review processes 

will allow NOAA to ensure that any 

potential impacts on sanctuary 

resources are well understood and 

effectively mitigated. 

There is precedent for NOAA 

approval of submarine cables (mostly 

fiber optic cables) that are within a 

national marine sanctuary or that pass 

through a sanctuary. The final 

designation materials make clear that 

NOAA believes subsea electrical 

transmission cables, like submarine 

fiber optic cables in this and other 

sanctuaries, can be compatible with a 

sanctuary and can be approved subject 

to sufficient environmental review, 

mitigation, and consultation with 

partner agencies and provided an 

applicant satisfies permit review 

criteria. 

30. Comment OW–3: Offshore floating 

wind platforms within the sanctuary are 

incompatible with a sanctuary and can 

not be permitted. However, the subsea 

electrical transmission cables that bring 

power to shore from wind farms beyond 

the sanctuary boundary are possibly 

compatible and could be approved 

provided NOAA exercises control over 

the siting, environmental review, and 

permitting of those cables for portions 

within the sanctuary. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83579 

Response: The final EIS indicates that 

future development of a large wind farm 

within Federal waters of the area 

proposed for sanctuary designation is 

not reasonably foreseeable, and is in fact 

highly unlikely. Upon sanctuary 

designation, such development in 

Federal waters would likely be 

excluded. The Outer Continental Shelf 

Lands Act (OCSLA) prohibits BOEM 

from leasing areas within sanctuary 

waters (see EIS Section 4.7.3). NOAA 

does not have authority under the 

NMSA to provide a leasing mechanism 

to allow offshore wind platforms within 

a national marine sanctuary. 

The State of California retains 

authority to issue leases for wind 

platforms in State waters of the 

sanctuary. As noted in responses to 

comments OW–1 and OW–33, NOAA is 

participating in the environmental 

review for the CADEMO project in State 

waters where four offshore floating 

wind platforms are proposed. That 

review process will provide NOAA 

appropriate, project-specific information 

and the opportunity to coordinate with 

State agency partners on the appropriate 

action for that proposal. 

NOAA concurs with the comment 

that subsea electrical transmission 

cables transporting power to shore from 

wind farms beyond the sanctuary, 

where such cables pass through the 

sanctuary, can be permitted and can be 

considered compatible with the 

sanctuary subject to proper siting, 

environmental review, and 

collaboration with partner agencies and 

provided an applicant satisfies permit 

review criteria. 

31. Comment OW–14: The AgencyPreferred Alternative does not provide 

an adequate space to allow for subsea 

electrical transmission cable 

construction that avoids the need for a 

sanctuary permit. Moreover, the 

industry standard for the distance 

between cables is three times (3x) water 

depth. So with the new industry 

projection of up to 24 subsea electrical 

transmission cables, the exclusion area 

must be vastly larger than allowed in 

the Agency-Preferred Alternative. 

Response: NOAA understands that 

the offshore wind industry has a goal to 

plan and route cables from the three 

Morro Bay wind leases to shore and not 

pass through a national marine 

sanctuary, to avoid seeking a permit 

from NOAA. NOAA concurs that the 

draft Agency-Preferred Alternative 

would not exclude enough space to 

achieve industry’s objective to avoid 

passing any cables through the 

sanctuary, given clarifying comments 

received in this rulemaking about the 

number of cables, distance needed 

between cables, need to plan for broad 

curves in subsea cables rather than 

sharp turns, space to plan crossing other 

cables at right angles, and shoreside 

landing sites. Other comments suggest 

that the boundary alternative proposed 

by American Clean Power would 

exclude enough space to achieve the 

objective of avoiding sanctuary waters. 

The three leaseholders have since 

acknowledged that the American Clean 

Power alternative would not exclude 

enough space, and they instead believe 

NOAA should adopt Alternative 4 to 

achieve the goal of maximizing 

flexibility in cable routing to avoid this 

or other national marine sanctuaries. 

NOAA has identified the Final 

Preferred Alternative for reasons 

explained in more detail in Section 

5.4.9 of the final EIS, in part to allow the 

offshore wind industry to achieve its 

goals with respect to the Morro Bay 

leases. If in the future, offshore wind 

developers propose subsea electrical 

transmission cables to pass through this 

or another sanctuary, NOAA is 

confident that it has an adequate permit 

process to review, consider, and 

ultimately approve, as appropriate, 

subsea electrical transmission cables. 

See also the response to Comments 

OW–1, BO–1, and BO–11. 

32. Comment OW–16: The regulatory 

approach for offshore wind-related cable 

installation, repair, maintenance, 

operations and removal articulated in 

the draft EIS is not clear, well-defined, 

or timely. The lack of clarity in the 

permitting option(s) presents 

complications for subsea electrical 

transmission cables, and would add an 

additional layer of uncertainty for 

offshore wind projects. Since submarine 

cables can be built and operated 

consistent with the protection of 

sanctuary resources, it is important to 

maintain regulatory flexibility and 

ensure a reasonable regulatory pathway 

exists for studying, installing, and 

operating submarine cables within the 

sanctuary. NOAA needs to better 

explain the permitting process and 

requirements for offshore energy 

transmission cables in the sanctuary, 

including the terms and conditions, 

standards for evaluating permits, and 

mitigation measures. Reliance on the 

special use permit, which can only be 

issued for five years, creates uncertainty 

for offshore wind development. 

Response: Responses to numerous 

comments in this rulemaking provide 

additional detail that indicate NOAA’s 

willingness to permit submarine 

cables—both subsea electrical 

transmission cables and submarine fiber 

optic cables—upon satisfaction of 

permit review criteria and 

environmental review, and that it has a 

fair and robust process for considering 

and approving such permits. In 2011, 

NOAA published a document providing 

policy and permitting guidance for 

submarine cables within national 

marine sanctuaries (hereafter ‘‘cable 

permitting guidelines’’; NOAA 2011). 

That document provides considerable 

detail about how a developer can apply 

for a permit, what permit is required for 

different types of cables based on their 

purpose, and what can be expected 

regarding potential standard conditions, 

monitoring expectations, and other 

requirements. While the original 

impetus for that document centered 

around submarine fiber optic cables, the 

cable permitting guidelines are written 

to generally apply to any submarine 

cable project proposed within a national 

marine sanctuary. As described in 

sections 4.7.1 and 4.7.3 of the final EIS, 

at this time NOAA’s cable permitting 

guidelines indicate that an ONMS 

authorization of a USACE permit to 

install a subsea electrical transmission 

cable would be the most likely and 

appropriate permitting approach. 

NOAA’s current cable permitting 

guidelines contemplate that NOAA has 

the discretion to issue a special use 

permit to authorize the continued 

presence of the cable on or in the seabed 

within the sanctuary, however, NOAA 

has modified the special use permit 

category for such cables so that it does 

not apply to sanctuaries designated after 

August 16, 2024, as described below. 

In 2024, NOAA plans to update the 

cable permitting guidelines in an action, 

subject to public review and comment, 

separate from this sanctuary 

designation. NOAA announced this 

commitment in a Federal Register 

Notice on August 16, 2024 (89 FR 

66689). With this notice, NOAA also 

announced that the special use permit 

category for the continued presence of 

commercial subsea cables is modified 

such that, for a two-year period, it does 

not apply to sanctuaries designated after 

August 16, 2024, including CHNMS. 

During this timeframe, the continued 

presence of subsea cables in CHNMS 

will not be subject to special use permit 

requirements. The temporary 

suspension affords NOAA time to reevaluate the need for updating the 

special use permit category, publish any 

proposed updates to the category and/or 

implement guidance for the category, 

consider and respond to public 

comment, and finalize any updates to 

the category. NOAA will publish 

Federal Register Notices for any 

subsequent updates (see final EIS 

Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2). During this 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83580 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

temporary suspension, NOAA will not 

have discretion to require or issue 

special use permits for submarine cables 

in newly designated sanctuaries. 

The CHNMS regulations on 

disturbance of the submerged lands are 

modeled off, and largely consistent 

with, the comparable regulations for 

other sanctuaries offshore California. 

NOAA considers it preferable to provide 

consistent, system-wide cable 

permitting clarifications and guidance 

through the separate action described 

above, rather than alter the CHNMS 

regulations through this CHNMSspecific designation. 

As addressed in responses to 

Comments BO–1, OW–8, OW–10, OW– 

14 and others, NOAA is nonetheless 

identifying a Final Preferred Alternative 

that would adjust the CHNMS boundary 

to largely eliminate the need for any of 

the developers of wind leases offshore 

Morro Bay to route a cable through and 

seek a permit from NOAA. 

33. Comment OW–21: The regulatory 

prohibition on developing oil, gas or 

minerals needs to be clear that it would 

not restrict development of ‘‘green 

hydrogen.’’ Specifically, the regulations 

should exempt development of green 

hydrogen and its transport to shore via 

pipelines through the sanctuary. 

Response: The final CHNMS 

regulations prohibit the exploration and 

development of oil and gas specifically, 

as well as ‘‘minerals.’’ NOAA does not 

consider ‘‘green hydrogen’’ to be oil, 

gas, or minerals. The sanctuary 

regulations are not intended to create an 

absolute prohibition on offshore 

development of hydrogen. At present, 

NOAA is not aware of any proposal to 

produce hydrogen offshore and 

transport it through the sanctuary, and 

thus any potential impact from the 

sanctuary designation on this activity 

would be purely speculative. If, in the 

future, a specific hydrogen project were 

proposed, NOAA would need to study 

the potential impacts on sanctuary 

resources from development and 

transport of hydrogen within the 

sanctuary. To the extent that 

construction and placement of 

structures used in hydrogen 

development would involve disturbance 

to or placing a structure on the 

submerged lands of the sanctuary, the 

sanctuary regulations would prohibit 

such activities except in accordance 

with valid permits. If the production of 

hydrogen occurs beyond the boundary 

of the sanctuary, NOAA may need to 

conduct a separate consultation with the 

Federal approving agency under Section 

304(d) of the NMSA. 

34. Comment OW–26: The exceptions 

for disturbance to the submerged lands 

should have specific, additional 

exceptions for anchoring an offshore 

wind platform, as is granted for 

anchoring a vessel. 

Response: The exception for 

anchoring a vessel included in the 

prohibition on disturbing the submerged 

lands applies to a vessel, as defined by 

the national program regulations to 

include watercraft capable of being used 

as a means of transportation, which 

would not include an offshore wind 

platform (see 15 CFR 922.11). The basic 

intent behind this exception recognizes 

most boat anchors are not large enough 

to cause damage to the submerged lands 

(except in sensitive habitats), are 

deployed temporarily and retrieved 

regularly, and are so frequently used in 

a sanctuary as to make the requirement 

to obtain a permit unmanageable. 

However, NOAA’s understanding is that 

the size of anchors necessary to stabilize 

a large offshore floating wind platform 

is massive, many thousands of times 

larger than an anchor for a standard 

vessel. Anchors for offshore floating 

wind platforms are expected to be 

deployed permanently and removed 

only at the end of the life of the 

platform. Agency approval of 

installation of anchors for wind 

platforms would require environmental 

review as part of a larger project. If 

platforms outside of the sanctuary 

require anchors placed within the 

sanctuary, NOAA could consider 

location, placement and impact of 

anchors through the overall project’s 

environmental review and agency 

consultation, and as appropriate, could 

approve placement of anchors on the 

submerged lands via an ONMS 

authorization of an underlying permit, 

likely a USACE permit. 

35. Comment OW–34: NOAA should 

treat all offshore wind projects the same, 

whether they be in State waters or 

Federal waters. Since the AgencyPreferred Alternative cuts out a large 

area to allow cables to be built outside 

of the sanctuary, and the original 

boundary at the time of the Notice of 

Intent was adjusted to avoid overlap 

with the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area, 

NOAA needs to carve out the CADEMO 

project or exempt it from regulatory 

oversight to ensure it is treating all 

projects consistently. 

Response: The Notice of Intent 

removed a portion of the marine waters 

included in the CHNMS nomination 

because BOEM had already initiated the 

leasing process to develop the Morro 

Bay Wind Energy Area prior to NOAA’s 

initiation of the designation process for 

CHNMS. BOEM lacks authority to issue 

offshore wind development leases 

within a sanctuary and the Federal 

government determined it would offer 

greater certainty for potential lease 

bidders if the overlapping area was 

excluded from the proposed sanctuary 

boundary. NOAA is not aware of any 

analogous restriction on the California 

State Lands Commission’s authority to 

grant a lease within a National Marine 

Sanctuary. Thus, a similar exclusion for 

CADEMO is unnecessary. 

An additional consideration is that 

the offshore wind development projects 

in Federal waters off Morro Bay are far 

ahead of CADEMO, which still is in the 

conceptual phase, lacking leases from 

the State for development. Also, in 

Section 4.7.3 of the final EIS, NOAA 

explained four potential development 

scenarios for CADEMO involving State 

leasing and permitting, three of which 

lead to no adverse impact from the 

sanctuary designation on development 

of this project in State waters. Given 

these facts and given the State itself has 

not requested that NOAA provide any 

special boundary or regulatory 

exception for this singular development 

project, NOAA is not adopting the 

particular requests made by CADEMO 

that it be given special regulatory 

exceptions or boundary exclusions for 

developing its project. NOAA will 

participate in the environmental review 

for the CADEMO project. That review 

process will provide NOAA appropriate, 

project-specific information and the 

opportunity to coordinate with State 

agency partners on the appropriate 

action for that proposal. See responses 

to Comments OW–33 and OW–35 for 

more information about NOAA’s 

decision making process related to the 

CADEMO project. 

36. Comment FC–1: Both the EIS and 

the management plan fail to properly 

recognize and describe the importance 

of submarine fiber optic cables in the 

sanctuary, including the vital role this 

industry plays in the 

telecommunications system, wider 

economy, and security. These 

telecommunication systems represent 

essential, critical infrastructure that are 

the backbone of the global digital 

ecosystem and global economy. 

Response: NOAA considered 

submarine fiber optic cables in the draft 

EIS, but to aid review and 

understanding of these cables, NOAA 

has added a new subsection on 

submarine fiber optic cables to the EIS 

Land Use discussion in Section 4.6.1 

(Socioeconomics, Human Uses and 

Environmental Justice). Some of the 

descriptive information noted in the 

comment is included in that new 

subsection, as well as details about the 

number of fiber optic cables, their 

landing sites in the sanctuary, and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83581 

points of origin. Future planned fiber 

optic cables are also described. 

No specific stand-alone section 

regarding submarine fiber optic cables 

has been added to the final management 

plan. However, a new strategy has been 

added to the Offshore Energy Action 

Plan regarding improving information 

about various permitting processes, and 

the telecommunications industry and 

reference to submarine fiber optic cables 

are included there (see Strategy OE–3). 

The final management plan also 

includes a new activity to improve 

coordination among agencies and users 

of the seabed. NOAA acknowledges that 

the telecommunications industry needs 

to be a part of that process (see Activity 

OE–4.4). The telecommunications 

industry is also noted as a critical 

participant in a new Blue Economy 

activity, Activity BE–3.4. 

37. Comment FC–3: The draft 

documents do not adequately satisfy 

NEPA, NMSA, or E.O. 12866 

requirements in their assessment of fiber 

optic cables because they do not clearly 

explain how the sanctuary may impact 

cables. The proposed regulations would 

have significant adverse impacts on 

multiple existing and proposed 

commercial submarine fiber optic 

cables. For example, there are 

submarine fiber optic cables planned for 

development at Grover Beach, which is 

inside the Agency-Preferred Alternative 

and should be acknowledged. The 

Agency-Preferred Alternative and 

proposed regulations do not adequately 

consider the impacts on fiber optic cable 

installation, permitting, operation, and 

maintenance. NOAA did not consider a 

reasonable range of alternatives in the 

draft EIS and should have considered 

other boundary or regulatory 

alternatives, including more fully 

considering the alternative of excluding 

or exempting fiber optic cables. The 

final EIS must assess direct, indirect, 

and cumulative impacts on fiber optic 

cables. 

Response: Per response to Comment 

FC–1, while NOAA considered 

submarine fiber optic cables throughout 

its analysis, it has added a new 

discussion in EIS Section 4.6.1 to 

consolidate information about fiber 

optic cables in the study area. The 

potential impacts on fiber optic cables 

are more clearly described in final EIS 

sections 4.6.3 through 4.6.9. In 

summary, NOAA has clarified that 

neither the Initial Boundary Alternative 

nor any other alternative would have a 

significant adverse impact on fiber optic 

cables within the sanctuary because 

there are permit mechanisms that can 

allow submarine fiber optic cable 

installation, maintenance, and 

operation. The sanctuary regulations 

prohibit disturbance of the submerged 

lands; however, new fiber optic cable 

construction could be allowed if 

permitted through the ONMS 

authorization process. This process 

ensures seafloor disturbances and other 

impacts on sanctuary resources are 

minimized. ONMS has experience 

successfully permitting fiber optic 

cables via these approval mechanisms 

through several national marine 

sanctuaries. For example, ONMS has 

approved construction of fiber optic 

cables within other national marine 

sanctuaries by authorizing a USACE 

permit. 

The EIS meets or exceeds NEPA 

requirements to consider a reasonable 

range of alternatives. During scoping of 

the EIS, NOAA considered the 

telecommunication industry’s request 

that cables either be excluded via 

boundaries or via exceptions in 

regulations, but did not accept the 

requests. That consideration was 

outlined in the draft EIS (Section 3.9.4), 

and NOAA has added additional 

clarifications to that analysis in the final 

EIS. Some of the alternative boundary 

configurations would achieve some of 

the exclusion sought by the 

telecommunications companies (see 

Alternative 3 and 4 in particular) but 

NOAA did not include in its alternative 

analysis a boundary option that would 

exclude all fiber optic cables, as any 

such boundary would have been too 

small to meet the purpose and need for 

the sanctuary. NEPA does not require 

NOAA to consider an infinite range of 

all possible alternatives, but rather, only 

those alternatives that are feasible and 

meet the purpose and need of the 

proposed action. In final EIS section 

3.9.4, NOAA also explained that it 

rejected the alternative of providing a 

regulatory exception for fiber optic 

cables to ensure NOAA could review 

proposed seabed disturbance and 

provide appropriate mitigation 

measures to minimize impact on 

sanctuary resources. While NOAA has 

identified several regulatory exceptions 

to the prohibition on disturbance of the 

submerged lands, most of these 

regulatory exceptions are directly 

related to maritime safety and have an 

anticipated low or de minimis level of 

disturbance to the submerged lands. 

38. Comment FC–6: The likely wind 

energy development in the corridor 

created at Morro Bay by the AgencyPreferred Alternative would ‘‘foreclose’’ 

that area for future fiber optic cables. 

Response: NOAA acknowledges the 

seafloor across the area offshore Morro 

Bay and including the entire Santa 

Lucia Bank is a complicated space with 

diverse uses competing for space, 

including commercial fishing, 

Department of Defense activities, 

existing and potentially new submarine 

fiber optic cables, and new subsea 

electrical transmission cables to bring 

electricity from offshore leases to shore. 

Different users see competition for space 

differently. The Final Preferred 

Alternative, if designated, allows for a 

large area ‘‘outside’’ of CHNMS where 

offshore wind developers and 

telecommunications companies can 

coordinate their development plans 

with each other and with other Federal 

agencies (such as BOEM) and State 

agencies (such as the CEC and CCC). 

39. Comment FC–9: NOAA has not 

justified in the EIS why certain 

activities, which have a significantly 

higher impact than submarine fiber 

optic cables, appear to receive less 

scrutiny than fiber optic cables. NOAA 

proposes to impose an additional level 

of subjective and discretionary Federal 

review for existing and future 

submarine fiber optic cables within the 

sanctuary when it has not done so for 

other types of activities such as: (1) 

continued oil and gas production at 

existing reservoirs from Platform Irene 

and Platform Heritage; (2) dredge 

material disposal sites authorized by the 

USEPA in consultation with USACE; (3) 

ongoing maintenance and repair of oil 

and gas pipelines to shore from Platform 

Irene or Platform Heritage; (4) 

construction, maintenance and repair of 

navigational aids, docks, piers, and 

jetties; (5) maintenance dredging for 

harbors; and (6) drilling and 

maintenance of well related to oil and 

gas production within existing 

reservoirs under production. 

Response: The sanctuary regulations 

largely provide for equal treatment of 

existing activities that may violate 

sanctuary regulations, pursuant to 

NMSA section 304(c). First, they 

‘‘grandfather in’’ all existing activities 

that would otherwise be prohibited by 

allowing operators with leases, licenses, 

permits, or other approvals issued by a 

State or Federal agency to seek a 

certification after sanctuary designation. 

This would apply to telecommunication 

companies with structures—submarine 

fiber optic cables—on the submerged 

lands of the sanctuary, or oil and gas 

companies with platforms or pipelines 

on the submerged lands. It would also 

apply to existing discharges from oil 

and gas facilities, or coastal nuclear 

power plants. Second, the sanctuary 

regulations do not prohibit continued 

operation of fiber optic cables nor 

continued production of oil and gas 

from a federally-issued lease. NOAA 

does include an exception from its 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83582 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

regulation of prohibited activities to 

allow oil and gas production under 

leases in effect on the date of sanctuary 

designation, and certain discharges into 

subsea formations and seabed 

disturbances necessary and incidental to 

such continued oil and gas production. 

These activities are already extensively 

regulated by partner Federal agencies— 

in particular, BSEE and BOEM—who 

have, and apply, technical expertise 

highly specialized to those activities. 

Also, excepted activities necessary and 

incidental to existing oil and gas 

production, such as discharges or 

injections into a reservoir necessary for 

existing oil and gas production, while 

technically within the sanctuary, 

generally happen far below the 

biologically active portions of the 

submerged lands. Thus, with respect to 

both fiber optic cables and existing oil 

and gas production, the sanctuary 

regulations do not prohibit ongoing 

operations but do ensure that there will 

be regulations appropriate to address 

potential impacts of specific activities, 

with regulations tailored to the activity 

based in part on the need for sanctuary 

regulations to complement and 

supplement existing regulatory 

oversight to protect sanctuary resources. 

Third, repair of existing submarine 

cables is treated the same as repair of 

existing oil and gas pipelines—both 

require approval by NOAA to the extent 

that they would disturb submerged 

lands, and/or cause a discharge of 

material. Fourth, final sanctuary 

regulations allow developers for most 

types of activities to seek permits for 

new development that would otherwise 

be prohibited. This would apply, for 

instance, to a telecommunication 

company proposing a new submarine 

fiber optic cable or a local utility 

proposing a new desalination plant. 

However, the regulations do not allow 

NOAA to approve any permit or 

otherwise authorize certain 

incompatible activities, such as new oil, 

gas or mineral development, or new 

discharges of untreated or primarytreated sewage within the sanctuary. 

NOAA does provide exceptions to the 

prohibition on disturbing the submerged 

lands for maintenance dredging of 

harbor mouths or for repair of a harbor 

jetty or breakwater, because these are 

typically public facilities or activities 

necessary to promote or allow public 

navigation or public access to the ocean. 

40. Comment FC–11: NOAA proposes 

a certification process for pre-existing 

rights in 15 CFR 922.234 that goes above 

and beyond the scope of NOAA’s 

general certification review process set 

out in Part 922, subpart A (15 CFR 

922.10) without justifying the need for 

the increased level of scrutiny and 

discretion. As drafted, NOAA has 

considerable discretionary authority and 

could condition an existing cable so that 

it effectively prohibits ongoing 

operations. Furthermore, there is no 

basis for NOAA to require public 

comment and a hearing for certification 

of a use that has already gone through 

public review and comment. 

Response: NOAA believes that the 

proposed sanctuary certification process 

does not reflect an increased level of 

scrutiny and discretion relative to the 

general certification regulations (15 CFR 

922.10), but merely provides more 

details. The certification process 

outlined for CHNMS (15 CFR 922.234) 

necessarily provides process details 

because the regulations for certifications 

applicable to all national marine 

sanctuaries (15 CFR 922.10) are general 

in nature and contain virtually no detail 

about how the process will be 

conducted. Conversely, the sanctuary 

regulations provide relatively fewer 

details about the sanctuary general 

permit process or the ONMS 

authorization process because the 

national program regulations contain 

considerable details about how those 

review processes will be conducted (see 

15 CFR part 922 subpart D). 

NOAA has amended the timeline for 

certifications to clarify confusion in 

different parts of the proposed 

regulations and draft management plan. 

Section 15 CFR 922.234(a)(1) has been 

revised to allow a party to seek a 

certification within 120 days (rather 

than 90 days) of the effective date of 

sanctuary designation. The final 

sanctuary regulations also include other 

modifications to the certification 

process to provide some of the 

adjustments sought by industry. For 

example, Section 922.234(e) has been 

modified to remove the authority to 

hold a hearing; Section 922.234(g) has 

been revised to narrow the conditions 

for amending or revoking a certification 

after issuance; and, Section 922.234(h) 

has been removed because it was openended and unnecessary given the 

revisions to (g). These amendments are 

consistent with the issues, policies, and 

purposes discussed in the proposed 

rule, and constitute procedural updates 

and technical corrections and 

clarifications. The purpose of the 

amendments is to respond to concerns 

received in public comment and ensure 

the CHNMS certification process is 

consistent with NMSA § 304(c). The 

NMSA does allow NOAA to impose 

reasonable conditions on the exercise of 

a preexisting lease, permit, license, or 

right consistent with the purpose of the 

sanctuary. See final EIS Section 3.2.2 for 

revised regulations. 

NOAA further clarifies that denial, 

revocation, amendment, or suspension 

of a certification does not mean that 

NOAA is terminating the underlying 

permit or right. Rather, it means that a 

person exercising a pre-existing permit 

or right within the sanctuary in a 

manner that does not comply with the 

certification regulations or the terms 

and conditions of an issued 

certification, where the activity is 

otherwise prohibited by the sanctuary 

regulations, could be subject to an 

enforcement action pursuant to Section 

307 of the National Marine Sanctuaries 

Act. 

41. Comment FC–18: Some fiber optic 

cable operators are opposed to NOAA’s 

use of the ONMS authorization process 

and permitting regime for fiber optic 

cables, citing concerns about 

uncertainty, delay, and disproportionate 

financial cost. Several alternative 

models—‘‘innovative management 

approaches’’—were suggested, 

including choosing very small, discrete 

boundaries for the sanctuary or only 

requiring sanctuary permit review in 

highly sensitive, special areas. 

Response: One of the suggested 

‘‘innovative management approaches’’— 

shrinking the sanctuary to have small, 

discrete boundaries surrounding only 

the most highly special areas—was 

considered during the NOI phase and 

not accepted, as outlined in EIS Section 

3.9.4 and addressed in response to 

Comment FC–5. The second suggestion, 

to only require a sanctuary permit when 

a cable is proposed to pass through 

certain highly sensitive areas, would 

require detailed study to identify the 

precise location of those areas at the 

time of designation. NOAA lacks 

certainty it could identify all of those 

areas at this time. Nonetheless, it has 

created a special management zone 

around Rodriguez Seamount with 

special regulations that would offer 

additional limitations on any 

development activity, including laying a 

submarine fiber optic cable in that area. 

Having a formal role for the sanctuary, 

along with partners, when new cable 

permits are being considered ensures 

any other special areas containing 

important living, historical, or cultural 

sanctuary resources are identified and 

impacts on them are mitigated. See also 

response to comment FC–15 regarding 

NOAA’s consistent treatment of 

submarine cables with respect to the 

regulatory prohibition on seabed 

disturbance. 

42. Comment FC–19: NOAA should 

rely on its authorization process for new 

submarine fiber optic cables, rather than 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83583 

issuance of a special use permit. NOAA 

should use the CHNMS rulemaking to 

clarify it has the flexibility to rely solely 

on the ONMS authorization process 

rather than the special use permit 

process. It is appropriate to consider the 

treatment of submarine fiber optic 

cables on a sanctuary-specific basis, 

relying on the record and the evidence 

before it, instead of simply relying on 

outdated, past programmatic precedent. 

Response: NOAA’s current process, as 

outlined in its 2011 policy and 

permitting guidelines for submarine 

cables, relies on ONMS authorizations 

for construction of new cables and 

special use permits to allow the 

continued presence of a new structure (a 

cable) on or in the submerged lands of 

the sanctuary. The response to 

Comment FC–10 and the policy and 

permitting guidelines explain the 

purpose for the special use permit. 

NOAA will be revising this document 

and the fair market value assessment for 

cables in a sanctuary in 2024 and 

changes could be made at that time as 

suggested by the comment. 

43. Comment FC–20: The sanctuary 

should model its regulatory regimes 

after other national marine sanctuaries; 

for example, Hawaiian Islands 

Humpback Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary does not prohibit cable 

installation or repair. Also, sanctuaries 

such as Monterey Bay (15 CFR 922.132) 

and Florida Keys (15 CFR 922.163 

exceptions) have issue-specific 

exceptions for a broad range of 

commercial activities. 

Response: The regulations at a 

national marine sanctuary are designed 

and implemented to address the specific 

threats a sanctuary faces, and are only 

those regulations that are necessary to 

achieve the purpose and need for the 

sanctuary. Hawaiian Islands Humpback 

Whale National Marine Sanctuary does 

not prohibit cable installation or repair 

because it does not have a regulation 

prohibiting disturbance of or placing a 

structure on the submerged lands. 

Conserving the humpback whales 

around the Hawaiian Islands has not 

required that sanctuary to include a 

prohibition on disturbance of the 

submerged lands. By contrast, 

protecting the submerged lands of 

CHNMS is necessary to achieve the 

purpose and need for the sanctuary, 

which include protection and 

management of both benthic and pelagic 

sanctuary resources. Further, the 

subsections cited in the comment for 

MBNMS and FKNMS are consistent 

with how NOAA has developed the 

regulations and exceptions for 

CHNMS—customized regulations and 

exceptions to address the threats facing 

a sanctuary and necessary to achieve the 

purpose and need for the sanctuary. 

While NOAA has identified several 

regulatory exceptions to the prohibition 

on disturbance of the submerged lands, 

most of these regulatory exceptions are 

directly related to maritime safety and 

have an anticipated low or de minimis 

level of disturbance to the submerged 

lands. Thus, NOAA is modeling the 

regulatory regime for CHNMS consistent 

with the prior designations of other 

national marine sanctuaries. 

44. Comment DE–1: NOAA should 

address effects of the proposed 

sanctuary on coastal development such 

as desalination projects, including 

possible offshore subsea freshwater 

production systems. Such an assessment 

is particularly relevant for Alternative 

5b–Gaviota Coast extension, and should 

address infrastructure needed, cables, 

and water pipelines. 

Response: NOAA recognizes that the 

County of San Luis Obispo is in the 

early stages of planning for desalination 

to address water supply issues and that 

there are concepts for floating 

desalination facilities offshore of 

Vandenberg Space Force Base, both 

(potentially) located within the 

sanctuary boundary. The timeline for a 

county desalination plant is far into the 

future, and it could be as much as 

another decade before developers are 

ready to seek permits. As such, potential 

impacts on a possible desalination 

project are not reasonably foreseeable 

for the purposes of NEPA review; 

NOAA could not reasonably assess 

impacts of sanctuary designation on 

desalination projects that do not exist or 

do not have set design plans. However, 

ONMS recognizes the interest and 

likelihood of developing desalination 

facilities in the future, and understands 

there is some interest in the Gaviota 

Coast area with regard to possible 

offshore subsurface technologies. In 

response, Activity WQ–2.7 was added to 

the Water Quality Action Plan to 

address future desalination projects. See 

response to Comment MP–73. 

45. Comment AC–5: Establishing the 

biggest possible boundary will bolster 

climate resilience. The habitat diversity, 

including kelp forests, seagrass beds, 

and wetlands in and adjacent to the 

proposed area is a powerful contributor 

to climate resilience and helps to buffer 

vulnerable coastal communities from 

coastal erosion and harmful climate 

impacts. A disturbed ocean and near 

shore environment will leave a nonnatural barren ecosystem causing local 

heating and die-off of ocean species. 

Leaving the California coast and near 

shore environment in a natural State 

will decrease the effect of climate 

change by allowing the ocean to absorb 

much of the excess heat and some of the 

CO2 emissions caused by climate 

change. 

Response: NOAA analyzes the 

beneficial impacts of the sanctuary on 

biological resources (see sections 4.3.3– 

4.3.8) and climate change (see sections 

4.2.3–4.2.8) in the final EIS, including 

positive direct and indirect impacts. 

Section 4.2.3 specifically notes that 

beneficial impacts on climate change 

would result from any increase in the 

uptake of atmospheric contaminants 

such as carbon dioxide due to increased 

biological productivity resulting from 

protections under the sanctuary. Text 

has been added to Section 4.2.3 of the 

final EIS to note potential climate 

benefits related to protection of habitat 

and marine sediments in the sanctuary. 

For more discussion on NOAA’s Final 

Preferred Alternative boundary, see 

response to Comment BO–1. 

46. Comment BR–5: The final EIS 

should better explain the ecological 

significance of the deep offshore area 

west of the Santa Lucia Bank that would 

be excluded under the Agency-Preferred 

Alternative. This area contains 

significant populations of marine 

mammals and seabirds. Further, NOAA 

should acknowledge this area needs 

further exploration and likely contains 

important geological and biological 

deep-sea features. If this area is left 

unprotected, harmful extractive 

practices and operations may occur, 

leading to negative impacts on marine 

life. 

Response: NOAA considered this 

ecological significance and has provided 

additional information on biological 

resources for the area west of Santa 

Lucia Bank in Section 4.3 of the final 

EIS. Seabird data provided by Tammy 

Russell shows high biodiversity west of 

Santa Lucia Bank, and there are two 

ESA-listed seabirds (Hawaiian Petrel 

and Short Tailed Albatross) known to 

use the area. Numerous offshore 

foraging marine mammals also frequent 

this area. However, because benthic 

subsurface research and exploration has 

primarily focused on the Santa Lucia 

Bank itself, with limited data existing 

for the deeper waters west of it, further 

exploration is needed to ultimately 

support some of the characterizations 

made in the comment. Consistent with 

the applicable NEPA regulations, the 

EIS applied ‘‘reliable existing data and 

resources’’; NOAA was not required to, 

and did not, undertake new scientific or 

technical research to further inform 

resource and threat evaluations. 40 CFR 

1502.23. The draft (and final) EIS 

recognized significant beneficial 

conservation impacts expected from the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83584 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

8https://montereybayfisheriestrust.org/stories/ 

2019/9/19/cowcod-declared-rebuilt. 

Initial Boundary Alternative, with 

Alternative 4 providing less benefits due 

to its smaller spatial domain. NOAA’s 

decision to exclude waters west of Santa 

Lucia Bank in the Final Preferred 

Alternative is based in part on 

considerations of manageability (large 

size, far distance from shore), the 

absence of any planned extractive 

activities in this area, uncertainties 

about resource threat levels (for 

seabirds, marine mammals, and benthic 

habitats), and questions about the need 

for protective regulations at this time. 

Given these uncertainties, NOAA has 

added a new Boundary Adjustment 

Action Plan in the final management 

plan that calls for further evaluation of 

these waters for possible future 

inclusion within the sanctuary. These 

provisions call for a biogeographic study 

of living, cultural, and maritime heritage 

resources in this area to inform future 

decision-making regarding possible 

inclusion of additional areas into the 

sanctuary. See also response to 

Comment BO–9. 

47. Comment BR–8: Under the 

Agency-Preferred Alternative, a 10–15 

mile wide unprotected gap would create 

a huge barrier to the migration of many 

species up and down the coast. The 

population impact of this corridor must 

be assessed for all these species in order 

for this to be fully evaluated. The gap 

may become an area of concentrated 

offshore development, as a result of 

development activities desiring to avoid 

sanctuary permitting and mitigation. 

Offshore wind platforms and 

transmission cables pose a threat to the 

migration of multiple species of whales 

and other marine mammals along the 

central coast. 

Response: NOAA acknowledges that 

numerous species will use this area to 

move along the coast, and between 

coastal and offshore waters; however, 

many of these species already use this 

area as a migration corridor without 

sanctuary protection. The full extent of 

how future offshore wind development 

might affect animals that move through 

this area will need further study (see 

response to Comment BR–9). While the 

Final Preferred Alternative does not 

‘‘close the gap’’ at this time, Strategy 

BA–1 in the Boundary Adjustment 

Action Plan would evaluate and 

consider the need for a future boundary 

expansion to include waters north of the 

sanctuary. Activity BA–1.2 in particular 

would track ongoing research and new 

studies that advance understanding of 

offshore wind energy development 

impacts, including effects on migrating 

species such as whales and other marine 

mammals. Also see response to 

Comment BO–1. 

48. Comment BR–11: There is a desire 

to see fish populations healthy and 

protected from seafloor disturbance, 

mineral mining, discharges, and oil. 

Look at global data as proof that 

protected areas help fish populations. 

Discuss evidence on the success of 

California’s Marine Protected Area 

(MPA) network for fish stocks 8— 

particularly CINMS and MBNMS fish 

stock increases as well as commercial 

and recreational fished species. 

Research shows that these protected 

areas have a positive influence on 

biodiversity far beyond their 

boundaries. 

Response: Seafloor disturbance, 

mineral mining, discharges, and oil 

impacts are all strongly addressed 

through the sanctuary’s regulatory 

prohibitions provided by NOAA’s Final 

Preferred Alternative. The EIS finds that 

many ecosystem benefits to fish 

populations are expected from 

designation of the sanctuary (see EIS 

sections 4.3.3–4.3.8 and 4.4.3–4.4.8), but 

it is beyond the scope of this EIS to 

analyze the performance of California’s 

MPA network (see response to Comment 

PN–1). Regarding special MPAs that 

limit or prohibit fishing, NOAA concurs 

that ecological benefits have been 

shown to result, both within and 

beyond their boundaries. However, as 

explained in the responses to comments 

FA–8 and FA–9, NOAA is not 

implementing fishing regulations under 

the NMSA within the sanctuary. The 

terms of designation and the regulations 

for the sanctuary do not allow NOAA to 

directly regulate lawful fishing activities 

under the NMSA in the sanctuary (note 

that some CHNMS regulations would 

apply to a vessel operator during the 

conduct of a fishing activity, for 

example discharges from a vessel). As 

explained in the response to Comment 

FA–20, NOAA has selected a final 

sanctuary boundary that overlaps with 

four State MPAs, thus providing 

additional sanctuary protections (e.g., 

seafloor, water quality) and 

programmatic support to those existing 

protected areas. 

49. Comment BR–20: NOAA should 

establish the special management zone 

for the Rodriguez Seamount in the final 

regulations and include strong and 

permanent regulations to protect the 

Rodriguez Seamount because it provides 

a critical habitat for an extremely 

diverse and abundant array of marine 

life. The Rodriguez Seamount is an 

important underwater feature with 

diverse, nationally significant biological 

communities, yet it also requires a more 

thorough characterization and 

exploration. NOAA should adopt the 

proposed regulations for Rodriguez 

Seamount, as they will protect this area 

from the threat of deep-sea mining due 

to the recently discovered manganese 

oxide ores. 

Response: NOAA agrees with this 

comment and is including Rodriguez 

Seamount in the boundary for the Final 

Preferred Alternative, including the 

special management zone around the 

seamount and the special regulations 

within it. Specific, further 

characterization and monitoring are also 

included in the Research and 

Monitoring Action Plan (see Activity 

RM–3.5). 

50. Comment BR–23: NOAA should 

keep the proposed prohibition on 

introducing or otherwise releasing an 

introduced species into the sanctuary, 

and there should be no exception for 

striped bass. With the exception, striped 

sea bass will be released into the 

environment. This will most likely 

damage the habitat and the wildlife. 

Fishers and fish markets will be affected 

by this and prices will rise. 

Response: NOAA is keeping the 

prohibition related to introduced 

species, including the exception for 

striped bass released during catch and 

release fishing activity. Striped bass 

exceptions for catch and release fishing 

exist in other California national marine 

sanctuaries with limited ecological 

impact on local communities because 

striped bass are already an established 

introduced species. This exception 

refers to fishing for the striped bass that 

are already established in the area; not 

releasing new striped bass. It is 

protected as a lawful fishing activity in 

California; however, catch and release of 

striped bass in the sanctuary is assumed 

to be low. 

51. Comment BR–26: The proposed 

sanctuary regulations prohibit the 

attraction of white sharks via 

chumming. Without the ability to chum 

for white sharks, research becomes too 

difficult to continue. Regulators may 

want to prohibit the development of a 

cage diving industry, but that should 

not hinder research. In fact, the few 

studies that have been published 

regarding provisioning (chumming) and 

its impact on white sharks have shown 

that it does not have a negative impact 

on the sharks. 

Response: Discharge and white shark 

attraction regulations are meant to 

protect sanctuary resources from 

activities of the general public; both for 

the safety of the resource and for people. 

A proposed research activity that would 

violate these regulations would need to 

receive a sanctuary permit in order to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83585 

proceed. White shark researchers have 

been able to conduct their work safely 

in other west coast sanctuaries for years, 

and ONMS staff have been collaborating 

with shark researchers to support and 

permit work within reasonable limits. 

NOAA respectfully disagrees with the 

comment that these regulations would 

inhibit research, as white shark research 

has been permitted and is currently 

active in three of the five west coast 

sanctuaries. 

52. Comment FA–1: The coastal 

communities of Morro Bay and Port San 

Luis/Avila derive significant economic 

and societal benefits from the fishing 

industry that has operated in the study 

area for many years. Ex-vessel revenues 

do not reflect the true economic impact 

of our fishermen’s actions. Some 

economists conservatively estimate a 

multiplier of at least 4x measures the 

true economic impact on the local 

economy. 

Response: NOAA understands and 

appreciates the important economic and 

societal benefits derived from the 

fishing industry, beyond ex-vessel 

revenues, and the industry’s 

dependence upon a healthy marine 

ecosystem and productive fishing 

grounds. NOAA has determined that the 

sanctuary designation will not cause 

significant adverse impacts on the 

fishing industry, as assessed in the final 

EIS (see sections 4.4 and 4.6) and the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act certification 

in the final rule preamble, and NOAA 

has not included any direct sanctuary 

regulation of lawful fishing activities 

through this action. 

53. Comment FA–5: The proposed 

sanctuary poses a significant threat to 

the future of fishermen culture and it 

will disrupt the current delicate balance 

between man and the ocean in the area 

identified for sanctuary designation. 

Despite claims, existing marine 

protected sanctuaries show no 

scientifically proven benefits to the 

ocean. 

Response: NOAA respects and values 

the rich fishing community culture and 

productive commercial fishing grounds 

found along the sanctuary’s coast, and 

intends to support community-based 

resource protection and conservation 

actions to help support productive 

fisheries. Regarding the expectation that 

the sanctuary will not benefit the ocean, 

the final EIS for this designation reaches 

different findings, identifying 

significant beneficial impacts on the 

sanctuary ecosystem and marine 

habitats, upon which commercial 

fishing depends. This includes 

prohibitions on oil/gas exploration and 

harmful discharges resulting in better 

water quality with fewer toxins, and a 

prohibition against introduced species 

limiting the potential for adverse 

competition between introduced and 

native species. Furthermore, condition 

reports from existing west coast national 

marine sanctuaries regularly identify 

healthy marine resources managed 

within a sanctuary due to actions 

(regulatory and non-regulatory) by 

sanctuary staff and partners. 

54. Comment FA–9: NOAA should 

clarify that it will not create fishing 

regulations, including closures, for this 

sanctuary. This applies to commercial 

and recreational fishing. Federal and 

State professional fisheries management 

agencies, not sanctuary managers, have 

both the expertise as well as legal 

mandates to make such fisheries 

management and regulation decisions. 

The continued coordination with, and 

deference to, the PFMC and California 

Fish and Game Commission regarding 

the management of fisheries within the 

sanctuary is important. NOAA should 

not exclude, restrict, or preempt local 

fishermen. The public has the right to 

fish in California waters under the 

navigable easement and section 25 

article I of the California Constitution. 

Response: As stated in response to 

comments FA–7 and F–8, NOAA is not 

implementing any fishing regulations as 

part of the CHNMS designation. In 

general, NOAA considers both the 

NMSA and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act as 

authority for regulating fishing activities 

in national marine sanctuaries. NOAA 

examines the need for fishing 

regulations in each sanctuary on a caseby-case basis, and relies on either or 

both of those Acts to determine the most 

appropriate regulatory approach to meet 

the stated goals and objectives of a 

sanctuary. The process for developing 

fishing regulations in national marine 

sanctuaries is codified in the NMSA at 

Section 304(a)(5) (16 U.S.C. 1434(a)(5)). 

The terms of designation and the 

regulations for CHNMS do not allow 

NOAA to directly regulate lawful 

fishing activities under the NMSA in the 

sanctuary (note that some CHNMS 

regulations would apply to a vessel 

operator during the conduct of a fishing 

activity, for example discharges from a 

vessel). If an issue involving fishing 

arises in the future in CHNMS, NOAA 

will work with the affected stakeholders 

and the appropriate State or Federal 

fishery management entity to find 

solutions. If an issue still persists after 

those consultations and considerations, 

and NOAA believes a sanctuary 

regulation is needed that could directly 

regulate fishing activity, it would need 

to amend the terms of designation 

through a rulemaking process, including 

an analysis of potential impacts via an 

environmental impact statement and 

otherwise comply with Section 304 of 

the NMSA. Also, see response to 

Comment FA–10. 

55. Comment FA–22: ONMS must 

clarify it will not support the authority 

for a Tribe to create new marine 

protected areas that would exclude 

fishing, and to do so would be contrary 

to other sections of the designation 

proposal that State ‘‘no fishing 

regulations are proposed.’’ 

Response: NOAA is not delegating its 

authority within the sanctuary in a way 

that would allow creation of fishing 

regulations or other regulatory actions 

under the NMSA by other groups, 

organizations, or agencies. 

56. Comment MT–5: NOAA should 

alter the Proposed Terms of Designation, 

Scope of Regulations Article IV, Section 

1 (f), to exempt from regulation various 

vessel transits within designated 

shipping lanes and future lawful 

transits. This language is based on that 

of the 2023 Terms of Designation for 

CINMS contained in its management 

plan regarding vessel transits. For 

CHNMS, the recommended change 

would be: ‘‘f. Operating a vessel (i.e., 

water craft of any description) within 

the Sanctuary; except vessels traveling 

within Port Access Routes designated by 

the Coast Guard, and other lawful 

transits;’’ 

Response: NOAA is not adopting this 

suggested altered language for the final 

Terms of Designation for the sanctuary 

because it believes that it is important 

to have authority in the future to 

regulate vessel operation within the 

sanctuary, whether inside or outside of 

Port Access Routes. 

57. Comment MT–6: From the 

discussion in the draft EIS, normal 

operation of heavy lift vessels is not 

precluded from the discharge 

prohibition; without the use of heavy 

lift vessels that can intake and discharge 

local sea water as ballast, oil and gas 

platform removal and decommissioning 

will not be possible. NOAA should add 

an exception for discharges incidental 

and necessary to decommissioning 

operations, analogous to the exception 

for discharges incidental and necessary 

to ongoing oil and gas production. 

Response: Discharges of ballast water, 

as part of future decommissioning 

activities, would require a sanctuary 

general permit or ONMS authorization. 

NOAA is not adding an exception for 

discharges incidental and necessary to 

decommissioning operations, because it 

is important that NOAA has the ability 

to ensure potential impacts on sanctuary 

resources are avoided or feasibly 

mitigated. For more discussion on oil 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83586 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

9See 15 CFR 922.11 for ‘‘Sanctuary resource’’ 

definition: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/ 

part-922#p-922.11(Sanctuary%20resource). 

10See 15 CFR 922.11 for ‘‘Sanctuary quality’’ 

definition: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/ 

part-922#p-922.11(Sanctuary%20quality). 

and gas facility decommissioning 

discharges, see response to Comment 

OG–14. 

58. Comment MU–1: Will there be any 

limitations on military or aerospace 

activities in the sanctuary framework, or 

is there greater freedom or outright 

exemptions for military and aerospace? 

Response: The sanctuary regulations 

exempt from most of the regulatory 

prohibitions certain existing activities 

carried out or approved by DoD that 

were conducted prior to the effective 

date of designation (see final EIS 

Section 4.9 and Appendix I), consistent 

with practices in other national marine 

sanctuaries and as described in CHNMS 

regulations at 15 CFR 922.232(c)(1). 

NOAA is also retaining the authority for 

the ONMS Director to review future new 

or modified DoD activities to determine 

if they warrant an exemption. In 15 CFR 

922.232(c)(2), the regulations explain 

how DoD will respond to, mitigate, and 

if practicable, restore damage to 

sanctuary resources from DoD activities. 

59. Comment SS–1: NOAA should 

ensure the authority to regulate vessel 

speed is written into the terms of 

designation. NOAA should impose 

vessel speed restrictions including 

implementing time and area closures, 

speed reduction zones, and a 10-knot 

speed limit to reduce injuries to whales, 

sea turtles, and other marine species, to 

minimize ship air and noise pollution, 

and to reduce the risk of vessel 

collision. Voluntary incentives in the 

Blue Whales and Blue Skies program 

would be insufficient. Implementing a 

mandatory vessel speed restriction in 

CHNMS would also set an important 

precedent along the west coast, leading 

the way for other sanctuaries and Statemanaged reserves to implement similar 

restrictions in the future. 

Response: The terms of designation 

gives NOAA authority to manage vessel 

speed, if warranted in the future. At this 

time, NOAA is not adopting any of the 

regulatory suggestions in this comment. 

The four sanctuaries in California have 

been attempting to minimize or 

eliminate whale ship strikes via 

voluntary speed limits, avoidance areas, 

and other conservation measures. 

NOAA will expand those measures to 

CHNMS. ONMS has worked with 

USCG, NOAA Fisheries, and the 

shipping industry to identify and 

implement actions to date. If in the 

future NOAA determines that it is 

necessary to pursue a mandatory, 

regulatory solution (such as through the 

process outlined in Activity RP–6.3 in 

the Resource Protection Action Plan), 

NOAA will conduct a separate 

regulatory process and give 

consideration to a regional, multisanctuary approach. 

60. Comment SS–3: NOAA should 

expand its voluntary vessel speed 

reduction zones from other sanctuaries 

to CHNMS. This would allow it to 

implement strategies on a coastwide, 

system basis, from Point Arena through 

the Channel Islands. An additional 

strategy NOAA could take is to establish 

a California-wide national marine 

sanctuary advisory group to collaborate 

on vessel-focused efforts and 

recommendations, including protection 

of marine mammals and navigation. 

Research on ship strikes shows that this 

new sanctuary would provide 

opportunities to decrease mortality of 

migrating blue, humpback, and fin 

whales due to ship strikes. 

Response: Activity WD–3.2 in the 

sanctuary management plan’s Wildlife 

Disturbance Action Plan aims to take 

similar action through the Sanctuary 

Advisory Council. The idea of a 

California-wide national marine 

sanctuary advisory group could be 

addressed by the Sanctuary Advisory 

Councils of all California national 

marine sanctuaries, including CHNMS. 

In addition, Activity RP–6.3 in the 

Resource Protection Action Plan has 

been edited in the final management 

plan to guide coordination at a regional 

level on reducing ship strikes in 

national marine sanctuaries in 

California, as outlined in Activity WD– 

3.2. If voluntary vessel speed reduction 

efforts are determined to be insufficient, 

Activity RP–6.3 directs evaluation of 

potential mandatory measures to reduce 

ship strikes. Also see response to 

Comment SS–1. 

61. Comment WQ–1: NOAA should 

develop a Water Quality Needs 

Assessment to understand the water 

quality issues, sources, and impacts. 

Response: NOAA agrees. The first 

strategy in the Water Quality Action 

Plan (Strategy WQ–1.1) addresses this 

very request—developing a water 

quality needs assessment. 

62. Comment WQ–2: The enter and 

injure discharge prohibitions are too 

strict. All existing legal uses should be 

allowed to continue. The existing 

regulatory process is sufficient; another 

layer of permitting is unnecessary. 

Response: The CHNMS discharge 

regulation (15 CFR 922.232(a)(2)), which 

includes a sub-element prohibition on 

any discharge from beyond the 

sanctuary boundary that subsequently 

enters and injures sanctuary resources 9

or qualities 10 (15 CFR 

922.232(a)(2)(iii)), is consistent with 

discharge prohibitions at many national 

marine sanctuaries, including others 

along the California coast. For a 

discharge to violate this sub-element of 

the regulation, a discharge that has 

already occurred must be found to have 

injured a sanctuary resource or quality. 

For example, this prohibition could be 

applied to an oil or hazardous substance 

spill that originates from outside the 

sanctuary boundary and then 

subsequently enters the sanctuary and 

injures a sanctuary resource or quality. 

NOAA has a long history of 

implementing the discharge regulation, 

including the enter-and-injure element, 

finding it to provide appropriately high 

standards of sanctuary resource 

protection balanced with reasonable 

exceptions and permit options that 

allow for the continued responsible use 

and enjoyment of sanctuary waters. 

NOAA also finds that the sanctuary 

discharge regulation augments 

protections provided by other 

jurisdictions and laws; see also response 

to Comment RP–5. 

63. Comment WQ–3: NOAA should 

provide additional discharge exceptions 

for large ocean-going vessels, e.g., antifouling hull coating leachate, 

bilgewater, cathodic protection, 

controllable pitch propeller and thruster 

hydraulic fluid and other oil to sea 

interfaces including lubrication 

discharges, etc; or NOAA should 

reference the USEPA Vessel General 

Permit and allow (as an exception to the 

general prohibition provisions of this 

proposed rule) any discharges where 

compliant with the provisions of the 

Vessel General Permit, which cannot 

otherwise be minimized or eliminated 

during transit through the sanctuary. 

Response: Based on experience at 

several national marine sanctuaries, 

NOAA considers the discharge 

regulation requirements and exceptions 

(15 CFR 922.232(a)(2)(i) and (ii)) to be 

reasonable for large ocean-going vessels 

transiting through the area. The 

proposed CHNMS requirements match 

those in place at adjacent national 

marine sanctuaries (MBNMS and 

CINMS), frequently transited by oceangoing vessels. Additionally, ocean-going 

vessels are expected to spend less time 

within the Final Preferred Alternative’s 

boundary, which is closer to the shore 

than the Initial Boundary Alternative 

(See response to Comment BO–1 for 

details on NOAA’s identification of the 

boundary for the Final Preferred 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83587 

Alternative). NOAA also expects that 

ocean-going vessels are likely to remain 

largely outside the Final Preferred 

Alternative in anticipation of the USCG 

implementing recommendations from 

its final Pacific Coast Port Access Route 

Study, which proposes a shift of coastal 

vessel traffic lanes and corridors further 

offshore to become fairways, mostly 

beyond sanctuary boundaries. Future 

vessel traffic patterns will be evaluated 

and considered as part of implementing 

the final management plan’s Boundary 

Adjustment Action Plan. 

64. Comment WQ–9: There is concern 

that sanctuary regulations might result 

in duplicative regulation inconsistent 

with the Clean Water Act. NOAA 

should align language in the regulations 

with the non-regulatory, collaborative 

policy approach expressed in the 

proposed management plan. NOAA 

should amend § 922.232(a)(2)(iii) of the 

proposed rule to clarify that this 

prohibition does not extend to 

discharges upstream or outside of the 

sanctuary that are done pursuant to a 

Federal or State permit, including, but 

not limited to, a permit issued under 

NPDES. Without such clarity, this 

language creates a potential ‘‘double 

jeopardy’’ situation. NOAA should 

clarify language in § 922.234 of the 

proposed rule such that the certification 

process directly applies to permits for 

discharges that occur outside the 

sanctuary. 

Response: The ‘‘enter-and-injure’’ 

clause of the sanctuary’s discharge 

regulation (15 CFR 922.232(a)(2)(iii)) is 

intended to address abnormal 

conditions such as the failure of a 

specific system or facility, hazardous 

material spills, or other emergency 

situations where a known material from 

a known source is discharged ‘‘upstream 

of’’ or beyond sanctuary boundaries and 

subsequently enters the sanctuary and 

injures a sanctuary resource or quality. 

The injury and the source of the 

discharge would need to be documented 

for it to violate the sanctuary regulation. 

Such a discharge, for instance, that 

violates State law or regulation could at 

the same time also violate Federal law 

or regulation. If NOAA were to become 

aware, in the future, of a proposed or 

existing discharge beyond the boundary 

of the sanctuary that is permitted or 

otherwise approved and that could enter 

and injure a sanctuary resource or 

quality, it will work with the agency 

responsible for the underlying permit 

and the permit applicant/holder to find 

ways to mitigate that impact. In the 

event a discharge permitted by another 

entity enters and injures a sanctuary 

resource or quality, NOAA would also 

retain the ability to respond to this as a 

violation of the enter-and-injure 

prohibition. 

NOAA acknowledges that 

§ 922.232(a)(2)(iii) introduces an 

additional source of potential liability 

for dischargers, but this is not 

inconsistent with the Clean Water Act. 

The Clean Water Act is intended to 

broadly protect ‘‘the Nation’s waters,’’ 

33 U.S.C. 1251(a), whereas the NMSA 

protects areas of ‘‘special national 

significance’’ where existing Federal 

and State authorities are inadequate or 

should be supplemented to accomplish 

coordinated and comprehensive 

coordination and management, 16 

U.S.C. 1433(a)(2)–(3). The commenter 

points to the Clean Water Act’s ‘‘permit 

shield’’ provision at 33 U.S.C. 1342(k). 

But that provision, by its own plain 

terms, provides only that compliance 

with a NPDES permit is deemed 

compliance with certain specific 

provisions of the Clean Water Act; it is 

not a blanket insulation from all forms 

of potential liability. 

Thus, NOAA is not amending the 

proposed regulatory language for 15 

CFR 922.232(a)(2)(iii). See also response 

to Comment WQ–2. 

65. Comment WQ–11: The proposed 

discharge prohibition exempts USCG 

vessels, but not vessels engaged in 

lawful fishing activities. The same 

discharge exception that is provided to 

USCG vessels should be provided for 

lawful fishing activities. The proposed 

discharge regulations that apply to even 

the smallest of craft and minimal 

negative impacts will constructively 

limit the public’s use of sanctuary 

waters. Enforcement of these regulations 

are commonly so impractical the 

expectation is that they will not be 

enforced. Establishing rules putting 

people on the wrong side of the law, 

that are not expected to be enforced, is 

simply bad public policy. It puts people 

at risk of being cited on the basis of their 

appearance or any other subjective 

quality. 

Response: NOAA has sought to 

implement regulations and various nonregulatory programs for CHNMS that 

strive to protect water quality by 

limiting sewage and other waste and 

pollutants discharged into the ocean, 

potentially harming sanctuary 

resources. It has further sought to 

implement regulations that are 

consistent across other sanctuaries on 

the west coast, especially adjacent to 

CHNMS. NOAA seeks to collaborate 

with local and State agencies, harbor 

masters, and most importantly boaters 

who use the sanctuary to find the best 

ways to operate on the ocean without 

harming resources. Activity WQ–2.6 in 

the management plan calls for NOAA to 

work with local harbors to ensure 

adequate sewage pumpout facilities 

exist and are operable within harbors for 

boaters to use. Current Federal law 

prohibits discharge of untreated sewage 

from a vessel within three miles of 

shore, thereby placing a requirement on 

boaters to comply with these discharge 

prohibitions. The sanctuary regulations 

extend that existing requirement 

throughout the sanctuary, and establish 

an exception from the discharge 

prohibitions for clean effluent generated 

incidental to vessel use by a Type I or 

II Marine Sanitation Device (for vessels 

less than 300 gross registered tons (GRT) 

and for vessels 300 GRT or greater 

without sufficient holding tank capacity 

to hold sewage while within the 

sanctuary). Alternatively, vessels with 

holding tanks can store waste for 

discharge at onshore pumpout facilities 

or when beyond the sanctuary 

boundary. NOAA hopes that 

compliance will be widespread, but 

disagrees with the comment that nonenforcement is to be expected in cases 

of noncompliance. 

The exception for USCG vessels 

operating beyond 3 nautical miles from 

shore is consistent with a similar 

exception requested by USCG and 

granted by NOAA for GFNMS and 

Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary 

(CBNMS). NOAA has developed plans 

with USCG District 11 leadership 

through informal discussions to limit 

discharges into other west coast national 

marine sanctuaries and anticipates 

similar approaches could be explored 

for USCG operations in the proposed 

sanctuary. If a USCG vessel has a Type 

I or Type II MSD, it must use that within 

the sanctuary prior to discharging 

sewage. NOAA included the exception 

for USCG vessels without adequate 

treatment or storage because of the 

importance of having USCG vessels able 

to patrol and carry out critical safety 

and national security operations in the 

sanctuary. USCG patrol vessels provide 

a tremendous benefit to NOAA by 

assisting with enforcement of national 

marine sanctuary regulations. See EIS 

sections 4.4 and 4.6 for additional 

details related to expected impacts on 

vessels engaged in lawful activities 

(commercial and recreational, 

respectively). 

66. Comment WQ–17: NOAA should 

impose regulations to control harmful 

discharges from cruise ships and require 

clean water release. 

Response: NOAA included a 

prohibition on discharges from cruise 

ships in the sanctuary regulations (see 

15 CFR 922.232(a)(2)(ii)). Across most 

national marine sanctuaries, NOAA has 

applied consistent regulations that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83588 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

allow for fewer exceptions for cruise 

ship discharges than for other vessel 

discharges within or into sanctuaries 

because cruise ships can generate very 

large volumes of waste or other 

discharges and because it is feasible for 

cruise ships to pass through the 

proposed sanctuary without 

discharging. The only exceptions for 

cruise ships discharging within the 

proposed sanctuary would be for clean 

vessel engine cooling water, clean vessel 

generator cooling water, vessel engine or 

generator exhaust, clean bilge water, or 

anchor wash; in essence, these 

discharges are directly linked to 

propelling and operating the vessel 

itself. 

67. Comment SN–1: The new 

sanctuary should have a name that is 

more inclusive of all Tribes and 

Indigenous communities in the region. 

Suggestions included: an English or 

Indigenous name based on local 

geographical features (such as ‘‘EsteroGaviota’’, or ‘‘Lisamu-Lesamo’’); 

Indigenous word or phrase of general 

support (such as ‘‘Kiyis’skamin’’, a 

Chumash phrase for ‘‘our ocean’’); use 

both Chumash and Salinan in the 

sanctuary’s name (such as ‘‘Chumash 

and Salinan Heritage’’); or use a broadly 

descriptive name reflecting Tribal 

involvement (such as ‘‘Central Coast 

Indigenous Heritage’’, ‘‘Pacific Coast 

Tribal Heritage’’, ‘‘Indigenous Peoples 

Heritage’’ and ‘‘California First 

Peoples’’). 

Response: For the reasons outlined in 

response to Comment BO–1, with 

NOAA’s Final Preferred Alternative 

covering the shoreline that has largely 

been considered an ancestral area to 

Chumash bands, NOAA is selecting the 

name ‘‘Chumash Heritage National 

Marine Sanctuary.’’ As explained in 

responses to Comments BO–1 through 

BO–4, NOAA will be initiating a process 

to consider expanding the sanctuary in 

the future to include the coast between 

the current boundary and Cambria, and 

thus potentially including an area of 

significance ancestrally to both the 

Salinan and Chumash. That potential 

future action could trigger a need to reevaluate the name for the sanctuary. 

Other potential future actions that 

would require separate processes under 

the NMSA and NEPA could include 

extending Monterey Bay National 

Marine Sanctuary south to avoid 

changing the CHNMS name, or 

designating an independent sanctuary 

with its own new name. 

68. Comment TI–1: NOAA has 

proposed an Indigenously focused 

project in a region characterized by 

rampant neo-Indianism, a movement 

resting on inaccurate claims of 

Indigenous ancestry and affiliation. As 

such, NOAA should ensure the 

Indigenous people they work with for 

the sanctuary possess and can provide 

documented lineal descendancy as 

certified evidence of legitimate ancestral 

precontact ties to the California central 

coast. NOAA should also trust evidence 

provided of fraudulent representation of 

some Tribal groups. NOAA should work 

with Tribes, and/or the California 

Native Heritage Commission, to codevelop vetting criteria and a Tribal 

review process. If NOAA does not get 

involved they will perpetuate the 

erasure of true Native voices that has 

gone on since colonization and 

missionization, and contribute to 

ongoing colonial settler violence. The 

role of protecting Chumash land and 

water should be given to those who are 

authentically Chumash. 

Response: Under the NMSA, national 

marine sanctuaries are designated and 

managed to protect nationally 

significant ‘‘conservation, recreational, 

ecological, historical, scientific, 

educational, cultural, archeological, or 

esthetic qualities,’’ 16 U.S.C. 1431(a)(2), 

and NOAA has demonstrated the 

nationally significant cultural qualities 

of the CHNMS area throughout the rule, 

management plan, and EIS. As is 

customary for national marine 

sanctuaries, NOAA intends to use an 

inclusive approach to consult with the 

federally recognized Santa Ynez Band of 

Chumash Indians and engage with other 

local Indigenous groups, and has 

clarified this approach in the 

Introduction section of the management 

plan. NOAA’s inclusive approach is 

guided by Section 301(b)(7) of the 

NMSA, which states that one of the 

intended purposes of national marine 

sanctuaries is ‘‘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.’’ 16 

U.S.C. 1431(b)(7). 

NOAA has sought to meaningfully 

consult and engage with local Tribes 

and Indigenous communities of the 

central coast of California throughout 

the sanctuary designation process, 

informing the partnership approach 

described in the management plan’s 

Indigenous Collaborative CoStewardship structure and future 

cultural programs. At the same time, 

NOAA understands there are continued 

disagreements concerning Tribal 

affiliation, legitimacy, and Indigenous 

identity, and about who should and 

should not speak for Chumash people, 

interests, or groups. Comments received 

on the proposed rule objected to Tribal 

‘‘authenticity,’’ and alternatively 

objected to anyone questioning Tribal 

authenticity (see Comment TI–5). 

NOAA has not made, and does not 

intend to make, determinations 

regarding the ‘‘authenticity’’ of any 

individual or group’s asserted affiliation 

with the Chumash people; rather, 

NOAA recognizes the unique 

government-to-government relationship 

between the United States and the 

SYBCI, the only federally recognized 

Tribe in the region, and in addition 

broadly invites non-federally recognized 

local Tribes and Indigenous groups to 

participate in sanctuary stewardship 

and programs in a way that can 

appropriately elevate Indigenous voices. 

In this manner, NOAA seeks to provide 

opportunities for the Indigenous 

peoples of the central coast to share 

their culture and wisdom publicly as 

they would like it to be shared. 

NOAA expects that many groups 

throughout the diverse communities of 

the California central coast will 

continue to be interested in seeing and 

helping the sanctuary succeed. NOAA 

understands this diversity of local 

groups to include those involved with 

Chumash history, heritage, education, 

cultural practices, and more. NOAA has 

revised the Introduction section of the 

final management plan to State it does 

not have the authority to adjudicate 

claims of authenticity or disputes 

between groups with claims of Tribal 

ancestry, and NOAA declines to do so. 

NOAA has focused on developing a 

management plan that takes into 

account the deep connection and 

history of Indigenous Peoples to the 

sanctuary’s coastal areas. 

NOAA also intends to conduct 

required Tribal consultations, work with 

interested local Tribes and Indigenous 

groups through coordination and 

engagement processes as appropriate, 

and, as a starting point, through 

formation of an Indigenous Cultures 

Advisory Panel and the various other 

means reflected in the proposed 

Indigenous Collaborative CoStewardship framework presented in 

the management plan. 

69. Comment TI–8: NOAA’s proposed 

collaborative management framework is 

not inclusive enough of a broad range of 

Tribal perspectives, and it should be 

amended. All Tribes, both federally 

recognized and non-federally 

recognized, should have equal 

representation in advisory and 

consultation roles, to be empowered and 

given the same advisory capacity and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83589 

11See 2021 Executive Office of the President 

memorandum on Indigenous Ecological Knowledge 

and Federal Decision Making: https://

www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/ 

111521-OSTP-CEQ-ITEK-Memo.pdf. 

input opportunities as proposed for 

federally recognized Tribes. Responsible 

representatives of local Tribes should be 

invited to participate in all facets of the 

proposed sanctuary. Additionally, 

because the proposed sanctuary will 

include State waters, and because 

California’s Native American Heritage 

Council lists many non-federally 

recognized Chumash and Salinan Tribes 

that are also recognized by the State, 

those Tribes should be consulted and 

included as part of collaborative 

sanctuary management. It is 

unacceptable for sanctuary designation 

to cause any California Tribes to lose 

consultation and policy input rights 

currently recognized by the State of 

California. 

Response: NOAA recognizes the 

unique government-to-government 

relationship between the United States 

and federally recognized Tribes, 

including the SYBCI. There are several 

types of advisory roles offered by NOAA 

in the proposed Indigenous 

Collaborative Co-Stewardship 

Framework presented in the 

management plan. While one element, 

the Intergovernmental Policy Council, is 

limited to federally recognized 

governmental entities (federally 

recognized Tribes from the area and the 

State of California), all of the other 

management advisory opportunities, as 

well as joint project partnerships with 

non-profit foundations, can be pursued 

by non-federally recognized Tribes and 

Indigenous community groups and 

representatives. NOAA does not 

determine for the State of California 

with whom it will consult, and will not 

impede or eliminate any consultation or 

policy input rights currently offered to 

non-federally recognized Tribes by the 

State of California, a key sanctuary 

management partner. Additionally, 

NOAA envisions the creation of an 

Indigenous Cultures Advisory Panel to 

bring together individuals possessing 

knowledge or understanding of the local 

Indigenous culture, history, and 

environment to develop and provide 

essential advice supporting sanctuary 

management (see also response to 

Comment TI–12). NOAA invites and 

encourages interested individuals to 

pursue these opportunities and join in 

evaluating it over the early years of the 

sanctuary’s implementation, with the 

understanding that modifications can be 

considered and adjustments made as 

those involved experience the process 

and provide feedback on the approach 

being used. See the final management 

plan for more information about 

formation of the ICAP. 

70. Comment TI–12: NOAA should 

establish a separate Tribal Advisory 

Council to enhance collaborative 

management with the Indigenous 

community. Other Federal agencies 

have adopted similar Tribal advisory 

councils and NOAA could look to them 

for guidance. NOAA can use specific 

laws and precedence to justify its 

establishment. 

Response: NOAA agrees about the 

importance of finding effective ways to 

collaborate in co-stewardship of the 

sanctuary. However, rather than forming 

a Tribal advisory council, NOAA 

believes that the Indigenous Cultures 

Advisory Panel (ICAP) proposed in the 

draft management plan would most 

effectively guide the sanctuary’s 

handling of the various ways costewardship will be needed for 

CHNMS—such as uplifting Indigenous 

voices, integrating traditional ecological 

knowledge into sanctuary management, 

and drawing upon a wide range of 

Indigenous cultural perspectives. NOAA 

encourages interested individuals to 

inquire about ICAP participation 

following a future announcement of the 

group’s formation through the SAC, and 

will seek input from participating ICAP 

members to help evaluate it over the 

early years of the sanctuary’s 

implementation. As participants 

provide feedback, modifications can be 

considered and adjustments made. 

71. Comment TI–28: NOAA should 

not grant, give, cede or return area (or 

ocean) to Chumash or other Indigenous 

Tribes by giving them primary 

management authority for making 

regulations and equal decision-making 

authority over the sanctuary area and its 

resources. Reasons cited included: 

Chumash involvement is not vital; 

Chumash should not have greater 

management influence or authority than 

other community members or groups; 

Chumash are not qualified to make 

management decisions; lack of a fair 

basis for giving a very small 

hereditarily-defined group preferential 

influence in decision making over a 

public land and waters. 

Response: NOAA’s Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries has no jurisdiction 

over lands, and no legal ability to give 

away, delegate, or cede its 

Congressionally granted authority to 

manage marine and ocean resources 

inside national marine sanctuaries to 

any other entity. As described in the 

Indigenous Collaborative CoStewardship Framework section of the 

management plan’s Introduction, NOAA 

will retain and use its regulatory and 

management authority pursuant to the 

NMSA for protection of resources 

within the sanctuary, while conducting 

required Tribal consultations and 

collaborating closely with Tribes and 

Indigenous communities as well as 

other local interests through the 

Sanctuary Advisory Council and 

Indigenous Cultures Advisory Panel. 

NOAA provides these engagement 

opportunities for all parties within the 

purposes and policies of NMSA. Under 

its trust responsibilities to federally 

recognized Tribes, NOAA will also 

consult with, and work collaboratively 

and in co-stewardship with, the Santa 

Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. NOAA 

disagrees that Tribal and Indigenous 

community involvement is not vital for 

helping the sanctuary to succeed, or that 

the different types of experience that 

Tribes and Indigenous groups bring is 

not relevant to inform and guide 

NOAA’s management decisions. To the 

contrary, NOAA firmly believes that the 

unique Indigenous Knowledge Tribes 

and Indigenous community members 

have of this coastal area is essential for 

the long term stewardship of the 

sanctuary.11

72. Comment TI–31: NOAA should 

have meaningful consultation with 

Indigenous people. Indigenous people 

should be involved in: sanctuary 

planning, decision-making processes 

regarding sacred site protection, 

developing and implementing 

educational programs, environmental 

restoration, habitat protection, and 

NOAA regulatory actions (e.g., possible 

permitting related to offshore wind 

energy). 

Response: NOAA agrees that 

Indigenous Peoples with relevant 

knowledge of the sanctuary area should 

be respectfully and appropriately 

invited to meaningfully contribute to 

the types of activities commenters 

mentioned, and has done so throughout 

the sanctuary designation process. 

NOAA’s proposed Indigenous 

Collaborative Co-Stewardship 

Framework, as described in the 

management plan’s Introduction 

section, provides several types of 

opportunities to support this 

engagement, including legally required 

consultation and a variety of 

collaborative forums to foster working 

in partnership. 

73. Comment SA–1: A variety of 

specific seats on the Sanctuary Advisory 

Council were suggested in different 

comments. One or more seats were 

requested for: Indigenous communities; 

offshore wind industry; oil and gas 

industry; harbors and marinas; Port San 

Luis Harbor District; recreational boaters 

and fishermen; conservation; science 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83590 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(including ocean and marine biology); 

education (including colleges and 

universities); marine transportation; 

agriculture; commercial and recreational 

interests; youth community members; 

Department of Defense; BOEM; USGS; 

and multiple NOAA offices. 

Response: NOAA will consider these 

suggestions upon development of the 

Charter for the Sanctuary Advisory 

Council. Under section 315(c) of the 

NMSA, 16 U.S.C. 1445a(c), and ONMS 

policy, there is a limit of 15 voting seats 

on advisory councils for sanctuaries 

designated after November 4, 1992. 

Additionally, NOAA also intends to 

establish non-voting seats on the 

advisory council to allow additional 

government agencies to participate. 

Sanctuary Advisory Councils, with the 

concurrence of the sanctuary 

superintendent, may also establish 

Working Groups that can bring 

additional constituents and stakeholders 

into the process of developing sanctuary 

management recommendations. 

Development, establishment, and startup of the new advisory council is 

expected to take place shortly after 

sanctuary designation. See also response 

to Comment TI–12 regarding NOAA’s 

plan to also establish an Indigenous 

Cultures Advisory Panel. 

74. Comment SA–4: Tribes need a 

deciding vote and voice to be true 

collaborators, or else sanctuary advisory 

council seats will be superficial only 

with no deep substance. 

Response: NOAA disagrees that a 

‘‘deciding vote’’ is necessary for 

meaningful engagement in collaborative 

co-stewardship of the sanctuary. NOAA 

expects that representatives from local 

Tribes and Indigenous communities can 

play a very meaningful and impactful 

role in supporting collaborative costewardship of the sanctuary through 

government-to-government 

consultation, participation on the 

Indigenous Cultures Advisory Panel, or 

seats on the Sanctuary Advisory 

Council. The same is true for 

collaborative opportunities through the 

Intergovernmental Policy Council and 

joint project partnerships with 

participating non-profit foundations. 

75. Comment SA–11: NOAA should 

provide for an adaptive, flexible 

approach to sanctuary management 

(including review and processing of 

permit, certification, and authorization 

requests) that includes opportunities for 

management plan reviews and timely 

processing of permitting and other 

requests pertaining to sanctuary access. 

Response: NOAA agrees. As required 

by the NMSA, national marine 

sanctuaries conduct periodic 

management plan reviews, informed by 

condition reports, monitoring data, 

community and advisory council input, 

and many other sources of information. 

Management plan review processes will 

invite public, advisory council, and 

Tribal community input and 

participation. NOAA also intends to 

handle sanctuary permitting 

responsibilities in a thoughtful and 

timely manner. Responses to comments 

in the Permitting section provide 

additional information about NOAA’s 

management flexibility. 

VI. Classification 

A. National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

NOAA has determined that the 

designation of Chumash Heritage 

National Marine Sanctuary (CHNMS) 

will not have a negative impact on the 

National Marine Sanctuary System and 

that sufficient resources exist to 

effectively implement sanctuary 

management plans and to update site 

characterizations. The NMSA section 

304(f) finding is available on the 

CHNMS website at: https://sanctuaries.

noaa.gov/chumash-heritage/. In 

addition, NOAA consulted with the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(PFMC) as required in accordance with 

NMSA section 304(a)(5). Through this 

consultation, NOAA provided the PFMC 

with the opportunity to recommend any 

fishing regulations it deemed necessary 

to implement the proposed sanctuary 

designation, and participated in two 

public meetings with the PFMC in 

September 2022 and November 2022 as 

the Council deliberated on this issue. At 

its hearing on November 6, 2022, the 

PFMC decided not to recommend any 

fishing regulations to implement the 

proposed designation but expressed a 

willingness to reconsider in the future 

should new information about the need 

for fishing regulations arise. The PFMC 

documented this decision in a letter to 

NOAA dated December 1, 2022. NOAA 

accepted the PFMC’s response relative 

to the proposed designation of CHNMS 

and the final regulations reflect 

concurrence with the PFMC’s 

determination. 

B. National Environmental Policy Act 

As described in section I above, 

NOAA prepared a final EIS to evaluate 

the impacts of designating a national 

marine sanctuary, which considered 

alternatives for national marine 

sanctuary designation along and 

offshore of the coast of central 

California. Copies of the final EIS, final 

management plan, and Record of 

Decision (ROD) for this action are 

available at the address and website 

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this 

final rule. 

C. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Impact 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined this final rule is 

significant action under Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 190 (Oct 4, 1993), as 

supplemented and reaffirmed E.O. 

14094, ‘‘Modernizing Regulatory 

Review,’’ 88 FR 21879 (April 11, 2023). 

Based upon the information provided in 

NOAA’s accompanying Cost-Benefit 

Analysis (final EIS appendix D), this 

final rule would not meet the criteria for 

a significant regulatory action as defined 

in section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, as 

supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 

14094. This means the estimated annual 

effect is less than $200 million, and the 

action would not adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or Tribal 

governments or communities. Therefore, 

NOAA did not prepare the full 

regulatory impact analysis under E.O. 

12866. 

D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Assessment 

NOAA has concluded that this 

regulatory action does not have 

federalism implications sufficient to 

warrant preparation of a federalism 

assessment under Executive Order 

13132 because NOAA supplements and 

complements Federal, State, and local 

laws under the NMSA rather than 

supersedes or conflicts with them. 

NOAA has coordinated with State 

partners in the development of this final 

rule. NOAA has aimed for consistent 

regulations throughout sanctuary waters 

including those within State and 

Federal jurisdiction. 

E. Executive Order 13175 Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Under Executive Order 13175 of 

November 6, 2000, Federal departments 

and agencies are charged with engaging 

in regular and meaningful consultation 

and collaboration with officials of 

federally recognized Tribal Nations on 

the development of Federal policies that 

have Tribal implications. The Executive 

Order identifies fundamental principles 

guiding agencies in formulating or 

implementing policies that have Tribal 

implications, including working with 

federally recognized Tribal Nations on a 

government-to-government basis to 

address issues concerning Indian Tribal 

self-government, Tribal trust resources, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83591 

and Indian Tribal treaty and other 

rights, recognizing the right of Indian 

Tribes to self-government, and 

supporting Tribal sovereignty and selfdetermination. NOAA implements 

Executive Order 13175 through the 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

218–8 (Policy on Government-toGovernment Consultation with federally 

recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska 

Native Corporations), and the NOAA 

Tribal Consultation Handbook. Under 

these policies and procedures, NOAA 

offers affected federally recognized 

Tribal Nations government-togovernment consultation at the earliest 

practicable time it can reasonably 

anticipate that a proposed policy or 

initiative may have Tribal implications. 

NOAA identified the SYBCI as the 

only federally recognized Tribe in the 

area of CHNMS. To date, six formal 

consultation meetings have been 

conducted, on January 27, 2022, April 

14, 2022, August 12, 2022, September 1, 

2022, December 19, 2022, and May 30, 

2024, as well as one informational 

meeting with NOAA leadership on 

April 28, 2022. Outside of consultation 

meetings, staff-level communications 

and coordination between NOAA and 

SYBCI has been frequent. In the course 

of this consultation, NOAA shared 

relevant portions of the draft EIS, draft 

management plan, and final EIS with 

the SYBCI, and has incorporated 

comments received and information 

exchanged to revise and update 

designation materials. NOAA’s 

government-to-government consultation 

with the SYBCI for the purpose of 

designating the new national marine 

sanctuary will conclude upon sanctuary 

designation. In concluding consultation, 

NOAA will follow its policies under 

NAO 218–8 and the NOAA Tribal 

Consultation Handbook. 

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 

5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires Federal 

agencies to prepare an analysis of a 

rule’s impact on small entities whenever 

the agency is required to publish a 

rulemaking, unless the agency certifies, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605, that the action 

will not have significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The RFA requires agencies to 

consider, but not necessarily minimize, 

the effects of rules on small entities. The 

goal of the RFA is to inform the agency 

and public of expected economic effects 

of the action and to ensure the agency 

considers alternatives that minimize the 

expected economic effects on small 

entities while meeting applicable goals 

and objectives. 

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 

the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the 

Department of Commerce certified to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) at 

the proposed rule phase (88 FR 58123) 

that this action, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The purpose, context, and statutory 

basis for this action is described above 

and not repeated here. The analysis 

below discusses the potential effects of 

the Chumash Heritage National Marine 

Sanctuary designation and serves as the 

factual basis for the certification. The 

analysis below has been updated to 

explain why the selection of the Final 

Preferred Alternative, which is smaller 

than the area NOAA analyzed in the 

proposed rule, leads NOAA to expect 

that fewer vessels will operate in 

CHNMS than reported in the proposed 

rule. Although NOAA has made minor 

changes to the regulations from the 

proposed rule to the final rule, none of 

the changes alter the initial 

determination that this rule will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

NOAA also did not receive any 

comments on the certification or 

conclusions. Therefore, the 

determination that this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

remains unchanged. In summary, with 

this rulemaking, small businesses 

(commercial fishing, for-hire charter 

operations) are not expected to 

experience significant impacts. The 

extent of costs imposed on businesses 

would be $172 for those seeking a 

general sanctuary permit. 

I. Description of Small Entities to Which 

the Initial Boundary Alternative Would 

Apply 

NOAA has identified commercial and 

for-hire fishing vessels and the nonconsumptive recreational industry, 

which includes for-hire operations such 

as wildlife viewing, as small entities 

impacted by the Initial Boundary 

Alternative. Each relevant small 

business category is based on the most 

recent size standards published by the 

U.S. Small Business Administration 

(SBA) (2022). Size standards are based 

upon the average annual receipts (all 

revenue) or the average employment of 

a firm. The commercial size standard is 

$25.0 million for finfish fishing (North 

American Industry Classification 

System [NAICS] code—114111), $14.0 

million for shellfish fishing (NAICS 

code—114112), and $11.5 million for 

other marine fishing (NAICS code— 

114119). Water-based scenic and 

sightseeing transportation operations 

(NAICS code—487210), such as for-hire 

recreational fishing operations and dive/ 

snorkeling for-hire operations, have size 

standards of $14.0 million. All 

businesses within the industries 

analyzed here are small businesses, 

which include commercial and 

recreational fishing and nonconsumptive recreational businesses. 

There are other businesses that operate 

within the study area; however, they are 

not considered small businesses (e.g., 

cruise ships). These large entities are 

discussed in the Cost-Benefit Analysis 

(final EIS appendix D). 

All commercial fishing and for-hire 

fishing vessel count data presented in 

this section are derived from California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(CDFW) data. NOAA calculated the 

potential number of vessels that may be 

impacted by the rule—as implemented 

in the draft EIS Agency-Preferred 

Alternative (Alternative 2 and Gaviota 

Coast Extension (Sub-Alternative 5b))— 

based on the number of vessels 

reporting activity, from 2016–2020, 

within the CDFW statistical areas that 

best align with the draft EIS AgencyPreferred Alternative boundary. The 

area affected by the Final Preferred 

Alternative boundary is smaller than the 

area NOAA analyzed in the 2023 

proposed rule. As such, NOAA expects 

fewer vessels will operate in CHNMS 

than reported in the proposed rule. 

Statistical areas were included in the 

analysis if their center is located within 

the draft EIS Agency-Preferred 

Alternative boundary. In total, 53 

statistical areas were included in the 

area analyzed—meaning if a fishing 

vessel landed at least one pound of 

commercial fish species within one of 

the 53 statistical areas within the study 

period, that vessel was considered in 

this analysis. Further information, 

including maps of the statistical areas 

included may be found in Eynon, 2023. 

Estimates of the number of vessels that 

operate within the draft EIS AgencyPreferred Alternative boundaries are 

provided below. Data for nonconsumptive industries are not publicly 

available, so information was collected 

from personal communication with 

NOAA staff. 

i. Commercial Fishing 

All commercial fishing vessels were 

determined to be small businesses based 

on the SBA size standards. On average 

(2016–2020), 250.6 vessels landed at 

least one pound of marine life within 

the area analyzed each year and 3,057.6 

commercial fishing vessels operated 

within the State (CDFW, 2020a, 2021, 

2020b, 2019, 2018, 2017). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83592 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

12Many of the permit applicants are from 

academic institutions; thus, ONMS’ information 

collection renewal uses the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment and 

Wages (May 2020) for ‘‘Life, Physical, and Social 

Science Occupations.’’ For this group, BLS 

estimated a mean hourly wage of $38.15 (https://

www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes190000.htm). 

ii. For-Hire Recreational Fishing 

For-hire recreational fishing includes 

both charter boats and headboats. 

Charter boats are fishing vessels that are 

typically hired to take up to six anglers 

on a fishing trip. In general, charter 

boats charge on a per-trip basis. 

Headboats usually operate on a 

schedule and may provide several trips 

in a single day, taking multiple fishing 

parties per trip and charging on a perperson basis. Headboats are usually 

larger and able to accommodate more 

anglers than a charter boat. All 

recreational fishing operations were 

determined to be small businesses. 

From 2016 through 2020, there was an 

annual average of 18.8 for-hire 

recreational fishing vessels operating 

within the draft EIS Agency-Preferred 

Alternative boundaries annually and 

532 vessels on average each year 

operating within the State (CDFW, 

2020c, 2021, 2020b, 2019, 2018, 2017). 

iii. Non-Consumptive Recreation 

Industry 

Businesses considered to operate in 

the non-consumptive recreation 

industry include dive and snorkel 

operations, rental equipment operations, 

wildlife viewing operations, and other 

businesses that either utilize or whose 

customers utilize, but do not take, 

sanctuary resources. 

There are several harbors within the 

study area that support nonconsumptive recreation businesses. 

Santa Barbara, Morro Bay, and Avila 

Beach all have been identified to have 

operations that use the harbors. Across 

these three harbors, NOAA identified 

nine operations that are likely to use the 

sanctuary’s waters to support their 

operations for whale watching and other 

wildlife viewing (NOAA personal 

communication). All of these businesses 

were determined to be small businesses. 

No operations visiting the sanctuary for 

white shark tours were identified. 

II. Analysis of Small Entities 

This regulatory action would establish 

new reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for small entities that 

apply for sanctuary general permits, 

certifications, or authorizations (see 15 

CFR part 922 and the description in part 

III, section H above). As a result of this 

action, only a minimal increase in the 

number of permits (approximately 5–15 

permits per year) is expected, and these 

requirements would have a minimal 

impact on small entities because few 

operators in the area would need to 

apply for a permit in order to continue 

their activities. Minimal reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements are 

expected because lawful commercial 

and recreational fishing and recreational 

activities would be allowed to continue 

in the sanctuary without a permit (with 

certain exceptions discussed below). An 

operator would be required to obtain a 

permit only if they wish to conduct 

activities that would be prohibited in 

the sanctuary; for example, if a research 

operation or commercial activity was 

likely to result in damage to the seabed, 

a permit would be required unless an 

exception or exemption applies. 

As discussed below, in section G., the 

public reporting burden for ONMS 

general permits is estimated to average 

three responses with an average of 1.5 

hours per response, to include 

application submission, a cruise or 

flight log (or some other form of activity 

report), and a final summary report after 

the activity is complete. The only 

expected costs are related to permitting. 

The total cost estimate for reporting a 

permit is $171.68 based on an hourly 

rate of $38.15 (see Paperwork Reduction 

Act OMB control number (0648– 

0141 12)). This rule does not propose to 

directly regulate commercial fishing or 

recreational fishing. The rule is not 

likely to impact commercial fishermen’s 

operations or profits within the 

statistical areas corresponding to the 

sanctuary designation because lawful 

fishing will continue to be allowed in 

the sanctuary, and NOAA has not 

included any direct sanctuary regulation 

of lawful fishing activities through this 

action. Although vessels would not be 

permitted to discharge (with an 

exception for discharges associated with 

lawful fishing activities) within the 

sanctuary boundary, they are still 

permitted to discharge outside of 

sanctuary boundaries. As discussed in 

the supporting final EIS (sections 4.4.3 

and 4.6), this regulation will not have a 

significant adverse impact on vessels. 

Vessels may plan to discharge sewage 

outside of the sanctuary or use 

appropriate facilities near shore. 

Additionally, vessels are unlikely to be 

impacted by the seabed disturbance 

prohibition given the exceptions for 

anchoring and lawful fishing activities. 

If in the uncommon event a vessel could 

not avoid a prohibited seabed 

disturbance or avoid a prohibited 

discharge within the sanctuary, the 

small business could seek a permit from 

NOAA. 

It is also likely that increased name 

recognition, marketing, and outreach of 

the sanctuary would result in increased 

demand for the services offered by small 

businesses that utilize sanctuary 

resources. This is described in more 

detail in the economic review of the 

potential impacts; see Appendix D of 

the final EIS. 

As described above, NOAA does not 

expect a significant reduction in profits, 

as the only expected costs are for 

permitting ($172 per permit). No 

duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting 

Federal rules have been identified for 

this rule. Therefore, NOAA has 

concluded that the rule would not have 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities operating in 

the area of the sanctuary due to the 

minimal permitting costs. Therefore, a 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is 

not required and none was prepared. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Notwithstanding any other provisions 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq., unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. 

NOAA has an OMB control number 

(0648–0141) for the collection of public 

information related to the processing of 

ONMS permits across the National 

Marine Sanctuary System. NOAA’s 

proposal to create a national marine 

sanctuary along the coast of central 

California would likely result in a 

minimal increase in the number of 

requests for ONMS general permits, 

special use permits, certifications, and 

authorizations because this action 

proposes to add those approval types for 

this sanctuary. A large increase in the 

number of permit requests would 

require a change to the reporting burden 

certified for OMB control number 0648– 

0141. While not expected, if such 

permit requests do increase, a revision 

to this control number for the 

processing of permits would be 

requested. 

In the most recent Information 

Collection Request revision and 

approval for national marine sanctuary 

permits (dated November 30, 2021), 

NOAA reported approximately 424 

national marine sanctuary permitting 

actions each year, including 

applications for all types of ONMS 

permits, requests for permit 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83593 

amendments, and the conduct of 

administrative appeals. Of this amount, 

CHNMS is expected to add 5 to 15 

permit requests per year. The public 

reporting burden for national marine 

sanctuaries general permits is estimated 

to average three responses with an 

average of 1.5 hours per response, to 

include application submission, a cruise 

or flight log (or some other form of 

activity report), and a final summary 

report after the activity is complete. 

Therefore, the total annual burden hours 

would be expected to increase by 

approximately 22.5 to 67.5 hours. 

NOAA determined that these 

regulations do not necessitate a 

modification to its information 

collection approval by the Office of 

Management and Budget under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. NOAA 

solicited comments on this 

determination in the proposed rule, and 

no public comments were received. 

NOAA is also requesting a revision and 

extension of its approved information 

collection request, outside of this 

rulemaking, for national marine 

sanctuary permits to include the 

additional estimated permit numbers, 

which will apply to CHNMS. 

H. National Historic Preservation Act 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA, 54 U.S.C. 

306108) requires Federal agencies to 

take into account the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties and 

afford the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable 

opportunity to comment with regard to 

the undertaking. ‘‘Historic property’’ 

means 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. This term 

includes artifacts, records, and material 

remains that are related to and located 

within such properties, including 

properties of traditional religious and 

cultural importance to an Indigenous 

nation or Tribe or Native Hawaiian 

organization. 36 CFR 800.16(l). 

The regulations implementing section 

106 of the NHPA (36 CFR part 800) 

establish a process requiring Federal 

agencies to: (i) determine whether the 

undertaking is a type of activity that 

could affect historic properties, (ii) 

identify historic properties in the area of 

potential effects, (iii) assess potential 

adverse effects, and (iv) resolve adverse 

effects. The regulations require that 

Federal agencies consult with States, 

Tribes, and other interested parties 

when making their effect 

determinations. 

NOAA has determined that the 

designation of a national marine 

sanctuary and related rulemaking for 

sanctuary-specific regulations meet the 

definition of an undertaking as defined 

at § 800.16(y). 

In fulfilling its responsibilities under 

section 106 of the NHPA, NOAA sought 

to identify potential consulting parties 

and sought public input on the 

identification of historic properties 

within the proposed area of potential 

effect through its 2023 notice of 

proposed rulemaking. NOAA identified 

consulting parties, in addition to the 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO), and assessed the effects of the 

undertaking on historic properties in 

consultations with those parties. 

In August 2023, NOAA initiated 

NHPA Section 106 consultation with 

the federally recognized Santa Ynez 

Band of Chumash Indians. In addition, 

NOAA also sent letters inviting eleven 

non-federally recognized Tribes, 

Indigenous groups, and culture-serving 

organizations to engage in consultation 

under NHPA Section 106. Six interested 

parties accepted NOAA’s invitation to 

discuss the consultation, and to address 

other questions related to the 

designation, and meetings were 

conducted in October and November of 

2023. In August 2024, NOAA shared 

draft findings with all consulting parties 

to invite their views on NOAA’s 

identification of historic properties and 

finding of no historic properties 

affected. Subsequently, pursuant to 36 

CFR 800.4(d)(l), NOAA issued a Finding 

of No Historic Properties Affected for 

this undertaking, which is available in 

Appendix E of the final EIS, for a 30-day 

public inspection and consulting party 

review period. NOAA received no 

objections to the Finding and 

consultation was accordingly 

concluded. 

I. Sunken Military Craft Act 

The Sunken Military Craft Act of 2004 

(SMCA; Pub. L. 108–375, Title XIV, 

sections 1401 to 1408; 10 U.S.C. 113 

note) preserves and protects from 

unauthorized disturbance all sunken 

military craft that are owned by the 

United States Government, as well as 

foreign sunken military craft that lie 

within United States waters, as defined 

in the SMCA. Thousands of U.S. sunken 

military craft lie in waters around the 

world, many accessible to looters, 

treasure hunters, and others who may 

cause damage to them. These craft, and 

their associated contents, represent a 

collection of non-renewable and 

significant historical resources that 

often serve as maritime graves, carry 

unexploded ordnance, and contain oil 

and other hazardous materials. By 

protecting sunken military craft, the 

SMCA helps reduce the potential for 

irreversible harm to these nationally 

important historical and cultural 

resources. 

There are seven known U.S. Navy 

destroyers that ran aground and sunk 

near Point Honda in 1923 within 

CHNMS. CHNMS may also include 

sunken military craft that have yet to be 

discovered. Sunken military craft fall 

under the jurisdiction of a number of 

Federal agencies such as the U.S. Navy 

and the U.S. Coast Guard. The USCGC 

McCulloch is an example of a known 

sunken military craft in CHNMS that is 

under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast 

Guard, per the SMCA. 

The Secretaries of the various military 

branches, including the Department of 

the Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard, in 

the case of a Coast Guard vessel, the 

Secretary of the Department in which 

the Coast Guard is operating, administer 

the SMCA. The Secretary concerned is 

solely responsible for authorizing 

disturbance of sunken military craft 

under the SMCA, specifically for 

archaeological, historical, or educational 

purposes, and will consult with NOAA 

when considering permitting such 

activities. The Secretary concerned is 

also responsible for determinations of 

sunken military craft status and 

ownership, publicly disclosing the 

location of sunken military craft, and for 

determining eligibility and nominating 

sunken military craft as historic 

properties to the National Register of 

Historic Places. Any agreements with 

foreign sovereigns regarding sunken 

military craft in U.S waters under the 

SMCA are negotiated by the Secretary of 

Defense, the Secretary of State, and the 

Secretary of the Navy, according to 

authorities vested in each by the SMCA. 

The Secretary concerned, or his or her 

designee, and NOAA will ensure 

coordination and foster collaboration on 

any research, monitoring, and 

educational activities pertaining to 

sunken military craft located within the 

sanctuary system. The Director will 

request approval from the Secretary 

concerned for any terms and conditions 

of CHNMS authorizations that may 

involve sunken military craft. 

J. Coastal Zone Management Act 

(CZMA) 

Section 307 of the Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA; 16 U.S.C. 

1456) requires Federal agencies to 

consult with a State’s coastal program 

on potential Federal agency activities 

that affect any land or water use or 

natural resource of the coastal zone. 

Because the sanctuary lies partially 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83594 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

within State waters, NOAA provided 

copies of the draft EIS to the California 

Coastal Commission and requested that 

the State identify any enforceable 

policies of its coastal management 

program applicable to the proposed 

action. In compliance with the CZMA, 

NOAA prepared a consistency 

determination, and on June 14, 2024 

submitted it to the State of California. 

NOAA subsequently participated in a 

public California Coastal Commission 

hearing on the Consistency 

Determination on August 8, 2024. On 

August 9, 2024 the State of California 

issued a letter of concurrence to NOAA. 

K. Executive Orders 12898 and 14096: 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 and Executive 

Order 14096 direct Federal agencies to 

identify and address disproportionately 

high and adverse effects of their actions 

on human health and the environment 

of communities with environmental 

justice concerns. Additionally, Federal 

agencies are directed to to better protect 

overburdened communities from 

pollution and environmental harms; 

strengthen engagement with 

communities and mobilize Federal 

agencies to confront existing and legacy 

barriers and injustices; promote the 

latest science, data, and research, 

including on cumulative impacts; 

increase accountability and 

transparency in Federal environmental 

justice policy; and honor and build on 

the foundation of ongoing 

environmental justice work. The 

designation of national marine 

sanctuaries by NOAA helps to ensure 

the enhancement of environmental 

quality for all populations in the United 

States. The sanctuary designation would 

not result in disproportionate negative 

impacts on any communities with 

environmental justice concerns. In 

addition, many of the potential impacts 

from designating the sanctuary would 

result in long-term or permanent 

beneficial impacts by protecting 

sanctuary resources, which may have a 

positive impact on communities by 

providing employment and educational 

opportunities, and potentially result in 

improved ecosystem services. 

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 922 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Coastal zone, Cultural 

resources, Historic preservation, Marine 

protected areas, Marine resources, 

National marine sanctuaries, Recreation 

and recreation areas, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Shipwrecks. 

Nicole R. LeBoeuf, 

Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services 

and Coastal Zone Management, National 

Ocean Service, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. 

For the reasons set forth above, NOAA 

is amending 15 CFR part 922 as follows: 

PART 922—NATIONAL MARINE 

SANCTUARY PROGRAM 

REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 922 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Amend § 922.1 by revising 

paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 922.1 Purposes and applicability of the 

regulations. 

(a) * * * 

(2) To implement the designations of 

the national marine sanctuaries, for 

which specific regulations appear in 

subpart F through subsequent subparts 

of this part, by regulating activities 

affecting them, consistent with their 

respective terms of designation, in order 

to protect, restore, preserve, manage, 

and thereby ensure the health, integrity, 

and continued availability of the 

conservation, recreational, ecological, 

historical, scientific, educational, 

cultural, archaeological, and aesthetic 

resources and qualities of these areas. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise § 922.4 to read as follows: 

§ 922.4 Boundaries. 

Subpart F and subsequent subparts of 

this part set forth the boundaries for all 

national marine sanctuaries. 

■ 4. Revise § 922.6 to read as follows: 

§ 922.6 Prohibited or otherwise regulated 

activities. 

Subpart F and subsequent subparts of 

this part set forth site-specific 

regulations applicable to the activities 

specified therein. 

■ 5. Amend § 922.30 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(2); 

■ b. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ at the 

end of paragraph (b)(5); 

■ c. Removing the period at the end of 

paragraph (b)(6) and adding ‘‘; and’’ in 

its place; and 

■ d. Adding paragraph (b)(7). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 922.30 National Marine Sanctuary 

general permits. 

(a) * * * 

(2) The permit procedures and criteria 

for all national marine sanctuaries in 

which the proposed activity is to take 

place in accordance with relevant sitespecific regulations appearing in 

subpart F and subsequent subparts of 

this part. 

(b) * * * 

(7) Native American cultural or 

ceremonial activities—activities within 

Chumash Heritage National Marine 

Sanctuary that will promote or enhance 

local Native American cultural or 

ceremonial activities; or will promote or 

enhance education and training related 

to local Native American cultural or 

ceremonial activities. 

■ 6. Amend § 922.36 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (b)(1)(ii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 922.36 National Marine Sanctuary 

authorizations. 

(a) Authority to issue authorizations. 

The Director may authorize a person to 

conduct an activity otherwise 

prohibited by subparts L through P, or 

subparts R through V, of this part, if 

such activity is specifically allowed by 

any valid Federal, State, or local lease, 

permit, license, approval, or other 

authorization (hereafter called ‘‘agency 

approval’’) issued after the effective date 

of sanctuary designation or expansion, 

provided the applicant complies with 

the provisions of this section. Such an 

authorization by the Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) is hereafter 

referred to as an ‘‘ONMS authorization.’’ 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) Notification must be sent to the 

Director, Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries, to the attention of the 

relevant Sanctuary Superintendent(s) at 

the address specified in subparts L 

through P, subpart R, subpart U, or 

subpart V of this part. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 922.37 by revising 

paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 922.37 Appeals of permitting decisions. 

(a) * * * 

(2) An applicant or a holder of a 

National Marine Sanctuary permit 

issued pursuant to § 922.30 or pursuant 

to site-specific regulations appearing in 

subparts F through V of this part; 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Add subpart V to read as follows: 

Subpart V—Chumash Heritage 

National Marine Sanctuary 

Sec. 

922.230 Boundary. 

922.231 Definitions. 

922.232 Prohibited or otherwise regulated 

activities. 

922.233 Permit procedures. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83595 

922.234 Certification of preexisting leases, 

licenses, permits, approvals, other 

authorizations, or other rights to conduct 

a prohibited activity. 

922.235 Memoranda of Agreement with 

partner agencies. 

Appendix A to Subpart V of Part 922— 

Chumash Heritage National Marine 

Sanctuary Boundary Description and 

Coordinates 

Appendix B to Subpart V of Part 922— 

Coordinates for Rodriguez Seamount 

Management Zone 

§ 922.230 Boundary. 

Chumash Heritage National Marine 

Sanctuary covers 4,543 mi2 (3,431 nmi2) 

of coastal and ocean waters and the 

submerged lands thereunder, spanning 

116 miles along the central California 

coast off the counties of San Luis 

Obispo and Santa Barbara. The 

sanctuary spans a maximum distance of 

60 miles from shore, and reaches a 

maximum depth of 11,580 feet below 

sea level. Describing the boundary in a 

clockwise fashion, the Final Preferred 

Alternative starts along the coast 

approximately two miles southeast of 

the breakwater for the Diablo Canyon 

Power Plant marina, then runs south 

along the mean high water line through 

San Luis Obispo County and northern 

and western Santa Barbara County to 

the eastern end of the Naples Marine 

Conservation Area on the Gaviota Coast. 

Along this stretch, the harbor areas at 

Port San Luis and Vandenberg Space 

Force Base near Point Arguello are 

excluded from the sanctuary. Offshore, 

the boundary extends from the western 

edge of Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary, around important 

features like Rodriguez Seamount, most 

of Arguello Canyon, and about half of 

the Santa Lucia Bank and part of its 

escarpment. At a point approximately 

55 miles offshore of the Santa Maria 

River mouth, the boundary extends east 

43 miles, then due north for 12 miles to 

the point of origin south of the Diablo 

Canyon Power Plant marina. This 

narrative boundary description is 

provided to facilitate public 

understanding, but please refer to the 

formal boundary description and the 

precise boundary coordinates in 

Appendix A to this subpart. 

§ 922.231 Definitions. 

In addition to the definitions found in 

§ 922.11, the following terms are 

defined for purposes of this subpart: 

Beneficial use of dredged material 

means the use of dredged material 

removed from the public harbor 

adjacent to the Sanctuary (Port San 

Luis) that is determined by the Director 

to be suitable as a resource for habitat 

protection or restoration purposes. 

Beneficial use of dredged material is not 

disposal of dredged material. 

Rodriguez Seamount Management 

Zone means the area bounded by 

geodetic lines connecting a heptagon 

generally centered on the top of the 

Rodriguez Seamount, and consists of 

approximately 570 mi2 (430 nmi2) of 

ocean waters and the submerged lands 

thereunder. The northeast corner of this 

zone is located approximately 27 miles 

southwest of Point Conception off the 

coast of Santa Barbara County. Exact 

coordinates for the Rodriguez Seamount 

Management Zone boundary are 

provided in appendix B to this subpart. 

§ 922.232 Prohibited or otherwise 

regulated activities. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraphs 

(b) through (e) and paragraph (g) of this 

section, the following activities are 

prohibited and thus are unlawful for 

any person to conduct or to cause to be 

conducted: 

(1) Exploring for, developing, or 

producing oil, gas, or minerals within 

the Sanctuary, except for oil and gas 

production, which includes well 

abandonment, pursuant to existing 

leases or lease units in effect on the 

effective date of Sanctuary designation 

([EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]). 

(2)(i) Discharging or depositing from 

within or into the Sanctuary, other than 

from a cruise ship, any material or other 

matter, except: 

(A) Fish, fish parts, chumming 

materials, or bait used in or resulting 

from lawful fishing activities within the 

Sanctuary, provided that such discharge 

or deposit is during the conduct of 

lawful fishing activities within the 

Sanctuary; 

(B) For a vessel less than 300 gross 

registered tons (GRT), or a vessel 300 

GRT or greater without sufficient 

holding tank capacity to hold sewage 

while within the Sanctuary, clean 

effluent generated incidental to vessel 

use by an operable Type I or II marine 

sanitation device (U.S. Coast Guard 

classification) approved in accordance 

with section 312 of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act, as amended 

(FWPCA), 33 U.S.C. 1322. Vessel 

operators must lock all marine 

sanitation devices in a manner that 

prevents discharge or deposit of 

untreated sewage; 

(C) Clean vessel deck wash down, 

clean vessel engine cooling water, clean 

vessel generator cooling water, clean 

bilge water, or anchor wash; 

(D) For a vessel less than 300 GRT, or 

a vessel 300 GRT or greater without 

sufficient holding capacity to hold 

graywater while within the Sanctuary, 

clean graywater as defined by section 

312 of the FWPCA; 

(E) Vessel engine or generator 

exhaust; 

(F) Beyond 3 nautical miles from 

shore, sewage and non-clean graywater 

as defined by section 312 of the FWPCA 

generated incidental to vessel use by a 

U.S. Coast Guard vessel without 

sufficient holding tank capacity and 

without a Type I or II marine sanitation 

device; and beyond 12 nautical miles 

from shore, ammunition, pyrotechnics, 

or other materials directly related to 

training for search and rescue and live 

ammunition activities conducted by 

U.S. Coast Guard vessels and aircraft; 

(G) Dredged material deposited at 

disposal sites within the Sanctuary 

authorized by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), in 

consultation with the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, prior to the effective date 

of Sanctuary designation ([EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE]); or 

(H) Discharges incidental and 

necessary to oil and gas production 

within or into reservoirs contained 

within existing leases or lease units in 

effect on the effective date of Sanctuary 

designation ([EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]) from Platform Irene or 

Platform Heritage, including well 

abandonment. 

(ii) Discharging or depositing from 

within or into the Sanctuary any 

material or other matter from a cruise 

ship except clean vessel engine cooling 

water, clean vessel generator cooling 

water, vessel engine or generator 

exhaust, clean bilge water, or anchor 

wash. 

(iii) Discharging or depositing from 

beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary 

any material or other matter that 

subsequently enters the Sanctuary and 

injures a Sanctuary resource or quality, 

except material or other matter listed as 

exceptions in paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(A) 

through (F) and (a)(2)(ii) of this section. 

(3) Drilling into, dredging, or 

otherwise altering the submerged lands 

of the Sanctuary; or constructing, 

placing, or abandoning any structure, 

material, or other matter on or in the 

submerged lands of the Sanctuary, 

except as incidental and necessary to: 

(i) Conduct lawful fishing activities or 

lawful kelp harvesting; 

(ii) Anchor a vessel; 

(iii) Install or maintain an authorized 

navigational aid; 

(iv) Repair, replace, or rehabilitate an 

existing dock, pier, breakwater, or jetty; 

(v) Conduct maintenance dredging of 

entrance channels for harbors in 

existence prior to the effective date of 

Sanctuary designation ([EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE]); or, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83596 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(vi) Drill, maintain, or abandon a well 

necessary for purposes related to oil and 

gas production pursuant to existing 

leases or lease units in effect on the 

effective date of Sanctuary designation 

([EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]) 

from Platform Irene or Platform 

Heritage. 

(vii) The exceptions listed in 

paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) through (vi) of this 

section do not apply in the Rodriguez 

Seamount Management Zone, the 

boundary of which is defined in 

appendix B to this subpart. 

(4) Moving, removing, or injuring, or 

attempting to move, remove, or injure, 

a Sanctuary historical resource; or 

possessing or attempting to possess a 

Sanctuary historical resource, except as 

necessary for valid law enforcement 

purposes. This prohibition does not 

apply to, moving, removing, or injury 

resulting incidentally from lawful kelp 

harvesting or lawful fishing activities. 

(5) Taking any marine mammal, sea 

turtle, or bird within or above the 

Sanctuary, except as authorized by the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act, as 

amended (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq., Endangered Species Act, as 

amended (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended 

(MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq., or any 

regulation promulgated under the 

MMPA, ESA, or MBTA. 

(6) Possessing within the Sanctuary 

(regardless of where taken, moved, or 

removed from), any marine mammal, 

sea turtle, or bird, except as authorized 

by the MMPA, ESA, MBTA, by any 

regulation promulgated under the 

MMPA, ESA, or MBTA, or as necessary 

for valid law enforcement purposes. 

(7) Deserting a vessel aground, at 

anchor, or adrift in the Sanctuary or 

leaving harmful matter aboard a 

grounded or deserted vessel in the 

Sanctuary. 

(8) Attracting any white shark within 

the Sanctuary. 

(9)(i) Moving, removing, taking, 

collecting, catching, harvesting, 

disturbing, breaking, cutting, or 

otherwise injuring, or attempting to 

move, remove, take, collect, catch, 

harvest, disturb, break, cut, or otherwise 

injure, any Sanctuary resource located 

more than 1,500 ft. below the sea 

surface within the Rodriguez Seamount 

Management Zone, as defined in 

appendix B to this subpart. This 

prohibition does not apply to lawful 

fishing, which is regulated pursuant to 

50 CFR part 660. 

(ii) Possessing any Sanctuary 

resource, the source of which is more 

than 1,500 ft. below the sea surface 

within the Rodriguez Seamount 

Management Zone, except as necessary 

for valid law enforcement purposes. 

This prohibition does not apply to 

possession of fish resulting from lawful 

fishing, which is regulated pursuant to 

50 CFR part 660. 

(10) Introducing or otherwise 

releasing from within or into the 

Sanctuary an introduced species, except 

striped bass (Morone saxatilis) released 

during catch and release fishing activity. 

(11) Interfering 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. 

(b) The prohibitions in paragraphs 

(a)(2) through (7) and (9) of this section 

do not apply to an activity necessary to 

respond to an emergency threatening 

life, property, or the environment. 

(c)(1) The prohibitions in paragraphs 

(a)(2) through (7) and (9) and (10) of this 

section do not apply to existing 

activities carried out or approved by the 

Department of Defense that were 

conducted prior to the effective date of 

this designation ([EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]), as specifically identified 

in section 4.9 or appendix I to the final 

environmental impact statement for 

Chumash Heritage National Marine 

Sanctuary (for availability, see https://

sanctuaries.noaa.gov/chumashheritage/). New activities may be 

exempted from the prohibitions in 

paragraphs (a)(2) through (7) and (9) and 

(10) of this section by the Director after 

consultation between the Director and 

the Department of Defense. All 

Department of Defense activities must 

be carried out in a manner that avoids 

to the maximum extent practicable any 

adverse impacts on Sanctuary resources 

and qualities. 

(2) In the event of threatened or actual 

destruction of, loss of, or injury to a 

Sanctuary resource or quality resulting 

from an untoward incident, including 

but not limited to spills and groundings 

caused by the Department of Defense, 

the Department of Defense shall 

promptly coordinate with the Director 

for the purpose of taking appropriate 

actions to respond to and mitigate the 

harm and, if practicable, restore or 

replace the Sanctuary resource or 

quality. 

(d) The prohibitions in paragraphs 

(a)(2) through (9) of this section do not 

apply to any activity conducted under 

and in accordance with the scope, 

purpose, terms, and conditions of a 

National Marine Sanctuary general 

permit issued pursuant to subpart D of 

this part and § 922.233, or a special use 

permit issued pursuant to subpart D of 

this part. 

(e) The prohibitions in paragraphs 

(a)(2) through (9) of this section, and 

paragraph (a)(10) of this section 

regarding any introduced species of 

shellfish that NOAA and the State of 

California have determined is noninvasive and will not cause significant 

adverse effects to Sanctuary resources or 

qualities, and that is cultivated in State 

waters as part of commercial shellfish 

aquaculture activities, do not apply to 

any activity authorized by any lease, 

permit, license, approval, or other 

authorization issued after the effective 

date of Sanctuary designation 

([EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]) 

and issued by any Federal, State, or 

local authority of competent 

jurisdiction, provided that the applicant 

complies with § 922.36, the Director 

notifies the applicant and authorizing 

agency that the Director does not object 

to issuance of the authorization, and the 

applicant complies with any terms and 

conditions the Director deems necessary 

to protect Sanctuary resources and 

qualities. Amendments, renewals, and 

extensions of authorizations in 

existence on the effective date of 

designation constitute authorizations 

issued after the effective date of 

Sanctuary designation. 

(f)(1) Notwithstanding paragraphs (d) 

and (e) of this section, in no event may 

the Director issue a National Marine 

Sanctuary general permit under subpart 

D of this part and § 922.233, or an 

ONMS authorization or special use 

permit under subpart D of this part 

authorizing, or otherwise approve: 

(i) The exploration for, development, 

or production of oil, gas, or minerals 

within the Sanctuary; 

(ii) The discharge of untreated or 

primary-treated sewage within the 

Sanctuary (except by certification, 

pursuant to §§ 922.10 and 922.234, of 

valid authorizations in existence prior 

to the effective date of designation 

([EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]) 

and issued by other authorities of 

competent jurisdiction); or 

(iii) The disposal of dredged material 

within the Sanctuary other than at sites 

authorized by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency prior to the effective 

date of designation ([EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF FINAL RULE]). For the purposes of 

this subpart, the disposal of dredged 

material does not include the beneficial 

use of dredged material, as defined at 

§ 922.231, related to dredging activity at 

Port San Luis. 

(2) Any purported authorizations 

issued by other authorities within the 

Sanctuary shall be invalid. 

(g) A person may conduct an activity 

prohibited by paragraphs (a)(2) through 

(10) of this section within the Sanctuary 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83597 

if such activity is specifically authorized 

by a valid Federal, State, or local lease, 

permit, license, or right of subsistence 

use or of access that is in existence on 

the effective date of Sanctuary 

designation ([EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]) and within the sanctuary 

designated area and complies with 

§ 922.10, provided that the holder of the 

lease, permit, license, or right of 

subsistence use or of access complies 

with the certification procedures for 

CHNMS as outlined in § 922.234. 

§ 922.233 Permit procedures. 

(a) A person may conduct an activity 

prohibited by § 922.232(a)(2) through 

(9), if such activity is specifically 

authorized by, and conducted in 

accordance with the scope, purpose, 

terms, and conditions of, a sanctuary 

general permit issued under this section 

and subpart D of this part. 

(b) Applications for permits should be 

addressed to the West Coast Regional 

Office, Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries; ATTN: Superintendent, 

Chumash Heritage National Marine 

Sanctuary, 99 Pacific Street, Suite 100F, 

Monterey, CA 93940. 

§ 922.234 Certification of preexisting 

leases, licenses, permits, approvals, other 

authorizations, or other rights to conduct a 

prohibited activity. 

(a) To obtain a certification of an 

activity that is specifically authorized 

by a valid Federal, State, or local lease, 

permit, license, approval, other 

authorization or right of subsistence use 

or access (hereafter in this subsection 

‘‘permit or right’’) in existence on the 

effective date of Sanctuary designation 

([EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]) 

and within the sanctuary designated 

area, pursuant to §§ 922.10 and 

922.232(g), the holder of such permit or 

right shall: 

(1) Notify the Director, in writing, 

within 120 days of the effective date of 

Sanctuary designation ([EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE]) of the 

existence and location of such permit or 

right and requests certification of such 

permit or right; and 

(2) Comply with any terms and 

conditions on the exercise of such 

permit or right imposed as a condition 

of certification, by the Director, to 

achieve the purposes for which the 

Sanctuary was designated. 

(3) Address any requests for 

certifications to: West Coast Regional 

Office, Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries; ATTN: Superintendent, 

Chumash Heritage National Marine 

Sanctuary, 99 Pacific Street, Suite 100F, 

Monterey, CA 93940, or send by 

electronic means as defined in the 

instructions for the ONMS permit 

application. A copy of the permit or 

right must accompany the request. 

(b) A holder requesting certification of 

a permit or right described in 

§ 922.232(g) may continue to conduct 

the activity without being in violation of 

Sanctuary prohibitions pending the 

Director’s review of and decision 

regarding the holder’s certification 

request, provided the holder is 

otherwise in compliance with this 

section. 

(c) The Director may request 

additional information from the holder 

requesting certification as the Director 

deems reasonably necessary to 

condition appropriately the exercise of 

the certified permit or right to achieve 

the purposes for which the Sanctuary 

was designated. The Director must 

receive the information requested 

within 45 days of the date of the 

Director’s request for information. 

Failure to provide the requested 

information within this time frame may 

be grounds for denial by the Director of 

the certification request. 

(d) In considering whether to impose 

appropriate conditions when issuing a 

certification, the Director may seek and 

consider the views of any other person 

or entity. 

(e) Upon completion of review of the 

permit or right and information received 

with respect thereto, the Director shall 

communicate, in writing, any decision 

to impose appropriate conditions on a 

certification request or any action taken 

with respect to any certification made 

under this section, in writing, to both 

the holder of the certified permit, or 

right, and the issuing agency, and shall 

set forth the reason(s) for the decision or 

action taken. 

(f) The Director may amend, suspend, 

or revoke any certification issued under 

this section whenever continued 

operation would otherwise be 

inconsistent with any terms or 

conditions of the certification, or 

whenever the underlying permit or right 

on which the certification was issued 

has been amended, suspended or 

revoked. Any such action shall be 

forwarded in writing to both the 

certification holder and the agency that 

issued the underlying permit or right, 

and shall set forth reason(s) for the 

action taken. 

(g) The holder may appeal any action 

conditioning a certification, or after 

issuance of a certification, amending, 

suspending, or revoking any 

certification in accordance with the 

procedures set forth in § 922.37. 

(h) Any time limit prescribed in or 

established under this section may be 

extended by the Director for good cause. 

(i) It is unlawful for any person to 

violate any terms and conditions in a 

certification issued under this section. 

§ 922.235 Memoranda of Agreement with 

partner agencies. 

(a) Introduced species aquaculture 

projects. (1) NOAA would describe in a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

with the State of California how NOAA 

will coordinate review of any proposed 

introduction of non-invasive introduced 

species from a proposed commercial 

shellfish aquaculture activity in State 

waters when considering an 

authorization under § 922.232(e). 

(2) The MOA would specify how the 

process of § 922.36 in subpart D will be 

administered within State waters within 

the sanctuary in coordination with State 

permit and lease programs as 

administered by the California Fish and 

Game Commission, the Department of 

Fish and Wildlife and the California 

Coastal Commission. 

(b) Sunken military craft. Sunken 

military craft are administered by the 

respective Secretary concerned pursuant 

to the Sunken Military Craft Act. The 

Director will enter into a MOA 

regarding collaboration with other 

Federal agencies charged with 

implementing the Sunken Military Craft 

Act that may address aspects of 

managing and protecting sunken 

military craft. The Director will request 

approval from the Secretary concerned 

for any terms and conditions of ONMS 

authorizations that may involve sunken 

military craft. 

Appendix A to Subpart V of Part 922— 

Chumash Heritage National Marine 

Sanctuary Formal Boundary 

Description and Coordinates 

The northern boundary of the sanctuary 

begins at Point 1 approximately 36 nautical 

miles (41 statute miles) WSW of Point 

Buchon. From Point 1 the sanctuary 

boundary continues east to Point 2 and then 

north towards Point 3 until it intersects the 

shoreline as defined by the mean high water 

(MHW) tidal datum approximately 2 nautical 

miles (2.3 statute miles) southeast of the 

entrance to the harbor at the Diablo Canyon 

Power Plant. From this intersection the 

sanctuary boundary follows the shoreline 

southeast past Point San Luis until it 

intersects the line segment formed between 

Point 4 and Point 5 on the southern end of 

the southwest breakwater of Port San Luis in 

San Luis Obispo Bay. From this intersection 

the sanctuary boundary continues northeast 

towards Point 5 until it intersects the 

shoreline at Fossil Point on the northeast side 

of Port San Luis. From this intersection the 

sanctuary boundary follows the shoreline 

southeast past Pismo Beach and then south 

past Point Sal and around Point Arguello 

until it intersects the line segment formed 

between Point 6 and Point 7 on the eastern 

end of the breakwater just southeast of the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83598 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Point Arguello Coast Guard Rescue Station. 

From this intersection the sanctuary 

boundary continues east to Point 7 and then 

north towards Point 8 until it intersects the 

shoreline. From this intersection the 

sanctuary boundary continues to follow the 

shoreline southeast past Point Conception 

and then east along the Gaviota Coast until 

it intersects the line segment formed between 

Point 9 and Point 10 approximately 1.7 

nautical miles (2.0 statute miles) east of Dos 

Pueblos Canyon near the township of Naples 

in Santa Barbara County. From this 

intersection the sanctuary boundary 

continues offshore south to Point 10 and 

turns west and continues, approximating the 

3 nautical mile State Seaward Boundary, 

passing through each successive point in 

numerical order to Point 119. From Point 119 

the sanctuary boundary continues southwest 

passing through each successive point in 

numerical order to Point 129. From Point 129 

the sanctuary boundary continues west along 

its southern extent to Point 130 and then 

Point 131 passing to the south of Arguello 

Canyon and Rodriguez Seamount. From 

Point 131 the sanctuary boundary continues 

roughly north for approximately 76 nautical 

miles (87.5 statute miles) along its western 

extent passing through each successive point 

in numerical order while passing Santa Lucia 

Bank to the west until it ends at Point 154. 

Coordinates listed in this appendix are 

unprojected (Geographic) and based on the 

North American Datum of 1983. 

Point ID Latitude Longitude 

1 ................................................................................................................................................................... 35.01394 ¥121.58238 

2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 35.01394 ¥120.82173 

3 * ................................................................................................................................................................. 35.19306 ¥120.82173 

4 * ................................................................................................................................................................. 35.15602 ¥120.74984 

5 * ................................................................................................................................................................. 35.17425 ¥120.72509 

6 * ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.55436 ¥120.60823 

7 ................................................................................................................................................................... 34.55436 ¥120.60643 

8 * ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.55696 ¥120.60643 

9 * ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.43590 ¥119.93333 

10 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.37859 ¥119.93333 

11 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.38126 ¥119.93822 

12 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.38391 ¥119.94270 

13 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.38362 ¥119.94657 

14 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.38354 ¥119.95046 

15 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.38358 ¥119.95292 

16 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.38367 ¥119.95496 

17 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.38381 ¥119.95698 

18 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.38401 ¥119.95900 

19 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.38451 ¥119.96257 

20 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.38575 ¥119.96946 

21 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.38677 ¥119.97406 

22 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.38730 ¥119.97601 

23 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.38794 ¥119.97815 

24 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.38872 ¥119.98047 

25 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.38958 ¥119.98274 

26 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.39053 ¥119.98497 

27 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.39154 ¥119.98716 

28 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.39263 ¥119.98928 

29 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.39379 ¥119.99136 

30 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.39491 ¥119.99319 

31 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.39621 ¥119.99514 

32 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.39713 ¥119.99731 

33 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.39823 ¥119.99962 

34 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.39930 ¥120.00168 

35 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.40055 ¥120.00386 

36 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.40107 ¥120.00625 

37 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.40173 ¥120.00882 

38 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.40261 ¥120.01178 

39 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.40339 ¥120.01409 

40 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.40425 ¥120.01636 

41 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.40527 ¥120.01878 

42 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.40628 ¥120.02094 

43 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.40744 ¥120.02320 

44 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.40752 ¥120.02641 

45 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.40774 ¥120.02956 

46 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.40806 ¥120.03246 

47 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.40855 ¥120.03569 

48 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.40907 ¥120.03855 

49 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.40971 ¥120.04137 

50 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41040 ¥120.04394 

51 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41126 ¥120.04667 

52 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41100 ¥120.04870 

53 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41077 ¥120.05096 

54 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41062 ¥120.05323 

55 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41054 ¥120.05528 

56 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41052 ¥120.05733 

57 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41056 ¥120.05961 

58 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41068 ¥120.06188 

59 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41084 ¥120.06392 

60 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41046 ¥120.06679 

61 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41021 ¥120.06927 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83599 

Point ID Latitude Longitude 

62 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41004 ¥120.07175 

63 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.40997 ¥120.07424 

64 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.40990 ¥120.07984 

65 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41002 ¥120.08369 

66 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.40991 ¥120.08666 

67 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.40991 ¥120.08964 

68 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41011 ¥120.09353 

69 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41051 ¥120.09739 

70 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41088 ¥120.09987 

71 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41138 ¥120.10255 

72 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41203 ¥120.10677 

73 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41251 ¥120.10941 

74 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41331 ¥120.11288 

75 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41452 ¥120.11729 

76 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41509 ¥120.11919 

77 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41571 ¥120.12107 

78 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41639 ¥120.12292 

79 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41711 ¥120.12474 

80 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41802 ¥120.12733 

81 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41937 ¥120.13068 

82 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.42030 ¥120.13314 

83 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.42183 ¥120.13678 

84 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.42266 ¥120.14015 

85 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.42285 ¥120.14124 

86 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.42227 ¥120.14365 

87 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.42173 ¥120.14631 

88 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.42126 ¥120.14922 

89 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.42091 ¥120.15216 

90 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.42039 ¥120.15458 

91 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41992 ¥120.15725 

92 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41942 ¥120.16108 

93 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41913 ¥120.16493 

94 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41904 ¥120.16857 

95 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41913 ¥120.17221 

96 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41941 ¥120.17583 

97 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41986 ¥120.17943 

98 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41968 ¥120.18174 

99 ................................................................................................................................................................. 34.41957 ¥120.18378 

100 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.41952 ¥120.18583 

101 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.41952 ¥120.18788 

102 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.41961 ¥120.19038 

103 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.41978 ¥120.19288 

104 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.42001 ¥120.19513 

105 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.42034 ¥120.19763 

106 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.42014 ¥120.20103 

107 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.42010 ¥120.20468 

108 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.42062 ¥120.21923 

109 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.41994 ¥120.22203 

110 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.41933 ¥120.22509 

111 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.41885 ¥120.22818 

112 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.41849 ¥120.23141 

113 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.41819 ¥120.23501 

114 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.41806 ¥120.23821 

115 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.41788 ¥120.24012 

116 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.41768 ¥120.24279 

117 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.41758 ¥120.24551 

118 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.41758 ¥120.24801 

119 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.41735 ¥120.25140 

120 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.38689 ¥120.26775 

121 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.33744 ¥120.32691 

122 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.30480 ¥120.37560 

123 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.27979 ¥120.41671 

124 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.20486 ¥120.53987 

125 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.18182 ¥120.60041 

126 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.10208 ¥120.64208 

127 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.07464 ¥120.73023 

128 ............................................................................................................................................................... 33.87643 ¥120.85081 

129 ............................................................................................................................................................... 33.82377 ¥1720.90550 

130 ............................................................................................................................................................... 33.83184 ¥121.21320 

131 ............................................................................................................................................................... 33.85137 ¥121.34958 

132 ............................................................................................................................................................... 33.91005 ¥121.40902 

133 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.08467 ¥121.40925 

134 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.16932 ¥121.49111 

135 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.21050 ¥121.49220 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
83600 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Point ID Latitude Longitude 

136 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.26897 ¥121.49681 

137 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.32128 ¥121.50604 

138 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.37975 ¥121.51066 

139 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.41821 ¥121.51681 

140 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.45284 ¥121.52704 

141 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.54049 ¥121.56178 

142 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.57950 ¥121.57941 

143 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.59446 ¥121.59010 

144 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.64285 ¥121.62378 

145 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.65978 ¥121.63763 

146 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.67836 ¥121.65637 

147 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.69012 ¥121.66652 

148 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.70722 ¥121.68042 

149 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.72486 ¥121.69538 

150 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.74143 ¥121.70340 

151 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.76227 ¥121.70500 

152 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.78952 ¥121.69966 

153 ............................................................................................................................................................... 34.89914 ¥121.64260 

154 ............................................................................................................................................................... 35.01394 ¥121.58238 

Note 1 to appendix A: The coordinates in 

the table marked with an asterisk (*) are not 

a part of the sanctuary boundary. These 

coordinates are landward reference points 

used to draw a line segment that intersects 

with the shoreline. 

Appendix B to Subpart V of Part 922— 

Coordinates for Rodriguez Seamount 

Management Zone Within the 

Sanctuary 

Coordinates listed in this table are 

unprojected (Geographic) and based on the 

North American Datum of 1983. 

Point ID Longitude Latitude 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... ¥120.75816 34.02873 

2 ............................................................................................................................................... ¥120.85081 33.87643 

3 ............................................................................................................................................... ¥120.90550 33.82377 

4 ............................................................................................................................................... ¥121.21320 33.83184 

5 ............................................................................................................................................... ¥121.25782 33.83812 

6 ............................................................................................................................................... ¥121.25937 34.13926 

7 ............................................................................................................................................... ¥120.75892 34.14264 

8 ............................................................................................................................................... ¥120.75816 34.02873 

[FR Doc. 2024–23607 Filed 10–11–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2