[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 16, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 83554-83600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23607]



[[Page 83553]]

Vol. 89

Wednesday,

No. 200

October 16, 2024

Part II





 Department of Commerce





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





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





15 CFR Part 922





 Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary; Final Rule

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

[[Page 83554]]


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

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 (mi\2\) 
(3,431 square nautical miles (nmi\2\)) 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/days-in-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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c7aba6b2b5a6e9aea9a0b2abb4b5b2a387a9a8a6a6e9a0a8b1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c101d090e1d5215121b09100f0e09183c12131d1d521b130a">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 
mi\2\ (3,431 nmi\2\) 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 mi\2\, 114 nmi\2\) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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:
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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,
    <bullet> 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 nationally-significant 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

[[Page 83556]]

successful programs to conduct outreach, education, and communication 
that will recognize and promote this area's nationally-significant 
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 non-regulatory programs the proposed 
sanctuary should have; and different ways to structure collaborative or 
co-management 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 non-regulatory 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 non-federally 
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 in-
person 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 in-person 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://nmssanctuaries.blob.core.windows.net/sanctuaries-prod/media/chumash/2023-proposed-chumash-heritage-nms-draft-management-plan.pdf.
    \3\ https://nmssanctuaries.blob.core.windows.net/sanctuaries-prod/media/chumash/2023-proposed-chumash-heritage-nms-deis.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 ti[lstrok]hini 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 
Barbare[ntilde]o/Venture[ntilde]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 non-federally 
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 non-profit 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:
    <bullet> The Framework for Indigenous Collaborative Co-Stewardship 
in the Introduction was revised to clarify collaborative management 
roles and responsibilities;
    <bullet> Nearly all action plans were enhanced with new or 
clarified activities, or potential partners, based on public comments; 
and
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 83558]]

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 
mi\2\; 5,718 nmi\2\; 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:
    <bullet> Alternative 1, Bank to Coast, which focused management 
from the Santa Lucia Bank to the coast (6,098 mi\2\; 4,605 nmi\2\; 152 
miles of mainland coast);
    <bullet> Alternative 2, Cropped Bank to Coast (5,553 mi\2\; 4,194 
nmi\2\; 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;
    <bullet> 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 mi\2\; 4,382 nmi\2\; 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);
    <bullet> Alternative 4, Combined Smallest, excluded both the 
western and northern offshore areas focusing management on the smallest 
area (4,328 mi\2\; 3,268 nmi\2\; 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:
    <bullet> Sub-Alternative 5a, Morro Bay Estuary (2.5 mi\2\; 1.9 
nmi\2\; 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);
    <bullet> Sub-Alternative 5b, Gaviota Coast Extension (64 mi\2\; 48 
nmi\2\; 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:
    <bullet> Changing the preferred alternative;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> Excluding the small harbor area at Vandenberg Space Force 
Base;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> Changes to streamline and clarify the certification 
process;
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 83559]]

Final Preferred Alternative covers 4,543 mi\2\ 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-than-significant 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 Capit[aacute]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 sub-
alternative 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

[[Page 83560]]

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 mi\2\ (3,400 
nmi\2\) 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 mi\2\ (3,400 nmi\2\) 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, co-dependent biological 
communities

[[Page 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 highly-valued 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.

[[Page 83562]]

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 primary-treated 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 Agency-Preferred Alternative from the draft 
EIS and now identifies 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 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

[[Page 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 Agency-Preferred 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.

[[Page 83564]]

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 
nationally-significant 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 (mi\2\) (3,400 
square nautical miles (nmi\2\) 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 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 Sec.  922.230 and the coordinates are located in 15 CFR 
part 922, subpart V, appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 site-specific 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,

[[Page 83565]]

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 mi\2\ (430 
nmi\2\) 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 Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Final Programmatic EIS for Oil and Gas Decommissioning 
Activities on the Pacific OCS (BSEE & BOEM, 2023)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 83566]]

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 sub-element 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,

[[Page 83567]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ https://nmssanctuaries.blob.core.windows.net/sanctuaries-prod/media/archive/library/pdfs/subcable_final_guidance_2011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 83568]]

requirements of section 310 of the NMSA.
    <bullet> 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 sub-adult 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.

[[Page 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:
    <bullet> DoD approval is required for these activities.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> DoD also conducts all required natural and cultural 
resource consultations for these activities.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 83570]]

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 sanctuary-specific 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 Sec.  922.232(f) of the proposed regulations. 
National marine sanctuary program-wide 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 Sec.  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 culturally-significant 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 Sec.  
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. Pre-existing activities specifically authorized by a valid 
Federal, State, or local lease, permit, license, or rights of 
subsistence use or access might be

[[Page 83571]]

occurring within CHNMS that would otherwise be prohibited by sanctuary 
regulations. Therefore, NOAA has included Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  922.36 in the national regulations and Sec.  
922.232(e) in the CHNMS regulations, NOAA will have the authority to 
consider allowing an activity otherwise prohibited by Sec.  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 Sec.  922.232(e) and as limited in Sec.  
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

[[Page 83572]]

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:

<bullet> Section 922.1 Purposes and applicability of the regulations
<bullet> Section 922.4 Boundaries
<bullet> Section 922.5 Allowed activities
<bullet> Section 922.6 Prohibited or otherwise regulated activities
<bullet> Section 922.30 National Marine Sanctuary general permits
<bullet> Section 922.36 National Marine Sanctuary authorizations
<bullet> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/whales-and-carbon-sequestration-can-whales-store-carbon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Monta[ntilde]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

[[Page 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 co-stewardship in this area while advancing 
climate and conservation goals. This final sanctuary boundary would 
allow protection of nationally-significant 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

[[Page 83574]]

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 (Sub-Alternative 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 (Sub-
Alternative 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 
newly-discovered 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 nationally-significant 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.

[[Page 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 Sub-Alternative 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

[[Page 83576]]

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 non-regulatory, programmatic measures (e.g., voluntary 
vessel speed reduction) whereby NOAA would address threats to sanctuary 
resources. See topic-specific 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.

[[Page 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 Sub-Alternative-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

[[Page 83578]]

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 case-by-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.

[[Page 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 Agency-Preferred 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 re-evaluate 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

[[Page 83580]]

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 CHNMS-specific 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 
Agency-Preferred 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

[[Page 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 Agency-Preferred 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

[[Page 83582]]

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 
primary-treated 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 open-ended 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 non-natural 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 CO<INF>2</INF> 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

[[Page 83584]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ https://montereybayfisheriestrust.org/stories/2019/9/19/cowcod-declared-rebuilt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 case-
by-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

[[Page 83586]]

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 State-managed 
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, multi-
sanctuary 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 15 CFR 922.11 for ``Sanctuary resource'' definition: 
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/part-922#p-922.11(Sanctuary%20resource).
    \10\ See 15 CFR 922.11 for ``Sanctuary quality'' definition: 
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/part-922#p-922.11(Sanctuary%20quality).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    63. Comment WQ-3: NOAA should provide additional discharge 
exceptions for large ocean-going vessels, e.g., anti-fouling 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 ocean-going 
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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 non-
regulatory 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 non-enforcement 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

[[Page 83588]]

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 ``Estero-Gaviota'', 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 re-evaluate 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 co-develop 
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 
Co-Stewardship 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 
Co-Stewardship 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

[[Page 83589]]

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 co-stewardship 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 Co-Stewardship 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 83590]]

(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 start-up 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 co-stewardship 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,

[[Page 83591]]

and Indian Tribal treaty and other rights, recognizing the right of 
Indian Tribes to self-government, and supporting Tribal sovereignty and 
self-determination. NOAA implements Executive Order 13175 through the 
NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 218-8 (Policy on Government-to-
Government 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-to-government 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 
non-consumptive 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 non-consumptive 
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 Agency-Preferred 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 Agency-Preferred Alternative boundaries 
are provided below. Data for non-consumptive 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).

[[Page 83592]]

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 per-person 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 non-
consumptive 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Many 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 83594]]

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

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

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


0
2. Amend Sec.  922.1 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  [thinsp]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.
* * * * *


0
3. Revise Sec.  922.4 to read as follows:


Sec.  [thinsp]922.4  Boundaries.

    Subpart F and subsequent subparts of this part set forth the 
boundaries for all national marine sanctuaries.


0
4. Revise Sec.  [thinsp]922.6 to read as follows:


Sec.  [thinsp]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.


0
5. Amend Sec.  922.30 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
0
b. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (b)(5);
0
c. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (b)(6) and adding ``; 
and'' in its place; and
0
d. Adding paragraph (b)(7).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  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 site-specific 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.

0
6. Amend Sec.  922.36 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(1)(ii) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  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.
* * * * *


0
7. Amend Sec.  922.37 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  922.37  Appeals of permitting decisions.

    (a) * * *
    (2) An applicant or a holder of a National Marine Sanctuary permit 
issued pursuant to Sec.  922.30 or pursuant to site-specific 
regulations appearing in subparts F through V of this part;
* * * * *


0
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.

[[Page 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


Sec.  [thinsp]922.230  Boundary.

    Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary covers 4,543 mi\2\ 
(3,431 nmi\2\) 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.


Sec.  [thinsp]922.231  Definitions.

    In addition to the definitions found in Sec.  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 mi\2\ (430 
nmi\2\) 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.


Sec.  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,

[[Page 83596]]

    (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/chumash-heritage/). 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 
Sec.  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 non-invasive and will not cause significant adverse 
effects to Sanctuary resources or qualities, and that is cultivated in 
State waters as part of commercial shellfish aquaculture activities, do 
not apply to any activity authorized by any lease, permit, license, 
approval, or other authorization issued after the effective date of 
Sanctuary designation ([EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]) and issued by 
any Federal, State, or local authority of competent jurisdiction, 
provided that the applicant complies with Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  922.234.


Sec.  [thinsp]922.233  Permit procedures.

    (a) A person may conduct an activity prohibited by Sec.  
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.


Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  922.232(e).
    (2) The MOA would specify how the process of Sec.  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

[[Page 83598]]

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

[[Page 83599]]

 
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

[[Page 83600]]

 
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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>