13078 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 922 

[Docket No. 130405335–4999–02] 

RIN 0648–BD18 

Expansion of Gulf of the Farallones 

and Cordell Bank National Marine 

Sanctuaries, and Regulatory Changes 

AGENCY: Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean 

Service (NOS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce (DOC). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is 

expanding the boundaries of Gulf of the 

Farallones National Marine Sanctuary 

(GFNMS) and Cordell Bank National 

Marine Sanctuary (CBNMS) to an area 

north and west of their current 

boundaries. As part of this action, 

NOAA is revising the terms of 

designation, management plans, and 

regulations for these two sanctuaries. 

DATES: Effective Date: Pursuant to 

section 304(b) of the National Marine 

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

1434(b)), the revised designations 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 March 12, 

2015. Additional information regarding 

the effective date for this final rule is 

contained in the ‘‘Background’’ section, 

below. NOAA will publish an 

announcement of the effective date of 

the final regulations in the Federal 

Register. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final 

environmental impact statement (FEIS) 

described in this rule and the record of 

decision (ROD) are available upon 

request to Maria Brown, 

Superintendent, Gulf of the Farallones 

National Marine Sanctuary, 991 Marine 

Drive, The Presidio, San Francisco, CA 

94129. Copies of the FEIS, final 

management plans, and the final rule 

can also be viewed or downloaded at 

http://farallones.noaa.gov/manage/

expansion_cbgf.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maria Brown at Maria.Brown@noaa.gov 

or 415–561–6622; or Dan Howard at 

Dan.Howard@noaa.gov or 415–663– 

0314. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Effective Date 

This rule postpones for 6 months the 

effective date for the discharge 

requirements in both expansion areas 

with regard to U.S. Coast Guard 

activities. In the course of this rule 

making NOAA learned from Coast 

Guard that the discharge regulations had 

the potential to impair the operations of 

Coast Guard vessels and air craft 

conducting law enforcement, search and 

rescue training and other statutorily 

mandated activities in Gulf of the 

Farallones and Cordell Bank national 

marine sanctuaries. The USCG supports 

national marine sanctuary management 

by providing routine surveillance and 

dedicated law enforcement of the 

national marine sanctuaries. It does so 

concurrently with other Coast Guard 

operations, which include those relating 

to homeland security, search and 

rescue, regulatory program enforcement 

(such as vessel air pollution low sulfur 

fuel program requirements, fisheries 

management, oil spill response, marine 

living resource protection), vessel traffic 

management, and drug interdiction. 

Coast Guard training involving use of 

force and search and rescue drills 

require expenditure of ammunition or 

pyrotechnics (‘‘live fire training’’). 

Additionally, some vessels used by the 

Coast Guard in both sanctuaries have 

limited capacity to store sewage, and 

that may impact Coast Guard’s 

capability to conduct extended, 

necessary operations in the expansion 

areas. Accordingly, to ensure that this 

rule does not undermine Coast Guard’s 

ability to perform its duties, NOAA is 

postponing for 6 months the date when 

the discharge requirements will become 

effective with regard to Coast Guard 

operations. During this time, NOAA will 

consider how to address Coast Guard’s 

concerns and will consider, among 

other things, whether to exempt certain 

Coast Guard activities in both 

sanctuaries similar to existing 

exemptions provided for Department of 

Defense activities (15 CFR 922.82(b) and 

922.112(c)). The 6-month postponement 

will begin at the time the regulations for 

the expansion areas become effective. 

As noted above, NOAA will publish a 

notice when the regulations 

promulgated by this rule become 

effective and will include in that notice 

the date when the postponement of the 

effective date for Coast Guard activities 

ends. The public, other federal agencies, 

and interested stakeholders will be 

given an opportunity to comment on 

various alternatives that are being 

considered. This will include the 

opportunity to review any proposed rule 

and related environmental analyses. 

B. GFNMS Background 

NOAA designated GFNMS in 1981 to 

protect and preserve a unique and 

fragile ecological community, including 

the largest seabird colony in the 

contiguous United States and diverse 

and abundant marine mammals. 

GFNMS is located along and offshore 

California’s north-central coast, west of 

northern San Mateo, San Francisco, 

Marin and southern Sonoma Counties. 

GFNMS was previously composed of 

approximately 1,282 square miles (968 

square nautical miles (sq. nmi)) of 

offshore waters extending out to and 

around the Farallon Islands, nearshore 

waters (up to the mean high water line 

unless otherwise specified) from Bodega 

Head to Rocky Point in Marin, and the 

submerged lands beneath these waters. 

The Farallon Islands lie along the outer 

edge of the continental shelf, between 

15 and 22 miles (13 and 19 nmi) 

southwest of Point Reyes and 

approximately 30 miles (26 nmi) due 

west of San Francisco. In addition to 

sandy beaches, small coves, and 

offshore stacks, GFNMS includes open 

bays (Bodega Bay, Drakes Bay) and 

enclosed bays or estuaries (Bolinas 

Lagoon, Tomales Bay, Estero 

Americano, and Estero de San Antonio). 

GFNMS is located within the California 

current, and its waters are characterized 

by wind-driven upwelling, localized 

eddies, counter-current gyres, high 

nutrient supply, and high levels of 

phytoplankton. As a result of this 

action, GFNMS is being expanded to a 

total of 3,295 square miles (2,488 sq. 

nmi). 

B. CBNMS Background 

NOAA designated CBNMS in 1989 to 

protect and preserve the extraordinary 

ecosystem, including invertebrates, 

marine birds, mammals, and other 

natural resources, of Cordell Bank and 

its surrounding waters. CBNMS is 

located offshore of California’s northcentral coast, west of Marin County. 

CBNMS previously protected an area of 

approximately 529 square miles (399 sq. 

nmi). The main feature of the sanctuary 

is Cordell Bank (Bank), an offshore 

granite bank located on the edge of the 

continental shelf, about 49 miles (43 

nmi) northwest of the Golden Gate 

Bridge and 23 miles (20 nmi) west of the 

Point Reyes lighthouse. CBNMS is 

entirely offshore and shares its southern 

and eastern boundary with GFNMS. 

Similar to GFNMS, CBNMS is located in 

a major coastal upwelling system. The 

combination of oceanic conditions and 

undersea topography provides for a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 13079 

highly productive environment in a 

discrete offshore area. Prevailing 

currents push nutrients from upwelling 

southward along the coast, moving 

nutrients and other prey over the upper 

levels of the Bank. The vertical relief 

and hard substrate of the Bank provide 

benthic habitat with near-shore 

characteristics in an open ocean 

environment. The combination of algae 

and sedentary animals typical of 

nearshore waters in close proximity to 

open ocean species like blue whales and 

albatross creates a rare mix of species 

and a unique biological community at 

CBNMS. As a result of this action, 

CBNMS is being expanded to a total of 

1,286 square miles (971 sq. nmi). 

C. Purpose and Need for Action 

The purpose of NOAA’s action is to 

add national marine sanctuary 

protections to the globally significant 

coastal upwelling center originating off 

of Point Arena, which is the source of 

nutrient-rich upwelled waters that flow 

into GFNMS and CBNMS via winddriven currents. NOAA’s action expands 

the boundaries of GFNMS and CBNMS 

north and west of the sanctuaries’ 

original boundaries to extend regulatory 

protections and management programs 

to the nationally significant marine 

resources and habitats of the waters and 

submerged lands offshore of San Mateo, 

San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma and 

Mendocino Counties. 

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

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

NOAA the authority to expand national 

marine sanctuaries to meet the purposes 

and policies of the NMSA, including: 

• ‘‘. . . to provide authority for 

comprehensive and coordinated 

conservation and management of these 

marine areas [national marine 

sanctuaries], and activities affecting 

them, in a manner which complements 

existing regulatory authorities (16 U.S.C. 

1431(b)(2)); [and] 

• to maintain the natural biological 

communities in the national marine 

sanctuaries, and to protect, and, where 

appropriate, restore and enhance natural 

habitats, populations and ecological 

processes . . .’’ (16 U.S.C. 1431(b)(3)). 

The NMSA also requires NOAA to 

periodically review and evaluate 

progress in implementing the 

management plan and goals for each 

national marine sanctuary. The 

management plans and regulations must 

be revised as necessary to fulfill the 

purposes and policies of the NMSA (16 

U.S.C. 1434(e)) to ensure that each 

sanctuary continues to best conserve, 

protect, and enhance their nationally 

significant living and cultural resources. 

In addition to expanding the 

boundaries of GFNMS and CBNMS, 

NOAA’s action revises the sanctuaries’ 

management plans and modifies the 

sanctuaries’ regulations. Together these 

changes provide comprehensive 

management and protection of the 

nationally significant resources of the 

area, while facilitating uses compatible 

with resource protection. The regulatory 

changes are described in detail below in 

the ‘‘Summary of the Regulatory 

Amendments.’’ 

The expansion area, from the 

upwelling off the Point Arena coast and 

the waters south to GFNMS and 

CBNMS, is ecologically connected to the 

current sanctuaries. The upwelled 

water, rich with nutrients, largely 

originates offshore of Point Arena and 

flows south. It is the regional ecosystem 

driver for productivity in coastal waters 

of north-central California. The area 

supports a rich marine food web made 

up of many species of algae, 

invertebrates, fish, birds, and marine 

mammals. Some species are transitory, 

travelling hundreds, thousands or tens 

of thousands of miles to the region, such 

as endangered blue whales, albatross, 

shearwaters, white and salmon sharks, 

while others live year round in the 

sanctuaries, such as Dungeness crab, 

sponges, other benthic invertebrates, 

salmon, many species of rockfish and 

flatfish, and harbor seals and harbor 

porpoises. Of note, the largest 

assemblage of breeding seabirds in the 

contiguous United States is at the 

Farallon Islands, and each year their 

breeding success depends on a healthy 

and productive marine ecosystem to 

allow breeding adults and fledgling 

young to feed and flourish. Given that 

these sensitive resources are particularly 

susceptible to damage from human 

activities, expanding CBNMS and 

GFNMS conserves and protects critical 

resources by preventing or reducing 

human-caused impacts such as marine 

pollution, and wildlife and seabed 

disturbance. 

In addition, this action protects 

significant submerged cultural resources 

and historical properties, as defined by 

the National Historic Preservation Act, 

16 U.S.C. 470, et seq., and its 

regulations (historical properties 

include among other things: Artifacts, 

records, remains related to or located in 

the properties of traditional religious 

and cultural importance to an Indian 

tribe and that meet the National Register 

criteria). Several state and federal laws 

exist that provide some degree of 

protection of historical resources, but 

the State of California regulations only 

extend 3 nautical miles offshore, and 

existing federal regulations do not 

provide comprehensive protection of 

these resources. Records document over 

200 vessel and aircraft losses between 

1820 and 1961 along California’s northcentral coast from Bodega Head north to 

Point Arena. Submerged archaeological 

remnants related to a number of former 

doghole ports are likely to exist in the 

area. Doghole ports were small ports on 

the Pacific Coast between Central 

California and Southern Oregon that 

operated from the mid-1800s until 1939. 

Such archaeological remnants could 

include landings, wire, trapeze loading 

chutes and offshore moorings. 

While there is no documentation of 

submerged Native American human 

settlements in the boundary expansion 

area, some may exist there, since Coast 

Miwok and Pomo peoples have lived 

and harvested the resources of this 

abundant marine landscape for 

thousands of years. Sea level rise at the 

end of the last great Ice Age inundated 

a large area that was likely used by these 

peoples when it was dry land. 

D. History of the Boundary Expansion 

In 2001, NOAA received public 

comment during a review of the GFNMS 

and CBNMS management plans 

requesting that both sanctuaries be 

expanded north and west. Since 2003, 

sanctuary advisory councils for both 

national marine sanctuaries have 

regularly discussed and supported 

boundary expansion northward and 

westward at advisory council meetings, 

which are open to the public. In 

addition to the public and advisory 

council input, legislation was proposed 

several times between 2004 and 2011 by 

then-Representative Lynn Woolsey, 

Senator Barbara Boxer, and cosponsors, 

to expand and protect GFNMS and 

CBNMS, but was never passed by 

Congress. In general, interest in 

expanding CBNMS and GFNMS has 

stemmed principally from a desire to 

protect the biologically rich underwater 

habitat of the expansion area and the 

important upwelling current originating 

off Point Arena. 

The sanctuary advisory councils 

formally expressed support for the 

proposed boundary expansion in four 

resolutions prior to NOAA issuing the 

proposed rule in April 2014. The 

GFNMS advisory council passed three 

separate resolutions on April 19 and 

December 13, 2007, and November 11, 

2011, supporting sanctuary boundary 

expansion. On September 19, 2007, the 

CBNMS advisory council passed a 

resolution supporting protection for 

Bodega Canyon via proposed legislation. 

As a result of the public interest in 

boundary expansion, in 2008 NOAA 

included actions to consider a future 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
13080 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

boundary expansion in the revised 

management plans for CBNMS and 

GFNMS. The management plans 

indicate NOAA would develop a 

framework to evaluate boundary 

alternatives, with public input. Some of 

the recommended criteria included 

consideration of boundary changes that 

would: Be inclusive of and ensure the 

maintenance of the area’s natural 

ecosystem, including its contribution to 

biological productivity; be 

biogeographically representative; 

facilitate, to the extent compatible with 

the primary objective of resource 

protection, public and private uses of 

the marine resources; and provide 

additional comprehensive and 

coordinated management of the area. 

NOAA, in compliance with Section 

304(e) of the NMSA, conducted public 

scoping from December 21, 2012, to 

March 1, 2013 (77 FR 75601), to identify 

issues associated with a proposed 

expansion. In January and February 

2013 NOAA held three public scoping 

meetings in Bodega Bay, Point Arena 

and Gualala. These public meetings 

were attended by several hundred 

people. NOAA received more than 300 

written submissions, along with the oral 

comments received during the three 

public scoping meetings, which are 

posted under docket number NOAA– 

NOS–2012–0228 on 

www.regulations.gov. 

NOAA analyzed comments received 

during this process and considered 

them in the draft environmental impact 

statement accompanying the proposed 

rule (79 FR 20982), with analysis of the 

proposed action and four alternatives. 

Scoping revealed wide support for the 

protection of areas offshore Sonoma and 

southern Mendocino Counties. Some 

commenters also suggested the 

protection of areas further north and 

south of the proposed expansion or 

other alternate boundary configurations 

for GFNMS and CBNMS. Whereas some 

commenters were opposed to expanding 

the sanctuaries or specific sanctuary 

regulations, there was generally strong 

support for extending existing sanctuary 

regulations to the proposed expanded 

area, including prohibitions on oil and 

gas development. Many commenters 

also indicated opposition to any 

regulations of fishing under the NMSA. 

Other comments focused on: Operation 

of motorized personal watercraft 

(MPWC) in the expanded portions of 

GFNMS; protection of wildlife from 

human disturbance; and future 

development of alternative energy and 

aquaculture. 

During the development of the 

proposed action, it became clear that an 

extension of all existing GFNMS and 

CBNMS regulations to the respective 

expansion areas would not meet 

NOAA’s goals of providing resource 

protection and facilitating compatible 

uses. Therefore, NOAA proposed to 

extend some of the existing GFNMS and 

CBNMS regulations to the proposed 

expansion area without any changes, 

amend some of the existing regulations 

that would apply to both the existing 

sanctuaries and the proposed expansion 

area, and add some new regulations. 

The DEIS was made available for 

public comment on April 4, 2014, and 

the proposed rule was published in the 

Federal Register (79 FR 20982) on April 

14, 2014. NOAA solicited public 

comments until June 30, 2014, and held 

four public hearings in Sausalito (May 

22), Point Arena (June 16), Gualala (June 

17) and Bodega Bay, CA (June 18). 

NOAA received about 1,000 individual 

comments, including letters, online 

submissions on www.regulations.gov, 

and oral testimonies at public hearings. 

In addition, both CBNMS and GFNMS 

sanctuary advisory councils provided 

comments to NOAA on the proposed 

action (see http://farallones.noaa.gov/

manage/sac_actions.html). All public 

comments are available for public 

viewing at www.regulations.gov (search 

for docket number NOAA–NOS–2012– 

0228). The comments and NOAA’s 

responses are summarized below. 

II. Revisions to the Sanctuary Terms of 

Designation 

Section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA 

requires that the terms of designation for 

national marine sanctuaries include: (1) 

The geographic area included within the 

Sanctuary; (2) the characteristics of the 

area that give it conservation, 

recreational, ecological, historical, 

research, educational, or esthetic value; 

and (3) the types of activities subject to 

regulation by NOAA to protect those 

characteristics. This section also 

specifies that the terms of the 

designation may be modified only by 

the same procedures by which the 

original designation is made. 

To implement this action, NOAA is 

changing the GFNMS and CBNMS terms 

of designation, which were last 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 19, 2015 (80 FR 8778) for 

GFNMS and on November 20, 2008 (73 

FR 70488) for CBNMS. 

A. Revisions to the GFNMS Terms of 

Designation 

NOAA is revising the GFNMS terms 

of designation to: 

1. Update the title by adding ‘‘Terms 

of,’’ removing ‘‘Document’’ and making 

minor technical changes. 

2. Modify the geographical 

description of the sanctuary in the 

preamble. 

3. Modify Article I ‘‘Effect of 

Designation’’ by referring to Gulf of the 

Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. 

4. Modify Article II ‘‘Description of 

the Area’’ by updating the description of 

the size of the sanctuary and describing 

the proposed new boundary for the 

sanctuary. 

5. Modify Article III ‘‘Characteristics 

of the Area That Give It Particular 

Value’’ by updating the description of 

the nationally significant characteristics 

of the area to include the globally 

significant coastal upwelling area. 

6. Modify Article IV ‘‘Scope of 

Regulation’’ by updating section 1, 

subsection a, by replacing ‘‘hydrocarbon 

operations’’ with a more complete 

description of oil and gas activities; 

adding ‘‘minerals’’ to what had been 

‘‘hydrocarbon operations’’; by clarifying 

the actual activities related to cultural 

and historical resources that are 

prohibited; and adding a new 

subsection i, ‘‘Interfering with an 

investigation, search, seizure, or 

disposition of seized property in 

connection with enforcement of the Act 

or Sanctuary regulations.’’ 

7. Modify Article V ‘‘Relation to Other 

Regulatory Programs’’ by updating 

section 1 to replace the term 

‘‘mariculture’’ with the term 

‘‘aquaculture’’ and replacing ‘‘seabed’’ 

with the term ‘‘submerged lands’’ used 

throughout the terms of designation and 

regulations; by updating section 3 to 

include the dates of designation and 

expansion used for certification; and 

adding ‘‘In addition, a permit or 

authorization may not be issued under 

any circumstances for exploring for, 

developing or producing oil, gas, or 

minerals within the Sanctuary.’’ 

The revised terms of designation read 

as follows: 

REVISED TERMS OF DESIGNATION FOR 

GULF OF THE FARALLONES NATIONAL 

MARINE SANCTUARY 

Preamble 

Under the authority of Title III of the 

Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries 

Act of 1972, Public Law 92–532 (the Act), the 

waters and submerged lands along the Coast 

of California to the 39th parallel, between 

Manchester Beach in Mendocino County and 

Rocky Point in Marin County and 

surrounding the Farallon Islands and 

Noonday Rock along the northern coast of 

California, are hereby designated a National 

Marine Sanctuary for the purposes of 

preserving and protecting this unique and 

fragile ecological community. 

Article I. Effect of Designation 

Within the area described in Article II, the 

Act authorizes the promulgation of such 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 13081 

regulations as are reasonable and necessary 

to protect the values of Gulf of the Farallones 

National Marine Sanctuary (the Sanctuary). 

Section 1 of Article IV of these Terms of 

Designation lists activities of the types that 

are either to be regulated on the effective date 

of final rulemaking or may have to be 

regulated at some later date in order to 

protect Sanctuary resources and qualities. 

Listing does not necessarily mean that a type 

of activity will be regulated; however, if a 

type of activity is not listed it may not be 

regulated, except on an emergency basis, 

unless section 1 of Article IV is amended to 

include the type of activity by the same 

procedures by which the original designation 

was made. 

Article II. Description of the Area 

The Sanctuary consists of an area of the 

waters and the submerged lands thereunder 

adjacent to the coast of California of 

approximately 2,488 square nautical miles 

(sq. nmi). The boundary extends seaward to 

a distance of 30 nmi west from the mainland 

at Manchester Beach and extends south 

approximately 45 nmi to the northwestern 

corner of Cordell Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary (CBNMS), and extends 

approximately 38 nmi east along the northern 

boundary of CBNMS, approximately 6 nmi 

west of Bodega Head. The boundary extends 

from Bodega Bay to Point Reyes and 12 nmi 

west from the Farallon Islands and Noonday 

Rock, and includes the intervening waters 

and submerged lands. The Sanctuary 

includes Bolinas Lagoon, Tomales Bay, 

Estero de San Antonio (to the tide gate at 

Valley Ford-Franklin School Road) and 

Estero Americano (to the bridge at Valley 

Ford-Estero Road), as well as Bodega Bay, but 

does not include Bodega Harbor, the Salmon 

Creek Estuary, the Russian River Estuary, the 

Gualala River Estuary, Arena Cove or the 

Garcia River Estuary. The precise boundaries 

are defined by regulation. 

Article III. Characteristics of the Area That 

Give It Particular Value 

The Sanctuary encompasses a globally 

significant coastal upwelling center that 

includes a rich and diverse marine ecosystem 

and a wide variety of marine habitats, 

including habitat for over 36 species of 

marine mammals. Rookeries for over half of 

California’s nesting marine bird populations 

and nesting areas for at least 12 of 16 known 

U.S. nesting marine bird species are found 

within the boundaries. Abundant 

populations of fish and shellfish are also 

found within the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary 

also has one of the largest seasonal 

concentrations of adult white sharks 

(Carcharodon carcharias) in the world. The 

area adjacent to and offshore of Point Arena, 

due to seasonal winds, currents and 

oceanography, drives one of the most 

prominent and persistent upwelling centers 

in the world, supporting the productivity of 

the sanctuary. The nutrient-rich water carried 

down coast by currents promotes thriving 

nearshore kelp forests, productive 

commercial and recreational fisheries, and 

diverse wildlife assemblages. Large 

predators, such as white sharks, sea lions, 

killer whales, and baleen whales, travel from 

thousands of miles away to feed in these 

productive waters. Rocky shores along the 

Marin, Sonoma and Mendocino County 

coastlines are largely undisturbed, and teem 

with crustaceans, algae, fish and birds. 

Article IV. Scope of Regulation 

Section 1. Activities Subject to Regulation 

The following activities are subject to 

regulation, including prohibition, as may be 

necessary to ensure the management, 

protection, and preservation of the 

conservation, recreational, ecological, 

historical, cultural, archeological, scientific, 

educational, and aesthetic resources and 

qualities of this area: 

a. Exploring for, developing or producing 

oil, gas, or minerals within the Sanctuary; 

b. Discharging or depositing any substance 

within or from beyond the boundary of the 

Sanctuary; 

c. 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; 

d. Taking, removing, moving, collecting, 

possessing, injuring, destroying or causing 

the loss of, or attempting to take, remove, 

move, injure, destroy or cause the loss of a 

cultural or historical resources; 

e. Introducing or otherwise releasing from 

within or into the Sanctuary an introduced 

species; 

f. Taking or possessing any marine 

mammal, marine reptile, or bird within or 

above the Sanctuary except as permitted by 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 

Endangered Species Act, and Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act; 

g. Attracting or approaching any animal; 

h. Operating a vessel (i.e., watercraft of any 

description) within the Sanctuary; and 

i. Interfering with an investigation, search, 

seizure, or disposition of seized property in 

connection with enforcement of the Act or 

Sanctuary regulations. 

Section 2. Consistency With International 

Law 

The regulations governing the activities 

listed in section 1 of this Article will apply 

to foreign flag vessels and persons not 

citizens of the United States only to the 

extent consistent with recognized principles 

of international law, including treaties and 

international agreements to which the United 

States is signatory. 

Section 3. Emergency Regulations 

Where necessary to prevent or minimize 

the destruction of, loss of, or injury to a 

Sanctuary resource or quality, or minimize 

the imminent risk of such destruction, loss, 

or injury, any and all activities, including 

those not listed in section 1 of this Article, 

are subject to immediate temporary 

regulation, including prohibition. 

Article V. Relation to Other Regulatory 

Programs 

Section 1. Fishing and Waterfowl Hunting 

The regulation of fishing, including fishing 

for shellfish and invertebrates, and waterfowl 

hunting, is not authorized under Article IV. 

However, fishing vessels may be regulated 

with respect to vessel operations in 

accordance with Article IV, section 1, 

paragraphs (b) and (h), and aquaculture 

activities involving alterations of or 

construction on the submerged lands, or 

introduction or release of introduced species 

by aquaculture activities, can be regulated in 

accordance with Article IV, section 1, 

paragraph (c) and (e). All regulatory programs 

pertaining to fishing, and to waterfowl 

hunting, including regulations promulgated 

under the California Fish and Game Code 

and Fishery Management Plans promulgated 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 

1801 et seq., will remain in effect, and all 

permits, licenses, and other authorizations 

issued pursuant thereto will be valid within 

the Sanctuary unless authorizing any activity 

prohibited by any regulation implementing 

Article IV. 

The term ‘‘fishing’’ as used in this Article 

includes aquaculture. 

Section 2. Defense Activities 

The regulation of activities listed in Article 

IV shall not prohibit any Department of 

Defense activity that is essential for national 

defense or because of emergency. Such 

activities shall be consistent with the 

regulations to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

Section 3. Other Programs 

All applicable regulatory programs will 

remain in effect, and all permits, licenses, 

approvals, and other authorizations issued 

after January 16, 1981, with respect to 

activities conducted within the original 

Sanctuary boundary and after the effective 

date of the expansion of the Sanctuary with 

respect to activities conducted within the 

expansion area will be valid within the 

Sanctuary unless authorizing any activity 

prohibited by any regulation implementing 

Article IV. No valid lease, permit, license, 

approval or other authorization for activities 

in the expansion area of the Sanctuary issued 

by any federal, State, or local authority of 

competent jurisdiction and in effect on the 

effective date of the expansion may be 

terminated by the Secretary of Commerce or 

by his or her designee, provided the holder 

of such authorization complies with the 

certification procedures established by 

Sanctuary regulations. In addition, the 

Secretary may not under any circumstances 

issue a permit or authorization for exploring 

for, developing or producing oil, gas, or 

minerals within the Sanctuary. 

Article VI. Alterations to This Designation 

The terms of designation, as defined under 

section 304(a) of the Act, may be modified 

only by the same procedures by which the 

original designation is made, including 

public hearings, consultation with interested 

Federal, State, and local agencies, review by 

the appropriate Congressional committees 

and Governor of the State of California, and 

approval by the Secretary of Commerce or 

designee. 

[END OF TERMS OF DESIGNATION] 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
13082 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

C. Revisions to the CBNMS Terms of 

Designation 

NOAA is revising the CBNMS terms 

of designation to: 

1. Update the title by adding ‘‘Terms 

of’’ and removing ‘‘Document.’’ 

2. Modify the geographical 

description in the preamble by adding 

‘‘Bodega Canyon’’ and ‘‘submerged 

lands’’ and making minor technical 

changes. 

3. Modify Article I ‘‘Effect of 

Designation’’ by making minor technical 

changes. 

4. Modify Article II ‘‘Description of 

the Area’’ by updating the description of 

the size of the sanctuary and describing 

the proposed new boundary for the 

sanctuary. 

5. Modify Article III ‘‘Characteristics 

of the Area That Give It Particular 

Value’’ by updating the description of 

the nationally significant characteristics 

of the area to include Bodega Canyon 

and the additional area in the sanctuary. 

6. Modify Article IV ‘‘Scope of 

Regulation’’ by updating section 1, 

subsection c, by replacing ‘‘hydrocarbon 

operations’’ with a more complete 

description of oil and gas activities, and 

adding ‘‘minerals’’; by clarifying the 

actual activities related to cultural and 

historical resources that are prohibited; 

and by adding a new subsection i 

‘‘Interfering with an investigation, 

search, seizure, or disposition of seized 

property in connection with 

enforcement of the Act or Sanctuary 

regulations.’’ 

7. Modify Article V ‘‘Relation to Other 

Regulatory Programs’’ by updating 

section 3 to include the dates of 

designation and expansion used for 

certification and by adding ‘‘In addition, 

a permit or authorization may not be 

issued under any circumstances for 

exploring for, developing or producing 

oil, gas, or minerals within the 

Sanctuary.’’ 

The revised CBNMS terms of 

designation read as follows: 

TERMS OF DESIGNATION FOR CORDELL 

BANK NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY 

Preamble 

Under the authority of Title III of the 

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 

Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1431 et 

seq. (the ‘‘Act’’), Cordell Bank, Bodega 

Canyon, and their surrounding waters and 

submerged lands offshore northern 

California, as described in Article II, are 

hereby designated as Cordell Bank National 

Marine Sanctuary (the Sanctuary) for the 

purpose of protecting and conserving that 

special, discrete, highly productive marine 

area and ensuring the continued availability 

of the conservation, ecological, research, 

educational, aesthetic, historical, and 

recreational resources therein. 

Article 1. Effect of Designation 

The Sanctuary was designated on May 24, 

1989 (54 FR 22417). Section 308 of the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 16 U.S.C. 

1431 et seq. (NMSA), authorizes the issuance 

of such regulations as are necessary to 

implement the designation, including 

managing, protecting and conserving the 

conservation, recreational, ecological, 

historical, cultural, archeological, scientific, 

educational, and aesthetic resources and 

qualities of the Sanctuary. Section 1 of 

Article IV of these Terms of Designation lists 

activities of the types that are either to be 

regulated on the effective date of final 

rulemaking or may have to be regulated at 

some later date in order to protect Sanctuary 

resources and qualities. Listing does not 

necessarily mean that a type of activity will 

be regulated; however, if a type of activity is 

not listed it may not be regulated, except on 

an emergency basis, unless Section 1 of 

Article IV is amended to include the type of 

activity by the same procedures by which the 

original designation was made. 

Article II. Description of the Area 

The Sanctuary consists of an 

approximately 971 square nautical mile (sq. 

nmi) area of marine waters and the 

submerged lands thereunder encompassed by 

a northern boundary that begins 

approximately 6 nmi west of Bodega Head in 

Sonoma County, California and extends west 

approximately 38 nmi, coterminous with the 

boundary of the Gulf of the Farallones 

National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS). From 

that point, the western boundary of the 

Sanctuary extends south approximately 34 

nmi. From that point, the southern boundary 

of the Sanctuary continues east 15 nmi, 

where it intersects the GFNMS boundary. 

The eastern boundary of the Sanctuary is 

coterminous with the GFNMS boundary, and 

is a series of straight lines connecting in 

sequence, back to the beginning point. The 

precise boundaries are set forth in the 

regulations. 

Article III. Characteristics of the Area That 

Give It Particular Value 

Cordell Bank (Bank) and Bodega Canyon 

are characterized by a combination of oceanic 

conditions and undersea topography that 

provides for a highly productive environment 

in a discrete, well-defined area. The 

Sanctuary may contain historical resources of 

national significance. The Bank consists of a 

series of steep-sided ridges and narrow 

pinnacles rising from the edge of the 

continental shelf. The Bank is 300–400 feet 

(91–122 meters) deep at the base and ascends 

to within 115 feet (35 meters) of the surface 

at its shallowest point. Bodega Canyon is 

about 12 miles (10.8 nmi) long and is over 

5,000 feet (1,524 m) deep. The seasonal 

upwelling of nutrient-rich bottom waters and 

wide depth ranges in the vicinity have led to 

a unique association of subtidal and oceanic 

species. The vigorous biological community 

flourishing at Cordell Bank and Bodega 

Canyon includes an exceptional assortment 

of invertebrates, fishes, marine mammals and 

seabirds. Predators travel from thousands of 

miles away to feed in these productive 

waters. 

Article IV. Scope of Regulation 

Section 1. Activities Subject to Regulation 

The following activities are subject to 

regulation, including prohibition, as may be 

necessary to ensure the management, 

protection, and preservation of the 

conservation, recreational, ecological, 

historical, cultural, archeological, scientific, 

educational, and aesthetic resources and 

qualities of this area: 

a. Depositing or discharging any material 

or substance; 

b. Removing, taking, or injuring or 

attempting to remove, take, or injure benthic 

invertebrates or algae located on the Bank or 

on or within the line representing the 50 

fathom isobath surrounding the Bank; 

c. Exploring for, developing or producing 

oil, gas or minerals within the Sanctuary; 

d. Anchoring on the Bank or on or within 

the line representing the 50 fathom contour 

surrounding the Bank; 

e. Taking, removing, moving, collecting, 

possessing, injuring or causing the loss of, or 

attempting to take, remove, move, collect, 

injure or cause the loss of a cultural or 

historical resource; 

f. 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; 

g. Taking or possessing any marine 

mammal, marine reptile, or bird except as 

permitted under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, Endangered Species Act or 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act; 

h. Introducing or otherwise releasing from 

within or into the Sanctuary an introduced 

species; and 

i. Interfering with an investigation, search, 

seizure, or disposition of seized property in 

connection with enforcement of the Act or 

Sanctuary regulations. 

Section 2. Consistency With International 

Law 

The regulations governing activities listed 

in Section 1 of this Article shall apply to 

foreign flag vessels and foreign persons only 

to the extent consistent with generally 

recognized principles of international law, 

and in accordance with treaties, conventions, 

and other agreements to which the United 

States is a party. 

Section 3. Emergency Regulations 

Where necessary to prevent or minimize 

the destruction of, loss of, or injury to a 

Sanctuary resource or quality, or minimize 

the imminent risk of such destruction, loss, 

or injury, any and all activities, including 

those not listed in Section 1 of this Article, 

are subject to immediate temporary 

regulation, including prohibition, within the 

limits of the Act on an emergency basis for 

a period not to exceed 120 days. 

Article V. Relation to Other Regulatory 

Programs 

Section 1. Fishing 

The regulation of fishing is not authorized 

under Article IV. All regulatory programs 

pertaining to fishing, including Fishery 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 13083 

Management Plans promulgated under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

(‘‘Magnuson-Stevens Act’’), shall remain in 

effect. All permits, licenses, approvals, and 

other authorizations issued pursuant to the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act shall be valid within 

the Sanctuary. However, all fishing vessels 

are subject to regulation under Article IV 

with respect to discharges and anchoring. 

Section 2. Defense Activities 

The regulation of activities listed in Article 

IV shall not prohibit any Department of 

Defense (DOD) activities that are necessary 

for national defense. All such activities being 

carried out by DOD within the Sanctuary on 

the effective date of designation shall be 

exempt from any prohibitions contained in 

the Sanctuary regulations. Additional DOD 

activities initiated after the effective date of 

designation that are necessary for national 

defense will be exempted after consultation 

between the Department of Commerce and 

DOD. DOD activities not necessary for 

national defense, such as routine exercises 

and vessel operations, shall be subject to all 

prohibitions contained in the Sanctuary 

regulations. 

Section 3. Other Programs 

All applicable regulatory programs shall 

remain in effect, and all permits, licenses, 

approvals, and other authorizations issued 

after July 31, 1989, with respect to activities 

conducted within the original Sanctuary 

boundary and after the effective date of the 

expansion of the Sanctuary with respect to 

activities conducted within the expansion 

area pursuant to those programs shall be 

valid unless prohibited by regulations 

implementing Article IV. In addition, the 

Secretary may not under any circumstances 

issue a permit or authorization for exploring 

for, developing or producing oil, gas, or 

minerals within the Sanctuary. 

Article VI. Alterations to This Designation 

The terms of designation, as defined under 

section 304(a) of the Act, may be modified 

only by the same procedures by which the 

original designation is made, including 

public hearings, consultation with interested 

Federal, State, and local agencies, review by 

the appropriate Congressional committees, 

and approval by the Secretary of Commerce 

or designee. 

[END OF TERMS OF DESIGNATION] 

III. Summary of Regulatory 

Amendments 

With this action, NOAA is: 

—Modifying the GFNMS and CBNMS 

boundary descriptions and 

coordinates; 

—Applying certain existing prohibitions 

to the expansion areas; 

—Amending certain existing 

prohibitions that apply in the original 

and expanded areas; and 

—Adding new prohibitions. 

Specific regulatory language for each 

of the two sanctuaries can be found at 

the end of this document. 

A. Summary of Boundary Modifications 

NOAA is modifying the boundary of 

GFNMS by extending it northward to 

the 39th parallel, just north of Point 

Arena in Mendocino County, in order to 

include the coastal waters and 

submerged lands north of the original 

sanctuary, and extending the boundary 

seaward to the continental slope to 

approximately the 10,000-foot (1,667- 

fathom) depth contour. The combined 

expanded boundary increases the size of 

the sanctuary from approximately 1,282 

square miles (968 square nautical miles) 

to approximately 3,295 square miles 

(2,488 square nautical miles). The 

expanded area extends shoreward to the 

mean high water line, including 

restored wetlands, but does not include 

Salmon Creek Estuary, the Russian 

River Estuary, the Gualala River Estuary, 

Arena Cove or the Garcia River Estuary. 

The southern boundary and portions of 

the western boundary of GFNMS are 

coterminous with CBNMS. A map of the 

expanded sanctuary is available online 

at http://farallones.noaa.gov/manage/

expansion_cbgf.html. 

NOAA is increasing the size of 

CBNMS from approximately 529 square 

miles (399 square nautical miles) to 

1,286 square miles (971 square nautical 

miles), by including the waters and 

submerged lands north and west of the 

original sanctuary. The revised 

boundary for CBNMS includes Bodega 

Canyon, a significant bathymetric 

feature that contributes directly to the 

biological productivity of the existing 

sanctuary ecosystem. Submarine 

canyons support deep water 

communities and affect local and 

regional water circulation patterns. The 

eastern and northern boundaries of 

CBNMS are coterminous with GFNMS. 

NOAA has also made minor technical 

changes to the textual descriptions and 

point locations of the No-Anchoring 

Seagrass Protection Zones in the 

Tomales Bay area of GFNMS. NOAA 

converted metric values (hectares and 

meters) to nautical miles and miles to be 

consistent with the rest of the 

document. All zones with a shoreline 

component to their boundary are now 

described in language that complies 

with current ONMS conventions for 

boundary descriptions. In addition to 

modifying the text, the index numbers 

of some coordinate pairs were reordered 

and some coordinates were modified to 

accommodate the edited text. NOAA 

has made no change to the existing zone 

locations or areas, except that the 

boundary coordinates of Seagrass 

Protection Zone 5 were modified 

slightly to better align with GFNMS 

boundaries. Therefore, this final rule 

corrects minor errors and incorporates 

these changes without significantly 

altering the size or location of the 

seagrass protection zones. 

B. Summary of Existing Regulations 

Extended to the Expansion Areas 

NOAA is extending the following 

prohibitions and exemptions from the 

original sanctuaries to the expansion 

areas. 

• Prohibition on Certain Discharges 

(GFNMS and CBNMS) 

Generally, discharging or depositing 

any material or other matter from within 

or into the sanctuary is prohibited in 

GFNMS and CBNMS with the following 

exceptions for all vessels including 

cruise ships: discharge of clean vessel 

engine cooling water, clean vessel 

generator cooling water, clean bilge 

water, anchor wash, and vessel engine 

or generator exhaust. All vessels other 

than cruise ships are also allowed to 

discharge or deposit within or into the 

sanctuary: fish, fish parts, chumming 

materials or bait as part of lawful fishing 

activities; clean effluent generated 

incidental to vessel use and generated 

by a Type I or II marine sanitation 

device; and clean vessel deck wash 

down. Note that the discharge 

prohibition applies not only to 

discharges and deposits originating in 

the sanctuary (e.g., from vessels in the 

sanctuary), but also from discharges and 

deposits occurring above the 

sanctuaries. 

The prohibition against discharge/

deposit originating outside the 

sanctuary boundaries that subsequently 

enter and injure a sanctuary resource 

and quality is also being applied in the 

expansion areas, subject to the same 

exceptions described above for 

discharges within or into the sanctuary. 

• Prohibition on the Take and 

Possession of Certain Species (GFNMS 

and CBNMS) 

NOAA extends the prohibition on the 

taking or possession of any marine 

mammal, sea turtle or bird within or 

above the sanctuary unless it is 

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, as amended, 

promulgated under the MMPA, ESA, or 

MBTA. This regulation under the 

NMSA provides an important and 

additional deterrent for violations of 

existing laws designed to protect marine 

mammals, birds, or sea turtles, than that 

provided by those other laws alone. It 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
13084 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

does not apply to activities (including a 

federally or state-approved fishery) that 

have been authorized under the MMPA, 

ESA, MBTA or implementing 

regulations. 

Therefore, under this regulation, if the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) or the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) issues a 

permit for, or otherwise authorizes, the 

take of a marine mammal, bird, or sea 

turtle, the permitted or authorized 

taking is allowed under this rule and 

would not require an additional 

sanctuary permit unless the activity also 

violates another provision of the 

sanctuary’s regulations. The intent of 

this regulation is to enhance the 

protection of the diverse and vital 

marine mammal, bird, and sea turtle 

populations of the sanctuaries. This 

area-specific focus is complementary to 

efforts of other resource protection 

agencies. 

• Prohibition on the Introduction of 

Introduced Species (GFNMS and 

CBNMS) 

Since 2008, it has been unlawful to 

introduce or release an introduced 

species in the federal waters of both 

sanctuaries. Through a separate 

rulemaking, NOAA recently published a 

final rule prohibiting the introduction of 

an introduced species into the state 

waters within the original boundary of 

GFNMS (80 FR 8778). With this final 

rule, NOAA extends this prohibition on 

introducing an introduced species into 

the expanded areas of both GFNMS and 

CBNMS, subject to existing exceptions 

for catch and release of striped bass 

(Morone saxatilis) and for any 

aquaculture project conducted within 

Tomales Bay (in GFNMS) consistent 

with a permit, lease or license issued by 

the State of California. 

• Prohibition on Construction on and 

Alteration of the Submerged Lands 

(GFNMS and CBNMS) 

NOAA extends to the GFNMS 

expansion area the prohibition on 

constructing any structure other than a 

navigation aid on or in the submerged 

lands of the sanctuary; placing or 

abandoning any structure on or in the 

submerged lands of the sanctuary; or 

drilling into, dredging, or otherwise 

altering the submerged lands of the 

sanctuary in any way. This prohibition 

includes four exceptions: (1) Anchoring 

vessels; (2) while conducting lawful 

fishing activities; (3) routine 

maintenance and construction of docks 

and piers on Tomales Bay; or (4) 

aquaculture activities conducted 

pursuant to a valid lease, permit, license 

or other authorization issued by the 

State of California. In addition, GFNMS 

regulations at 15 CFR 922.84 state that 

permitted activities existing prior to the 

expansion of the sanctuary may be 

allowed to continue through the process 

of certification described below. 

For CBNMS, NOAA extends to the 

expansion area the existing regulation in 

the sanctuary beyond the line 

representing the 50-fathom isobath 

surrounding Cordell Bank, which 

prohibits drilling into, dredging, or 

otherwise altering the submerged lands; 

or constructing, placing or abandoning 

any structure, material or matter on the 

submerged lands of the sanctuary. This 

prohibition includes two exceptions: (1) 

Anchoring vessels; and (2) while 

conducting lawful fishing. 

• Prohibition on the Disturbance of 

Historic Resources (GFNMS) 

NOAA extends to the expansion area 

for GFNMS the existing prohibition on 

possessing, moving, removing, or 

injuring, or attempting to possess, move, 

remove or injure a sanctuary historical 

resource in the sanctuary. This 

regulation provides added protection to 

fragile, finite, and non-renewable 

resources so they may be studied, and 

appropriate information may be made 

available for the benefit of the public. 

The term ‘‘historical resource’’ is 

defined in ONMS program-wide 

regulations as any resource possessing 

historical, cultural, archaeological or 

paleontological significance, including 

sites, contextual information, structures, 

districts, and objects significantly 

associated with or representative of 

earlier people, cultures, maritime 

heritage, and human activities and 

events. As defined in the National 

Historic Preservation Act, as amended, 

and NOAA national marine sanctuary 

regulations, (15 CFR 922.3), historical 

resources include ‘‘submerged cultural 

resources,’’ and ‘‘historical properties.’’ 

This rule prohibits the possession of a 

sanctuary historical resource regardless 

of whether it is possessed within or 

outside the sanctuary. For example, this 

rule makes it unlawful to possess 

anywhere an artifact that was 

unlawfully taken from a shipwreck in 

GFNMS. 

• Prohibition on White Shark Attraction 

(GFNMS) 

NOAA extends to the GFNMS 

expansion area the existing prohibition 

on attracting a white shark anywhere 

within the sanctuary. The intent of this 

regulation is to prevent harm or 

behavioral disturbance to white sharks, 

which are one of the key predators in 

the GFNMS ecosystem. 

• Prohibition on the Desertion of 

Vessels (GFNMS) 

NOAA extends to the GFNMS 

expansion area the existing prohibition 

on deserting a vessel aground, at anchor, 

or adrift in the sanctuary. Deserting a 

vessel increases the likelihood of a 

calamitous event or the risk of sinking, 

which could result in the discharge of 

harmful toxins, chemicals or oils into 

the marine environment, reducing water 

quality and impacting biological 

resources and habitats. In addition, the 

vessel itself and its materials on board 

can damage habitat. As defined in the 

regulations, the term ‘‘deserting’’ 

includes leaving a vessel at anchor 

when its condition creates potential for 

a grounding, discharge, or deposit; and 

the owner/operator fails to secure the 

vessel in a timely manner. 

NOAA also is extending to the 

GFNMS expansion area the prohibition 

on leaving harmful matter aboard a 

grounded or deserted vessel in the 

GFNMS. Once a vessel is grounded or 

deserted, there is a high risk of 

discharge/deposit of harmful matter into 

the marine environment. Harmful 

matter aboard a deserted vessel also 

poses a threat to water quality. The 

prohibition implemented by this rule is 

intended to reduce or avoid harm to 

sanctuary resources and qualities from 

potential deposit or leakage of 

hazardous or other harmful matter from 

a vessel. 

• Prohibition on Oil, Gas, or Minerals 

Exploration (CBNMS) 

NOAA extends to the expansion area 

for CBNMS the existing prohibition on 

exploring for, developing or producing 

oil, gas, or minerals. 

• Exemption for Department of Defense 

Activities (GFNMS and CBNMS) 

NOAA extends to the GFNMS and 

CBNMS expansion areas each 

sanctuary’s existing exemption for DOD 

activities necessary for national defense. 

The activities may be conducted in 

these areas, provided such activities 

were conducted by DOD on or prior to 

the effective date of the expansions. 

DOD activities necessary for national 

defense initiated after the effective date 

could be exempted after consultation 

with the sanctuary superintendent, with 

authority delegated from the ONMS 

Director. In CBNMS, DOD activities not 

necessary for national defense, such as 

routine exercises and vessel operations, 

are subject to all prohibitions listed in 

the CBNMS regulations. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 13085 

• Exemption for Emergencies (GFNMS 

and CBNMS) 

NOAA extends to the GFNMS and 

CBNMS expansion areas the existing 

exemption for activities necessary to 

respond to an emergency threatening 

life, property, or the environment from 

sanctuary regulations. 

• Exemption for Permitted Activities 

(GFNMS and CBNMS) 

NOAA extends to the expanded area 

for both sanctuaries the exemption for 

activities permitted by the sanctuary 

superintendent, with authority 

delegated from the ONMS Director, in 

accordance with the permit issuance 

criteria found in 15 CFR 922.48, 15 CFR 

922.83 (GFNMS) and 15 CFR 922.113 

(CBNMS). It is important to note that 

permits will only be available for 

activities that would otherwise be 

prohibited by the regulations at 15 CFR 

922.82(a)(2) through (a)(9) and (a)(11) 

through (a)(16) for GFNMS, and at 15 

CFR 922.112(a)(2) through (a)(7) for 

CBNMS. No permit may be issued for 

activities that violate: 15 CFR 

922.82(a)(1) (GFNMS) and 15 CFR 

922.112(a)(1) (CBNMS), which prohibit 

the exploration for, development, or 

production of oil, gas or minerals within 

the sanctuary; 15 CFR 922.82(a)(10) 

(GFNMS) and 15 CFR 922.112(a)(8), 

which prohibit the introduction of an 

introduced species; and 15 CFR 

922.82(a)(17) (GFNMS) and 15 CFR 

922.112(a)(9) (CBNMS), which prohibit 

interference with an enforcement action. 

A sanctuary superintendent may issue a 

sanctuary permit to: (1) Further research 

or monitoring related to sanctuary 

resources and qualities; (2) further the 

educational value of the sanctuary; (3) 

further salvage or recovery operations; 

or (4) assist in managing the sanctuary. 

• Issuance of Emergency Regulations 

(GFNMS and CBNMS) 

The terms of designation for both 

sanctuaries include the authority for 

NOAA to issue regulations on an 

emergency basis to prevent immediate, 

serious and irreversible damage to 

sanctuary resources. In GFNMS, 

emergency regulations would be issued 

under national marine sanctuary system 

regulations at 15 CFR 922.44. In 

CBNMS, emergency regulations would 

be issued under site regulations at 15 

CFR 922.112(d). 

C. Summary of Amendments to Existing 

Regulations 

With this rule, NOAA is amending the 

following regulations and applying 

them throughout the sanctuaries, 

including in the expansion areas. 

• New Exemption for Graywater 

Discharges (GFNMS and CBNMS) 

With the final rule, NOAA is 

including an additional exemption to 

allow the discharge/deposit of 

graywater, as defined by section 312 of 

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

(FWPCA), by vessels less than 300 GRT, 

or vessels 300 GRT or greater without 

sufficient holding tank capacity to hold 

graywater while within the sanctuary. 

This new exception does not apply to 

cruise ships. This modification 

recognizes the large area of the 

combined boundaries (and the difficulty 

some vessels may have to hold 

graywater while transiting the 

sanctuary), and now allows certain 

vessels to discharge clean graywater 

within the existing and expanded 

sanctuaries. Note that vessels greater 

than 300 GRT with holding capacity are 

still prohibited from discharging 

graywater anywhere in the sanctuary. 

The graywater exemption also applies 

to the prohibition on a discharge/

deposit originating outside the 

sanctuary boundaries that subsequently 

enters and injures a sanctuary resource 

or quality. Vessels less than 300 GRT or 

a vessel 300 GRT or greater without 

sufficient holding capacity for graywater 

are exempt from this ‘‘enter and injure’’ 

prohibition. 

• Prohibition on Oil, Gas, or Minerals 

Exploration (GFNMS) 

NOAA is extending the existing 

GFNMS prohibitions on oil and gas 

exploration, development, and 

production to the expanded area, with 

the following modifications: 

1. NOAA is amending the current 

GFNMS regulation to also prohibit 

exploring for, developing, or producing 

minerals within the existing and 

expanded GFNMS boundary to be 

consistent with the adjacent CBNMS 

and Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary. No commercial exploration, 

development, or production of minerals 

is currently conducted, nor is such 

activity anticipated in the near future. 

2. NOAA is removing the GFNMS 

exception for laying pipelines related to 

hydrocarbon operations adjacent to the 

sanctuary. There are no existing or 

proposed oil or gas pipelines in the 

vicinity and no currently planned or 

reasonably foreseeable oil or gas leases 

or development projects that would 

necessitate pipelines. 

• Prohibition on Operating MPWC 

(GFNMS) 

GFNMS regulations in the original 

sanctuary prohibit the operation of all 

MPWC, except for emergency search 

and rescue missions or law enforcement 

operations (other than routine training 

activities) carried out by the National 

Park Service, U.S. Coast Guard, Fire or 

Police Departments or other Federal, 

State or local jurisdictions. 

This final rule does not change the 

prohibition on the operation of MPWC 

within the original sanctuary boundary 

and does not change the definition of 

MPWC. During the comment period, 

NOAA received a wide range of 

comments from the public regarding 

whether and how MPWCs should be 

regulated in the expansion area. As a 

result of the breadth and diversity of 

comments, NOAA is not extending the 

MPWC prohibition to the GFNMS 

expanded area from the southernmost 

tip of Bodega Head (the parallel at 

38.29800 degrees North Latitude) and to 

the northern boundary near Point Arena 

so that it may consider the issue in more 

depth through a separate process, which 

will include public input, once the 

expansion of the sanctuary is final. Use 

of MPWC in most of the GFNMS 

expansion area will remain unregulated 

by NOAA at this time. 

• Prohibition on Low Flying Aircraft in 

Designated Zones (GFNMS) 

GFNMS regulations prohibit 

disturbing marine mammals or seabirds 

by flying motorized aircraft at less than 

1,000 feet over the waters within one 

nautical mile of the Farallon Islands, 

Bolinas Lagoon, or any Area of Special 

Biological Significance (ASBS, see 

description below), except to transport 

persons or supplies to or from the 

Farallon Islands or for enforcement 

purposes. NOAA presumes that a failure 

to maintain a minimum altitude of 1,000 

feet above ground level over such waters 

disturbs marine mammals or seabirds. 

NOAA is amending this regulation as 

follows: (1) Changing the name of all 

zones where this prohibition is applied 

to Special Wildlife Protection Zones 

(SWPZs); (2) changing the shape of 

these zones from round to polygon; (3) 

clarifying that the exception for 

transporting persons or supplies to or 

from Southeast Farallon Island is 

limited to transports authorized by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Farallon 

National Wildlife Refuge; and (4) adding 

two new SWPZs (where the low 

overflight restriction applies) in the 

GFNMS expansion area. The combined 

area for all seven SWPZs covers 2.77% 

of sanctuary waters (approximately 91.5 

square miles). Each of these four 

changes is described in more detail 

below. NOAA provides the boundaries 

of the SWPZs as an appendix to the 

regulations. A map of the various zones 

designated in this rule can be viewed 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
13086 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

online at http://farallones.noaa.gov/

manage/expansion_cbgf.html. 

1. NOAA is deleting the definition of 

ASBS in GFNMS regulations (although 

those areas are still designated by the 

state of California for water quality 

purposes and their status under State 

law remains unaffected by this rule). 

ASBS, as adopted by California’s State 

Water Resources Control Board, are 

designated to protect water quality 

based on the presence of certain species 

or biological communities that, because 

of their value or fragility, deserve 

special protection. Within the original 

GFNMS boundaries, ASBS coincided 

with areas of high concentrations and/ 

or biological diversity of breeding 

pinnipeds and birds and, as such, 

provided the rationale for NOAA’s 

overflight restrictions. However, ASBS 

in the GFNMS expansion area are not in 

locations with high concentrations of 

breeding pinnipeds or birds. 

Therefore, NOAA has added a 

definition for Special Wildlife 

Protection Zones (SWPZ) and is no 

longer utilizing the references to Bird 

Rock ASBS (at Tomales Point), Point 

Reyes Headlands ASBS, Double Point 

ASBS, Duxbury Reef ASBS, Bolinas 

Lagoon and the waters around the 

Farallon Islands. Instead, NOAA is 

renaming and redefining these areas as 

SWPZs. NOAA is also designating two 

new SWPZs in the GFNMS expansion 

area where breeding birds and 

pinnipeds aggregate and would benefit 

from overflight restrictions. Within 

these SWPZs, disturbing seabirds or 

marine mammals by flying motorized 

aircraft at less than 1000 feet over the 

waters (except when transiting SWPZs 

to transport authorized persons or 

supplies to or from Southeast Farallon 

Island authorized by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Farallon National 

Wildlife Refuge, or for enforcement 

purposes) is prohibited. Failure to 

maintain a minimum altitude of 1000 

feet above ground level over such waters 

is presumed to disturb marine mammals 

or seabirds. This presumption of 

disturbance could be overcome by 

contrary evidence that disturbance did 

not, in fact, occur (e.g., evidence that no 

marine mammals or seabirds were 

present in the area at the time of the low 

overflight). 

2. With this rule NOAA is also 

changing the shape of the zones from 

circles to polygons to improve the 

compliance with regulations that apply 

in the zones and has delineated 

boundaries around known points, 

islands and landmarks. These five 

SWPZs—Tomales Point, Point Reyes, 

Duxbury Reef-Bolinas Lagoon, and two 

zones at the Farallon Islands—remain 

similar in size and location to the 

original low overflight restriction areas 

(Bird Rock ASBS, Point Reyes 

Headlands ASBS, Double Point ASBS, 

Duxbury Reef ASBS, Bolinas Lagoon 

and the waters around the Farallon 

Islands). The new SWPZs result in a 

slight increase in zone size for some 

areas and a decrease in size in other 

areas. NOAA believes the small changes 

in size to these zones add little to no 

additional flight time for aircraft and 

therefore result in a negligible change of 

operations for low flying aircrafts above 

the existing sanctuary. A detailed 

description of each of the zones may be 

found in the FEIS section 3.2. 

3. The final rule clarifies that the 

exemption for low overflight restriction 

at SWPZ 6 applies specifically to 

persons authorized by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Farallon National 

Wildlife Refuge to allow transiting Zone 

6 to transport authorized persons or 

supplies to or from Southeast Farallon 

Island, or for enforcement purposes. 

4. This rule is creating two new 

SWPZs in the GFNMS expansion area. 

Low overflight restriction regulations 

will apply to the two new SWPZs. The 

first zone extends south along the coast 

from Havens Neck in Mendocino 

County approximately 10 miles to Del 

Mar Point in Sonoma County. The size 

of this zone is approximately 10.5 

square miles. The second zone extends 

south along the coast from Windermere 

Point, north of the Russian River in 

Sonoma County, approximately 14 

miles to Duncan’s Point. The size of the 

zone is approximately 21.4 square 

miles. The overflight restrictions for 

these two new zones, consistent with 

those of the SPWZs within the original 

GFNMS boundaries, are intended to 

protect high concentrations of breeding 

pinnipeds and birds from certain human 

activities that could harm these 

sensitive resources. 

• Prohibition on Cargo Vessels in 

Designated Areas (GFNMS) 

NOAA is amending the regulation 

that prohibits cargo vessels from 

transiting closer than two nautical miles 

from the Farallon Islands, Bolinas 

Lagoon, or any ASBS. As previously 

explained, these areas are now renamed 

SWPZs. Restricting the distance that 

cargo vessels may approach SWPZs is 

intended to prevent wildlife disturbance 

and minimize the risk of oil spills in 

these areas. For the five cargo vessel 

prohibition zones in the original 

sanctuary boundaries, NOAA is 

changing the shape from circles to 

polygons to improve the compliance 

with this regulation and to facilitate 

enforcement. Although a cargo vessel 

prohibition zone currently exists at the 

Middle Farallon Island, NOAA is now 

removing it because the International 

Maritime Organization amended the San 

Francisco Traffic Separation Scheme to 

route vessel traffic farther away from the 

Farallon Islands, virtually eliminating 

the potential for cargo vessels to transit 

the area between those islands. Because 

SWPZs extend one mile seaward from 

land and because the cargo vessel 

restriction zones would extend one 

additional mile beyond SWPZs, this 

rule creates a two nautical mile cargo 

vessel restriction zone. Thus, the overall 

size and location of the new zones will 

not significantly differ from the existing 

areas, resulting in a negligible change 

for transiting cargo vessels. 

In addition, NOAA is adding two new 

cargo prohibition zones in the 

expansion area that extend one nautical 

mile beyond each of the two newly 

designated SWPZs. Operating any vessel 

engaged in the trade of carrying cargo is 

prohibited in the zones. The combined 

area of the new cargo vessel zones in the 

expansion area is approximately 61.7 

square miles. These two new zones are 

inshore of known cargo vessel traffic 

routes; therefore NOAA does not expect 

them to interfere significantly with 

current cargo vessel traffic. NOAA 

provides the boundaries of the cargo 

vessel restriction zones as an appendix 

to the regulations. A map of the various 

zones designated with this rule is 

available online at http://

farallones.noaa.gov/manage/expansion_

cbgf.html. 

• Prohibition on White Shark Approach 

(GFNMS) 

This final rule modifies the locations 

where approaching a white shark is 

prohibited at the Farallon Islands. 

NOAA originally prohibited 

approaching within 50 meters of a white 

shark within two nautical miles of the 

Farallon Islands to prevent harassment 

and to reduce wildlife disturbance to 

white sharks. The rule removes the 

approach prohibition around Middle 

Farallon Island because NOAA no 

longer considers the waters around that 

island as a location of primary food 

source for white sharks. NOAA is 

maintaining the zones off North and 

Southeast Farallon Islands and 

reconfiguring those zones to polygon 

shapes to improve compliance. NOAA 

provides the boundaries of the 

prohibition zones as an appendix to the 

regulations. As now revised, the 

combined area of the two new white 

shark protection zones is approximately 

47.7 square miles, which reduces the 

total size of the prohibition area by 

approximately 4.5 square miles. NOAA 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 13087 

believes this change in boundaries will 

result in a negligible change for 

researchers and tourism operators in the 

existing sanctuary and the 

reconfiguration of zones will result in 

more effective resource protection. 

• Procedures To Certify Certain 

Activities [GFNMS] 

NOAA is amending the explanation of 

the procedure by which preexisting 

leases, permits, licenses, or approvals 

for activities in the expansion area and 

in existence on the effective date of the 

sanctuary expansion may be certified 

(see 15 CFR 922.84). NOAA clarifies 

that the certification process will only 

apply to activities in the expansion area, 

defines the application process, 

including limiting the duration of time 

for the application submittal process, 

and establishes criteria for the 

certification approval process. The 

certification process is developed as 

part of a separate mandate under the 

NMSA and is unrelated to the 

authorization process proposed by 

NOAA in the proposed rule. 

D. Summary of New Regulations 

NOAA is implementing the following 

new prohibitions and exemptions for 

the existing and expanded sanctuary 

area. 

• Prohibition on Interference With an 

Investigation (GFNMS and CBNMS) 

NOAA is adding new regulations that 

apply in the original and expanded 

areas of GFNMS and CBNMS. The 

regulations prohibit interfering with, 

obstructing, delaying, or preventing an 

investigation, search or seizure in 

connection with an enforcement action 

related to the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act (NMSA; 16 U.S.C. 1431 

et seq.). For better compliance with 

sanctuary regulations, this regulation 

codifies an existing mandate from the 

NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1436). 

• Prohibition on the Disturbance of 

Historic Resources (CBNMS) 

NOAA is adding a new regulation to 

the existing and expanded CBNMS 

boundary prohibiting disturbance of, or 

attempts to disturb, a sanctuary 

historical resource within CBNMS (this 

prohibition already exists within 

GFNMS). This new prohibition helps 

protect fragile, finite, and nonrenewable historical resources so they 

may be studied, and appropriate 

information may be made available for 

the benefit of the public. This rule also 

prohibits the possession of a sanctuary 

historical resource, and provides for 

comprehensive protection of sanctuary 

resources by making it illegal to possess 

historical resources in any geographic 

location. For example, under this 

regulation it is unlawful for anyone to 

possess an artifact taken from a 

shipwreck in CBNMS, even if the 

artifact is no longer in the sanctuary. 

IV. Changes From Proposed to Final 

Rule 

Based on public comments received 

between April 14 and June 30, 2014, as 

well as internal deliberations and 

interagency consultation, NOAA has 

made the following changes to its 

proposed rule. NOAA has revised the 

FEIS accordingly. 

1. Authorization Authority for CBNMS 

and GFNMS 

In the proposed rule, NOAA proposed 

adding to the GFNMS and CBNMS 

regulations the authority for ONMS to 

consider an otherwise prohibited 

activity if such activity is specifically 

authorized by any valid Federal, State, 

or local lease, permit, license, approval, 

or other authorization (‘‘authorization 

authority’’). While NOAA believes 

authorization authority is a valuable 

tool for managing certain coastal and 

marine uses within national marine 

sanctuaries, the agency has removed 

this proposal in response to the wide 

range of concerns expressed by the 

public during the comment period. 

NOAA is not amending the regulations 

at 15 CFR 922.49 (ONMS regulations), 

15 CFR 922.82(e) (GFNMS regulations) 

or 15 CFR 922.112(d) (CBNMS 

regulations) that would have given 

GFNMS and CBNMS authorization 

authority. NOAA intends to initiate a 

separate process that will include public 

input on the topic of authorization 

authority for GFNMS and CBNMS after 

the finalization of this expansion rule. 

2. Certification of Existing Uses 

Because of the possibility that 

preexisting activities that are permitted 

by other federal or state agencies might 

be occurring within the GFNMS 

expanded area that would otherwise be 

prohibited by GFNMS regulations, 

NOAA is clarifying the language at 15 

CFR 922.84 describing the process by 

which it can certify existing permitted 

activities within the expansion area. In 

compliance with the NMSA, GFNMS 

regulations at 15 CFR 922.84 state that 

certification is the process by which 

permitted activities existing prior to the 

expansion of the sanctuary that violate 

sanctuary prohibitions may be allowed 

to continue, provided certain conditions 

are met. The certification process only 

applies to activities in the GFNMS 

expanded area. Applications for 

certifying permitted existing uses must 

be received by NOAA within 90 days of 

the effective date of this final rule. In 

the proposed rule, the time period when 

an application for certifying permitted 

existing uses should be received was 60 

days. However, to ensure sufficient time 

for outreach and for any potential party 

affected to prepare an application, 

NOAA has extended the time period to 

90 days. 

3. Description of the Area for GFNMS 

NOAA has made a small change to its 

proposed estimate of the area for 

GFNMS, changing it from 3,297 square 

miles (2,490 square nautical miles) to 

3,295 square miles (2,488 square 

nautical miles), due to the following 

factors: Change of boundaries at Arena 

Cove (described below); use of an 

updated NOAA shoreline map; and the 

exclusion of offshore rocks and islands 

that are above the mean high water line. 

In addition, NOAA removed the 

reference to Giacomini Wetland in the 

description of the sanctuary that was 

included in the proposed rule. The 

reference generated confusion regarding 

the areal extent of Tomales Bay that is 

within the sanctuary. NOAA was not 

proposing to change the GFNMS 

boundary in Tomales Bay. The addition 

of Giacomini Wetland to the GFNMS 

boundary occurred as a result of the 

migration of the Mean High Water Line 

in Tomales Bay when the Waldo 

Giacomini Ranch was converted into a 

wetland through the Giacomini Wetland 

Restoration Project. The purpose of 

previously listing its inclusion in the 

current boundary description was to 

inform the public that since the last 

official boundary area calculation, 

which was conducted in 2007, GFNMS 

waters have since migrated into the 

Giacomini Wetland and those waters 

overlap with National Park Service 

property. However, it is not necessary to 

include the wetland as part of the 

boundary description, so the specific 

reference to Giacomini Wetland is 

removed from the final boundary 

description in order to avoid confusion. 

4. Arena Cove 

After careful consideration of all 

comments, NOAA has adjusted the 

sanctuary boundary to exclude a larger 

area of Arena Cove than originally 

proposed. The final boundary for Arena 

Cove is approximately 900 feet from the 

end of the harbor pier, which excludes 

all of the current harbor moorings 

within the cove and allows for 

expansion of pier and harbor operations. 

The final boundary is drawn at a line 

that connects two points on each side of 

the cove. NOAA rejected one suggestion 

to align the boundary with the existing 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
13088 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

buoy at the edge of the harbor, given the 

buoy is not a fixed location and would 

require use of latitude/longitude 

coordinates for boundary identification 

(which is less effective for compliance 

and enforcement purposes). This change 

at Arena Cove decreases the size of the 

expanded sanctuary by approximately 

one tenth of a square nautical mile. 

5. MPWC Use 

In the proposed rule, NOAA had 

proposed restricting use of MPWCs to 

specific zones in the GFNMS expansion 

area. As proposed, MPWCs would have 

been prohibited in most of the area. 

However, due to the range of comments 

in support of, in opposition to, and 

suggesting change to the MPWC 

regulations in the proposed rule, NOAA 

has removed its proposal for MPWC use 

zones from this final action. NOAA has 

concluded that addressing the various, 

divergent public comments and the 

issues that were raised regarding MPWC 

regulations in the expansion area is not 

feasible at this time. As a result, MPWCs 

are not regulated in most of the 

expansion area, from the southernmost 

tip of Bodega Head (the parallel at 

38.29800 degrees North Latitude) to the 

northern boundary near Point Arena, 

with this rulemaking, but will continue 

to be prohibited (with exceptions) in the 

existing GFNMS boundaries, including 

Bodega Bay. 

Furthermore, because NOAA is 

removing its former MPWC proposal in 

this final action, the proposed 

requirement of a GPS unit for all 

MPWCs is also being removed from this 

final rule. The existing definition of 

MPWC will remain unchanged and 

continue to apply in the original area of 

GFNMS. NOAA intends to initiate a 

separate public process on the topic of 

MPWC for GFNMS after the finalization 

of this expansion rule to receive 

additional public input and information 

on this issue. 

6. Special Wildlife Protection Zone 

(SWPZ) Definition 

Given the confusion of public 

comments over the types of activities 

that would be regulated within SWPZs, 

this final rule revises the proposed 

definition of SWPZs at 15 CFR 922.81 

in order to clarify its intent. This change 

clarifies that SWPZs are defined areas 

susceptible to human disturbances. 

Specific prohibitions for transiting cargo 

vessels, low flying aircraft and vessels 

approaching white sharks within these 

zones apply to the SWPZs. NOAA is 

also clarifying that SWPZs do not 

include pinniped and bird resting and 

foraging areas. The definition is 

purposefully limited to breeding 

pinnipeds, and, at this time, is not 

intended to address other marine 

mammals such as whales and dolphins. 

The definition has also been modified 

from ‘‘seabirds’’ to ‘‘birds’’ to include all 

breeding birds (e.g. oyster catchers) that 

may be susceptible to human 

disturbance from low flying aircraft and 

transiting cargo vessels along the 

sanctuary shoreline. 

7. Overflight Exception for SWPZ 6 

In its proposed rule, NOAA 

recommended the following exception 

for SWPZ 6: ‘‘. . . transiting Zone 6 to 

transport authorized persons or supplies 

to or from Southeast Farallon Island or 

for enforcement purposes.’’ Based on 

comments submitted by the Department 

of the Interior, NOAA is clarifying that 

this exception applies specifically to 

persons authorized by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Farallon National 

Wildlife Refuge. The exception for 

enforcement purposes remains 

unchanged. 

8. Use of the Term ‘‘Mariculture’’ 

NOAA has historically used the term 

‘‘mariculture’’ in the original GFNMS 

terms of designation and regulations. 

However, the term ‘‘aquaculture’’ has 

now become more widely used to 

describe the same activities as those 

described as ‘‘mariculture,’’ is used by 

other national marine sanctuaries 

(including the adjacent Monterey Bay 

NMS), and is the term used in NOAA’s 

2011 policy on aquaculture. With this 

final rule, NOAA replaces the term 

‘‘mariculture’’ with ‘‘aquaculture’’ in the 

GFNMS regulations. This is a technical 

change that does not have any effect on 

the types of activities subject to NOAA 

regulation. 

9. Separate Rulemaking on Introduced 

Species 

NOAA has been conducting a separate 

rulemaking on regulations relating to 

the introduction of introduced species 

in GFNMS and MBNMS. That 

rulemaking, completed prior to this 

final rule, amends regulations and terms 

of designation for GFNMS. Accordingly, 

this final rule includes this new 

regulatory language that had not yet 

been promulgated when the proposed 

rule for boundary expansion was 

published. Changes include the actual 

regulatory prohibition in § 922.82(a)(10), 

a reference to the boundary of Tomales 

Bay added as appendix D to the subpart, 

and a new § 922.85 regarding a 

memorandum of agreement between 

NOAA and state agencies describing 

how the agencies will consult on any 

future review of aquaculture projects in 

Tomales Bay. These changes are not part 

of this action, but were subject to public 

review in that separate rulemaking and 

are presented as part of the current 

regulations that now apply in GFNMS. 

10. Boundary Coordinates 

NOAA is providing exact boundary 

coordinates for the regulations that 

prohibit transit of cargo vessels and 

approaching a white shark, whereas in 

the proposed rule the areas were only 

defined by specifying a one-mile radius 

around SWPZs. 

11. Cultural Resources Within the 

Terms of Designation for CBNMS and 

GFNMS 

The existing terms of designation for 

both GFNMS and CBNMS describing 

activities subject to regulation included 

the general term ‘‘activities regarding 

cultural and historical resources.’’ 

Consistent with the regulations already 

in place for both sanctuaries and with 

the terms of designation for the adjacent 

Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary, NOAA has clarified the 

activities subject to regulation related to 

cultural resources are in fact: Taking, 

removing, moving, collecting, 

possessing, injuring or causing the loss 

of, or attempting to take, remove, move, 

collect, injure or cause the loss of 

cultural or historical resources. 

12. Permits for Oil, Gas, and Minerals 

Within the Terms of Designation for 

CBNMS and GFNMS 

In the proposed rule, NOAA proposed 

placing the following phrase in the 

GFNMS and CBNMS terms of 

designation Article IV, Section 1: ‘‘In 

addition, the Secretary may not under 

any circumstances issue a permit or 

authorization for exploring for, 

developing or producing oil, gas, or 

minerals within the Sanctuary.’’ NOAA 

has determined that this phrase is better 

placed in the terms of designation 

Article V, Section 3 for both sanctuaries, 

with slight modification, to read as 

follows: ‘‘In addition, a permit or 

authorization may not be issued under 

any circumstances for exploring for, 

developing or producing oil, gas, or 

minerals within the Sanctuary.’’ 

V. Response to Comments 

NOAA received over 1,000 comments 

on the DEIS, proposed rule and GFNMS 

and CBNMS draft revised management 

plans during the April 14 to June 30, 

2014 public review period. Comments 

were received via mail, submissions on 

the regulations.gov Web site and oral 

testimony at four public meetings. 

NOAA summarized the comments 

according to the content of the 

statement or question put forward in 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 13089 

written statements or oral testimony 

regarding the proposed action and 

alternatives. NOAA also made changes 

to the DEIS, proposed rule and CBNMS 

and GFNMS management plans in 

response to the comments, where 

appropriate, including updates to data 

where the comments affect the impact 

analysis or are relevant to the sanctuary 

action plans. Several technical or 

editorial comments on the DEIS and 

management plans, and comments 

merely pointing out a mistake or 

missing information were addressed 

directly in the body of the documents in 

question, without a separate response 

being presented by NOAA. 

Overall, there was strong support for 

the proposed sanctuary boundary 

expansion and the proposed actions for 

increasing protection of marine 

resources. Most comments focused on 

the regulatory aspects of the proposed 

action, including concerns about the 

proposed authorization authority, 

motorized personal watercraft use, and 

the proposed Special Wildlife 

Protection Zones. Boundary issues were 

focused primarily on the inclusion of 

estuaries and river mouths and on 

extending the boundaries to include the 

entire Mendocino coastline. Numerous 

comments requested modifications to 

the draft revised sanctuary management 

plans to strengthen resource protection. 

Each of these issues is addressed below. 

Comments were grouped into 

categories, starting with more general 

issues, followed by specific issue 

comments, most of which correspond to 

the EIS issue area topics (e.g., biological 

resources, fishing, oil and gas facilities, 

military uses, etc.). For most topics, 

there are numerous sub-categories or 

issues, under which several comments 

may have been combined. 

General Support and Opposition of 

Proposed Sanctuary Expansion 

Support for Sanctuary Expansion 

Comment: Many comments voiced 

support for the proposed expansion of 

sanctuary boundaries and encouraged 

NOAA to proceed with the expansion 

process. 

Response: Comment noted. 

Opposition to Sanctuary Expansion 

Comment: Some of the comments 

stated opposition to the overall 

sanctuary expansion process for various 

reasons. 

Response: Comment noted. 

Authorization Authority 

Comment: NOAA should remove its 

proposal to provide GFNMS and 

CBNMS with the authority to authorize 

the permits of other agencies for 

activities that would otherwise be 

prohibited within the sanctuaries 

because it would allow activities in 

conflict with marine resource 

protection. 

Response: Due to issues raised 

regarding authorizations in comments 

received during the public review 

period, NOAA has removed 

authorization authority from the final 

regulations for both sanctuaries. 

However, NOAA believes authorization 

authority could be a valuable tool in 

managing several types of uses that 

currently occur in the proposed 

expansion area or may be proposed in 

the future in the expanded sanctuaries. 

NOAA intends to conduct a separate 

process with sanctuary advisory 

councils and public input to consider 

authorization authority after this rule is 

finalized. 

Comment: NOAA should narrow or 

otherwise limit the list of uses that 

could be approved through the 

authorization process, such as sewage 

discharges. 

Response: NOAA intends to conduct 

a separate public process to consider 

authorization authority after this rule is 

finalized. As part of this process, NOAA 

will consider which activities could be 

potentially considered for an 

authorization. 

Comment: NOAA should move 

forward with authorization authority, 

because it may be useful for considering 

activities with minimum impacts and 

for improving consultation with other 

agencies. 

Response: NOAA originally proposed 

adding authorization authority at both 

sanctuaries because it has proven to be 

a useful and necessary regulatory tool at 

other sanctuaries similar in size and 

scope to GFNMS and CBNMS. As 

described in the responses above, 

NOAA will rely on a separate process to 

work with communities, including other 

agencies, on the need for and benefits of 

extending authorization authority to 

GFNMS and CBNMS. 

Boundaries 

Western Boundaries of CBNMS and 

GFNMS 

Comment: NOAA should make minor 

adjustments to the proposed western 

boundaries: they are highly angular and 

may not consistently reflect actual 

wildlife activity. 

Response: The western, northern, and 

southern boundaries of the expanded 

CBNMS and GFNMS correspond to 

specified points of latitude and 

longitude primarily for purposes of 

enforcement and education. Many 

species of marine mammals, fish, birds 

and invertebrates inhabit the waters and 

submerged lands in the proposed 

expanded sanctuaries and it would be 

difficult to design boundaries to reflect 

specific wildlife activity. In addition, 

the proposed western boundaries meet 

the purpose for the action by containing 

most of the source waters of CBNMS 

and GFNMS stemming from the 

upwelling cell originating off Point 

Arena. As such, NOAA is not changing 

the expanded western boundaries of 

CBNMS and GFNMS as described. 

Expand GFNMS To Include Portions of 

the MBNMS Boundary 

Comment: NOAA should include a 

portion of the Marin County coastline to 

Point Bonita; or the entire Marin County 

coastline; or the northern region of 

MBNMS from An ̃ o Nuevo to the current 

GFNMS boundary at Rocky Point to 

reflect the oceanographic boundaries of 

GFNMS and improve conservation and 

management over these waters. 

Response: Expanding the GFNMS 

boundary to include waters adjacent to 

the southern portion of Marin County 

outside of the current MBNMS 

boundary, or the waters adjacent to the 

Marin County or San Mateo County 

coast within MBNMS, is outside the 

scope of this proposed action. GFNMS 

has administrative jurisdiction over the 

northern portion of MBNMS, from the 

San Mateo/Santa Cruz County line 

northward to the existing boundary 

between the two sanctuaries, including 

the waters adjacent to southern Marin 

County and most of San Mateo County. 

MBNMS remains the lead for water 

quality issues in this area. NOAA is 

satisfied with the effectiveness of the 

management framework at this time. 

Expand CBNMS and GFNMS in Other 

Configurations or Size 

Comment: NOAA should design 

CBNMS and GFNMS boundaries in 

other configurations than the proposed 

action or alternatives. 

Response: NOAA believes the 

boundary configuration best meets the 

stated purpose of the proposed action to 

protect upwelling off Point Arena and 

waters flowing south from it to CBNMS 

and GFNMS. 

Comment: NOAA should expand 

CBNMS and GFNMS boundaries even 

farther north to include other 

communities interested in protecting 

areas through a national marine 

sanctuary. 

Response: The purpose of this action 

is to protect the upwelling cell 

originating off Point Arena. NOAA 

believes the northern boundary of 

GFNMS properly encompasses the area 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
13090 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

oceanographically and ecologically. 

However, NOAA has recently developed 

a process for communities to nominate 

areas for consideration as a national 

marine sanctuary as described online at 

http://www.nominate.noaa.gov/. Any 

community group interested in 

additional protection for nearby coastal 

waters can consider that process. 

Arena Cove Boundary 

Comment: NOAA should exclude a 

larger area of Arena Cove than what was 

proposed in order to lessen impacts of 

regulations on current human uses in 

the cove, such as moorings. 

Response: After careful consideration 

of all comments, NOAA has adjusted 

the sanctuary boundary to exclude all of 

Arena Cove. Thus, the final boundary 

excludes all of the current harbor 

moorings as well as all basic pier and 

harbor operations immediately west of 

the end of the pier. Other activities, 

such as discharges from fireworks, will 

not be regulated by GFNMS, provided 

the discharges fall within the area of 

Arena Cove that is not included in the 

sanctuary. The final boundary excludes 

Arena Cove shoreward of a line that 

connects the two points on the 

northwest and southeast sides of the 

cove. The boundary is shown in Figure 

3.2—16 in the FEIS. 

Comment: NOAA should include all 

of Arena Cove, because without 

sanctuary protection, incompatible uses 

such as oil and gas facilities may be 

permitted within and adjacent to the 

cove. 

Response: With this final rule, oil and 

gas exploration and development is 

prohibited in the expansion area, 

including areas adjacent to Arena Cove. 

Although sanctuary regulations do not 

apply in Arena Cove, there are state 

regulations and restrictions that prohibit 

oil and gas development in state waters, 

which include Arena Cove. Therefore, 

given the small area excluded in Arena 

Cove, and the presence of other existing 

regulations in adjacent waters, NOAA 

believes it is unlikely that oil and gas 

facilities would be constructed in Arena 

Cove. 

Giacomini Wetland and Overlap With 

National Park Service (NPS) Boundaries 

Comment: NOAA should clarify the 

extent of the overlap between sanctuary 

waters and the Giacomini Wetland, as 

well as any jurisdictional conflict with 

the NPS. 

Response: NOAA was not proposing a 

change to the GFNMS boundary in 

Tomales Bay. By mentioning the 

Giacomini Wetland in the description of 

the sanctuary, the proposed rule 

generated some confusion regarding the 

areal extent of GFNMS in Tomales Bay. 

The addition of Giacomini Wetland to 

the GFNMS boundary occurred as a 

result of the migration of the mean high 

water line in Tomales Bay when the 

Waldo Giacomini Ranch was converted 

into a wetland through the Giacomini 

Wetland Restoration Project. The 

purpose of listing its inclusion in the 

proposed boundary description was to 

inform the public that since the last 

official boundary area calculation in 

2007, GFNMS waters have since 

migrated into the Giacomini Wetland 

and those waters overlap with NPS 

property. However, it is not necessary to 

list this area in the boundary 

description since the mean high water 

line is the official boundary of the 

sanctuary in that location, so the 

specific reference to Giacomini Wetland 

has been removed from the boundary 

description in the final rule. 

GFNMS boundaries currently overlap 

with the NPS in Tomales Bay on the 

east and south shores. The GFNMS 

boundary does not affect the NPS’ 

authority to extend its boundaries into 

the sanctuary. As a routine matter, 

NOAA coordinates its management 

efforts with NPS and any potential 

future conflicts that may arise would be 

addressed through this coordination. 

Inclusion of Estuaries and Russian River 

Mouth 

Comment: NOAA should include the 

Russian River Estuary, Salmon Creek 

Estuary, Gualala River Estuary, and the 

Garcia River Estuary to the mean high 

water line, in the expanded sanctuary. 

Response: In this rule, NOAA is only 

extending the GFNMS boundary to 

mean high water and outside of river 

mouths and estuaries. The revised 

GFNMS management plan includes an 

activity requesting the Sanctuary 

Advisory Council to provide 

recommendations on the possible 

inclusion of coastal estuaries in the 

sanctuary. 

Comment: NOAA should clarify that 

the Russian River Estuary Management 

Project, which is managed by the 

Sonoma County Water Agency, is 

outside the proposed boundaries of the 

GFNMS and CBNMS expansion. 

Response: NOAA confirms the new 

GFNMS boundaries are outside those of 

the Russian River Estuary Management 

Project. A map showing sanctuary 

boundaries is available for download in 

the ‘‘management section’’ on the 

GFNMS Web site: http://

farallones.noaa.gov/manage/expansion_

cbgf.html. 

Comment: NOAA should add a 

coordinate between Points 37 and 38 to 

further clarify the proposed boundary 

expansion at the mouth of the Russian 

River. 

Response: A new coordinate at the 

Russian River is not necessary. When a 

national marine sanctuary does not 

include a certain estuary, NOAA 

identifies the boundary as crossing the 

mouth of the river or creek in a straight 

line that intersects the mean high water 

line on each side. This straight line is 

defined by two points, one on either 

side of the river or creek. A third point 

is not necessary unless the line has 

multiple segments. 

Purpose and Need for Proposed 

Expansion/Regulations 

Comment: NOAA should explain why 

it aims to protect only one upwelling 

area when the upwelling phenomenon 

occurs throughout the coastline along 

California, Oregon and Washington. 

Response: The upwelling cell 

originating at Point Arena, which is 

strongly linked with the sanctuary 

waters to the south, is distinctly 

different and is largely separate from 

other upwelling cells to the north. 

Including other upwelling cells to the 

north or south of the existing CBNMS 

and GFNMS would not support the 

purpose and need for this proposed 

action, because there is less ecological 

connection between those upwelling 

cells and the waters of CBNMS and 

GFNMS. Additional information is 

provided in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the 

FEIS. 

Comment: NOAA should elaborate on 

how sanctuary expansion would offer 

more protection to resources in the 

upwelling zone. There are both negative 

and beneficial effects of the proposed 

action, and there does not appear to be 

adequate analysis of a net benefit 

beyond existing protections such as the 

State-designated marine protected areas 

(MPAs). 

Response: NOAA’s regulations do not 

duplicate those of the state MPAs 

(which primarily restrict fishing), but 

rather complement them. Sanctuary 

regulations, as well as its research and 

education programs, collectively 

provide additional protection for 

resources in the upwelling zone. 

Examples of regulations that provide 

additional protection include 

prohibitions on oil and gas exploration, 

discharges of harmful matter, and 

altering the submerged lands. 

The analysis in the FEIS finds that 

none of the alternatives would result in 

a significant adverse impact on any of 

the marine resources or uses in the 

existing CBNMS or GFNMS or 

expansion areas of the two sanctuaries. 

NOAA identified substantial benefits to 

physical resources, biology and cultural 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 13091 

and maritime heritage resources as a 

result of habitat qualities maintained or 

improved, with negligible costs to 

businesses in the commercial and 

recreational fishing industry. For a 

summary of benefits, see FEIS Section 

4.11.2. 

Sanctuary Regulations 

Existing Regulations Alternative 

Comment: NOAA should adopt the 

Existing Regulations alternative as the 

preferred alternative rather than the 

proposed action, in order to be 

consistent with bills proposed in the 

past by then-Representative Lynn 

Woolsey and Senator Barbara Boxer. 

Response: The administrative process 

to expand a national marine sanctuary 

under the authority of the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) 

requires NOAA to examine current 

agency authorities and management 

regimes and consider the results of 

agency and tribal consultations, and 

public input. When developing the DEIS 

for the expansion proposals, NOAA 

determined that modifications to 

existing regulations would better 

address and protect sanctuary resources 

in both the existing and expanded 

sanctuary boundaries. NOAA believes 

the regulatory modifications are 

important in ensuring protection of 

marine resources and balancing uses 

consistent with resource protection 

within sanctuary waters. Furthermore, 

modifications to existing regulations 

would bring consistency with 

regulations in other national marine 

sanctuaries. Some modifications to 

existing regulations, such as removing 

the exemption for constructing an oil 

and gas pipeline across GFNMS, 

received considerable public support. 

NOAA intends to conduct separate 

public review processes for those 

proposed actions that require more 

public deliberation, such as the 

inclusion of rivers and estuaries. 

NOAA’s final action meets the overall 

intent of the proposed legislation from 

former Representative Woolsey and 

Senator Boxer. 

Separate Regulations Amendment 

Process 

Comment: NOAA should consider 

any change to sanctuary regulations 

through a separate process after the 

geographic expansion becomes final, 

particularly for the proposed 

authorization of certain prohibited 

activities and the motorized personal 

watercraft (MPWC) regulations. 

Response: When developing the DEIS 

for the expansion proposals, NOAA 

determined that modifications to 

existing regulations would better 

address and protect sanctuary resources 

in both the existing and expanded 

sanctuary boundaries. After this rule is 

finalized, NOAA intends to carry out a 

separate public review process to 

address authorization authority and the 

use of MPWC in the expansion area. 

Other potential changes to sanctuary 

regulations could be considered as well. 

National Regulations Concern 

Comment: In their January 2013 

proposed national regulations, NOAA 

did not adequately describe the set of 

criteria by which NOAA would 

determine whether an authorization is 

granted for an activity otherwise 

prohibited in a national marine 

sanctuary. 

Response: As noted above, NOAA is 

not including authorization authority in 

this final rule, but intends to consider 

it in a subsequent, separate action. 

Comments on NOAA’s January 2013, 

rulemaking are outside the scope of this 

proposed action. 

Other Regulations 

Comment: NOAA should connect 

sanctuary-specific regulations with 

regulations from other environmental 

statutes in order to more effectively 

protect land, water and air. 

Response: Several regulations for both 

GFNMS and CBNMS already include 

specific references to other resource 

agencies, such as the discharge 

regulation (Environmental Protection 

Agency), the regulation prohibiting take 

of certain species (NMFS), and the 

introduced species regulation (State of 

California). Additionally, one of the 

mandates of the NMSA 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, 

[. . .]’’ (16 U.S.C. 1431(b)(7)). For this 

final rule, NOAA consulted with a 

variety of agencies that share 

jurisdiction over the resources in the 

waters of the national marine 

sanctuaries (see Appendix F in FEIS). 

These consultations were designed not 

only to ensure seamless coordination 

among agencies, but also to explore 

opportunities for further aligning agency 

efforts to maximize the conservation 

goals of the sanctuary expansion. NOAA 

will continue to engage other agencies 

through direct consultation and 

participation on the sanctuary advisory 

councils. 

Recreational or Commercial Use Zones 

Comment: NOAA should consider the 

development of marine zones in order to 

allow for some submarine cable 

activities or yet to be determined future 

recreational and/or commercial uses. 

Response: NOAA is not aware of any 

upcoming proposals to lay cables 

through the sanctuary and believes the 

establishment of such cable zones to be 

premature. However, the maintenance 

of any existing cables would qualify for 

a certification of pre-existing 

authorizations or rights in accordance 

with national regulations at 15 CFR 

922.47 and GFNMS regulations at 15 

CFR 922.84. If new marine zones were 

warranted for future commercial or 

recreational activities, NOAA could 

then initiate a separate public process to 

consider those actions. 

Restrict Vessel Speed 

Comment: NOAA should consider 

regulating vessel speed as the primary 

means for reducing lethal vessel 

collisions with whales and for reducing 

chronic exposure of whales to 

underwater engine and propeller noise. 

Response: NOAA is in the process of 

investigating Dynamic Management 

Areas (DMAs) as a way to address ship 

speed in the shipping lanes at the 

approaches to San Francisco Bay. DMAs 

were recommended in the CBNMS and 

GFNMS advisory councils’ joint 

working group report, Vessel Strikes 

and Acoustic Impacts. A first step is to 

request voluntary speed restrictions for 

vessels transiting shipping lanes at the 

entrance of San Francisco Bay when 

there is a high concentration of whales. 

NOAA began implementing this 

approach in 2014, by requesting vessels 

to slow-down to ten knots or less in one 

of three lanes with the highest 

concentration of whales at the approach 

to San Francisco Bay. NOAA has also 

begun implementing a whale sighting 

network along the west coast to help 

build a robust monitoring program. 

Therefore, NOAA is not promulgating 

new regulations on vessel speed in 

GFNMS or CBNMS at this time. For a 

list of current actions to reduce risk of 

ship strikes to whales conducted by 

CBNMS, GFNMS, and other national 

marine sanctuaries on the west coast see 

the Web site http://

sanctuaries.noaa.gov/protect/shipstrike/

research.html. 

Emergency Regulation of Activities 

Comment: In a separate regulatory 

process NOAA should add a clause for 

regulating an activity on an emergency 

basis for no more than 120 days in 

GFNMS. 

Response: The terms of designation 

for GFNMS already allow NOAA to 

adopt immediate temporary regulation, 

including prohibition, where necessary 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
13092 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

to protect sanctuary resources (Article 4, 

Section 3). To date, NOAA has not 

adopted an emergency regulation for 

GFNMS, but it has the authority to do 

so, should the need arise in the future. 

CBNMS and MBNMS have this same 

authority. 

Harmful Matter Definition 

Comment: NOAA should define 

harmful matter, and add introduced 

species (including non-native terrestrial 

species such as rodents) in that 

definition. 

Response: Harmful matter and 

introduced species are already defined 

at 15 CFR 922.81 for GFNMS and 

922.111 for CBNMS. NOAA is 

addressing matters related to introduced 

species in GFNMS in a separate 

rulemaking. See comment below for 

additional information regarding 

introduced species. 

Introduced Species 

Comment: NOAA should not allow 

exotic species to be brought into the 

California marine environment via 

aquaculture, and should ban offshore 

finfish aquaculture. 

Response: NOAA does not expressly 

prohibit aquaculture in GFNMS or 

CBNMS. However, any proposed 

aquaculture project in the sanctuaries 

may be subject to several existing 

prohibitions: Constructing on or altering 

the submerged lands; discharging any 

matter or material; and introducing 

introduced species into the sanctuary 

(see also response to comment 

‘‘Aquaculture’’ in the Fishing section). 

NOAA recently finalized a prohibition 

on introduced species in the state’s 

waters of the GFNMS. With this final 

rule, NOAA extends that prohibition all 

areas within GFNMS, with exceptions 

for shellfish aquaculture in Tomales Bay 

and the catch and release of striped 

bass. 

Air Quality and Climate Change 

Climate Change Benefits on Wildlife 

Comment: NOAA should better 

describe the proposed action’s potential 

benefits to wildlife from reducing the 

effects of climate change. The proposed 

expansion of the sanctuary could result 

in further habitat protection from 

human disturbance, which could help 

counter increased stress in wildlife due 

to climate change. 

Response: NOAA analyzes the 

beneficial effects of the GFNMS and 

CBNMS regulations on biological 

resources in the FEIS (see Section 4.3.4), 

including positive direct and indirect 

impacts from prohibiting harmful 

activities. Although it is likely these 

benefits would help offset impacts of 

climate change on wildlife, the extent of 

the benefit is not currently quantifiable. 

Text has been added to the FEIS to note 

potential benefits related to offsetting 

climate change impacts on wildlife. 

Comment: With the expansion of the 

sanctuaries, NOAA should conduct 

more research on climate change such 

as ocean acidification. 

Response: The management plans for 

both CBNMS and GFNMS contain 

Conservation Science Action Plans, 

which include goals to increase 

knowledge and understanding of the 

sanctuaries’ ecosystem, develop new 

and continue ongoing research and 

monitoring programs to identify and 

address specific resource management 

issues, and encourage information 

exchange and cooperation. Both 

sanctuaries participated in development 

of the Ocean Acidification Action Plan 

for national marine sanctuaries of the 

west coast. The plan has numerous 

research recommendations for studying 

ocean acidification. The report is 

available at: http://

sanctuaries.noaa.gov/about/

westcoast.html#oa. 

Biological Resources 

Abalone Protection 

Comment: NOAA and the California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(CDFW) should work cooperatively to 

ensure adequate abalone protection. 

Response: CDFW is the state agency 

responsible for managing abalone 

stocks. NOAA will continue partnering 

with the state on a range of resource 

protection issues in the GFNMS and 

CBNMS expansion areas, including 

protection of red abalone habitat and 

populations, as well as recovery of the 

endangered black abalone. 

Endocrine Disruption 

Comment: NOAA and other 

institutions should address problems 

related to endocrine disruption and 

other pollutants. 

Response: The Water Quality Action 

Plan in the GFNMS management plan 

references threats from pharmaceuticals 

and other chemicals that can act as 

endocrine disruptors and outlines 

activities to address this issue. 

Marine Life Protection 

Comment: NOAA should state 

unequivocally that wildlife must not be 

disturbed and marine life should not be 

taken. The expanded sanctuaries and 

their wildlife should be protected 

forever. 

Response: Wildlife protection within 

national marine sanctuaries is an 

important priority for NOAA. This final 

rule extends to the expansion areas 

sanctuary regulations that protect a 

variety of species, biological 

communities, and habitats, including a 

prohibition on the take of marine 

mammals, birds and turtles except when 

permitted under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act and Endangered Species 

Act. These two laws are implemented 

by NMFS and USFWS. NOAA is also 

designating low overflight prohibition 

areas and cargo vessel restriction areas 

in the GFNMS expansion area to 

provide added protection for breeding 

birds and breeding pinnipeds, as well as 

promulgating specific regulations to 

protect white sharks. NOAA believes 

this management framework represents 

a proactive approach to fulfilling the 

resource conservation mandate of the 

NMSA. 

Noise 

Comment: NOAA should study the 

effects of noise on marine mammals and 

other animals, ensure that noise levels 

not found in nature do not stress marine 

mammals and other species, and 

prohibit sonar testing if it exceeds safe 

levels. 

Response: NOAA is studying the issue 

of noise impacts on sanctuary resources. 

NOAA has also responded to the 

GFNMS advisory council regarding its 

recommendations about the joint 

GFNMS and CBNMS advisory council 

working group report, Vessel Strikes 

and Acoustic Impacts. In addition, 

CBNMS and GFNMS management plans 

outline activities to monitor and address 

noise in the GFNMS Wildlife 

Disturbance Action Plan and the 

CBNMS Ecosystems Protection Action 

Plan. Sanctuary regulations prohibit the 

disturbance of marine mammals, birds 

and turtles except when permitted 

under the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act (MMPA) and Endangered Species 

Act (ESA). 

With respect to sonar testing, section 

304(d) of the NMSA provides for 

consultation with other federal agencies 

if their actions have the likelihood to 

injure sanctuary resources. NOAA has 

previously used this mechanism in 

consultations to minimize impacts of 

noise on marine mammals and other 

species. NOAA believes these tools 

provide a proactive approach to 

resource conservation and that an 

explicit prohibition on sonar testing is 

unwarranted at this time. 

Ship Strikes and Noise Impacts on 

Wildlife 

Comment: NOAA should implement 

all recommendations from the CBNMS 

and GFNMS advisory councils’ report 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 13093 

Vessel Strikes and Acoustic Impacts. 

Those recommendations will adequately 

address significant ship strike and 

underwater acoustic impact concerns. 

Response: NOAA has reviewed Vessel 

Strikes and Acoustic Impacts and has 

already begun to implement some of the 

recommended actions to reduce impacts 

on marine mammals. The revised 

management plan for CBNMS 

specifically lists as an activity to 

implement the recommendations from 

this report, while the revised 

management plans for both sanctuaries 

have several general activities 

(monitoring, education and outreach, 

collaborations) related to addressing the 

issue of ship strikes and noise on 

whales (also see previous responses to 

comment above). Current actions being 

taken can be found in the document 

‘‘GFNMS Response to the Report’’ and 

can be downloaded at: http://

farallones.noaa.gov/eco/vesselstrikes/

welcome.html. All of these 

recommended actions, originally 

developed for the existing sanctuaries, 

apply in the expansion areas. 

Protect Assets 

Comment: NOAA needs to protect 

and preserve our human assets over 

extractive assets. 

Response: Comment noted. Per the 

NMSA, NOAA regulates a number of 

extractive activities within national 

marine sanctuaries that have negative 

effects on sanctuary resources. At the 

same time, NOAA facilitates uses of the 

national marine sanctuaries compatible 

with resource protection. As such, 

NOAA works to best conserve all the 

assets of the national marine sanctuary 

system. 

Special Wildlife Protection Zones and 

Associated Regulations 

Special Wildlife Protection Zone 

(SWPZ) Definition and Scope of 

Regulations 

Comment: NOAA should revise the 

definition of SWPZs to clarify their 

intent. 

Response: NOAA has clarified in the 

final rule that SWPZs are located in 

areas susceptible to human 

disturbances, and that SWPZs do not 

include pinniped and marine bird 

resting and foraging areas. The 

definition is purposefully limited to 

breeding pinnipeds rather than marine 

mammal hotspots, and, at this time, is 

not intended to address other marine 

mammals such as whales and dolphins. 

The definition has also been modified 

from ‘‘seabirds’’ to ‘‘birds’’ to include all 

breeding birds (e.g. oyster catchers) that 

may be susceptible to human 

disturbance from low flying aircraft and 

transiting cargo vessels along the 

sanctuary shoreline. 

Comment: NOAA should better 

articulate what would be regulated 

within SWPZs. 

Response: 15 CFR 922.82 (prohibited 

or otherwise regulated activities) 

describes the prohibitions and 

exceptions for each SWPZ. The project 

description (Section 3.2) in the FEIS has 

been updated to better clarify the scope 

of the SWPZ definition and the 

prohibitions that use the SWPZ 

definition. Prohibitions that apply to the 

SWPZ are limited to GFNMS. 

Comment: NOAA should clarify how 

the sanctuary will coordinate with the 

State of California on State Special 

Closures in regards to SWPZs to avoid 

duplication of efforts and/or confusion. 

Response: Prohibitions that apply to 

SWPZs are limited to transiting cargo 

vessels, low flying aircraft, and 

approaching white sharks. The 

regulations are not intended to address 

disturbance from other human uses. The 

State of California established Special 

Closures in the original GFNMS area 

that prohibit access by watercraft in 

waters adjacent to designated seabird 

breeding areas and marine mammal 

breeding and haul-out sites. Therefore, 

both types of special areas complement 

each other for the purpose of marine 

conservation by focusing on different 

human uses. However, the special 

closures exist only under state law and 

are not part of the GFNMS regulations. 

NOAA will continue to work closely 

with the State of California to educate 

the public on wildlife disturbance 

issues and focus outreach on preventing 

human caused disturbance to wildlife. 

Comment: NOAA should move 

forward with the removal of Areas of 

Special Biological Significance (ASBS) 

as a defined area within sanctuary 

regulations. 

Response: NOAA agrees. The final 

rule includes removal of references to 

ASBS and other area names for 

purposes of sanctuary regulations. Statedesignated ASBS will still exist under 

state laws and regulations. NOAA is 

now designating SWPZs because it 

believes they will be more easily 

understood by sanctuary users. 

Comment: NOAA should establish onthe-water, year-round or seasonal 

closures for vessels at Fish Rocks, 

Haven’s Neck, Gualala Pt., the Pt. Arena 

Peninsula, Bodega Rock, and Gull Rock 

to reduce wildlife disturbance. NOAA 

should also consider additional 

sanctuary protections to waters 

contiguous with the NPS Phillip Burton 

Wilderness area. 

Response: NOAA is not establishing 

this type of closure with this final rule. 

However, sanctuary regulations include 

prohibitions on taking or harassing 

certain species of wildlife, including 

marine mammals, sea turtles and birds 

(see 15 CFR 922.82) which help protect 

all wildlife throughout GFNMS, not just 

in specific zones. As stated above, the 

State of California established ‘‘Special 

Closure’’ zones within GFNMS waters to 

protect wildlife from watercraft, and 

which also support wildlife 

conservation. NOAA, in partnership 

with the Seabird Protection Network, 

will continue to collaborate with other 

agencies and organizations to monitor 

human use and educate target audiences 

(e.g. pilots, boaters and humans on foot) 

about preventing human-caused impacts 

on marine wildlife. In addition, the 

Resource Protection Action Plan within 

the GFNMS management plan has been 

modified to include additional activities 

to identify and address habitats that are 

known to be ‘‘special areas of concern,’’ 

including developing a sanctuary policy 

on areas adjacent to NPS Wilderness 

Areas. 

Comment: In 15 CFR 922.82, when 

referring to the exception for SWPZ 6, 

NOAA should make changes as follows: 

1) ‘‘Authorized persons or supplies’’ 

should be defined and limited to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Farallon 

National Wildlife Refuge; 2) Authorized 

law enforcement should be defined; and 

3) Search and rescue should be 

excepted. 

Response: NOAA has revised the final 

rule to limit ‘‘authorized persons’’ to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Farallon 

National Wildlife Refuge. NOAA is not 

further defining authorized law 

enforcement, because the current text 

under the enforcement section in the 

NMSA (Sec. 307 [16 U.S.C. 1437]) has 

been effective in the past. There is an 

existing exception to this regulation for 

search and rescue in accordance with 15 

CFR 922.82(c), for activities necessary to 

respond to an emergency threatening 

life, property, or the environment, 

consistent with regulations in many 

other national marine sanctuaries. 

Mapping Zones 

Comment: NOAA should include in 

the FEIS better maps of the SWPZs; and 

maps that depict other zones and state 

marine protected areas (MPAs). 

Response: NOAA has developed a 

separate map of the proposed 

boundaries of all area-based GFNMS 

and CBNMS regulations, including 

SWPZs, which is available for download 

on the GFNMS Web site: http://

farallones.noaa.gov/manage/expansion_

cbgf.html. NOAA does not regulate 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
13094 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

state-designated MPAs, and thus adding 

these zones to the map could create 

confusion about NOAA’s jurisdiction 

and the scope of this action, including 

the scope and definition of SWPZs. 

Therefore, the map shows only GFNMS 

and CBNMS boundaries and 

regulations. 

Opposition to Special Wildlife 

Protection Zone 3 

Comment: NOAA should not expand 

SWPZ 3 into Tomales Bay. There is no 

possibility of cargo ships entering into 

Tomales Bay due to a lack of deep 

water, and there is no documentation of 

low flying aircraft in the area within 

that part of Tomales Bay; therefore this 

designation is unwarranted. 

Response: SWPZ 3 does not extend 

throughout Tomales Bay. The area 

contained within SWPZ 3 is already 

part of a State Area of Special Biological 

Significance (ASBS), and in 1981 NOAA 

established additional federal 

regulations for ASBS in the sanctuary to 

protect breeding birds and pinnipeds in 

the area from disturbance from low 

flying aircraft and transiting cargo 

vessels. NOAA is changing the term 

ASBS to SWPZs (see FEIS Section 3.2). 

Overflight Regulations: Reconfigure 

Proposed SWPZ and Develop New 

Zones 

Comment: NOAA should add 

overflight regulations to protect 

pinnipeds and marine birds in Tomales 

Bay, Pt. Resistance, Bodega Rock/Head, 

the spits at Drakes Estero, Devil’s Slide 

Rock and the shoals near the Farallones, 

harbor seal pupping areas South of Del 

Mar Landing State Marine Reserve area, 

and Tidepool Beach, Shell Beach and 

Green Cove at The Sea Ranch. 

Response: NOAA has updated the 

GFNMS management plan with an 

action requesting a GFNMS advisory 

council working group to assess the 

need for additional low overflight zones 

throughout the entire sanctuary. 

Comments provided during this 

rulemaking process will be considered 

in any future zoning actions taken by 

the sanctuary. The revised management 

plan does not include a list of specific 

areas for future zoning, but NOAA 

recognizes that areas surrounding The 

Sea Ranch, Tomales Bay, and Devil’s 

Slide Rock may be ‘‘special areas of 

concern’’ within the revised boundaries 

of GFNMS. 

Comment: NOAA should conduct a 

literature review regarding seabird 

protection and low overflights. 

Response: NOAA used the best 

available science in support of the low 

overflight prohibitions in the GFNMS 

expansion area. Any future process that 

considers low overflight zones in 

GFNMS would include a literature 

review of bird breeding areas adjacent to 

sanctuary waters, and a review of data 

regarding impacts on birds from low 

overflights. 

Overflight Regulations: Minimum 

Altitudes 

Comment: NOAA should extend the 

1,000 feet minimum altitude of 

overflight regulation areas to also 

include adjacent land areas. 

Response: NOAA’s authority to 

protect marine life by restricting 

overflights only applies to the waters of 

the sanctuaries, including waters 

around islands and sea stacks within 

specified zones of the sanctuaries. 

Comment: NOAA should raise the 

minimum altitude for overflight 

regulations. A 1,000 foot ceiling over the 

waters would only be approximately 

660 feet above the highest point of 

Southeast Farallon Islands, for example. 

Thus, the 1,000 foot overflight 

protection for wildlife ‘‘hotspots’’ is 

inadequate. In addition, the 1,000 foot 

overflight limit is also inconsistent with 

other federal authorities, such as NPS 

(5,000 ft.) and FAA (2,000 ft.) 

protections, and the Olympic Coast 

National Marine Sanctuary’s overflight 

regulations. 

Response: Monitoring data in central 

California has shown that an overflight 

height of 1,000 feet above ground level 

(AGL) has proven to be an adequate 

buffer in minimizing disturbance to 

breeding pinnipeds and birds within the 

jurisdiction of the sanctuary, by 

reducing disturbance by 96%. NOAA 

considers this information, coming from 

the specific region where GFNMS is 

located, most relevant to protecting the 

resources of the sanctuary. While NOAA 

considered overflight management 

practices in other national marine 

sanctuaries or other protected areas in 

the development of this regulation, it 

believes that, other things being equal, 

location-specific data is more relevant 

and should be given greater weight than 

practices designed for different 

ecosystems. 

Comment: NOAA should not include 

overflight regulations in the expanded 

area, because the restrictions place 

pilots and passengers at risk with the 

fog and marginal weather in this area. 

Response: NOAA has determined that 

overflight regulations in the expanded 

area are necessary to prevent 

disturbance to breeding birds and 

pinnipeds. Therefore, the final rule 

maintains the previously existing 

altitude restrictions within the existing 

sanctuary areas, and adds two new 

zones with the same altitude restrictions 

in the expansion area. During the 

development of this rule, NOAA 

determined that pilots have several 

options if weather conditions are such 

that maintaining visual flight rules 

cannot be achieved while avoiding the 

minimum altitude, rather than violating 

overflight regulations within the zones 

the pilot could instead choose to do any 

of the following: (1) Avoid flying over 

sanctuary waters by flying inland; (2) fly 

instrument flight rules through the fog; 

or (3) fly above the fog. With regards to 

safety, GFNMS regulations contain an 

exemption from the overflight 

prohibition in the event of an 

emergency threatening life, property or 

the environment. 

Overflight Regulations: Drone Use for 

the Purpose of Research 

Comment: The use of solar powered 

drones and ultra-light aircraft for 

research purposes should be highly 

encouraged as it provides a quieter, 

more environmentally friendly, and a 

more economical alternative. 

Response: NOAA agrees that such 

technology can be useful, and is 

working with other resource 

management agencies to best 

understand the potential benefits and 

drawbacks of drones and other light 

aircraft in protected areas like national 

marine sanctuaries. GFNMS and 

CBNMS regulations prohibit ‘‘take,’’ 

including operating a vessel or aircraft 

or doing any other act that results in the 

disturbance of sea turtles, birds, and 

marine mammals, and NOAA is now 

analyzing new information regarding 

the potential impacts of these machines 

on these species. NOAA may issue 

permits for research activities otherwise 

prohibited by sanctuary regulations, and 

researchers may apply to operate 

motorized aerial vehicles, including 

motorized ultra-light aircraft and 

‘‘unmanned aerial systems’’ (drones) at 

low altitudes, within the boundaries of 

SPWZs. 

Overflight Regulations: Private Airstrip 

Located in Vicinity of SWPZ 

Comment: NOAA should change the 

overflight regulations in the vicinity of 

Point Arena, due to the location of the 

private airstrip at 27711 South Hwy 1. 

It is necessary to fly over the ocean 

under 1,000 feet during arrival and 

departure from this airstrip, which has 

been in use since 1970. 

Response: NOAA is not including an 

overflight zone next to Point Arena in 

its final regulations. The southernmost 

point of the private airstrip is 

approximately 5 nautical miles from the 

northernmost boundary of SWPZ 1, 

which is the nearest SWPZ to the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 13095 

airstrip. NOAA believes that the 

distance between SWPZ 1 and the 

airstrip would not impact takeoff or 

landing at this airstrip. 

Cargo Vessel Regulations: Expand the 

Prohibition Regulations 

Comment: NOAA should not remove 

the zone that excludes cargo vessels 

around Middle Farallon Island; NOAA 

should create a new zone to include the 

waters of CBNMS. This would benefit 

pelagic wildlife over Cordell Bank, 

Fanny Shoals, and the Shelf Break west 

of the Farallon Islands. It would also 

encourage ships to operate away from 

the Farallon Islands, reducing the risk of 

strikes to whales in that area. 

Response: The International Maritime 

Organization amended the San 

Francisco Traffic Separation Scheme 

effective June 1, 2013 to route vessel 

traffic farther away from the Farallon 

Islands. Extending the western shipping 

lanes to the southwest and the northern 

shipping lanes to the northwest has 

virtually eliminated the potential for 

cargo vessels to transit the area between 

Southeast and North Farallon Islands. 

Because the shipping lanes effectively 

prohibit cargo vessels near the Middle 

Island, there is no need to include a 

sanctuary cargo vessel prohibition 

around this island and NOAA is 

removing it in this final rule. Because 

the purpose of the cargo vessel 

prohibition zones are to reduce the risk 

of a collision with islands, and given the 

Cordell Bank is deep enough 

underwater, NOAA does not believe it 

is necessary to exclude cargo vessel 

operation in CBNMS. 

Comment: NOAA should designate a 

two-nautical mile buffer distance for 

cargo vessels around both the existing 

ASBSs and the proposed SWPZs within 

the GFNMS expansion area. 

Response: In the final rule, NOAA 

designed the cargo vessel restriction 

boundaries to extend one-nautical mile 

seaward of SWPZs. This effectively 

translates into a two-nautical mile area 

around designated biologically sensitive 

areas. Therefore, NOAA has not 

modified the action with respect to the 

size of the zones where cargo vessel 

operation is restricted. 

Comment: NOAA should add white 

shark protection by including Tomales 

Point and Tomales Bay as additional 

SWPZs that protect white sharks from 

close approaching vessels. 

Response: The final rule prohibits 

attracting white sharks throughout all 

GFNMS waters, including Tomales 

Point, Tomales Bay, and the expansion 

area. The prohibition on approaching 

white sharks within 50 meters only 

applies inside of and within one 

nautical mile of SWPZ 6 and 7 (the 

North and Southeast Farallon Islands), 

because the waters around the Southeast 

Farallon Islands are where tourism and 

research vessels are most likely to be 

found, and therefore most likely to 

disturb feeding white sharks. Impact 

analyses on creating additional white 

shark approach prohibition areas were 

not conducted as part of this 

rulemaking. However, the revised 

GFNMS management plan outlines a 

process for GFNMS to minimize future 

user conflicts and provide special areas 

of protection for sensitive habitats, 

living resources, and other unique 

sanctuary features, such as SPWZs. See 

comment below for more detail on this 

process. 

Process for Designating Additional 

Zones 

Comment: NOAA should clearly 

describe the process by which it would 

designate additional SWPZs within any 

of the four national marine sanctuaries 

on the California coast or make changes 

to the regulations that apply within 

those zones. 

Response: SWPZs are only being 

established in GFNMS. If NOAA 

intended to designate additional 

SWPZs, it would initiate a public 

process under the NMSA, NEPA and the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), all 

of which include opportunities for 

public review and comment as well as 

consultation with appropriate Federal, 

state, and local agencies. 

Enforcement and Penalties 

Comment: NOAA should have a 

strong enforcement element and 

adequate funding for more patrols by 

California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (CDFW) and U.S. Coast Guard 

(USCG). NOAA should perform a gap 

analysis to identify increased 

enforcement needs so that management 

of existing sanctuaries will not be 

compromised, particularly in these 

times of uncertain federal funding. 

Response: Enforcement of sanctuary 

regulations are handled principally by 

NOAA’s Office for Law Enforcement 

(OLE), USCG, and respective state 

resource management agencies. 

Although this expansion action does not 

include an automatic increase in 

enforcement funding, CDFW officers 

work together with NOAA to conduct 

patrols and investigate potential 

violations throughout California. NOAA 

OLE and GFNMS currently provide 

funding for patrols of sanctuary waters 

to the CDFW through a joint 

enforcement agreement. In addition to 

the cooperative assistance by the state, 

USCG conducts air and sea surveillance 

within the expansion area and has broad 

federal enforcement authority. 

Additionally, NOAA will continue to 

work with federal and state enforcement 

partners, both within the current 

boundaries and in the expansion area, to 

maintain water and aerial surveillance, 

update patrol guides and regulatory 

handbooks, and conduct interpretive/

outreach patrols. Based on these 

ongoing enforcement mechanisms, 

NOAA does not believe a gap analysis 

is warranted. More information about 

enforcement of NOAA regulations is 

available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/

ole/index.html. 

Comment: NOAA should clarify how 

it assesses penalties on people engaging 

in activities prohibited by sanctuary 

regulations. Penalties for violations in 

protected ocean areas should be severe. 

Response: The NMSA establishes a 

limit on the maximum civil penalties 

that can be charged for violations of 

sanctuary regulations and law, presently 

set at $140,000 per violation. The 

amount of any penalty is generally 

determined by the nature of a violation 

and a variety of aggravating/mitigating 

circumstances. NOAA attorneys 

generally scale proposed penalties to fit 

the nature of a particular violation. 

NOAA’s Office of the General Counsel 

considers the aggravating and mitigating 

circumstances and assesses penalties 

appropriately. NOAA’s policy for 

assessment of civil administrative 

penalties and permit sanctions is 

available at: http://www.gc.noaa.gov/

documents/Penalty%20Policy_FINAL_

07012014_combo.pdf. 

Fishing 

Discharge Exemption 

Comment: NOAA should clarify 

whether the routine practice of washing 

ice and slime off the deck of a fishing 

boat would be considered a prohibited 

discharge under NOAA’s proposed 

regulations for graywater. 

Response: Graywater is defined 

according to section 312 of the FWPCA 

as ‘‘galley, bath and shower water.’’ This 

definition does not include ice and 

slime from deck wash. Further, NOAA 

regulations provides an exemption for 

clean vessel deck wash down (15 CFR 

922.82(a)(2)(iii) and 15 CFR 

922.112(a)(2)(i)(C)) and for fish, fish 

parts or bait (15 CFR 922.82(a)(2)(i) and 

15 CFR 922.112(a)(2)(i)(A)), with clean 

defined as not containing detectable 

levels of harmful matter. Therefore, the 

routine practice of washing ice and 

slime off the deck of a fishing boat 

conducting lawful fishing in the 

sanctuary is not prohibited, provided it 

is during the conduct of lawful fishing 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
13096 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

activity and the material is otherwise 

clean. 

Fishery Regulations 

Comment: NOAA should clarify how 

the authorization authority interacts 

with the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (PFMC) process in assessing 

impacts on fishery management, 

because of concerns for impacts on 

fisheries or essential fish habitat (EFH). 

Response: NOAA has removed the 

authorization provision from the final 

rule, but intends to address it through 

a separate rulemaking process after this 

expansion action is complete. (See 

response to comments under 

‘‘Authorization’’ heading.) 

Comment: NOAA should ban all 

fishing and taking of wildlife, especially 

of threatened or endangered species. 

NOAA should not allow long-line 

fishing or the type of fishing that may 

capture, harm or kill unintended marine 

wildlife. 

Response: NOAA is not implementing 

any fishing regulations as part of this 

rulemaking. Fishing is regulated at 

GFNMS and CBNMS by CDFW, the 

California Fish and Game Commission, 

and NMFS (in consultation with the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council). 

Regarding long-line fishing, NMFS has 

implemented several regulations to 

reduce bycatch of non-target species 

such as marine turtles, mammals and 

birds. Within NOAA, the Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries and NMFS 

work closely together and with CDFW to 

ensure that fishing activities within the 

national marine sanctuaries do not pose 

a threat to any threatened or endangered 

species. 

Comment: NOAA or Congress should 

clarify that sanctuaries do not regulate 

fishing and that the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (MSA) is the primary statute for any 

fishing-related management issue, 

including the creation of MPAs inside 

national marine sanctuaries. NOAA 

should use regulatory and/or statutory 

mechanisms at the national level, so 

that it would apply to all national 

marine sanctuaries. 

Response: Both the NMSA and MSA 

provide NOAA tools to regulate fishing 

activities in national marine sanctuaries. 

NOAA and the relevant Regional 

Fishery Management Councils examine 

the need for fishing regulations. 

Depending on the determination made, 

NOAA may need to use the authorities 

under either or both Acts as the most 

appropriate regulatory approach to meet 

the stated goals and objectives of a 

sanctuary. The process for establishing 

fishing regulations in national marine 

sanctuaries is codified in the NMSA at 

Section 304(a)(5) [16 U.S.C. 1434]. Here, 

NOAA is not promulgating any fishing 

regulations or proposing to designate 

specific MPAs within the expanded 

sanctuaries. Promulgating regulations 

affecting all national marine sanctuaries 

is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

Comment: Enforcement of the present 

set of discharge regulations would 

comprise a de facto fishing ban in 

sanctuary waters, resulting from 

requirements for holding tanks or MSD. 

Response: NOAA disagrees. 

Enforcement of the discharge 

regulations in the footprint of the 

original GFNMS and CBNMS has not 

comprised a de facto fishing ban. 

Fishing occurs routinely within these 

sanctuaries and is regulated by CDFW, 

the California Fish and Game 

Commission and NMFS in consultation 

with PFMC. The aim of the discharge 

regulations is to improve water quality 

and ecosystem health; not to ban fishing 

within the sanctuaries. The discharge 

regulations implemented by national 

marine sanctuaries affect the treatment 

of sewage and other materials associated 

with vessel operations, and may 

therefore result in adverse impacts on 

the operations of a commercial fishing 

vessel. However, current state and 

federal regulations already limit 

different types of vessel discharges into 

the waters of the expansion area. 

Therefore, the addition of sanctuary 

regulations only represents an 

incremental increase in restrictions on 

vessel discharges. 

Comment: Enforcement of the present 

set of regulations would comprise a de 

facto fishing ban in sanctuary waters, 

resulting from a prohibition on cleaning 

of fish as per the prohibition on 

discharges (15 CFR 922.82(a)(2)(i)). 

Response: NOAA disagrees. The 

discharge regulation prohibits the 

discharge into the sanctuary of material 

resulting from unlawful fishing or from 

fishing outside the boundaries of the 

sanctuary, including discharge of 

material acquired outside the sanctuary 

while transiting the sanctuary. 

Regulations for both CBNMS and 

GFNMS identify fish and fish parts, 

including discharges of fish and fish 

parts from fish cleaning, as part of 

lawful fishing activities, and therefore 

exempt from the discharge regulation. 

Comment: Enforcement of the present 

set of regulations would comprise a de 

facto fishing ban in sanctuary waters, 

resulting from the definition of harmful 

matter under 15 CFR 922.81, because 

fishing activity in sanctuary waters 

necessarily involves the risk of loss of 

fishing tackle, including sinkers, hooks, 

and line. 

Response: The full definition of 

harmful matter (15 CFR 922.81 and 

922.111) states that any substance, or 

combination of substances that because 

of their quantity and concentration, or 

physical, chemical, or infectious 

characteristic may pose a threat to 

Sanctuary resources or qualities, 

including but not limited to: fishing 

nets, fishing line, hooks, fuel, oil, and 

those contaminants (regardless of 

quantity) listed pursuant to 42. U.S.C. 

101(14) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act at 40 

CFR 302.4. The intent of including 

fishing nets, fishing line, hooks, fuel, 

oil, and other contaminants to the 

definition of harmful is not to prohibit 

the loss of fishing gear incidental to 

fishing activity, but to restrict the loss 

of fishing gear in concentrations that 

could pose a threat to sanctuary 

resources, which could potentially 

happen if a fishing vessel were 

grounded or deserted within a 

sanctuary. Grounding or deserting a 

fishing vessel with concentrations of 

fishing gear that may pose a threat to 

sanctuary resources is prohibited as 

defined at 15 CFR 922.82(a)(15), which 

states that leaving harmful matter 

aboard a grounded or deserted vessel in 

the sanctuary is prohibited. NOAA is 

willing to discuss the interpretation of 

‘‘harmful matter’’ with the fishing 

community at a future date to determine 

the scope of the concern and potential 

solutions. 

Comment: NOAA should develop 

language for the on-going discharge of 

non-toxic gray water from commercial 

fishing vessels and recreational craft. 

Response: With this final rule, NOAA 

exempts clean graywater from the 

discharge regulations in GFNMS and 

CBNMS. 

Fishing and Introduced Species 

Definition 

Comment: NOAA needs to clarify the 

definition for introduced species, 

because of concerns for how the current 

definition may be applied to different 

types of bait used by fishermen and 

thereby restrict or prohibit fishing 

within the Sanctuary. 

Response: The definition for 

introduced species at 15 CFR 922.81 

and 922.111 states that an introduced 

species means any species or its 

biological matter capable of propagation 

that is non-native to the ecosystem of 

the sanctuary. Bait of non-native fish 

carcasses or poultry parts are not 

capable of propagation or reproduction 

and therefore are not within the 

definition of introduced species. 

Consequently, using species (or 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 13097 

biological matters of species) not native 

to the ecosystem and not capable of 

propagation as bait while conducting 

lawful fishing is not subject to the 

sanctuaries’ regulations related to 

introduced species. 

Fishery Management 

Comment: NOAA should create a 

blanket law regulating all of the 

nationally recognized fisheries 

controlled by the United States. 

Response: The MSA is implemented 

by NMFS within NOAA and the 

Regional Fishery Management Councils. 

Most fisheries that solely occur within 

the limits of state waters are managed by 

the respective state fishery management 

agency. Promulgating regulations 

affecting all fisheries in the United 

States is beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

Comment: NOAA should regulate 

fishing to sustainable or healthy levels 

and provide adequate funding for 

enforcement of regulations. 

Response: NOAA is not implementing 

any fishing regulations as part of this 

rulemaking. Almost all of the 

regulations regarding fishing off of 

California are promulgated by NMFS 

and the State of California. The 

regulations are enforced by NOAA OLE 

and CDFW officers with assistance from 

partners, such as USCG and California 

State Parks with funding appropriated 

by Congress and the California 

Legislature. As components of NOAA, 

ONMS and NMFS work closely together 

and with CDFW to ensure that fishing 

activities within national marine 

sanctuaries support healthy and 

sustainable fish populations and do not 

pose a threat to any threatened or 

endangered species. 

Aquaculture 

Comment: NOAA should prohibit 

offshore aquaculture in the sanctuary 

and clarify whether future new 

aquaculture projects in sanctuary waters 

would be geographically restricted to 

Tomales Bay, or would be allowed in all 

sanctuary waters of GFNMS. 

Response: While GFNMS regulations 

do not prohibit aquaculture operations, 

the activities typically associated with 

aquaculture, such as disturbance of 

submerged lands (anchoring pens and 

structures), introduction of introduced 

species, or discharges (food, medicine) 

are prohibited within the sanctuary. (It 

should be noted, per NOAA’s recent 

rulemaking on the introduction of 

introduced species, existing stateapproved aquaculture projects in 

Tomales Bay are exempt from the 

introduced species prohibition.) Thus, 

whereas any future offshore aquaculture 

is not explicitly prohibited by GFNMS 

regulations, it would be subject to these 

other associated prohibitions. 

Comment: The DEIS does not 

comment on potential negative effects of 

future aquaculture operations on areas 

of special designation like Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH), marine protected areas 

(MPAs), etc.; the DEIS provides no 

analysis of how these operations might 

affect fisheries and marine ecosystems, 

including cumulative effects. 

Response: The purpose of the EIS is 

to assess impacts of the proposed action, 

which is sanctuary expansion and 

adoption of proposed regulations. The 

final action does not propose future 

aquaculture operations. There are 

numerous future activities that could 

impact sanctuary resources, each of 

which would be subject to review and 

approval from state and federal 

agencies, including NOAA. At that time, 

impacts of a proposed activity would be 

assessed through the NEPA or California 

Environmental Quality Act process 

depending on if it is a local, state or 

federal action. The rulemaking about 

introduced species is prohibiting 

aquaculture that uses introduced 

species from all state waters except 

Tomales Bay. 

Fishing Grounds Impacts From 

Alternative Energy Development 

Comment: NOAA should clarify how 

currently productive fishing grounds 

may be impacted by non-mineral energy 

development. 

Response: NOAA assumes the 

reference to non-mineral energy 

development refers to alternative energy 

development (for example wind or 

marine hydrokinetic energy). Energy 

development and its effects on fishing 

are outside the scope of this action. 

Comment: NOAA should support a 

comprehensive marine spatial planning 

effort to analyze uses, including fishing 

and habitat conservation, as they relate 

to alternative energy production. 

Response: NOAA collaborates with 

the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM), Department of 

Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, and other agencies, as part 

of the West Coast Governors Alliance 

(WCGA) on Ocean Health. For any 

future alternative energy projects along 

the west coast, NOAA will work 

through any of the strategies developed 

by the WCGA. Moreover, it would not 

be appropriate for national marine 

sanctuaries to lead a marine spatial 

planning effort for the State of 

California, given BOEM cannot issue a 

lease for alternative energy projects 

within national marine sanctuaries. 

However, if an applicant requested a 

permit to test an alternative energy 

project within state waters of GFNMS 

and the project fit into a sanctuary 

permit category, GFNMS would conduct 

a planning exercise on the scale of the 

sanctuary to determine how to best 

minimize impacts on existing uses 

(including fishing) and sanctuary 

natural resources. 

Whale Entanglement 

Comment: NOAA could help in 

efforts to have fishing gear modified to 

reduce entanglements with whales, 

particularly from pots and gear from 

Bodega Bay north. 

Response: NMFS has lead authority 

for implementing the MMPA and ESA 

for whale species, and is therefore also 

the lead NOAA agency for whale 

entanglements. ONMS will continue to 

consult with NMFS, CDFW and the 

California Fish and Game Commission 

on matters of whale entanglement. 

Historic Resources 

Point Arena Pier Wrecks 

Comment: There are at least two 

shipwrecks in the waters adjacent to the 

Point Arena pier; while there may be 

interest in preserving the shipwreck 

sites, it is equally important that any 

preservation effort not interfere with the 

uses of the pier. 

Response: NOAA is no longer 

including waters adjacent to the Point 

Arena pier in the expansion of GFNMS 

(see response to comment regarding 

Arena Cove boundary). Management of 

cultural and maritime heritage resources 

outside sanctuary boundaries will 

continue under the existing regulatory 

framework summarized in the Cultural 

and Maritime Heritage Resources 

section of the FEIS. 

Salvage of Historic Resources 

Comment: NOAA should allow the 

salvage of historic resources. 

Response: The NMSA directs NOAA 

to enhance the protection of historical, 

cultural, and archaeological resources. 

Therefore, CBNMS and GFNMS 

regulations prohibit possessing, moving, 

or injuring, or attempting to possess, 

move, remove or injure, a sanctuary 

historical resource. However, through a 

sanctuary permit, salvage of historic 

resources may be allowed to further 

research or monitoring, further the 

educational value of the sanctuary, or 

assist in managing the sanctuary. 

Marine Transportation—Shipping Lanes 

Comment: NOAA should certify that 

the shipping lanes are an existing use 

within the GFNMS and CBNMS and 

shall not be terminated by the ONMS 

Director. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
13098 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: Certification applies to 

holders of an existing permit or other 

authorization or right to conduct an 

otherwise prohibited activity in the 

expansion area. The shipping lanes are 

neither in the sanctuary expansion area 

nor a prohibited activity in CBNMS and 

GFNMS and therefore do not require a 

certification as an existing use. 

Military Uses 

DOD Consultation 

Comment: NOAA should develop a 

formal consultation process between 

ONMS and DOD to assure minimization 

of impacts on sanctuary resources. This 

process should include PFMC and 

NMFS notification so that impacts on 

EFH in the sanctuaries can be 

minimized. 

Response: NOAA disagrees that a new 

consultation process with DOD is 

necessary. The extent of DOD activities 

not included in the existing exemptions 

from CBNMS and GFNMS regulations 

would be determined in consultation 

with ONMS pursuant to section 304(d) 

of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

(NMSA), which contains formal 

procedures for required interagency 

consultation on federal actions that are 

likely to injure sanctuary resources. 

DOD would be required to follow all 

consultation requirements contained in 

the NEPA and NMSA, among other 

statutes. The DOD would be required to 

consult directly with NMFS for any 

projects that may have an adverse 

impact on EFH, whether the EFH is 

within a national marine sanctuary or 

not. 

DOD Exemption 

Comment: The Navy opposes the 

provision in the proposed rule that 

would maintain an existing exemption 

from the prohibitions in the CBNMS 

regulations that provides that 

Department of Defense activities not 

necessary for national defense, such as 

routine exercises and vessel operations, 

would be subject to all prohibitions 

contained in the regulations. 15 CFR 

922.112(c). Navy proposes instead that 

CBNMS adopt the regulatory provision 

regarding exemption for Department of 

Defense (DOD) activities to the existing 

prohibitions set out in GFNMS 

regulations that states that all activities 

currently carried out by Department of 

Defense within the sanctuary are 

essential for national defense and 

therefore, not subject to the prohibitions 

contained in the regulations in this 

subpart. 15 CFR 922.82(b). Further, the 

Navy objects to any amendments to the 

current GFNMS DOD exemption and 

suggests that the agencies that are 

responsible for ensuring national 

security are in the best position to 

determine which actions are necessary 

for national defense. Lastly, the Navy 

cites an inconsistency in the summary 

of regulatory amendments and proposed 

regulatory text. The summary of 

regulatory amendments implies that 

existing language from CBNMS 

regulations would be applied to the 

GFNMS exemption for DOD activities, 

but the regulatory text does not reflect 

such a change. 

Response: NOAA acknowledges that 

there is an inconsistency in the 

summary of regulatory amendments and 

proposed regulations in the preamble to 

the proposed rule. In response, NOAA 

has modified the preamble to clarify 

that the proposed rule for this 

rulemaking did not include any 

amendments to the current GFNMS 

DOD exemption. 

NOAA recognizes that the DOD 

exemption differs between CBNMS and 

GFNMS because ‘‘routine exercises and 

vessel operations’’ are not exempted in 

CBNMS regulations as they are in 

GFNMS regulations. NOAA believes 

that the issue of consistency in the 

language for DOD exemptions across the 

national marine sanctuary system is 

broader in scope than this rulemaking, 

which focuses on the expansion of 

CBNMS and GFNMS, and that the issue 

is more appropriately addressed 

separately. Therefore, NOAA will 

continue for the time being to make no 

changes to the existing DOD exemptions 

in CBNMS and GFNMS as they have 

been in the regulations since 1989 and 

1981 respectively. NOAA, however, 

commits to undertaking a separate 

process to consider additional 

amendments to the regulations 

governing military exemptions from 

prohibitions on a system-wide basis 

across all national marine sanctuaries, 

in consultation with DOD and the 

Department of Homeland Security 

concerning the Coast Guard. 

Comment: NOAA should exclude all 

activities by the DOD, such as the use 

of sonar, which can affect marine 

mammals, in the expansion area since it 

is such a special place. 

Response: Existing military uses and 

an analysis of their environmental 

effects in the study area are contained 

in Section 4.9 of the FEIS. Homeland 

security and military uses of the 

expanded CBNMS and GFNMS are 

subject to NEPA and the NMSA, and 

they are also subject to all applicable 

federal regulations and requirements 

related to the environment. DOD is 

required to consult with ONMS 

pursuant to NMSA section 304(d) on 

any proposed military activities in the 

expansion area that would be likely to 

injure sanctuary resources. Therefore, 

NOAA believes the existing regulatory 

framework sufficiently addresses DOD 

impacts on sanctuary resources and 

excluding military activities from the 

expansion area is not warranted. 

Motorized Personal Watercraft (MPWC) 

Use 

Support for Conditional MPWC Use 

Comment: NOAA should move 

forward with alternative approaches to 

regulating MPWCs that would allow 

some MPWC use in the proposed 

expansion area. 

Response: Due to the range of 

comments in support of, in opposition 

to and suggesting changes to MPWC 

regulations, NOAA removed from the 

final rule the MPWC use zones in the 

GFNMS expansion area (see Figure 3.2– 

17 in the FEIS). The proposed access 

route to Zone 4 was removed from the 

final rule and the area where MPWC are 

prohibited was extended slightly 

northward through establishing a line of 

latitude that corresponds with the 

southernmost tip of Bodega Head. This 

specific line was established to aid 

navigation and enforcement of the 

regulation. 

MPWC use is allowed to continue 

within the GFNMS expansion area north 

of Bodega Head, (excluding Bodega Bay 

due to existing laws and regulations) 

until NOAA can implement a separate 

process to evaluate the feasibility of 

managing MPWC within the expansion 

area. Further consideration of MPWC 

use patterns and activities, and public 

input on the scope of sanctuary 

regulations are needed. MPWC use will 

continue to be prohibited in the original 

GFNMS boundaries, with exceptions for 

emergency search and rescue missions 

or law enforcement operations. MPWC 

will continue to be allowed in CBNMS. 

Additional information regarding 

impacts of MPWC use is in Section 3.2 

of the FEIS. 

Comment: NOAA should avoid any 

overlap of the proposed zones for 

MPWC use with California-designated 

MPAs. 

Response: See response above. The 

regulations that apply to State marine 

protected areas (such as Marine 

Reserves, Marine Parks and Marine 

Conservation Areas) from Bodega Head 

to Point Arena prohibit the take of 

marine resources. Some of those MPAs 

allow take of certain species, while 

others prohibit all take, but none 

prohibit any types of vessel use and are 

not designed to protect wildlife from 

boat-based disturbance. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 13099 

Total Allowance (i.e. No Regulation) of 

MPWC 

Comment: NOAA should allow 

MPWC use throughout the entire 

expansion area, including CBNMS, and/ 

or GFNMS. The DEIS did not provide 

adequate rationale for the purpose and 

need to regulate MPWC and potential 

impacts from MPWC have not been 

shown to be significant and/or are no 

different than other types of vessels. 

Response: See response to the 

comment on ‘‘Support for Conditional 

MPWC Use.’’ 

Prohibition of MPWC 

Comment: NOAA should prohibit 

MPWC use throughout the entire 

GFNMS sanctuary (both the previous 

boundaries and the entire expansion 

area) as it creates a risk of wildlife 

disturbance and is a use that is 

incompatible with sanctuary resources 

and values. Moreover, the use of MPWC 

could adversely affect the public’s 

experience of such a pristine coastal 

area and is already prohibited in 

GFNMS. 

Response: See response to the 

comment on ‘‘Support for Conditional 

MPWC Use.’’ 

Socioeconomic Impacts of Regulating 

MPWC 

Comment: NOAA should better 

address socioeconomic impacts on the 

MPWC industry, local economy, 

including loss of recreational 

opportunities. 

Response: Socioeconomic 

considerations are fully addressed in the 

EIS for both the former proposed action 

(which would have prohibited MPWC 

use in most of the proposed expansion 

area but allowed MPWC use in 

designated zones) and for the existing 

regulations alternative, which would 

prohibit MPWC use throughout the 

expansion area. The EIS found that with 

MPWC restrictions wildlife protection 

would be improved, and given the 

relatively low level of existing MPWC 

use within the GFNMS expansion area, 

the impact on MPWC users was 

expected to be less than significant. 

As explained above, NOAA has 

revised the final rule (see response to 

comment under ‘‘Support for 

Conditional MPWC Use.’’) 

Comment: NOAA should compensate 

MPWC owners for taxes and registration 

costs paid on their watercraft if a ban is 

enacted within the expansion area. 

Response: Since NOAA is not 

regulating MPWC use in the expansion 

area, other than the slight extension of 

original GFNMS regulations to the 

southernmost tip of Bodega Head, 

discussion about potential 

socioeconomic mitigation measures is 

premature. 

MPWC Education and Outreach 

Comment: NOAA should promote 

voluntary programs (similar to the Blue 

Rider Ocean Awareness and 

Stewardship Program in the Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

(FKNMS)) to educate the public on 

responsible MPWC use as an alternative 

to implementing additional regulations 

and restrictions. 

Response: NOAA recognizes the 

importance of education and outreach to 

MPWC users as a complement to MPWC 

regulations. GFNMS has updated the 

Wildlife Disturbance Action Plan in its 

revised management plan to include 

outreach to MPWC users. 

MPWC Enforcement 

Comment: NOAA does not have the 

authority to require MPWC users to 

carry a GPS unit and to enforce this 

requirement. 

Response: As a tool for compliance 

with zonal regulations, NOAA has the 

authority to require such specific 

equipment on vessels and watercraft in 

order for MPWC users to accurately and 

precisely navigate to access and stay 

within the designated zones. However, 

NOAA is not moving forward with 

regulation of MPWC in the expansion 

area at this time. See response to 

comment on ‘‘Support for Conditional 

MPWC Use.’’ 

Comment: The opening of an access 

channel for the proposed Zone 4 creates 

additional enforcement challenges. 

NOAA should implement a permit 

program for surfer safety and lawful 

fishing to allow for limited MPWC use 

within the GFNMS expansion area using 

visual and permitted identification (e.g. 

stickers). 

Response: At this time, NOAA 

removed the zones and the proposed 

access channel to Zone 4 from the final 

rule, and thus permitting for certain 

uses is not applicable. MPWC use will 

continue to be allowed throughout 

almost all of the GFNMS expansion 

area. A permitting program for MPWC 

use could be evaluated in the future 

assessment and potential regulatory 

framework of MPWC use in the GFNMS 

expansion area. 

Comment: NOAA should extend the 

existing GFNMS regulation prohibiting 

MPWC use to apply to the expansion 

area (as well as the previous boundaries 

of the sanctuary) but temporarily not 

enforce this regulation in the expansion 

area until the working group concludes 

its work and NOAA implements revised 

MPWC rules in the expansion area. 

Response: All regulations are subject 

to enforcement. See response to 

comment on ‘‘Support for Conditional 

MPWC Use.’’ 

MPWC Use Liability 

Comment: Within the DEIS, NOAA 

neglected to consider the chain of 

liability incurred from proposed MPWC 

launch points in the event of injuries or 

fatalities resulting from public use of 

these launch locations. 

Response: All launch points 

discussed in the EIS currently exist and 

are open to multiple ocean user groups. 

NOAA is not constructing any launch 

points as part of the final action. 

Furthermore, NOAA is not liable for 

injuries or fatalities resulting from 

public use of sanctuary waters. 

MPWC Rulemaking Process 

Comment: The proposed MPWC 

zones appear to have been developed by 

NOAA in a closed process that did not 

inform or involve the sanctuary 

advisory councils or include 

representative coastal residents that 

could have provided local knowledge 

on wildlife populations; the only input 

on zones came from special interests 

seeking to maintain MPWC activity. 

Response: NOAA complied with the 

public noticing requirements as 

specified by the NEPA and APA during 

this rulemaking process, including 

providing a public scoping period at the 

beginning of the process, which is when 

NOAA started gathering information on 

the use of MPWC in the expansion area. 

Due to the range of comments in 

support of, in opposition to and 

suggesting changes to MPWC 

regulations, NOAA removed from the 

final rule the MPWC use zones in the 

expansion area and is prohibiting the 

use of MPWC in the original GFNMS 

boundary and up to the southernmost 

tip of Bodega Head. 

MPWC Definition 

Comment: A wide range of comments 

suggested various changes to the 

definition of MPWCs, including using 

the definitions from the USCG and 

Society of Automotive Engineers. 

Response: NOAA removed all 

proposed changes to the GFNMS 

definition of MPWC. This maintains the 

status quo with respect to regulation of 

MPWC in the previously-existing 

GFNMS. NOAA is considering potential 

changes to the definition of MPWC as 

part of a separate national rulemaking 

process (78 FR 5998), which is still 

underway. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
13100 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

MPWC Use and Potential Impacts on the 

Affected Environment 

Comment: NOAA should investigate 

the technology and design and different 

methods of operation of MPWC in the 

marine environment, because the 4- 

stroke engines contained in modern 

MPWC are less polluting, more fuel 

efficient, and quieter than earlier MPWC 

models. 

Response: NOAA acknowledges the 

changes in MPWC technology, but 

continues to have concerns with MPWC 

use. See response to comment on 

‘‘Support for Conditional MPWC Use.’’ 

Comment: MPWC are not more 

detrimental to the environment than 

other vessel types that are allowed in 

the sanctuary, therefore regulating 

MPWC more strictly than other vessels, 

such as fishing vessels and rescue 

vessels, constitutes unfair 

discrimination against one particular 

user group. 

Response: See response to comment 

on ‘‘Support for Conditional MPWC 

Use.’’ 

Comment: NOAA should better assess 

the potential impacts of MPWC sound 

on wildlife, including thresholds for 

noise impacts that can induce a ‘‘take’’ 

of marine mammals and seabirds under 

the MMPA. In addition, NOAA should 

analyze current uses and future trends 

in demand for MPWC use within the 

expansion area, especially MPWC use 

patterns in the proposed expansion area 

and proposed MPWC use zones in 

relation to wildlife hotspots. 

Response: Further review of all 

available information pertaining to 

MPWC use and their potential effects 

could be beneficial during a future 

public process evaluating the feasibility 

of regulating MPWC use in the 

expansion area. 

Comment: NOAA should work with 

stakeholders to justify the MPWC zones 

in MBNMS and their definition. 

Response: Although the information 

provided by the commenter may be 

useful to consider in any subsequent 

process that evaluates the potential 

regulation of MPWC use, this comment 

is outside the scope of the proposed 

action. 

NEPA Process 

NEPA Compliance 

Comment: NOAA has violated the 

processes required by NEPA. Proposed 

authorizations would be allowed in the 

existing CBNMS and GFNMS. Over half 

of the existing GFNMS lies south of 

Sausalito, yet there have been no 

hearings held south of the Golden Gate 

Bridge. 

Response: NOAA believes it has fully 

complied with NEPA requirements and 

regulations promulgated by the Council 

on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 

1506.6(c)). The location of public 

hearings is not specified as part of the 

requirements. Public hearings were held 

in Sausalito (May 22), Bodega Bay (June 

19), Gualala (June 18), and Point Arena 

(June 17), CA. Sausalito, where one of 

the public hearings was held, is in close 

proximity to the southern portion of 

GFNMS. Furthermore, public comment 

could also have been submitted via 

letter to the GFNMS superintendent or 

via electronic submission via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. NOAA 

considered comments in the same 

manner, regardless of means of delivery. 

Also, see response to comments on 

‘‘Authorizations.’’ 

Commenting Through Regulations.gov 

Comment: NOAA should make it less 

confusing to which document the 

comment should be directed. 

Response: NOAA sought comment on 

four different documents: the proposed 

rule, which contains the action NOAA 

proposed, supplementary information in 

the DEIS, and the draft CBNMS and 

GFNMS management plans. NOAA 

acknowledges that some comments 

could apply to more than one of the 

documents. NOAA received all the 

comments, then evaluated if changes 

were necessary to support the proposed 

action, and if so, which document(s) 

would need to be changed. The 

Regulations.gov Web site is set up to 

serve all federal government agencies, 

and is administered by USEPA; NOAA 

does not have the flexibility to alter this 

interface for public comment. 

Public Hearings Testimony 

Comment: At future hearings, NOAA 

should not say that repeating comments 

is not necessary because it implies that 

people’s comments are unimportant. 

Also elected officials should not be 

prioritized. 

Response: NOAA regrets if it created 

the impression that comments are not 

important during the public hearings. 

As required by law, NOAA reviews the 

substance of every comment received on 

a proposed action. The intent of the 

directions provided at the public 

hearings was to acknowledge that 

NOAA focuses on the quality, rather 

than quantity, of the comments. This 

means that NOAA bases its decision on 

the merit of the comments raised, not 

just on the number of comments 

received on a particular topic. Regarding 

priority for elected officials, it is 

standard practice by many agencies to 

acknowledge public officials and allow 

them to present their testimony first. In 

this way, members of the public have 

the opportunity to state their support or 

opposition to comments made by 

elected officials and provide additional 

rationale for consideration. 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

Comment: Congress should reauthorize the NMSA to make clear the 

mandate of multiple use and the need 

to balance this mandate with resource 

protection. 

Response: Reauthorization and the 

ability to make changes to the NMSA 

are within the authority of Congress, not 

NOAA or other executive branch 

agencies. NOAA believes the purposes 

and policies of the NMSA are clear; 

among other things, they direct NOAA 

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)). 

Comment: The expansion of 

sanctuaries should be done through an 

act of Congress. This would provide 

adequate public forum to debate the 

expansion. 

Response: The designation of new 

national marine sanctuaries as well as 

the expansion of existing sanctuaries 

can be achieved congressionally or 

administratively by NOAA under the 

authority of the NMSA. In order to 

expand the sanctuary, NOAA needs to 

comply with public notice and 

comment requirements of the NMSA, 

NEPA, and APA, which provide for 

extensive public involvement during the 

developmental phases of a proposed 

action, such as sanctuary expansion. 

Comment: NOAA should explain why 

expansions do not violate Congressional 

intent found in the NMSA. 

Response: In 2000, Congress amended 

the NMSA by requiring certain findings 

be made by the agency before 

designating a new sanctuary (16 U.S.C. 

1434 (f)(1)). This particular requirement 

does not apply to this action because 

NOAA is expanding the boundaries of 

existing sanctuaries, not designating 

new national marine sanctuaries. 

Oil, Gas, Alternative Energy and Mining 

Development 

Alternative Energy Development 

Concerns 

Comment: NOAA should define the 

process, policy and standards for 

approval of alternative energy projects, 

given the new proposed authorization 

provisions. 

Response: As explained above, the 

final rule no longer includes provisions 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 13101 

for authorizations. Alternative energy 

projects would be subject to sanctuary 

regulations, such as the restrictions 

against altering the submerged lands 

and discharges or deposits. Projects that 

would otherwise be in violation of the 

regulations could be allowed if they 

qualified for a sanctuary permit. 

Comment: NOAA should prohibit 

alternative energy development, 

especially development that would 

disturb the sea floor. 

Response: See response to comment 

above. Development that would alter the 

submerged lands is prohibited, unless 

allowed by permit. 

Comment: The DEIS indicates that 

there would be environmental 

consequences under the proposed 

action, as oil and gas development 

would be prohibited, but NOAA should 

also include a discussion of the 

potential for energy project 

development and its potential effect on 

wildlife. 

Response: The purpose of the impact 

analysis is to disclose potential impacts 

caused by the proposed action and other 

alternatives. The FEIS addresses 

beneficial effects of the regulations on 

biological resources, as compared to 

existing conditions. NOAA is not 

proposing to undertake or to issue a 

permit for energy development with this 

rule. Accordingly, the FEIS does not 

analyze the impacts of energy projects 

on wildlife. The impacts of prohibiting 

oil and gas development are outlined in 

this section because the regulations 

prohibit all oil and gas development. In 

contrast, alternative energy 

development is not being specifically 

prohibited nor being proposed. The 

potential for future energy project 

development is not known at this time. 

As noted in the EIS, no lease requests 

have been received by BOEM for 

alternative energy projects in the 

expansion area or anywhere in 

California. Any future alternative energy 

project would be subject to the NEPA 

process if NOAA or another agency is 

involved in the establishment or 

permitting of an alternative energy 

project. 

Alternative Energy Support 

Comment: Alternative energy 

development should be allowed, if it 

were environmentally prudent to do so. 

Response: The revised regulations do 

not specifically prohibit alternative 

energy projects but, as noted above, 

projects are subject to sanctuary 

regulations. NOAA intends to conduct a 

separate rulemaking process to consider 

establishing a process to allow each 

sanctuary to authorize other Federal or 

state permits. During this separate 

public process, NOAA may consider 

authorizations for alternative energy 

development. 

Methane Hydrates 

Comment: NOAA should clarify that 

the oil, gas and mineral leasing 

prohibition precludes leasing, 

development or production of methane 

hydrates. 

Response: Since methane hydrates are 

a form of gas, they are subject to the 

prohibition against gas development or 

production contained in the sanctuary 

regulations. 

Oil and Gas Development Threats 

Comment: NOAA should clarify what 

threat exists for oil and gas 

development, since regulatory 

protections are not necessarily 

permanent. 

Response: Given the demand for oil 

and gas products, there is the potential 

for increased pressure to develop 

resources that have been identified 

offshore northern California. The final 

rule prohibits oil and gas development 

and does not have any exceptions for oil 

and gas facilities. In addition, no permit 

may be issued for oil and gas 

development in the sanctuaries. The 

existing exemption for oil and gas 

pipelines in GFNMS has been deleted in 

the final rule. Once in effect, reversal of 

the oil and gas prohibition would 

require an act of Congress or NOAA 

would need to commence a rulemaking 

and NEPA process to amend the 

regulation that prohibits oil and gas 

development. 

Oil and Gas Development Prohibition 

Comment: NOAA should adopt the 

strongest oil and gas prohibitions. 

Response: The final rule includes a 

complete prohibition against oil and gas 

development. No permit may be issued 

for oil and gas development in the 

sanctuaries. Furthermore, it does not 

include an exemption for oil and gas 

pipelines in GFNMS, or any mechanism 

to issue a permit for a future proposal. 

Oil Transportation 

Comment: NOAA should revise 

sanctuary regulation § 922.82(a)(1) to 

also prohibit the transportation of oil, 

gas or minerals via pipeline and remove 

the existing pipeline exemption. 

Response: The final rule includes 

deletion of the existing pipeline 

exemption; therefore, the suggested 

revision to GFNMS regulation 15 CFR 

922.82 is not necessary. There would be 

no mechanism to allow oil and gas 

pipelines. 

Oil and Gas Development Support 

Comment: NOAA should adopt 

balanced policies that support 

affordable, reliable oil and gas 

development. BOEM estimates 700 

million barrels of oil and 700 billion 

cubic feet of natural gas located in 

federal waters would be precluded by 

the expansion. 

Response: One of NOAA’s mandates 

is to ‘‘facilitate to the extent compatible 

with the primary objective of resource 

protection, all public and private uses of 

the resources [. . .]’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1431(b)(6)). Oil and gas development in 

the marine environment has historically 

posed significant risks to marine 

resources, as evidenced by the 

magnitude of the impacts of some 

offshore oil spills. Therefore, NOAA has 

usually excluded traditional energy 

exploration and production in our 

nation’s national marine sanctuaries. 

Mining 

Comment: NOAA should prohibit 

mining operations in the expansion 

area. 

Response: Mineral development is 

prohibited, as stated in the sanctuary 

regulations that prohibit exploration for 

minerals. 

Sanctuary Management and 

Administration 

Collaboration 

Comment: NOAA should collaborate 

with government and non-governmental 

organizations on monitoring wildlife, 

education, citizen science, outreach, 

and advancing ecosystem protection 

and marine conservation initiatives and 

programs. 

Response: NOAA welcomes the 

opportunity to collaborate with 

organizations to build community 

partnerships for education, outreach, 

research, monitoring, and resource 

protection. The Stewards of the Coast 

and Redwoods, Bureau of Land 

Management’s (BLM) California Coastal 

National Monument, as well as other 

local government and non-governmental 

organizations are listed as potential 

partners in the revised GFNMS 

management plan. For example, NOAA 

values the partnership with BLM and 

looks forward to continuing and 

strengthening this partnership in the 

expansion area through national and 

local initiatives, such as reducing and 

mitigating wildlife disturbance along 

the California coast through the Seabird 

Protection Network. 

Coordinated Management 

Comment: NOAA staff should meet 

with the California State Lands 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
13102 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Commission (CSLC) to determine the 

location and terms of CSLC leases in the 

proposed sanctuary in order to analyze 

how the leases would be affected by the 

proposed rule. CSLC suggests GFNMS 

enter into a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) with the 

Commission on existing and future 

CSLC leases. 

Response: NOAA will continue 

coordination with the CSLC and other 

agencies to ensure compatibility to the 

maximum extent practicable. NOAA 

would certify existing CSLC leases in 

accordance with 15 CFR 922.47 and 15 

CFR 922.84. NOAA will also work with 

the CSLC on potential future leases, and 

mechanisms for potentially allowing 

those uses in the sanctuary, including 

MOUs. 

GFNMS Collaboration 

Comment: NOAA should work in a 

collaborative manner to achieve the 

goals of the Point Reyes-Farallon Islands 

Marine Sanctuary as listed in its original 

DEIS. The current process did not 

achieve those goals. 

Response: The comment refers to text 

in Volume One of the FEIS on the 

Proposed Point Reyes-Farallon Island 

Marine Sanctuary (the original name of 

GFNMS), issued in 1980. NOAA 

manages GFNMS under the statutory 

authority of the NMSA. To meet its 

management responsibilities, NOAA 

implements the GFNMS management 

plan and develops regulations 

consistent with the terms of designation. 

The framework for expanding the 

sanctuary was laid out in the 2008 

GFNMS management plan, which is in 

line with activities NOAA stated it 

would aim to achieve after initial 

sanctuary designation. 

Governance Structure 

Comment: NOAA should allow for 

significant local oversight in sanctuary 

governance. 

Response: National marine 

sanctuaries have sanctuary advisory 

councils composed of voting and nonvoting members that represent a variety 

of government agencies, local user 

groups, and the general public. 

Sanctuary advisory councils are very 

inclusive of local communities and 

stakeholders. The meetings have 

agendas set by the advisory council 

members, are hosted throughout the 

year in local communities, and always 

have an allotted time for public 

comment. Sanctuary advisory councils 

may choose to establish committees and 

working groups to further delve into 

issues; and working groups provide an 

opportunity to involve more 

stakeholders from the community in 

developing recommendations for 

consideration by the full sanctuary 

advisory councils. 

Funding 

Comment: NOAA should clarify how 

funds will be used to manage the 

expanded sanctuary area, given the 

current uncertainties of federal funding 

for programs. The resources required to 

manage this large and new area could 

detract from the protection of existing 

resources in already designated 

sanctuaries. 

Response: Once the regulations are in 

effect, prohibitions and environmental 

protections, such as the prohibition on 

oil and gas development, will be 

immediate and would entail virtually no 

cost to the sanctuary. NOAA recognizes 

resource limitations may limit or delay 

implementation of some of the activities 

in the management plans. NOAA will 

continue to evaluate future resource 

needs of all sanctuaries in its 

formulation of annual budget requests. 

In addition, the sanctuaries will work to 

build community partnerships in the 

expansion area to develop collaborative 

programs for education, outreach, 

research and monitoring, resource 

protection, and enforcement. 

Monitoring 

Comment: NOAA should clarify how 

it will monitor the protection of 

upwelling waters. 

Response: GFNMS, CBNMS and 

MBNMS share an action plan in their 

respective management plans that is 

focused on monitoring the health of the 

ecosystem through offshore 

oceanographic and wildlife surveys. The 

action plan also describes how GFNMS 

and CBNMS will develop plans to 

extend monitoring efforts into the 

proposed expansion area to monitor the 

full extent of the upwelling area. 

Monitoring would help identify changes 

over time as well as potential problems 

that need to be addressed through 

management actions, enforcement and/ 

or education. 

Permits 

Comment: NOAA should not grant 

any kind of permits to allow otherwise 

prohibited activities (including special 

event privileges) because it is contrary 

to the intended protection of sanctuary 

resources. 

Response: NOAA has the authority to 

issue permits to allow some types of 

activities that are otherwise prohibited 

by sanctuary regulations, but which 

generally present a public benefit by 

furthering the management and 

protection of sanctuary resources. 

Permits usually include conditions that 

are designed to minimize or eliminate 

impacts on sanctuary resources, and 

may also be designed to minimize user 

conflict. Various findings must also be 

met in order to issue a sanctuary permit, 

which can be issued for education, 

research, salvage (for GFNMS), and 

management. NOAA can also issue 

special use permits (SUP) to promote 

public access and use, and 

understanding of a sanctuary resource, 

when the superintendent can determine 

the activity will have no effect on 

sanctuary resources. 

Sanctuary Advisory Councils 

Comment: The current sanctuary 

advisory councils should be expanded 

to include additional representatives 

from the geographic area of the 

expanded sanctuary boundary. 

Response: NOAA recognizes the need 

to potentially adjust the composition of 

the GFNMS advisory council and has 

revised the GFNMS management plan to 

reflect this need. NOAA will consider 

the addition of seats to the sanctuary 

advisory council after the expansion 

becomes final. NOAA is not considering 

the addition of seats to the CBNMS 

advisory council, as the expanded 

boundary of CBNMS would not add 

new constituencies not already 

represented on the CBNMS advisory 

council. 

Comment: NOAA should consider 

using a sanctuary advisory council 

working group process to further 

investigate and make recommendations 

on how to address controversial items 

identified during the public comment 

period. 

Response: NOAA has included this 

recommendation in the final GFNMS 

management plan. NOAA will propose 

to the sanctuary advisory council the 

establishment of working groups to 

address issues such as authorization 

authority, MPWC regulations, and 

additional low overflight prohibition 

zones as well as the configuration of 

those zones and the inclusion of 

estuaries in the GFNMS. The CBNMS 

advisory council decided to delay 

consideration of such a working group 

until after NOAA made a final decision 

about the expansion of CBNMS. 

Comment: NOAA should consider 

using a sanctuary advisory working 

group to examine how existing uses in 

Arena Cove could continue. 

Response: After review of all public 

comments, NOAA chose to exclude 

Arena Cove from the expansion area. 

Therefore, existing uses of Arena Cove 

do not fall under sanctuary regulations. 

Comment: NOAA should clarify how 

community members may become 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 13103 

members of a sanctuary advisory 

council working group. 

Response: If the CBNMS or GFNMS 

advisory councils convened working 

groups to make recommendations to the 

respective full advisory councils 

regarding a specific topic, they would 

work with sanctuary staff to identify a 

list of potential members including 

experts on a particular topic and/or 

appropriate interested parties. Interested 

community members may also express 

interest in participating on a working 

group by contacting any of the advisory 

council members or sanctuary staff 

listed on the sanctuary Web sites. 

Comment: Sanctuary advisory 

councils should represent the will and 

voice of the communities, rather than be 

forced to support the goals of the 

sanctuary. They are controlled by the 

sanctuary because the sanctuary sets the 

agenda and has the right not to accept 

their recommendations. 

Response: Sanctuary advisory 

councils are established by NOAA 

under the authority of the NMSA (16 

U.S.C. 1445A). Congress intended the 

councils to include representatives 

interested in the protection and 

multiple use management of sanctuary 

resources. This means that 

representatives on a sanctuary advisory 

council may represent a wide range of 

views on sanctuary management. 

Congress intended sanctuary advisory 

councils to be advisory bodies, not 

decision-making bodies. Each sanctuary 

advisory council meeting is open to the 

public, and anyone is permitted to 

present oral or written statements on 

items of concern to sanctuary 

management. Therefore, NOAA believes 

that the sanctuary advisory councils in 

their current format are an efficient and 

effective way to receive input from 

communities affected by sanctuary 

management. 

Management Plan Purpose 

Comment: The GFNMS management 

plan should focus on preservation and 

restoration. 

Response: The NMSA directs NOAA 

to manage national marine sanctuaries 

with the primary objective of resource 

protection. The NMSA further instructs 

NOAA to provide comprehensive 

management, which includes research, 

education, outreach, and facilitation of 

uses compatible with resource 

protection. Therefore, the GFNMS 

management plan contains action plans 

that focus on all of these mandates. 

Radioactive and Toxic Waste 

Comment: NOAA should do 

something about the vast quantity of 

radioactive waste dumped near the 

Farallon Islands. 

Response: The GFNMS management 

plan includes an action plan to evaluate 

the condition of, and actual impacts on, 

sanctuary resources and qualities from 

the Farallon Islands radioactive waste 

dump site. 

State Control 

Comment: The State of California 

rather than the federal government 

should manage the expansion area. 

There are concerns that the federal 

government will tell the State of 

California how to manage and regulate 

the area and wrong decisions will be 

made for the state. 

Response: Although the State of 

California has an extensive MPA 

program established by the Marine Life 

Protection Act, much of the expansion 

area extends beyond the marine waters 

under state control and is beyond its 

jurisdiction. 

NOAA closely collaborates with 

various agencies and departments of the 

State of California not only on the topic 

of sanctuary regulations, but also on 

various non-regulatory programs aimed 

at improving resource protection in 

national marine sanctuaries off the coast 

of California. The NMSA also includes 

a provision that allows a governor to 

review any terms of designation— 

boundary areas, activities subject to 

regulation—and accept or reject any 

term (in state waters) the governor finds 

objectionable; this provision helps 

create this strong collaboration. When it 

comes to sanctuary management, NOAA 

emphasizes coordination with state and 

federal agencies and therefore the State 

of California has representation on the 

GFNMS advisory council. Furthermore, 

there are numerous ways for the public 

to provide input on sanctuary 

management, including service as an 

advisory council member, providing 

public comment at advisory council 

meetings and commenting during the 

development of new management plans 

or regulations. 

Science in Decisions 

Comment: NOAA should use robust, 

peer-reviewed science for management 

decisions. Some ONMS scientific 

publications would benefit from 

independent peer-review. 

Response: NOAA always strives to 

use the best available science to inform 

management decisions. One of the 

means to achieve that is the rigorous 

public process that accompanies 

management decisions. During a public 

comment period on a draft EIS and 

proposed rule, NOAA may receive 

relevant scientific information of which 

it was unaware at the time of 

publication of the draft documents. 

Such public comments as well as 

consultations with various agencies 

assist NOAA in developing a sound 

final action. 

The level of review for a NOAA 

scientific document is determined 

through the guidelines set forth in the 

Information Quality Act. These 

guidelines are in the Final Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

published in 2004, and are administered 

by the White House Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). Under 

OMB guidelines, any document that is 

deemed influential scientific 

information (i.e., information that can 

reasonably be determined to have a 

‘‘clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions’’) must be peer 

reviewed. NOAA guidelines also set 

forth requirements for NOAA 

publications with regards to peer review 

(see http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_

programs/info_quality.html). The 

ONMS Condition Reports and some of 

the ONMS Conservation Series reports 

fall into the category of influential 

scientific information. In addition, 

NOAA publishes some documents 

through the ONMS Conservation Series 

that are not considered influential 

scientific information under OMB 

guidelines, but internal policy still 

requires that they be peer reviewed. 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

Compliance 

Comment: NOAA should fully 

comply with the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) in content and 

in a timely manner. 

Response: Since 2010, NOAA has 

received 16 requests under the FOIA for 

information relating to CBNMS and 

GFNMS. NOAA responded to 13 

requests in a timely and complete 

manner. Two requests were withdrawn 

by the applicants. Due to the complexity 

of the remaining request, it is still 

pending for further review. It is NOAA’s 

policy to fully comply with the FOIA. 

Sanctuary Names 

Comment: NOAA should consider 

new ecosystem-based names for the 

expanded GFNMS and CBNMS, since 

the action will lead to the inclusion of 

other prominent marine features. 

Response: NOAA is considering a 

public process to gather input on a 

potential new name for GFNMS after 

finalization of this action. At this time, 

NOAA is not considering any name 

change for CBNMS. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
13104 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Socioeconomics Issues 

Access to Expanded Sanctuaries— 

General Public Access 

Comment: NOAA should ensure that 

there will be no loss of public access to 

the expansion area. 

Response: The final rule does not 

contain any restrictions on public access 

to the shorelines in the GFNMS 

expansion area. 

Vessel/Vehicle Access 

Comment: NOAA should prohibit or 

restrict use of vessels or vehicles in the 

proposed expansion area and/or in the 

rivers leading into the proposed 

sanctuary, for the following reasons: 

Noise disturbance to birds and marine 

mammals, water pollution (including 

from oil), disturbance of bottom 

vegetation, and further environmental 

risk to sensitive areas. 

Response: NOAA believes current 

restrictions are sufficient to protect 

sanctuary resources. It is beyond the 

scope of this action for NOAA to 

broadly ban all vessels from the 

sanctuaries, or from the rivers feeding 

into the GFNMS expansion area. 

Existing regulations and management 

actions are extended to apply in the 

expanded boundary area to help 

mitigate resource impacts associated 

with vessel access/operation in the 

sanctuaries, such as restriction on cargo 

vessels near sensitive areas. 

Bodega Marine Life Refuge Research 

and Education 

Comment: NOAA should either: (1) 

Recognize and establish a special-use 

area for research and education 

(Research and Education Zone) 

managed by the University of California 

(University); (2) exclude the Bodega 

Marine Life Reserve from the sanctuary; 

or (3) include the Bodega Marine Life 

Reserve in the sanctuary and streamline 

the process to allow appropriate existing 

research and educational uses. 

Response: Establishing a special-use 

area for research and education for the 

Bodega Marine Reserve would require 

NOAA to initiate a separate regulatory 

process, and excluding the Bodega 

Marine Reserve would prevent 

sanctuary protection from applying to 

the Reserve. Therefore, NOAA is 

including the Bodega Marine Life 

Reserve in the sanctuary, and will work 

towards certifying current research and 

education activities in accordance with 

15 CFR 922.47 and 15 CFR 922.84. In 

addition, NOAA will meet with the 

University to streamline the permitting 

process and request the Marine Lab 

apply for an institutional permit for a 

range of future activities within the 

boundaries of the Reserve. 

Bodega Bay Companies 

Comment: NOAA should respect 

companies such as oyster farms and 

cattle ranches that have businesses in 

and around Bodega Bay, since they have 

continually protected the waters around 

them. 

Response: NOAA acknowledges the 

importance of the local businesses 

around and in the sanctuary including 

ranches and oyster farms. NOAA has 

worked with ranchers and the oyster 

farms in and around Tomales Bay to 

protect water quality and will continue 

to work with groups near the original 

sanctuary and expansion area. 

Desalination 

Comment: NOAA should clarify if 

desalination projects will be allowed in 

the future. 

Response: The sanctuary regulations 

do not specifically prohibit desalination 

projects, but such development could be 

subject to regulations prohibiting the 

alteration of the submerged lands or the 

discharges or deposits. The project 

could qualify for some form of a 

sanctuary permit, which involves 

specific criteria and which typically 

includes conditions to protect sanctuary 

resources. 

Education Center Needed 

Comment: NOAA should develop an 

education center and/or office in Bodega 

Bay or other location in the proposed 

expansion area. 

Response: Bodega Marine Laboratory 

has been identified as a potential 

location for a sanctuary field office. 

GFNMS and CBNMS staff will consult 

with various public constituents 

including the sanctuary advisory 

councils to determine potential 

locations for sanctuary exhibits, a 

potential visitor center(s) and field 

office(s). 

Education Materials 

Comment: NOAA should produce 

relevant outreach materials and maps 

online and in print, to visually highlight 

the features, ecosystems, and wildlife 

within the boundary expansion area. 

Response: NOAA agrees that these 

types of materials would support public 

outreach. The existing online and print 

materials created for this action contain 

select maps and several photographs. 

NOAA will work to update and 

distribute printed and online materials 

to reflect the features and boundaries of 

CBNMS and GFNMS. 

Fireworks 

Comment: Existing fireworks displays 

should be grandfathered in to the 

expansion area through the use of 

certification or special use permits; any 

additional proposals should be 

considered by applying appropriate 

biological and other criteria. Would a 

federal permit be needed for fireworks? 

Response: The originally proposed 

authorization provision has been 

deleted from the sanctuary regulations. 

Therefore, NOAA does not have the 

ability to authorize firework activities 

on the basis of a state or local permit. 

As noted in the FEIS, NOAA will 

examine whether the discharge of 

fireworks could be allowed through 

certification (for existing permitted 

fireworks) pursuant to proposed 15 CFR 

922.84, or through a special use permit, 

as described in Section 310 of the 

NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1441) and in the 

Federal Register notice published on 

May 3, 2013 (78 FR 25957). The 

potential to permit firework shows is 

also an activity that could be addressed 

in the separate process to consider 

authorization authority. For fireworks at 

Arena Cove, it should be noted that the 

boundary has been revised to exclude 

Arena Cove. Activities outside of the 

sanctuary that do not result in 

discharges that enter the sanctuary and 

cause injury to sanctuary resources do 

not require NOAA approval. 

Population 

Comment: NOAA should address 

environmental concerns of a growing 

population. 

Response: The sanctuary management 

plans provide action plans to address 

the issue of balancing resources with 

human activities. 

Research—Expand ACCESS Program 

Comment: The Applied California 

Current Ecosystem Studies (ACCESS) 

integrated monitoring program should 

be extended into the sanctuary 

expansion areas. 

Response: Both the CBNMS and 

GFNMS management plans contain 

action plans to maintain and extend 

ACCESS into the proposed expansion 

area. 

Visual Resources 

Comment: NOAA should discuss 

visual resource impacts in the EIS since 

visual resources may benefit 

significantly from increasing protected 

habitat. 

Response: Visual resources are 

indirectly captured in the FEIS 

discussion of benefits on marine 

resources, habitats, recreation and 

tourism. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 13105 

Water Quality, Discharges and Dredging 

Vessel Graywater Discharges (NonCruise Ships) 

Comment: NOAA should address 

graywater discharges from commercial 

vessels, including fishing vessels and 

recreational craft. Since both sanctuaries 

would be expanded, the larger area 

might make it difficult for some vessels 

to hold graywater discharges while 

transiting through the sanctuaries. 

Response: NOAA prohibits 

discharging or depositing into CBNMS 

and GFNMS, other than from a cruise 

ship, any material except clean 

graywater (and other exemptions). By 

allowing the discharge of clean 

graywater by vessels less than 300 GRT 

or vessels 300 GRT or greater without 

sufficient tank capacity to hold 

graywater while within the sanctuary, 

NOAA does not force non-cruise ship 

vessels to hold all graywater and they 

have the option of discharging clean 

graywater in the sanctuary, consistent 

with the existing provisions in MBNMS 

and state and federal regulations. 

Comment: NOAA should move 

forward with the graywater exemption 

and should consider the effects of 

sanctuary expansion upon the California 

No Discharge Zone (NDZ) and the water 

quality of the San Francisco Bay 

Estuary. 

Response: See response to comment 

above. NOAA’s final rule contains a 

graywater exemption. The effects of the 

sanctuary expansion upon the portion of 

the California NDZ in the expansion 

area were indirectly described in the 

EIS. Since many vessels transit the 

sanctuaries upon entering and exiting 

the San Francisco Bay, this exception 

avoids the potential situation of 

concentrating graywater discharges in a 

small area outside of the sanctuaries 

near the bay entrance. The water quality 

within the portions of the California 

NDZ in the expansion area and existing 

GFNMS is expected to be the same as, 

or similar to, that within the entire area 

of the expanded sanctuaries. In the 

portion of the San Francisco-Pacifica 

Exclusion Area of northern MBNMS 

beyond 3 nm, vessels will continue to 

be able to discharge sewage and 

graywater as allowed by the current 

regulatory regime. 

Comment: NOAA should only allow 

park service vessels to discharge 

graywater into the sanctuaries. 

Response: See responses to comment 

above. 

Cruise Ship Discharges 

Comment: NOAA should base the 

proposed rules upon best available 

science and the continuing 

advancements in the shipboard 

treatment of wastewater to high 

standards and reconsider the current 

‘‘no-discharge’’ approach for cruise 

ships. The proposed covered waters are 

expanding to the point where cruise 

ships may have difficulty managing 

their discharges over several days. 

Response: NOAA disagrees that cruise 

ships transiting the expansion areas will 

face significant operational difficulties 

in holding discharges. As noted in the 

FEIS, NOAA’s analysis of the issue 

indicates that transit of the expansion 

area will take only a few hours during 

normal circumstances, and that 

operators could hold discharges until 

they reach areas outside sanctuary 

boundaries (e.g., north and west of the 

expanded boundary or within the San 

Francisco-Pacifica exclusion area) and 

discharge per the existing regulatory 

regime. 

NOAA’s decision to apply existing 

sanctuary discharge regulations to the 

expanded area were developed 

consistent with the scientific rigor 

associated with EPA’s 2012 California 

NDZ (USEPA 2012) and NOAA’s 2008 

Joint Management Plan Review (NOAA 

2008). NOAA also reviewed the Cruise 

Ship Assessment Discharge Report 

(USEPA 2008), which described, among 

other things, the nature and volume of 

waste streams, treatment methods, 

potential adverse impacts, and 

regulatory regime for cruise ship 

discharges. Based on these analyses, 

NOAA concludes that the volume and 

content of cruise ship discharges could 

adversely affect sanctuary resources in 

the expansion area and that their 

continued prohibition is warranted at 

this time. However, NOAA recognizes 

the cruise ship industry’s recent 

advancements in shipboard treatments 

of wastewater, and plans to have ONMS 

consider these developments in a 

system-wide review of sanctuary cruise 

ship regulations, as described in the 

revised CBNMS and GFNMS 

management plan. Until such time 

NOAA can better understand these 

advancements, and their effect on 

sanctuary resources, it is making no 

changes to the discharge regulations 

promulgated with this action. 

Comment: NOAA should give a better 

justification of the differential treatment 

of cruise ships with respect to the 

exceptions for treated sewage and 

graywater. 

Response: The cruise ship regulations 

extended to the CBNMS and GFNMS 

expansion areas are existing CBNMS 

and GFNMS regulations. The existing 

cruise ship regulations were fully 

analyzed in the FEIS for the revised 

management plans of CBNMS, GFNMS, 

and MBNMS and published on 

September 26, 2008 (73 FR 55842). 

Regarding cruise ships being different 

than other ships, many discharge 

regulations treat discharges from cruise 

ships as a distinct vessel class on the 

West Coast of the U.S. (e.g. California, 

Washington, and Alaska) and nationally 

(e.g., the Vessel General Permit [VGP]) 

of the EPA). Cruise ships are a unique 

class of vessel and have the potential to 

generate and discharge greater 

quantities of wastewater effluents than 

other vessel categories. 

Cruise Ships—Vessel Routes 

Comment: The option of sailing to 

seaward of the sanctuaries would 

require significant additional time and 

cost and have additional environmental 

effects in terms of fuel consumption and 

resultant emissions from cruise ships. 

NOAA should analyze these effects. 

Response: Cruise ships are not 

required to sail seaward, or west, of the 

expanded sanctuaries as a result of this 

action. Cruise ship operators could 

choose, but are not required, to 

implement vessel route changes based 

on their own assessment of the best 

methods to adjust to the sanctuary 

regulations, particularly as it pertains to 

the capacity to hold sewage and 

graywater during transit through the 

sanctuaries. Also, see response to first 

comment under the ‘‘Cruise Ship 

Discharges.’’ 

Vessel General Permit Relationship to 

Regulations 

Comment: NOAA’s regulations should 

mirror the 2013 VGP, which provides a 

more extensive list of vessel discharge 

effluent streams than sanctuary 

regulations. The high water quality 

standards achieved under the VGP are 

confirmed by extensive research by the 

USEPA and the Alaska Science 

Advisory Panels, and there is no 

evidence that any threat would be posed 

to the environment or resources of the 

sanctuaries under that approach. 

Response: The VGP only applies 

within three miles of the coastline; its 

application to waters beyond that has 

not been analyzed by the USEPA or the 

State of California. See response to 

comment under ‘‘Cruise Ship 

Discharge.’’ NOAA is considering 

undertaking a review of national marine 

sanctuary cruise ship discharge 

regulations, which could include VGP 

effluent streams and the standards for 

them. This proposal is included in the 

revised management plans for CBNMS 

and GFNMS. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
13106 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Discharge-Related Regulatory 

Definitions 

Comment: NOAA should change the 

definition of ‘‘clean’’ to mean not 

containing harmful matter, because the 

current definition is inconsistent with 

the definition of ‘‘harmful matter.’’ If 

applied strictly, this definition would 

effectively establish a limit of ‘‘nondetectable’’ for any ‘‘harmful matter’’ 

discharged by a ship. 

Response: The qualifier ‘‘clean’’ is 

used in describing allowed discharges 

and is defined in §§ 922.81 and 922.111 

as ‘‘. . . not containing detectable levels 

of harmful matter.’’ A substance may be 

at ‘‘detectable’’ levels, but pose no threat 

to the environment and therefore no 

longer be considered a ‘‘harmful 

matter.’’ Therefore the substance would 

be considered clean. As noted in the 

previous response, NOAA is 

considering having ONMS undertake a 

review of national marine sanctuary 

cruise ship discharge regulations, and 

could include a review of the 

definitions for ‘‘clean’’ and ‘‘harmful 

matter’’ as part of the review. 

Discharges That Cannot Be Terminated 

Comment: The exceptions for other 

operational discharges (for both cruise 

ships and other vessels) are limited to 

clean vessel engine cooling water, clean 

vessel generator cooling water, vessel 

engine or generator exhaust, clean 

bilgewater or anchor wash. NOAA 

should include an exception for all 

‘‘non-discretionary’’ discharges arising 

from vessel operation, such as leachate 

from anti-fouling hull coatings, cathodic 

protection, (as well as others described 

in the EPA VGP). 

Response: The exceptions for 

discharges (§§ 922.81(a)(2)(iii) and (iv) 

and 922.111(a)(1)(i)(C) and (D)) are 

standard exceptions for most of the 

national marine sanctuaries across the 

country. A site-specific rulemaking such 

as this one is not the appropriate 

mechanism for a nation-wide 

amendment to sanctuary regulations. As 

mentioned in the response to comment 

‘‘Cruise Ship Discharges,’’ NOAA is 

considering having ONMS undertake a 

review of national marine sanctuary 

cruise ship discharge regulations, which 

could also include a review of 

discharges noted as unable to be 

terminated. 

Land-Based Discharges 

Comment: NOAA should use its 

expertise and authorities to address 

issues of estuarine and marine 

conservation as it relates to California’s 

non-point source management 

responsibility under the Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA). 

Response: The NMSA and CZMA are 

distinct and separate statutory 

authorities administered by different 

NOAA offices. Under the CZMA, 

NOAA’s Office for Ocean and Coastal 

Management reviews state coastal 

nonpoint source pollution control 

programs developed for approval under 

the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization 

Amendments of 1990. The office also 

administers grants to states for coastal 

nonpoint source control program 

implementation activities. The Plan for 

California’s Nonpoint Source Pollution 

Control Program (NPS Plan), developed 

by the State Water Resources Control 

Board (SWRCB) and the California 

Coastal Commission, received full 

approval from the USEPA and NOAA in 

2000. Although the proposed GFNMS 

final management plan is not linked to 

the NPS Plan, its Water Quality Action 

Plan includes activities to coordinate 

with other agencies to address landbased discharges into the estuarine and 

nearshore areas of the sanctuary. 

Comment: NOAA should make it 

mandatory to aerobically compost 

biosolids, which will modify, degrade 

and in some cases eliminate some of the 

toxic compounds from farms. 

Response: The regulation of biosolids 

is outside the scope of this rulemaking 

and outside the jurisdiction of national 

marine sanctuaries. The discharge of 

material beyond its boundaries is not 

regulated in GFNMS, except with 

regards to discharges that enter the 

sanctuary and injure a sanctuary 

resource. NOAA recognizes the 

connection between land-based 

pollution and sanctuary water quality, 

and therefore includes an activity to 

promote best management practices for 

agriculture in the GFNMS management 

plan. 

Comment: NOAA should regulate 

discharge from agricultural activities 

and oil pollution from roads and cars by 

designating inland sanctuaries or 

expanding sanctuaries into inland areas 

to prevent inland discharges that may 

injure a sanctuary resource or quality. 

Response: See response to the 

comment ‘‘Inclusion of Estuaries.’’ The 

discharge of material is not regulated in 

GFNMS beyond its boundaries, except 

with regard to discharges that enter the 

sanctuary and injure a sanctuary 

resource. The GFNMS revised 

management plan outlines steps to 

understand and address impacts from 

known sources of pollution. 

Russian River Discharge and Water 

Quality 

Comment: NOAA should maintain or 

improve the Russian River Estuary 

Management Project to: Better address 

impacts of breaching the Russian River, 

including release of toxins; identify 

sources of increased nutrients; and 

request maintenance of adequate flow in 

the Russian River. 

Response: The Russian River Estuary 

Management Project is not within the 

boundary expansion of GFNMS. 

However, NOAA currently collaborates 

with the Estuary Project managers, 

through NMFS. Although NOAA is not 

expanding the sanctuary into the 

Russian River Estuary at this time, the 

management plan includes a strategy to 

collaborate and exchange information 

with agencies and authorities within 

estuaries adjacent to the proposed 

GFNMS expansion area. See the Water 

Quality Action Plan Strategy WQ–3 for 

more information. 

Beach Nourishment 

Comment: NOAA should consider 

how the proposed regulatory framework 

may prohibit dredging and disposing of 

sediments for living shoreline projects 

(e.g., beach nourishment), which are 

environmentally beneficial. 

Response: The disposal of matter 

above the mean high water line is not 

regulated in GFNMS, except with regard 

to discharges that enter the sanctuary 

and injure a sanctuary resource. 

Currently there are no known proposed 

living shoreline projects within the 

GFNMS boundary or expansion area. 

However, NOAA considers such 

projects a beneficial use that could be 

considered as an alternative to disposal 

of dredged materials. If a living 

shoreline project were to be proposed 

within GFNMS in the future, NOAA 

could consider a permit application in 

accordance with 15 CFR 922.83 or a 

separate regulatory process, if needed. 

NPDES Permits 

Comment: NOAA should include an 

exemption to 15 CFR 922.84 for 

discharges regulated by NPDES 

discharge permits. These discharge 

permits are adopted to fully protect all 

beneficial uses and NPDES dischargers 

should not and need not be subject to 

additional regulations for GFNMS 

resources to be fully protected. NOAA 

should clarify that discharges to the 

Russian River regulated by NPDES 

permits are not considered unlawful 

activities under 15 CFR 922.82(a)(4). 

Response: NOAA has not included an 

exemption to 15 CFR 922.84 for 

discharges regulated by NPDES 

discharge permits. The regulation is not 

intended to prevent discharge activities 

beyond the sanctuary boundary, 

including the Russian River Estuary 

discharges regulated by NPDES permits. 

NOAA could certify pre-existing NPDES 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 13107 

discharge permits that are already 

authorized by the State of California and 

in existence on the effective date of the 

proposed sanctuary expansion, such as 

the NPDES permit for the Russian River 

Estuary. See 15 CFR 922.47 and the 

procedures outlined in 15 CFR 922.84 

for more information. In part, NOAA 

had originally proposed authorization 

authority to allow it to approve NPDES 

permits for discharges that would not 

cause significant, adverse harm to 

sanctuary resources; it is an example of 

an activity a sanctuary advisory council 

working group on authorizations could 

consider in making any 

recommendations. 

State Water Resources Control Board 

(SWRCB) Jurisdiction 

Comment: NOAA should 

communicate with the local 

communities regarding jurisdiction of 

storm water discharges. 

Response: SWRCB regulates storm 

water discharge, and this action would 

not change SWRCB jurisdiction. NOAA 

is not regulating storm water discharge, 

except potentially for those discharges 

that enter the sanctuary and injure a 

sanctuary resource. 

Bodega Harbor Dredging and Disposal 

Comment: NOAA needs to exempt 

existing routine dredging of Bodega 

Harbor. Without such an exception, a 

small port of that size would be 

inadvertently shut down as a result of 

the cost of maintenance dredge disposal 

(whether on land or offshore). In 

addition, NOAA should designate a 

dredge disposal site in GFNMS for 

Bodega Harbor Channel Maintenance 

Dredging. 

Response: Bodega Harbor is located 

outside of the sanctuary boundaries. 

Therefore, existing or future dredging of 

the harbor would not violate any 

sanctuary regulations that pertain to 

discharge of materials or alteration of 

the seafloor. Bodega Harbor 

maintenance projects conducted 

adjacent to GFNMS currently dispose of 

dredged materials at EPA-designated 

dredge disposal sites, which include 

ocean and upland locations outside the 

existing and proposed boundaries of 

GFNMS. There is no need to designate 

another dredge disposal site at this time. 

If the need arises in the future, the EPA 

would be the lead agency to designate 

any new dredge disposal sites. 

Dredging Prohibition 

Comment: NOAA should ban 

dredging throughout all sanctuary 

waters. 

Response: NOAA agrees. The final 

rule prohibits drilling into, dredging, or 

otherwise altering the submerged lands 

of GFNMS and CBNMS, with few 

exceptions. 

Technical Document Edits (Rule, EIS, 

Management Plans) 

Numerous comments requested 

specific edits to the text of the proposed 

rule, DEIS or management plans. To the 

extent that these edits are pertinent and 

correct, these edits have been made to 

the relevant documents and are not 

further addressed in the response to 

comments. Other minor typographical 

corrections have been made to the 

relevant documents and are also not 

further addressed here. 

VI. Classification 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NOAA has prepared a final 

environmental impact statement to 

evaluate the environmental effects of 

this rulemaking. Copies are available at 

the address and Web site listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this final rule. 

Responses to comments received on the 

proposed rule are presented in the final 

environmental impact statement 

(December 19, 2014; 79 FR 75800) and 

preamble to this final rule. 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

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 regulations having an 

effect on state waters. NOAA submitted 

a copy of the final environmental 

impact statement and supporting 

documents to the California Coastal 

Commission for evaluation of Federal 

consistency under the CZMA. On 

December 12, 2014, NOAA received 

confirmation from the California Coastal 

Commission that the action was 

consistent with the purposes of the 

California Coastal Management 

Program. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

This rule was drafted in accordance 

with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. 

It was reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget, which found 

the rule to be ‘‘significant’’ according to 

EO 12866 and EO 13563. 

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. 

Executive Order 13175: Tribal 

Consultation and Collaboration 

Representatives from the Manchester 

Band of Pomo Indians, Kashia Band of 

Pomo Indians of Stewarts Point 

Rancheria, and Federated Indians of 

Graton Rancheria were invited in 

writing to consult with NOAA under 

Executive Order 13175. As of 

publication date of this notice of final 

rulemaking, NOAA only received a 

response from the Chairman of the 

Kashia Band of Pomo Indians to the 

consultation letters. NOAA will 

continue to consult and seek tribal 

participation in the management of 

CBNMS and GFNMS as appropriate. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

as amended and codified at 5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq., requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 

subject to the notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 

553) or any other statute, unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Under section 605(b) of the RFA, if the 

head of an agency (or his or her 

designee) certifies that a rule will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

agency is not required to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis. Pursuant 

to section 605(b), the Chief Counsel for 

Regulation, Department of Commerce, 

submitted a memorandum to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business 

Administration, certifying that original 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The rationale 

for that certification was set forth in the 

preamble of that rule (79 FR 20982, 

April 14, 2014). 

Although NOAA has made a few 

changes to the regulations for CBNMS 

and GFNMS from the proposed rule to 

the final rule, none of these changes 

alter the initial determination that this 

rule will not have an impact on the 

small businesses included in the 

original analysis presented in the 

proposed rule. Moreover, NOAA did not 

receive any comments on the 

certification or its conclusion. 

Therefore, the determination that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities is unchanged. 

As a result, a final regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required and has not 

been prepared. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
13108 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

ONMS has a valid Office of 

Management and Budget (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 expand GFNMS 

and CBNMS would likely increase the 

number of requests for ONMS general 

permits and special use permits, 

because the sanctuaries are now larger. 

An increase in the number of ONMS 

permit requests resulted in a change to 

the reporting burden certified for OMB 

control number 0648–0141. This control 

number for the processing of ONMS 

permits has been updated by OMB. 

Comments on this determination were 

solicited in the proposed rule but none 

were received. Notwithstanding any 

other provision of law, no person is 

required to respond to, nor shall any 

person be subject to a penalty for failure 

to comply with, a collection of 

information subject to the requirements 

of the PRA, unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB Control Number. 

VII. References 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available upon request (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 922 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Coastal zone, Historic 

preservation, Intergovernmental 

relations, Marine resources, Natural 

resources, Penalties, Recreation and 

recreation areas, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife. 

Dated: February 27, 2015. 

W. Russell Callender, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Ocean 

Services and Coastal Zone Management. 

Accordingly, for the reasons 

discussed in the preamble, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration is amending 15 CFR part 

922 as follows: 

PART 922—NATIONAL MARINE 

SANCTUARY PROGRAM 

REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 922 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Revise subpart H to read as follows: 

Subpart H—Farallones National Marine 

Sanctuary 

Sec. 

922.80 Boundary. 

922.81 Definitions. 

922.82 Prohibited or otherwise regulated 

activities. 

922.83 Permit procedures and issuance 

criteria. 

922.84 Certification of preexisting leases, 

licenses, permits, approvals, other 

authorizations, or rights to conduct a 

prohibited activity. 

922.85 Review of State permits and leases 

for certain aquaculture projects. 

Appendix A to Subpart H of Part 922— 

Farallones National Marine Sanctuary 

Boundary Coordinates 

Appendix B to Subpart H of Part 922—NoAnchoring Seagrass Protection Zones in 

Tomales Bay 

Appendix C to Subpart H of Part 922— 

Northern Extent of Tomales Bay 

Appendix D to Subpart H of Part 922— 

Special Wildlife Protection Zones within 

the Sanctuary 

Appendix E to Subpart H of Part 922—Cargo 

Vessel Prohibition Zones in the 

Sanctuary 

Appendix F to Subpart H of Part 922—White 

Shark Approach Prohibition Zones in the 

Sanctuary 

§ 922.80 Boundary. 

(a) Farallones National Marine 

Sanctuary (Sanctuary) encompasses an 

area of approximately 2,488 square 

nautical miles (3,295 square miles) of 

coastal and ocean waters, and 

submerged lands thereunder, 

surrounding the Farallon Islands and 

Noonday Rock along the northern coast 

of California. The precise boundary 

coordinates are listed in appendix A to 

this subpart. 

(b) The western boundary of the 

Sanctuary extends south from Point 1 

approximately 45 nautical miles (52 

miles) to Point 2, which is the 

northwestern corner of Cordell Bank 

National Marine Sanctuary (CBNMS). 

The Sanctuary boundary then extends 

from Point 2 approximately 38 nautical 

miles (43 miles) east along the northern 

boundary of CBNMS to Point 3, which 

is approximately 6 nautical miles (7 

miles) west of Bodega Head. From Point 

3 the Sanctuary boundary continues 

south and west to Points 4 through 19 

(in numerical sequence) and is 

coterminous with the eastern boundary 

of CBNMS. From Point 19 the Sanctuary 

boundary continues south and east to 

Points 20 through 25 (in numerical 

sequence) until it intersects the 

boundary for Monterey Bay National 

Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) at Point 26. 

From Point 26 the Sanctuary boundary 

extends eastward and northward, 

coterminous with MBNMS, to Points 27 

through 33 (in numerical sequence). 

From Point 33 the boundary proceeds 

along a straight line arc towards Point 

34 until it intersects the Mean High 

Water Line at Rocky Point, California. 

From this intersection the Sanctuary 

boundary follows the Mean High Water 

Line northward until it intersects the 

boundary for Point Reyes National 

Seashore approximately 0.7 nautical 

miles (0.8 miles) south and east of 

Bolinas Point in Marin County, 

California. The Sanctuary boundary 

then approximates the boundary for 

Point Reyes National Seashore, as 

established at the time of designation of 

the Sanctuary, to the intersection of the 

Point Reyes National Seashore boundary 

and the Mean High Water Line 

approximately 0.13 nautical miles (0.15 

miles) south and east of Duck Cove in 

Tomales Bay. The Sanctuary boundary 

then follows the Mean High Water Line 

along Tomales Bay and up Lagunitas 

Creek to the U.S. Highway 1 Bridge. 

Here the Sanctuary boundary crosses 

Lagunitas Creek and follows the Mean 

High Water Line north to the Estero de 

San Antonio and up the Estero to the 

tide gate at Valley Ford-Franklin School 

Road. Here the Sanctuary boundary 

crosses the Estero de San Antonio and 

proceeds west and north following the 

Mean High Water Line to the Estero 

Americano and up the Estero to the 

bridge at Valley Ford-Estero Road. Here 

the Sanctuary boundary crosses the 

Estero Americano and proceeds west 

and north following the Mean High 

Water Line towards Salmon Creek. 

Approaching Salmon Creek the 

boundary continues along the Mean 

High Water Line until it intersects a 

straight line arc that passes through 

Points 35 and 36. From that intersection 

the boundary extends across the creek 

along the straight line arc towards Point 

36 until it again intersects the Mean 

High Water Line. From this intersection 

the boundary follows the Mean High 

Water Line north towards the Russian 

River. Approaching the Russian River 

the boundary continues along the Mean 

High Water Line until it intersects a 

straight line arc that passes through 

Points 37 and Point 38. At that 

intersection the boundary extends 

across the river along the straight line 

arc towards Point 38 until it again 

intersects the Mean High Water Line. 

From this intersection the boundary 

follows the Mean High Water Line north 

towards the Gualala River. Approaching 

the Gualala River the boundary 

continues along the Mean High Water 

Line until it intersects a straight line arc 

that passes through Points 39 and Point 

40. At that intersection the boundary 

extends across the river along the 

straight line arc towards Point 40 until 

it again intersects the Mean High Water 

Line. From this intersection the 

boundary follows the Mean High Water 

Line north to Arena Cove in Mendocino 

County. Approaching Arena Cove the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 13109 

boundary continues along the Mean 

High Water Line until it intersects a 

straight line arc that passes through 

Points 41 and Point 42. At that 

intersection the boundary extends 

across the cove along the straight line 

arc towards Point 42 until it again 

intersects the Mean High Water Line. 

From this intersection the boundary 

follows the Mean High Water Line north 

towards the Garcia River. Approaching 

the Garcia River the boundary continues 

along the Mean High Water Line until 

it intersects a straight line arc that 

passes through Points 43 and Point 44. 

At that intersection the boundary 

extends across the river along the 

straight line arc towards Point 44 until 

it intersects the Mean High Water Line. 

The Sanctuary boundary then continues 

north following the Mean High Water 

Line until it intersects the rhumb line 

connecting Point 45 and Point 46. From 

this intersection the Sanctuary 

boundary continues west along its 

northernmost extent to Point 46. The 

Sanctuary includes Bolinas Lagoon, 

Estero de San Antonio (to the tide gate 

at Valley Ford-Franklin School Road) 

and Estero Americano (to the bridge at 

Valley Ford-Estero Road), as well as 

Bodega Bay, but does not include 

Bodega Harbor, the Salmon Creek 

Estuary, the Russian River Estuary, the 

Gualala River Estuary, Arena Cove, or 

the Garcia River Estuary. Unless 

otherwise specified, where the 

Sanctuary boundary crosses a waterway, 

the Sanctuary excludes this waterway 

upstream of the crossing. 

§ 922.81 Definitions. 

In addition to those definitions found 

at § 922.3, the following definitions 

apply to this subpart: 

Attract or attracting means the 

conduct of any activity that lures or may 

lure any animal in the Sanctuary by 

using food, bait, chum, dyes, decoys 

(e.g., surfboards or body boards used as 

decoys), acoustics or any other means, 

except the mere presence of human 

beings (e.g., swimmers, divers, boaters, 

kayakers, surfers). 

Clean means not containing 

detectable levels of harmful matter. 

Cruise ship means a vessel with 250 

or more passenger berths for hire. 

Deserting means leaving a vessel 

aground or adrift without notification to 

the Director of the vessel going aground 

or becoming adrift within 12 hours of its 

discovery and developing and 

presenting to the Director a preliminary 

salvage plan within 24 hours of such 

notification, after expressing or 

otherwise manifesting intention not to 

undertake or to cease salvage efforts, or 

when the owner/operator cannot after 

reasonable efforts by the Director be 

reached within 12 hours of the vessel’s 

condition being reported to authorities; 

or leaving a vessel at anchor when its 

condition creates potential for a 

grounding, discharge, or deposit and the 

owner/operator fails to secure the vessel 

in a timely manner. 

Harmful matter means any substance, 

or combination of substances, that 

because of its quantity, concentration, or 

physical, chemical, or infectious 

characteristics may pose a present or 

potential threat to Sanctuary resources 

or qualities, including but not limited 

to: Fishing nets, fishing line, hooks, 

fuel, oil, and those contaminants 

(regardless of quantity) listed pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. 101(14) of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act at 40 CFR 302.4. 

Introduced species means any species 

(including, but not limited to, any of its 

biological matter capable of 

propagation) that is non-native to the 

ecosystems of the Sanctuary; or any 

organism into which altered genetic 

matter, or genetic matter from another 

species, has been transferred in order 

that the host organism acquires the 

genetic traits of the transferred genes. 

Motorized personal watercraft means 

a vessel which uses an inboard motor 

powering a water jet pump as its 

primary source of motive power and 

which is designed to be operated by a 

person sitting, standing, or kneeling on 

the vessel, rather than the conventional 

manner of sitting or standing inside the 

vessel. 

Routine maintenance means 

customary and standard procedures for 

maintaining docks or piers. 

Seagrass means any species of marine 

angiosperms (flowering plants) that 

inhabit portions of the submerged lands 

in the Sanctuary. Those species include, 

but are not limited to: Zostera asiatica 

and Zostera marina. 

Special Wildlife Protection Zones are 

areas surrounding or adjacent to high 

abundance of white sharks, breeding 

pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) or high 

abundance and high biological diversity 

of breeding birds that are susceptible to 

human caused disturbance, including 

federally listed and specially protected 

species. Coordinates for Special Wildlife 

Protection Zones are found in appendix 

C of this Subpart. 

§ 922.82 Prohibited or otherwise regulated 

activities. 

(a) The following activities are 

prohibited and thus are unlawful for 

any person to conduct or to cause to be 

conducted within the Sanctuary: 

(1) Exploring for, developing, or 

producing oil, gas or minerals. 

(2) Discharging or depositing from 

within or into the Sanctuary, other than 

from a cruise ship, any material or other 

matter except: 

(i) 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 activity within the 

Sanctuary; 

(ii) 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) that is 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; 

(iii) Clean vessel deck wash down, 

clean vessel engine cooling water, clean 

vessel generator cooling water, clean 

bilge water, or anchor wash; 

(iv) 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; or 

(v) Vessel engine or generator exhaust. 

(3) 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. 

(4) 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 for the material or other matter 

excepted in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through 

(v) and (a)(3) of this section. 

(5) Constructing any structure other 

than a navigation aid on or in the 

submerged lands of the Sanctuary; 

placing or abandoning any structure on 

or in the submerged lands of the 

Sanctuary; or drilling into, dredging, or 

otherwise altering the submerged lands 

of the Sanctuary in any way, except: 

(i) By anchoring vessels (in a manner 

not otherwise prohibited by this part 

(see paragraph (a)(16) of this section); 

(ii) While conducting lawful fishing 

activities; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
13110 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(iii) Routine maintenance and 

construction of docks and piers on 

Tomales Bay; or 

(iv) Aquaculture activities conducted 

pursuant to a valid lease, permit, license 

or other authorization issued by the 

State of California. 

(6) Operating motorized personal 

watercraft (MPWC) anywhere in Bodega 

Bay and anywhere in the Sanctuary 

south of 38.29800 degrees North 

Latitude (the southernmost tip of 

Bodega Head), except for emergency 

search and rescue missions or law 

enforcement operations (other than 

routine training activities) carried out by 

the National Park Service, U.S. Coast 

Guard, Fire or Police Departments or 

other Federal, State or local 

jurisdictions. 

(7) 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 (ESA), as 

amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended, 

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

regulation, as amended, promulgated 

under the MMPA, ESA, or MBTA. 

(8) Possessing within the Sanctuary 

(regardless of where taken, moved or 

removed from), any marine mammal, 

sea turtle, or bird taken, except as 

authorized by the MMPA, ESA, MBTA, 

by any regulation, as amended, 

promulgated under the MMPA, ESA, or 

MBTA, or as necessary for valid law 

enforcement purposes. 

(9) Possessing, moving, removing, or 

injuring, or attempting to possess, move, 

remove or injure, a Sanctuary historical 

resource. 

(10) Introducing or otherwise 

releasing from within or into the 

Sanctuary an introduced species, 

except: 

(i) Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) 

released during catch and release 

fishing activity; or 

(ii) Species cultivated by commercial 

shellfish aquaculture activities in 

Tomales Bay pursuant to a valid lease, 

permit, license or other authorization 

issued by the State of California. 

Tomales Bay is defined in § 922.80. The 

coordinates for the northern terminus of 

Tomales Bay are listed in appendix C to 

this subpart. 

(11) Disturbing marine mammals or 

seabirds by flying motorized aircraft at 

less than 1,000 feet over the waters 

within any of the seven designated 

Special Wildlife Protection Zones 

described in appendix D to this subpart, 

except transiting Zone 6 to transport 

persons or supplies to or from Southeast 

Farallon Island authorized by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Farallon 

National Wildlife Refuge, or for 

enforcement purposes. Failure to 

maintain a minimum altitude of 1,000 

feet above ground level over such waters 

is presumed to disturb marine mammals 

or seabirds. 

(12) Operating any vessel engaged in 

the trade of carrying cargo within any 

area designated Special Wildlife 

Protection Zone or within one nautical 

mile from these zones. The coordinates 

are listed in appendix E to this subpart. 

This includes but is not limited to 

tankers and other bulk carriers and 

barges, or any vessel engaged in the 

trade of servicing offshore installations, 

except to transport persons or supplies 

to or from the Farallon Islands. In no 

event shall this section be construed to 

limit access for fishing, recreational or 

research vessels. 

(13) Attracting a white shark 

anywhere in the Sanctuary; or 

approaching within 50 meters of any 

white shark within Special Wildlife 

Protection Zone 6 and 7 or within one 

nautical mile from these zones The 

coordinates are listed in appendix F to 

this subpart. 

(14) Deserting a vessel aground, at 

anchor, or adrift in the Sanctuary. 

(15) Leaving harmful matter aboard a 

grounded or deserted vessel in the 

Sanctuary. 

(16) Anchoring a vessel in a 

designated seagrass protection zone in 

Tomales Bay, except as necessary for 

aquaculture operations conducted 

pursuant to a valid lease, permit or 

license. The coordinates for the noanchoring seagrass protection zones are 

listed in Appendix B to this subpart. 

(17) 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) All activities currently carried out 

by the Department of Defense within the 

Sanctuary are essential for the national 

defense and, therefore, not subject to the 

prohibitions in this section. The 

exemption of additional activities shall 

be determined in consultation between 

the Director and the Department of 

Defense. 

(c) The prohibitions in paragraph (a) 

of this section do not apply to activities 

necessary to respond to an emergency 

threatening life, property, or the 

environment. 

(d) The prohibitions in paragraphs 

(a)(2) through (9) and (a)(11) through 

(16) of this section do not apply to any 

activity executed in accordance with the 

scope, purpose, terms, and conditions of 

a National Marine Sanctuary permit 

issued pursuant to §§ 922.48 and 922.83 

or a Special Use permit issued pursuant 

to section 310 of the Act. 

§ 922.83 Permit procedures and issuance 

criteria. 

(a) A person may conduct an activity 

prohibited by § 922.82(a)(2) through (9) 

and (a)(11) through (16) if such activity 

is specifically authorized by, and 

conducted in accordance with the 

scope, purpose, terms and conditions of, 

a permit issued under § 922.48 and this 

section. 

(b) The Director, at his or her 

discretion, may issue a National Marine 

Sanctuary permit under this section, 

subject to terms and conditions as he or 

she deems appropriate, if the Director 

finds that the activity will: 

(1) Further research or monitoring 

related to Sanctuary resources and 

qualities; 

(2) Further the educational value of 

the Sanctuary; 

(3) Further salvage or recovery 

operations; or 

(4) Assist in managing the Sanctuary. 

(c) In deciding whether to issue a 

permit, the Director shall consider 

factors such as: 

(1) The applicant is qualified to 

conduct and complete the proposed 

activity; 

(2) The applicant has adequate 

financial resources available to conduct 

and complete the proposed activity; 

(3) The methods and procedures 

proposed by the applicant are 

appropriate to achieve the goals of the 

proposed activity, especially in relation 

to the potential effects of the proposed 

activity on Sanctuary resources and 

qualities; 

(4) The proposed activity will be 

conducted in a manner compatible with 

the primary objective of protection of 

Sanctuary resources and qualities, 

considering the extent to which the 

conduct of the activity may diminish or 

enhance Sanctuary resources and 

qualities, any potential indirect, 

secondary or cumulative effects of the 

activity, and the duration of such 

effects; 

(5) The proposed activity will be 

conducted in a manner compatible with 

the value of the Sanctuary, considering 

the extent to which the conduct of the 

activity may result in conflicts between 

different users of the Sanctuary, and the 

duration of such effects; 

(6) It is necessary to conduct the 

proposed activity within the Sanctuary; 

(7) The reasonably expected end value 

of the proposed activity to the 

furtherance of Sanctuary goals and 

purposes outweighs any potential 

adverse effects on Sanctuary resources 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 13111 

and qualities from the conduct of the 

activity; and 

(8) Any other factors as the Director 

deems appropriate. 

(d) Applications. (1) Applications for 

permits should be addressed to the 

Director, Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries; ATTN: Superintendent, 

Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, 

991 Marine Dr., The Presidio, San 

Francisco, CA 94129. 

(2) In addition to the information 

listed in § 922.48(b), all applications 

must include information to be 

considered by the Director in paragraph 

(b) and (c) of this section. 

(e) The permittee must agree to hold 

the United States harmless against any 

claims arising out of the conduct of the 

permitted activities. 

§ 922.84 Certification of preexisting 

leases, licenses, permits, approvals, other 

authorizations, or rights to conduct a 

prohibited activity. 

(a) A person may conduct an activity 

prohibited by § 922.82(a)(1) through (17) 

if such activity is specifically authorized 

by a valid Federal, State, or local lease, 

permit, license, approval, or other 

authorization in existence prior to the 

effective date of sanctuary expansion 

and within the sanctuary expansion area 

and complies with § 922.47 and 

provided that the holder of the lease, 

permit, license, approval, or other 

authorization complies with the 

requirements of paragraph (e) of this 

section. 

(b) In considering whether to make 

the certifications called for in this 

section, the Director may seek and 

consider the views of any other person 

or entity, within or outside the Federal 

government, and may hold a public 

hearing as deemed appropriate. 

(c) The Director may amend, suspend, 

or revoke any certification made under 

this section whenever continued 

operation would otherwise be 

inconsistent with any terms or 

conditions of the certification. Any such 

action shall be forwarded in writing to 

both the holder of the certified permit, 

license, or other authorization and the 

issuing agency and shall set forth 

reason(s) for the action taken. 

(d) Requests for findings or 

certifications should be addressed to the 

Director, Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries; ATTN: Sanctuary 

Superintendent, Farallones National 

Marine Sanctuary, 991 Marine Drive, 

The Presidio, San Francisco, CA 94129. 

A copy of the lease, permit, license, 

approval, or other authorization must 

accompany the request. 

(e) For an activity described in 

paragraph (a) of this section, the holder 

of the authorization or right may 

conduct the activity prohibited by 

§ 922.82 (a)(1) through (17) provided 

that: 

(1) The holder of such authorization 

or right notifies the Director, in writing, 

within 90 days of the effective date of 

Sanctuary designation, of the existence 

of such authorization or right and 

requests certification of such 

authorization or right; 

(2) The holder complies with the 

other provisions of this section; and 

(3) The holder complies with any 

terms and conditions on the exercise of 

such authorization or right imposed as 

a condition of certification, by the 

Director, to achieve the purposes for 

which the Sanctuary was designated. 

(f) The holder of an authorization or 

right described in paragraph (a) of this 

section authorizing an activity 

prohibited by § 922.82 may conduct the 

activity without being in violation of 

applicable provisions of § 922.82, 

pending final agency action on his or 

her certification request, provided the 

holder is otherwise in compliance with 

this section. 

(g) The Director may request 

additional information from the 

certification requester as he or she 

deems reasonably necessary to 

condition appropriately the exercise of 

the certified authorization or right to 

achieve the purposes for which the 

Sanctuary was designated. The Director 

must receive the information requested 

within 45 days of the postmark date of 

the request. The Director may seek the 

views of any persons on the certification 

request. 

(h) The Director may amend any 

certification made under this section 

whenever additional information 

becomes available that he determines 

justifies such an amendment. 

(i) Upon completion of review of the 

authorization or right and information 

received with respect thereto, the 

Director shall communicate, in writing, 

any decision 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 lease, permit, license, approval, 

other authorization, or right, and the 

issuing agency, and shall set forth the 

reason(s) for the decision or action 

taken. 

(j) The holder may appeal any action 

conditioning, amending, suspending, or 

revoking any certification in accordance 

with the procedures set forth in 

§ 922.50. 

(k) Any time limit prescribed in or 

established under this section may be 

extended by the Director for good cause. 

§ 922.85 Review of State permits and 

leases for certain aquaculture projects. 

NOAA has described in a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

with the State of California how the 

State will consult and coordinate with 

NOAA to review any new, amended or 

expanded lease or permit application for 

aquaculture projects in Tomales Bay 

involving introduced species. 

Appendix A to Subpart H of Part 922— 

Farallones National Marine Sanctuary 

Boundary Coordinates 

Coordinates listed in this appendix are 

unprojected (Geographic) and based on the 

North American Datum of 1983. 

Point ID 

No. Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 39.00000 ¥124.33350 

2 ................ 38.29989 ¥123.99988 

3 ................ 38.29989 ¥123.20005 

4 ................ 38.26390 ¥123.18138 

5 ................ 38.21001 ¥123.11913 

6 ................ 38.16576 ¥123.09207 

7 ................ 38.14072 ¥123.08237 

8 ................ 38.12829 ¥123.08742 

9 ................ 38.10215 ¥123.09804 

10 .............. 38.09069 ¥123.10387 

11 .............. 38.07898 ¥123.10924 

12 .............. 38.06505 ¥123.11711 

13 .............. 38.05202 ¥123.12827 

14 .............. 37.99227 ¥123.14137 

15 .............. 37.98947 ¥123.23615 

16 .............. 37.95880 ¥123.32312 

17 .............. 37.90464 ¥123.38958 

18 .............. 37.83480 ¥123.42579 

19 .............. 37.76687 ¥123.42694 

20 .............. 37.75932 ¥123.42686 

21 .............. 37.68892 ¥123.39274 

22 .............. 37.63356 ¥123.32819 

23 .............. 37.60123 ¥123.24292 

24 .............. 37.59165 ¥123.22641 

25 .............. 37.56305 ¥123.19859 

26 .............. 37.52001 ¥123.12879 

27 .............. 37.50819 ¥123.09617 

28 .............. 37.49418 ¥123.00770 

29 .............. 37.50948 ¥122.90614 

30 .............. 37.52988 ¥122.85988 

31 .............. 37.57147 ¥122.80399 

32 .............. 37.61622 ¥122.76937 

33 .............. 37.66641 ¥122.75105 

34 * ............ 37.88225 ¥122.62753 

35 * ............ 38.35045 ¥123.06711 

36 * ............ 38.35665 ¥123.06724 

37 * ............ 38.44575 ¥123.12602 

38 * ............ 38.45531 ¥123.13469 

39 * ............ 38.76231 ¥123.52957 

40 * ............ 38.76941 ¥123.53541 

41 * ............ 38.91136 ¥123.71061 

42 * ............ 38.91766 ¥123.72568 

43 * ............ 38.95404 ¥123.73405 

44 * ............ 38.95944 ¥123.71820 

45 * ............ 39.00000 ¥123.69710 

46 .............. 39.00000 ¥124.33350 

Note: The coordinates in the table above 

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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
13112 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Appendix B to Subpart H of Part 922— 

No-Anchoring Seagrass Protection 

Zones in Tomales Bay 

Coordinates listed in this appendix are 

unprojected (Geographic) and based on the 

North American Datum of 1983. 

(1) No-Anchoring Seagrass Protection Zone 

1 encompasses an area of approximately .11 

square nautical miles (.15 square miles) 

offshore south of Millerton Point. The precise 

boundary coordinates are listed in the table 

following this description. The eastern 

boundary is a straight line arc that connects 

points 1 and 2 listed in the coordinate table 

below. The southern boundary is a straight 

line arc that connects points 2 and 3, the 

western boundary is a straight line arc that 

connects points 3 and 4 and the northern 

boundary is a straight line arc that connects 

point 4 to point 5. 

Zone 1 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 38.10571 ¥122.84565 

2 ................ 38.09888 ¥122.83603 

3 ................ 38.09878 ¥122.84431 

4 ................ 38.10514 ¥122.84904 

5 ................ 38.10571 ¥122.84565 

(2) No-Anchoring Seagrass Protection Zone 

2 encompasses an area of approximately .15 

square nautical miles (.19 square miles) that 

begins just south of Marconi and extends 

approximately 1.6 nautical miles (1.9 miles) 

south along the eastern shore of Tomales Bay. 

The precise boundary coordinates are listed 

in the table following this description. The 

western boundary is a series of straight line 

arcs that sequentially connect point 1 to 

point 5 listed in the coordinate table below. 

The southern boundary is a straight line arc 

that extends from point 5 towards point 6 

until it intersects the Mean High Water Line. 

From this intersection the eastern boundary 

follows the Mean High Water Line north 

until it intersects the straight line arc that 

connects point 7 to point 8. From this 

intersection the northern boundary extends 

to point 8. 

Zone 2 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 38.13326 ¥122.87178 

2 ................ 38.12724 ¥122.86488 

3 ................ 38.12563 ¥122.86480 

4 ................ 38.11899 ¥122.86731 

5 ................ 38.11386 ¥122.85851 

6 * .............. 38.11608 ¥122.85813 

7 * .............. 38.14078 ¥122.87433 

8 ................ 38.13326 ¥122.87178 

Note: The coordinates in the table above 

marked with an asterisk (*) are not a part of 

the zone boundary. These coordinates are 

landward reference points used to draw a line 

segment that intersects with the shoreline. 

(3) No-Anchoring Seagrass Protection Zone 

3 encompasses an area of approximately .01 

square nautical miles (.02 square miles) that 

begins just south of Marshall and extends 

approximately .5 nautical miles (.6 miles) 

south along the eastern shore of Tomales Bay. 

The precise boundary coordinates are listed 

in the table following this description. The 

western boundary is a straight line arc that 

connects point 1 to point 2 listed in the 

coordinate table below. The southern 

boundary is a straight line arc that extends 

from point 2 towards point 3 until it 

intersects the Mean High Water Line. From 

this intersection the eastern boundary 

follows the Mean High Water Line northward 

until it intersects the straight line arc that 

connects point 4 to point 5. From this 

intersection the northern boundary extends 

westward along the straight line arc that 

connects point 4 to point 5. 

Zone 3 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 38.15956 ¥122.89573 

2 ................ 38.15250 ¥122.89042 

3 * .............. 38.15292 ¥122.88984 

4 * .............. 38.16031 ¥122.89442 

5 ................ 38.15956 ¥122.89573 

Note: The coordinates in the table above 

marked with an asterisk (*) are not a part of 

the zone boundary. These coordinates are 

landward reference points used to draw a line 

segment that intersects with the shoreline. 

(4) No-Anchoring Seagrass Protection Zone 

4 is an area of approximately .18 square 

nautical miles (.21 square miles) that begins 

just north of Nicks Cove and extends 

approximately 2.7 nautical miles (3.1 miles) 

south along the eastern shore of Tomales Bay 

to just south of Cypress Grove. The precise 

boundary coordinates are listed in the table 

following this description. The western 

boundary is a series of straight line arcs that 

sequentially connect point 1 to point 8 listed 

in the coordinate table below. The southern 

boundary is a straight line arc that extends 

from point 8 towards point 9 until it 

intersects the Mean High Water Line. From 

this intersection the eastern boundary 

follows the Mean High Water Line north 

until it intersects the straight line arc that 

connects point 10 to point 11. From this 

intersection the northern boundary extends 

westward along the straight line arc that 

connects point 10 to point 11. 

Zone 4 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 38.20004 ¥122.92315 

2 ................ 38.18881 ¥122.91740 

3 ................ 38.18651 ¥122.91404 

4 ................ 38.17919 ¥122.91021 

5 ................ 38.17450 ¥122.90545 

6 ................ 38.16869 ¥122.90475 

7 ................ 38.16535 ¥122.90308 

8 ................ 38.16227 ¥122.89650 

9 * .............. 38.16266 ¥122.89620 

10 * ............ 38.20080 ¥122.92174 

11 .............. 38.20004 ¥122.92315 

Note: The coordinates in the table above 

marked with an asterisk (*) are not a part of 

the zone boundary. These coordinates are 

landward reference points used to draw a line 

segment that intersects with the shoreline. 

(5) No-Anchoring Seagrass Protection Zone 

5 encompasses an area of approximately 1.3 

square nautical miles (1.6 square miles) that 

begins east of Lawson’s Landing and extends 

approximately 2.7 nautical miles (3.1 miles) 

east and south along the eastern shore of 

Tomales Bay but excludes areas adjacent 

(approximately .32 nautical miles or .37 

miles) to the mouth of Walker Creek. The 

precise boundary coordinates are listed in the 

table following this description. The western 

boundary is a series of straight line arcs that 

sequentially connect point 1 to point 3 listed 

in the coordinate table below. From point 3 

the southern boundary trends eastward along 

the straight line arc that connects point 3 to 

point 4 until it intersects the Mean High 

Water Line. From this intersection the 

boundary follows the Mean High Water Line 

northward until it intersects the straight line 

arc that connects point 5 to point 6. From 

this intersection the boundary extends 

westward along the straight line arc that 

connects point 5 to point 6. From point 6 the 

boundary follows the straight line arc that 

connects point 6 to point 7, and then extends 

along the straight line arc that connects point 

7 to point 8 until it again intersects the Mean 

High Water Line. From this intersection the 

boundary follows the Mean High Water Line 

until it intersects the straight line arc that 

connects point 9 to point 10. From this 

intersection the boundary extends to point 10 

along the straight line arc that connects point 

9 to point 10. 

Zone 5 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 38.21825 ¥122.96041 

2 ................ 38.20666 ¥122.94397 

3 ................ 38.19431 ¥122.93431 

4 * .............. 38.20080 ¥122.92174 

5 * .............. 38.20522 ¥122.92446 

6 ................ 38.20366 ¥122.93246 

7 ................ 38.20938 ¥122.94153 

8 * .............. 38.21599 ¥122.93742 

9 * .............. 38.23129 ¥122.96293 

10 .............. 38.21825 ¥122.96041 

Note: The coordinates in the table above 

marked with an asterisk (*) are not a part of 

the zone boundary. These coordinates are 

landward reference points used to draw a line 

segment that intersects with the shoreline. 

(6) No-Anchoring Seagrass Protection Zone 

6 encompasses an area of approximately .01 

square nautical miles (.02 square miles) in 

the vicinity of Indian Beach along the 

western shore of Tomales Bay. The precise 

boundary coordinates are listed in the table 

following this description. The eastern 

boundary is a straight line arc that connects 

point 1 to point 2 listed in the coordinate 

table below. The southern boundary extends 

westward along the straight line arc that 

connects point 2 to point 3 until it intersects 

the Mean High Water Line. From this 

intersection the eastern boundary follows the 

Mean High Water Line northward until it 

intersects the straight line arc that connects 

point 3 to point 4. From this intersection the 

northern boundary extends eastward along 

the straight line arc that connects point 4 to 

point 5. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 13113 

Zone 6 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 38.14103 ¥122.89537 

2 ................ 38.13919 ¥122.89391 

3 * .............. 38.13804 ¥122.89610 

4 * .............. 38.14033 ¥122.89683 

5 ................ 38.14103 ¥122.89537 

Note: The coordinates in the table above 

marked with an asterisk (*) are not a part of 

the zone boundary. These coordinates are 

landward reference points used to draw a line 

segment that intersects with the shoreline. 

(7) No-Anchoring Seagrass Protection Zone 

7 encompasses an area of approximately .09 

square nautical miles (.12 square miles) that 

begins just south of Pebble Beach and 

extends approximately 1.6 nautical miles (1.9 

miles) south along the western shore of 

Tomales Bay. The precise boundary 

coordinates are listed in the table following 

this description. The eastern boundary is a 

series of straight line arcs that sequentially 

connect point 1 to point 5 listed in the 

coordinate table below. The southern 

boundary extends along the straight line arc 

that connects point 5 to point 6 until it 

intersects the Mean High Water Line. From 

this intersection the western boundary 

extends north along the Mean High Water 

Line until it intersects the straight line arc 

that connects point 7 to point 8. From this 

intersection the northern boundary extends 

eastward along the straight line arc that 

connects point 7 to point 8. 

Zone 7 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 38.13067 ¥122.88620 

2 ................ 38.12362 ¥122.87984 

3 ................ 38.11916 ¥122.87491 

4 ................ 38.11486 ¥122.86896 

5 ................ 38.11096 ¥122.86468 

6 * .............. 38.11027 ¥122.86551 

7 * .............. 38.13001 ¥122.88749 

8 ................ 38.13067 ¥122.88620 

Note: The coordinates in the table above 

marked with an asterisk (*) are not a part of 

the zone boundary. These coordinates are 

landward reference points used to draw a line 

segment that intersects with the shoreline. 

Appendix C to Subpart H of Part 922— 

Northern Extent of Tomales Bay 

For the purpose of § 922.82(a)(10)(ii), 

NOAA is codifying the northern geographical 

extent of Tomales Bay via a line running 

from Avalis Beach (Point 1) east to Sand 

Point (Point 2). Coordinates listed in this 

Appendix are unprojected (geographic) and 

based on the North American Datum of 1983. 

Point 

ID No. 

Tomales 

Bay 

Boundary 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 38.23165 ¥122.98148 

2 ................ 38.23165 ¥122.96955 

Appendix D to Subpart H of Part 922— 

Special Wildlife Protection Zones 

Within the Sanctuary 

Coordinates listed in this appendix are 

unprojected (Geographic) and based on the 

North American Datum of 1983. 

(1) Special Wildlife Protection Zone 1 

(SWPZ 1) encompasses an area of 

approximately 7.9 square nautical miles (10.5 

square miles). The precise boundary 

coordinates are listed in the table following 

this description. The western boundary of 

SWPZ 1 extends south from Point 1, west of 

Haven’s Neck in Mendocino County, to Point 

2, west of Del Mar Point. The boundary then 

extends east from Point 2 along a straight line 

arc connecting Point 2 and Point 3 until it 

intersects the Mean High Water Line at Del 

Mar Point. The SWPZ 1 boundary then turns 

north to follow the Mean High Water Line 

towards Haven’s Neck and continues until it 

intersects a straight line arc connecting Point 

4 and Point 5. From this intersection the 

Sanctuary boundary continues west along its 

northernmost extent to Point 5. 

Zone 1 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 38.80865 ¥123.63227 

2 ................ 38.74096 ¥123.54306 

3 * .............. 38.74096 ¥123.51051 

4 * .............. 38.80865 ¥123.60195 

5 ................ 38.80865 ¥123.63227 

Note: The coordinates in the table above 

marked with an asterisk (*) are not a part of 

the zone boundary. These coordinates are 

landward reference points used to draw a line 

segment that intersects with the shoreline. 

(2) Special Wildlife Protection Zone 2 

(SWPZ 2) encompasses an area of 

approximately 16.2 square nautical miles 

(21.4 square miles). The precise boundary 

coordinates are listed in the table following 

this description. The western boundary of 

SWPZ 2 extends south and east from Point 

1, south of Windermere Point in Sonoma 

County, to Point 2 and then to Point 3 in 

sequence. Point 3 is west of Duncans Point 

in Sonoma County. The boundary then 

extends east from Point 3 along a straight line 

arc connecting Point 3 and Point 4 until it 

intersects the Mean High Water Line at 

Duncans Point. The boundary then turns 

north to follow the Mean High Water Line 

towards Windermere Point until it intersects 

a straight line arc connecting Point 5 and 

Point 6. From this intersection the boundary 

continues due south along a straight line arc 

to Point 6. 

Zone 2 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 38.49854 ¥123.26804 

2 ................ 38.45095 ¥123.18564 

3 ................ 38.39311 ¥123.12068 

4 * .............. 38.39311 ¥123.09527 

5 * .............. 38.52487 ¥123.26804 

Zone 2 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

6 ................ 38.49854 ¥123.26804 

Note: The coordinates in the table above 

marked with an asterisk (*) are not a part of 

the zone boundary. These coordinates are 

landward reference points used to draw a line 

segment that intersects with the shoreline. 

(3) Special Wildlife Protection Zone 3 

(SWPZ 3) encompasses an area of 

approximately 7 square nautical miles (9.3 

square miles). The precise boundary 

coordinates are listed in the table following 

this description. The western boundary of 

SWPZ 3 extends south and east from Point 

1, southwest of the Estero de San Antonio in 

Sonoma County, to Point 2, south of Tomales 

Point in Marin County. The boundary then 

extends north and east from Point 2 along a 

straight line arc connecting Point 2 and Point 

3 until it intersects the boundary of the Point 

Reyes National Seashore. From this 

intersection the SWPZ 3 boundary follows 

the Point Reyes National Seashore boundary 

around Tomales Point into Tomales Bay and 

continues until it again intersects the straight 

line arc that connects Point 2 and Point 3. 

From this intersection the SWPZ 3 boundary 

follows the straight line arc north and east 

toward Point 3 until it intersects the Mean 

High Water Line at Toms Point in Tomales 

Bay. The SWPZ 3 boundary then follows the 

Mean High Water Line northward towards 

the Estero de San Antonio until it intersects 

the straight line arc that connects Point 4 and 

Point 5. From this intersection the Sanctuary 

boundary continues south and west to 

Point 5. 

Zone 3 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 38.24001 ¥123.02963 

2 ................ 38.19249 ¥122.99523 

3 * .............. 38.21544 ¥122.95286 

4 * .............. 38.27011 ¥122.97840 

5 ................ 38.24001 ¥123.02963 

Note: The coordinates in the table above 

marked with an asterisk (*) are not a part of 

the zone boundary. These coordinates are 

landward reference points used to draw a line 

segment that intersects with the shoreline. 

(4) Special Wildlife Protection Zone 4 

(SWPZ 4) encompasses an area of 

approximately 10.2 square nautical miles 

(13.5 square miles). The precise boundary 

coordinates are list in the table following this 

description. The western boundary of SWPZ 

4 extends south and west from Point 1, west 

of Point Reyes in Marin County, to Point 2, 

south and west of Point Reyes Lighthouse. 

The boundary then follows a straight line arc 

east and south from Point 2 to Point 3. From 

Point 3 the boundary follows a straight line 

arc north to Point 4. From Point 4 the SWPZ 

4 boundary proceeds west along the straight 

line arc that connects Point 4 and Point 5 

until it intersects the Point Reyes National 

Seashore boundary north of Chimney Rock. 

The SWPZ 4 boundary then follows the Point 

Reyes National Seashore boundary around 

Point Reyes until it again intersects the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
13114 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

straight line arc that connects Point 4 and 

Point 5 north of the Point Reyes Lighthouse. 

From this intersection the SWPZ 4 boundary 

turns seaward and continues west to Point 5. 

Zone 4 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 38.01475 ¥123.05013 

2 ................ 37.97536 ¥123.05482 

3 ................ 37.96521 ¥122.93771 

4 ................ 38.00555 ¥122.93504 

5 ................ 38.01475 ¥123.05013 

(5) Special Wildlife Protection Zone 5 

(SWPZ 5) encompasses an area of 

approximately 14.8 square nautical miles 

(19.6 square miles). The precise boundary 

coordinates are listed in the table following 

this description. The western boundary of 

SWPZ 5 extends south and east from Point 

1, near Millers Point in Marin County, to 

Point 2, which is south and west of Bolinas 

Point. The SWPZ 5 boundary then follows a 

straight line arc east from Point 2 towards 

Point 3 until it intersects the Mean High 

Water Line at Rocky Point. From this 

intersection, the SWPZ 5 boundary follows 

the Sanctuary boundary north to Bolinas 

Point and Millers Point, respectively, 

including Bolinas Lagoon but not including 

Seadrift Lagoon, until it intersects the 

straight line arc that connects Point 4 and 

Point 5. From this intersection the SWPZ 5 

boundary turns seaward and continues west 

and south along the straight line arc to 

Point 5. 

Zone 5 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 37.96579 ¥122.83284 

2 ................ 37.88195 ¥122.73989 

3 * .............. 37.88195 ¥122.62873 

4 * .............. 37.98234 ¥122.81513 

5 ................ 37.96579 ¥122.83284 

Note: The coordinates in the table above 

marked with an asterisk (*) are not a part of 

the zone boundary. These coordinates are 

landward reference points used to draw a line 

segment that intersects with the shoreline. 

(6) Special Wildlife Protection Zone 6 

(SWPZ 6) encompasses an area of 

approximately 6.8 square nautical miles (9 

square miles) and extends from the Mean 

High Water Line seaward to the SWPZ 6 

boundary. The precise boundary coordinates 

are listed in the table following this 

description. The boundary of SWPZ 6 

extends south and west from Point 1, north 

of Southeast Farallon Island, along a straight 

line arc to Point 2, then south and east along 

a straight line arc to Point 3, then north and 

east along a straight line arc to Point 4, then 

north and west along a straight line arc to 

Point 5. 

Zone 6 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 37.72976 ¥123.00961 

2 ................ 37.69697 ¥123.04374 

3 ................ 37.66944 ¥123.00176 

Zone 6 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

4 ................ 37.70246 ¥122.96608 

5 ................ 37.72976 ¥123.00961 

(7) Special Wildlife Protection Zone 7 

(SWPZ 7) encompasses an area of 

approximately 6 square nautical miles (7.9 

square miles) and extends from the Mean 

High Water Line seaward to the SWPZ 7 

boundary. The precise boundary coordinates 

are listed in the table following this 

description. The boundary of SWPZ 7 

extends south and west from Point 1, north 

of North Farallon Island, along a straight line 

arc to Point 2, then south and east along a 

straight line arc to Point 3, then north and 

east along a straight line arc to Point 4, then 

north and west along a straight line arc to 

Point 5. 

Zone 7 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 37.79568 ¥123.10845 

2 ................ 37.76746 ¥123.13869 

3 ................ 37.73947 ¥123.09341 

4 ................ 37.76687 ¥123.06330 

5 ................ 37.79568 ¥123.10845 

Appendix E to Subpart H of Part 922— 

Cargo Vessel Prohibition Zones in the 

Sanctuary 

Coordinates listed in this appendix are 

unprojected (Geographic) and based on the 

North American Datum of 1983. 

(1) Cargo Vessel Prohibition Zone 1 (CVPZ 

1) is an area of approximately 20 square 

nautical miles (26 square miles) immediately 

offshore of Anchor Bay. The precise 

boundary coordinates are listed in the table 

following this description. The western 

boundary of extends south and east from 

Point 1, north and west of Haven’s Neck, to 

Point 2, west and south of Del Mar Point. The 

CVPZ 1 boundary then extends east from 

Point 2 along a straight line arc connecting 

Point 2 and Point 3 until it intersects the 

Sanctuary boundary. The CVPZ 1 boundary 

then turns north to follow the Sanctuary 

boundary past Haven’s Neck and continues 

until it intersects the straight line arc 

connecting Point 4 and Point 5. From this 

intersection the CVPZ 1 boundary continues 

west along its northernmost extent to 

Point 5. 

Zone 1 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 38.82485 ¥123.68420 

2 ................ 38.72330 ¥123.55145 

3 * .............. 38.72330 ¥123.47658 

4 * .............. 38.82485 ¥123.60953 

5 ................ 38.82485 ¥123.68420 

Note: The coordinates in the table above 

marked with an asterisk (*) are not a part of 

the zone boundary. These coordinates are 

landward reference points used to draw a line 

segment that intersects with the shoreline. 

(2) Cargo Vessel Prohibition Zone 2 (CVPZ 

2) encompasses an area of approximately 30 

square nautical miles (40 square miles). The 

precise boundary coordinates are listed in the 

table following this description. The western 

CVPZ 2 boundary extends south and east 

from Point 1, west of Windermere Point in 

Sonoma County, to Point 2 and then to Point 

3 in sequence. Point 3 is west of Duncans 

Point in Sonoma County. The CVPZ 2 

boundary then extends east from Point 3 

along a straight line arc connecting Point 3 

and Point 4 until it intersects the Sanctuary 

boundary south of Duncans Point. The CVPZ 

2 boundary then turns north to follow the 

Sanctuary boundary past Windermere Point 

until it intersects the straight line arc 

connecting Point 5 and Point 6. From this 

intersection the CVPZ 2 boundary continues 

due south along this straight line arc to 

Point 6. 

Zone 2 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 38.48995 ¥123.28994 

2 ................ 38.43749 ¥123.19789 

3 ................ 38.37614 ¥123.13153 

4 * .............. 38.37614 ¥123.07843 

5 * .............. 38.54099 ¥123.28994 

6 ................ 38.48995 ¥123.28994 

Note: The coordinates in the table above 

marked with an asterisk (*) are not a part of 

the zone boundary. These coordinates are 

landward reference points used to draw a line 

segment that intersects with the shoreline. 

(3) Cargo Vessel Prohibition Zone 3 (CVPZ 

3) encompasses an area of approximately 17 

square nautical miles (22 square miles). The 

precise boundary coordinates are listed in the 

table following this description. The western 

CVPZ 3 boundary extends south and east 

from Point 1, west of the Estero de San 

Antonio in Sonoma County, to Point 2, south 

of Tomales Point in Marin County. The CVPZ 

3 boundary then extends north and east from 

Point 2 along a straight line arc connecting 

Point 2 and Point 3 until it intersects the 

Sanctuary boundary. From this intersection 

the CVPZ 3 boundary follows the Sanctuary 

boundary around Tomales Point into 

Tomales Bay and continues until it again 

intersects the straight line arc that connects 

Point 2 and Point 3. From this intersection 

the CVPZ 3 boundary follows the straight 

line arc north and east across Tomales Bay 

until it intersects the Sanctuary boundary 

south of Toms Point in Tomales Bay. The 

CVPZ 3 boundary then follows the Sanctuary 

boundary northward past the Estero de San 

Antonio until it intersects the straight line 

arc that connects Point 4 and Point 5. From 

this intersection the boundary continues 

south and west to Point 5. 

Zone 3 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 38.24496 ¥123.05698 

2 ................ 38.16758 ¥123.00179 

3 * .............. 38.21170 ¥122.92566 

4 * .............. 38.28215 ¥122.99278 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 13115 

Zone 3 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

5 ................ 38.24496 ¥123.05698 

Note: The coordinates in the table above 

marked with an asterisk (*) are not a part of 

the zone boundary. These coordinates are 

landward reference points used to draw a line 

segment that intersects with the shoreline. 

(4) Cargo Vessel Prohibition Zone 4 (CVPZ 

4) encompasses an area of approximately 28 

square nautical miles (37 square miles). The 

precise boundary coordinates are listed in the 

table following this description. The western 

CVPZ 4 boundary extends south and west 

from Point 1, west and north of Point Reyes 

in Marin County, to Point 2, south and west 

of Point Reyes Lighthouse. The CVPZ 4 

boundary then follows a straight line arc east 

and south from Point 2 to Point 3. From Point 

3 the CVPZ 4 boundary follows a straight line 

arc north to Point 4. From Point 4 the CVPZ 

4 boundary proceeds west along the straight 

line arc that connects Point 4 and Point 5 

until it intersects the Sanctuary boundary at 

Drakes Beach. The CVPZ 4 boundary then 

follows the Sanctuary boundary around Point 

Reyes until it again intersects the straight line 

arc that connects Point 4 and Point 5, north 

of the Point Reyes Lighthouse. From this 

intersection the CVPZ 4 boundary turns 

seaward and continues west to Point 5 along 

this arc. 

Zone 4 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 38.03311 ¥123.06923 

2 ................ 37.96053 ¥123.07801 

3 ................ 37.94655 ¥122.91781 

4 ................ 38.02026 ¥122.91261 

5 ................ 38.03311 ¥123.06923 

(5) Cargo Vessel Prohibition Zone 5 (CVPZ 

5) encompasses an area of approximately 29 

square nautical miles (39 square miles). The 

precise boundary coordinates are listed in the 

table following this description. The western 

CVPZ 5 boundary extends south and east 

from Point 1, west of Millers Point in Marin 

County, to Point 2, south and west of Bolinas 

Point. The CVPZ 5 boundary then follows a 

straight line arc east from Point 2 towards 

Point 3 until it intersects the Sanctuary 

boundary. From this intersection, the CVPZ 

5 boundary follows the Sanctuary boundary 

north towards Rocky Point and continues 

along the Sanctuary boundary past Bolinas 

Point and Millers Point, respectively, 

including Bolinas Lagoon but not including 

Seadrift Lagoon, until it intersects the 

straight line arc that connects Point 4 and 

Point 5. From this intersection the CVPZ 5 

boundary turns seaward and continues west 

and south along the straight line arc to 

Point 5. 

Zone 5 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 37.96598 ¥122.85997 

2 ................ 37.86532 ¥122.74797 

3 * .............. 37.86532 ¥122.63720 

Zone 5 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

4 * .............. 37.99449 ¥122.82841 

5 ................ 37.96598 ¥122.85997 

Note: The coordinates in the table above 

marked with an asterisk (*) are not a part of 

the zone boundary. These coordinates are 

landward reference points used to draw a line 

segment that intersects with the shoreline. 

(6) Cargo Vessel Prohibition Zone 6 (CVPZ 

6) encompasses an area of approximately 21 

square nautical miles (28 square miles) 

surrounding Southeast Farallon Island and 

extends from the Mean High Water Line to 

the CVPZ 6 boundary. The precise boundary 

coordinates are listed in the table following 

this description. The boundary extends south 

and west from Point 1, north of Southeast 

Farallon Island, along a straight line arc to 

Point 2, then south and east along a straight 

line arc to Point 3, then north and east along 

a straight line arc to Point 4, then north and 

west along a straight line arc to Point 5. 

Zone 6 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 37.75264 ¥123.01175 

2 ................ 37.69461 ¥123.07333 

3 ................ 37.64621 ¥122.99867 

4 ................ 37.70538 ¥122.93567 

5 ................ 37.75264 ¥123.01175 

(7) Cargo Vessel Prohibition Zone 7 (CVPZ 

7) encompasses an area of approximately 20 

square nautical miles (26 square miles) 

surrounding the North Farallon Islands and 

extends from the Mean High Water Line to 

the CVPZ 7 boundary. The precise boundary 

coordinates are listed in the table following 

this description. The boundary extends south 

and west from Point 1, north of North 

Farallon Island, along a straight line arc to 

Point 2, then south and east along a straight 

line arc to Point 3, then north and east along 

a straight line arc to Point 4, then north and 

west along a straight line arc to Point 5. 

Zone 7 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 37.81914 ¥123.11155 

2 ................ 37.76497 ¥123.16939 

3 ................ 37.71623 ¥123.09089 

4 ................ 37.76872 ¥123.03359 

5 ................ 37.81914 ¥123.11155 

Appendix F to Subpart H of Part 922— 

White Shark Approach Prohibition 

Zones in the Sanctuary 

Coordinates listed in this appendix are 

unprojected (Geographic) and based on the 

North American Datum of 1983. 

(1) White Shark Approach Prohibition 

Zone 1 (WSAPZ 1) encompasses an area of 

approximately 21 square nautical miles (28 

square miles) surrounding Southeast Farallon 

Island and extends from the Mean High 

Water Line to the WSAPZ 1 boundary. The 

precise boundary coordinates are listed in the 

table following this description. The 

boundary extends south and west from Point 

1, north of Southeast Farallon Island, along 

a straight line arc to Point 2, then south and 

east along a straight line arc to Point 3, then 

north and east along a straight line arc to 

Point 4, then north and west along a straight 

line arc to Point 5. 

Zone 1 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 37.75264 ¥123.01175 

2 ................ 37.69461 ¥123.07333 

3 ................ 37.64621 ¥122.99867 

4 ................ 37.70538 ¥122.93567 

5 ................ 37.75264 ¥123.01175 

(2) White Shark Approach Prohibition 

Zone 2 (WSAPZ 2) encompasses an area of 

approximately 20 square nautical miles (26 

square miles) surrounding the North Farallon 

Islands and extends from the Mean High 

Water Line to the WSAPZ 2 boundary. The 

precise boundary coordinates are listed in the 

table following this description. The 

boundary extends south and west from Point 

1, north of North Farallon Island, along a 

straight line arc to Point 2, then south and 

east along a straight line arc to Point 3, then 

north and east along a straight line arc to 

Point 4, then north and west along a straight 

line arc to Point 5. 

Zone 2 

Point 

ID No. 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 37.81914 ¥123.11155 

2 ................ 37.76497 ¥123.16939 

3 ................ 37.71623 ¥123.09089 

4 ................ 37.76872 ¥123.03359 

5 ................ 37.81914 ¥123.11155 

■ 3. Revise subpart K to read as follows: 

Subpart K—Cordell Bank National 

Marine Sanctuary 

Sec. 

922.110 Boundary. 

922.111 Definitions. 

922.112 Prohibited or otherwise regulated 

activities. 

922.113 Permit procedures and issuance 

criteria. 

Appendix A to Subpart K of Part 922— 

Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary 

Boundary Coordinates 

Appendix B to Subpart K of Part 922—Line 

Representing the 50-Fathom Isobath 

Surrounding Cordell Bank 

§ 922.110 Boundary. 

The Cordell Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary (Sanctuary) boundary 

encompasses a total area of 

approximately 971 square nautical miles 

(1,286 square miles) of offshore ocean 

waters, and submerged lands 

thereunder, surrounding the submarine 

plateau known as Cordell Bank alongthe northern coast of California, 

approximately 45 nautical miles westnorthwest of San Francisco, California. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
13116 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

The precise boundary coordinates are 

listed in appendix A to this subpart. The 

northern boundary of the Sanctuary is a 

rhumb line that begins approximately 6 

nautical miles (7 miles) west of Bodega 

Head in Sonoma County, California at 

Point 1 and extends west approximately 

38 nautical miles (44 miles) to Point 2. 

This line is part of a shared boundary 

between the Sanctuary and Farallones 

National Marine Sanctuary (FNMS). The 

western boundary of the Sanctuary 

extends south from Point 2 

approximately 34 nautical miles (39 

miles) to Point 3. From Point 3 the 

Sanctuary boundary continues east 15 

nautical miles (17 miles) to Point 4 

where it intersects the FNMS boundary 

again. The line from Point 3 to Point 4 

forms the southernmost boundary of the 

Sanctuary. The eastern boundary of the 

Sanctuary is a series of straight lines 

connecting Points 4 through 20 in 

numerical sequence. The Sanctuary is 

coterminous with FNMS along both its 

(the Sanctuary’s) eastern and northern 

boundaries. 

§ 922.111 Definitions. 

In addition to the definitions found in 

§ 922.3, the following definitions apply 

to this subpart: 

Clean means not containing 

detectable levels of harmful matter. 

Cruise ship means a vessel with 250 

or more passenger berths for hire. 

Harmful matter means any substance, 

or combination of substances, that 

because of its quantity, concentration, or 

physical, chemical, or infectious 

characteristics may pose a present or 

potential threat to Sanctuary resources 

or qualities, including but not limited 

to: fishing nets, fishing line, hooks, fuel, 

oil, and those contaminants (regardless 

of quantity) listed pursuant to title 42 of 

the United States Code. 

Introduced species means any species 

(including, but not limited to, any of its 

biological matter capable of 

propagation) that is non-native to the 

ecosystems of the Sanctuary; or any 

organism into which altered genetic 

matter, or genetic matter from another 

species, has been transferred in order 

that the host organism acquires the 

genetic traits of the transferred genes. 

§ 922.112 Prohibited or otherwise 

regulated activities. 

(a) The following activities are 

prohibited and thus are unlawful for 

any person to conduct or to cause to be 

conducted within the Sanctuary: 

(1) Exploring for, developing, or 

producing oil, gas, or minerals. 

(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 activity 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 and generated 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; or 

(E) Vessel engine or generator 

exhaust. 

(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 as listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) 

and (ii) of this section. 

(3) On or within the line representing 

the 50-fathom isobath surrounding 

Cordell Bank, removing, taking, or 

injuring or attempting to remove, take, 

or injure benthic invertebrates or algae 

located on Cordell Bank. This 

prohibition does not apply to use of 

bottom contact gear used during fishing 

activities, which is prohibited pursuant 

to 50 CFR part 660 (Fisheries off West 

Coast States). The coordinates for the 

line representing the 50-fathom isobath 

are listed in appendix B to this subpart, 

and the 50-fathom isobath is 

approximated by connecting these 

coordinates with straight line arcs in 

numerical sequence from Point 1 to 

Point 15. There is a rebuttable 

presumption that any such resource 

found in the possession of a person 

within the Sanctuary was taken or 

removed by that person. 

(4)(i) On or within the line 

representing the 50-fathom isobath 

surrounding Cordell Bank, drilling into, 

dredging, or otherwise altering the 

submerged lands; or constructing, 

placing, or abandoning any structure, 

material or other matter on or in the 

submerged lands. This prohibition does 

not apply to use of bottom contact gear 

used during fishing activities, which is 

prohibited pursuant to 50 CFR part 660 

(Fisheries off West Coast States). The 

coordinates for the line representing the 

50-fathom isobath are listed in appendix 

B to this subpart, and the 50-fathom 

isobath is approximated by connecting 

these coordinates with straight line arcs 

in numerical sequence from Point 1 to 

Point 15. 

(ii) In the Sanctuary beyond the line 

representing the 50-fathom isobath 

surrounding Cordell Bank, drilling into, 

dredging, or otherwise altering the 

submerged lands; or constructing, 

placing, or abandoning any structure, 

material or matter on the submerged 

lands except as incidental and necessary 

for anchoring any vessel or lawful use 

of any fishing gear during normal 

fishing activities. The coordinates for 

the line representing the 50-fathom 

isobath are listed in Appendix B to this 

subpart, and the 50-fathom isobath is 

approximated by connecting these 

coordinates with straight line arcs in 

numerical sequence from Point 1 to 

Point 15. 

(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, as amended, 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 taken, except as 

authorized by the MMPA, ESA, MBTA, 

by any regulation, as amended, 

promulgated under the MMPA, ESA, or 

MBTA, or as necessary for valid law 

enforcement purposes. 

(7) Possessing, moving, removing, or 

injuring, or attempting to possess, move, 

remove or injure, a Sanctuary historical 

resource. 

(8) Introducing or otherwise releasing 

from within or into the Sanctuary an 

introduced species, except striped bass 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 13117 

(Morone saxatilis) released during catch 

and release fishing activity. 

(9) 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 paragraph (a) 

of this section do not apply to activities 

necessary to respond to an emergency 

threatening life, property or the 

environment. 

(c) All activities being carried out by 

the Department of Defense (DOD) within 

the Sanctuary on the effective date of 

designation or expansion of the 

Sanctuary that are necessary for national 

defense are exempt from the 

prohibitions contained in the 

regulations in this subpart. Additional 

DOD activities initiated after the 

effective date of designation or 

expansion that are necessary for 

national defense will be exempted by 

the Director after consultation between 

the Department of Commerce and DOD. 

DOD activities not necessary for 

national defense, such as routine 

exercises and vessel operations, are 

subject to all prohibitions contained in 

the regulations in this subpart. 

(d) The prohibitions in paragraphs 

(a)(2) through (7) of this section do not 

apply to any activity executed in 

accordance with the scope, purpose, 

terms, and conditions of a National 

Marine Sanctuary permit issued 

pursuant to §§ 922.48 and 922.113 or a 

Special Use permit issued pursuant to 

section 310 of the Act. 

(e) Where necessary to prevent 

immediate, serious, and irreversible 

damage to a Sanctuary resource, any 

activity may be regulated within the 

limits of the Act on an emergency basis 

for no more than 120 days. 

§ 922.113 Permit procedures and issuance 

criteria. 

(a) A person may conduct an activity 

prohibited by § 922.112(a)(2) through 

(7), if such activity is specifically 

authorized by, and conducted in 

accordance with the scope, purpose, 

terms and conditions of, a permit issued 

under § 922.48 and this section. 

(b) The Director, at his or her 

discretion, may issue a national marine 

sanctuary permit under this section, 

subject to terms and conditions, as he or 

she deems appropriate, if the Director 

finds that the activity will: 

(1) Further research or monitoring 

related to Sanctuary resources and 

qualities; 

(2) Further the educational value of 

the Sanctuary; 

(3) Further salvage or recovery 

operations in or near the Sanctuary in 

connection with a recent air or marine 

casualty; or 

(4) Assist in managing the Sanctuary. 

(c) In deciding whether to issue a 

permit, the Director shall consider such 

factors as: 

(1) The applicant is qualified to 

conduct and complete the proposed 

activity; 

(2) The applicant has adequate 

financial resources available to conduct 

and complete the proposed activity; 

(3) The methods and procedures 

proposed by the applicant are 

appropriate to achieve the goals of the 

proposed activity, especially in relation 

to the potential effects of the proposed 

activity on Sanctuary resources and 

qualities; 

(4) The proposed activity will be 

conducted in a manner compatible with 

the primary objective of protection of 

Sanctuary resources and qualities, 

considering the extent to which the 

conduct of the activity may diminish or 

enhance Sanctuary resources and 

qualities, any potential indirect, 

secondary or cumulative effects of the 

activity, and the duration of such 

effects; 

(5) The proposed activity will be 

conducted in a manner compatible with 

the value of the Sanctuary, considering 

the extent to which the conduct of the 

activity may result in conflicts between 

different users of the Sanctuary, and the 

duration of such effects; 

(6) It is necessary to conduct the 

proposed activity within the Sanctuary; 

(7) The reasonably expected end value 

of the proposed activity to the 

furtherance of Sanctuary goals and 

purposes outweighs any potential 

adverse effects on Sanctuary resources 

and qualities from the conduct of the 

activity; and 

(8) The Director may consider 

additional factors as he or she deems 

appropriate. 

(d) Applications. (1) Applications for 

permits should be addressed to the 

Director, Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries; ATTN: Superintendent, 

Cordell Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary, P.O. Box 159, Olema, CA 

94950. 

(2) In addition to the information 

listed in § 922.48(b), all applications 

must include information to be 

considered by the Director in paragraph 

(b) and (c) of this section. 

(e) The permittee must agree to hold 

the United States harmless against any 

claims arising out of the conduct of the 

permitted activities. 

Appendix A to Subpart K of Part 922— 

Cordell Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary Boundary Coordinates 

Coordinates listed in this appendix are 

unprojected (Geographic Coordinate System) 

and based on the North American Datum of 

1983 (NAD83). 

SANCTUARY BOUNDARY COORDINATES

Point 

ID No. Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 38.29989 ¥123.20005 

2 ................ 38.29989 ¥123.99988 

3 ................ 37.76687 ¥123.75143 

4 ................ 37.76687 ¥123.42694 

5 ................ 37.83480 ¥123.42579 

6 ................ 37.90464 ¥123.38958 

7 ................ 37.95880 ¥123.32312 

8 ................ 37.98947 ¥123.23615 

9 ................ 37.99227 ¥123.14137 

10 .............. 38.05202 ¥123.12827 

11 .............. 38.06505 ¥123.11711 

12 .............. 38.07898 ¥123.10924 

13 .............. 38.09069 ¥123.10387 

14 .............. 38.10215 ¥123.09804 

15 .............. 38.12829 ¥123.08742 

16 .............. 38.14072 ¥123.08237 

17 .............. 38.16576 ¥123.09207 

18 .............. 38.21001 ¥123.11913 

19 .............. 38.26390 ¥123.18138 

20 .............. 38.29989 ¥123.20005 

Appendix B to Subpart K of Part 922— 

Line Representing the 50-Fathom 

Isobath Surrounding Cordell Bank 

Coordinates listed in this appendix are 

unprojected (Geographic Coordinate System) 

and based on the North American Datum of 

1983 (NAD83). 

CORDELL BANK FIFTY FATHOM LINE

COORDINATES

Point 

ID No. Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 37.96034 ¥123.40371 

2 ................ 37.96172 ¥123.42081 

3 ................ 37.9911 ¥123.44379 

4 ................ 38.00406 ¥123.46443 

5 ................ 38.01637 ¥123.46076 

6 ................ 38.04684 ¥123.47920 

7 ................ 38.07106 ¥123.48754 

8 ................ 38.07588 ¥123.47195 

9 ................ 38.06451 ¥123.46146 

10 .............. 38.07123 ¥123.44467 

11 .............. 38.04446 ¥123.40286 

12 .............. 38.01442 ¥123.38588 

13 .............. 37.98859 ¥123.37533 

14 .............. 37.97071 ¥123.38605 

15 .............. 37.96034 ¥123.40371 

[FR Doc. 2015–04502 Filed 3–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES