3216 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

1From 1980 to 2007, the area of CINMS was 

described as approximately 1252.5 square nautical 

miles. However, in 2007 NOAA re-calculated the 

original CINMS area as approximately 1113 square 

nautical miles (72 FR 29208). Also in 2007, NOAA 

designated the federal portion of the Channel 

Islands MPA network, consisting of eight marine 

reserves and one marine conservation area within 

the CINMS (72 FR 29208). The marine reserves are 

distributed throughout the CINMS and extend 

slightly beyond the original boundaries of the 

CINMS in four locations, increasing the overall size 

of the Sanctuary by approximately 15 square 

nautical miles. This change allowed the boundary 

of four of the marine reserves to be defined by 

straight lines projecting outside the original CINMS 

boundary, allowing for better enforcement of the 

marine reserves. Since then, adjusting for technical 

corrections and using updated technologies, NOAA 

has re-calculated the CINMS area as approximately 

1470 square statute miles (1110 square nmi). This 

change does not constitute a change in the 

geographic area of the Sanctuary, but rather an 

improvement in the estimate of its size. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 922 

[Docket No. 080311420–9008–02] 

RIN 0648–AT17 

Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary Regulations 

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) 

publishes this rule to finalize the 

regulations for the Channel Islands 

National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS or 

Sanctuary). This final rule revises the 

regulations to implement prohibitions 

on: Exploring for, developing, or 

producing minerals within the 

Sanctuary; abandoning matter on or in 

Sanctuary submerged lands; taking 

marine mammals, sea turtles, or 

seabirds within or above the Sanctuary; 

possessing within the Sanctuary any 

marine mammal, sea turtle, or seabird; 

marking, defacing, damaging, moving, 

removing, or tampering with Sanctuary 

signs, monuments, boundary markers, 

or similar items; introducing or 

otherwise releasing from within or into 

the Sanctuary an introduced species; 

and operating motorized personal 

watercraft within waters of the 

Sanctuary that are coextensive with the 

Channel Islands National Park. NOAA 

also makes additional changes to the 

grammar and wording of several 

sections of the regulations to ensure 

clarity. Finally, NOAA publishes the 

Sanctuary’s revised terms of 

designation. 

DATES: Effective Date: Pursuant to 

section 304(b) of the National Marine 

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

1434(b)), the revised terms of 

designation and regulations shall take 

effect and become final after the close of 

a review period of forty-five days of 

continuous session of Congress 

beginning on January 16, 2009. 

Announcement of the effective date of 

the final regulations will be published 

in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final 

management plan (FMP) and final 

environmental impact statement (FEIS) 

are available at Channel Islands 

National Marine Sanctuary, 113 Harbor 

Way, Suite 150, Santa Barbara, 

California and on the Web at http:// 

channelislands.noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Murray at (805) 884–1464. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

Pursuant to section 304(e) of the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

(NMSA; 16 U.S.C. 1434(e)), NOAA 

conducted a review of the management 

plan and regulations for the Channel 

Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

(CINMS or Sanctuary), located off Santa 

Barbara and Ventura counties in 

southern California. As a result of the 

review, NOAA determined that it was 

necessary to revise the management 

plan and regulations for the Sanctuary 

and subsequently published a draft 

revised management plan, proposed 

rule, and draft environmental impact 

statement (71 FR 29096; May 19, 2006). 

NOAA later published a supplemental 

proposed rule and supplemental draft 

environmental impact statement (73 FR 

16580; March 28, 2008). 

The revised management plan for the 

Sanctuary contains a series of action 

plans that outline management, 

research, education, operational, and 

evaluation activities for the next five 

years. The activities are designed to 

address specific issues facing the 

Sanctuary and, in doing so, help achieve 

the mandates of the NMSA and the 

Sanctuary’s designation. NOAA has also 

revised several sections of the 

Sanctuary’s terms of designation. This 

final rule publishes these revisions, as 

well as revisions to Sanctuary 

regulations. These revisions are 

described below in the ‘‘Terms of 

Designation’’ and ‘‘Summary of the 

Regulatory Amendments’’ sections and 

are analyzed in the FEIS. The FMP and 

FEIS are available at http:// 

channelislands.noaa.gov or may be 

obtained by contacting the individual 

listed under the heading FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

A. Marine Reserves and Conservation 

Areas 

In 2002, NOAA considered merging 

the environmental review processes for 

management plan review and the 

consideration of marine zones within 

the Sanctuary, but subsequently 

determined that it was more appropriate 

to proceed with two separate processes 

for these actions because of differing 

process needs regarding coordination 

with the State of California and Pacific 

Fishery Management Council. 

Consequently, NOAA prepared a 

separate DEIS and proposed rule (71 FR 

46134; August 11, 2006) and FEIS and 

final rule (72 FR 29208; May 24, 2007) 

to address marine zones in the 

Sanctuary. As such, that process is 

outside the scope of this rule. 

B. Sanctuary Environment 

Designated on October 2, 1980 (45 FR 

65200), the Sanctuary consists of an area 

off the coast of southern California of 

approximately 1470 square statute miles 

(1110 square nmi) 1 adjacent to the 

following islands and offshore rocks: 

San Miguel Island, Santa Cruz Island, 

Santa Rosa Island, Anacapa Island, 

Santa Barbara Island, Richardson Rock, 

and Castle Rock (the Islands) extending 

seaward to a distance of approximately 

six nmi. The Sanctuary is located within 

the upper portion of the Southern 

California Bight (SCB), which is formed 

by a transition in the California 

coastline wherein the north-south 

trending coast begins to trend east to 

west. The SCB stretches from Point 

Conception in the north to Punta 

Eugenia (Mexico) in the south. Due to 

the oceanographic features of the SCB, 

its two biogeographic provinces or 

bioregions (areas characterized by 

distinct patterns of species abundance 

and distribution) and a transition zone 

between them, and the complex bottom 

topography and diversity of habitats 

found at the Islands, the Sanctuary has 

a great diversity of marine life. 

Numerous important habitats are 

represented within the Sanctuary 

including kelp forests, surfgrass and 

eelgrass, intertidal, nearshore subtidal, 

deep-water benthic, and pelagic 

habitats. 

The Sanctuary’s cultural values stem 

largely from its rich array of maritime 

heritage resources (paleontological 

remains, prehistoric archaeological sites 

and their associated artifacts, 

shipwrecks, aircraft wrecks, and 

material associated with wharves, piers 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3217 

and landings). Carbon dating indicates 

that humans were present at the Islands 

as early as 13,000 years ago. The Islands 

and surrounding Sanctuary contain an 

abundance of prehistoric Native 

American Chumash artifacts and are 

still revered as part of the traditional 

homeland by contemporary Chumash. 

Historical remains may exist from as 

early as Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo’s 

voyage (1542 to 1543) through modern 

times. Known historical remains are 

represented in an inventory of over 140 

shipwrecks and aircraft wrecks 

documented as existing in the Sanctuary 

since 1853. The uniqueness of the 

Sanctuary region and its proximity to 

several major ports and harbors along 

the mainland coast has made it a 

popular destination for numerous 

recreational and commercial activities. 

Sportfishing, diving, snorkeling, whale 

watching, pleasure boating, kayaking, 

surfing, and sightseeing are all popular 

pastimes within the Sanctuary, which is 

often referred to as ‘‘the Galapagos of 

the north.’’ Commercial activities 

include fishing, whale watching, 

chartered tours, and maritime shipping. 

The Sanctuary is located near an area 

of southern California coastline that has 

experienced a dramatic increase in 

population. Whereas the population of 

southern California (Imperial, Los 

Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San 

Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, 

and Ventura counties) was 

approximately 13.5 million in 1980, 

population levels now reach nearly 20 

million. This represents a regional 

increase in population of approximately 

43%. Aerial and on-water surveys 

indicate that visitation to CINMS has 

increased significantly since 1980. With 

continued technological innovations 

such as global positioning systems 

(GPS) and improved watercraft design, 

it is likely that there will be continued 

increasing visitation to the Sanctuary 

and added pressure on its resources. 

With its proposed revised management 

plan and regulations, NOAA continues 

to protect CINMS for appreciation and 

appropriate use by current and future 

generations. For a more detailed 

description of the Sanctuary 

environment, please refer to the final 

environmental impact statement 

available on the Sanctuary Web site at 

http://channelislands.noaa.gov. 

II. Changes to the Sanctuary Terms of 

Designation 

Section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA (16 

U.S.C. 1434(a)(4)) requires that, in 

designating national marine sanctuaries, 

NOAA specify the sanctuary’s ‘‘terms of 

designation.’’ The NMSA requires that 

each sanctuary’s terms of designation 

include: 

1. The geographic area proposed to be 

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 that will be 

subject to regulation by the Secretary to 

protect those characteristics. 

The CINMS terms of designation were 

originally published in 1980 upon 

establishment of the Sanctuary and 

revised in 2007 (45 FR 65198, published 

October 2, 1980; and 72 FR 29208, 

published May 24, 2007, respectively). 

NOAA is revising the Sanctuary’s 

terms of designation as follows: 

1. Modifying the characteristics that 

give the Sanctuary particular value 

(Article III) to clarify that the submerged 

lands at CINMS are legally part of the 

Sanctuary and are included in the 

boundary description. At the time the 

Sanctuary was designated in 1980, Title 

III of the Marine Protection, Research, 

and Sanctuaries Act (now also known as 

the NMSA) characterized national 

marine sanctuaries as consisting of 

coastal and ocean waters but did not 

expressly mention submerged lands 

thereunder. NOAA has consistently 

interpreted its authority under the 

NMSA as extending to submerged lands, 

and amendments to the NMSA in 1984 

(Pub. L. 98–498) clarified that 

submerged lands may be designated by 

the Secretary of Commerce as part of a 

national marine sanctuary (16 U.S.C. 

1432(3)). Therefore, NOAA is updating 

the terms of designation and the 

boundary description, and is also 

replacing the term ‘‘seabed’’ with 

‘‘submerged lands of the Sanctuary.’’ In 

addition, NOAA is clarifying the 

description of the Sanctuary’s shoreline 

boundary demarcation as the Mean High 

Water Line (MHWL) of Island shores. 

2. Modifying the scope of activities 

that may be subject to regulation 

(Article IV) to authorize regulation of: 

a. Exploring for, developing, or 

producing minerals within the 

Sanctuary; 

b. 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; 

c. Placing or abandoning any 

structure, material, or other matter on or 

in the submerged lands of the 

Sanctuary; 

d. Moving, injuring, possessing, or 

attempting to move, injure, or possess a 

Sanctuary historical resource; 

e. Taking any marine mammal, sea 

turtle, or seabird within or above the 

Sanctuary; 

f. Possessing within the Sanctuary 

(regardless of where taken from, moved, 

or removed from) any marine mammal, 

sea turtle or seabird; 

g. Marking, defacing, damaging, 

moving, removing, or tampering with 

any sign, notice, or placard, whether 

temporary or permanent, or any 

monument, stake, post, or other 

boundary marker related to the 

Sanctuary; and 

h. Introducing or otherwise releasing 

from within or into the Sanctuary an 

introduced species. 

These substantive revisions to and 

addition of new activities subject to 

Sanctuary regulation enable new and 

emerging resource management issues 

to be addressed, and are necessary in 

order to ensure the protection, 

preservation, and management of the 

conservation, recreational, ecological, 

historical, cultural, educational, 

archeological, scientific, and esthetic 

resources and qualities of the Sanctuary. 

3. Ensuring consistency of the 

sections on international law and 

emergency regulations with the NMSA 

and ONMS program-wide regulations 

(sections 2 and 3 of Article IV). 

4. Updating the explanation of the 

effect of Sanctuary authority on 

preexisting leases, permits, licenses, and 

rights (section 3 of Article V). 

5. Updating Article VI, ‘‘Alterations to 

This Designation’’, to reflect the NMSA 

as currently written. 

6. Making other minor editorial 

changes in order to conform wording of 

the Sanctuary’s terms of designation, 

where appropriate, to wording used in 

the NMSA and for more recently 

designated sanctuaries. 

NOAA is not making any changes to 

the ‘‘Fishing’’ and ‘‘Defense Activities’’ 

sections within Article V (Relation to 

Other Regulatory Programs) of the terms 

of designation as part of this action. 

Revised Terms of Designation for the 

Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary 

Article I. Effect of Designation 

The Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary was designated on October 2, 

1980 (45 FR 65200). Section 308 of the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 16 

U.S.C. 1431 et seq., (NMSA) authorizes 

the issuance of such regulations as may 

be necessary to implement the 

designation, including managing, 

protecting and preserving the 

conservation, recreational, ecological, 

historical, cultural, archeological, 

scientific, educational, and esthetic 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3218 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

resources and qualities of the Channel 

Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

(Sanctuary). Section 1 of Article IV of 

this Designation Document lists 

activities of the types that are to be 

regulated on the effective date of 

designation or may 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 

approximately 1,110 square nautical 

miles (nmi) of coastal and ocean waters, 

and the submerged lands thereunder, off 

the southern coast of California. The 

Sanctuary boundary begins at the Mean 

High Water Line of and extends seaward 

to a distance of approximately six nmi 

from the following islands and offshore 

rocks: San Miguel Island, Santa Cruz 

Island, Santa Rosa Island, Anacapa 

Island, Santa Barbara Island, Richardson 

Rock, and Castle Rock (the Islands). The 

seaward boundary coordinates are listed 

in an Appendix to 15 CFR 922 subpart 

G. 

Article III. Characteristics of the Area 

That Give It Particular Value 

The Islands and surrounding 

ecosystems are unique and highly 

valued, as demonstrated by, for 

example, several national and 

international designations. The Islands 

and surrounding ecosystems are 

characterized by a unique combination 

of features including: Complex 

oceanography, varied bathymetry, 

diverse habitats, remarkable 

biodiversity, rich maritime heritage, 

remote yet accessible location, and 

relative lack of development. These 

features yield high existence values as 

well as human use values for research, 

education, recreation, and commerce. 

The Islands are located within a 300- 

mile long oceanographic region known 

as the Continental Borderland, a unique 

region of the continental shelf 

characterized by basins and elevated 

ridges. Within this region, the 

confluence of the cool California 

Current and warm Southern California 

Countercurrent creates two distinct 

bioregions in and around the Sanctuary: 

The cold Oregonian bioregion and the 

warm Californian bioregion. There is 

also a transition zone between the two 

regions. The overlap of these bioregions 

results in a unique and highly diverse 

array of marine life within the 

Sanctuary, including cold water species 

at the southern end of their range and 

warm water species at the northern end 

of their range. In addition, the Sanctuary 

is located offshore from Point 

Conception, the southernmost major 

upwelling center on the west coast of 

the United States. Upwelling yields 

increased primary productivity essential 

to the marine food web. 

Diverse bathymetry and habitats are 

also important and unique 

characteristics of the Islands and 

surrounding ecosystems. The Sanctuary 

contains many important and varied 

physical and geological features 

including a complex of plateaus, 

continental slope, gyres, banks, subsea 

canyons, and rocky reefs. The diversity 

of accentuated bottom relief, abrupt 

change in depth, and varied substrate 

provide a spectrum of marine habitats. 

Some of the key marine habitats are 

sandy beach, rocky intertidal, kelp 

forest, rocky reef, and sandy bottom. 

The Sanctuary’s oceanographic and 

physical features support a great 

diversity of marine species, many of 

which are extremely rare and afforded 

special protection by federal and state 

law. At least 33 species of cetaceans are 

found within the Sanctuary, including 

blue, gray, and humpback whales and 

numerous dolphin species. While seven 

species of pinnipeds have been found 

historically throughout or in certain 

areas of the Sanctuary, at least four 

species maintain important rookery 

and/or haul out sites on the Islands. 

Following the 1987 to 1990 

translocation of southern sea otters to 

San Nicolas Island, rare sea otter 

sightings have been reported in the 

Sanctuary. Over 60 species of seabird 

occur within the Sanctuary, eleven of 

which utilize breeding habitat at the 

Islands. In addition, over 400 species of 

fish and more than 5,000 species of 

invertebrates are found in the 

Sanctuary. Stranding data indicate that 

green, loggerhead, olive Ridley, and 

leatherback sea turtles may also be 

found within the Sanctuary. Finally, 

numerous marine algae and plant 

species occur within the Sanctuary, the 

most notable among these being giant 

kelp and eelgrass. 

The quality and abundance of natural 

resources at the Islands and surrounding 

waters have attracted man from the 

earliest prehistoric times to the present. 

As a result, the Sanctuary contains 

significant prehistoric and historic 

maritime heritage resources. Prehistoric 

maritime heritage resources include 

submerged Native American Chumash 

sites, the significance of which is 

underscored by a terrestrial Island site 

with human remains dated to 13,000 

years ago. Historic maritime heritage 

resources date back as far as 1542 and 

include over 140 historic shipwreck and 

aircraft sites. These wrecks reveal the 

diverse range of activities and 

nationalities that have traversed the 

Santa Barbara Channel. Following the 

mission era, human occupation of the 

Islands transitioned from significant 

Chumash Native American villages, to 

land grant and ranching settlements, 

and finally to joint public-private 

ownership and management aimed at 

resource conservation and compatible 

public use. Today’s Chumash people 

continue to value and enjoy the Islands 

and surrounding Sanctuary waters, 

working to keep and revitalize their 

ancient Chumash maritime heritage. 

Despite this long history of human 

presence on the Islands, they remain 

remote yet accessible, and undeveloped 

relative to the burgeoning populations 

of nearby mainland southern California. 

The physical, biological, and cultural 

characteristics of the Sanctuary combine 

to provide outstanding opportunities for 

appropriate scientific research, 

education, recreation, commerce, and 

natural and maritime heritage resource 

protection, preservation, and 

management. The Islands and 

surrounding Sanctuary are the subject of 

extensive research, primarily in the 

following categories: Physical and 

biological science research; 

socioeconomic, cultural, and historic 

research; and political science research. 

Since its designation in 1980, the 

Sanctuary has played an important role 

in marine science education for all ages 

on a local, regional, national, and 

international scale. Popular Sanctuary 

recreation activities include wildlife 

viewing, boating, sailing, kayaking, 

diving, and sportfishing. Commercial 

activities within the Sanctuary include 

maritime shipping, oil and gas activities 

(three leases units pre-date the 

Sanctuary), kelp harvesting, and 

commercial fishing. Some of the state’s 

most valuable commercial fisheries 

occur within the Sanctuary. County, 

state, and federal agencies manage the 

resources of the Islands and 

surrounding area and human uses 

thereof. 

Several special designations recognize 

the Islands’ and surrounding 

ecosystems’ unique value. In 1980, the 

United States designated both the 

Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary, as well as the islands of 

Anacapa, San Miguel, Santa Barbara, 

Santa Cruz, and Santa Rosa and 125,000 

acres of submerged lands surrounding 

them as the Channel Islands National 

Park. In addition, the United Nations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3219 

Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Organization’s (UNESCO) Man and the 

Biosphere Program designated the 

Sanctuary as a Biosphere Reserve in 

1986. 

Article IV. Scope of Regulations 

Section 1. Activities Subject to 

Regulation 

The following activities are subject to 

regulation, including prohibition, as 

may be necessary to ensure the 

management, protection, and 

preservation of the conservation, 

recreational, ecological, historical, 

cultural, archeological, scientific, 

educational, and esthetic resources and 

qualities of this area: 

a. Exploring for, developing, or 

producing hydrocarbons or minerals 

within the Sanctuary; 

b. Discharging or depositing from 

within or into the Sanctuary any 

material or other matter; 

c. 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; 

d. Drilling into, dredging, or 

otherwise altering the submerged lands 

of the Sanctuary; or constructing, 

placing, or abandoning any structure, 

material, or other matter on or in the 

submerged lands of the Sanctuary; 

e. Operating a vessel (i.e., watercraft 

of any description) within the Sanctuary 

except fishing vessels or vessels 

traveling within a Vessel Traffic 

Separation Scheme or Port Access Route 

designated by the Coast Guard outside 

of 1 nmi from any Island; 

f. Disturbing a marine mammal or 

seabird by an overflight below 1000 feet; 

g. Within a marine reserve, marine 

park, or marine conservation area, 

harvesting, removing, taking, injuring, 

destroying, possessing, collecting, 

moving, or causing the loss of any 

Sanctuary resource, including living or 

dead organisms or historical resources, 

or attempting any of these activities; 

h. Within a marine reserve, marine 

park, or marine conservation area, 

possessing fishing gear; 

i. Moving, removing, injuring, 

possessing, or attempting to move, 

remove, injure, or possess a Sanctuary 

historical resource; 

j. Taking any marine mammal, sea 

turtle, or seabird within or above the 

Sanctuary; 

k. Possessing within the Sanctuary 

(regardless of where taken from, moved, 

or removed from) any marine mammal, 

sea turtle, or seabird; 

l. Marking, defacing, damaging, 

moving, removing, or tampering with 

any sign, notice, or placard, whether 

temporary or permanent, or any 

monument, stake, post, or other 

boundary marker related to the 

Sanctuary; 

m. Introducing or otherwise releasing 

from within or into the Sanctuary an 

introduced species. 

Section 2. Consistency With 

International Law 

The regulations governing the 

activities listed in Section 1 of this 

article shall be applied in accordance 

with generally recognized principles of 

international law, and in accordance 

with treaties, conventions, and other 

agreements to which the United States 

is a party. No regulation shall apply to 

or be enforced against a person who is 

not a citizen, national, or resident alien 

of the United States, unless in 

accordance with: Generally recognized 

principles of international law; an 

agreement between the United States 

and the foreign state of which the 

person is a citizen; or an agreement 

between the United States and the flag 

state of a foreign vessel, if the person is 

a crewmember of the vessel. 

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, 

consistent with the Administrative 

Procedure Act. 

Article V. Relation to Other Regulatory 

Programs 

Section 1. Fishing 

The regulation of fishing is not 

authorized under Article IV, except 

within portions of the Sanctuary 

designated as marine reserves, marine 

parks, or marine conservation areas 

established pursuant to the goals and 

objectives of the Sanctuary and within 

the scope of the State of California’s 

Final Environmental Document ‘‘Marine 

Protected Areas in NOAA’s Channel 

Islands National Marine Sanctuary’’ 

(California Department of Fish and 

Game, October 2002), certified by the 

California Fish and Game Commission. 

However, fishing vessels may be 

regulated with respect to discharges in 

accordance with Article IV, Section 1, 

paragraphs (b) and (c), and aircraft 

conducting kelp bed surveys below 

1000 feet can be regulated in accordance 

with Article IV, Section 1, paragraph (f). 

All regulatory programs pertaining to 

fishing, including particularly 

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., shall remain in 

effect. All permits, licenses and other 

authorizations issued pursuant thereto 

shall be valid within the Sanctuary 

unless authorizing any activity 

prohibited by any regulation 

implementing Article IV. Fishing as 

used in this article and in Article IV 

includes kelp harvesting. 

Section 2. Defense Activities 

The regulation of those activities 

listed in Article IV shall not prohibit 

any activity conducted by the 

Department of Defense that is essential 

for national defense or because of an 

emergency. Such activities shall be 

consistent with the regulations to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

Section 3. Effect on Leases, Permits, 

Licenses, and Rights 

Pursuant to section 304(c) of the 

NMSA, 16 U.S.C. 1434(c), no valid 

lease, permit, license, approval, or other 

authorization issued by any federal, 

state, or local authority of competent 

jurisdiction, or any right of subsistence 

use or access, may be terminated by the 

Secretary of Commerce or designee as a 

result of this designation or as a result 

of any Sanctuary regulation if such 

authorization or right was in existence 

on the effective date of this designation. 

The Secretary of Commerce, or 

designee, however, may regulate the 

exercise (including, but not limited to, 

the imposition of terms and conditions) 

of such authorization or right consistent 

with the purposes for which the 

Sanctuary is designated. 

Article VI. Alterations to This 

Designation 

The terms of designation, as defined 

under section 304(a) of the NMSA, may 

be modified only by the same 

procedures by which the original 

designation is made, including public 

hearings, consultation with interested 

federal and state agencies and the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council, 

approval by the Secretary of Commerce 

or designee, and after the close of a 

review period of forty-five days of 

continuous session of Congress. 

III. Summary of the Regulatory 

Amendments 

This section describes the changes 

NOAA is making to the CINMS 

regulations. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3220 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

1. Clarify and update Sanctuary 

boundary. 

This rule clarifies that ‘‘submerged 

lands’’ are within the Sanctuary 

boundary, i.e., part of the Sanctuary. 

This updates the boundary regulation to 

make it consistent with the revised 

terms of designation. (See discussion 

above for more information.) This rule 

also clarifies the description of the 

shoreline boundary to make clear that 

the shoreline boundary is the Mean 

High Water Line (MHWL) of Island 

shores. 

2. Revise oil and gas regulation, and 

add mineral regulation. 

This rule modifies the oil and gas 

regulation by removing the oil spill 

contingency equipment requirements 

and modifying exceptions to this 

prohibition. The equipment 

requirements are outdated and 

unnecessary since Minerals 

Management Service lease agreement 

terms prescribe more stringent 

mandatory oil spill contingency plans. 

This rule also prohibits exploring for, 

developing, or producing minerals 

within the Sanctuary, except producing 

by-products incidental to hydrocarbon 

production allowed under the 

regulations. ‘‘Mineral’’ is defined by the 

ONMS-wide regulations as clay, stone, 

sand, gravel, metalliferous ore, nonmetalliferous ore, or any other solid 

material or other matter of commercial 

value (15 CFR 922.3). Mineral extraction 

activities could involve scraping the 

Sanctuary’s seabed surface and/or 

excavation of pits and tunnels into the 

seabed. This prohibition protects 

Sanctuary resources and qualities from 

potentially damaging effects of offshore 

mineral activities, including (but not 

limited to): Destruction and direct 

smothering of the benthic biota; 

alteration of the seabed surface profile; 

potential harm to fisheries; introduction 

of substances (e.g., drill cuttings and 

mud) that could cause interference with 

the filtering, feeding, or respiratory 

functions of marine organisms; loss of 

food sources and habitat for some 

species; possible lowered 

photosynthesis and oxygen levels; and 

degraded appearance of the water itself. 

Finally, prohibition of mineral activities 

within the Sanctuary reduces the risk of 

potential disturbance to underwater 

historical resources either through 

physical disturbance or increased 

turbidity, which will result in direct 

long-term beneficial impact to historical 

resources. A prohibition on mineral 

activities within the Sanctuary is 

consistent with the prohibition on 

alteration of or construction on or in the 

submerged lands discussed below. 

3. Revise regulations on discharge/ 

deposit. 

This rule also clarifies and otherwise 

modifies the regulations prohibiting 

discharging or depositing any material 

or other matter as follows: 

a. Clarify that the regulation applies to 

discharges and deposits ‘‘from within or 

into the Sanctuary.’’ Using the word 

‘‘into’’ is intended to make clear that it 

applies to not only discharges and 

deposits originating in the Sanctuary 

(including from vessels in the 

Sanctuary), but also to, e.g., discharges 

and deposits from aircraft above the 

Sanctuary, from docks and piers 

extending over the Sanctuary, and from 

cliffs and other land adjacent to the 

Sanctuary. 

b. Clarify that the exception for fish, 

fish parts, or chumming materials (bait) 

applies only to such discharges or 

deposits that were used in or resulting 

from lawful fishing activity within the 

Sanctuary and provided that such 

discharges or deposits are during the 

conduct of lawful fishing activity in the 

Sanctuary. 

c. Remove the exception for 

discharging or depositing biodegradable 

effluents generated by meals onboard 

vessels. Coast Guard regulations 

prohibit discharge/deposit of food 

wastes (garbage) within three nmi and 

prohibit discharge/deposit of food 

wastes unless ground to less than one 

inch within three to twelve nmi. The 

Sanctuary regulations are modified to 

mirror the Coast Guard regulations 

within three nmi and, beyond three 

nmi, provide increased protection to 

Sanctuary resources and qualities. 

d. Clarify NOAA’s original intent of 

prohibiting untreated sewage discharge/ 

deposit within the Sanctuary. The 

exception for biodegradable effluent 

discharges/deposits from marine 

sanitation devices is now explicit in its 

application only to operable Type I or 

II marine sanitation devices approved 

by the United States Coast Guard in 

accordance with the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act, as amended. 

e. Prohibit discharges/deposits of 

treated and untreated sewage and 

graywater from vessels 300 gross 

registered tons (GRT) or greater, except 

oceangoing ships without sufficient 

holding tank capacity to hold sewage 

and graywater, respectively, while 

within the Sanctuary. Cruise ships 

(larger than 300 GRT) are not provided 

an exception and, therefore, are 

prohibited from discharging/depositing 

treated or untreated sewage and 

graywater in the Sanctuary. 

These revisions address NOAA’s 

concerns about possible impacts from 

large volumes of sewage discharges in 

the Sanctuary, whether treated or not, 

from large vessels (such as cruise ships). 

Vessel sewage discharges are more 

concentrated than domestic land-based 

sewage. They may introduce diseasecausing microorganisms (pathogens), 

such as bacteria, protozoans, and 

viruses, into the marine environment 

(EPA 2007). They may also contain high 

concentrations of nutrients that can lead 

to eutrophication (the process that can 

cause oxygen-depleted ‘‘dead zones’’ in 

aquatic environments), and may yield 

unpleasant esthetic impacts to the 

Sanctuary (diminishing Sanctuary 

resources and its ecological, 

conservation, esthetic, recreational and 

other qualities). 

Graywater can contain a variety of 

substances including (but not limited to) 

detergents, oil and grease, pesticides 

and food wastes (Eley 2000). Very little 

research has been done on the impacts 

of graywater on the marine 

environment, but many of the chemicals 

commonly found in graywater are 

known to be toxic (Casanova et al. 

2001). These chemicals have been 

implicated in the occurrence of 

cancerous growths in bottom-dwelling 

fish (Mix 1986). Furthermore, studies of 

graywater discharges from large cruise 

ships in Alaska (prior to strict state 

effluent standards for cruise ship 

graywater discharges) found very high 

levels of fecal coliform in large cruise 

ship graywater (well exceeding the 

federal standards for fecal coliform from 

Type II MSDs). These same studies also 

found high mean total suspended solids 

in some graywater sources (exceeding 

the federal standards for total 

suspended solids from Type II MSDs). 

While many older ships have been 

modified to allow graywater retention, 

some must still discharge graywater 

directly as it is produced. Similarly, 

some older ships have very limited 

holding tank capacity for sewage. 

Consequently, given that many older 

vessels are still in operation, NOAA 

provides exceptions for sewage and 

graywater discharge from oceangoing 

ships without sufficient holding tank 

capacity to retain sewage or graywater, 

respectively, while in the Sanctuary. 

Treated sewage and graywater 

discharge from small vessels, and from 

oceangoing ships without sufficient 

holding tank capacity to hold sewage 

and graywater while within the 

Sanctuary, is anticipated to have a less 

than significant adverse impact on the 

Sanctuary’s physical, biological, and 

esthetic resources. Most oceangoing 

ships have sufficient holding tank 

capacity to hold sewage and graywater 

while within the Sanctuary. As for other 

oceangoing ships, given the much lower 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3221 

number of people on oceangoing ships 

(as noted in the FEIS section 3.0, on 

average oceangoing ships carry crews of 

approximately twenty people, but may 

range from five to fifty people), the 

treated sewage and graywater generated 

by such ships is far less in quantity as 

compared to that from cruise ships, and 

is therefore not expected to contain the 

larger volume of possible harmful 

nutrients, pathogens, and chemicals that 

can be found in cruise ship treated 

sewage and graywater. 

Additional details on the potential 

impacts to Sanctuary resources from 

graywater and treated sewage 

discharges/deposits are provided in the 

FEIS. 

f. Provide a definition of ‘‘graywater’’ 

that reads as follows: ‘‘Graywater means 

galley, bath, or shower water.’’ Other 

discharges, such as those from laundry 

facilities, are not included in this 

definition, which is based on section 

312 of the CWA. In May 2006, NOAA’s 

proposed rule (71 FR 29096; May 19, 

2006) referred to the definition of 

graywater codified by the CWA; 

however, due to comments received, 

NOAA added a free-standing definition 

for graywater, rather than referring to 

the CWA. 

g. Adopt, for consistency purposes, in 

relevant part, the existing California 

Clean Coast Act definition of 

‘‘oceangoing ship’’ (California Public 

Resources Code sec. 72410(j)). The 

definition of ‘‘oceangoing ship’’ is 

added to the CINMS regulations to read 

as follows: ‘‘Oceangoing ship means a 

private, commercial, government, or 

military vessel of 300 gross registered 

tons or more, not including cruise 

ships.’’ 

The California Clean Coast Act 

definition is the same with one 

additional phrase at the end: ‘‘Calling 

on California ports or places.’’ The 

Sanctuary definition excludes this 

phrase since ships of this general 

description may traverse the Santa 

Barbara Channel TSS, and thereby the 

Sanctuary, without stopping in 

California ports or places. 

h. Adopt a definition of ‘‘cruise ship.’’ 

The definition of ‘‘cruise ship’’ is added 

to the CINMS regulations as follows: 

‘‘Cruise ship means a vessel with 250 or 

more passenger berths for hire.’’ 

i. Prohibit discharging or depositing 

any material or other matter from 

beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary 

that subsequently enters the Sanctuary 

and injures a Sanctuary resource or 

quality. ‘‘Sanctuary resource’’ is defined 

at 15 CFR 922.3 as ‘‘any living or nonliving resource of a National Marine 

Sanctuary that contributes to the 

conservation, recreational, ecological, 

historical, research, educational, or 

aesthetic value of the Sanctuary, 

including, but not limited to, the 

substratum of the area of the Sanctuary, 

other submerged features and the 

surrounding seabed, carbonate rock, 

corals and other bottom formations, 

coralline algae and other marine plants 

and algae, marine invertebrates, brineseep biota, phytoplankton, zooplankton, 

fish, seabirds, sea turtles and other 

marine reptiles, marine mammals and 

historical resources.’’ ‘‘Sanctuary 

quality’’ is defined at 15 CFR 922.3 as 

‘‘any of those ambient conditions, 

physical-chemical characteristics and 

natural processes, the maintenance of 

which is essential to the ecological 

health of the Sanctuary, including, but 

not limited to, water quality, sediment 

quality and air quality.’’ This 

modification provides consistency with 

the regulatory language of other more 

recently designated sanctuaries, and 

helps to protect Sanctuary resources and 

qualities from negative influences 

originating outside the boundaries of the 

CINMS. 

4. Clarify and update regulation on 

disturbing Sanctuary areas. 

This rule modifies the existing 

prohibition against altering the seabed 

of the Sanctuary or constructing a 

structure thereon. The term ‘‘seabed’’ is 

replaced with ‘‘submerged lands’’ to be 

consistent with language used in the 

NMSA. In addition, this rule expands 

the geographic extent of this regulation 

from the first 2 nmi offshore to the 

entire area of the Sanctuary in order to 

ensure protection of the diverse 

accentuated bottom relief, varied 

substrate, and concomitant benthic 

habitats of the Sanctuary, and wording 

is conformed with similar regulations at 

more recently designated sanctuaries. 

Another change modifies the exception 

for ‘‘bottom trawling from a commercial 

vessel’’ to provide an exception for 

activities incidental and necessary to 

‘‘conduct lawful fishing activity.’’ This 

exception encompasses other bottomtouching gear types, such as pots and 

traps. This change removes any 

uncertainty about the existing 

exception’s applicability to such gear 

types. 

This rule also specifies that 

abandoning—by which is meant leaving 

without intent to remove, any structure, 

material, or other matter on or in the 

submerged lands of the Sanctuary—is 

prohibited. This change makes the 

CINMS regulations consistent with 

regulations at more recently designated 

sanctuaries and helps protect the 

Sanctuary from, for example, debris 

abandoned by Sanctuary users. 

5. Modify vessel approach regulation. 

NOAA also modifies the vessel 

approach regulation so that the 

prohibition against vessel operation 

within 1 nmi of any of the Islands also 

applies to all vessels 300 gross 

registered tons or more (excluding 

fishing and kelp harvesting vessels). The 

former regulation prohibiting vessel 

operation within 1 nmi of any of the 

Islands applied only to vessels engaged 

in the trade of carrying cargo and those 

engaged in the trade of servicing 

offshore installations. The intent of this 

modification is to protect the sensitive 

nearshore areas off the Islands, 

including kelp forests, rocky reefs, and 

other areas, from the potential impacts 

of large-vessel groundings and 

collisions, including, but not limited to, 

cruise ships. NOAA modified this 

prohibition to more directly address its 

concern that large vessels put at risk 

sensitive nearshore areas of the 

Sanctuary regardless of their purpose for 

operating in nearshore Sanctuary 

waters. 

6. Clarify and update regulation on 

disturbing historical resources. 

This rule also includes a modification 

to the prohibition on removing or 

damaging any historical or cultural 

resource. The rule adds ‘‘moving’’ and 

‘‘possessing’’ to the prohibition; 

replaces ‘‘damage’’ with ‘‘injure,’’ a term 

defined at 15 CFR 922.3; and adds 

‘‘attempting’’ to move, remove, injure, 

or possess as a prohibition. The intent 

of this modification is to provide added 

protection to these fragile, finite, and 

non-renewable resources so they may be 

studied, and so appropriate information 

about them may be made available for 

the benefit of the public. The rule also 

replaces ‘‘historical or cultural 

resource’’ with ‘‘Sanctuary historical 

resource’’ to be consistent with 

regulatory language used at several 

other more recently designated national 

marine sanctuaries. ‘‘Historical 

resource’’ is defined in NMSP programwide 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. Historical 

resources include ‘submerged cultural 

resources’, and also include ‘historical 

properties’, as defined in the National 

Historic Preservation Act, as amended, 

and its implementing regulations, as 

amended.’’ (15 CFR 922.3). 

7. Prohibit take and possession of 

certain species. 

This rule implements a new 

prohibition on take of marine mammals, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3222 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

sea turtles, and seabirds, except as 

authorized by the MMPA, ESA, MBTA, 

or any regulation, as amended, 

promulgated under one of these acts. 

The intent of this regulation is to bring 

a special focus to protection of the 

diverse and vital marine mammal and 

seabird populations and the sea turtles 

of the Sanctuary. This area-specific 

focus is complementary to the 

prohibitions against taking promulgated 

by other resource protection agencies, 

especially given that other federal and 

state authorities must spread limited 

resources over much wider geographic 

areas. This regulation is consistent with 

regulations for several other more 

recently designated national marine 

sanctuaries, and provides a greater 

deterrent due to the higher civil 

penalties afforded under the NMSA 

than the penalties provided by the 

MMPA, ESA, and MBTA. Further, the 

prohibition covers all marine mammals, 

sea turtles, and seabirds within or above 

the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary’s 

regulations do not apply if an activity 

(including fishing in a federally or stateapproved fishery) that results in the take 

of marine mammals, sea turtles, or 

seabirds has been authorized under the 

MMPA, ESA, or MBTA or an 

implementing regulation. Therefore, 

under this rule, if NMFS or the USFWS 

issues a permit for, or otherwise 

authorizes, the take of a marine 

mammal, sea turtle, or seabird, such 

taking would not be prohibited and 

therefore would not require a permit 

from the Sanctuary Superintendent 

unless the activity would violate 

another provision of the Sanctuary’s 

regulations. 

‘‘Take’’ is defined in the NMSP 

program-wide regulations at 15 CFR 

922.3. 

The prohibition on take of marine 

mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds 

complements the regulation already 

prohibiting disturbing seabirds or 

marine mammals by flying motorized 

aircraft at less than 1000 feet over the 

waters within one nmi of any Island. 

That regulation provides a special focus 

on a specific type of activity, operation 

of motorized aircraft, within the 

particularly sensitive environments of 

the Sanctuary. 

This rule also prohibits possessing 

within the Sanctuary (regardless of 

where taken from, moved, or removed 

from) any marine mammal, sea turtle, or 

seabird, except as authorized by the 

MMPA, ESA, MBTA, or any regulation, 

as amended, promulgated under the 

MMPA, ESA, or MBTA. This provision 

provides a greater deterrent against 

violations of existing laws protecting 

marine mammals, sea turtles, and 

seabirds than that offered by those other 

laws alone. This provision is also 

consistent with NOAA’s regulations for 

other more recently designated national 

marine sanctuaries and enhances 

protection provided by the prohibition 

on the take of marine mammals, sea 

turtles, and seabirds discussed above. 

8. Prohibit damaging signs and 

markers. 

This rule also prohibits marking, 

defacing, damaging, moving, removing, 

or tampering with any sign, notice or 

placard, whether temporary or 

permanent, or any monument, stake, 

post, or other boundary marker related 

to the Sanctuary. This prohibition is 

designed to protect Sanctuary property 

used for purposes including 

demarcation, enforcement, regulatory 

information, education, outreach, and 

research. This new regulation is 

consistent with NOAA’s regulations for 

other sanctuaries. 

9. Prohibit release of introduced 

species. 

This rule also prohibits introducing or 

otherwise releasing from within or into 

the Sanctuary an introduced species, 

except striped bass (Morone saxatilis) 

released during catch and release 

fishing activity. ‘‘Introduced species’’ is 

defined to mean: (1) 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 (2) 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. 

This prohibition is designed to help 

reduce the risk from introduced species, 

including but not limited to their seeds, 

eggs, spores, and other biological matter 

capable of propagating. The intent of the 

prohibition is to prevent injury to 

Sanctuary resources and qualities, to 

protect the biodiversity of the Sanctuary 

ecosystems, and to preserve the native 

functional aspects of the Sanctuary 

ecosystems, all of which are put at risk 

by introduced species. Introduced 

species may become a new form of 

predator, competitor, disturber, parasite, 

or disease that can have devastating 

effects upon ecosystems. For example, 

introduced species impacts on native 

coastal marine species of the Sanctuary 

could include: Replacement of a 

functionally similar native species 

through competition; reduction in 

abundance or elimination of an entire 

population of a native species, which 

can affect native species richness; 

inhibition of normal growth or 

increased mortality of the host and 

associated species; increased intra- or 

interspecies competition with native 

species; creation or alteration of original 

substrate and habitat; hybridization 

with native species; and direct or 

indirect toxicity (e.g., toxic diatoms). 

Changes in species interactions can lead 

to disrupted nutrient cycles and altered 

energy flows that ripple with 

unpredictable results through an entire 

ecosystem. Exotic species may also pose 

threats to endangered species, and 

native species diversity. A number of 

non-native species now found in the 

Sanctuary region were introduced 

elsewhere on the west coast but have 

spread through accidental 

introductions, such as hull-fouling and 

ballast water discharges. 

The introduced species regulation 

includes an exception for striped bass 

(Morone saxatilis) released during catch 

and release fishing activity. Striped bass 

were intentionally introduced in 

California in 1879, and in 1980 the 

California Department of Fish and Game 

initiated a striped bass hatchery 

program to support the striped bass 

sport fishery, which according to the 

California Department of Fish and Game 

is one of the most important fisheries on 

the Pacific Coast. The California 

Department of Fish and Game manages 

the striped bass fishery through a 

Striped Bass Management Conservation 

Plan. This provision is intended to 

acknowledge that striped bass are the 

focus of an established state-managed 

sport fishery and, since they 

consequently may be caught within the 

Sanctuary, allow for an exception for 

striped bass released during catch and 

release fishing activity. 

10. Regulate Motorized Personal 

Watercraft (MPWC). 

This rule also prohibits operating a 

MPWC within waters of the Sanctuary 

that are coextensive with the Channel 

Islands National Park (CINP), 

established by 16 U.S.C. 410(ff). The 

CINP includes San Miguel and Prince 

Islands, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, 

Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands, 

including the rocks, islets, submerged 

lands, and waters within one nmi of 

each island. For the precise coordinates 

and a map of the CINP, refer to the FEIS. 

This provision mirrors an existing 

National Park Service ban on use of 

MPWC within waters of the CINP and 

many other units of the National Park 

System, and is intended to provide 

added deterrence for purposes of 

ensuring protection of the Sanctuary’s 

sensitive nearshore marine wildlife and 

habitats. The CINP staff have observed 

an increase in use of MPWC within the 

park over the last several years, and 

park staff issue several dozen warnings 

per year for violation of this ban. For 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3223 

2The Director has delegated the responsibility for 

the review of most permit applications and the 

decision making for most permits to the Sanctuary 

Superintendents. 

consistency (including enforcement), 

this rule adopts the National Park 

Service definition of MPWC (36 CFR 

1.4(a)) for the Sanctuary, which reads as 

follows: 

‘‘Motorized personal watercraft’’ means a 

vessel, usually less than 16 feet in length, 

which uses an inboard, internal combustion 

engine powering a water jet pump as its 

primary source of propulsion. The vessel is 

intended to be operated by a person or 

persons sitting, standing or kneeling on the 

vessel, rather than within the confines of the 

hull. The length is measured from end to end 

over the deck excluding sheer, meaning a 

straight line measurement of the overall 

length from the foremost part of the vessel to 

the aftermost part of the vessel, measured 

parallel to the centerline. Bow sprits, 

bumpkins, rudders, outboard motor brackets, 

and similar fittings or attachments, are not 

included in the measurement. Length is 

stated in feet and inches. 

MPWCs operate in a manner unique 

among recreational vessels and pose a 

threat to wildlife. Their shallow draft 

enables them to penetrate areas not 

available to conventional motorized 

watercraft (NPS 2000, MOCZM 2002). 

The high speed and maneuverability of 

MPWCs, along with the tendency to 

operate them near the shore and in a 

repeated fashion within a confined area, 

results in recurring disturbance to 

animals and habitats (Rodgers and 

Smith 1997, Snow 1989). Studies have 

shown that the use of MPWCs in 

nearshore areas can increase flushing 

rates, reduce nesting success of certain 

bird species, impact spawning fish, and 

reduce fishing success (Burger 1998, 

Snow 1989). The National Park Service 

(2000, 2004) identified several of these 

impacts along with interruption of 

normal activity, avoidance and 

displacement, loss of habitat use, 

interference with movement, direct 

mortality, interference with courtship, 

alteration of behavior, change in 

community structure, elevated noise 

levels, and damage to aquatic 

vegetation. Further, offshore marine 

mammals or surfacing birds may be 

unaware of the presence of these 

vehicles due to their low frequency 

sound; when the inability to detect the 

vehicles is combined with their high 

speed and rapid and unpredictable 

movements, both animals and operators 

are at risk (Snow 1989). 

MPWC manufacturers have made 

efforts to reduce emissions and noise 

through use of more efficient four-stroke 

engines as well as other technology (e.g., 

Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. 

2005a, 2005b; Personal Watercraft 

Industry Association 2005). However, it 

is not clear that such improvements 

have rendered MPWC-caused wildlife 

disturbance impacts insignificant. While 

industry sponsored studies indicate that 

MPWCs are no louder than similar 

motorized vessels under analogous 

conditions, other studies indicate that 

because MPWCs often travel repeatedly 

in the same area, continually leaving 

and reentering the water, they can create 

rapid cycles of noise that disturb 

humans and wildlife (MOCZM 2002). 

Industry improvements in noise and 

other emissions do not address impacts 

associated with the high speed, 

maneuverability, shallow draft, and 

nearshore operation of MPWC. 

The area within one nmi of island 

shores experiences the greatest visitor 

use and impact to sensitive nearshore 

Sanctuary marine resources. The new 

provisions implemented through this 

final rule serve as an added deterrent to 

illegal MPWC use within the nearshore 

area and other waters of the Channel 

Islands National Park. 

11. Revise regulation on military 

activities. 

This rule modifies regulations stating 

that all activities currently (i.e., at the 

time of designation in 1980) carried out 

by the Department of Defense within the 

Sanctuary are essential for the national 

defense and, therefore, not subject to the 

prohibitions contained within the other 

Sanctuary regulations. As part of this 

modification, the list of exempt military 

activities occurring within the 

Sanctuary is updated to include present 

military activities if specifically 

identified in the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS) for this rule. In 

addition, the rule adds language 

consistent with the NMSA, stating that 

mitigation and restoration or 

replacement of Sanctuary resources and 

qualities is required when Department 

of Defense activity results in their 

injury, destruction, or loss. All 

Department of Defense activities are 

required to be carried out in a manner 

that avoids to the maximum extent 

practicable any adverse impacts on 

Sanctuary resources and qualities. 

This rule also adds one exception 

pertaining to vessels of the Armed 

Forces to the two discharge/deposit 

regulations discussed earlier. Namely, 

an exception is made for discharges 

allowed under section 312(n) of the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 

Section 312(n), which was enacted in 

1996, provides for uniform national 

standards for discharges, other than 

sewage, incidental to normal operation 

of vessels of the Armed Forces. 

12. Revise permit regulations. 

This rule also modifies the 

Sanctuary’s permit regulations by: (a) 

Augmenting and clarifying the list of 

activities for which the Director of 

NOAA’s ONMS (Director) 2 may issue a 

permit; (b) clarifying which prohibitions 

are eligible for a permit from the 

Director for the conduct of a particular 

activity; (c) expanding and clarifying the 

criteria the Director must use in 

reviewing permit applications; (d) 

clarifying the application requirements 

for permits; and (e) requiring that all 

permittees hold the United States 

government harmless against claims 

arising from permitted activities. 

The modifications clarify that the 

Director may issue permits for salvage 

activities pertaining to both abandoned 

shipwrecks (invoking maritime heritage 

resource protection concerns) and 

recent air or marine casualties (invoking 

prompt response concerns). The 

modifications also allow the Director to 

issue permits for activities that would 

assist Sanctuary management, but that 

do not fall into the categories of 

research, education, or salvage. For 

example, the Director may issue 

Sanctuary management permits for 

activities such as repairing or replacing 

piers that help facilitate Sanctuary 

operations. The updated list of 

otherwise prohibited activities that may 

be conducted pursuant to a permit is 

necessary given the addition of several 

new prohibitions and the recent 

addition of marine reserves and 

conservation area regulations, and given 

the need to specify those activities for 

which a permit may in no 

circumstances be granted. 

The modifications to the permit 

regulations also strengthen and augment 

the criteria that the Director must 

consider when evaluating permit 

applications. The modifications now 

expressly indicate to prospective permit 

applicants what type of information 

they are required to include in their 

application. The modifications also 

modernize the permit regulations by 

expressly requiring that the permittee 

agree to hold the United States harmless 

against any claims arising out of the 

permitted activities. 

In summary, the overall intent of the 

revised permit regulations is: To clarify, 

standardize, and make express the 

permit requirements and procedures, 

rendering them easier for permit 

applicants to comply with and for the 

Director and Sanctuary staff to 

implement; to ensure that permitted 

projects are appropriate for the 

Sanctuary; and to provide a mechanism 

for issuing permits for activities that 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3224 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

may further Sanctuary management but 

would otherwise be prohibited. 

13. Make non-substantive revisions to 

regulations on marine reserves and 

conservation areas. 

This rule makes non-substantive 

revisions to the regulations on marine 

reserves and conservation areas to 

remove some unnecessary language and 

to better integrate the regulations with 

the rest of the CINMS regulations. 

IV. Response to Comments 

This section provides NOAA’s 

response to comments received between 

May and July 2006 on the proposed rule 

and during two hearings on the 

proposed rule and associated DEIS, and 

to comments received between March 

and May 2008 on a second proposed 

rule and associated supplemental DEIS 

(or SDEIS). NOAA received over 700 

comments on the DEIS, SDEIS, and 

proposed rules. NOAA summarized the 

comments according to the content of 

the statement or question put forward in 

the letters, emails, and written and oral 

testimony at the public hearings on this 

action because many of the comments 

touched upon the same or similar issue 

and could be answered with one 

response. 

Abandoning Matter 

Abandoning Matter—Fishing Gear 

1. Comment: The proposed 

prohibition on abandoning is too broad 

and may cause an unnecessary burden 

on existing lawful fishing activities by 

appearing to render illegal the 

inadvertent loss of fishing gear. The 

proposed regulation should clarify the 

specific materials and situations 

prohibited, or exempt fishing gear lost 

during lawful fishing operations—if the 

owner or operator attempts to recover 

the gear with the equipment available to 

them at the time of the loss. 

Response: In the rule’s summary of 

regulatory amendments, NOAA has 

stated that ‘‘abandoning’’ refers to 

‘‘leaving without intent to remove.’’ 

NOAA is not providing an exception for 

lost fishing gear. However, NOAA 

would consider the efforts made by 

fishermen to retrieve any deployed 

fishing gear in determining whether the 

loss of fishing gear constituted the 

abandonment of matter on or in the 

submerged lands of the Sanctuary. 

Abandoning Material—General 

2. Comment: The abandoning 

prohibition is overly broad and could be 

a detriment to safety of life at sea in that 

the threat of penalty may cause a master 

to delay abandonment of his sinking 

vessel beyond what is prudent and 

which could result in unnecessary loss 

of life. This section of the regulations 

should be much more narrowly drafted 

to allow for a master’s judgment in 

extremis. 

Response: The regulation includes an 

exception for ‘‘an activity necessary to 

respond to an emergency threatening 

life, property, or the environment.’’ 

Abandoning Matter—Abandoned 

Vessels vs. Historical Resources 

3. Comment: The proposed 

abandoning prohibition eliminates 

continuation of a historic record by 

making it illegal to leave historic vessels 

in the Sanctuary after they have sunk. 

NOAA should establish guidelines 

delineating the difference between an 

abandoned vessel and an historical or 

archaeological resource. 

Response: NOAA does not 

automatically consider newly sunken 

vessels as historical resources to be 

protected. The extent to which removal 

of a sunken vessel would be required is 

based on several factors, including 

guidelines set by National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) criteria (16 

U.S.C. 470 et seq.) for determining 

historical significance. 

Acoustic Impacts 

Acoustic Impacts—General Action 

Recommendations 

4. Comment: The FMP’s Resource 

Protection Action Plan should include 

an acoustics strategy that identifies 

underwater noise as an issue, explains 

potential sources of noise (e.g., seismic 

testing and sonar) and their effects on 

marine life, and explains NOAA’s plans 

for noise evaluation and response in the 

Sanctuary. 

Response: The FMP’s Resource 

Protection Action Plan identifies 

human-induced acoustic impacts as a 

resource protection issue, explains 

potential sources of noise and their 

potential effects on marine life, and 

explains how NOAA is evaluating and 

responding to this issue in the 

Sanctuary. 

5. Comment: Given increasing 

shipping traffic and its associated noise 

in the CINMS region, the FMP’s 

Conservation Science Action Plan 

should provide strategies for tracking 

and/or quantifying vessel traffic through 

the Sanctuary and, if needed, mitigating 

or minimizing ship noise. 

Response: NOAA has added to the 

FMP’s Conservation Science Action 

Plan a new Strategy CS.8 on Automated 

Identification System (AIS) Vessel 

Tracking. This strategy explains 

NOAA’s long-term plan for large vessel 

tracking within and around the 

Sanctuary. See also FMP Strategy CS.3 

for related information on acoustic 

monitoring in the Sanctuary, and the 

FMP’s Resource Protection Action Plan 

(Description of the Issues) for related 

information on addressing humaninduced acoustic impacts. 

6. Comment: CINMS should formally 

consider energetic discharges from 

human activities as pollutants in the 

same manner in which organic and 

chemical discharges are considered. 

Several precedents for this already exist, 

including California state law (the 

California Thermal Plan), federal law 

(the Clean Water Act), and international 

law (UN Convention on the Law of the 

Sea). 

Response: While NOAA does not 

consider noise discharge as a 

‘‘pollutant,’’ any impacts resulting from 

noise on marine mammals and other 

endangered species are regulated under 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act and 

the Endangered Species Act. At this 

time, NOAA believes these measures are 

sufficient to address the threat of 

human-induced sound on these 

sensitive species. 

7. Comment: NOAA should establish 

a voluntary ‘‘speed limit’’ for 

commercial ship traffic passing through 

or near the Sanctuary during blue and 

fin whale inhabitation to reduce the 

noise impacts on these species. 

Response: Since 2007, NOAA and the 

U.S. Coast Guard have issued Local 

Notices to Mariners containing a request 

that large vessels transiting the Santa 

Barbara Channel voluntarily reduce 

their speed to ten knots or less when 

aggregations of large cetaceans are 

present. NOAA and the U.S. Coast 

Guard may issue future notices as 

conditions warrant them. Although the 

rationale for these notices is to help 

reduce the risk of ship strikes on 

whales, ancillary benefits of reduced 

ship speeds generally include reduced 

vessel noise. 

8. Comment: NOAA should consult 

with the Minerals Management Service 

(MMS) on future proposed seismic 

survey activities in the Channel and 

with the Navy to ascertain the 

likelihood of any active sonar exercises 

in range of the CINMS to ensure they 

cause minimal disruption to the 

migration or reproduction of Sanctuary 

species. 

Response: Section 304(d) of the 

NMSA requires any federal agency to 

consult with the NMSP on activities that 

are likely to destroy, cause the loss of, 

or injure any Sanctuary resource 

(whether or not those activities are 

conducted within a national marine 

sanctuary). This would of course apply 

to both seismic and sonar activities. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3225 

Furthermore, regarding seismic 

activities within the Sanctuary, CINMS 

regulations prohibit exploring for, 

developing, or producing hydrocarbons. 

Acoustic Impacts—Regulations 

9. Comment: NOAA should create 

CINMS noise regulations and/or ban 

sonar testing to help protect Sanctuary 

wildlife, and/or make the enter-injure 

clause of the discharge regulation 

applicable to noise pollution. 

Response: NOAA and its partners are 

researching underwater noise in the 

Sanctuary. Currently, the available sitespecific acoustic data is insufficient to 

justify the need for more stringent 

regulations on underwater noise than 

those promulgated by NMFS pursuant 

to the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA; 50 CFR 216.101–216.108 et 

seq. ). Except in a small grandfathered 

lease area, CINMS regulations preclude 

seismic exploration for hydrocarbons 

within the Sanctuary, as they prohibit 

exploring for, developing, or producing 

hydrocarbons within the Sanctuary. 

Any activities that may exceed a certain 

noise threshold are subject to rigorous 

review under NMFS’ MMPA authority, 

which includes mitigation measures 

when deemed necessary. 

While NOAA is not pursuing special 

noise regulations for CINMS at this 

time, NOAA will continue to use its 

authority under section 304(d) of the 

NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1434(d)) to help 

protect marine mammals from the 

impacts of noise. Section 304(d) of the 

NMSA requires any federal agency to 

consult with the NMSP on activities that 

are likely to destroy, cause the loss of, 

or injure any Sanctuary resource. This 

consultation requirement requires 

NOAA to provide recommendations to 

these agencies to protect Sanctuary 

resources, including marine mammals. 

If an agency fails to follow a 

recommendation and its action results 

in injury to a Sanctuary resource, the 

agency must restore or replace the 

Sanctuary resource. In addition, if a 

noise-producing project is not 

authorized by NMFS under its MMPA 

authority and harms marine mammals 

within the Sanctuary, the CINMS’s new 

regulation prohibiting the take of marine 

mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds 

would apply. 

10. Comment: NOAA staff should 

advocate for domestic and international 

attention to and action on the current 

gaps in understanding and regulation of 

underwater noise. 

Response: As a federal agency, under 

federal law NOAA staff may not 

advocate for legislative action. However, 

research and monitoring on underwater 

noise in the Sanctuary is shared within 

NOAA and as such can influence 

Executive Branch actions and decisionmaking related to this issue. NOAA staff 

also help raise international attention to 

noise impacts by participating in and 

sharing knowledge at conferences on 

this issue. For example, NOAA 

sponsored a symposium with the 

shipping industry on the topic of shipquieting technology in 2004, and again 

in May 2007. 

Acoustic Impacts—Research and 

Monitoring 

11. Comment: The FMP should 

explain NOAA’s plans for noise 

research and monitoring in the 

Sanctuary, which should include: 

Promoting research on anthropogenic 

noise impacts on Sanctuary resources; 

documenting and improving 

understanding of Sanctuary baseline 

and new acoustic conditions; 

identifying significant sources and 

levels of noise within the Sanctuary; 

and promoting dialogue and 

collaboration between the Sanctuary, 

the shipping industry, and other 

relevant regional and national agencies. 

Response: Increasing research efforts, 

such as those recommended within the 

National Academies’ National Research 

Council’s recent reports on the impacts 

of noise on marine mammals, will assist 

NOAA in continuing to evaluate the 

agency’s management responses to this 

issue. NOAA has revised the FMP’s 

Conservation Science Action Plan to 

include details on current and potential 

future acoustic research and monitoring 

plans in the CINMS. In addition, NOAA 

has addressed promoting dialogue and 

collaboration between relevant agencies 

and the shipping industry in the 

Resource Protection Action Plan (see the 

Description of the Issues section on 

Human-induced Acoustic Impacts). 

NOAA’s Acoustics Program, based at 

the NOAA Headquarters Office, is 

investigating all aspects of marine 

animal acoustic communication, 

hearing, and the effects of sound on 

behavior and hearing in protected 

marine species. For additional 

information, see http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/. 

12. Comment: The FMP’s 

Conservation Science Action Plan 

should include a ‘‘stranding strategy’’ 

for addressing potential noise induced 

marine mammal stranding events. It 

should address: Funding, monitoring, 

data reporting (including from 

stranding, necropsies, and noise events), 

and public involvement. 

Response: NOAA has not added a 

stranding strategy to the Conservation 

Science Action Plan. However, the 

Resource Protection Action Plan 

(Description of the Issues section on 

Marine Mammal Strikes) describes 

CINMS’s role in responding to and 

reducing the risk of future stranding 

events (e.g., those caused by ship 

strikes) in the Sanctuary. The Action 

Plan reflects that in 2008, CINMS, 

NMFS, and the U.S. Coast Guard, with 

input from the Sanctuary Advisory 

Council, developed a Prevention and 

Emergency Response Plan for Reducing 

Ship Strikes on Blue Whales and Other 

Large Cetaceans in the CINMS and 

Santa Barbara Channel. This prevention 

and response plan helps NOAA and the 

U.S. Coast Guard respond to stranding 

events and helps the agencies 

coordinate with partners authorized to 

assist including the Santa Barbara 

Museum of Natural History, and the 

Santa Barbara Marine Mammal Center. 

NMFS manages marine mammal 

stranding events and administers the 

Marine Mammal Stranding Network 

program. This program addresses 

funding for stranding teams, monitoring 

marine mammal stranding events, 

reporting on stranding causes (including 

those from acoustics), and managing 

public involvement in necropsies. In 

addition, NMFS administers the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act and Endangered 

Species Act, and would be responsible 

for acquiring information on all possible 

causes of stranding events. With regard 

to monitoring for stranding events, the 

Sanctuary’s Aerial Monitoring and 

Spatial Analysis Program (SAMSAP) 

provides an important stranding 

detection capability that provides 

important information for estimating 

time and location of a large whale 

mortality. SAMSAP also provides 

details that can be used by NMFS to 

coordinate a stranding response, 

including a necropsy, if possible and 

appropriate, to determine the cause of 

death. 

13. Comment: NOAA should 

incorporate into the Conservation 

Science Action Plan the Advisory 

Council acoustic report’s research and 

monitoring recommendations. 

Response: NOAA has incorporated 

the report by referencing it and a 

summary of its findings in the FMP 

Resource Protection Action Plan’s 

Description of the Issues section. 

Additionally, a description of acoustic 

monitoring, which was recommended in 

the report, has been added to the 

Conservation Science Action Plan’s list 

of monitoring activities CINMS intends 

to support (Strategy CS.3). NOAA has 

also referred to specific research and 

monitoring recommendations within 

relevant activities in strategies CS.3, and 

CS.8. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3226 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Aerial Monitoring 

14. Comment: The Sanctuary Aerial 

Monitoring and Spatial Analysis 

Program (SAMSAP) program should be 

explicitly linked to the Conservation 

Science Program so that SAMSAP’s 

capabilities can be analyzed with 

respect to more specific science and 

monitoring needs. For example, 

SAMSAP could provide a current 

spatial dataset depicting marine 

mammal and bird hotspots, and areas of 

concentrated use of large vessels, 

personal watercraft, squid boat lighting, 

sources of major acoustic emanations, 

etc. 

Response: In the past, due to limited 

resources, SAMSAP has been 

predominantly a data collection 

program with only limited analyses 

taking place on an as-needed and time 

allowed basis. Since the draft 

management plan was released, NOAA 

has devoted more resources to SAMSAP 

and in depth analyses are taking place 

with both recently collected data and 

the full SAMSAP historical database. 

For example, NOAA analyzed SAMSAP 

vessel traffic data used in 

socioeconomic impact studies related to 

marine zoning. NOAA is also analyzing 

changes in visitor use patterns, and in 

partnership with the Scripps Institute of 

Oceanography is combining data from 

SAMSAP, acoustic monitoring, and the 

regional Automated Identification 

System (which tracks vessel traffic) to 

study the impacts of vessel traffic noise 

on large cetaceans. Given available 

funding and resources, SAMSAP will 

continue to be increasingly used as a 

tool to assist in implementation of the 

strategies in the FMP’s Conservation 

Science Action Plan. 

Aircraft 

15. Comment: NOAA should remove 

the language regarding disturbing 

seabirds or marine mammals from the 

prohibition on disturbing seabirds or 

marine mammals via operating aircraft 

below 1000 ft within one nmi of the 

Islands, thereby prohibiting the activity 

itself without the enforcement challenge 

of proving disturbance. 

Response: NOAA is currently 

consulting with the Federal Aviation 

Administration, the primary agency of 

the U.S. Government with authority to 

regulate safe and efficient use of U.S. 

airspace, to determine the best approach 

to regulating impacts of aircraft on 

Sanctuary resources. If removing the 

language in the referenced prohibition is 

determined to be appropriate, NOAA 

will revise its regulations accordingly. 

16. Comment: NOAA should justify 

the one nmi limitation for the overflight 

disturbance regulation based on 

information about the location and 

seabird and marine mammal 

concentrated use areas within the 

Sanctuary (such as emergent rocks). If 

one of the purposes of limiting 

overflights is to protect seabirds and 

marine mammals, it would seem that 

they will be impacted beyond one nmi 

of the Islands and the regulation should 

apply to the entire Sanctuary. 

Response: Some small offshore rocks 

beyond one nmi from San Miguel Island 

and Santa Rosa Island are emergent 

during lower periods of the tidal cycle. 

However, the presence of these rocks is 

ephemeral because most are submerged 

during the remainder of the tidal cycle, 

some are consistently awash from wave 

action, and others may be completely 

submerged during neap tide cycles 

when tides are relatively weak. Hence, 

the role of such rocks as nesting, 

breeding, or permanent haul out habitat 

is limited. Low aircraft overflights 

(below 1000 feet) within these more 

remote offshore areas is limited, and 

NOAA does not at this time regard these 

areas as needing the specific protection 

provided by this regulation. However, 

all aircraft flight is also subject to the 

prohibition on unauthorized take of 

marine mammals, sea turtles and 

seabirds (Prohibition 7), which applies 

throughout the entire Sanctuary. 

Alternative Energy 

17. Comment: NOAA should include 

in the FEIS a description of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005. 

Response: NOAA has added 

information about the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 to the FEIS cumulative effects 

section, and to the FEIS discussion of 

federal law pertaining to offshore energy 

sources and mineral exploration and 

development. 

Aquaculture 

18. Comment: The FMP must provide 

clear, specific, strategic guidelines to 

CINMS staff to carry out resource 

protection responsibilities with regard 

to open finfish aquaculture, including 

consulting with prospective fish farm 

operators and permitting agencies, and 

maintaining adequate enforcement effort 

to ensure that offshore aquaculture 

activities, even if located outside 

Sanctuary boundaries, do not violate 

CINMS regulations such as the 

discharge prohibition’s ‘‘enter-andinjure’’ clause, and the prohibition on 

introduction of species. 

Response: The FMP does not contain 

guidelines dedicated to aquaculture. 

However, a number of management 

tools already in place, such as the 

permit process and consultation 

requirements, provide CINMS staff with 

a robust means of addressing any 

potential issues regarding open ocean 

finfish aquaculture in the Sanctuary. In 

addition, CINMS existing regulations 

prohibit, for example, discharges in the 

Sanctuary, and the new regulations 

prohibit introduced species into the 

Sanctuary. If offshore aquaculture 

activities are proposed in the Sanctuary 

region, NOAA’s ONMS and NMFS 

would work closely with the California 

Coastal Commission, California 

Department of Fish and Game, and other 

relevant regulatory agencies on 

analyzing the associated potential 

impacts and their effects on the 

Sanctuary. NOAA will also use the 

Sanctuary Advisory Council’s 2007 

report and recommendations on open 

ocean aquaculture, in support of any 

future management decisions on this 

issue in the Sanctuary. Regarding 

maintaining enforcement effort, see the 

responses to comments 118 and 120. 

19. Comment: NOAA should develop 

management strategies for addressing 

and mitigating potential impacts from 

aquaculture on the Sanctuary’s marine 

resources. NOAA should also analyze 

the adverse impacts to marine resources 

and water quality from finfish 

aquaculture farms, including genetic 

pollution from escaped fish, the 

introduction and propagation of fish 

diseases and parasites, the discharge of 

nutrients, antibiotics and other 

chemicals, the use of anti-predation 

devices and the potential for space 

conflicts with existing commercial and 

recreational activities. 

Response: NOAA will continue to 

track the wide range of research projects 

(and their associated results) currently 

underway along the west coast of the 

United States and elsewhere analyzing 

the impacts of aquaculture. NOAA 

would apply the results from these 

research efforts, as necessary and 

appropriate, in decisions it may make 

regarding any future aquaculture 

activities in the Sanctuary. Regarding 

management strategies for addressing 

potential impacts from aquaculture, see 

the response to comment 18. 

Artificial Reefs 

20. Comment: The prohibition on 

altering the seafloor may conflict with 

existing artificial reef programs if the 

Sanctuary is extended to the mainland 

coast. 

Response: NOAA is not making any 

changes to the CINMS boundary at this 

time. The prohibition on altering 

submerged lands of the Sanctuary 

precludes installation of an artificial 

reef without a CINMS permit. Proposals 

to construct artificial reefs in CINMS 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3227 

will be considered, as before, in 

accordance with the ‘‘Policy Statement 

of the National Marine Sanctuary 

Program: Artificial Reef Permitting 

Guidelines.’’ CINMS permit regulations 

would require an NMSP determination 

that any proposed artificial reef: (a) 

Furthers the understanding of Sanctuary 

resources and qualities; (b) furthers the 

educational value of the Sanctuary; (c) 

furthers salvage or recovery operations 

in or near the Sanctuary in connection 

with a recent air or marine casualty; (d) 

assists in the management of the 

Sanctuary; or (e) furthers salvage or 

recovery operations in connection with 

an abandoned shipwreck in the 

Sanctuary. For more information on the 

procedures and issuance criteria for 

Sanctuary permits, see 15 CFR part 922. 

21. Comment: NOAA should prohibit 

rigs-to-reefs projects within Sanctuary 

waters, and should consult with project 

applicants and permitting agencies 

before such projects are allowed outside 

Sanctuary boundaries if they have any 

potential to negatively affect Sanctuary 

resources. 

Response: Because there are both a 

national policy guiding the 

consideration of artificial reefs and 

other CINMS regulations relevant to 

artificial reefs in the Sanctuary (see the 

response to comment 20), NOAA is not 

specifically addressing rigs-to-reefs 

projects in the CINMS regulations. In 

addition, there are currently no oil 

platforms in the Sanctuary. If in the 

future an applicant proposes a rigs-toreefs project outside the Sanctuary, 

CINMS staff would consult with all 

relevant permitting agencies as part of 

the process to best understand any 

potential impacts to the Sanctuary from 

such a proposal. Federal agency actions, 

including private activities authorized 

by licenses, leases, or permits, that are 

likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or 

injure a Sanctuary resource are subject 

to consultation with NOAA per section 

304(d) of the NMSA. 

22. Comment: NOAA should provide 

an exception to the abandoning 

prohibition for materials intended to be 

used for artificial reefs, especially if 

subsequent Sanctuary boundary changes 

cause an existing platform(s) on the 

Pacific OCS to be included within the 

Sanctuary. 

Response: As explained in the 

response to comment 20, NOAA has 

developed Artificial Reef Permitting 

Guidelines. At this time, NOAA is not 

adding a reef materials exception to the 

regulation on abandoning matter in the 

Sanctuary because NOAA prefers to 

evaluate the efficacy of artificial reef 

proposals on a case-by-case basis rather 

than to provide a blanket exception that 

would allow any artificial reef project 

anywhere within the Sanctuary. 

Boundary Evaluation 

23. Comment: The FMP/FEIS should 

be updated to note that the 

Biogeographic Assessment has been 

completed, and should also explain that 

the assessment ranked boundary 

concept 1 first for ecological 

significance, and boundary concept 2 

second. 

Response: Text on the completion of 

the Sanctuary’s biogeographic 

assessment has been added to the FMP’s 

Boundary Evaluation Action Plan, the 

FMP’s Appendix D, and the 

Introduction of the FEIS. For details 

about the findings of the assessment, 

including details about the various 

boundary concepts and their rankings, 

see http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/products/ 

biogeography/cinms/. 

24. Comment: Boundary Concept 1 

best meets the goals and objectives of 

the National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

and the CINMS, is the only one that 

truly meets the ecosystem protection 

goals of the Act, provides clear and 

effective management, facilitates 

increased public participation and 

support for the Sanctuary, provides 

more meaningful education and 

research about marine resources and 

habitats, ensures greater protection from 

harmful impacts, provides a coastal 

interface that is part of the Channel 

Islands ecosystem, provides additional 

protection from offshore oil and gas 

development, and will result in 

partnerships that will increase marine 

resource and water quality protection. 

Response: As stated in the FMP’s 

Appendix D (‘‘Supporting Information 

on Boundary Evaluation’’), NOAA is not 

considering any changes to the CINMS 

boundary as part of this management 

plan review. However, NOAA will 

further analyze the boundary concepts 

in a separate process sometime in the 

future. This process will include public 

review and comment in accordance 

with legal requirements. 

25. Comment: NOAA should begin 

the environmental review process for 

boundary change alternatives now or as 

soon as the management plan process is 

finalized. 

Response: As indicated in the FMP’s 

Boundary Evaluation Action Plan, 

NOAA will further analyze the 

boundary concepts in a future 

environmental review process. 

26. Comment: NOAA might garner a 

lot more support for Sanctuary 

boundary expansion by proposing to 

limit oil and gas activities while 

supporting pre-existing, sustainable, 

commercial and recreational uses, as 

opposed to re-allocating the natural 

resources within the Sanctuary. 

Response: When NOAA considers 

Sanctuary boundary expansion, it will 

evaluate a wide variety of potential 

threats to and uses of Sanctuary 

resources, as well as various 

management measures that best address 

these issues. When designating new or 

expanding existing sanctuaries, NOAA 

will evaluate oil and gas development, 

as well as other commercial and 

recreational uses. NOAA will consider 

the impacts of these uses on Sanctuary 

resources, as well as the impacts of 

CINMS management measures on users. 

27. Comment: During the future 

consideration of CINMS boundary 

expansion, NOAA should allow for 

enough public review of this action to 

encompass two meetings of the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (PFMC) 

and allow for full PFMC deliberation 

and comment development. 

Response: NOAA is aware of the 

PFMC decision-making process and will 

consider providing a public review 

period that encompasses two PFMC 

meetings. 

28. Comment: NOAA should address 

the fact that industrialized uses could 

have the prospect of limiting boundary 

expansion. 

Response: NOAA believes it is 

premature to include in the FMP and 

FEIS conclusive statements about how 

CINMS boundary alternatives and 

industrialized uses may relate to one 

another. NOAA will analyze the 

relationship between industrialized uses 

and Sanctuary boundary alternatives in 

a future environmental review process. 

29. Comment: NOAA should indicate 

the number of comments received that 

were not in favor of boundary 

expansion. 

Response: NOAA has revised text in 

the FMP to indicate the number of 

scoping comments received that did not 

support an expanded Sanctuary 

boundary. 

30. Comment: The NCCOS 

Biogeographic study should not be 

described as providing any new 

information about marine species 

because it using existing information. 

Response: Although new data was not 

collected for the NCCOS biogeographic 

study, it integrated data sets from 

various sources and provided new 

statistical and spatial analyses that 

characterize biological and 

oceanographic patterns of the Channel 

Islands marine region. 

31. Comment: If incorporation of 

biodiversity and protection of entire 

ecosystems is a goal in boundary 

reformulation, then the boundaries 

should be extended because they do not 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3228 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

correspond well to existing marine 

ecosystem extents. 

Response: Once NOAA determines 

that an evaluation of the CINMS 

boundary is appropriate, several factors 

will be incorporated into the associated 

environmental analysis, including the 

spatial extent of regional ecosystems 

and areas of complex biodiversity. 

Chumash 

Chumash—General 

32. Comment: NOAA should add to 

the management plan information about 

the spirituality and spiritual energy of 

the Channel Islands, and the Chumash 

connection to surrounding waters. 

Response: NOAA has added text to 

the FMP Human Setting section, the 

FMP Maritime Heritage Resources 

Action Plan, and the FEIS Affected 

Environment/Maritime Heritage 

Resources section to emphasize the 

spiritual significance of the Channel 

Islands to Chumash people. 

33. Comment: Members of the 

Chumash community, not NOAA, 

should initiate any joint paddling 

excursions directly with the Makah 

Nation. 

Response: NOAA has revised the 

FMP’s Maritime Heritage Action Plan to 

clarify that NOAA’s intent is not to 

initiate paddling excursions, but rather 

to support such excursions initiated by 

Chumash and other partners. 

34. Comment: Information about 

submerged Chumash cultural resources 

should be referenced to and provided by 

Chumash scholars and Chumash people. 

Response: In the FMP and FEIS, 

NOAA has upheld the standard of using 

the best available scientific information, 

including the best available 

anthropological and archeological 

information regarding submerged 

Chumash cultural resources. CINMS 

staff consulted with a Chumash 

community member and expert to 

improve referencing and ensure 

accuracy. 

35. Comment: It is important that 

DMP p. 28 states that, ‘‘Archaeologists 

suggest the Sanctuary may have once 

been the site of Chumash villages 

* * *,’’ because there are sites now 

submerged due to changing sea level. 

Response: Comment noted. 

36. Comment: The management plan 

should explain how Chumash people 

are involved in monitoring artifacts, and 

what federal, state and local regulations 

pertain to Chumash monitoring of 

artifacts. 

Response: NOAA has added an 

activity to FMP Strategy MH.4 that 

describes how the NOAA will consult 

with the Sanctuary Advisory Council 

and ask for the assistance of its 

Chumash Community Working Group in 

clarifying existing requirements and 

discussing best practices regarding 

protection and handling of Chumash 

artifacts. 

37. Comment: NOAA should increase 

funding and planned efforts for Strategy 

MHR.6 on Promoting Public Education 

of Chumash Native American History. 

Response: NOAA will continue to 

contribute staff time and vessel support 

toward the implementation of this 

Strategy (now referred to as MH.6), and 

will continue to support the Sanctuary 

Advisory Council’s Chumash 

Community Working Group. NOAA will 

allocate additional resources as funding 

allows. 

38. Comment: NOAA should hire 

Chumash staff to properly implement 

the Maritime Heritage Resources Action 

Plan. 

Response: Should NOAA add any 

new staff positions at CINMS, such 

positions must be open to all qualified 

individuals. In addition, NOAA 

encourages individuals from all local 

communities to participate in the 

Sanctuary’s Maritime Heritage 

Resources Volunteer Program (see 

strategy MH.2). 

39. Comment: NOAA should establish 

an internship for Chumash high school 

and/or college students. 

Response: NOAA initiated a Chumash 

internship at the Sanctuary in 2008. 

NOAA values this internship for 

improving coordination and partnership 

building between CINMS and the 

Chumash community, and as a means to 

introduce Chumash students to marine 

conservation education and resource 

protection professions. NOAA looks 

forward to continuing the internship as 

resources allow. 

40. Comment: NOAA should separate 

shipwreck information from Chumash 

cultural information in the Maritime 

Heritage Resources Action Plan. 

Response: The majority of the 

strategies contained in this action plan 

bear relevance to researching, 

protecting, and conducting outreach and 

education not only on shipwrecks, but 

also on Chumash cultural sites and 

artifacts. However, given that NOAA 

regards Chumash culture, past and 

present, as a special part of the 

Sanctuary’s maritime heritage, the 

FMP’s planned activities to support 

education about Chumash heritage are 

contained in a separate strategy. 

41. Comment: A cave in Oregon has 

been recently determined to house the 

oldest human remains found in North 

America; therefore the reference to 

Santa Rosa Island as such should be 

revised. 

Response: NOAA has revised FMP 

and FEIS text accordingly. 

Chumash—Inclusion Across Tribal, 

Political, and Social Groupings 

42. Comment: The documents should 

reflect that there are many Chumash 

tribal, political and social groupings. 

The Chumash Maritime Association 

should not be the only Chumash group 

considered in DMP Strategy MHR.6 

activities on Promoting Public 

Education of Chumash Native American 

History. 

Response: NOAA has added 

information about various Chumash 

bands, tribal, political, and social 

groupings to the FMP Human Setting 

section, and elsewhere within the FMP/ 

FEIS documents. NOAA has listed the 

Sanctuary Advisory Council’s Chumash 

Community Working Group as the 

Chumash community partner in 

Strategy MH.6 activities. The Chumash 

Community Working Group is open to 

membership from the entire Chumash 

community, and its purpose is to advise 

the Sanctuary Advisory Council, and in 

turn the Sanctuary, regarding matters 

related to the Chumash community. 

NOAA has also replaced the detailed 

activity and program ideas within MH.6 

with a new activity that outlines a plan 

to work with the Chumash community 

(via the Chumash Community Working 

Group) to identify mutual objectives for 

supporting public education about 

Chumash heritage. 

43. Comment: NOAA should explore 

a government-to-government 

relationship with the Chumash. 

Response: As the Santa Ynez Band of 

Chumash Indians is a federally 

recognized tribe, any interaction 

between the Santa Ynez Band and 

NOAA occurs in the context of a 

relationship between two government 

entities, and within the limits of the 

Santa Ynez Band’s and the Sanctuary’s 

respective jurisdictions and authorities. 

Chumash—Language Revisions 

44. Comment: Portions of the Draft 

Management Plan should be rewritten, 

especially under the Maritime Heritage 

Resources Action Plan, because the text 

contains many examples of ‘‘word and 

meaning biases and conflicts.’’ NOAA 

should work collaboratively with the 

Chumash before developing the final 

versions of the documents. 

Response: Although the Sanctuary 

Advisory Council’s Chumash 

Community Working Group was not 

available for meetings during the time 

the final text was being prepared, 

CINMS staff consulted with a Chumash 

community member and expert and 

have worked to fully respond to the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3229 

Chumash community comments 

received. NOAA looks forward to 

continuing to partner with the Chumash 

community on implementation of 

activities described within the FMP. 

45. Comment: The Draft Management 

Plan contains several examples of 

culturally biased language creating the 

perception of diminished Native 

Chumash history, presence, 

participation and responsibility, and 

some of the language conveys a 

patriarchal nature of the relationship 

between the NOAA and the wider 

Chumash community. It brings an 

otherwise unaware reader to the 

conclusion that the Sanctuary is in the 

role of a necessary savior of native 

Chumash traditions and teachings. 

Response: Text in the DMP was 

crafted to indicate that NOAA’s role will 

be one of assisting, supporting, and 

helping in Chumash efforts aimed at 

cultural revitalization that also align 

with the mission of the CINMS. NOAA 

staff have consulted with a Chumash 

community member and expert and 

have worked to fully respond to the 

Chumash community comments 

received, including by clarifying 

CINMS’s intended role as a supporter of 

Chumash initiated efforts in supporting 

public awareness and understanding of 

Chumash heritage. NOAA looks forward 

to continuing to partner with the 

Chumash community on 

implementation of activities described 

within the FMP. 

46. Comment: A reference to 

educating Chumash community 

members on such topics as respectful 

gathering skills reflects a sense of 

arrogance and difference in world view. 

No matter who NOAA partners with, it 

cannot teach me to be respectful. 

Response: Text in the DMP (strategy 

MHR.6, activity 3) indicated that the 

CINMS role in this activity would be to 

help the Chumash Maritime Association 

and Chumash Community Working 

Group provide education and outreach 

opportunities for the larger regional 

community regarding Chumash and 

environmental issues. The text also 

indicated that this program would be 

designed primarily for Chumash people 

to educate their fellow Chumash and 

others about Chumash heritage. 

However, in an effort to ensure broader 

Chumash community input NOAA has 

replaced this specific activity in FMP 

strategy MH.6 with activities that now 

describe a process for working together 

to identify mutual education and 

outreach objectives. 

47. Comment: NOAA should revise 

text that refers to ‘‘descendents of’’ 

Chumash, since such people identify 

themselves as Chumash, not 

descendents. 

Response: NOAA has replaced 

references to ‘‘descendants of Chumash’’ 

with ‘‘Chumash.’’ 

48. Comment: The DMP’s description 

(at Part II–C, The Human Setting) of the 

importance of the Channel Islands and 

surrounding waters to humans for 

thousands of years is confusing and 

unclear. 

Response: NOAA has revised this text 

within the FMP’s section II-C. See also 

the response to comment 44 for 

information on NOAA’s efforts to 

develop Chumash related text. 

49. Comment: NOAA should add 

information about the forced relocation 

of Island Chumash people. 

Response: NOAA has added 

information to the FMP Human Setting 

section, the Maritime Heritage 

Resources Action Plan’s Description of 

the Issues section, and the FEIS Affected 

Environment/Maritime Heritage 

Resources section about forced 

relocation of island Chumash to the 

mainland. See also the response to 

comment 44 for information on NOAA’s 

efforts to develop Chumash related text. 

50. Comment: The MHR Action Plan 

refers to ‘‘Native American Artifacts,’’ 

but the artifacts are specific to the 

Chumash people. 

Response: NOAA has changed the text 

referring specifically to Native 

American artifacts found in the Channel 

Islands to refer to such artifacts as 

Chumash Native American artifacts. 

51. Comment: Text about Juan 

Rodriguez Cabrillo’s voyage of discovery 

(1542–1543) improperly suggests that 

Cabrillo ‘‘discovered’’ the already 

inhabited Channel Islands. 

Response: Although the text did not 

state that Cabrillo discovered the 

Channel Islands, NOAA recognizes that 

the reference to Cabrillo’s ‘‘voyage of 

discovery’’ could be construed to mean 

this, and as such NOAA has revised the 

text accordingly. 

52. Comment: NOAA should revise 

text that refers to Chumash people in 

the past tense, because there has been 

no discontinuation of the Chumash 

people. NOAA should also revise 

Strategy MHR.6 title, ‘‘Promoting Public 

Education of Chumash Native American 

History,’’ by removing the word 

‘‘history.’’ 

Response: NOAA made a directed 

effort to refer to contemporary Chumash 

in the DMP and DEIS, and to ensure that 

there are no improper references to 

Chumash people in the past tense 

within the FMP and FEIS. See also the 

response to comment 44 for information 

on NOAA’s efforts to develop Chumash 

related text. Regarding the title of 

Strategy MH.6, NOAA has changed the 

strategy title and text, which now 

describe the Sanctuary’s efforts to 

support public education of Chumash 

Native American maritime heritage. 

Civil Penalties 

53. Comment: The NMSP is 

positioning itself for growth in any way 

that it can, including by gaining the 

ability to assess new civil penalties. 

Current law prohibiting certain 

activities does not provide the potential 

of financial benefit for the CINMS. 

Response: NOAA has maintained the 

authority to assess civil penalties for 

violations of CINMS regulations since 

those regulations took effect in the early 

1980s. Congress defines the parameters 

of civil penalties during the 

authorization and subsequent 

reauthorization of the NMSA. The 

actual penalties levied for violations 

vary in proportion to the severity of the 

incident and other case-specific factors. 

NOAA is issuing this final rule to 

provide NOAA enforcement officers and 

enforcement partners with enhanced 

regulatory tools designed to improve 

protection of Sanctuary resources. 

Designation TERMS 

54. Comment: NOAA should not 

make the proposed changes to the 

Sanctuary’s designation document, 

because they are unnecessary and 

NOAA has not followed the procedures 

required for granting CINMS new 

regulatory authority. 

Response: In accordance with section 

304(a)(4) of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 

1434(a)(4)), the terms of designation of 

a sanctuary 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 that will be subject to 

regulation by the Secretary to protect 

those characteristics. Under the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act, a 

sanctuary’s terms of designation may 

only be modified by following the same 

procedures by which the sanctuary was 

designated. NOAA has followed this 

process to modify the CINMS terms of 

designation, including the publication 

of a draft environmental impact 

statement, proposed regulations, and 

draft terms of designation. NOAA also 

explained why the proposed changes 

are necessary and analyzed each change 

thoroughly in the EIS. 

55. Comment: NOAA’s ability to 

protect Sanctuary resources is overly 

limited by the CINMS Designation 

Document. Identifying and proposing 

regulations to protect Sanctuary 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3230 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

resources, including by extending the 

CINMS scope of authority is required to 

fulfill the duty Congress assigned to the 

National Marine Sanctuary Program. 

Response: National marine sanctuary 

terms of designation typically express 

the types of activities subject to 

sanctuary regulation in general terms. 

Recognizing that environmental 

conditions in a sanctuary change over 

time, this is necessary to allow NOAA 

to make appropriate modifications to 

existing regulations or to regulate 

additional activities that are impacting 

or may impact sanctuary resources (i.e., 

to allow for adaptive management). 

NOAA is revising the CINMS terms of 

designation as necessary to provide the 

authority to implement its revised 

proposed regulations. 

Discharge 

Discharge—Bilge Water 

56. Comment: NOAA should include 

an explicit ban on dumping oily bilge 

water (treated or not). 

Response: Although NOAA provides 

certain exceptions to the CINMS 

discharge regulation, the discharge of 

oily bilge water is prohibited by existing 

regulations and is also prohibited under 

the new regulations. See the FEIS for 

additional information on and revisions 

to the discharge regulation. 

Discharge—Chumming 

57. Comment: NOAA should clarify 

that the discharge regulation allows for 

the common practice of filleting fish 

during the trip back to port. 

Response: NOAA considers tossing 

scraps overboard from filleting fish 

caught in the Sanctuary during the trip 

back to port to be part of the exception 

for fish, fish parts, or chumming 

materials (bait). 

58. Comment: Several commenters 

expressed support for the proposed 

exception for fish, fish parts, or 

chumming materials (bait) to the CINMS 

discharge regulation. 

Response: Comment noted. 

59. Comment: Commenter is 

concerned about compliance with the 

discharge regulation (e.g., feeding 

wildlife food scraps). 

Response: In an effort to increase 

compliance with CINMS regulations, 

NOAA will use an educational approach 

to raise awareness of the regulation and 

the problems associated with feeding 

wildlife. An educational approach to the 

issue can also be implemented through 

the Public Awareness and 

Understanding Action Plan strategy 

AU.3 (Team OCEAN) activities, 

including those pertaining to ocean 

etiquette. See also the response to 

comment 120 for an explanation of how 

Sanctuary regulations are enforced. 

60. Comment: The exception to the 

enter-and-injure regulation as it relates 

to discharge of fish and fish parts and 

chumming materials is unnecessary, 

and could potentially undermine the 

effect, perception, and credibility of this 

otherwise sound and necessary 

measure. 

Response: NOAA is not considering 

removing the exception to the CINMS 

discharge regulation for fish, fish parts, 

or chumming material (bait) used in or 

resulting from lawful fishing activity 

beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary. 

NOAA believes that such activities do 

not currently pose a threat to Sanctuary 

resources; if in the future such activities 

were to harm Sanctuary resources, then 

NOAA would re-evaluate the scope of 

this exception. 

Discharge—Enter/Injure 

61. Comment: A number of 

commenters expressed support for the 

proposed prohibition on 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. 

Response: Comments noted. 

62. Comment: The proposed 

prohibition on discharging or depositing 

from beyond the boundary of the 

Sanctuary is problematic because it 

enables the Sanctuary to regulate 

activities outside its jurisdiction; is an 

unwarranted and improper extension of 

the Sanctuary boundaries; the term 

‘‘injury’’ is not defined, thus inviting 

numerous interpretations and the 

potential for litigation; and the process 

by which injury would be determined is 

not described. 

Response: In order for a violation to 

occur of the regulation prohibiting 

discharge or deposit from beyond the 

Sanctuary, the matter that is discharged 

or deposited from beyond the Sanctuary 

must also injure a Sanctuary resource or 

quality, except for the exceptions listed 

in the regulations. Thus, operations and 

activities taking place beyond the 

Sanctuary are only subject to this 

regulation if the discharge or deposit of 

the matter is shown to injure a 

Sanctuary resource or quality within the 

Sanctuary, and this regulation is not an 

extension of the Sanctuary’s boundary. 

Injure, as defined at 15 CFR 922.3, 

means to change adversely, either in the 

short or long term, a chemical, 

biological or physical attribute of, or the 

viability of. This includes, but is not 

limited to, to cause the loss of or 

destroy. 

Discharge—General 

63. Comment: NOAA should apply 

heightened restrictions on polluting 

vessels, including large vessels, 

watercraft and cruise ships, in the Santa 

Barbara Channel, or tighten the 

exceptions to the discharge and deposit 

prohibition with the goal of better 

protecting Sanctuary waters from 

pollution. 

Response: NOAA’s revised Sanctuary 

regulations strengthen protections 

against pollution from vessels by 

clarifying that discharges allowed from 

marine sanitation devices apply only to 

Type I and Type II marine sanitation 

devices, and by limiting graywater and 

treated sewage exceptions to apply only 

to vessels less than 300 gross registered 

tons (GRT), and oceangoing ships (not 

including cruise ships) without 

sufficient holding tank capacity to hold 

graywater or sewage while within the 

CINMS. 

64. Comment: To best protect 

Sanctuary resources, the new CINMS 

regulations should ban dumping 

hazardous waste into the Sanctuary. 

Response: CINMS regulations prohibit 

discharging or depositing from within or 

into the Sanctuary any material or other 

matter, with a list of exceptions. 

Discharging or depositing any material 

or other matter that is not included in 

the list of exceptions, including 

hazardous waste, is prohibited. 

Discharge—Meals 

65. Comment: Several commenters 

expressed support for NOAA’s proposal 

to prohibit discharging or depositing 

from within or into the Sanctuary meals 

on board vessels. 

Response: Comments noted. 

Discharge—Sewage/Graywater 

66. Comment: The discharge and 

deposit regulation requires that vessel 

operators must lock all marine 

sanitation devices in a manner that 

prevents discharge of untreated sewage, 

without defining what is meant by 

‘‘lock.’’ 

Response: Locking means securing the 

device such that removal of a locking 

mechanism (e.g., padlock, combination 

lock, or cable tie) is required to enable 

the system to discharge raw sewage 

overboard. In the case of a Y valve that 

toggles toilet bowl discharge between a 

treatment system/holding tank and an 

overboard outlet, the valve handle 

would need to be in the closed position 

for overboard discharge and locked to 

prevent inadvertent and unopposed 

opening of the valve. 

67. Comment: A number of 

commenters indicated that the proposed 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3231 

discharge and deposit regulation does 

not provide the same level of protection 

as California Clean Coast Act. 

Response: NOAA revised the 

proposed CINMS discharge/deposit 

regulation to prohibit the discharge of 

sewage from all vessels 300 GRT or 

more, and the discharge of graywater 

from vessels 300 GRT or more, except 

for oceangoing ships without sufficient 

holding tank capacity for graywater. 

This is consistent with the Clean Coast 

Act. These regulatory changes were 

analyzed in a Supplemental EIS (March 

2008). 

68. Comment: A number of 

commenters, including the U.S. EPA 

and the California State Water 

Resources Control Board, expressed 

support for the revised proposed 

discharge regulation as analyzed in the 

SDEIS. 

Response: Comment noted. 

69. Comment: One commenter 

supported CINMS for not providing a 

sewage discharge exemption for ships 

greater than 300 GRT, as has been 

proposed by the Northern California 

sanctuaries, but objected to the revised 

proposed discharge regulation 

exceptions for graywater and treated 

sewage from vessels less than 300 GRT, 

and graywater from oceangoing ships 

without sufficient holding tank capacity 

to hold graywater within the Sanctuary. 

Response: NOAA acknowledges 

support for the revised proposed 

discharge/deposit regulation as 

analyzed in the SDEIS; however, NOAA 

has concluded that an exception for 

treated sewage discharge/deposit from 

oceangoing ships without sufficient 

holding tank capacity (excluding cruise 

ships) is warranted at this time. See the 

response to comment 72 for more 

information. CINMS is maintaining the 

treated sewage exception for vessels less 

than 300 GRT. The rationale for the 

treated sewage exceptions is provided in 

the response to comment 70. The 

exception for oceangoing ships without 

sufficient holding tank capacity to hold 

graywater while within the Sanctuary is 

implemented because, unlike cruise 

ships and newer oceangoing ships, some 

older oceangoing ships are designed 

without the ability to retain graywater, 

and, as such, must discharge graywater 

directly as it is produced. As explained 

in FEIS section 4, graywater discharge 

from small vessels, and from oceangoing 

ships without sufficient holding tank 

capacity to hold graywater while within 

the Sanctuary, is anticipated to have a 

less than significant adverse impact on 

the Sanctuary’s physical, biological, and 

esthetic resources. 

70. Comment: NOAA should phase-in 

a total wastewater discharge ban for all 

ocean-going vessels in CINMS. 

Response: NOAA is not planning to 

phase in a total wastewater discharge 

ban for all oceangoing vessels in the 

Sanctuary at this time because available 

data do not suggest that the excepted 

sewage and graywater discharges within 

the Sanctuary pose an unacceptable risk 

to Sanctuary resources and qualities. 

Should information to the contrary 

become available, NOAA may consider 

further regulation. 

71. Comment: Regulations applying to 

large vessels should also apply to 

vessels servicing those larger vessels 

(e.g., barges that may be used to transfer 

sewage from an anchored vessel to 

outside of the 3-mile limit). 

Response: The regulations prohibit 

discharging from within or into the 

Sanctuary sewage (treated and 

untreated) and graywater from vessels 

300 GRT or more (unless the vessel is 

an oceangoing ship without sufficient 

holding tank capacity—this does not 

apply to cruise ships). NOAA interprets 

this regulation to prohibit the discharge 

of such sewage or graywater even if the 

sewage or graywater were transferred to 

a second vessel, regardless of the second 

vessel’s size. Furthermore, transferring 

sewage from an anchored large vessel 

seems implausible since vessels 300 

GRT or more are not known to anchor 

within the Sanctuary. 

72. Comment: The proposed revisions 

of the Sanctuary’s discharge prohibition 

should be consistent with the California 

Clean Coast Act and include the 

exception for ocean going vessels 

without sufficient holding tank capacity 

to hold treated blackwater (sewage) 

while within the Sanctuary. 

Response: To be consistent with the 

California Clean Coast Act, as well as 

with regulations for the Monterey Bay, 

Cordell Bank, and Gulf of the Farallones 

national marine sanctuaries, NOAA is 

providing an exception for treated 

sewage discharges from oceangoing 

ships that do not have sufficient holding 

tank capacity while within the CINMS. 

73. Comment: Adequate education on 

the proposed discharge restrictions will 

ensure that oceangoing ships retain all 

discharges to the greatest extent possible 

within the Sanctuary. 

Response: Outreach and education to 

the shipping industry about the 

Sanctuary’s revised regulations is 

important, and NOAA will apply 

educational resources toward that 

purpose, including outreach to the 

Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. 

74. Comment: The management plan 

fails to recognize or provide an 

incentive for the use and further 

development of advanced wastewater 

treatment systems currently installed on 

cruise ships, and instead, encourages 

ships to construct and utilize large 

holding tanks and discharge elsewhere. 

The targeting of cruise ships and ban on 

discharges promotes older, cheaper, less 

advanced technology and the use of 

holding tanks. The proposed discharge 

regulations amount to a wholesale ban 

on discharges creating a disincentive to 

further research, development and 

installation of systems that produce 

clean and scientifically acceptable 

effluent. If discharges are harmful, 

transferring them to another location 

would simply be transferring the 

problem. 

Response: The management plan 

recognizes the use of advanced 

wastewater treatment systems by cruise 

ships. The SDEIS and FEIS both 

acknowledge the use of these systems 

and their ability to dramatically 

improve the quality of effluent 

discharged in Alaska. Currently, 

however, advanced wastewater 

treatment systems on cruise ships do 

not always function properly and even 

when they do, they do not always 

effectively remove all contaminants. 

NOAA encourages the development of 

new technologies to address these 

issues. 

Similarly, the management plan does 

not encourage or promote retrenchment 

to older, cheaper, less advanced 

technology. The regulations prohibit 

cruise ships from discharging sewage 

and graywater from within or into a 

particular area afforded special 

protection due to its nationally 

significant resources. NOAA believes 

that transferring discharges outside of 

the Sanctuary is an appropriate resource 

protection measure. 

75. Comment: There is no credible 

reason to ban cruise ship discharges 

from Type II MSDs and advanced 

wastewater treatment systems, and such 

discharges should be allowed in general, 

or when discharged while the vessel is 

moving at or above six knots. Cruise 

ship Type II MSDs meet or exceed U.S. 

Coast Guard standards and pose little or 

no threat to the environment. The 

revised proposed discharge regulation 

assumes that any sewage and gray water 

discharges, no matter the quality, are 

likely to have adverse environmental 

impacts on the receiving water and 

ambient air based on their sheer 

volume. NOAA should consult with the 

EPA and Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation since they 

have done an exceptional amount of 

work regarding cruise ship effluent 

discharges. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3232 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: NOAA is not aware of any 

EPA or other reports showing that 

treated sewage discharges from cruise 

ships would not pose any discernable 

effect within the Sanctuary. As 

discussed in the SDEIS (p. 22), it is 

important to note that many dilution 

studies only consider effluent from 

properly functioning MSDs, which is 

not necessarily the condition of MSDs 

on all or most vessels. The revised 

regulation addresses NOAA’s concerns 

about failure of conventional MSDs on 

large vessels to adequately treat sewage 

waste streams, and lack of monitoring of 

those waste streams. 

Regarding use of Coast Guard 

approved Type II MSDs, Coast Guard 

standards for MSDs pertain to the 

design and construction of MSDs, and 

procedures for certifying MSDs prior to 

sale, introduction or delivery into 

interstate commerce, or import into the 

United States for sale or resale. The 

Coast Guard does not test the effluent 

from certified MSDs once installed 

onboard a vessel (except in Alaska). 

Simply having a Coast Guard approved 

MSD on board a ship does not guarantee 

that a ship’s sewage discharges meet 

EPA discharge requirements, as 

demonstrated by cruise ship sampling 

data in Alaska prior to institution of 

more stringent discharge standards, 

monitoring, inspection, and reporting 

requirements there. 

The SDEIS and FEIS analysis of the 

potential impacts of cruise ship 

discharges is based on both the quality 

and volume of sewage and graywater 

discharges. Even when sewage and 

graywater discharges meet MSD Type II 

standards for fecal coliform and total 

suspended solids, there are other 

qualities of sewage and graywater 

discharges that may be harmful, such as 

chemicals used to treat sewage and 

graywater, and high nutrient levels, 

especially when discharged in large 

volumes. As noted in the SDEIS and 

FEIS, results of cruise ship graywater 

sampling in Alaska indicate that in the 

absence of water quality standards and 

monitoring, graywater is similar to 

sewage in terms of fecal coliform and 

total suspended solids. The SDEIS and 

FEIS do not analyze cruise ship sewage 

and graywater discharge impacts on 

ambient air. 

Regarding cruise ships that transit 

Alaska, and that use advanced 

wastewater treatment systems, see the 

response to comment 76. 

76. Comment: Rather than a ban, 

NOAA should consider drafting 

regulations that mirror requirements in 

other jurisdictions, such as Alaska, 

which permit sewage and gray water 

discharges at levels scientifically 

acceptable through discharge criteria. 

Response: As stated in the SDEIS and 

FEIS, the results of cruise ship 

blackwater samples taken in Alaska 

indicate that blackwater from vessels 

without advanced treatment systems 

(and not subject to mandatory 

monitoring, inspection, and reporting) 

may contain levels of fecal coliform and 

total suspended solids that exceed 

federal standards for MSDs, as well as 

a variety of other pollutants. Unlike 

Alaska, NOAA is not planning on 

instituting a CINMS cruise ship sewage 

and graywater discharge monitoring, 

inspection, and reporting program. 

Effluent monitoring would be cost 

prohibitive and infeasible, particularly 

for vessels underway (large vessels do 

not customarily stop in the Sanctuary). 

Additionally, ship discharge audits 

often reveal that a discharge occurred 

but do not contain information on 

contaminant levels. Currently, advanced 

waste water treatment systems on cruise 

ships do not always function properly 

and even when they do, they do not 

always effectively remove all 

contaminants. Therefore NOAA believes 

that prohibiting cruise ship sewage and 

graywater discharges is the most 

effective and enforceable regulation. 

The SDEIS and FEIS both acknowledge 

the use of advanced wastewater 

treatment systems and their ability to 

improve the quality of effluent 

discharged in Alaska. However, the 

program adopted in Alaska is a complex 

arrangement requiring issuance of a 

permit, prior demonstration that the 

ships can meet water quality standards 

based on independent contractor 

evaluation, environmental compliance 

fees, wastewater sampling and testing 

protocols, record keeping and reporting 

protocols, on-board observers, and a tax 

per passenger to fund the administration 

of the program. Such a program is 

inherently difficult to monitor and 

enforce and the NMSP has no 

mechanism in place for recouping the 

necessary funds needed to administer it. 

Also, the EPA studies indicate that 

although advanced wastewater 

treatment systems remove most of the 

priority pollutants of concern they do 

not adequately reduce discharge of 

ammonia and metals. For these reasons, 

the CINMS regulations prohibit 

discharges from advanced wastewater 

treatment systems. Cruise ships have 

sufficient holding tank capacity to hold 

their discharge as they transit the 

Sanctuary. 

77. Comment: CINMS should not 

implement new sewage discharge 

regulations for small vessels because (1) 

existing laws prohibit the discharge of 

untreated sewage from small vessels 

within three nautical miles of shore; (2) 

existing requirements should be better 

enforced instead of adding new 

requirements; (3) no significant water 

quality issues have been noted for 

discharges by vessels under 150 GRT 

with certified MSDs Type I, II, or III; (4) 

requiring untreated sewage to be 

discharged further offshore would turn 

‘‘good guys’’ into ‘‘bad guys’’; (5) using 

the Coast Guard regulations as the 

standard for sewage discharges from 

vessels less than 300 GRT would 

facilitate Channel Islands National Park 

operations (i.e., kelp forest monitoring, 

submerged cultural resources 

monitoring); (6) Coast Guard regulations 

are easier to enforce since most boaters 

are familiar with them; (7) prohibiting 

untreated sewage discharge within the 

entire Sanctuary would present a tradeoff between having untreated sewage 

discharged further from shore and 

environmental impacts such as 

pollution costs (including from fuel 

production and transportation) and 

energy waste from the fuel burned to get 

there; and (8) a requirement to discharge 

untreated sewage further offshore 

presents time and fuel costs to boaters. 

Response: NOAA recognizes that 

other federal regulations prohibit the 

discharge of untreated sewage within 

three nmi from shore; however, CINMS 

regulations have prohibited the 

discharge of untreated sewage within 

the entire Sanctuary since 1981 (the 

FEIS clarifies this existing regulation). 

NOAA is concerned about the 

pathogens, nutrients, and esthetic 

impacts that untreated sewage could 

introduce if discharged within the 

Sanctuary. To date, untreated sewage 

discharges have not been definitively 

linked to significant water quality 

problems in the Sanctuary; however, 

this rule will ensure that such problems 

do not occur in the future. 

CINMS partners closely with Channel 

Islands National Park (CINP) on marine 

operations including research, 

monitoring, and enforcement. Based on 

NOAA’s analysis of Park and CINMS 

vessel operations, NOAA does not 

expect the clarifications to the sewage 

discharge regulation to significantly 

impede Park operations. 

Enforcement of regulations, including 

discharge regulations, is important to 

ensure their effectiveness. NOAA 

intends to consider enforcement needs 

during the development of the 

Sanctuary’s water quality protection 

program (see FMP strategy WQ.2). 

Additional outreach and education 

regarding Sanctuary discharge 

regulations is warranted, and NOAA 

intends to work with the Coast Guard, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3233 

CINP, and other key agencies to develop 

effective outreach tools. 

NOAA believes all boaters can 

reasonably adapt to comply with this 

regulation and practice clean boating 

within the Sanctuary, as was the case 

when similar or more stringent 

regulations were adopted in other large 

areas of U.S. waters (e.g., the Great 

Lakes, state marine waters in the Florida 

Keys, and Chesapeake Bay). With proper 

trip planning, necessary equipment and 

maintenance, and attention to sewage 

holding capacity and needs, NOAA 

expects that boaters can take steps to 

avoid special trips beyond the 

Sanctuary’s six nmi boundary solely to 

discharge sewage (after which they 

would continue boating within the 

Sanctuary). For example, there are 

compact commode and portable sewage 

storage systems widely available on the 

market. 

78. Comment: NOAA should prohibit 

sewage sludge from large vessels 

because it is produced in large 

quantities by cruise ships and included 

in the California Clean Coast Act’s 

prohibitions. 

Response: Sewage sludge discharges/ 

deposits are prohibited throughout the 

Sanctuary. 

79. Comment: CINMS should revise 

the discharge regulation to mirror 

existing law pertaining to vessel sewage 

and graywater discharges and fully 

prohibit graywater, sewage (untreated 

and treated) and sewage sludge 

discharges from cruise ships and other 

large oceangoing vessels throughout the 

Sanctuary. 

Response: Regarding mirroring 

existing laws on vessel sewage and 

graywater discharges, see the response 

to comment 67. The revised discharge 

and deposit regulation now prohibits 

graywater discharges from vessels 300 

GRT or more (except oceangoing ships 

without sufficient holding tank capacity 

to hold graywater while within the 

Sanctuary); it also prohibits treated 

sewage discharges from all vessels 300 

GRT or more throughout the Sanctuary 

(except oceangoing ships without 

sufficient holding tank capacity to hold 

sewage while within the Sanctuary), 

and prohibits untreated sewage from all 

vessels within the Sanctuary. The 

Sanctuary’s discharge regulation does 

not provide an exception for sewage 

sludge discharges. 

80. Comment: The Sanctuary should 

not exempt military vessels from the 

discharge and deposit prohibition, as 

they are included in the California 

Clean Coast Act’s sewage and sewage 

sludge prohibitions. 

Response: NOAA believes the DOD 

discharge requirements under CWA 

section 312(n) are sufficient to protect 

Sanctuary resources. 

81. Comment: NOAA should delete 

the discharge regulation’s graywater 

exception. 

Response: NOAA believes there is no 

need to prohibit graywater discharges 

from vessels less than 300 GRT within 

the Sanctuary at this time. However, 

Sanctuary regulations would now 

prohibit graywater discharges from 

vessels 300 GRT or more, except from 

oceangoing ships without sufficient 

holding tank capacity to hold graywater 

while within the Sanctuary. 

82. Comment: NOAA’s discharge 

regulation should reflect the California 

Coastal Commission’s recommendation 

to prohibit vessels of 300 GRT or more 

from discharging sewage or graywater 

into the waters of the Sanctuary. 

Response: NOAA has revised the 

CINMS discharge regulation to reflect 

the California Coastal Commission’s 

recommendation and prohibit the 

discharge of sewage from all vessels 300 

GRT or more, as well as the discharge 

of graywater from vessels 300 GRT or 

more. Exceptions would be consistent 

with the California Clean Coast Act, 

allowing graywater and treated sewage 

from oceangoing ships without 

sufficient holding tank capacity to hold 

these discharges while within the 

Sanctuary). 

83. Comment: Due to the volume of 

their discharges, cruise ships should be 

directed around the Sanctuary. 

Response: Rather than direct cruise 

ships around the Sanctuary, NOAA is 

excluding cruise ships from the CINMS 

sewage and graywater exceptions, 

thereby prohibiting their discharge 

within the Sanctuary. 

84. Comment: Unless NOAA is able to 

institute a rigorous monitoring and 

sampling program for sewage effluent 

from ships as Alaska has done, it is 

prudent to adopt a no-discharge policy 

that mirrors the state of California’s 

laws. 

Response: Although NOAA may 

implement some discharge monitoring 

in partnership with other agencies, 

NOAA is not currently planning to 

institute a comprehensive sewage 

effluent monitoring and sampling 

program in the Sanctuary similar to 

Alaska’s program (see also the response 

to comment 75). Regarding adopting a 

policy that mirrors California’s law, see 

the response to comment 67. 

85. Comment: All vessels, ships, or 

large vessels should hold either all 

waste or sewage until they can 

discharge it into pump out stations for 

disposal or treatment on land. 

Response: The revised CINMS 

discharge regulation prohibits 

discharging untreated sewage within the 

Sanctuary from vessels less than 300 

GRT, and prohibits discharging sewage 

(whether treated or untreated) within 

the Sanctuary from vessels 300 GRT or 

more, except for oceangoing ships that 

do not have sufficient holding tank 

capacity to hold sewage while within 

the Sanctuary. 

86. Comment: NOAA should either 

include sewage sludge in the definition 

of ‘‘sewage’’ or explicitly prohibit 

sewage sludge in the discharge 

regulation. 

Response: Existing CINMS regulations 

do not provide an exception for sewage 

sludge discharge/deposit; as such, these 

discharges/deposits are prohibited. 

87. Comment: The prohibition of 

sewage sludge should be incorporated 

in outreach documents. 

Response: CINMS staff will consider 

this comment when developing 

outreach products about the revised 

Sanctuary regulations. 

88. Comment: Commenter supports 

the marine sanitation device 

clarification in the revised proposed 

discharge regulation. 

Response: Comment noted. 

89. Comment: Commenter supports 

the proposed definitions of ‘‘graywater,’’ 

‘‘oceangoing ship,’’ and ‘‘cruise ship,’’ 

as well as the Sanctuary’s effort to 

provide greater regulatory consistency 

and clarity by establishing formal 

definitions for important concepts 

relevant to CINMS resource 

conservation and management. 

Response: Comment noted. 

Ecosystem Based Management 

90. Comment: The Management Plan 

refers to Ecosystem Based Management, 

but there is no mention of Ecosystem 

Based Management in the NMSA. 

Response: The Management Plan 

Introduction section refers to ecosystembased management and the NMSA, and 

it specifies the sections of the NMSA 

that NOAA believes support the use of 

ecosystem-based management. As stated 

therein, NOAA believes that ecosystembased management is in keeping with 

the NMSA’s primary objective of 

resource protection. Section 301(b) of 

the NMSA, which provides the 

purposes and policies of the national 

marine sanctuary system, provides 

CINMS and the other national marine 

sanctuaries with a solid framework for 

ecosystem-based management. Section 

301 provides that it is the purpose of the 

NMSA to, among other things: (a) 

Maintain the natural biological 

communities of the national marine 

sanctuaries, and to protect, and where 

appropriate, restore and enhance natural 

habitats, populations, and ecological 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3234 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

processes; (b) develop and implement 

coordinated plans for the protection and 

management of these areas with 

appropriate Federal agencies, State and 

local governments, Native American 

tribes and organizations, international 

organizations, and other public and 

private interests concerned with the 

continuing health and resilience of the 

sanctuaries; and (c) to create models of, 

and incentives for, ways to conserve and 

manage these areas, including the 

application of innovative management 

techniques. Maintaining biological 

communities, and protecting, restoring, 

and enhancing habitats, populations, 

and ecological processes (see clause a 

above), along with addressing the health 

and resiliency of national marine 

sanctuaries (see clause b above), are 

endeavors best suited to an ecosystembased approach. Such an approach is 

consistent with applying innovative 

management techniques (see clause c 

above). 

91. Comment: NOAA should replace 

the management plan’s Grumbine (1994) 

definition of Ecosystem Based 

Management with the definition from 

the Scientific Consensus Statement on 

Marine Ecosystem Based Management 

released in March 2005 (by authors 

including Jenn Casselle, Jennie Dugan, 

Ben Halpern, Jeremy Jackson, Satie 

Airame, and Hunter Lenihan). 

Response: Text in the FMP has been 

revised to reflect the definition of 

marine ecosystem-based management 

from NOAA’s New Priorities for the 21st 

Century (NOAA’s strategic plan for 

2006–2011), rather than the definition 

provided by Grumbine (1994). NOAA’s 

definition of an ecosystem approach to 

management is consistent with the 2005 

Scientific Consensus Statement on 

Marine Ecosystem-Based Management, 

which is available on line at http:// 

www.compassonline.org/marinescience/ 

solutions_ecosystem.asp. 

Education and Outreach 

92. Comment: Commenters indicated 

support for the management plan’s 

education and outreach goals and 

objectives and the Public Awareness 

and Understanding Action Plan. 

Response: Comment noted. 

93. Comment: Through the Public 

Awareness and Understanding Action 

Plan NOAA should ensure that all 

employees and crew of Channel Islands 

National Park concessionaires who 

bring visitors to the Sanctuary are aware 

of and understand CINMS regulations 

and resource conservation issues. 

Anecdotal evidence suggests that even 

major concessionaires are not aware of 

CINMS regulations on matters such as 

vessel sewage and wastewater 

discharge. NOAA should also provide 

an incentive for concessionaires to 

participate in an education program. 

Response: CINMS staff work directly 

with Channel Islands National Park staff 

responsible for educating 

concessionaires through the strategic 

plan mentioned in the FMP Public 

Awareness & Understanding Action 

Plan (Strategy AU.2 activity 3). As part 

of the Ocean Etiquette Outreach 

program (AU.3, activity 4), which 

promotes communication and 

coordination between California ocean 

users and Federal and State agencies, 

CINMS staff plan to engage 

concessionaires and other boaters in 

Ocean Etiquette workshops. As the Park 

reviews and awards concessionaire 

licenses to various operators, CINMS 

staff will continue to communicate with 

the Park on interests and concerns 

regarding concessionaire compliance 

with Sanctuary regulations, such as 

those pertaining to clean boating 

practices, as well as possible 

compliance incentives. 

94. Comment: NOAA should work 

with the City of Santa Barbara to 

increase opportunities for effective 

signage and publicity. 

Response: NOAA worked with the 

City of Santa Barbara (City) in the mid1990s on several CINMS interpretive 

signs that are located in Santa Barbara’s 

Shoreline Park. NOAA also works with 

the City each year by participating in 

the annual Harbor and Seafood Festival, 

and serving alongside the City, U.S. 

Forest Service, National Park Service 

and Santa Barbara Maritime Museum as 

a partner in the Outdoors Santa Barbara 

Visitor Center in the Santa Barbara 

Harbor (see the Public Awareness and 

Understanding Action Plan strategy 

AU.7—Visitor Center Support & 

Development for more information). 

NOAA is currently working with the 

City Waterfront Department to place 

signs at the Santa Barbara Harbor fuel 

dock and along the Santa Barbara 

Harbor Fish Walk. These signs focus on 

CINMS, CINP, and marine zoning, and 

are part of a larger NMSP sponsored 

initiative called the California Signage 

Plan. Sanctuary interactive kiosks, like 

signs, are also an important outreach 

tool that can help provide CINMS 

publicity at various locations, such as at 

the City Waterfront Department office. 

For information about interactive 

kiosks, see Public Awareness and 

Understanding strategy AU.7. 

95. Comment: The management plan 

did not indicate how NOAA would 

assess the effectiveness of strategies 

AU.1 through AU.8. 

Response: NOAA understands the 

importance of evaluating the 

effectiveness of its programs. FMP 

Strategy EV.1 (Measuring Sanctuary 

Performance Over Time) details how 

each education program or product will 

be evaluated, and FMP Table 16 shows 

specific strategies, objectives, 

performance measures and metrics for 

measuring effectiveness of the Public 

Awareness and Understanding Action 

Plan. Also, NOAA is working at CINMS 

to meet the NMSP’s system-wide 

performance measure related to 

education, which states that ‘‘By 2010 

all education programs implemented in 

national marine sanctuaries will be 

assessed for effectiveness against stated 

program goals and objectives and 

appropriate National and State 

education standards.’’ 

96. Comment: NOAA should clarify 

for each program whether there are 

plans to assure that strategies AU.1, and 

AU.3–AU.9 are reaching a diverse 

audience. 

Response: NOAA strives to reach 

diverse audiences with its CINMS 

education and outreach programs and 

materials. FMP Strategy AU.9 describes 

how CINMS will build multicultural 

elements into existing education 

programs and materials, and activity 5 

describes in detail the implementation 

of a comprehensive multicultural 

education strategic plan for Santa 

Barbara and Ventura Counties. 

97. Comment: NOAA should consider 

best education practices in the 

development of Strategy AU.1. 

Response: NOAA education staff at 

CINMS use best practices when 

developing educational programming. 

CINMS educators stay abreast of current 

issues and changes in science and 

environmental education content 

standards by participating in annual 

education conferences and workshops 

put on by leaders in science education. 

98. Comment: Given the changing 

make-up of our population, NOAA 

should create strategies to create a 

diverse pool of interns and volunteers, 

and should create career paths for 

interns from ethnic groups underrepresented in resource sciences. The 

latter would help create a pool of 

qualified future resource scientists, 

technicians, managers and leaders. 

Response: As mentioned in Strategy 

AU.9 of the FMP’s Public Awareness & 

Understanding Action Plan, CINMS 

implements the MERITO Hispanic 

Students Internship Program. Text in 

FMP Strategy AU.2 has been changed to 

reflect these CINMS internship 

strategies for under-represented youth 

as defined in Strategy AU.9. 

99. Comment: The management plan 

refers to the Los Marineros education 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3235 

program, without explaining that this 

program is now defunct. 

Response: NOAA and the Santa 

Barbara Museum of Natural History 

(Museum) started the Los Marineros 

Program in 1987. The Museum took 

over administration of the program in 

the mid 1990s. The Museum decided 

not to continue the program after 2005, 

which is now reflected in the FMP. 

NOAA is now working to build 

Sanctuary stewardship and increase 

understanding of ocean related threats 

within the Hispanic community of 

Santa Barbara and Ventura counties 

through strategy AU.9, Multicultural 

Education. A component of this strategy 

is the MERITO Academy which targets 

5th–8th grade teachers and students and 

provides a meaningful watershed 

experience through field trips to the 

beach and Sanctuary. 

100. Comment: NOAA should 

mention a shift to a philosophy of 

sustainability in its CINMS education 

programs. 

Response: Since its designation in 

1980, CINMS staff has been educating 

the community about human impacts on 

the ocean environment and working to 

foster a sense of personal ownership and 

responsibility for care of Sanctuary 

resources. 

101. Comment: NOAA should 

incorporate into education and outreach 

action plans some specific programs 

directly facilitating compatible use, 

such as brochures with simple charts 

indicating best places to scuba dive, 

fish, kayak, view wildlife, and so forth. 

Response: NOAA’s ‘‘Protecting Your 

Channel Islands’’ brochure shows 

popular anchorages, diving spots and 

wildlife areas (for pinnipeds and 

seabirds), and provides tips for 

watching wildlife and a synopsis of 

sanctuary and park regulations. 

Members of the boating and fishing 

communities participated in the 

development of this brochure through 

the Sanctuary Advisory Council and the 

Sanctuary Education Team. NOAA will 

continue to work with boaters, fishers, 

and other interested community 

members to develop useful brochures 

and other education materials regarding 

responsible ways to enjoy Sanctuary 

resources. 

102. Comment: NOAA should support 

or sponsor contests or festivals that 

celebrate use of the Sanctuary, such as 

photo contests, harbor seafood festivals, 

sailing regattas, and whale festivals. 

Response: As indicated in FMP Public 

Awareness & Understanding Action 

Plan Strategy AU.6, CINMS staff 

participation in outreach events is 

identified as a tool to provide Sanctuary 

information to a widely diverse 

audience. CINMS staff and volunteers 

participate in over 30 regional outreach 

events annually, spanning from Santa 

Barbara County to Los Angeles County, 

serving a diverse number of 

constituents. Events include whale 

festivals, harbor festivals, boat shows, 

fishing conventions, and dive industry 

events. 

103. Comment: NOAA education staff 

at CINMS should establish closer 

contact with researchers whose work 

forms the information base used by 

Sanctuary education programs. 

Response: NOAA education and 

research program staff at CINMS work 

closely together on many different 

Sanctuary management issues. One 

example is the ongoing ‘‘From Shore to 

Sea’’ lecture series sponsored by CINMS 

and CINP, which brings scientists 

studying the Channel Islands to venues 

in Santa Barbara and Ventura one night 

per month for a public presentation 

about their research. CINMS research 

and education staff also collaborate on 

other programs and products including 

interpreting research data for 

presentation on the CINMS Web site, 

annual research summaries, and the 

CINMS Teacher at Sea program. 

104. Comment: The management plan 

should mention the ‘Follow That Fish!’ 

curriculum and aquarium exhibit, 

which is a program that highlights the 

results of fish movement studies in the 

Sanctuary conducted by the Pfleger 

Institute of Environmental Research 

(PIER) using an acoustic received array. 

Response: In 2006, PIER removed its 

acoustic receivers and discontinued its 

fish movement study project. 

Consequently, NOAA is not highlighting 

this project in the FMP’s description of 

educational activities. 

Emergency Response 

105. Comment: NOAA should 

develop a means for more timely 

response to oil spills within the 

Sanctuary by: (1) Identifying vessels 

(e.g., local or Sanctuary vessels) capable 

of boom deployment and skimming 

systems, (2) investigating the feasibility 

of the Sanctuary becoming a Clean Seas 

client, and (3) providing spill cleanup/ 

response equipment cached at various 

locations in the Channel Islands. 

Response: NOAA staff take an active 

role in spill response preparation by 

representing CINMS on the Area 

Contingency Plan (ACP) committee for 

U.S. Coast Guard Region IX. CINMS 

staff are also instrumental in helping to 

revise the ACP to create more effective 

response to spills, specifically in the 

area of resource protection. The ACP is 

a ‘‘cookbook’’ for oil spill response that 

includes contact information for 

responders, agencies, cleanup 

contractors, and vessel and equipment 

resources. This information is 

constantly updated. Clean Seas LLC has 

response vessels in place that can 

quickly respond to spills within the 

Sanctuary. Another regional 

organization with vessels and trained 

crew capable of responding to spills is 

the Ventura County Commercial 

Fishermen’s Association’s Fishermen’s 

Oil Response Team, or FORT. 

Equipment caches kept on the islands 

would need to be authorized by the 

National Park Service. Obtaining and 

placing any spill equipment would be 

best done through an agency/responder 

partnership with those organizations, 

such as the USCG and Clean Seas LLC, 

that have dedicated staff with expertise 

in spill response and all associated 

equipment and assets. For more 

information about how CINMS is 

involved in and addresses emergencies 

such as oil spills, see FMP Strategy 

EE.1. 

106. Comment: NOAA should look 

into whether oil facilities can store 

cleanup equipment, inventory 

equipment already there, and consider 

whether it can develop an agreement 

between oil companies and sanctuaries 

to use that equipment. 

Response: Currently oil platforms in 

the Santa Barbara Channel store various 

quantities of booming and skimming 

equipment and dispersants. Full 

inventory lists are kept and supplied to 

various Federal, State, and local 

agencies involved in oil spill response, 

and these lists are accessible by CINMS 

staff as needed. Equipment use requires 

specialized training, and oil companies 

work with spill response co-ops such as 

Clean Seas LLC, to provide equipment 

and personnel for cleanup. 

Additionally, agencies such as the U.S. 

Coast Guard can ‘‘federalize’’ (place a 

spill under the jurisdiction of the 

Federal government if the responsible 

party is not responding appropriately) 

an oil spill and then call in authorized, 

trained contractors to help respond to 

the spill. 

107. Comment: NOAA should look 

towards the future of emergency 

response and find funding for Clean 

Seas. Currently oil spill response is paid 

for by oil companies, so if oil and gas 

facilities are decommissioned then 

Clean Seas is not likely to be here. 

Response: Although CINMS staff 

could contribute to planning ideas for 

maintaining oil spill response 

capabilities provided by Clean Seas, 

such an effort would most likely be 

spearheaded by other NOAA offices 

(such as NOAA HAZMAT) as well as 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3236 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Federal, State, and local agencies whose 

primary mission is oil spill response. 

Emerging Issues 

108. Comment: Commenter expressed 

support for the management plan review 

addressing emerging issues. 

Response: Comment noted. 

109. Comment: The management plan 

should provide a stronger link between 

the Emerging Issues and Conservation 

Science action plans by directing 

research towards evaluating emerging 

issues. 

Response: Research coordination and 

integration are very important to the 

evaluation of emerging issues. Within 

the Conservation Science Action Plan, 

NOAA has added details about the link 

between emerging issues and 

conservation science within the 

Conservation Science Action Plan 

Overview and Strategy CS.3, as well as 

in Strategy RP.1. As explained in RP.1, 

input from the Advisory Council, the 

science community, and the public 

informs CINMS efforts at identifying 

and assessing current and emerging 

issues at all stages, including 

identification of issues, assessment of 

threats, and tracking and responding to 

issues. 

110. Comment: The management plan 

should clarify whether each emerging 

issue is: (a) Forecasted to, but not 

presently harming Sanctuary resources; 

or (b) already causing harm to Sanctuary 

resources. NOAA should also develop 

criteria to determine when an issue is 

emerging vs. when it has emerged. 

Response: The FMP includes a 

Resource Protection Action Plan in 

which NOAA has clarified and 

augmented information on the status of 

each issue previously listed as an 

‘‘emerging issue.’’ The Resource 

Protection Action Plan also articulates 

how CINMS addresses current issues 

and how it will address emerging issues. 

Since NOAA has outlined how it plans 

to identify, assess, prioritize, and 

address both current and emerging 

resource protection issues, it is not 

necessary to develop criteria for 

determining when an issue has 

‘‘emerged.’’ Rather, it is NOAA’s intent 

that CINMS track, assess, prioritize, and 

determine how best to respond to all 

issues relevant to protecting Sanctuary 

resources. 

111. Comment: Strategy EI.1 could be 

sufficient for ‘‘emerging issues’’—issues 

that have yet to cause significant harm 

to Sanctuary resources. 

Response: NOAA will implement 

Strategies RP.1 and RP.2 in identifying, 

assessing, and responding to all current 

and emerging issues. 

112. Comment: NOAA should 

dedicate funding to emerging issues so 

as not to depend on volunteers to 

research such issues, and should specify 

who is responsible for implementing 

Strategy EI.1. 

Response: The NMSP dedicates and 

funds policy analysts, an advisory 

council coordinator, a team of research 

and monitoring staff, a boat crew, and 

education and outreach staff to identify, 

assess, and respond to emerging issues. 

The implementation of the Resource 

Protection Action Plan relies on this 

existing staff structure, as noted in the 

implementation section of Strategy 

RP.1. When an emerging issue requires 

community input and/or is beyond 

CINMS’s capabilities either technically 

or fiscally, staff rely on the expertise 

and knowledge of the Sanctuary 

Advisory Council and agency partners. 

For complex emerging issues that 

require a CINMS response, staff have in 

the past and can in the future reallocate 

staff time and budget, as well as 

leverage other agency resources to 

adequately address an issue. 

113. Comment: The Track Emerging 

Issues activity of strategy EI.1 should 

require that CINMS staff relay the 

findings of their issue tracking activities 

to the Advisory Council, with whom 

they collaboratively identified and 

prioritized the issues. 

Response: CINMS staff have provided 

and will continue to provide regular 

updates to the Advisory Council on 

emerging issues. 

114. Comment: NOAA should define 

how it will ‘‘track’’ emerging issues. 

Response: The Resource Protection 

Action Plan identifies the ways in 

which CINMS will identify and track 

emerging issues in the Sanctuary. 

115. Comment: NOAA should include 

marine bioprospecting, offshore energy 

projects (e.g., wind and wave energy), 

global greenhouse gas emissions, global 

warming, and squid boat lights in its list 

of emerging issues. 

Response: NOAA has included 

marine bioprospecting, offshore energy 

projects, climate change, and wildlife 

disturbance caused by artificial lighting 

as emerging issues in the FMP’s 

Resource Protection Action Plan. 

116. Comment: The DMP’s Emerging 

Issues Action Plan defers Sanctuary 

resource protection to a bureaucratic 

process with no allocated funding, and 

offers minimal specificity as to when or 

how management effort will be 

deployed to mitigate or eliminate 

impacts from emerging issues. 

Response: All CINMS activities 

ultimately contribute to resource 

protection, which is the primary 

purpose of the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act. The FMP’s Resource 

Protection Action Plan outlines 

processes for tracking, assessing, 

prioritizing, and determining how to 

respond to current and emerging 

resource protection issues (processes 

previously contained in an Emerging 

Issues Action Plan). These processes are 

essential to determining how to respond 

to a given issue at a given point in time, 

based on the best available information, 

and depending on available funding and 

the level of risk or priority for a given 

issue. Unfortunately, NOAA cannot 

predict when an issue will become a 

high priority and what the appropriate 

response at that time might be. Should, 

for example, NOAA determine that a 

given issue warrants development of a 

new action plan strategy, or perhaps 

even a new action plan, NOAA’s plan 

for action would be articulated in those 

documents. 

Regarding funding, while the 

Resource Protection Action Plan’s 

estimated cost table does not reflect 

potential future investments in CINMS 

resource protection issues, CINMS does 

request additional funds to address high 

priority resource protection issues in a 

given year as part of its annual budget 

planning process. Further, the budget 

table does not show base budget funding 

(e.g., staff salaries) which is critical to 

tracking, assessing, prioritizing, and 

determining how to respond to current 

and emerging resource protection 

issues. 

117. Comment: DMP Strategy EI.2 

includes several constructive options for 

addressing resource protection issues, 

which if implemented could reduce 

impacts to Sanctuary resources from 

resource protection issues. 

Response: Comment noted. 

Enforcement 

118. Comment: NOAA should ensure 

that sufficient funds/resources are 

available for enforcement and increase 

available funding for enforcement. 

Response: NOAA recognizes resource 

limitations and necessary program and 

partner developments may limit 

implementation of all of the activities in 

the management plan. NOAA will 

continue to work with the Department 

of Commerce, Office of Management 

and Budget, and Congress in developing 

supporting justifications when 

preparing budget submissions. NOAA 

allocates funds provided by Congress 

through annual appropriations for 

national marine sanctuaries and from 

other sources of funding (e.g., settlement 

funds) to enforcement of the NMSA and 

implementing regulations. In doing so, 

however, NOAA must balance the need 

for increased enforcement with other 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3237 

management needs (e.g., science and 

monitoring, education). NOAA uses 

these funds to leverage additional 

investments in enforcement by partner 

agencies (CDFG, NPS, USCG) to have an 

effective on-the-water presence in the 

Sanctuary. NOAA’s Office for Law 

Enforcement, which is funded 

separately from the Sanctuary budget, 

also assigns a law enforcement agent to 

the Sanctuary region. 

119. Comment: Team OCEAN should 

be deleted from the Expanding 

Enforcement Efforts section, Strategy 

EE.2 and included in the Public 

Awareness and Understanding Action 

Plan. 

Response: In addition to traditional 

enforcement, NOAA employs 

interpretive enforcement through Team 

OCEAN, a program that reaches out to 

boaters to help them understand and 

comply with CINMS regulations. Team 

OCEAN will not be administered as a 

substitute for law enforcement, but can 

complement those efforts. Team OCEAN 

will remain in the Emergency Response 

and Enforcement Action Plan because it 

is an important tool for both emergency 

response and enforcement. While Team 

Ocean is mentioned briefly as an 

activity within strategy EE.2, it is 

explained in detail in the Public 

Awareness and Understanding Action 

Plan (Strategy AU.3). 

120. Comment: NOAA must ensure 

the regulations for CINMS are legally 

binding and enforceable, must have a 

dedicated/exclusive enforcement 

program for the CINMS, and/or must 

establish formal partnerships with as 

many enforcement agencies as possible. 

Response: Primary law enforcement 

responsibilities for NOAA regulations 

are carried out by the NOAA Office for 

Law Enforcement (OLE). An 

enforcement officer stationed in Long 

Beach conducts investigations into 

violations of the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act and regulatory 

prohibitions in coordination with State, 

local and other Federal law enforcement 

counterparts. In addition, NOAA signed 

agreements with the State of California, 

the National Park Service, and the U.S. 

Coast Guard that provide authorization 

for local enforcement personnel from 

these agencies to enforce Sanctuary 

regulations. They work with NOAA to 

conduct patrols and investigate 

potential violations. For example, the 

U.S. Coast Guard conducts air and sea 

surveillance within the sanctuary and 

has broad Federal enforcement 

authority. NOAA OLE also works with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

and the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI) to investigate violations of 

environmental laws within national 

marine sanctuaries. More information 

about enforcement of NOAA regulations 

can be found at http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/index.html. 

The CINMS regulations are legally 

binding and enforceable. They were 

drafted with extensive input from 

NOAA’s Office of General Counsel, 

NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, and 

our enforcement partners—CDFG, NPS 

and USCG. NOAA’s Office of General 

Counsel for Enforcement and Litigation 

also establishes a penalty schedule that 

outlines recommended penalties for 

violations under the NMSA. This 

penalty schedule provides notice to the 

public and provides guidance to the 

prosecutors as to a general range of 

penalties for specific violations. The 

penalty schedule reflects sanctions that 

NOAA believes will encourage 

compliance and deter violations; 

however, in every case, NOAA retains 

the ability to assess a penalty up to the 

statutory maximum of $130,000. The 

NMSA penalty schedule is publicly 

available and can be accessed through 

this link: http://www.gc.noaa.gov/ 

schedules/58- 

NMSA%20Penalty%20Schedule%209- 

06.pdf. 

121. Comment: NOAA should not 

issue the new regulations for CINMS 

and should instead rely on existing 

regulations and authorities for 

additional protection. 

Response: NOAA carefully examined 

existing CINMS and other relevant 

regulations as part of the management 

plan review, and determined that in 

some cases strengthening of Sanctuary 

regulations was warranted, as described 

in section 2 of the FEIS. NOAA often 

relies on other agencies’ regulations to 

help protect sanctuary resources. 

However, sometimes the scope of these 

regulations is not broad enough to 

protect sanctuary resources, or may 

need to be reinforced with parallel 

sanctuary regulations, which allow for 

additional enforcement options. NOAA 

always works very closely with other 

agencies to minimize potential 

management conflicts and to promote 

compliance with sanctuary regulations 

and the regulations of other agencies. 

122. Comment: NOAA should 

increase, rather than maintain at current 

levels, vessel and aircraft surveillance 

operations. 

Response: NOAA will pursue 

opportunities to expand vessel and 

aircraft based surveillance, but will first 

focus efforts on maintaining access to 

existing opportunities and platforms for 

this activity. To better reflect this NOAA 

has changed the activity title to 

‘‘Maintain Effective Vessel and Aircraft 

Surveillance Operations.’’ 

123. Comment: To ensure that CINMS 

discharge regulations are being 

complied with, NOAA should conduct 

snapshot water quality monitoring, 

perhaps immediately following cruise 

ship transits through the CINMS, as well 

as at other key times of high vessel 

traffic. 

Response: CINMS will consider 

snapshot water quality monitoring 

during implementation of FMP Strategy 

WQ.2—Water Quality Protection 

Planning. 

124. Comment: Commenter strongly 

supports additional efforts by CINMS to 

expand enforcement efforts in order to 

ensure compliance with new and 

existing Sanctuary regulations, as well 

as other federal and state laws and 

regulations. 

Response: Comment noted. 

Fishing 

125. Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern about regulating 

fishing activities under the CINMS 

regulations and NMSA, making one or 

more of the following points: There is 

no connection between the overall 

management of CINMS as both a 

Sanctuary under the NMSP and an EFH 

designation under NMFS. 

NOAA should utilize the MagnusonStevens process for fishery management, 

and the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council should be the body to adopt 

fishery regulations within the Sanctuary 

and to ratify any marine reserves 

designation. 

NOAA has no functional MOU 

between the NMSP and NMFS 

concerning marine zoning, fishery 

management planning, and ecosystem 

based adaptive co-management. 

NOAA should revise each of the 

CINMS prohibitions to provide 

exemptions for all lawfully conducted 

state and federal fisheries. 

The CINMS has no need or the 

resources necessary to be involved in 

fisheries management. 

Response: NOAA considers both the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

(NMSA) and the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (MSA) to be tools that can be used 

exclusively or in conjunction to regulate 

fishing activities to meet Sanctuary 

goals and objectives. NOAA evaluates 

regulatory options on a case by case 

basis to determine the most appropriate 

regulatory approach to meet the stated 

goals and objectives of a sanctuary. If 

NOAA determines additional 

regulations on fishing within CINMS are 

necessary, NOAA will follow the 

process for developing such regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3238 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

in consultation with the PFMC and 

State, and as directed under section 

304(a)(5) of the NMSA. 

For example, the recently designated 

marine reserves in the CINMS resulted 

from a coordinated regulatory effort 

among the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, NMFS and NMSP. Under the 

MSA, bottom contact gear is prohibited 

in these zones. The NMSA was used to 

create no take zones and complement 

the bottom contact gear prohibition by 

prohibiting all other extractive 

activities, including fishing. 

NOAA strives for cooperative and 

adaptive management among its various 

offices including NMFS and the NMSP, 

and does not typically establish MOUs 

for this purpose. The NMSP and NMFS 

regularly collaborate to integrate zoning 

and fishery management by jointly 

participating in Sanctuary Advisory 

Council and Regional Fishery 

Management Council meetings, 

information and data exchanges, and 

cooperative enforcement of zoning and 

fishery regulations within national 

marine sanctuaries. 

Where NOAA has deemed it 

appropriate, the CINMS regulations 

provide exceptions for lawful fishing 

activities. 

NOAA has the expertise to determine 

the goals and objectives necessary to 

protect the nationally significant 

resources of national marine 

sanctuaries. This responsibility extends 

beyond fishery resources to 

conservation, recreational ecological, 

historical, cultural archeological, 

scientific, educational and esthetic 

qualities of national marine sanctuaries. 

If NOAA, in consultation with advisory 

councils and other stakeholders, 

determines that fishing regulations are 

needed to further sanctuary goals and 

objectives, section 304(a)(5) of the 

NMSA requires that the Sanctuary 

provide the appropriate Fishery 

Management Council the opportunity to 

prepare draft sanctuary fishing 

regulations for the Exclusive Economic 

Zone that will fulfill the Sanctuary’s 

goals and objectives. 

126. Comment: NOAA should add 

wording to protect rights to fish and 

recreate in Sanctuary waters in the 

emergency regulations. 

Response: NOAA is not modifying the 

emergency regulations section of the 

terms of designation for the purpose 

mentioned. In the case of an emergency 

within the Sanctuary, fishing or 

recreating may temporarily not be 

appropriate or possible in certain areas. 

For example, when Alaska Airlines 

Flight 261 crashed in the Sanctuary in 

January 2000, a temporary navigational 

closure was established around the 

crash site. These emergency provisions 

are not used lightly, can only be in place 

temporarily (as long as necessary to 

respond to the emergency), and are 

subject to extensive administrative 

review. Many federal and state agencies 

have authority to issue temporary 

emergency regulations in response to 

emergency situations, such as natural or 

man-made disasters. 

127. Comment: NOAA has completely 

ignored its commitment to the fishing 

community at CINMS from the public 

awareness goal. 

Response: NOAA continues to carry 

out its education and outreach 

commitment to the fishing community 

at CINMS. NOAA has engaged the 

fishing community in the development 

and delivery of several outreach tools, 

for example: Regulatory brochures, 

signage at harbors, and guest speaking 

opportunities to the Sanctuary Advisory 

Council and general public. 

128. Comment: NOAA should 

recognize the CINMS fishing 

community as a cultural resource. 

Response: NOAA recognizes the 

importance of the fishing community 

and provides opportunities for its 

involvement in Sanctuary research, 

education, and resource protection 

activities, such as in development of 

outreach tools (see also the response to 

comment 127), and in advising CINMS 

through the Commercial Fishing and 

Recreational Fishing seats on the 

Sanctuary Advisory Council. Moreover, 

NOAA believes healthy fisheries within 

a national marine sanctuary are an 

indication of a healthy ecosystem 

protected by that sanctuary. NOAA has 

already incorporated, and will continue 

to incorporate, fishing themes into 

CINMS education and outreach efforts, 

such as public lectures and weather 

kiosks. CINMS staff will also continue 

to work with the fishing community to 

develop additional fishing-related 

programs and products. 

129. Comment: Reductions in 

commercial and recreational fishing 

vessels can result in economic impacts, 

including impacts on boat owners, the 

fuel dock, boatyard, and Port District. 

Response: In the FEIS, NOAA has 

concluded that recreational and 

commercial fishing should experience 

no significant adverse impacts from 

implementation of the revised CINMS 

regulations. Furthermore, these 

regulations would not result in a 

‘‘reduction’’ in commercial and 

recreational fishing vessels. A number 

of the regulations provide specific 

exceptions to accommodate lawful 

fishing activities. In addition, the 

management plan includes a number of 

programs that support boating in general 

(e.g., safe boating brochure, the 

Protecting Your Channel Islands 

brochure), and that should also be 

helpful to boaters engaged in fishing. 

General Comments 

130. Comment: General support 

expressed for the changes and updates 

proposed in the management plan, and 

the associated background information 

and environmental analysis. 

Response: Comment noted. 

131. Comment: Broad support 

expressed for resource conservation and 

protection, and acknowledgement that 

the Sanctuary is ‘‘moving in the right 

direction.’’ NOAA should not, however, 

over-regulate or adopt regulations that 

are inconsistent with other agencies. 

Response: Comment noted. 

132. Comment: General support 

indicated for DEIS Alternative 1 due to 

concern about increased use of the 

Santa Barbara channel by cruise ships, 

interest in long-term protection of 

resources and existing Sanctuary uses, 

and concern about protection against 

predicted future increases in 

industrialization of the Santa Barbara 

Channel area. 

Response: Comments noted. For 

additional context, see the responses to 

comment 283 regarding support for 

Alternative 1 as it relates to water 

quality, comment 78 regarding support 

for the Alternative 1 discharge 

regulation, comment 176 regarding 

support for the Alternative 1 lightering 

regulation, and comment 221 regarding 

support for the Alternative 1 nearshore 

vessel approach regulation. 

133. Comment: Support expressed for 

CINMS to retain its current role focusing 

on and facilitating public and scientific 

attention on the Channel Islands area, 

and prohibiting certain industrial 

extractive activities within the 

Sanctuary. 

Response: Comments noted. 

134. Comment: The DMP and DEIS 

are so large and burdensome that they 

prohibit real public input. 

Response: NOAA believes that the 

length of the documents is appropriate 

and necessary to explain the 

justification for, and analyze 

alternatives to, the revisions to the 

Management Plan and associated 

regulations, as required by the NMSA, 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), and other relevant authorities 

including the Administrative Procedure 

Act. NOAA believes the organizational 

structure should allow readers to find 

information pertinent to their specific 

interests. 

135. Comment: NOAA must update 

the current policies and programs at 

CINMS to develop a plan that will 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3239 

enhance protection of Sanctuary 

resources for future generations, and 

succeed in achieving the goals and 

objectives of the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act. 

Response: NOAA implemented 

changes that will update current CINMS 

policies and programs, and enhance 

protection of Sanctuary resources. 

136. Comment: Commenters indicated 

that they would like to incorporate by 

reference, and/or support all or a subset 

of the Sanctuary Advisory Council’s 

Conservation Working Group 

comments. 

Response: Please refer to responses to 

the Conservation Working Group’s 

comments, listed in the table at the 

beginning of the FEIS response-tocomments appendix under ‘‘Krop, 

Linda’’ and dated July 7, 2006. 

137. Comment: NOAA should invest 

(fiscally or through dedicated 

personnel) in the National Park 

Service’s long-term kelp forest 

monitoring program or other marinebased resource monitoring programs to 

further knowledge of the ecosystem. 

Response: NOAA values the kelp 

forest monitoring program implemented 

by the National Park Service, and 

intends to continue providing vessel 

and staff support to this important 

program as resources allow. NOAA 

strongly supports cooperative 

management of Sanctuary resources by 

promoting and coordinating the efforts 

of outside research groups whose work 

increases understanding of Channel 

Islands biological and cultural 

resources. Enforcement, monitoring, 

education, and outreach efforts are 

achieved through partnerships with 

various state and federal agencies, 

universities, private institutions and 

non-profit organizations. CINMS 

provides its partners with opportunities 

onboard its research platforms, 

including the R/V Shearwater and, 

historically, the Seawolf aircraft. In 

2006, CINMS research vessels were at 

sea for more than 200 days conducting 

projects on seabirds, marine mammals, 

kelp forests, oceanography, intertidal 

monitoring, and geology in and around 

the Sanctuary. Further, a proportion of 

the CINMS annual budget has been and 

continues to support partner research, 

monitoring and enforcement activities. 

138. Comment: NOAA should 

consider and be guided by the special 

and unique nature of the islands and 

surrounding waters in crafting the 

Management Plan, regulations, and 

programs. 

Response: The special and unique 

characteristics of the Islands and 

surrounding waters were significant 

factors in the decision to designate the 

waters surrounding the Islands as a 

national marine sanctuary, and remain 

the overarching reason for revising 

CINMS regulations and implementing a 

variety of programs. 

139. Comment: NOAA should provide 

adequate resources and funding levels 

to implement the management plan, 

especially given increased requirements 

from the recently designated Channel 

Islands MPA Network. 

Response: NOAA recognizes that 

resource limitations as well as the 

necessary program and partner 

developments may limit 

implementation of all of the activities in 

the various management plans. NOAA 

will continue to work with the 

Department of Commerce, Office of 

Management and Budget, and Congress 

in developing supporting justifications 

when preparing budget submissions. 

The Management Plan articulates the 

full suite of potential CINMS actions for 

the next five to ten years. However, 

CINMS’s budget may not allow for a 

high level of implementation of every 

planned activity. NOAA has described 

the planned implementation level of 

each activity in various future funding 

scenarios (see the FMP Action Plan 

Summary Table). Regarding funding and 

marine protected areas see the response 

to comment 118. 

140. Comment: Language in the 

management plan is subjective and 

vague. 

Response: NOAA has been as specific 

and transparent as possible in 

describing planned actions in the 

CINMS management plan and EIS. As a 

federal resource management agency, 

NOAA must meet federal standards of 

objectivity and transparency in 

describing the actions and rationale for 

planned management actions within 

national marine sanctuaries. 

141. Comment: NOAA does not 

identify the new threats used to justify 

regulation changes. 

Response: NOAA has described 

threats to Sanctuary resources and 

qualities that warrant new and revised 

CINMS actions in the beginning of each 

action plan under the header 

‘‘Description of the Issues,’’ as well as 

throughout the Sanctuary’s FEIS and in 

this preamble to the final rule. 

142. Comment: NOAA should focus 

on practical, precise, and prudent 

CINMS management actions and 

enforcement, rather than expanding 

Sanctuary authority beyond its means. 

Additional changes should only be 

seriously discussed or considered if 

these efforts indicate further need of 

beneficial adjustment. 

Response: NOAA considered such 

concepts prior to proposing the CINMS 

revised management plan, revised 

authority and regulations. Per the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act, NOAA 

is required to evaluate sanctuary 

management plans and regulations at 

regular intervals. During the course of 

management plan reviews, NOAA 

solicits public and agency input to help 

determine the extent to which sanctuary 

management plan changes may be 

warranted, as well as to help determine 

the nature of any such changes. 

143. Comment: Despite a new 

Sanctuary office building to be built on 

the campus of UCSB, NOAA should 

continue to maintain a public CINMS 

presence at the waterfront, which is 

heavily used by both residents and 

visitors. Most members of the public 

will not be exposed to the offices at 

UCSB, because they do not travel there 

regularly, because of high parking fees, 

and for various other reasons. 

Response: NOAA plans to keep a 

CINMS office in the Santa Barbara 

Harbor to support operations of the 

R/V Shearwater, and to maintain a 

public access contact point at the Santa 

Barbara Harbor through educational 

signage and a brochure rack (currently 

part of Santa Barbara Harbor office). 

NOAA has also installed a Sanctuary 

interactive kiosk at the Santa Barbara 

Harbor and plans to continue a 

partnership with the Harbor’s Outdoors 

Santa Barbara Visitor Center. In 

partnership with the Santa Barbara 

Maritime Museum at the Santa Barbara 

Harbor, NOAA also intends to maintain 

and develop public education exhibits 

relating to maritime heritage. 

144. Comment: Support expressed for 

NOAA’s development and support of 

on-going CINMS partnerships with a 

variety of local institutions, as well as 

a focus on water quality and teacher 

training, all of which is a benefit to the 

community. 

Response: Comment noted. 

145. Comment: NOAA should explain 

how a subset of the NMSA purposes and 

policies were selected and listed in the 

management plan’s Introduction 

section, as opposed to listing all of the 

NMSA’s purposes and policies. 

Response: The list of purposes and 

policies provided in the FMP is a 

complete, verbatim list of the purposes 

and policies of the NMSA. NOAA has 

revised the text introducing the list to 

clarify that it is a complete and verbatim 

list. 

146. Comment: Did NOAA review the 

original management plan, did it work, 

and why or why not? 

Response: Sanctuary staff thoroughly 

reviewed the 1983 management plan’s 

goals and objectives, and assessed the 

extent to which they were 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3240 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

accomplished, as well as the continuing 

relevancy of each. Staff then engaged in 

a similar discussion with the Sanctuary 

Advisory Council in 1999. In general, 

NOAA has made progress towards 

accomplishing the broad goal areas of 

the original CINMS plan: Resource 

protection, research, interpretation, and 

visitor use. Through enforcement of 

regulations and collaboration with other 

agencies and constituents NOAA has 

enhanced protection of Sanctuary 

resources. NOAA has made strides 

towards directing research efforts to 

resolving management concerns and 

increasing understanding of the 

Sanctuary environment and resources, 

including through use of the Sanctuary’s 

research vessels. NOAA has developed 

interpretative programs that enhance 

public awareness and understanding of 

the significance of the Sanctuary and 

the need to protect its resources. NOAA 

has encouraged commercial and 

recreational use of the Sanctuary that is 

compatible with protection of its 

significant resources, such as placing 

trained naturalists on board commercial 

whale watching vessels. Within the 

Introduction to the FMP, NOAA has 

added text to describe the review of the 

1983 CINMS management plan. 

147. Comment: NOAA has used 

science to support the notion of new 

threats in CINMS that is so selective it 

does not meet basic ethical standards for 

science. NOAA should provide data to 

support new threats such as: Declines in 

bird populations, evidence that nutrient 

cycles are disrupted relative to humans 

visiting, kelp forests being in decline in 

fished areas, and showing that predator 

prey relationships govern ecosystem 

functions and are compromised with 

any size frequency data on harvested 

populations. 

Response: NOAA must comply with 

all federal standards, such as the 

National Environmental Policy Act, the 

Administrative Procedure Act, and the 

Data Quality Act, regarding the use of 

science. NOAA did not make any of the 

statements mentioned about Sanctuary 

resources (declines in bird populations, 

etc.) in the CINMS management plan. 

Similarly, NOAA has not made 

statements in the management plan 

about a new threat from evidence that 

nutrient cycles are disrupted relative to 

humans visiting. However, in the FEIS 

NOAA does discuss and provide 

references for information indicating 

that sewage and graywater discharges 

have the potential to disrupt nutrient 

cycles. Finally, NOAA has not made 

statements in the management plan 

indicating that predator prey 

relationships govern ecosystem 

functions and are compromised with 

any size frequency data on harvested 

populations. 

148. Comment: NOAA should 

develop a Man in the Biosphere 

program working group. 

Response: The Sanctuary Advisory 

Council is the body that develops 

working groups to discuss Sanctuary 

issues. NOAA recommends that the 

commenter provide this suggestion 

directly to the Sanctuary Advisory 

Council. 

149. Comment: NOAA should create a 

budget for an independent community 

GIS program to foster social justice and 

oppose NMSP neocolonialism. 

Response: The NMSA does not direct 

NOAA to develop social justice 

programs, and such efforts would be 

outside the scope of actions proposed in 

the CINMS management plan. NOAA 

disagrees with the commenter’s 

assertion that the NMSP is engaged in 

‘‘neocolonialism.’’ 

150. Comment: NOAA should not 

refer to life forms as ‘‘resources’’ in the 

text of the management plan. 

Response: ‘‘Resource’’ is a broadly 

defined term in the Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries’ program wide 

regulations (15 CFR 922.3) to include all 

components within a sanctuary that 

contribute to the conservation, 

recreational, ecological, historical, 

research, educational, or aesthetic value 

of the Sanctuary (15 CFR 922.3). The 

use of this term does not intend to 

connote that sanctuary components are 

valued solely on the basis of their 

potential for human use or exploitation. 

151. Comment: Since people go to the 

islands to enjoy them, NOAA should 

regulate without excluding the public, 

such as dive charter vessels, and 

without restricting where vessels moor. 

Response: Consistent with purposes 

and policies of the NMSA, NOAA 

facilitates public and private uses of the 

national marine sanctuaries to the 

extent that such uses are compatible 

with the primary goal of resource 

protection, and not prohibited by other 

authorities. The revised CINMS 

regulations prohibit most vessels 300 

GRT or more from approaching within 

one nmi of island shores. Such vessels 

are consequently precluded from 

mooring at the Islands. Sanctuary users 

must also comply with all applicable 

regulations while in the Sanctuary, not 

only with CINMS regulations. The 

California Department of Fish and Game 

and Channel Islands National Park 

seasonally limit access to certain 

nearshore areas of the Islands during 

seabird nesting. 

152. Comment: NOAA should use 

forward thinking and the best 

environmental protections to protect the 

Channel Islands from an array of new 

threats and pressures, especially since 

new threats may emerge before the next 

management plan review. 

Response: Strong environmental 

protections are necessary for the 

Sanctuary, and the management plan 

should be forward thinking. The NMSA 

requires NOAA to review national 

marine sanctuary management plans at 

regular intervals. Should any threats to 

Sanctuary resources arise between 

management plan review cycles, NOAA 

can take action to address such threats 

without engaging in a management plan 

review process, consistent with 

applicable authorities (see Resource 

Protection Action Plan Strategy RP.2). 

153. Comment: The CINMS 

management plan should connect 

management of coastal resources with 

the Sanctuary, recognizing that there is 

connectedness between a lot of pelagic 

fish species and the Sanctuary. NOAA 

should not manage the Sanctuary as if 

it is isolated from these other areas. 

Response: NOAA manages CINMS 

resources with the understanding that 

the Sanctuary exists in a coastal ocean 

environment within which 

administrative boundaries do not 

provide a barrier between resources 

inside and outside of the Sanctuary. 

Pelagic fisheries in the Sanctuary region 

are managed by NMFS (with 

recommendations from the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council) under the 

MSA, as well as by the California 

Department of Fish and Game. CINMS 

consults with these and other partner 

resource agencies regarding any 

implications for Sanctuary resources 

that may result from management 

actions both within and outside of the 

Sanctuary. In addition, the NMSP West 

Coast Region works to integrate 

strategies and programs across west 

coast national marine sanctuary sites, 

and also to coordinate efforts with other 

federal, state, local, and regional ocean 

management agencies. See also the 

response to comment 31 for information 

about marine ecosystem extents and 

expanding the Sanctuary. 

154. Comment: NOAA should 

demonstrate, through specific CINMS 

programs, that it encourages compatible 

use. This is an important component in 

boosting CINMS’s image as being 

friendly to local interests. 

Response: NOAA encourages 

compatible use through several CINMS 

program areas. Education and outreach 

programs, for example, develop and 

distribute the ‘‘Protecting Your Channel 

Islands,’’ ‘‘Boating & Safety,’’ and the 

‘‘Protecting Our Seabirds’’ brochures 

with this purpose in mind (see also the 

response to comment 101). These 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3241 

brochures provide information and 

helpful tips about various activities 

people may enjoy in the Sanctuary, such 

as diving and fishing, and how to do so 

in a safe and responsible manner. In 

addition, several pages on the CINMS 

Web site provide information about how 

to get to the islands, as well as 

information about the best times of year 

to engage in certain activities. The 

CINMS Maritime Heritage Program 

provides information to divers about 

recommended shipwreck dive sites, 

while Research and Monitoring Program 

staff work closely with researchers from 

all over the world to facilitate 

appropriate research within the 

Sanctuary. The Sanctuary Advisory 

Council includes members from diverse 

user groups, several of which have 

active working groups. 

155. Comment: Frustration expressed 

that NOAA, at the time the DMP/DEIS 

was released, was still only at the stage 

of developing a process for dealing with 

marine reserves and boundary 

expansion issues, both of which have 

received strong public support in the 

Ventura and Santa Barbara 

communities. 

Response: NOAA believes in ensuring 

that the best available science is used in 

national marine sanctuary decision 

making, and in dedicating sufficient 

resources to each environmental review 

project. NOAA values the public 

support for processes to consider 

establishing marine reserves within the 

Sanctuary, and to evaluate the 

Sanctuary boundary. NOAA has since 

completed implementation of a network 

of marine reserves and marine 

conservation areas within the Sanctuary 

(72 FR 29208). NOAA determined that 

the best manner in which to evaluate 

the CINMS boundary was to first 

conduct a comprehensive biogeographic 

assessment of the Sanctuary and 

surrounding environment. Now that the 

biogeographic assessment is complete, 

given sufficient resources, NOAA plans 

to initiate the environmental review 

process for boundary evaluation at an 

appropriate time in the future. 

156. Comment: The management plan 

update process that started in 1999 has 

been very lengthy and the remaining 

steps of converting the draft plan to 

final should be completed as 

expediently as possible. 

Response: NOAA values the efforts of 

everyone involved in the CINMS 

management plan review to date. The 

length of this review is due to many 

factors, including that the CINMS 

management plan review was the first 

comprehensive management plan 

review the NMSP initiated for the 

national marine sanctuaries designated 

prior to 1995. The CINMS management 

plan review was also lengthened in 

order to address issues concerning large 

vessel discharge raised by the California 

Coastal Commission and others during 

the public comment period on the DMP/ 

DEIS. NOAA determined that 

addressing such issues required 

development of an SDEIS, and 

providing a supplemental public 

comment period. 

157. Comment: The management 

plan’s action plans should be both well 

funded and adequately staffed, perhaps 

with the assistance of the NMSP’s West 

Coast Region, to carry out the 

Sanctuary’s programs and objectives. 

Response: As part of the management 

plan review process, CINMS staff 

worked to prioritize the strategies and 

activities in the management plan’s 

action plans (see Appendix A1 of the 

FMP for a table identifying how each 

activity will be maintained or 

implemented in the future). Staff from 

the West Coast Regional Office (WCRO) 

work on management issues that are 

primarily regional in scope; they also 

work with individual sanctuaries on 

priority management activities that 

would benefit from the WCR staffs’ 

expertise. 

158. Comment: The management plan 

should include a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) between various 

Federal and State agencies, including 

the Coastal Commission, to better 

respond to current water quality issues 

and conditions. The MOU should reflect 

the Plan for California’s Nonpoint 

Source Pollution Control Program. 

Response: Although NOAA does not 

envision drafting an MOU among 

various Federal and State agencies as a 

direct activity associated with this 

CINMS management plan review, the 

agency recognizes the important role of 

MOUs in better articulating roles and 

responsibilities among the multitude of 

management authorities that typically 

exist within national marine sanctuary 

regions (see Strategy OP.3 in the FMP 

for a description of how the NMSP 

formalizes relationships with other 

authorities). The NMSP has 

implemented several MOUs across the 

sanctuary system (including several at 

CINMS) and, if appropriate, may do so 

again in the CINMS region sometime in 

the future. This could involve MOUs 

related to water quality protection. 

NOAA recognizes the importance of 

state agency partners, and the value of 

consistency among respective programs 

to the extent practicable. 

159. Comment: The management 

plan’s Action Plan activity ‘‘status’’ 

descriptions should be explained in 

more detail to include specific dates, if 

possible, or at least be revised to include 

some definition of the phrase ‘‘years 1– 

5.’’ 

Response: NOAA has included 

specific dates, where possible, to 

describe the status of activities in the 

FMP. NOAA has added information to 

explain the meaning of years 1–5, which 

now appears in the FMP’s Action Plan 

Background section entitled, ‘‘How Are 

Action Plans Organized?’’ 

160. Comment: The DMP’s 

description of the Sanctuary Setting 

could be augmented by recent 

information that has been recently made 

available through the NCCOS 

Biogeographic Assessment report. 

Response: NOAA has revised FMP 

text to reference the biogeographic 

assessment (NCCOS 2005). 

161. Comment: The islands are 

special, unique, and Congressionally 

recognized as a place for extra 

protections, whereas there are other 

areas to take large vessels and personal 

watercraft. 

Response: Comment noted. 

Global Climate Change 

162. Comment: NOAA should address 

climate change/global warming and its 

effects on Sanctuary resources. NOAA 

should: (1) Formally acknowledge the 

threat of global warming and work to 

better understand how global warming 

may affect Sanctuary resources, (2) 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

associated with CINMS operations, and 

(3) advocate, through appropriate 

administrative channels, for the 

deployment of a national response to 

global warming to reduce its impacts on 

the climate, and thus on CINMS 

resources. 

Response: NOAA has added language 

to the FMP’s Resource Protection Action 

Plan that explains how the NMSP and 

NOAA are assessing potential climate 

change impacts on national marine 

sanctuaries and how such impacts may 

be mitigated. NOAA has also added a 

strategy to the FMP’s Operations Action 

Plan that discusses how CINMS is 

working to green its operations. Finally, 

NOAA has added information to the 

FMP’s Conservation Science Action 

Plan strategy CS.3, about pursuing 

development and future monitoring of a 

carbon budget for the Sanctuary. NOAA 

would consider data and findings from 

this work as part of its collective 

scientific efforts to inform climate 

policy. 

Goals 

163. Comment: NOAA should explain 

why the old and new CINMS goals are 

so different. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3242 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: In general, goals from the 

1983 CINMS management plan are 

encompassed within the new goals 

articulated in this FMP. NOAA revised 

the CINMS management plan to better 

explain that the original goals are 

missing several important concepts and 

nuances encompassed in the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act and reflected in 

the new goals for the Sanctuary (as 

revised for the FMP). 

164. Comment: NOAA should clarify 

if the CINMS goals presented in the 

management plan are new, and who 

decided upon them. 

Response: NOAA determined that 

CINMS goals should directly reflect the 

overarching mission of the ONMS and 

be derived from the purposes and 

policies of the NMSA, as enacted by 

Congress. All of the seven goals 

provided in the DMP were paraphrased 

from section 301 of the NMSA. NOAA 

has since decided to use language taken 

directly from NMSA section 301, rather 

than to paraphrase it. NOAA has also 

added two goals that contain concepts 

from NMSA section 301 that were 

previously missing from the CINMS 

goals, and additional explanation 

regarding goal development. 

165. Comment: CINMS goal four (i.e., 

provide comprehensive and coordinated 

conservation and management of these 

marine areas, as well as the activities 

affecting them, in a manner 

complementing existing regulatory 

authorities) has yielded new 

prohibitions that are vague and 

enabling, duplicate other regulations, 

and are inconsistent with the CINMS 

charter. NOAA should rewrite the goal 

to state ‘‘* * * complementing, but not 

duplicating * * *.’’ 

Response: The new prohibitions are 

not inconsistent with the CINMS terms 

of designation (referred to above as the 

‘‘charter’’). Furthermore, the NMSA 

provides authority for, among other 

things, ‘‘* * * comprehensive and 

coordinated conservation and 

management of these marine areas, and 

activities affecting them, in a manner 

which complements existing regulatory 

authorities.’’ The CINMS terms of 

designation acknowledge that the 

NMSA ‘‘authorizes the promulgation of 

such regulations as are reasonable and 

necessary to protect the values of the 

Sanctuary.’’ As evidenced by the 

analysis in the FEIS, the new 

prohibitions meet this criterion. 

While CINMS may have similar 

regulatory prohibitions as another 

agency, NOAA has crafted CINMS 

regulations to be complementary. 

Further, the NMSA provides a different 

suite of penalties than available under 

another regulatory authority. 

166. Comment: Ecosystem-based 

management is adaptive, but given that 

it has been 25 years since the last 

management plan, it is not clear 

whether Sanctuary goals are adaptive. 

Response: CINMS goals directly 

reflect the findings and purposes and 

policies of the NMSA. These findings, 

purposes and policies are very broad, 

encompass all of the actions identified 

in the FMP, and have been adapted 

several times during reauthorization of 

the NMSA by Congress. In turn, the 

CINMS goals are broad enough that 

CINMS can adapt its management 

actions as necessary. 

167. Comment: NOAA should make 

the CINMS goals more consistent with 

the NMSA by using the word 

‘‘facilitate’’ instead of ‘‘allow’’ in goal 

six, by encouraging compatible public 

and private commercial and recreational 

use, and by adding goals for science and 

monitoring. 

Response: NOAA has revised the 

CINMS goals to make them more 

consistent with the NMSA. A new goal 

three regarding support for science and 

monitoring has also been included. 

168. Comment: CINMS has not 

honored its commitments to programs 

and stonewalled basic data 

management. CINMS goals five, six, and 

seven are empty promises with no 

budget. 

Response: FMP Strategy CS.2 is 

dedicated to comprehensive data 

management. Regarding goal five (now 

six), NOAA believes the CINMS marine 

zoning process demonstrates strong 

models for conserving and managing 

national marine sanctuaries and 

applying innovative management 

techniques. Regarding goal six (now 

seven), CINMS provides education and 

outreach materials aimed at facilitating 

public and private uses of resources that 

are compatible with resource protection. 

These materials help Sanctuary users 

understand and learn about activities 

they may enjoy within the Sanctuary, 

and where certain types of activities are 

prohibited. Regarding goal seven (now 

eight), CINMS cooperates regularly with 

national and international programs 

encouraging conservation of marine 

resources. CINMS frequently hosts 

international delegates interested in 

learning about Sanctuary issues and 

how CINMS is addressing them. CINMS 

staff also represent the ONMS and 

NOAA in exchanges with marine 

resource management agencies in other 

countries, and participate in 

international conferences focused on 

marine conservation. CINMS staff also 

often cooperate with national programs 

encouraging conservation of marine 

resources (see the FMP for specific 

examples). The FMP does not describe 

a budget for each goal. Budgets are 

developed for action plans, which are 

designed to meet CINMS goals. 

Introduced Species 

169. Comment: Commenters support 

the Sanctuary’s new introduced species 

prohibition, efforts to prevent the 

release of introduced species in the 

Sanctuary, and the exemption under 

this prohibition for striped bass released 

during catch and release fishing. 

Response: Comment noted. 

170. Comment: The prohibition on 

releasing introduced species may 

conceivably put an angler in a position 

of non-compliance with regulations 

from other entities if the angler catches 

an introduced species that is not legal 

to catch (per such other entities), but the 

angler cannot release it due to the 

CINMS prohibition. The final regulation 

should leave an angler with a safe and 

legal course of action. 

Response: NOAA is not aware of any 

state or federal fishing regulations that 

would require an angler to release an 

introduced species caught in the 

Sanctuary. Thus, complying with this 

regulation on releasing introduced 

species would not place an angler in a 

position of non-compliance with 

regulations from other entities. 

Furthermore, NOAA encourages 

recreational anglers to assist in 

collecting information about introduced 

species by keeping specimens and 

sharing them with NOAA and other 

resource management agencies, such as 

the California Department of Fish and 

Game. 

171. Comment: The regulation 

prohibiting the introduction of 

introduced species should have an 

exemption for aquaculture or 

mariculture activities pursuant to a 

valid lease, permit, license, or other 

authorization. 

Response: Intentionally introducing 

species or experimenting with new 

introduced species is not an appropriate 

activity in national marine sanctuaries 

because introduced species may 

threaten the diversity or abundance of 

native species or the ecological stability 

of waters in which they occur. They 

may also threaten commercial or 

recreational activities dependent on 

sanctuary waters. The California 

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 

asserts ‘‘invasive species are the number 

two threat to rare, threatened or 

endangered species nationwide, second 

only to habitat destruction,’’ (Leet et al. 

2001). Although national marine 

sanctuaries retain authority to address 

this threat to sanctuary resources, the 

NMSP would work very closely with the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3243 

State of California regarding any 

aquaculture proposals that might arise 

in the Sanctuary area. 

172. Comment: NOAA should add a 

specific action plan in the Education 

and Outreach area to educate Sanctuary 

users how to comply with the 

prohibition on introduced species, such 

as a ‘‘Keep your boat bottom clean!’’ 

information brochure. 

Response: Education, especially 

boater education, about introduced 

species is important. Introduced species 

in the Sanctuary are an emerging 

resource protection issue. The FMP 

action plans are meant to be living 

documents that incorporate the most 

current resource issues in the Sanctuary 

into our plans and programs. NOAA has 

not added a separate action plan on 

introduced species; however, CINMS 

plans to incorporate education about 

introduced/invasive species into 

education programs and materials. The 

Long-term Monitoring and Experiential 

Training for Students (LiMPETs) 

program (Strategy AU.1, activity 5) 

monitors algal and invertebrate species 

on the Channel Islands and may be a 

program where invasive species 

education can be incorporated. CINMS 

staff also participate in annual efforts 

sponsored by the Santa Barbara 

Waterfront Department and California 

Department of Fish and Game to remove 

the invasive Japanese kelp, Undaria. 

FMP Strategy AU.6, activity 1 (Boater 

Safety Tips Brochure) also addresses 

introduced species by including 

information related to boating safety, 

regulations on discharge in the ocean 

and sanctuary, clean boating practices, 

and local marine refuse stations. 

Additionally, as explained in Strategy 

AU.6, activity 5, CINMS participates in 

a variety of outreach events each year 

including whale festivals, harbor 

festivals, boat shows, and dive industry 

events. These events include boater 

outreach where education about a 

variety of CINMS regulations and issues, 

including aquatic nuisance/invasive 

species, is shared with the public and 

boaters. Any tool or product mentioned 

under Strategy AU.6 will be updated to 

reflect any changes to CINMS 

regulations. 

173. Comment: NOAA should explain 

how Sanctuary research vessels are 

going to comply with the new 

prohibition on introduced species, 

especially given that they are docked in 

a port containing invasive species. 

Response: CINMS regularly inspects 

and cleans its vessels and equipment in 

order to minimize the risk of our 

activities being a vector for introduction 

of invasive species. CINMS is also 

working with the Santa Barbara 

Waterfront Department to assess and 

mitigate the threat of invasive Japanese 

kelp in Santa Barbara Harbor. 

174. Comment: Given that the 

proposed Sanctuary prohibition on 

introduced species is largely redundant 

of State regulation, the Sanctuary 

should support the existing, spatially 

comprehensive authorities that are 

addressing the invasive species 

problem, especially where the 

Sanctuary is at risk. 

Response: NOAA supports existing 

regulatory authorities on introduced 

species. However, the CINMS regulation 

for introduced species differs from 

similar laws and regulations in that it: 

(1) Provides place-based protections 

specifically for CINMS; (2) prohibits 

transgenic species introductions in both 

state and federal waters of the 

Sanctuary; and (3) prohibits introducing 

or otherwise releasing species beyond 

the one nmi offshore Channel Islands 

National Park boundary. Furthermore, 

the introduced species regulation 

establishes a deterrent against 

intentional and unintentional 

introductions or other releases of 

introduced species into the Sanctuary 

through civil penalty (up to $130,000 

per incident, per day) under the NMSA. 

Finally, this regulation prohibits 

introductions of species native to 

California but not native to the 

ecosystems of the Sanctuary. 

175. Comment: NOAA should clarify 

the burden of proof for enforcing the 

prohibition on introducing introduced 

species by adding an ‘‘intent to release’’ 

provision. 

Response: NOAA enforcement 

personnel maintain prosecutorial 

discretion in determining whether or 

not to prosecute violators of CINMS 

regulations. NOAA is not incorporating 

‘‘intent to release’’ into the language of 

the prohibition because it does not think 

there should be a requirement of intent 

in the regulation. 

Lightering 

176. Comment: NOAA should adopt 

the prohibition on lightering included 

in Alternative 1 to further Sanctuary 

resource protection, protect against 

lightering related oil spill impacts, and 

further protect water quality. 

Response: NOAA has decided not to 

include the lightering prohibition in the 

CINMS regulations at this time because 

large scale vessel lightering does not 

occur in the Sanctuary, and NOAA does 

not believe it is likely to become a 

common practice given the Sanctuary’s 

geographic location (i.e., its distance 

from major ports), the Area to Be 

Avoided that advises large vessels to 

avoid the majority of the Sanctuary 

(excluding the TSS), and the established 

traffic patterns within the Sanctuary 

(e.g., large vessels typically transit the 

Sanctuary through the TSS). Regarding 

smaller vessels, NOAA understands that 

the occasional practice of sharing fuel 

between boats (also a form of lightering) 

may occur, and that this practice may 

help prevent other possible problems 

such as vessel groundings. For now, 

existing prohibitions against discharges 

into the Sanctuary will be used to 

address spills associated with smallboat to small-boat fuel transfers. Should 

lightering become an issue that NOAA 

deems necessary to regulate in the 

future, NOAA may consider proposing a 

Sanctuary lightering regulation. 

Although NOAA is not prohibiting 

lightering activities at this time, all 

vessels must still comply with the 

CINMS discharge and deposit 

regulation. 

177. Comment: The lightering 

prohibition in Alternative 1 should 

include an exception for emergencies. 

For example, if a vessel loses power, 

drifts into and becomes embedded in 

the islands, it would need to be 

lightered. 

Response: NOAA is not including the 

lightering prohibition in the CINMS 

regulations at this time (see the response 

to comment 176). However, note that 

the lightering prohibition described in 

Alternative 1, as with most Sanctuary 

regulations, includes an exception for 

‘‘an activity necessary to respond to an 

emergency threatening life, property, or 

the environment.’’ 

Liquefied Natural Gas 

178. Comment: NOAA should 

prohibit Liquid Natural Gas projects 

within CINMS boundaries. NOAA 

should also address impacts from LNG 

projects outside the Sanctuary boundary 

through early consultation with project 

applicants and permitting agencies. If 

such projects would harm Sanctuary 

resources, they should not be permitted. 

NOAA should also maintain adequate 

enforcement effort so that if LNG 

projects violate CINMS regulations, 

such as the discharge regulation’s ‘‘enter 

and injure’’ clause, or the introduced 

species regulation, the violations are 

prosecuted and properly mitigated. 

Response: CINMS regulations include 

prohibitions on disturbing the seabed, 

and discharging or depositing within 

the Sanctuary in the absence of a 

Sanctuary permit. Installing and 

operating LNG terminals within CINMS 

would likely involve such activities. If 

an LNG project applicant were to seek 

permits for activities that would 

otherwise be prohibited by CINMS 

regulations, it is unlikely that such a 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3244 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

project could meet the criteria for 

issuance of a CINMS permit. 

The presence of the Sanctuary is 

recognized as important in decisions 

regarding permits for LNG projects in 

the region, and was recently cited by the 

Governor of California as part of his 

rationale for denying the Cabrillo Port 

LNG proposal. Any LNG project 

proposed outside the Sanctuary, but in 

the Sanctuary region, would likely be 

subject to consultation per section 

304(d) of the NMSA, which requires 

that federal agency actions internal or 

external to a national marine sanctuary, 

including private activities authorized 

by licenses, leases, or permits, that are 

likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or 

injure any Sanctuary resource, are 

subject to consultation with the NMSP. 

This provision of the NMSA provides 

NOAA with the opportunity to formally 

recommend alternative courses of action 

for the applicant. NEPA, the APA, and 

the Deepwater Ports Act also provide 

opportunity for inter-agency 

consultation. In addition, the Sanctuary 

prohibition on 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 would apply to discharges/ 

deposits from LNG projects located 

outside the Sanctuary. 

NOAA law enforcement efforts for 

CINMS will continue per the 

cooperative mechanisms currently 

implemented in the Sanctuary. For more 

detail on cooperative enforcement 

efforts, see the response to comment 

120. 

Marine Bioprospecting 

179. Comment: In the DMP, NOAA 

inappropriately identified as ‘‘marine 

bioprospecting’’ a research project that 

was funded by MMS in conjunction 

with the University of California at 

Santa Barbara (UCSB) This term as used 

in the DMP implies a sustained removal 

or harvesting of a marine resource. 

However, the UCSB project was a 

limited time sampling of marine 

organisms on oil and gas platforms, the 

purpose of which was to isolate 

compounds with anti-cancer and antiinflammatory potential for further 

research. Ultimately, the goal of any 

such successful compounds would be 

synthesis of the new drugs in 

laboratories rather than purification of 

these from collecting. 

Response: The referenced project was 

appropriately identified as marine 

bioprospecting. As stated in the DMP 

and in the FMP, marine bioprospecting 

is the activity of seeking a useful 

application, process, or product in 

nature. However, NOAA has added 

further explanation of the MMS–UCSB 

research project to the FMP. 

Marine Debris 

180. Comment: The FMP’s Offshore 

Water Quality Monitoring Strategy 

should include systematic monitoring of 

anthropogenic marine debris, per a 

recommendation in the Sanctuary 

Advisory Council’s 2005 report: A 

Water Quality Needs Assessment for the 

Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary. 

Response: NOAA has been working 

and will continue to work in 

partnership with the marine debris 

researchers from the University of 

California Davis and the Algalita Marine 

Research Foundation to conduct surveys 

of and remove marine debris from the 

Sanctuary. The NOAA Marine Debris 

Program has supported some of this 

work, and CINMS staff look forward to 

pursuing additional opportunities to 

work with this Program. For more 

information about CINMS’s future plans 

to address water quality issues, 

including marine debris, see the 

response to comment 303. 

181. Comment: The impact of marine 

debris and derelict fishing gear on 

natural and cultural resources in the 

CINMS is not well understood and 

deserves to be investigated. 

Response: As mentioned in the FMP’s 

Maritime Heritage Action Plan (Strategy 

MH.1, Activity 2), during regular 

monitoring of cultural resource sites, 

divers will remove marine debris and 

derelict fishing gear when it is feasible 

and safe to do so. With regard to 

understanding impacts on natural 

resources, NOAA is supporting marine 

debris removal work within CINMS (see 

the response to comment 180) that is 

improving our understanding of the 

extent and potential impacts of lost 

fishing gear. 

Marine Reserves 

182. Comment: General support 

expressed for NOAA’s efforts to 

complete the establishment of the 

Channel Islands MPA network. 

Response: Comment noted. 

183. Comment: A crucial data gap 

exists for marine reserve monitoring in 

that a spatially explicit data set of 

commercial and recreational fishing 

does not exist, or is poor. NOAA should 

analyze the potential of the Sanctuary’s 

aerial survey program for filling this gap 

by providing all or part of a spatial 

depiction of current fishing effort. 

Response: NOAA has analyzed the 

Sanctuary’s aerial survey data, in 

conjunction with other spatially explicit 

relevant information to depict current 

fishing effort. NOAA provided this 

analysis in the FEIS on marine reserves 

(http://channelislands.noaa.gov/ 

marineres/main.html). 

184. Comment: NOAA should 

aggressively defend the NMSP’s 

jurisdiction over the establishment and 

management of marine reserves within 

the existing Sanctuary boundaries. 

Response: In 2007, NOAA completed 

a Final EIS and Final Rule that 

established a network of marine zones, 

including marine reserves, in the federal 

waters of the Sanctuary (three nmi to six 

nmi) (72 FR 29208). 

185. Comment: The management plan 

indicates a bias toward area closures 

over other forms of management (see 

DMP strategies CS.6 and MZ.2). 

Closures purported to be precautionary 

are questionable. In addition to area 

closures, NOAA should consider the 

effectiveness of methods to attain 

resource protection goals, improve and 

recover habitat and fisheries, such as: 

Restricting trawling and other bottom 

tending gear, restricting fishing during 

spawning seasons, size/slot limits, bag 

limits, catch and release, and closure of 

a particular fishery for a period of time 

(successful with Atlantic striped bass, 

and Gulf of Mexico Red Drum). NOAA 

should also take a more comprehensive 

management based approach, which 

would protect all areas within the 

Sanctuary. This could include 

integrating the results of various 

research components to assist all 

management strategies, not just marine 

reserves. 

Response: NOAA considered a wide 

range of management measures in 

developing the FMP and associated 

regulations. Marine zoning is an 

important and effective marine 

management tool that, when coupled 

with other management tools, provides 

the Sanctuary and its resource 

management partners a wide range of 

management approaches. The NMSP 

action related to marine reserves is 

addressed in a separate NEPA action, 

see http://channelislands.noaa.gov/ 

marineres/main.html. Full 

consideration and review was given to 

existing and traditional fishery 

management approaches to marine 

resource management. NOAA 

determined that existing and traditional 

fishery management approaches are not 

sufficient to meet the Sanctuary’s goals. 

The State of California reached a similar 

conclusion in adopting the state waters 

portions of the network. 

186. Comment: Regarding strategy 

CS.6 (Marine Reserves Monitoring), the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

would be a valuable source of 

information on management measures 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3245 

that have been successful in protection 

of both habitat and fisheries. 

Response: Comment noted. The 

NMSP has consulted with the PFMC 

extensively and will continue to engage 

the PFMC for their fishery management 

information and expertise. The NMSP 

also formally consults with the PFMC 

on matters concerning fishing 

regulations and Sanctuary resources 

through NMSA sections 304(d) and 

304(a)(5). 

187. Comment: Regarding strategy 

CS.6 (Marine Reserves Monitoring), the 

intent of the activity entitled, ‘‘Utilize 

Existing CINMS Research and 

Monitoring Programs in Support of 

Marine Reserves,’’ is unclear. The 

programs listed in the activity are 

programs to document the status of all 

of the sanctuary. It is difficult to see 

how such activities ‘‘support’’ marine 

reserves. It also seems to imply that 

CINMS, prior to completing the marine 

reserves designation process in federal 

waters, expects to promote such 

reserves as a means to address habitat, 

seabird and kelp preservation. 

Response: Marine reserves are 

expected to have both direct and 

indirect effects within and outside their 

borders. Many of the existing CINMS 

research and monitoring programs were 

originally designed to broadly measure 

change and gauge the overall health of 

Sanctuary resources. However, in some 

cases they can be adjusted to 

specifically monitor marine reserve 

performance as well as the sanctuary as 

a whole. For example, the Channel 

Island National Park’s and PISCO’s kelp 

forest ecosystem monitoring programs’ 

sampling designs have been modified to 

increase their ability to measure change 

over time in marine reserves in 

comparison to nearby control areas. 

188. Comment: DMP Strategy MZ.2 

(Consideration of Marine Reserves and 

Conservation Areas) contains language 

in the activity that is unclear regarding 

the purpose of Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (PFMC) 

regulations because it seems to suggest 

that a marine reserve determination has 

already been made. 

Response: Language in the DMP was 

not intended to suggest that a final 

determination about federal marine 

reserves designation within CINMS had 

been made prior to conclusion of the 

consultative process with the PFMC. In 

May 2005, NOAA presented the PFMC, 

per section 304(a)(5) of the NMSA, with 

an opportunity to prepare draft fishing 

regulations to meet the goals of the 

CINMS marine zones. Section 304(a)(5) 

requires that the relevant Fishery 

Management Council be given the 

opportunity to prepare draft fishing 

regulations within the Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) of the sanctuary 

(the CINMS EEZ is from 3 to 6 nm 

offshore the northern Channel Islands). 

The PFMC responded and 

recommended that fishing regulations 

for the CINMS marine zones in federal 

waters be implemented through the 

existing authorities of the MSA and the 

State of California. In November 2005, 

the PFMC directed its staff to work with 

NMFS to implement fishery closures 

within the CINMS zones consistent with 

California law. 

In 2006, to mitigate fishing impacts to 

groundfish essential fish habitat (EFH), 

the PFMC approved Amendment 19 of 

the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

Management Plan that, in part, 

recommended designation of the CINMS 

as EFH and the existing and proposed 

CINMS marine zones as Habitat Areas of 

Particular Concern (which have 

corresponding regulations to prohibit 

fishing). Based on a review of the 

existing factual and scientific evidence, 

NOAA promulgated regulations 

prohibiting the use of bottom-contact 

fishing gear in these areas under the 

MSA. 

The NMSA was used to complement 

the bottom contact gear prohibition and 

create no take zones that prohibit all 

other extractive activities, including 

fishing. The FMP has been updated to 

reflect the conclusion of the designation 

process for the Channel Islands MPA 

Network. 

Marine Zoning 

189. Comment: Commenter supports 

both activities outlined under the DMP’s 

General Marine Zoning Strategy (MZ.1). 

Response: Comment noted. This 

strategy is now RP.3 in the FMP’s 

Resource Protection Action Plan. 

190. Comment: The management 

plan’s Marine Zoning Action Plan 

should provide a spatial representation 

of all restrictions/zones, and regulations 

with a spatial feature in the Sanctuary. 

Response: NOAA has augmented the 

discussion of existing zones within the 

Sanctuary in the FMP’s Resource 

Protection Action Plan (Strategy RP.3 

background section). Although NOAA 

agrees that a spatial database of various 

marine zones, data, and features is 

important and useful for Sanctuary 

management, a map that attempts to 

show the complex spatial management 

and regulatory regimes within CINMS 

would be overwhelming and 

complicated to display, and may not 

prove useful for coastal managers or the 

general public. NOAA has been 

developing a spatial database of 

management zones within and adjacent 

to CINMS, as well as biological and 

socioeconomic monitoring activities. 

191. Comment: NOAA should 

consider using marine zoning for: 

Derelict/abandoned fishing gear, vessel 

traffic, light pollution, corals and 

structure-forming organisms, and 

bottom-tending fishing gear. 

Response: Bottom-tending fishing gear 

is now prohibited within the marine 

zones designated as marine reserves and 

marine conservation areas in the 

Sanctuary. NOAA is not establishing 

additional marine zones to address the 

remainder of the issues mentioned at 

this time for reasons including 

insufficient information available to 

support such action, non-zoning 

measures already in place, or preexisting zones. NOAA does, however, 

regard marine zoning as an important 

tool for consideration and application 

where appropriate. As described in the 

FMP’s Resource Protection Action Plan, 

NOAA will identify, track, and where 

appropriate, respond to Sanctuary 

resource protection issues. For some 

issues, the evaluation process may 

include consideration of marine zoning, 

where appropriate. 

Military Activities 

192. Comment: The Department of 

Defense should not continue to be 

exempt from CINMS rules because it has 

a bad record of disturbing, harming, and 

killing endangered species with 

underwater sonar, which should not 

happen in the Sanctuary. 

Response: The NMSP works closely 

with NMFS regarding assessment of the 

potential impacts of DOD activities on 

Sanctuary resources, and how DOD 

should address such potential impacts. 

As the revised CINMS regulations state, 

in the event of destruction of, loss of, or 

injury to a Sanctuary resource or quality 

resulting from an incident, including, 

but not limited to, discharges, deposits, 

and groundings, caused by a DOD 

activity, DOD, in coordination with the 

Director, must promptly prevent and 

mitigate further damage and must 

restore or replace the Sanctuary 

resource or quality in a manner 

approved by the Director. Furthermore, 

all DOD activities must be carried out in 

a manner that avoids to the maximum 

extent practicable any adverse impacts 

on Sanctuary resources and qualities. 

193. Comment: NOAA should remove 

the exception for military vessel 

discharge of sewage and sewage sludge 

from the discharge prohibition. 

Response: NOAA has determined that 

the regulation of DOD vessel discharges 

by section 312(n) of the FWPCA (Clean 

Water Act) is sufficient at this time. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3246 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Mineral Activities 

194. Comment: Commenter supports 

the proposed prohibition on mining 

activities within the Sanctuary. 

Response: Comment noted. 

Motorized Personal Watercraft (MPWC) 

MPWC—Inappropriate Use of Studies 

195. Comment: Studies cited and 

information used to support the 

proposed MPWC prohibition were 

outdated, inaccurate, of poor quality, 

biased, and/or from locations other than 

the Channel Islands. 

Response: NOAA consulted a variety 

of sources in developing the prohibition 

on MPWC operation within one nmi of 

the Channel Islands. The sources 

comprise available literature on MPWC 

impacts, as well as existing enforcement 

data from CINP Rangers and other 

enforcement agencies. NOAA is not 

aware of any MPWC impact studies 

conducted in the Channel Islands. This 

is not surprising, given that the National 

Park Service has banned the use of 

MPWC in the Channel Islands since 

2000. Given this lack of site-specific 

data for MPWC impacts, the data and 

observations from other locations 

(including the Monterey Bay National 

Marine Sanctuary) are relevant to 

CINMS, especially data on flushing of 

nesting birds and disturbance of marine 

mammals. NOAA has received written 

and oral reports of MPWC users 

disturbing sea otters, harbor seals, 

porpoises, dolphins and other wildlife 

in various areas of the Monterey Bay 

National Marine Sanctuary since 

implementation of the regulation in 

1993. Sometimes, due to high surf 

conditions, operators are unaware of 

their disturbance of wildlife. 

196. Comment: In citing information 

from the Massachusetts Office of Coastal 

Zone Management Personal Watercraft 

Management Guide (MOCZM 2002), 

CINMS irresponsibly selected particular 

passages that support a PWC ban, from 

a document that advocates managing 

PWC use and provides much data to 

support management tactics short of 

bans. In addition, the MOCZM 

document was published in 2002 and 

could not, at that time, include the most 

up-to-date technological innovations. 

CINMS should seek the most current, 

accurate and peer reviewed data. 

Response: Regarding the MOCZM 

document advocating managing MPWC 

use, this document proposed a variety of 

different management techniques 

regarding MPWCs, including an outright 

ban for particularly sensitive or difficult 

enforcement areas. CINMS fits both of 

these criteria, with many rare, 

endangered or sensitive species and a 

remote environment which makes 

behavior-based enforcement impossible 

without extensive enforcement 

resources. Moreover, CINMS is not 

banning MPWC throughout the 

Sanctuary, but only in the sensitive 

nearshore zone from zero to one nmi 

offshore. The amount of scientific 

research conducted on the topic of 

MPWCs and wildlife disturbance has 

not increased significantly since 2002. 

However, additional information on 

MPWC use was added to the FEIS 

Affected Environment, Human Uses, 

Nonconsumptive Recreation and 

Tourism section on Motorized Personal 

Watercraft for revisions. 

MPWC—Against Ban 

197. Comment: NOAA should not 

prohibit MPWC from operating within 

one nautical mile of the Channel 

Islands. 

Response: As explained in the 

response to comment 200 NOAA 

believes that the Sanctuary prohibition 

on MPWCs within one nautical mile of 

the Channel Islands will assist in 

achieving the NMSP’s primary mandate 

of resource protection. Because the NPS 

already prohibited MPWC operation 

within one nautical mile of the islands 

in 2000, the Sanctuary MPWC 

prohibition will not result in adverse 

socioeconomic impacts. NOAA does not 

prohibit any individuals from visiting 

the Sanctuary or the Islands, and this 

prohibition is not designed to keep 

some members of the public from doing 

so. 

198. Comment: NOAA should not ban 

MPWC use beyond one nmi in the 

Sanctuary because this would prohibit 

MPWC use at a known tow-in surfing 

location. 

Response: NOAA is not prohibiting 

MPWC use beyond one nmi. NOAA is 

aware of tow-in surfing activities off San 

Miguel Island; however, the tow-in 

surfing location is beyond one nmi and 

as such would not be affected by the 

Sanctuary prohibition. 

MPWC—Behavior 

199. Comment: NOAA should 

address/prohibit unacceptable MPWC 

operator behavior, and/or wildlife 

disturbance (except for fishing) rather 

than prohibit MPWC use. 

Response: NOAA is not considering 

the ideas suggested as an alternative to 

the prohibition on MPWC use within 

one nmi of the Channel Islands because 

the use of MPWC in this zone has 

already been prohibited by the NPS 

since 2000. 

MPWC—Duplicative Regulation 

200. Comment: NOAA should not 

duplicate the existing NPS regulation 

that prohibits MPWC operation within 

one nmi of the Channel Islands. 

Response: The use of MPWC within 

one nmi of the Channel Islands has been 

prohibited by the NPS since 2000. 

NOAA is mirroring the existing MPWC 

prohibition to provide an added 

deterrent to illegal MPWC use within 

the nearshore areas of the CINMS and 

CINP (the CINMS regulation carries a 

maximum civil penalty of $130,000 per 

incident, per day). The CINMS MPWC 

prohibition provides an additional legal 

authority through which to prosecute 

violators of the MPWC prohibition. 

MPWC—Environmental Impacts 

201. Comment: NOAA’s 

characterization of MPWCs as 

producing high emissions, being noisy, 

and/or being hazardous to the ocean and 

environment is incorrect. New MPWC 

designs are clean and quiet. 

Response: The MPWC industry has 

reduced noise and emissions with 4- 

stroke engines, and NOAA has revised 

the description of MPWC in the DEIS. 

See the updated FEIS Affected 

Environment, Human Uses, 

Nonconsumptive Recreation and 

Tourism section on Motorized Personal 

Watercraft for revisions. However, 

NOAA is not aware of studies that have 

demonstrated the extent to which these 

improvements have reduced wildlife 

disturbance. NOAA’s prohibition on the 

operation of MPWC within one mile of 

the islands is due primarily to the 

potential for wildlife disturbance rather 

than concerns about emissions. While 

emissions and noise from MPWC have 

been reduced, it is not clear that they 

are now insignificant. NOAA is still 

concerned about the effects of 

oscillating sound caused by persistent 

throttling of the engine during repeated 

acceleration/deceleration within the 

surf zone, which is often necessary to 

avoid capsizing and rolling. Research 

and observations have shown that this 

frequent oscillating sound pattern is 

particularly disruptive to wildlife. 

Finally, NOAA is unaware of 

information indicating the immediate 

breakdown of oil from MPWCs. 

202. Comment: MPWCs have less of 

an impact on kelp and aquatic 

vegetation than do other vessel types, as 

discussed in the Massachusetts Office of 

Coastal Zone Management Personal 

Watercraft Management Guide (MOCZM 

2002). 

Response: The potential for damage to 

aquatic vegetation is reduced in MPWCs 

as compared with that for propeller 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3247 

driven vessels. However, the referenced 

document (MOCZM 2002) also makes 

the following statement about PWC 

operation: ‘‘However, PWC are 

frequently operated in ways that 

enhance their capacity to damage 

seagrass communities. For example, 

PWC are often used in shallow water 

areas, where their jet wash is more 

likely to kick up sediments. PWC also 

tend to kick up more sediment when 

operators are performing acrobatic 

maneuvers, traveling at slower speeds or 

rapidly accelerating. These activities tilt 

PWC back into the water column and 

direct their jet wash downward into 

underlying sediments and seagrass beds. 

PWC-related seagrass damage may also 

be exacerbated if PWC operation is 

spatially and/or temporally 

concentrated. Multiple PWC circling 

about in that same vicinity may have a 

greater impact than a single PWC 

traveling through the same area.’’ With 

respect to MPWC impacts on kelp beds, 

the enclosed propulsion system of 

MPWC will not cut through kelp as will 

vessels with conventional outboard 

motors. The EIS text referring to impacts 

on kelp has been revised to reflect this 

information. 

203. Comment: The National Park 

Service EIS’s on personal watercraft use 

found that these craft cause no adverse 

or lasting impact. NOAA’s EIS did not 

discuss the National Park Service’s 

findings. 

Response: There are 21 units in the 

national park system (generally national 

recreation areas or national sea/ 

lakeshores) where the legislative 

purpose of the unit may permit use of 

MPWCs. In those units which have 

considered authorization of MPWC use, 

impacts were identified and 

requirements identified to mitigate the 

impacts to acceptable levels for those 

units. These findings were site-specific 

and generally included substantial 

limits on the operation of MPWCs. 

However, the NPS, via regulation, has 

determined that MPWC use is generally 

inappropriate in units of the National 

Park system due to likely ecological or 

visitor impacts. Under NPS regulations 

finalized in 2000 and revised in March 

2007 (36 CFR sec. 3.9(a)), Channel 

Islands National Park is closed to 

MPWC use. 

MPWC—Extend Ban Beyond 1 NMi 

Offshore 

204. Comment: NOAA should extend 

the prohibition beyond one nmi to 

include the entirety of CINMS waters 

(i.e., six nmi from the Islands), consider 

prohibiting MPWC use in certain 

sensitive areas outside the one nmi 

limit, such as near emergent rocks or 

other resource-attracting features, or 

consider a temporal ban on MPWC 

outside of one nmi to protect pinnipeds 

and birds. 

Response: NOAA is not extending the 

prohibition on MPWC beyond one nmi 

of the Islands (defined in the CINMS 

terms of designation as San Miguel 

Island, Santa Cruz Island, Santa Rosa 

Island, Anacapa Island, Santa Barbara 

Island, Richardson Rock, and Castle 

Rock) at this time, and believes that the 

one nmi ban provides the appropriate 

level of compatible use consistent with 

the protection of Sanctuary resources. 

The new prohibition on taking a marine 

mammal, sea turtle or seabird allows 

sufficient enforcement flexibility for 

activities occurring outside the one nmi 

MPWC ban area. Additionally, 

overlaying the existing CINP ban 

provides important benefits for 

cooperative enforcement. NOAA, in 

conjunction with the CDFG and other 

partners, will continue to monitor the 

use of MPWC within other areas of the 

Sanctuary. If this monitoring indicates 

adverse impacts to wildlife or other 

Sanctuary resources, NOAA could 

consider additional management actions 

as part of an adaptive approach to 

managing the Sanctuary. Any future 

regulatory actions taken by NOAA 

would be subject to the appropriate 

environmental analysis under the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and public review and comment 

per the requirement of the 

Administrative Procedure Act. 

MPWC—Other 

205. Comment: NOAA is focusing too 

much on the semantics of the definition 

of a Motorized Personal Watercraft. 

Response: As explained in the FEIS, 

the CINMS regulations provide a 

definition of MPWC that is the same as 

that used by the NPS. This is important 

so that the CINMS regulation is 

consistent with the NPS ban on MPWC 

use in effect in the Channel Islands. 

206. Comment: The process leading to 

the creation of the MPWC prohibition 

did not allow for public input, and/or 

NOAA should consult with more state 

officials, emissions experts, 

manufacturers, and actual users, before 

committing to such a ban. 

Response: Per requirements of the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the 

National Environmental Policy Act, and 

the Administrative Procedure Act, 

NOAA has followed federal 

requirements for notifying, and 

soliciting input from, the public, along 

with relevant state and federal agencies 

about the MPWC prohibition and all 

other actions that are part of the CINMS 

management plan review. Public input 

on the management plan has been 

extensive through the Sanctuary 

Advisory Council, public hearings, and 

the public comment period. 

207. Comment: MPWC owners are 

cautious, use good judgment, and are 

considerate of the environment, and/or 

the demographics of MPWC owners 

have shifted to ‘‘a little older, more 

affluent and more responsible person.’’ 

Response: Despite the changes in 

MPWC user demographics described by 

the commenters, NOAA believes that 

the prohibition will assist CINMS in 

achieving its primary mandate of 

resource protection. Furthermore, the 

use of MPWC within one nmi of the 

Channel Islands has been prohibited by 

the NPS since 2000. 

208. Comment: The plan does not 

mention that as of 2004 the California 

Air Resource Board (CARB) has 

prohibited the sale of two-stroke marine 

engines. There are no two-stroke 

engines being sold of any kind for 

marine use. 

Response: NOAA is not aware of any 

CARB regulation banning the sale of 

two-stroke engines. CARB did restrict 

the type of two-stroke engine to only 

direct injection as of 2001. In addition 

there are many pre-2001 two-stroke 

powered MPWC in operation and there 

are no prohibitions on the use, 

replacement, or resale of the older 

carbureted or non-direct injected twostroke engines in these craft. 

209. Comment: NOAA should explain 

why it is prohibiting Personal 

Watercraft, when the agency seems to 

realize the benefits of these type of boats 

for emergency response and law 

enforcement. 

Response: NOAA notes a distinction 

between recreational use and emergency 

response/enforcement. There is a 

tradeoff between potential 

environmental impacts and the benefit 

of emergency response and 

enforcement. The prohibition on MPWC 

use does not apply to (1) an activity 

necessary to respond to an emergency 

threatening life, property, or the 

environment; and (2) an activity 

necessary for valid law enforcement 

purposes in the Sanctuary. For a 

response to commenters who indicated 

that they are opposed to the Sanctuary’s 

MPWC regulation, see the response to 

comment 197. 

210. Comment: NOAA should have 

reasonable boating regulations such as 

the generally applicable access 

restrictions, closures and boating rules 

set forth in existing Sanctuary 

regulations, and/or regulations that 

require an age limit, educational 

program, and a licensing system for 

MPWC use; or NOAA should establish 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3248 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

best management practices to resolve 

problems with MPWC use. 

Response: Given that the use of 

MPWC within one nmi of the Channel 

Islands has been prohibited by the NPS 

since 2000, NOAA is not considering 

the ideas suggested as an alternative to 

the prohibition on MPWC use in this 

zone. Regarding rider age limits and 

licensing systems, these are boating 

safety and registration issues more 

appropriately managed by State and 

Federal boat licensing agencies. 

211. Comment: Based on the 

definition of personal watercraft in the 

DEIS, it appears that the intent of the 

MPWC prohibition is not to regulate 

fishing. If this is correct, the prohibition 

does not directly affect fishing, fishing 

vessels, fish stocks, or fish habitat. 

Response: While the intent of this 

regulation is not to regulate fishing per 

se, it does prohibit the use of MPWC 

within one nmi of the islands, even if 

the MPWC were being used to conduct 

an otherwise lawful fishing activity. 

212. Comment: NOAA should 

implement boater education programs to 

reduce MPWC accidents and injuries, 

which would render the ban on MPWC 

unnecessary. 

Response: Education and safety 

regulations can increase MPWC safety. 

However, the intent of the one nmi 

prohibition is primarily to protect 

wildlife, and the existing NPS ban 

eliminates the utility of an educational 

program for MPWC operators in that 

zone. NOAA would consider partnering 

with another agency or organization for 

the purposes of developing educational 

programs to address MPWC use from 

one nmi to six nmi offshore in the 

sanctuary, should circumstances 

warrant it. NOAA welcomes input from 

the California Department of Boating 

and Waterways and the California 

Boating and Waterways Commission on 

education and outreach for MPWC users 

and all boaters regarding the Sanctuary. 

213. Comment: NOAA should explain 

how the one mile limit for the MPWC 

prohibition was determined. 

Response: NOAA believes that the 

one nmi limit is reasonable for 

preventing wildlife disturbance from 

MPWC in the sensitive nearshore area of 

the Sanctuary, especially considering 

the number of emergent rocks within 

the one nmi offshore zone of the islands. 

Additionally, this zone directly overlays 

the existing National Park Service ban 

on MPWC within Channel Islands 

National Park, facilitating cooperative 

enforcement of both the NPS and NOAA 

MPWC regulations. 

214. Comment: The California 

Department of Boating and Waterways 

(CDBW) commented that they would be 

happy to help CINMS staff in delivering 

a message to the boaters that they come 

into contact with. 

Response: NOAA looks forward to 

working with the CDBW on boater and 

MPWC education and outreach and has 

benefitted from partnering with the 

CDBW and others involved in the 

California Ocean Communicators 

Alliance ‘‘Thank You Ocean’’ campaign. 

The CDBW featured this campaign in an 

article in its April 2007 Changing Tide 

newsletter, including campaign 

advertisements and logos on the front 

and back cover of the issue. In 

recognition that 8,200 copies of this 

newsletter are circulated to marinas, 

yacht clubs, boat supply stores, boat 

repair facilities, other state agencies, 

clean boating network members, boat 

shows and events, NOAA greatly 

appreciates opportunities to partner 

with CDBW to conduct outreach to 

boaters. NOAA also appreciates the 

CDBW assistance with distribution of a 

CINMS boater safety brochure to 

registered boat owners throughout 

Ventura County, and looks forward to 

partnering on future boater outreach. 

215. Comment: NOAA should keep 

the waterways open for responsible 

public use. 

Response: This action keeps the 

Sanctuary open for all public uses 

compatible with the CINMS’s primary 

objective of resource protection, and not 

prohibited pursuant to other authorities. 

MPWC—Other Agencies Regulate 

Boating 

216. Comment: The CDBW was not 

consulted or asked to participate during 

the planning process. NOAA should 

have also consulted with the U.S. Coast 

Guard because they have the authority 

to promulgate regulations regarding 

recreational boats in federal waters. 

Response: NOAA provided scoping 

and noticing of this action in 

accordance with NEPA, APA, and 

NMSA requirements. The U.S. Coast 

Guard and the California Resources 

Agency (the parent agency of the 

CDBW) each hold seats on the CINMS 

Sanctuary Advisory Council, and as 

such have been aware of and involved 

in this management plan development 

since its inception. In addition, prior to 

release of the DMP and DEIS, the 

NMSP’s West Coast Region informed the 

California Boating and Waterways 

Commission of plans to consider an 

MPWC regulation at CINMS. NOAA 

remains open to working with the 

CDBW in the Channel Islands on topics 

of mutual interest in the future. 

Regarding consultation with the U.S. 

Coast Guard and enforcement, in 

addition to its involvement throughout 

the management plan review as an 

agency member of the Advisory 

Council, the USCG is also a Sanctuary 

cooperative enforcement partner. NOAA 

believes that the USCG is well suited to 

help enforce CINMS regulations, 

including the prohibition on MPWC, 

and as such CINMS coordinates 

enforcement with the USCG and other 

enforcement agencies. 

217. Comment: The California 

Department of Boating and Waterways 

and the U.S. Coast Guard have the 

authority to regulate boating. Any 

federal regulations related to 

recreational boating (i.e., MPWC use) 

proposed in the management plan 

should be adopted, if needed, by the 

U.S. Coast Guard, the federal agency 

with historical boating expertise and 

appropriate enforcement 

responsibilities. 

Response: Although boating 

regulations could be developed by 

another agency, such as the USCG, 

NOAA thinks that in this case using 

Sanctuary authority would be the most 

efficient and logical means of achieving 

enhanced Sanctuary protection. 

Additionally, this regulation is an 

overlay of an existing National Park 

Service ban. NOAA works cooperatively 

with the NPS, USCG, and CDFG to 

enforce Sanctuary regulations, including 

regulations pertaining to recreational 

boaters that have been in effect for over 

twenty-five years. NOAA is interested in 

exploring opportunities for CDBW to 

assist with marine enforcement within 

the state waters portion of the 

Sanctuary. 

MPWC—Penalty 

218. Comment: The maximum penalty 

of $130,000 for violation of the 

Sanctuary’s MPWC prohibition is too 

high. Given this high fine, NOAA 

should mark the one nmi boundary with 

buoys and signs about the prohibition. 

Response: The penalty of $130,000 is 

a maximum penalty for any violation as 

decided upon by Congress during the 

authorization and subsequent 

reauthorizations of the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act. The actual penalties 

levied for NMSA violations vary in 

proportion to the severity of the 

incident and other case-specific factors. 

NOAA’s Office of General Counsel for 

Enforcement and Litigation establishes a 

penalty schedule that outlines 

recommended penalties for violations 

under the NMSA. This penalty schedule 

provides notice to the public and 

provides guidance to the prosecutors as 

to a general range of penalties for 

specific violations. The penalty 

schedule reflects sanctions that NOAA 

believes will encourage compliance and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3249 

deter violations; however, in every case, 

NOAA retains the ability to assess a 

penalty up to the statutory maximum of 

$130,000. The NMSA penalty schedule 

is publicly available and can be 

accessed through this link: http:// 

www.gc.noaa.gov/schedules/58- 

NMSA%20Penalty%20Schedule%209- 

06.pdf. 

It is the responsibility of Sanctuary 

users to know where they are within the 

Sanctuary, and what laws and 

regulations apply in a given area. 

CINMS education and outreach 

materials are designed to help users 

understand regulations. Physical signs 

can enhance awareness and compliance, 

but it is neither logistically nor 

financially feasible for NOAA to install 

a system of signs along the one nmi 

boundary warning of the MPWC ban. 

MPWC—Relation to Other Boats 

219. Comment: The MPWC 

prohibition unfairly singles out and/or 

discriminates against MPWC, especially 

in terms of described environmental 

impacts, and/or access rights or 

regulations. 

Response: NOAA has already 

established a precedent for regulating 

some users, such as large vessels and 

aircraft, differently than others in the 

one nmi offshore zone due to concerns 

about their potential impacts. NOAA 

acknowledges that MPWC are not alone 

in their potential for wildlife 

disturbance. However, scientific 

research and studies across the United 

States (e.g. California, New Jersey, 

Florida) have produced strong evidence 

that MPWC present a significant and 

unique disturbance to marine mammals 

and birds different from other 

watercraft. Though some other studies 

have found few differences between 

MPWC and small motor-powered boats, 

they have not presented evidence to 

invalidate the studies detecting 

significant impacts. In 1994, NOAA 

commissioned a review of recreational 

boating activity in the Monterey Bay 

NMS. The review provided statistics on 

MPWC use and operating patterns in the 

Sanctuary at the time and identified 

issues of debate from the research 

community regarding MPWC impacts 

on wildlife, but it made no formal 

conclusion or recommendation. At this 

time, NOAA has determined that the 

unique properties and operating 

characteristics of MPWC (which allow 

for high speed, repetitive nearshore 

operations, and are further described in 

the FEIS) make them prone to present a 

significantly higher risk of wildlife 

disturbance than other vessel types. As 

such, NOAA thinks that MPWC are 

incompatible with resource protection 

within the one nmi offshore zone of the 

Sanctuary. Operation of MPWC in the 

CINMS is still allowed outside of the 

one nmi offshore area. 

Regarding comments asserting that 

MPWC should be regulated in the same 

manner as other boats, NOAA believes 

that for other types of boaters, and for 

MPWC operating beyond the one nmi 

offshore zone, enforcement of the 

restrictions presented in Prohibition 9 

(Taking a Marine Mammal, Sea Turtle or 

Seabird) provide for sufficient resource 

protection at this time. However, NOAA 

could in the future propose additional 

restrictions on other Sanctuary users, 

with public input and review, should 

protecting Sanctuary resources warrant 

such action. With regard to MPWC 

rights to access, please note that the 

MPWC regulation overlays an existing 

NPS ban on MPWC use within one nmi 

of the islands that has been in place 

since 2000. Neither the NPS nor CINMS 

regulations ban MPWCs for a six mile 

area surrounding the park. Rather, both 

ban MPWC use only in the one nmi 

offshore zone. Concerning emissions 

and water quality issues among MPWC 

and other boats, NOAA’s objection to 

the operation of MPWC within one mile 

of the islands is due more to their 

potential for wildlife disturbance than 

concerns about emissions (see also the 

response to comment 201). In terms of 

whether or not there are differences in 

engine types between MPWC and other 

craft, the justification for the prohibition 

is not related to the engine type, but 

rather to the craft’s unique capabilities 

and use patterns. 

For information about NOAA’s use of 

the best available information as it 

relates to the rationale for this 

prohibition, see response to comment 

195. 

MPWC—Support Ban 

220. Comment: NOAA should 

prohibit the use of MPWC within one 

nmi from the islands, as proposed in the 

preferred alternative. 

Response: NOAA is implementing the 

preferred alternative MPWC regulation. 

Nearshore Vessel Approach 

221. Comment: NOAA should adopt 

the nearshore vessel approach 

prohibition in Alternative 1 in order to: 

Reduce the risk of grounding and 

collision accidents; to provide 

additional protection for sensitive nearshore areas; exclude a greater number of 

potentially harmful large vessels (those 

150 GRT or more) than the Proposed 

Action (those 300 GRT or more); and 

reduce the likelihood of discharges and 

other impacts from relatively large 

vessels, including cruise ships. 

Additionally, NOAA should provide an 

exception allowing large vessels to 

operate in the shipping lanes. 

Response: Like Alternative 1, the 

Proposed Action directly addresses the 

NOAA’s concern that, with limited 

exceptions, large vessels should not 

approach and put at risk sensitive 

nearshore areas of the Sanctuary. NOAA 

is not aware of more than a few vessels 

between 150 to 299 GRT that 

occasionally visit the Sanctuary area 

within one nmi of the Islands. Using 

Automated Identification System (AIS) 

data, which will soon be available for 

the entire Sanctuary, NOAA plans to 

enhance vessel traffic monitoring in the 

nearshore area. If the number of vessels 

between 150 to 299 GRT increases 

significantly, and/or the incident of 

vessel accidents increases, NOAA can 

revisit this regulatory issue. Cruise ships 

are typically much larger than 300 GRT, 

and industry trends show increasing 

vessel sizes. The shipping lanes do not 

come within one nmi of Island shores, 

and thus an exception allowing large 

vessels to operate in the shipping lanes 

is not necessary. 

222. Comment: NOAA should remove 

the fishing vessel exception to the 

nearshore vessel approach regulation 

under both the Proposed Action and 

Alternative 1. Additionally, NOAA 

should assess the costs and benefits of 

removing the exception for fishing 

vessels of these sizes, including the 

regulatory burden of gaining a permit 

for such activity, and the rationale for 

the exception. 

Response: NOAA is not removing the 

nearshore vessel approach regulation’s 

exception for fishing vessels at this 

time. NOAA is not aware of fishing 

vessels greater than 150 GRT using 

Sanctuary waters, including within one 

nmi of the Islands, nor aware of any 

emerging fisheries trends suggesting that 

vessels of this size are planning to use 

Sanctuary waters. Using AIS data, 

which will soon be available for the 

entire Sanctuary, NOAA will enhance 

vessel monitoring in the nearshore area. 

NOAA also monitors vessel use of the 

Sanctuary via aerial surveys. Should 

fishing vessels 150 GRT begin to use the 

Sanctuary, NOAA can revisit the 

associated risks and determine how to 

address them. 

NOAA does not believe that the 

requirements for obtaining a permit are 

burdensome. Sanctuary staff regularly 

process a variety of permits and work to 

maintain an efficient and streamlined 

process. Furthermore, few vessels that 

routinely visit the Channel Islands 

nearshore area are 300 GRT or more. 

223. Comment: Support is expressed 

for the Proposed Action alternative’s 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3250 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

modification of the nearshore vessel 

approach regulation to prevent large 

(300 GRT or more) non-fishing vessels 

from traveling within one nmi of island 

shores in the Sanctuary. 

Response: Comment noted. 

224. Comment: NOAA should not 

limit the large vessel nearshore 

approach prohibition to one nautical 

mile from island shores, but instead 

should expand it to the Sanctuary’s 

outer boundary. 

Response: The International Maritime 

Organization has already designated the 

majority of the Sanctuary, excluding the 

portion that overlaps the TSS, as an 

Area To Be Avoided (ATBA). NOAA 

seldom observes large vessels within the 

ATBA, and as such NOAA has not 

deemed it necessary at this time to 

prohibit large vessel use beyond one 

nmi from the Islands. 

225. Comment: NOAA should 

completely ban cruise ships inside the 

Sanctuary’s six nautical mile boundary 

because of poor dumping practices. 

Response: CINMS regulations prohibit 

cruise ships 300 GRT or more (cruise 

ships are typically much larger than 300 

GRT) from approaching within one nmi 

of the Islands, and prohibit them from 

discharging sewage and graywater in the 

Sanctuary. Based upon the best 

available information, NOAA has 

determined that it is not necessary to 

ban cruise ships within the entire 

Sanctuary at this time. 

Oil and Gas 

226. Comment: NOAA should 

continue to prohibit any oil and gas 

development within the Sanctuary 

given the short- and long-term human 

and environmental impacts from oil 

spills, and the relatively high 

probability that they will occur. NOAA 

should also take necessary measures to 

protect Sanctuary resources from oil 

development in the surrounding region. 

Response: NOAA is maintaining the 

prohibition on exploring for, 

developing, or producing hydrocarbons 

within the Sanctuary. NOAA also 

comments on oil and gas related 

projects in the region that have the 

potential to affect Sanctuary resources. 

227. Comment: Commenter supports 

the Proposed Action Alternative’s 

prohibition 1 on oil and gas that 

maintains current prohibitions on oil 

and gas development while removing 

outdated exemptions. 

Response: Comment noted. 

Performance Evaluation 

228. Comment: The Conservation 

Science Action Plan’s performance 

measures should include not only 

funding levels and quantitative 

measures of monitoring and research 

efforts, but metrics of a given activity’s 

completeness, efficiency and quality. 

Response: The FMP’s Performance 

Evaluation Action Plan contains 

performance targets for all eight of the 

Conservation Science Action Plan’s 

strategies, all of which address at least 

one of the criteria identified by the 

commenter (completeness, efficiency, 

and quality). As CINMS staff implement 

the management plan, these targets may 

be updated or modified to more clearly 

articulate these criteria, and to more 

closely align the specific CINMS 

performance targets with those 

identified for the national program 

(there are currently 21 program 

performance measures for the NMSP). 

229. Comment: Requirements for 

specific quantitative performance 

measures may impede CINMS’s ability 

to implement programmatic and 

regulatory improvements that may have 

more qualitative benefits. 

Response: CINMS staff have 

developed both quantitative and 

qualitative performance targets for the 

strategies in each of the FMP’s action 

plans. Quantitative performance targets 

are typically used to track outputs (or 

products), but may also be used to 

identify certain qualitative 

achievements (such as the percentage of 

increased knowledge within a particular 

user group). Performance targets are 

developed in response to, rather than as 

an impetus for, identification of a 

management activity. In other words, 

sanctuary-specific performance targets 

do not ‘‘drive’’ the development of 

management activities; rather, they are 

the means by which a sanctuary tracks 

it progress towards the achievement of 

sanctuary-specific and NMSP goals and 

objectives. As such, NOAA does not 

believe that quantitative performance 

targets will impede development of any 

regulatory or non-regulatory 

management actions that may have 

qualitative benefits for CINMS. 

230. Comment: The management plan 

should include a baseline water quality 

characterization, and its Performance 

Evaluation Action Plan should include 

a performance metric that actually 

measures whether Sanctuary water 

quality is being improved via physical 

measurements of pollution levels and 

environmental health. 

Response: Strategy WQ.2 includes an 

activity to complete a CINMS water 

quality characterization report. 

Regarding water quality performance 

metrics, since revision of the CINMS 

management plan began, the NMSP has 

developed a set of program level 

performance measures that set 

management targets for the sanctuary 

system. One of these targets is the 

‘‘Number of sites in which water 

quality, based on long-term monitoring 

data, is being maintained or improved.’’ 

Criteria for measuring this target have 

been developed through the NMSP’s 

conservation science program, and a 

tracking plan for how each sanctuary 

will meet these criteria has been 

implemented across the system. CINMS 

staff are currently working to provide 

Sanctuary-specific data on these criteria, 

which will eventually be included in a 

system-wide report on the status of 

NMSP performance targets. 

231. Comment: Sanctuary goals are 

lacking an MOU for procedural review 

of the protection at CINMS that defines 

data gaps, survey design and data 

streams connected to budgets that 

facilitate management decisions. CINMS 

has no functional management culture 

that can assess the status of the 

resources to use as a foundation for 

working with the fishing community. It 

is not bound by any peer review 

protocol or data management 

performance criteria. 

Response: The FMP’s Conservation 

Science Action Plan identifies the 

myriad ways in which NOAA and its 

partners have collected, and continue to 

collect, assess, and apply, information 

on the status of CINMS resources. 

Although no general MOU exists 

between CINMS and its partners on 

research in the Sanctuary, there are a 

variety of MOUs planned or in place for 

specific research and management 

activities (such as implementation of the 

marine reserves). In addition, MOUs are 

often not needed for collaboration on 

management and monitoring of marine 

resources with many agencies and 

organizations—for example, CINMS 

collaborates extensively with NMFS, 

and existing statutes allow for extensive 

coordination with the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council. Identifying data 

gaps and survey design are an inherent 

part of nearly all CINMS research 

initiatives and decisions to implement 

any research project are always linked 

to budgetary considerations. With 

regard to performance criteria, see the 

response to comment 230 for an 

example of how the NMSP is moving 

forward on this issue. 

Permits 

232. Comment: NOAA has recently 

dramatically improved the scientific 

research permitting process. The 

process is straightforward and 

reasonably quick, much improved over 

the past. 

Response: Comment noted. 

233. Comment: NOAA should provide 

transparency for the CINMS permit 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3251 

process, including provisions for public 

notice, review and comment on 

issuance and monitoring of Sanctuary 

permits. 

Response: NOAA does not currently 

envision a public notification and 

review provision for all CINMS permits. 

Existing NMSP regulations (15 CFR 

922.48) identify the permit issuance 

criteria for all national marine 

sanctuaries, which provide a rigorous 

set of parameters under which NOAA 

can permit an activity that is otherwise 

prohibited. It should be noted that when 

receiving a permit application, the 

CINMS Superintendent may request 

additional information from the 

applicant and, if appropriate, may hold 

a public hearing to obtain more 

information. If a permit holder acts in 

violation of the terms and conditions of 

any permit, NOAA may amend, 

suspend, or revoke the permit. Projects 

that would result in the preparation of 

an environmental impact statement 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act would be subject to public 

review and comment. 

234. Comment: If a permit applicant 

will be using vessels for hire or 

soliciting related assistance for his/her 

proposed project, NOAA should require 

the applicants to use appropriately 

licensed vessels and operators. 

Response: Individuals or entities 

conducting activities under a CINMS 

permit must still comply with all 

federal, state and local laws and 

regulations that are applicable to that 

activity. 

235. Comment: In the FMP NOAA 

should provide an explanation or 

examples of what types of research 

would and would not require a permit. 

Response: NOAA has updated FMP 

Strategy OP.2 (Permitting and Activity 

Tracking) with examples of the types of 

research and other activities that do and 

do not require a Sanctuary permit. 

Research and Monitoring 

236. Comment: The Channel Islands 

National Marine Sanctuary has an 

admirable scientific research program, 

primarily in partnership with colleges 

and universities in the area. This 

scientific research should be continued 

and expanded to increase understanding 

of the unique ecosystem of the Santa 

Barbara Channel and Channel Islands. 

Response: CINMS research staff 

continue to look for opportunities to 

build partnerships and collaborate on 

research. Through research outreach 

efforts, such as presentations at 

conferences and workshops, publication 

of scientific papers, and distribution of 

reports, staff inform the research 

community of our efforts and needs. 

CINMS staff also solicit research 

projects in the Sanctuary through our 

request-for-vessel process while 

continuing to identify funding 

opportunities through grants and 

partnerships. 

237. Comment: The management plan 

properly identifies the importance of 

data management and dissemination to 

the overall effectiveness of the 

Conservation Science Action Plan. It 

also addresses the highly collaborative 

and partnership-based nature of the 

biological research process and the need 

for extensive collaboration with partners 

at other agencies and entities. 

Response: Comment noted. 

238. Comment: NOAA should find 

additional funding for monitoring 

programs so that the scientific 

community does not lose its integrity by 

not being able to fulfill monitoring 

requirements. The funding amount for 

Conservation Science Action Plan 

should be increased at least two-fold, to 

match the level of funding dedicated to 

Education and Outreach. NOAA should 

also fund structural support for the 

cooperative research program. 

Response: NOAA recognizes that 

resource limitations as well as the 

necessary program and partner 

developments may limit 

implementation of all of the activities in 

the management plan, including the 

Conservation Science Action Plan. 

NOAA will continue to work with the 

Department of Commerce, Office of 

Management and Budget, and Congress 

in developing supporting justifications 

when preparing budget submissions. 

Sanctuary staff will continue to look for 

opportunities for funding through other 

federal programs, private grants, and 

partnerships with agencies, universities, 

and private and non-profit 

organizations. NOAA supports the 

cooperative research program and will 

fund it as the CINMS budget allows, 

including through the funding 

opportunities listed above. Estimated 

costs shown for the Conservation 

Science Action Plan and the Public 

Awareness and Understanding Action 

Plan are not directly comparable. The 

Conservation Science Action Plan 

budget does not include contributions 

from partners and collaborators, nor 

does it include the large amount of 

funding to staff and operate vessels, 

which is estimated in the FMP’s 

Operations Action Plan. In addition to 

these contributions, NOAA continues to 

seek additional funding opportunities as 

listed above. NOAA has also revised 

some of the cost estimates for 

Conservation Science Action Plan 

strategies. 

239. Comment: NOAA should 

prioritize science relevant to 

management and apply it to existing 

and emerging resource protection 

issues. The Conservation Science Action 

Plan should include an explicit goal for 

the application of scientific research to 

the understanding and mitigation of 

identified or emerging threats. NOAA 

should consider how it can best orient 

its scientific research programs to better 

translate research results to management 

decisions. 

Response: NOAA recognizes that 

sanctuaries should ensure that their 

research and monitoring programs are 

effectively prioritized to produce 

scientific information that can be 

applied to the understanding, 

mitigation, and management of 

identified or emerging threats. Through 

the NMSP’s System-Wide Monitoring 

Program (SWiM) reports, CINMS staff 

will provide status updates on the 

condition of Sanctuary resources to 

local, regional, and national policy 

makers. The NMSP holds an annual 

research coordinators’ meeting at which 

research staff discuss research issues 

and needs across the program. The 

ONMS West Coast Region coordinates 

research and monitoring efforts within 

the region to address regional 

management and resource protection 

issues. 

The purpose of the research 

department at CINMS is to support 

management decision making with 

conservation science. NOAA has 

emphasized this point in the FMP’s 

revised Overview to the Conservation 

Science Action Plan. CINMS research 

staff regularly collaborate with partners, 

including other federal and state 

agencies, universities, private 

institutions, and non-profit agencies. 

The Research Activities Panel, a 

working group of the Sanctuary 

Advisory Council, provides oversight to 

the monitoring programs in the 

Sanctuary. The status of monitoring 

programs is reported to regional and 

national offices through internal 

documents. 

240. Comment: Overall research/ 

science coordination and data 

management are important, necessary, 

and the greatest conservation science 

needs within the Sanctuary. 

Response: CINMS research staff 

coordinate conservation science by 

being in close contact with researchers, 

tracking and requiring updates on their 

research activities, and working with 

joint-jurisdiction agencies. Staff also 

develop research partnerships to 

address research gaps, and receive input 

from the RAP on research and 

monitoring activities. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3252 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

CINMS staff continue to strive 

towards better research coordination 

and comprehensive data management as 

funding and staffing allows. 

241. Comment: Sanctuary Aerial 

Monitoring Spatial Analysis Program 

(SAMSAP) graphical data must be 

included in the online database 

architecture proposed in DMP Strategy 

CS.2, and become publicly available. 

Response: SAMSAP data have been, 

and continue to be, analyzed and used 

in a wide variety of spatial and 

statistical projects ranging from marine 

zoning to emergency response 

applications. The majority of SAMSAP 

data are already in a format easily 

importable into a variety of common 

database formats. As noted in the 

revised Strategy CS.2, rather than 

developing a new online database, 

CINMS will work with regional partners 

already running established web-based 

data warehouses to identify the most 

appropriate data warehouses to best 

disseminate particular data types. The 

end result will make SAMSAP data 

available and integrated with the 

publicly-accessible Sanctuary Integrated 

Monitoring Network (SIMoN, http:// 

www.sanctuarysimon.org) that will be 

expanded to CINMS. 

242. Comment: Many existing 

programs (e.g., SAMSAP) could be used 

to meet a greater variety of research 

needs. The CINMS Research 

Coordinator should take an active role 

in expanding or redirecting internal 

CINMS research activity and make 

strategic decisions about the allocation 

of Sanctuary support among existing 

external research programs. 

Response: CINMS research staff use 

the Management Plan and other annual 

research prioritization documents to set 

priorities and direct and fund CINMS 

research activities. In recent years 

SAMSAP data have been analyzed and 

are now being used, among other things, 

in socioeconomic impact studies related 

to marine zoning. 

243. Comment: The Conservation 

Science Action Plan’s Comprehensive 

Data Management strategy does not 

include enough analysis and synthesis 

to help formulate a general research 

plan. Data management must be more 

than a simple means to provide 

information to the public and others; it 

should reveal important gaps and 

trends, and can be used strategically to 

guide future research and to answer 

specific questions mandated by 

reviewing agencies. 

Response: Data management can be 

used strategically to guide future 

research and to answer specific 

questions. The FMP’s comprehensive 

data management strategy is focused on 

integrating CINMS data into existing 

regional and national data management 

programs to facilitate enhanced 

conservation science-based decisionmaking. While this strategy focuses on 

data management, inherent in the 

Resource Protection Action Plan is a 

need to analyze data. Complementing 

the data management strategy, the 

FMP’s Resource Protection Action Plan 

identifies a variety of current and 

emerging resource protection issues and 

it is expected that for each issue a 

number of science-based questions may 

emerge. Answers to these questions will 

guide and drive data analysis activities 

and research planning in a manner 

consistent with the comment. Thus, 

data analysis and synthesis occur as part 

of management plan implementation, 

and are also manifested in Sanctuary 

annual operating plans, as well as 

through annual research vessel 

allocation decisions. 

244. Comment: Strategy CS.2 

(Comprehensive Data Management) 

should be elevated to a high level of 

planned implementation as shown in 

the management plan’s Appendix A1. If 

CINMS could serve as a clearinghouse 

for data, such as through the Sanctuary 

Integrated Monitoring Network 

(SIMoN), interested researchers would 

be able to assist the Sanctuary even in 

the absence of a comprehensive research 

and monitoring plan. 

Response: NOAA has elevated the 

planned implementation level of 

activities within Strategy CS.2 to high. 

See revised Strategy CS.2 for updated 

information on how CINMS staff plans 

to use existing data management tools, 

like SIMoN. 

245. Comment: Support expressed for 

the Collaborative Marine Research 

Program as a highly innovative effort to 

bring potential resources, knowledge 

and cost savings to bear on the process 

of biological marine research and 

monitoring. The Collaborative Marine 

Research Program is also: Uniquely 

capable of monitoring species not easily 

detected by traditional monitoring 

techniques; an excellent example of 

applying limited Sanctuary resources to 

known gaps and limitations that should 

be routinely assessed; an important 

outreach and research program. 

Response: The Collaborative Marine 

Research Project is a valuable program. 

NOAA will continue to support this 

program as funding allows. For 

additional information about funding 

see the response to comment 238. 

246. Comment: Support expressed for 

development of collaborative research 

programs coupled with socioeconomic 

monitoring programs, and as part of an 

integrated research plan, rather than 

developing in isolation. 

Response: Collaborative marine 

research projects need to be integrated 

into the overall research and monitoring 

plan. As noted in the background of 

Strategy CS.4, efforts will be made to 

ensure that collaborative marine 

research does not duplicate existing 

research efforts, but rather complements 

them by filling research gaps and 

building new knowledge to assist 

resource managers. NOAA believes that 

the Sanctuary Advisory Council’s 

Research Activities Panel (RAP) is a key 

player in providing Sanctuary 

management with advice to help ensure 

that research programs are integrated. 

247. Comment: NOAA should donate 

R/V Shearwater vessel time to support 

the National Audubon Society’s 

Christmas Bird Count. 

Response: Written proposals must be 

submitted in order for NOAA to 

consider any vessel undertaking. NOAA 

will assign priority to those proposals 

that take place within Sanctuary 

boundaries and address various 

management plan priorities. See the 

response to comment 249 for additional 

information about the vessel allocation 

process. 

248. Comment: The support of the R/ 

V Shearwater to the local research 

community has been invaluable and 

CINMS should continue this support. 

Response: The R/V Shearwater will 

continue to support those efforts that 

address various FMP action plan 

strategies, to the greatest extent 

allowable given financial and logistical 

constraints inherent to field operations. 

249. Comment: Regarding the 

management plan’s Operations Action 

Plan, the process by which CINMS 

research vessel time is allocated remains 

obscure, and research operations would 

benefit from an open and transparent set 

of rules by which allocation decisions 

are reached. 

Response: NOAA has revised text in 

the FMP’s Operations Action Plan, 

Strategy OP.4 to include clarification of 

the annual sea-day allocation and 

scheduling processes that occur each 

autumn. 

250. Comment: NOAA should include 

a plan for deepwater site 

characterization and deepwater MPA 

monitoring in Strategy CS.3—Support 

Existing Site Characterization and 

Monitoring Programs. 

Response: NOAA has updated text in 

Strategy CS. 3 of the FMP to include an 

activity on deep water monitoring for 

the CINMS MPA network. 

251. Comment: SAMSAP surveys 

should be expanded (provided 

increased funding). There is an unmet 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3253 

need to quantify fishing pressure in and 

around Sanctuary waters. Additionally, 

SAMSAP surveys would benefit from 

review by statisticians to optimize their 

design and usefulness. 

Response: NOAA is actively working 

to increase SAMSAP funding at CINMS. 

Reduced availability of NOAA aircraft 

requires CINMS staff to seek alternative 

aircraft options, such as contract 

aircraft, which cost much more to fund 

than NOAA aircraft, and partner agency 

aircraft. CINMS has been working with 

socioeconomic statisticians and 

economists since 2007 to analyze and 

improve SAMSAP survey methodology 

and analysis. 

252. Comment: NOAA should 

continue supporting seafloor mapping 

within the Sanctuary, which has uses 

for education and outreach, research 

and monitoring, and historical resources 

(finding shipwrecks). 

Response: Comment noted. 

253. Comment: Existing ongoing 

research activities in the CINMS are 

described in varying amounts of detail 

in the Conservation Science Action 

Plan; many are mentioned in passing or 

not mentioned at all. 

Response: NOAA describes projects in 

varying amounts of detail and has 

elected not to describe every research 

project in great detail. There are some 

small, short-term projects (for example, 

graduate student work, or projects that 

may last three years or less), that while 

important, NOAA concluded did not 

warrant detailed descriptions in the 

plan. Programs that fall within 

Sanctuary priorities, but are not 

described, are not necessarily precluded 

from Sanctuary support. Likewise, the 

Sanctuary remains open to supporting 

new projects that may emerge. 

254. Comment: The management 

plan’s Conservation Science Action Plan 

information on marine reserves 

monitoring does not mention the large 

acoustic receiver array maintained by 

the Pfleger Institute of Environmental 

Research (PIER). PIER’s monitoring of 

fish movement relative to the reserve 

boundaries is one of very few projects 

that are specifically designed to 

investigate questions of reserve efficacy. 

Response: NOAA acknowledges 

important contributions the PIER project 

has brought to marine reserves research. 

Although this project ended in 2006, 

Sanctuary staff look forward to the 

analysis of existing data and are 

interested in seeing this project or 

similar acoustic tagging projects return, 

should funding allow. As mentioned in 

the Conservation Science Action Plan at 

CS.6, specific marine reserves biological 

monitoring programs are described in 

the Channel Islands Marine Protected 

Area Monitoring Plan, a multi-agency 

document developed by the California 

Department of Fish and Game 

(California Resources Agency, CDFG 

2004). 

255. Comment: The CINMS 

Conservation Science Action Plan 

should do more than simply track 

external programs. Importantly, as 

programs grow and research activity 

intensifies, a policy of generally 

supporting all existing programs will 

not suffice. 

Response: The Conservation Science 

Action Plan is not limited to tracking 

external programs. The Sanctuary is 

directly involved in a number of 

research programs (e.g., SAMSAP, and 

seabird monitoring), explained in the 

Conservation Science Action Plan, and 

for which the Sanctuary provides 

support in the form of staff, vessel time, 

and/or funding. NOAA does not have a 

policy of ‘‘supporting all existing 

programs’’ at the CINMS. There are 

limits to the amount of support the 

Sanctuary can provide, and NOAA uses 

a strategic approach to planning 

Sanctuary research and monitoring, 

allocating resources in accordance with 

Sanctuary research priorities that are 

determined on an annual basis. 

256. Comment: The Conservation 

Science Action Plan’s performance 

evaluation criteria are not satisfactory, 

including the performance targets for 

the marine reserves monitoring strategy 

(CS.6). By specifying very narrow 

performance targets without an 

integrated research plan, CINMS staff 

effort is focused too quickly on small 

steps. NOAA should identify: (1) What 

the Sanctuary specifically wants to 

monitor, (2) what the targets for 

management are, and (3) whether those 

targets are being met. 

Response: NOAA acknowledges that 

the Conservation Science Action Plan’s 

performance evaluation criteria, while 

tangible and able to be quantifiably 

tracked, are not alone fully informative 

for overall management effectiveness. 

NOAA understands that a variety of 

assessment methods will be needed to 

ensure that the Conservation Science 

Action Plan is effective. Additional 

specific performance measures have 

been developed and are listed in the 

Description of the Issues section of the 

Performance Evaluation Action Plan 

within the FMP. These performance 

measures establish targets for 

understanding the status and trends of 

Sanctuary water quality, habitats and 

living marine resources, and will help 

guide prioritization and implementation 

of strategies and activities within the 

Conservation Science Action Plan. 

NOAA will work with the Research 

Activities Panel and other partners to 

refine assessment methods during 

management plan implementation, and 

will refine these methods over time. 

257. Comment: CINMS staff should 

partner with ongoing research and 

coordination efforts via California Sea 

Grant, the Southern California Coastal 

Ocean Observing System (SCCOOS), 

and the California North Coast Ocean 

Observing System (CNCOOS). 

Response: The NMSP’s West Coast 

Region has been the lead on 

coordinating ocean observing systems 

within west coast national marine 

sanctuaries. With its support, CINMS 

staff continue to work with the 

Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies 

of Coastal Oceans (PISCO) to help fund 

their oceanographic buoys. 

258. Comment: NOAA should initiate 

an ecosystem based co-management seat 

on the research activities panel. 

Response: As is the case with all 

Sanctuary Advisory Council working 

groups, the Research Activities Panel 

decides upon its membership, and does 

not at this time have seats dedicated to 

specific ideologies or user groups. 

NOAA recommends that the commenter 

make this general suggestion directly to 

the Research Activities Panel. 

259. Comment: Success of the 

Comprehensive Data Management 

strategy will rely heavily on identifying 

a highly capable CINMS Research 

Coordinator. 

Response: In 2007, NOAA hired Dr. 

Steve Katz as the Sanctuary’s new 

Research Coordinator. 

260. Comment: NOAA should initiate 

research on the impacts of increasing 

CO2 and ocean acidification on 

Sanctuary resources. 

Response: CINMS staff and the 

Sanctuary Advisory Council have begun 

to examine increasing CO2, ocean 

acidification, and related climate change 

issues. For example, CINMS staff and 

the Sanctuary Advisory Council are 

collaborating on a carbon budget and 

greening project that aims to raise 

awareness and understanding of the 

Sanctuary’s carbon cycle and carbon 

inputs from human activity in the 

Sanctuary and surrounding 

environment. The NMSP is working 

with the NOAA Climate Office to 

pursue funding for detecting climate 

change impacts in each national marine 

sanctuary, including the Channel 

Islands. With regard to ocean 

acidification and its potential effects on 

Sanctuary resources, the Advisory 

Council’s Conservation and Commercial 

Fishing working groups are 

collaborating on development of a 

comprehensive report on ocean 

acidification, and related 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3254 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

recommendations for the Sanctuary and 

NMSP. (See also new information added 

to the FMP’s Resource Protection Action 

Plan). The results of this work are 

anticipated in 2008, and will include 

review and comments from the 

Advisory Council and its Research 

Activities Panel. 

261. Comment: Commenter concurred 

with the comments offered by the 

Research Activities Panel. 

Response: Please refer to responses to 

the Research Activities Panel’s 

comments, listed in the table at the 

beginning of the FEIS response-tocomments appendix under ‘‘Warner, 

Robert.’’ 

Resource Protection 

262. Comment: NOAA should 

develop a Resource Protection Action 

Plan within the management plan, to 

incorporate but go beyond the Emerging 

Issues Action Plan. A resource 

protection action plan should: link 

resource protection issues with 

management responses; require funding 

for staff time dedicated to issueresponse measures; and articulate that 

CINMS may play a leadership role in, 

rather than relying excessively on other 

parties for, scientific and resource 

protection efforts. Resource protection 

issues could include: LNG, aquaculture, 

sea otter migration, artificial lighting 

(e.g. from squid boats), ship strikes, 

introduced and invasive species, 

artificial reefs, plumes of non-point 

source pollution from mainland rivers 

during storm events, and atmospheric 

deposition of air pollutants into 

Sanctuary waters. 

Response: NOAA has revised several 

strategies and background information 

from the DMP to develop a new 

Resource Protection Action Plan in the 

FMP. This action plan articulates how 

NOAA addresses existing CINMS 

resource protection issues, as well as 

how emerging issues will be addressed. 

Each of the issues suggested as resource 

protection issues are noted in either the 

FMP’s Resource Protection or Water 

Quality action plans. NOAA has 

explained the various steps it may take 

in responding to Sanctuary resource 

protection issues within Strategy RP.2 

(‘‘Responding to Identified Issues’’). Due 

to the complexity and evolving nature of 

resource protection issues, NOAA 

maintains that it would be inappropriate 

to link specific ‘‘triggers’’ with specific 

‘‘responses’’ in advance. The CINMS 

Resource Protection Coordinator and 

Sanctuary Advisory Council 

Coordinator are primarily responsible 

for implementing the activities in this 

action plan (with assistance from other 

staff). As permanent, full-time positions, 

each is allocated specific funding. 

NOAA also leverages and maximizes 

resources available through 

collaborative partnerships. 

263. Comment: NOAA should take 

additional, or in some cases, immediate 

management measures to address 

critical resource management issues 

including: Underwater noise, 

aquaculture, artificial reefs, oil and gas 

development, wildlife protection, 

fisheries management, global warming 

and liquefied natural gas proposals. 

NOAA should establish a specific 

process to address these CINMS issues 

as part of the management plan review. 

Response: The CINMS staff work 

closely with fishery management 

agencies (NMFS and the California 

Department of Fish and Game) to 

address Sanctuary concerns about 

fisheries impacts. The Sanctuary has 

expanded its discussion of wildlife 

protection, oil and gas development, 

and global warming in the FMP’s 

Resource Protection Action Plan, which 

also discusses aquaculture and artificial 

reefs. This action plan describes a 

process for addressing resource 

protection issues. Threats from oil and 

gas development, and activities to 

address them, are discussed in the 

FMP’s Emergency Response and 

Enforcement Action Plan, as well as the 

Water Quality Action Plan (which 

outlines a process for developing a 

comprehensive Water Quality 

Management Program to address all 

Sanctuary water quality issues). 

264. Comment: NOAA should 

consider placing permanent moorings at 

popular island anchorages to prevent 

seafloor damage and protect resources 

from boaters who possess poor 

anchoring skills. 

Response: NOAA has supported and 

permitted the installation and 

maintenance of permanent moorings at 

Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz and Anacapa 

islands anchorages, which are used by 

the NPS and its concessionaire vessels. 

The Sanctuary Advisory Council has 

discussed, and NOAA has considered 

the possible need for and 

appropriateness of additional moorings; 

however, at this time, NOAA has not 

reached a decision on this issue as it is 

still gathering information. NOAA will 

continue discussing this with the NPS, 

the Sanctuary Advisory Council and 

others. NOAA will use the activities in 

the Resource Protection Action Plan to 

track, assess, and determine how to 

address seafloor damage from 

anchoring. 

Sanctuary Advisory Council 

Involvement 

265. Comment: NOAA’s federalism 

assessment statement within the 

proposed rule improperly and 

inaccurately suggested that the current 

Sanctuary Advisory Council supports 

the regulatory action. 

Response: NOAA’s intent was to 

provide information explaining that 

NOAA has consulted with various 

entities, including the Sanctuary 

Advisory Council, throughout the 

development of the regulatory action. 

The Sanctuary Advisory Council was 

very closely involved from 1999 through 

2002, at which point the proposed 

regulatory action entered NOAA’s 

internal review process. NOAA 

acknowledges that individuals who 

joined the Advisory Council since 2002 

were not as closely involved in the 

development of the proposed regulatory 

action, and as such NOAA has revised 

the statement accordingly. 

Sea Otters 

266. Comment: The FMP and FEIS 

should discuss the connection between 

water quality, sea otter health, nearshore 

marine ecosystem health, and human 

health. 

Response: Text in FEIS Appendix C 

now includes discussion about research 

on the connection between these 

concerns. 

267. Comment: In the FEIS, NOAA 

should acknowledge and support the 

reality of future sea otter migration into 

Sanctuary habitats and not identify this 

as a potential ‘‘issue,’’ ‘‘conflict,’’ or 

‘‘problem’’ to be dealt with. Also, it 

should be acknowledged in the FEIS 

that NOAA has taken a position on the 

expanding range of the sea otter by 

commenting in support of Alternative 

3C in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(2006) DSEIS. 

Response: NOAA does consider future 

sea otter migration into Sanctuary 

habitats as an ‘‘issue’’ to be addressed. 

NOAA has not equated issues with 

problems, but rather issues constitute 

the range of topics that must be 

addressed by Sanctuary actions. 

Because sea otters have not been present 

in significant numbers within the 

Sanctuary since its designation, the 

expansion of their current range to 

include the Sanctuary is a change in 

Sanctuary conditions. NOAA believes 

that this change would warrant 

Sanctuary attention and may potentially 

warrant future actions by Sanctuary staff 

(e.g., in the Resource Protection, 

Research, and Education programs). 

NOAA has updated and augmented 

information on this issue in the FMP’s 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3255 

Resource Protection Action Plan, 

Description of the Issues, under the subheader Termination of the Sea Otter 

Translocation Program. The NMSP has 

taken a position on the expansion of the 

sea otter range in southern California, 

and this is a matter of public record. 

268. Comment: The documents 

should not use the phrase ‘‘possible 

future sea otter migration into Sanctuary 

habitats,’’ since sea otters are currently 

found within the Sanctuary, albeit not 

in large numbers (both at San Nicolas 

Island and in other parts of the 

Sanctuary) or necessarily as permanent 

residents. However, at some unknown 

time, sea otters will probably reoccupy 

this historic habitat as permanent 

residents again. 

Response: NOAA has updated the 

management plan text in the FMP’s 

Resource Protection Action Plan with 

information about the status of sea otters 

in the Sanctuary and surrounding 

region, using information from the 

USFWS 2005 Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement on 

translocation of southern sea otters. San 

Nicolas Island is one of the Channel 

Islands, but is not part of the Sanctuary. 

269. Comment: NOAA should consult 

with researchers at USGS (Brian 

Hatfield) and FWS (Lilian Carswell) to 

revise the mention of ‘‘rare sightings’’ of 

sea otters in the FEIS. 

Response: NOAA has revised text in 

the FEIS based on the USFWS (2005) 

Draft Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement, which includes 

current information on the presence of 

sea otters in Sanctuary waters and the 

study area. Based on USFWS (2005) 

information on the abundance and 

distribution of California sea otters, sea 

otters are not expected to have any 

effect on CINMS resources within 10 

years, and while there are rare sightings, 

they have yet to recolonize the CINMS. 

Submerged Lands Disturbance 

270. Comment: Commenters indicated 

their support for the proposed 

modification of the prohibition on 

altering submerged lands of the 

Sanctuary, which extends this 

protection of the seabed to the entire 

Sanctuary. 

Response: Comment noted. 

271. Comment: If bottom trawling 

occurs in a sanctuary, it should not be 

called a sanctuary. 

Response: The purposes and policies 

of the NMSA provide for facilitating 

public and private use of national 

marine sanctuaries compatible with 

their primary goal of resource 

protection. Pursuant to existing federal 

and state regulations, bottom trawling is 

highly restricted in existing Sanctuary 

waters. It is prohibited inside one nmi 

of the islands, throughout the network 

of ten marine reserves and two 

conservation areas, and in several 

fisheries. 

Take and Possession of Marine 

Mammals, Sea Turtles and Seabirds 

272. Comment: Support expressed for 

prohibitions 9 and 10 (taking and 

possessing, respectively, any marine 

mammal, sea turtle, or seabird), but 

recommend that the regulation include 

or reference language specifically stating 

that commercial fishing or certain 

research activities which may involve 

the occasional take of these species may 

lawfully operate as such under 

authorizations granted pursuant to the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act, 

Endangered Species Act, or Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act. 

Response: NOAA has not added the 

specifically requested language to these 

regulations. These prohibitions already 

include an exception for authorizations 

granted by the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, 

or Migratory Bird Treaty Act. As the 

DEIS (sections 2.1.10 and 2.1.11, 4.1.9 

and 4.1.10) explained, the Sanctuary’s 

proposed regulation would not apply if 

an activity (including a federally or 

state-approved fishery) that does or 

might cause take of marine mammals, 

sea turtles or seabirds has been 

authorized to do so under the MMPA, 

ESA, or MBTA or any implementing 

regulation promulgated under these 

acts. NOAA believes it has clearly 

described and helped the reader 

understand the nature, extent, 

applicability and intent of the exception 

to prohibitions 9 and 10. 

273. Comment: Sanctuary 

prohibitions 9 and 10 (taking and 

possessing, respectively, any marine 

mammal, sea turtle, or seabird) are 

duplicative of existing regulations, 

unnecessary, confusing as to whether 

the intent is to track other laws, and 

could unnecessarily prohibit certain 

fisheries in the Sanctuary. NOAA 

should add language specifically 

acknowledging take exemptions found 

in other existing authorities, including 

PFMC Fishery Management Plans. 

Response: NOAA has carefully crafted 

these regulations to be complementary 

in nature, with an area-specific focus on 

marine mammals, sea turtles, and 

seabirds in the Sanctuary, and to 

provide a different suite of penalties 

than available under other regulatory 

agencies’ authority. The regulations as 

written acknowledge take and 

possession exemptions found in the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(MBTA) or any regulation promulgated 

under the MMPA, ESA, or MBTA. 

NOAA understands that lawful fishing 

operations that are likely to take a 

marine mammal, sea turtle, or seabird 

are typically provided with exemptions 

for such take, and therefore would be 

excepted from this Sanctuary regulation. 

NOAA believes that the NMSA civil 

penalty schedule provides a valuable 

deterrent to illegal take and possession 

of these species. In addition, this 

regulation is consistent with those in 

place at the Monterey Bay, Stellwagen 

Bank, Olympic Coast, and Florida Keys 

national marine sanctuaries. 

274. Comment: Concern expressed 

about the Sanctuary’s prohibition on 

take of marine mammals, sea turtles, 

and seabirds, as it might apply to 

unintentional hooking of these animals 

while lawfully fishing. The regulation 

would impede a fisherman’s ability to 

release, remove, unhook, or untangle 

any marine mammal that is 

inadvertently caught or snagged during 

lawful fishing operations in the CINMS. 

NOAA should revise the regulation to 

provide an exception for unintentional 

hooking. NOAA should also consider if 

USFWS and CDFG regulations have 

such an exception. 

Response: NOAA understands that 

lawful fishing operations that are likely 

to take a marine mammal, sea turtle, or 

seabird are typically provided with 

exemptions for such take, and therefore 

are excepted from this regulation. 

275. Comment: NOAA should 

improve NMSP enforcement of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act with 

respect to emissions of underwater 

noise, especially now that NOAA is 

proposing to add a CINMS prohibition 

on marine mammal ‘‘take’’ within 

Sanctuary boundaries. 

Response: The NMSP does not have 

enforcement authority with regard to the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act. Should 

NOAA conclude that unauthorized take 

has occurred within the Sanctuary, 

NOAA would ensure that appropriate 

enforcement actions are taken by 

NOAA’s Office for Law Enforcement, 

the branch of NOAA charged with 

enforcing both the NMSA and MMPA. 

276. Comment: Why is NOAA only 

now proposing a regulation to prohibit 

take of a turtle or marine mammal, 

when that is one of the basic protections 

that people expect? 

Response: Take of these species has 

always been prohibited in the 

Sanctuary, and in U.S. waters in 

general, under the protections afforded 

by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 

and the Endangered Species Act. At this 

time NOAA has determined that 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3256 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

overlaying these regulations with 

Sanctuary regulations is warranted to 

provide an added civil penalty deterrent 

against such already illegal take. 

Vessel Traffic 

277. Comment: NOAA should explain 

why CINMS Designation Document 

Article IV indicates that operating a 

vessel (i.e., watercraft of any 

description) within the Sanctuary is 

subject to regulation, including 

prohibition. At an Advisory Council 

meeting CINMS staff discussed 

regulation of MPWCs, but this language 

makes it possible for the Sanctuary to 

prohibit all vessels and NOAA should 

remove it. 

Response: NOAA is not removing this 

language because since its inception, 

CINMS has had general authority to 

regulate the navigation of vessels. To 

date, NOAA has utilized this authority 

to regulate the operation of cargo vessels 

and vessels servicing offshore 

installations within one nmi of the 

Islands, and now, to regulate motorized 

personal watercraft within that same 

area. While a given activity may be 

within the Sanctuary’s scope of 

regulations, any new Sanctuary action 

(including regulation) that could 

significantly affect the environment 

(including the human environment) 

would be subject to legal requirements 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act, and Administrative 

Procedure Act, which ensure an open 

public review process regardless of the 

scope of regulations within the CINMS 

terms of designation. 

278. Comment: NOAA should 

prohibit cruise ships and industrial 

activities such as LNG and associated 

traffic within the entire Sanctuary to 

protect the Sanctuary from noise 

impacts and discharges. 

Response: At this time, NOAA’s 

primary concerns with cruise ships 

pertain to nearshore approach and waste 

discharge/deposit in the Sanctuary. The 

new CINMS regulations prohibit cruise 

ships 300 GRT or more (cruise ships are 

typically much larger than 300 GRT, 

and industry trends show increasing 

vessel sizes) from approaching within 

one nmi of the Islands, and prohibit 

them from discharging sewage and 

graywater anywhere in the Sanctuary. 

Based upon the best available 

information, NOAA has determined that 

it is not necessary to ban cruise ships 

within the entire Sanctuary at this time. 

The Sanctuary is already protected 

from industrial activities through 

regulations protecting the seabed and 

water quality, and a prohibition on 

hydrocarbon activities. The regulation 

changes add a prohibition on mineral 

activities. The International Maritime 

Organization designated the majority of 

the Sanctuary, excluding the portion 

that overlaps the Traffic Separation 

Scheme, as an Area To Be Avoided 

(ATBA). NOAA seldom observes large 

vessels within the ATBA, and as such 

has not deemed it necessary at this time 

to prohibit large vessel use beyond one 

nmi from the Islands. NOAA has been 

actively involved in commenting on 

proposed LNG projects adjacent to the 

Sanctuary. Regarding discharges from 

industrial traffic, Sanctuary regulations 

provide strong protections against 

pollution and discharges. Regarding 

noise impacts, see the response to 

comment 9. 

279. Comment: DMP Strategy CS.2— 

Comprehensive Data Management must 

include data on commercial shipping 

dynamics via the Automated 

Identification System, and CINMS staff 

must consider taking a leadership role 

in bringing this system online. 

Response: CINMS staff have taken a 

lead role in working with the Navy, U.S. 

Coast Guard, and The Marine Exchange 

of Southern California to install an AIS 

transceiver station on Santa Cruz Island 

or Anacapa Island and integrate the data 

with an AIS transceiver station on San 

Nicolas Island. Once completed, NOAA 

will work with partners to facilitate the 

distribution and management of 

incoming AIS data. For more 

information about CINMS AIS activities 

see FMP Strategy CS.8 (Automated 

Identification System (AIS) Vessel 

Tracking). 

280. Comment: On SDEIS pages five 

and seven, 6,980 and 7,000 are both 

used to present the same information 

about ship transits, but one number 

should be used consistently. 

Response: NOAA did not use two 

different numbers to present the same 

information about ship transits. One 

number presents a general statement 

about yearly ship transits through the 

Santa Barbara Channel being ‘‘nearly 

7,000,’’ while the other number presents 

a statistic about Santa Barbara Channel 

ship transits in 2006 being ‘‘an 

estimated 6,980.’’ 

281. Comment: NOAA should 

incorporate the Santa Barbara Channel 

into the Sanctuary and reroute 

commercial ship traffic west of the 

Channel Islands. 

Response: NOAA is not changing the 

CINMS boundary as part of this 

management plan review. However, 

NOAA will further analyze the 

boundary concepts in a separate 

environmental review process sometime 

in the future. 

The shipping lanes were designated 

by the International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) and any 

modification of these lanes would be 

decided by this international body, not 

unilaterally by the United States or its 

executive branch agencies such as 

NOAA. Should the United States 

determine that the placement of the 

shipping lanes warrants reconsideration 

(for example, to reduce the risk of ship 

strikes on whales), the appropriate 

federal representatives would bring this 

information to the IMO. 

Water Quality 

Water Quality—Enhanced Protection 

282. Comment: The final management 

plan and sanctuary regulations should 

make certain that the sanctuary is 

protected beyond minimum state and 

Federal pollution requirements. 

Response: Both the existing and 

modified Sanctuary regulations go 

beyond state and other federal standards 

for the prohibition of waterborne 

pollution. 

283. Comment: The EPA recommends 

the selection of NOAA’s Alternative 1, 

which provides additional protections 

for water quality, including prohibiting 

the discharge of treated sewage from 

larger vessels and the at-sea transfer of 

petroleum-based products, materials or 

other matter (‘lightering’) within 

CINMS. 

Response: Certain aspects of 

Alternative 1 are more protective to 

CINMS resources and qualities. 

However, at this time, in order to be 

consistent with the California Clean 

Coast Act, as well as with regulations 

proposed by the Monterey Bay, Cordell 

Bank, and Gulf of the Farallones 

national marine sanctuaries, NOAA is 

providing an exception for treated 

sewage discharges from oceangoing 

ships that do not have sufficient holding 

tank capacity to hold sewage while 

within the CINMS. See the FEIS for 

additional text and analysis on large 

vessel sewage discharge in the 

Sanctuary. With regard to the 

prohibition of lightering, NOAA 

maintains that such a prohibition is not 

warranted at this time (see the response 

to comment 176). Regarding Alternative 

1, see the response to comment 132. 

Water Quality—Funding 

284. Comment: $20,000 per year, as 

indicated in the DMP, will not be 

commensurate with the workload 

associated with the Water Quality 

Protection Planning Strategy. 

Response: The estimated costs for this 

strategy do not include staff time, which 

will be the principal cost of water 

quality program development. This 

strategy is focused on developing a plan 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3257 

for water quality protection, rather that 

implementation of specific tasks. 

Furthermore, as explained in the 

strategy’s background text, the NMSP’s 

West Coast Regional Office is playing a 

significant role in helping to develop a 

CINMS water quality protection plan 

(and is not reflected in estimated site 

costs for implementing this strategy). 

CINMS will continue to work to 

leverage partner resources, including 

funds, as appropriate. 

Water Quality—Incorporate SAC 

Recommendations 

285. Comment: The management plan 

should be updated to indicate that the 

CINMS Advisory Council adopted the 

water quality needs assessment report in 

2005, and that it is thus a product of the 

full Advisory Council rather than just 

the Conservation Working Group. 

Response: NOAA has updated the 

FMP to note and describe the Sanctuary 

Advisory Council’s adopted Water 

Quality Needs Assessment for the 

Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary. 

286. Comment: NOAA should 

incorporate the Advisory Council’s 

water quality report recommendations 

into the management plan. 

Response: NOAA has updated the 

FMP’s Water Quality Action Plan, 

which now refers to the Sanctuary 

Advisory Council’s 2005 report A Water 

Quality Needs Assessment for the 

Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary, and the recommendations it 

contains. NOAA will work with the 

CINMS Advisory Council, its working 

groups, and other partners to implement 

the water quality strategy in the 

management plan, and to develop a 

detailed Sanctuary water quality 

protection plan that will describe 

knowledge and management gaps and 

how they may be addressed. 

Water Quality—Other 

287. Comment: Comments support: 

CINMS’ continued efforts to address 

water quality concerns in the Sanctuary; 

the heightened attention to specific 

threats to Sanctuary water quality; the 

management plan placing a high value 

on monitoring and improving water 

quality; and the regulations providing 

needed enhancements to CINMS water 

quality protection. Support also 

expressed for evaluating and 

understanding localized and large-scale 

spatial and temporal impacts from 

oceanographic and climatic changes, 

and coastal and offshore impacts from 

human population increases. 

Response: Comment noted. 

288. Comment: The Central Coast 

Water Board implements programs that 

address many of the priority sub-issues 

identified in the DMP and welcomes the 

opportunity to work cooperatively and 

proactively with the Sanctuary on water 

quality issues. 

Response: NOAA appreciates the 

Central Coast Water Board’s support on 

Sanctuary water quality issues. 

289. Comment: The DMP/DEIS should 

incorporate a broad-based approach and 

goals of the Ocean and Coastal Water 

Quality section of the five-year strategic 

plan of the California Ocean Protection 

Council (COPC). 

Response: The CINMS Water Quality 

Action Plan provides the foundation for 

a broad based approach and outlines the 

process for developing a Sanctuary 

water quality protection plan. Sanctuary 

water quality goals will be developed as 

part of this process, and may include 

some of the goals identified in the OPC’s 

five-year strategic plan. 

290. Comment: Water quality 

conservation is one of the most critical 

issues facing Sanctuary managers in the 

coming five years and beyond. While 

the three activities and updated 

regulations proposed in Strategy WQ.2 

are a good start toward meeting this 

objective, growing threats to Sanctuary 

water quality warrant a much more 

proactive and aggressive approach by 

CINMS. 

Response: Once strategy WQ.2 is 

implemented and CINMS has a water 

quality protection plan, NOAA will 

consider the future actions it will need 

to take to best implement the activities 

identified in the plan to address threats 

to Sanctuary water quality. 

291. Comment: CINMS should 

convene a conference of Santa Barbara 

Channel-area water quality experts to 

catalyze the action planning process and 

facilitate the identification of issues that 

drive water quality action planning. 

Response: As described in the 

background to Strategy WQ.2 in the 

FMP, CINMS will consult with area 

water quality experts as part of the 

process to develop a water quality 

protection plan. 

292. Comment: The Water Quality 

Protection Planning strategy should 

explicitly assign a greater level of 

responsibility and leadership on 

initiating short term water quality 

protection to the Sanctuary managers. 

Response: The NMSP and its 

managers have a responsibility to 

address Sanctuary water quality. NMSP 

and CINMS leadership are also 

accountable to NMSP performance 

measures, one of which calls for 

sanctuaries to maintain or improve 

water quality based on long term 

monitoring data. 

293. Comment: There are way too 

many people on this coastline, the 

ocean is affected, and I’m sure it’s going 

to affect the Sanctuary. 

Response: Implementing the 

management plan’s Water Quality 

Action Plan will enable CINMS, by 

working in close coordination with 

other area water quality managers, to 

better identify and address water quality 

threats to the Sanctuary. 

294. Comment: The DMP should 

include discharges from ship accidents, 

and natural oil and gas seeps as 

important possible sources affecting 

Sanctuary water quality. 

Response: NOAA has revised the 

FMP’s Water Quality Action Plan to 

incorporate natural oil and gas seeps 

and discharges from vessel accidents in 

the discussion of possible sources of 

pollution affecting Sanctuary water 

quality. 

295. Comment: Two commenters 

indicated that they agreed with or 

supported the water quality comments 

submitted by the Sanctuary Advisory 

Council’s Conservation Working Group. 

Response: Please refer to responses to 

the Conservation Working Group’s 

comments, listed in the table at the 

beginning of the FEIS response-tocomments appendix under ‘‘Krop, 

Linda.’’ 

Water Quality—Research and 

Monitoring 

296. Comment: Commenter 

encourages continued CINMS support 

for Plumes and Blooms project and an 

assessment of its management 

implications, and continued CINMS 

support for the Southern California 

Bight Regional Monitoring surveys. 

Response: Comment noted. NOAA 

plans to continue support for these 

programs as described in the FMP. 

297. Comment: NOAA should process 

and analyze water quality samples from 

the Bight ’03 survey and the Pac 

Baroness shipwreck exploration. 

Response: ACINMS samples taken 

during the Bight ’03 survey have been 

lab processed, and the results are 

publicly available on the Web site of the 

Southern California Coastal Water 

Research Project. In addition, lab tests 

on sediment samples taken from the 

wreck site of the Pac Baroness have 

been completed and some preliminary 

analysis work was done in 2007, 

yielding no striking results. 

298. Comment: CINMS research effort 

should aim to determine the issues that 

will drive Sanctuary water quality 

action planning, and this should be 

included in the water quality 

monitoring strategy. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3258 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: CINMS staff will work with 

water quality experts and researchers, as 

appropriate, to identify and assess water 

quality issues during the process of 

developing a water quality protection 

program. These assessments will help 

set priorities for water quality research 

and monitoring efforts. 

299. Comment: Water quality 

sampling of anchorage areas within the 

Sanctuary should be continued beyond 

the current pilot phase in order to 

provide a more comprehensive picture 

of potential water quality impacts 

associated with recreational boating 

around the Channel Islands. The 

sampling should be expanded to better 

assess high-use conditions by sampling 

more often during weekends and 

holidays. In addition, the monitoring 

protocol should be adapted based on 

results from the pilot phase. The 

management plan should reflect a 

commitment to this continued 

monitoring, and specify the subsequent 

research and management steps CINMS 

staff will take based on monitoring 

results. 

Response: Monitoring of select 

anchorages and other sites within the 

Sanctuary took place in 2006, with 

Santa Barbara Channel Keeper 

performing the work under agreement 

with CINMS. In 2007, a report was 

produced by Santa Barbara Channel 

Keeper detailing the results of this 

monitoring effort. In the future, CINMS 

may continue and potentially expand 

this type of monitoring within the 

Sanctuary, as resources allow and upon 

further consideration of the efficacy of 

this approach. See activity 3 of Strategy 

WQ.1 for a description of CINMS water 

quality monitoring initiatives. 

300. Comment: The management 

plan’s Water Quality Action Plan 

Strategy WQ.1 should provide 

additional specificity to identify or at 

least propose specific measures CINMS 

staff can take to physically or 

institutionally support storm water 

plume researchers, such as with vessel 

time, lab space, human resources, etc. 

As written, the activity is too general 

with respect to existing information, 

SAC consensus, CINMS participation, 

and resource protection needs. The 

management plan should also articulate 

CINMS support for future Bight Surveys 

by first allocating specific funding to 

analyze existing samples (and organize 

that data for public availability), and 

then by planning funding and human 

resources for extensive sampling, 

processing and water quality data 

management in upcoming Bight 

Surveys. 

Response: Strategy WQ.1 now notes 

the importance of better understanding 

stormwater plumes and how they may 

affect Sanctuary water quality and living 

resources. Additional details with 

regard to specific new monitoring 

measures to be taken have not yet been 

developed, but are expected to result 

from implementation of the broader 

strategy to develop a water quality 

protection plan (WQ.2). Regarding the 

Bight ’03 survey data, all CINMS 

samples taken during that project have 

been lab processed, and the results are 

publicly available on the Web site of the 

Southern California Coastal Water 

Research Project. Furthermore, as the 

Water Quality Action Plan states, 

CINMS intends to continue support for 

future Bight Surveys. 

301. Comment: NOAA should provide 

for systematic monitoring of 

anthropogenic marine debris. 

Response: Marine debris is included 

in the description of water quality 

issues to be addressed through the 

Water Quality Action Plan, and NOAA 

may consider the suggestion of a 

systematic monitoring program for 

marine debris during the water quality 

protection planning process. 

302. Comment: The Matilija Dam 

(Ventura County) is scheduled to be 

removed, potentially impacting CINMS 

resources through increased 

sedimentation. Monitoring should be 

implemented to understand the impact 

of this dam removal. 

Response: The Matilija Dam is 

scheduled to be gradually removed 

starting in 2012. According to recent 

environmental assessments of dam 

removal, short term sediment 

stabilization will result in 

approximately 30% increase in coarse 

(sand and bigger) sediment at the 

associated beach over 50 years, which 

will be released gradually over 20–30 

years, depending upon climate and 

hydrology. Fine sediments removed 

from the reservoir will be slurried 

downstream and placed within the 100 

year floodplain. There is an estimate of 

potential increase in fine sediment 

plume from the river, but quantitatively 

this will be insignificant since the dam 

currently passes 100% of the fine 

sediment. At this time, NOAA will rely 

on the relevant federal and state 

authorities to monitor and report on 

increased sedimentation from dam 

removal, while also continuing to 

support related water quality, sediment 

and plume studies (see the response to 

comment 300). 

Water Quality—Specify Plans in More 

Detail 

303. Comment: The management plan 

needs more specificity regarding 

corrective actions for managing water 

quality impacts in the Sanctuary. The 

Water Quality Action Plan is relying 

almost entirely on a long-term 

bureaucratic process subject to 

Congressional funding, and the success 

or failure of Staff recruitment at the 

NMSP’s regional level. This is 

particularly troubling given the array of 

documented water quality threats facing 

Channel Islands today, and the suite of 

relatively low-cost, actionable water 

quality conservation recommendations 

delivered from the Advisory Council to 

the Sanctuary Superintendent in 2005. 

Response: The Water Quality Action 

Plan describes a future process that will 

build on the best available information, 

engage stakeholders and experts, 

identify and prioritize gaps in Sanctuary 

water quality protection, and propose 

management actions to address threats. 

NOAA understands that there are 

known issues and many specific 

recommendations that have been put 

forth by various individuals and the 

Sanctuary Advisory Council, and 

intends to build on those ideas. CINMS 

staff have added recent information to 

the Water Quality Action Plan, drawing 

on documents such as the water quality 

needs assessment endorsed by the 

Sanctuary Advisory Council. At this 

time, however, full details of what the 

water quality protection program would 

entail have not yet been decided upon, 

and will be determined through the 

process described in the Water Quality 

Action Plan. 

Water Quality—Staffing 

304. Comment: NOAA should 

expeditiously hire a new West Coast 

Region Water Quality Coordinator. 

Response: The hiring of a regional 

water quality coordinator or other 

positions related to CINMS water 

quality protection planning will be 

considered as appropriate, and as 

resources allow. NOAA recognizes that 

resource limitations as well as the 

necessary program and partner 

developments may limit 

implementation of all of the activities in 

the various action plans. NOAA will 

continue to work with the Department 

of Commerce, Office of Management 

and Budget, and Congress in developing 

supporting justifications when 

preparing budget submissions. 

305. Comment: NOAA should 

consider creating a water quality 

specialist position at CINMS. 

Response: As CINMS water quality 

protection program continues to evolve, 

NOAA will consider a new staff 

position. Any new position would, 

however, be contingent upon the 

availability of resources and the staffing 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3259 

needs required for addressing identified 

issues and actions. 

Water Quality—Watershed Approach 

306. Comment: Given that land-based 

activities can have a dramatic effect on 

water quality, the Sanctuary should take 

a watershed approach in coordination 

with other agencies and groups involved 

in water quality management. 

Response: A watershed approach and 

coordination with other agencies is 

important when addressing CINMS 

water quality issues. NOAA will work 

in close collaboration with area water 

quality partners in the development of 

the CINMS water quality protection 

plan, and will consider the task force 

suggestion. 

Water Quality—Working Group 

307. Comment: The management plan 

should establish a Water Quality 

Working Group within the SAC. Any 

Water Quality Protection Program the 

working group develops should be 

similar to that at the Monterey Bay 

National Marine Sanctuary. 

Response: CINMS staff and Advisory 

Council members have been discussing 

the potential formation of a Water 

Quality Working Group for several 

years. As CINMS implements Strategy 

WQ.2, staff will revisit this idea with 

the Advisory Council. Process 

approaches, such as the possible 

formation of a Working Group, will be 

defined at that point. Stakeholder and 

expert participation is a hallmark of the 

Sanctuary’s management approach, and 

will be part of the overall process to 

develop a water quality protection 

program. As Strategy WQ.2 notes, 

CINMS will use, to the extent 

appropriate, the existing Monterey Bay 

National Marine Sanctuary Water 

Quality Protection Program as a model. 

V. Changes From the Proposed Rule 

NOAA published a proposed rule for 

this action on May 19, 2006 (71 FR 

29096). This final rule incorporates 

changes to the 2006 proposed rule based 

on comments received during the 2006 

public comment period, comments 

received during the 2008 public 

comment period (regarding large vessel 

sewage and graywater discharge), and 

NOAA’s subsequent analysis. 

Between May and July of 2006, NOAA 

received public comment and held two 

hearings on the proposed rule and 

associated DEIS. Between March and 

May 2008, NOAA received public 

comment on a supplemental proposed 

rule for discharges/deposits from within 

or into the Sanctuary and associated 

supplemental DEIS (SDEIS). NOAA 

received over 700 comments on the 

DEIS, SDEIS, and proposed rules. 

Regulation changes between the 

proposed and final rules include the 

following: 

• Discharge and deposit regulation: 

Modified graywater exception applies to 

vessels less than 300 gross registered 

tons (GRT), and oceangoing ships 300 

GRT or more without sufficient holding 

tank capacity to hold graywater while 

within the CINMS. 

• Discharge and deposit regulation: 

Modified treated sewage exception 

applies to vessels less than 300 GRT, as 

well as to oceangoing ships without 

sufficient holding tank capacity to hold 

treated sewage while within the 

Sanctuary. 

• Added definitions for ‘‘cruise ship,’’ 

‘‘oceangoing ship,’’ and ‘‘graywater’’. 

• Discharge and deposit regulation: 

Modified the exception for fish, fish 

parts and chumming materials to clarify 

that it applies to the lawful practice of 

discarding fish scraps used in or 

resulting from lawful fishing. 

• Removed the proposed outer 

boundary coordinate corrections, and 

removed the proposed corrections to the 

legal description of the Sanctuary area 

based on recalculations of the 

Sanctuary’s size. 

As NOAA explained in the March 

2008 proposed rule and SDEIS, after 

receiving comments on the 2006 

proposed rule and DEIS, NOAA 

modified the Sanctuary’s proposed 

discharge regulation to better address 

potential impacts of sewage and 

graywater discharges from large vessels. 

In addition, based on comments 

received on the 2008 proposed rule and 

SDEIS, NOAA further modified the 

discharge regulation as it pertains to 

treated sewage discharges from large 

vessels. The final rule’s discharge 

regulation provides that the exception 

for treated sewage is applicable to small 

vessels (less than 300 GRT), as well as 

to oceangoing ships (defined in the 

regulations as private, commercial, 

government, or military vessels of 300 

gross registered tons or more, not 

including cruise ships) without 

sufficient holding tank capacity to hold 

sewage while within the Sanctuary. The 

final rule’s discharge regulation as it 

pertains to graywater provides that the 

exception for graywater is only 

applicable to small vessels (less than 

300 GRT), and to oceangoing ships 

without sufficient holding tank capacity 

to hold graywater while within the 

Sanctuary. 

In 2007, NOAA made technical 

corrections to the CINMS boundary 

coordinates, re-calculated the original 

CINMS area as approximately 1,113 

square nautical miles (72 FR 29208), 

and increased the Sanctuary area by 

approximately 15 square nautical miles 

to allow the boundary of four marine 

reserves to be defined by straight lines 

projecting outside the original CINMS 

boundary, allowing for better 

enforcement of the marine reserves. 

This change did not constitute a 

significant change in the geographic 

area of the Sanctuary (other than the 

approximately 15 square nautical miles 

referred to above) but rather an 

improvement in the estimate of its size. 

NOAA originally intended to make 

technical corrections to the Sanctuary 

boundary coordinates and re-calculate 

the CINMS area (provided at 15 CFR 

922.70) as part of this rule. However, 

since NOAA made the technical 

corrections to Sanctuary boundary 

coordinates and re-calculated the 

CINMS area in 2007 as part of the FEIS 

and final rule to establish marine 

reserves and conservation areas within 

the Sanctuary, these aspects of 

clarifying the Sanctuary boundary 

description are reflected in, but not 

established by this final rule. 

VI. Miscellaneous Rulemaking 

Requirements 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

Section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA (16 

U.S.C. 1434(a)(4)) requires that the 

procedures specified in section 304 for 

designating a National Marine 

Sanctuary be followed in modifying any 

term of designation. Because this action 

revises the terms of designation, NOAA 

must comply with the requirements of 

section 304(a)(5). All requirements have 

been completed. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

When changing a term of designation 

of a National Marine Sanctuary, section 

304 of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 

1434(a)(2)(A)) requires the preparation 

of an environmental impact statement 

(EIS), as defined by the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and that the draft 

EIS be made available to the public. 

NOAA prepared a draft EIS (DEIS) and 

supplemental DEIS (SDEIS) on the 

proposal, and copies are available at the 

address and Web site listed in the 

Address section of this final rule. 

Responses to comments received on the 

DEIS, SDEIS and proposed rule were 

published in the final EIS and are also 

provided in this final rule. 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

The California Coastal Commission 

has concurred that this action is 

consistent to the maximum extent 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3260 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

practicable with the California Coastal 

Management Program. 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Impact 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant within the meaning of 

Executive Order 12866. 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Assessment 

NOAA has concluded that this 

regulatory action does not have 

federalism implications, as that term is 

defined in Executive Order 13132, to 

warrant preparation of a federalism 

assessment. Through the course of the 

development of the management plan 

and regulatory changes NOAA 

consulted with members of the 

Sanctuary Advisory Council, the 

California Resources Agency, California 

Department of Fish and Game, and the 

California Coastal Commission, 

California Department of Boating and 

Waterways, California Department of 

Fish and Game, California State Lands 

Commission, and California Resources 

Agency. Also, in 2003, NOAA consulted 

in writing with the above mentioned 

state agencies in addition to: The Office 

of the Governor of California, the 

California Department of Parks and 

Recreation, the California Department of 

Water Resources, the California 

Department of Conservation, the 

California Environmental Protection 

Agency, the California State Water 

Resources Control Board, and the 

California Assembly Committee on 

Natural Resources. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce certified 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration that the 

proposed rule, if adopted, would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The factual basis for this certification 

appears in the proposed rule and is not 

repeated here. There were no comments 

received on the certification, and 

comments related to the economic 

impacts of this rule do not change the 

basis of the certification. As a result, a 

final regulatory flexibility analysis was 

not required and none was prepared. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain any new 

information collection requirements or 

revisions to the existing information 

collection requirement that was 

approved by OMB (OMB Control 

Number 0648–0141) under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

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 Paperwork 

Reduction Act, unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

References 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available upon request (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Dated: January 9, 2009. 

Christopher Cartwright, 

Associate Assistant Administrator for 

Management and CFO/CAO, Ocean Services 

and Coastal Zone Management. 

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. 

■ Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

above, 15 CFR part 922 is amended 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. Sections 922.70 through 992.74 are 

revised to read as follows: 

Sec. 

922.70 Boundary. 

922.71 Definitions. 

922.72 Prohibited or otherwise regulated 

activities—Sanctuary-wide. 

922.73 Additional prohibited or otherwise 

regulated activities—marine reserves and 

marine conservation area. 

922.74 Permit procedures and issuance 

criteria. 

§ 922.70 Boundary. 

The Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary (Sanctuary) consists of an 

area of approximately 1,110 square 

nautical miles (nmi) of coastal and 

ocean waters, and the submerged lands 

thereunder, off the southern coast of 

California. The Sanctuary boundary 

begins at the Mean High Water Line of 

and extends seaward to a distance of 

approximately six nmi from the 

following islands and offshore rocks: 

San Miguel Island, Santa Cruz Island, 

Santa Rosa Island, Anacapa Island, 

Santa Barbara Island, Richardson Rock, 

and Castle Rock (the Islands). The 

seaward boundary coordinates are listed 

in Appendix A to this subpart. 

§ 922.71 Definitions. 

In addition to those definitions found 

at 15 CFR 922.3, the following 

definitions apply to this subpart: 

Cruise ship means a vessel with 250 

or more passenger berths for hire. 

Graywater means galley, bath, or 

shower water. 

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, usually less than 16 feet in 

length, which uses an inboard, internal 

combustion engine powering a water jet 

pump as its primary source of 

propulsion. The vessel is intended to be 

operated by a person or persons sitting, 

standing or kneeling on the vessel, 

rather than within the confines of the 

hull. The length is measured from end 

to end over the deck excluding sheer, 

meaning a straight line measurement of 

the overall length from the foremost part 

of the vessel to the aftermost part of the 

vessel, measured parallel to the 

centerline. Bow sprits, bumpkins, 

rudders, outboard motor brackets, and 

similar fittings or attachments, are not 

included in the measurement. Length is 

stated in feet and inches. 

Oceangoing ship means a private, 

commercial, government, or military 

vessel of 300 gross registered tons or 

more, not including cruise ships. 

Pelagic finfish are defined as: 

Northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), 

barracudas (Sphyraena spp.), billfishes 

(family Istiophoridae), dolphinfish 

(Coryphaena hippurus), Pacific herring 

(Clupea pallasi), jack mackerel 

(Trachurus symmetricus), Pacific 

mackerel (Scomber japonicus), salmon 

(Oncorhynchus spp.), Pacific sardine 

(Sardinops sagax), blue shark (Prionace 

glauca), salmon shark (Lamna ditropis), 

shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus), 

thresher sharks (Alopias spp.), 

swordfish (Xiphias gladius), tunas 

(family Scombridae), and yellowtail 

(Seriola lalandi). 

Stowed and not available for 

immediate use means not readily 

accessible for immediate use, e.g., by 

being securely covered and lashed to a 

deck or bulkhead, tied down, unbaited, 

unloaded, or partially disassembled 

(such as spear shafts being kept separate 

from spear guns). 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3261 

§ 922.72 Prohibited or otherwise regulated 

activities—Sanctuary-wide. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraphs 

(b) through (e) of this section, the 

following activities are prohibited and 

thus unlawful for any person to conduct 

or cause to be conducted: 

(1) Exploring for, developing, or 

producing hydrocarbons within the 

Sanctuary, except pursuant to leases 

executed prior to March 30, 1981, and 

except the laying of pipeline pursuant to 

exploring for, developing, or producing 

hydrocarbons. 

(2) Exploring for, developing, or 

producing minerals within the 

Sanctuary, except producing byproducts incidental to hydrocarbon 

production allowed by paragraph (a)(1) 

of this section. 

(3)(i) Discharging or depositing from 

within or into the Sanctuary any 

material or other matter except: 

(A) Fish, fish parts, or chumming 

materials (bait) used in or resulting from 

lawful fishing activity 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 an oceangoing 

ship without sufficient holding tank 

capacity to hold sewage while within 

the Sanctuary, biodegradable effluent 

generated incidental to vessel use by an 

operable Type I or II marine sanitation 

device (U.S. Coast Guard classification) 

approved in accordance with section 

312 of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act, as amended, (FWPCA), 33 

U.S.C. 1321 et seq. Vessel operators 

must lock all marine sanitation devices 

in a manner that prevents discharge or 

deposit of untreated sewage; 

(C) Biodegradable matter from: 

(1) Vessel deck wash down; 

(2) Vessel engine cooling water; 

(3) Graywater from a vessel less than 

300 gross registered tons; 

(4) Graywater from an oceangoing 

ship without sufficient holding tank 

capacity to hold graywater while within 

the Sanctuary; 

(D) Vessel engine or generator 

exhaust; 

(E) Effluent routinely and necessarily 

discharged or deposited incidental to 

hydrocarbon exploration, development, 

or production allowed by paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section; or 

(F) Discharge allowed under section 

312(n) of the FWPCA. 

(ii) 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 those listed in paragraphs 

(a)(3)(i)(B) through (F) of this section 

and fish, fish parts, or chumming 

materials (bait) used in or resulting from 

lawful fishing activity beyond the 

boundary of the Sanctuary, provided 

that such discharge or deposit is during 

the conduct of lawful fishing activity 

there. 

(4) Drilling into, dredging, or 

otherwise altering the submerged lands 

of the Sanctuary; or constructing or 

placing any structure, material, or other 

matter on or in the submerged lands of 

the Sanctuary, except as incidental to 

and necessary to: 

(i) Anchor a vessel; 

(ii) Install an authorized navigational 

aid; 

(iii) Conduct lawful fishing activity; 

(iv) Lay pipeline pursuant to 

exploring for, developing, or producing 

hydrocarbons; or 

(v) Explore for, develop, or produce 

hydrocarbons as allowed by paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section. 

(5) Abandoning any structure, 

material, or other matter on or in the 

submerged lands of the Sanctuary. 

(6) Except to transport persons or 

supplies to or from any Island, operating 

within one nmi of any Island any vessel 

engaged in the trade of carrying cargo, 

including, but not limited to, tankers 

and other bulk carriers and barges, any 

vessel engaged in the trade of servicing 

offshore installations, or any vessel of 

three hundred gross registered tons or 

more, except fishing or kelp harvesting 

vessels. 

(7) Disturbing a seabird or marine 

mammal by flying a motorized aircraft 

at less than 1,000 feet over the waters 

within one nmi of any Island, except (if 

allowed under paragraph (a)(9) of this 

section): 

(i) To engage in kelp bed surveys; or 

(ii) to transport persons or supplies to 

or from an Island. 

(8) Moving, removing, injuring, or 

possessing, or attempting to move, 

remove, injure, or possess a Sanctuary 

historical resource. 

(9) Taking any marine mammal, sea 

turtle, or seabird 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. 

(10) Possessing within the Sanctuary 

(regardless of where taken from, moved, 

or removed from) any marine mammal, 

sea turtle, or seabird, except as 

authorized by the MMPA, ESA, MBTA, 

or any regulation, as amended, 

promulgated under the MMPA, ESA, or 

MBTA. 

(11) Marking, defacing, damaging, 

moving, removing, or tampering with 

any sign, notice, or placard, whether 

temporary or permanent, or any 

monument, stake, post, or other 

boundary marker related to the 

Sanctuary. 

(12) Introducing or otherwise 

releasing from within or into the 

Sanctuary an introduced species, except 

striped bass (Morone saxatilis) released 

during catch and release fishing activity. 

(13) Operating a motorized personal 

watercraft within waters of the 

Sanctuary that are coextensive with the 

Channel Islands National Park, 

established by 16 U.S.C. 410(ff). 

(b)(1) The prohibitions in paragraphs 

(a)(3) through (13) of this section and in 

§ 922.73 do not apply to military 

activities carried out by DOD as of the 

effective date of these regulations and 

specifically identified in section 3.5.9 

(Department of Defense Activities) of 

the Final Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary Management Plan/ 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FMP/FEIS), Volume II: Environmental 

Impact Statement, 2008, authored and 

published by NOAA (‘‘pre-existing 

activities’’). Copies of the document are 

available from the Channel Islands 

National Marine Sanctuary, 113 Harbor 

Way, Santa Barbara, CA 93109. Other 

military activities carried out by DOD 

may be exempted by the Director after 

consultation between the Director and 

DOD. 

(2) A military activity carried out by 

DOD as of the effective date of these 

regulations and specifically identified in 

the section entitled ‘‘Department of 

Defense Activities’’ of the FMP/FEIS is 

not considered a pre-existing activity if: 

(i) It is modified in such a way that 

requires the preparation of an 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement under 

the National Environmental Policy Act, 

42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., relevant to a 

Sanctuary resource or quality; 

(ii) It is modified, including but not 

limited to changes in location or 

frequency, in such a way that its 

possible adverse effects on Sanctuary 

resources or qualities are significantly 

greater than previously considered for 

the unmodified activity; 

(iii) It is modified, including but not 

limited to changes in location or 

frequency, in such a way that its 

possible adverse effects on Sanctuary 

resources or qualities are significantly 

different in manner than previously 

considered for the unmodified activity; 

or 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4
3262 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(iv) There are new circumstances or 

information relevant to a Sanctuary 

resource or quality that were not 

addressed in the FMP/FEIS. 

(3) In the event of destruction of, loss 

of, or injury to a Sanctuary resource or 

quality resulting from an incident, 

including, but not limited to, 

discharges, deposits, and groundings, 

caused by a DOD activity, DOD, in 

coordination with the Director, must 

promptly prevent and mitigate further 

damage and must restore or replace the 

Sanctuary resource or quality in a 

manner approved by the Director. 

(4) All DOD activities must be carried 

out in a manner that avoids to the 

maximum extent practicable any 

adverse impacts on Sanctuary resources 

and qualities. 

(c) The prohibitions in paragraphs 

(a)(3) through (10), (a)(12), and (a)(13) of 

this section and in § 922.73 do not apply 

to any activity conducted under and in 

accordance with the scope, purpose, 

terms, and conditions of a National 

Marine Sanctuary permit issued 

pursuant to 15 CFR 922.48 and 922.74. 

(d) The prohibitions in paragraphs 

(a)(3) through (11) and (a)(13) of this 

section and in § 922.73 do not apply to 

any activity necessary to respond to an 

emergency threatening life, property, or 

the environment. 

(e) The prohibitions in paragraphs 

(a)(3) through (11) and (a)(13) of this 

section and in § 922.73 do not apply to 

any activity necessary for valid law 

enforcement purposes in the Sanctuary. 

§ 922.73 Additional prohibited or 

otherwise regulated activities—marine 

reserves and marine conservation area. 

(a) Marine reserves. Unless prohibited 

by 50 CFR part 660 (Fisheries off West 

Coast States), the following activities are 

prohibited and thus unlawful for any 

person to conduct or cause to be 

conducted within a marine reserve 

described in Appendix B to this subpart, 

except as specified in paragraphs (b) 

through (e) of § 922.72: 

(1) Harvesting, removing, taking, 

injuring, destroying, collecting, moving, 

or causing the loss of any Sanctuary 

resource, or attempting any of these 

activities. 

(2) Possessing fishing gear on board a 

vessel unless such gear is stowed and 

not available for immediate use. 

(3) Possessing any Sanctuary resource, 

except legally harvested fish on board a 

vessel at anchor or in transit. 

(b) Marine conservation area. Unless 

prohibited by 50 CFR part 660 (Fisheries 

off West Coast States), the following 

activities are prohibited and thus 

unlawful for any person to conduct or 

cause to be conducted within the 

marine conservation area described in 

Appendix C to this subpart, except as 

specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) 

of § 922.72: 

(1) Harvesting, removing, taking, 

injuring, destroying, collecting, moving, 

or causing the loss of any Sanctuary 

resource, or attempting any of these 

activities, except: 

(i) Recreational fishing for pelagic 

finfish; or 

(ii) Commercial and recreational 

fishing for lobster. 

(2) Possessing fishing gear on board a 

vessel, except legal fishing gear used to 

fish for lobster or pelagic finfish, unless 

such gear is stowed and not available for 

immediate use. 

(3) Possessing any Sanctuary resource, 

except legally harvested fish. 

§ 922.74 Permit procedures and issuance 

criteria. 

(a) A person may conduct an activity 

prohibited by § 922.72(a)(3) through 

(10), (a)(12), and (a)(13), and § 922.73, 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 sole 

discretion, may issue a permit, subject 

to terms and conditions as he or she 

deems appropriate, to conduct an 

activity prohibited by § 922.72(a)(3) 

through (10), (a)(12), and (a)(13), and 

§ 922.73, if the Director finds that the 

activity: 

(1) Is appropriate research designed to 

further understanding of Sanctuary 

resources and qualities; 

(2) Will further the educational value 

of the Sanctuary; 

(3) Will further salvage or recovery 

operations in or near the Sanctuary in 

connection with a recent air or marine 

casualty; 

(4) Will assist in managing the 

Sanctuary; or 

(5) Will further salvage or recovery 

operations in connection with an 

abandoned shipwreck in the Sanctuary 

title to which is held by the State of 

California. 

(c) The Director may not issue a 

permit under § 922.48 and this section 

unless the Director also finds that: 

(1) The proposed activity will have at 

most short-term and negligible adverse 

effects on Sanctuary resources and 

qualities; 

(2) The applicant is professionally 

qualified to conduct and complete the 

proposed activity; 

(3) The applicant has adequate 

financial resources available to conduct 

and complete the proposed activity; 

(4) The duration of the proposed 

activity is no longer than necessary to 

achieve its stated purpose; 

(5) 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; 

(6) 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; 

(7) The proposed activity will be 

conducted in a manner compatible with 

the value of the Sanctuary as a source 

of recreation and as a source of 

educational and scientific information, 

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; 

(8) It is necessary to conduct the 

proposed activity within the Sanctuary; 

(9) The reasonably expected end value 

of the proposed activity furthers 

Sanctuary goals and purposes and 

outweighs any potential adverse effects 

on Sanctuary resources and qualities 

from the conduct of the activity; and 

(10) Any other matters the Director 

deems appropriate do not make the 

issuance of a permit for the proposed 

activity inappropriate. 

(d) Applications. (1) Applications for 

permits should be addressed to the 

Director, Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries; ATTN: Manager, Channel 

Islands National Marine Sanctuary, 113 

Harbor Way, Santa Barbara, CA 93109. 

(2) In addition to the information 

listed in § 922.48(b), all applications 

must include information the Director 

needs to make the findings in 

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. 

(e) In addition to any other terms and 

conditions that the Director deems 

appropriate, a permit issued pursuant to 

this section must require that the 

permittee agree to hold the United 

States harmless against any claims 

arising out of the conduct of the 

permitted activities. 

[FR Doc. E9–652 Filed 1–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES4