Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Notices 18551 

seasons have been closed before the 

fishery quotas have been reached to 

prevent the fishery from reaching the 

halibut PSC limit. Reducing halibut 

mortality and assuring that each halibut 

returned to the sea has the highest 

possible chance of survival are therefore 

high priorities for the IPHC’s, the 

Council’s, and NMFS’s management 

goals for both halibut and groundfish. 

Before halibut are returned to the sea, 

the catch of halibut as well as other 

groundfish must first be estimated by 

at–sea observers. A number of 

regulations assure that observer 

estimates of halibut and groundfish 

catch are credible, accurate, and without 

bias. For example, NMFS requires that 

all catch be made available for sampling 

by an observer; prohibits tampering 

with observer samples; prohibits 

removal of halibut from a codend, bin, 

or conveyance system prior to being 

observed and counted by an at–sea 

observer; and prohibits fish (including 

halibut) from remaining on deck unless 

an observer is present. 

With the implementation of 

Amendment 80 to the FMP on 

September 14, 2007 (72 FR 52668), 

allocation of halibut PSC amounts was 

modified for vessels in the Amendment 

80 sector, but halibut mortality 

continued to limit fishing in some 

fisheries. The Amendment 80 sector 

received an initial allocation of 2,525 

metric tons (mt) of halibut PSC in 2008, 

but that allocation will decrease by 50 

mt per year until it reaches 2,325 mt in 

2012 and subsequent years. This 

amount is further allocated between the 

BUC and the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery. In certain years, the 

amount of halibut PSC allocated to the 

Amendment 80 sector is less than the 

sector’s historic catch; therefore, finding 

ways to continue to reduce halibut 

mortality is important for this sector. 

The EFP applicant proposes to assess 

various fishing practices and their effect 

on halibut survival. It would allow 

researchers onboard the three catcher 

processor vessels to sort halibut 

removed from a codend on the deck of 

the vessel and release those fish back to 

the water after determining the physical 

condition of the halibut using standard 

IPHC viability methods for predicting 

mortality of individual fish. 

Fishing under the EFP would occur in 

two phases during 2009. In May and 

June, Phase I fishing would allow 

sorting of halibut on deck to determine 

practices for reducing halibut mortality. 

Later in the year, Phase II would apply 

the halibut mortality saved in Phase I to 

allow additional EFP catch of 

groundfish and halibut within the 

BUC’s allocation. 

This proposed action would exempt 

the participating vessels from the 

following: 

1. The prohibition on biasing the 

sampling procedure employed by an 

observer through sorting of catch before 

sampling at § 679.7(g)(2); 

2. A requirement to weigh all catch by 

an Amendment 80 vessel on a NMFS– 

approved scale at § 679.27(j)(5)(ii); 

3. A requirement for all catch to be 

made available for sampling at 

§ 679.93(c)(1); and 

4. The requirement for halibut to not 

be allowed on deck without an observer 

present at § 679.93(c)(5). 

The BUC would not be allowed to 

exceed the 2009 Amendment 80 

cooperative apportionment of halibut 

mortality of (1,793 mt). In the event that 

the amount of halibut mortality savings 

estimated under this EFP shows less 

mortality than the amount estimated 

using standard 2009 halibut discard 

mortality rates established for the Bering 

Sea trawl fisheries (February 17, 2009, 

74 FR 7333), BUC may be allowed to 

continue fishing for groundfish species 

later in the year, with some limitations. 

The BUC would be required to submit 

a report to NMFS and the IPHC of the 

estimated halibut mortality saved 

during the Phase I. After review and 

approval by NMFS, the BUC may be 

allowed to do subsequent EFP fishing 

later in the year as Phase II fishing 

under the EFP. The BUC would be 

limited to no more than the BUC’s 

Amendment 80 groundfish allocation. 

The additional amount of halibut caught 

would not exceed the amount of the 

halibut mortality savings under the EFP, 

or BUC’s 2009 allocation of halibut PSC. 

This EFP would apply for the period 

of time required to complete the 

experiment in Phase I and potentially in 

subsequent fishing in Phase II, during 

2009, in areas of the BSAI open to 

directed fishing by the BUC. The EFP 

activities would be of limited scope and 

duration and would not be expected to 

change the nature or duration of the 

groundfish fishery, fishing practices or 

gear used, or the amount or species of 

fish caught by the BUC. 

The activities that would be 

conducted under this EFP are not 

expected to have a significant impact on 

the human environment as detailed in 

the categorical exclusion issued for this 

action (see ADDRESSES). 

In accordance with § 679.6, NMFS has 

determined that the proposal warrants 

further consideration and has forwarded 

the application to the Council to initiate 

consultation. The Council considered 

the EFP application during its April 

2009 meeting. 

Public Comments 

Public comments are being solicited 

on the application through the end of 

the comment period stated in this 

notice. To be considered, comments 

must be received by close of business on 

the last day of the comment period; that 

does not mean postmarked or otherwise 

transmitted by that date. Copies of the 

application and categorical exclusion 

are available for review from NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: April 17, 2009. 

Kristen C. Koch, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–9343 Filed 4–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

List of National System Marine 

Protected Areas 

AGENCY: NOAA, Department of 

Commerce (DOC). 

ACTION: Notice of availability of the List 

of National System Marine Protected 

Areas (MPAs) and response to 

comments on nominations of existing 

MPAs to the national system. 

SUMMARY: NOAA and the Department of 

the Interior (DOI) invited federal, state, 

commonwealth, and territorial MPA 

programs with potentially eligible 

existing MPAs to nominate their sites to 

the national system of MPAs (national 

system). A total of 225 nominations 

were received. Following a 30-day 

public review period, 26 public 

comments were received by the 

National Marine Protected Areas Center 

and forwarded to the relevant managing 

agencies. After review of the public 

comments, managing agencies were 

asked to make a final determination of 

sites to nominate to the national system. 

All the nominations were confirmed by 

the managing agencies. Finding them to 

be eligible for the national system, the 

National Marine Protected Areas Center 

has accepted the nominations for 225 

sites and placed them on the List of 

National System MPAs. 

The national system and the 

nomination process are described in the 

Framework for the National System of 

Marine Protected Areas of the United 

States of America (Framework), 

developed in response to Executive 

Order 13158 on Marine Protected Areas. 

The final Framework was published on 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
18552 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Notices 

November 19, 2008, and provides 

guidance for collaborative efforts among 

Federal, State, commonwealth, 

territorial, tribal and local governments 

and stakeholders to develop an effective 

and well coordinated national system 

that includes existing MPAs meeting 

national system criteria as well as new 

sites that may be established by 

managing agencies to fill key 

conservation gaps in important ocean 

areas. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lauren Wenzel, NOAA, at 301–713– 

3100, ext. 136 or via e-mail at 

mpa.comments@noaa.gov. A more 

detailed electronic copy of the List of 

National System MPAs is available for 

download at http://www.mpa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background on National System 

The national system of MPAs 

includes member MPA sites, networks 

and systems established and managed 

by Federal, State, Territorial, Tribal and/ 

or local governments that collectively 

enhance conservation of the nation’s 

natural and cultural marine heritage and 

represent its diverse ecosystems and 

resources. Although participating sites 

continue to be managed independently, 

national system MPAs also work 

together at the regional and national 

levels to achieve common objectives for 

conserving the nation’s important 

natural and cultural resources, with 

emphasis on achieving the priority 

conservation objectives of the 

Framework. MPAs include sites with a 

wide range of protection, from multiple 

use areas to no take reserves where all 

extractive uses are prohibited. The term 

MPA refers only to the marine portion 

of a site (below the mean high tide 

mark) that may include both terrestrial 

and marine components. 

Benefits of joining the national 

system, which are expected to increase 

over time as the system matures, 

include a facilitated means to work with 

other MPAs in the MPA’s region, and 

nationally on issues of common 

conservation concern; fostering greater 

public and international recognition of 

MPAs and the resources they protect; 

priority in the receipt of available 

technical and other support for crosscutting needs; and the opportunity to 

influence Federal and regional ocean 

conservation and management 

initiatives (such as integrated ocean 

observing systems, systematic 

monitoring and evaluation, targeted 

outreach to key user groups, and 

helping to identify and address MPA 

research needs). In addition, the 

national system provides a forum for 

coordinated regional planning about 

place-based conservation priorities that 

does not otherwise exist. 

Joining the national system does not 

restrict or require changes affecting the 

designation process or management of 

member MPAs. It does not bring State, 

Territorial, Tribal or local sites under 

Federal authority. It does not establish 

new regulatory authority or revise 

existing regulatory authority. The 

national system is a mechanism to foster 

greater collaboration among 

participating MPA sites and programs in 

order to enhance stewardship in the 

waters of the United States. 

Nomination Process 

The Framework describes two major 

focal areas for building the national 

system of MPAs—a nomination process 

to allow existing MPAs that meet the 

entry criteria to become part of the 

system and a collaborative regional gap 

analysis process to identify areas of 

significance for natural or cultural 

resources that may merit additional 

protection through existing Federal, 

State, commonwealth, territorial, tribal 

or local MPA authorities. The initial 

nomination process for the national 

system began on November 25, 2008, 

when the National Marine Protected 

Areas Center (MPA Center) sent a letter 

to federal, state, commonwealth, and 

territorial MPA programs inviting them 

to submit nominations of eligible MPAs 

to the national system. The initial 

deadline for nominations was January 

31, 2009; this was extended to February 

13, 2009. A public comment period was 

held from March 6, 2009 through April 

6, 2009. 

There are three entry criteria for 

existing MPAs to join the national 

system, plus a fourth for cultural 

heritage. Sites that meet all pertinent 

criteria are eligible for the national 

system. 

1. Meets the definition of an MPA as 

defined in the Framework. 

2. Has a management plan (can be 

site-specific or part of a broader 

programmatic management plan; must 

have goals and objectives and call for 

monitoring or evaluation of those goals 

and objectives). 

3. Contributes to at least one priority 

conservation objective as listed in the 

Framework. 

4. Cultural heritage MPAs must also 

conform to criteria for the National 

Register for Historic Places. 

Additional sites not currently meeting 

the management plan criterion can be 

evaluated for eligibility to be nominated 

to the system on a case-by-case basis 

based on their ability to fill gaps in the 

national system coverage of the priority 

conservation objectives and design 

principles described in the Framework. 

The MPA Center used existing 

information in the MPA Inventory to 

determine which MPAs meet the first 

and second criteria. The inventory is 

online at http://www.mpa.gov/ 

helpful_resources/inventory.html, and 

potentially eligible sites are posted 

online at http://mpa.gov/pdf/nationalsystem/allsitesumsheet120408.pdf. As 

part of the nomination process, the 

managing entity for each potentially 

eligible site is asked to provide 

information on the third and fourth 

criteria. 

List of National System MPAs 

The following MPAs have been 

nominated by their managing programs 

to join the national system of MPAs. A 

list providing more detail for each site 

is available at http://www.mpa.gov. 

Federal Marine Protected Areas 

Marine National Monument 

Papaha ̄naumokua ̄kea Marine National 

Monument (Hawaii) 

National Marine Sanctuaries 

Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary (California) 

Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary 

(California) 

Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

(American Samoa) 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

(Florida) 

Flower Garden Banks National Marine 

Sanctuary (Texas) 

Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary 

(Georgia) 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary (Massachusetts) 

Gulf of the Farallones National Marine 

Sanctuary (California) 

Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale 

National Marine Sanctuary (Hawaii) 

Monitor National Marine Sanctuary 

(North Carolina) 

Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary (California) 

Olympic Coast National Marine 

Sanctuary (Washington) 

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

(Michigan) 

National Parks 

Assateague Island National Seashore 

(Virginia, Maryland) 

Biscayne National Park (Florida) 

Channel Islands National Park 

(California) 

Dry Tortugas National Park (Florida) 

Everglades National Park (Florida) 

Glacier Bay National Park (Alaska) 

Isle Royale National Park (Minnesota, 

Michigan) 

Point Reyes National Park (California) 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Notices 18553 

Virgin Islands Coral Reef National 

Monument (US Virgin Islands) 

Virgin Islands National Park (US Virgin 

Islands) 

National Wildlife Refuges 

ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge 

(South Carolina) 

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife 

Refuge (Alaska) 

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 

(North Carolina) 

Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge 

(Texas) 

Aransas National Wildlife Refuge 

(Texas) 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Alaska) 

Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

(Virginia) 

Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge 

(Hawaii) 

Bandon Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

(Oregon) 

Big Boggy National Wildlife Refuge 

(Texas) 

Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife 

Refuge (Louisiana) 

Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge 

(Maryland) 

Block Island National Wildlife Refuge 

(Rhode Island) 

Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge 

(Delaware) 

Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge 

(Alabama) 

Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge 

(Texas) 

Breton National Wildlife Refuge 

(Louisiana) 

Cape May National Wildlife Refuge 

(New Jersey) 

Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge 

(South Carolina) 

Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge 

(North Carolina) 

Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge 

(Florida) 

Chassahowitzka National Wildlife 

Refuge (Florida) 

Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge 

(Virginia, Maryland) 

Conscience Point National Wildlife 

Refuge (New York) 

Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

(Florida) 

Cross Island National Wildlife Refuge 

(Maine) 

Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge 

(Florida) 

Currituck National Wildlife Refuge 

(North Carolina) 

Delta National Wildlife Refuge 

(Louisiana) 

Don Edwards San Francisco Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge (California) 

Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge 

(Washington) 

Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge 

(Maryland) 

Eastern Shore of Virginia National 

Wildlife Refuge (Virginia) 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife 

Refuge (New Jersey) 

Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge 

(Virginia) 

Fisherman Island National Wildlife 

Refuge (Virginia) 

Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

(Mississippi, Alabama) 

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge 

(Washington) 

Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

(New Hampshire) 

Great White Heron National Wildlife 

Refuge (Florida) 

Guam National Wildlife Refuge (Guam) 

Howland Island National Wildlife 

Refuge (Pacific Islands) 

Huron National Wildlife Refuge 

(Michigan) 

Island Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

(Florida) 

J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife 

Refuge (Florida) 

Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge 

(Pacific Islands) 

John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge 

(Rhode Island) 

Johnston Island National Wildlife 

Refuge (Pacific Islands, Hawaii) 

Key West National Wildlife Refuge 

(Florida) 

Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge 

(Pacific Islands) 

Lewis and Clark National Wildlife 

Refuge (Washington, Oregon) 

Lower Suwannee National Wildlife 

Refuge (Florida) 

Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge 

(Virginia, North Carolina) 

Marin Islands National Wildlife Refuge 

(California) 

Martin National Wildlife Refuge 

(Maryland) 

Mashpee National Wildlife Refuge 

(Massachusetts) 

Matlacha Pass National Wildlife Refuge 

(Florida) 

Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge 

(Hawaii) 

Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge 

(Massachusetts) 

National Key Deer Refuge (Florida) 

Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

(Oregon) 

Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge 

(Rhode Island) 

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge 

(Washington) 

Nomans Land Island National Wildlife 

Refuge (Massachusetts) 

Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

(Virginia) 

Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

(New York) 

Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge 

(Pacific Islands) 

Parker River National Wildlife Refuge 

(Massachusetts) 

Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 

(North Carolina) 

Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 

(Florida) 

Pine Island National Wildlife Refuge 

(Florida) 

Pinellas National Wildlife Refuge 

(Florida) 

Plum Tree Island National Wildlife 

Refuge (Virginia) 

Pond Island National Wildlife Refuge 

(Maine) 

Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge 

(Delaware) 

Protection Island National Wildlife 

Refuge (Washington) 

Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge 

(Maine) 

Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge 

(Pacific Islands) 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

(Louisiana) 

Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge 

(Rhode Island) 

San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge 

(Texas) 

San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

(California) 

Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge (New 

York) 

Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge 

(Louisiana) 

Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

(Oregon) 

St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge 

(Florida) 

St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge 

(Florida) 

Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife 

Refuge (Connecticut) 

Supawna Meadows National Wildlife 

Refuge (New Jersey) 

Susquehanna National Wildlife Refuge 

(Maryland) 

Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge 

(North Carolina) 

Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife 

Refuge (California) 

Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge 

(New York) 

Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife 

Refuge (Florida) 

Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

(South Carolina) 

Wallops Island National Wildlife Refuge 

(Virginia) 

Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge 

(New York) 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge 

(Washington) 

Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge 

(Alaska) 

Federal/State Partnership Marine 

Protected Areas 

National Estuarine Research Reserves 

Guana Tolomato Matanzas National 

Estuarine Research Reserve (Florida) 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
18554 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Notices 

Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine 

Research Reserve (New Jersey) 

Rookery Bay National Estuarine 

Research Reserve (Florida) 

Waquoit Bay National Estuarine 

Research Reserve (Massachusetts) 

State Marine Protected Areas 

American Samoa 

Aua 

California 

Ano Nuevo Area of Special Biological 

Significance 

Ano Nuevo State Marine Conservation 

Area 

Asilomar State Marine Reserve 

Big Creek State Marine Conservation 

Area 

Big Creek State Marine Reserve 

Bird Rock Area of Special Biological 

Significance 

Bodega Area of Special Biological 

Significance 

Cambria State Marine Conservation 

Area 

Carmel Bay Area of Special Biological 

Significance 

Carmel Bay State Marine Conservation 

Area 

Carmel Pinnacles State Marine Reserve 

Del Mar Area of Special Biological 

Significance 

Double Point Area of Special Biological 

Significance 

Duxbury Reef Area of Special Biological 

Significance 

Edward F. Ricketts State Marine 

Conservation Area 

Elkhorn Slough State Marine 

Conservation Area 

Elkhorn Slough State Marine Reserve 

Farallon Islands Area of Special 

Biological Significance 

Farnsworth Bank Area of Special 

Biological Significance 

Gerstle Cove Area of Special Biological 

Significance 

Greyhound Rock State Marine 

Conservation Area 

Heisler Park Area of Special Biological 

Significance 

Irvine Coast Area of Special Biological 

Significance 

James V. Fitzgerald Area of Special 

Biological Significance 

Jughandle Cove Area of Special 

Biological Significance 

Julia Pfeiffer Burns Area of Special 

Biological Significance 

King Range Area of Special Biological 

Significance 

La Jolla Area of Special Biological 

Significance 

Laguna Point to Latiga Point Area of 

Special Biological Significance 

Lovers Point State Marine Reserve 

Moro Cojo Slough State Marine Reserve 

Morro Bay State Marine Recreational 

Management Area 

Morro Bay State Marine Reserve 

Natural Bridges State Marine Reserve 

Northwest Santa Catalina Area of 

Special Biological Significance 

Pacific Grove Area of Special Biological 

Significance 

Pacific Grove Marine Gardens State 

Marine Conservation Area 

Piedras Blancas State Marine 

Conservation Area 

Piedras Blancas State Marine Reserve 

Point Buchon State Marine 

Conservation Area 

Point Buchon State Marine Reserve 

Point Lobos Area of Special Biological 

Significance 

Point Lobos State Marine Conservation 

Area 

Point Lobos State Marine Reserve 

Point Reyes Headlands Area of Special 

Biological Significance 

Point Sur State Marine Conservation 

Area 

Point Sur State Marine Reserve 

Portuguese Ledge State Marine 

Conservation Area 

Redwoods National Park Area of Special 

Biological Significance 

Robert E. Badham Area of Special 

Biological Significance 

Salmon Creek Coast Area of Special 

Biological Significance 

San Clemente Area of Special Biological 

Significance 

San Diego Scripps Area of Special 

Biological Significance 

San Nicolas Island & Begg Rock Area of 

Special Biological Significance 

Santa Barbara & Anacapa Island Area of 

Special Biological Significance 

Santa Rosa & Santa Cruz Island Area of 

Special Biological Significance 

Saunders Reef Area of Special 

Biological Significance 

Soquel Canyon State Marine Reserve 

Southeast Santa Catalina Area of Special 

Biological Significance 

Trinidad Head Area of Special 

Biological Significance 

Vandenberg State Marine Reserve 

Western Santa Catalina Area of Special 

Biological Significance 

White Rock (Cambria) State Marine 

Conservation Area 

Florida 

See National Estuarine Research 

Reserves, above. 

Hawaii 

Ahihi Kina’u Natural Area Reserve 

Hanauma Bay Marine Life Conservation 

District, Oahu 

Kaho’olawe Island Reserve 

Kealakekua Bay Marine Life 

Conservation District 

Molokini Shoal Marine Life 

Conservation District 

Pupukea Marine Life Conservation 

District, Oahu 

West Hawaii Regional Fisheries 

Management Area 

Maryland 

U–1105 Black Panther Historic 

Shipwreck Preserve 

Massachusetts 

See National Estuarine Research 

Reserves, above 

New Jersey 

See National Estuarine Research 

Reserves, above 

Virginia 

Bethel Beach Natural Area Preserve 

Blue Crab Sanctuary 

Dameron Marsh Natural Area Preserve 

False Cape State Park 

Hughlett Point Natural Area Preserve 

Kiptopeke State Park 

Savage Neck Dunes Natural Area 

Preserve 

Washington 

Admiralty Head Preserve 

Argyle Lagoon San Juan Islands Marine 

Preserve 

Blake Island Underwater Park 

Brackett’s Landing Shoreline Sanctuary 

Conservation Area 

Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve 

Cypress Island Aquatic Reserve 

Deception Pass Underwater Park 

False Bay San Juan Islands Marine 

Preserve 

Fidalgo Bay Aquatic Reserve 

Friday Harbor San Juan Islands Marine 

Preserve 

Haro Strait Special Management Fishery 

Area 

Maury Island Aquatic Reserve 

San Juan Channel & Upright Channel 

Special Management Fishery Area 

Orchard Rocks Conservation Area 

Shaw Island San Juan Islands Marine 

Preserve 

South Puget Sound Wildfire Area 

Sund Rock Conservation Area 

Yellow and Low Islands San Juan 

Islands Marine Preserve 

Zelia Schultz/Protection Island Marine 

Preserve 

Response to Public Comments 

On March 6, 2009, NOAA and DOI 

(agencies) published the Nomination of 

Existing Marine Protected Areas to the 

National System of Marine Protected 

Areas for public comment. By the end 

of the 30-day comment period, 26 

individual submissions had been 

received from a variety of government 

agencies, non-governmental 

organizations, industry and 

conservation interests, advisory groups 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Notices 18555 

and the public. Given the breadth and 

multi-faceted nature of comments and 

recommendations received, related 

comments have been grouped below 

into categories to simplify the 

development of responses. For each of 

the comment categories listed below, a 

summary of comments is provided, and 

a corresponding response provides an 

explanation and rationale about changes 

that were or were not made in the 

Official List of National System Marine 

Protected Areas (MPAs) for this first 

round of nominated sites. 

Comment Category 1: Purpose and Scope of 

National System 

Comment Category 2: Agency Review Process 

Comment Category 3: Public Review Process 

Comment Category 4: Support for 

Nomination of Specific Sites to National 

System 

Comment Category 5: Questioning Eligibility 

of Specific Sites for the National System 

Comment Category 6: Concerns about 

Potential Restrictions on Use 

Comment Category 7: Information Available 

to Assess Nominations 

Comment Category 8: Information Quality 

Act 

Comment Category 9: Gap Analysis 

Comments and Responses 

Comment Category 1: Purpose and 

Scope of National System 

Summary 

A few comments called for more 

clarity about the purpose and vision of 

the National System of Marine Protected 

Areas (MPAs), although there were 

different perspectives about what this 

vision should include. One respondent 

thought that the agencies should create 

more specific minimum criteria for the 

national system, while another 

contended that the nomination process 

should mirror the creation of new sites 

under the National Marine Sanctuaries 

Act. Some respondents had comments 

on entry criteria for nominations to the 

National System of MPAs, or on plans 

for implementation of the federal 

responsibility to avoid harm to the 

resources protected by a national system 

MPA. One respondent recommended 

that the name of the ‘‘National System 

of MPAs’’ be revised and called the 

‘‘National Network of MPAs’’ stating 

that ‘‘a National Network is opinionbased; a National System is sciencebased.’’ 

Response 

The purpose and scope of the national 

system, and plans for its 

implementation, were developed with 

extensive stakeholder engagement over 

a four year period from 2004 through 

2008. During this period, the Framework 

for the National System of Marine 

Protected Areas of the United States 

(Framework) was developed. Three 

separate public comment periods on the 

document were held and announced in 

the Federal Register. In addition, the 

National Marine Protected Areas Center 

(MPA Center) held numerous meetings 

with stakeholders to obtain input on the 

Framework, and worked closely with 

the Marine Protected Areas Federal 

Advisory Committee (MPA FAC) in 

open meetings on key concepts that 

were incorporated into the document. 

The Framework document was finalized 

in November 2008; no public comments 

were received on the Federal Register 

notice announcing its release. Issues 

raised by respondents focused on the 

content of the Framework are not 

considered germane to this public 

comment notice. 

Regarding the recommendation that 

the nomination process should mirror 

the National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

(NMSA), the agencies contend that the 

NMSA should not be the model for 

nominations to the national system for 

the following reasons: (1) The national 

system is charged with working to 

coordinate diverse MPAs across all 

levels of governments. These sites and 

programs have diverse authorities, and 

it is inappropriate to impose the 

requirements of one federal MPA 

program (e.g. the NMSA) on other 

federal, state, and territorial MPA 

programs, which have their own legal 

authorities, processes and purposes; (2) 

The procedural elements for the NMSA 

are focused on the designation of new 

MPAs, while the nomination process for 

national system of MPAs is focused on 

the admission of existing MPAs into the 

national system for the purposes of 

enhanced coordination, recognition and 

stewardship and (3) The NMSA’s 

extensive procedural requirements for 

sanctuary designation (including public 

involvement and interagency 

consultation) are not warranted for 

inclusion of a site in the national system 

of MPAs since that action has no 

regulatory impact or potential to restrict 

human uses of that site. 

The agencies disagree with the 

recommendation that the National 

System of MPAs be renamed the 

‘‘National Network of MPAs.’’ Section 

4(e) of Executive Order 13158 calls for 

the development of a National System of 

MPAs. In addition, the terms ‘‘system’’ 

and ‘‘network’’ as used in the 

Framework are clearly defined in 

Section VI. Glossary of Key Terms of the 

final Framework. These definitions were 

developed in consultation with the 

MPA Federal Advisory Committee to 

ensure clarity of usage and consistency 

with current scientific thinking. 

Comment Category 2: Agency Review 

Process 

Summary 

Two respondents called for 

nominations to the national system to 

undergo special review by particular 

management agencies. One called for all 

nominations in a given region to be 

reviewed and approved by regional 

Fishery Management Councils. Another 

respondent called for all sites in Alaska 

to be reviewed and approved by the 

Alaska Board of Fisheries. 

Response 

The current process for nominations 

to the national system provides for 

nominations to be made by the MPA’s 

managing agency and for a public 

review process of the MPAs proposed 

for nomination. The agencies believe 

that while it is appropriate for other 

agencies or bodies in a region to 

comment on such proposed 

nominations as part of the public 

process, it is inappropriate for these 

other agencies or bodies to have the 

authority to approve or disapprove 

nominations made by the agency legally 

responsible for the management of an 

MPA. 

Comment Category 3: Public Review 

Process 

Summary 

Two respondents noted that the 30- 

day public comment period was not 

sufficient to review information for 225 

nominated sites, and requested that the 

public comment period be extended. 

One respondent recommended that all 

nominated sites be reviewed by the 

Marine Protected Areas Federal 

Advisory Committee. 

Response 

The agencies have concluded that this 

extension is not necessary because the 

public has had ample opportunity to 

address many of the issues raised 

through the multi-year public process to 

develop the Framework, which 

included three separate Federal Register 

public comment periods. The agencies 

followed the Framework’s process and 

provided an opportunity for the public 

to comment on issues related 

specifically to nominations to the 

national system. The agencies do not 

believe that an extended comment 

period would substantively change the 

comments received. Moreover, because 

the national system of MPAs is a nonregulatory program that will not change 

the management or regulations of 

member sites, there is no risk of harm 

to the public resulting from declining 

this extension. Regarding the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
18556 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Notices 

recommendation that the Marine 

Protected Areas Federal Advisory 

Committee should review the 

nominations, the Committee was 

actively involved in developing and 

recommending the entry criteria for the 

national system. However, the role of 

the Committee is to provide advice to 

the Departments of Commerce and the 

Interior, not to engage in governmental 

decision-making regarding operational 

details of the national system. 

Comment Category 4: Support for 

Nomination of Specific Sites to National 

System 

Summary 

A number of comments supported the 

nomination of specific sites to the 

national system, noting the significant 

ecological and cultural value of the 

areas, and adding that the participation 

of these sites in the national system will 

lead to a strengthening of their 

conservation efforts, as well as 

enhancing the national system. One 

comment sought better integration 

among NOAA Fisheries and National 

Marine Sanctuaries, and further sought 

opportunities to leverage funds and 

establish partnerships. 

Response 

Comments that support the 

nominations of sites to the national 

system were forwarded to the 

appropriate managing agencies. 

Regarding the call for enhanced 

integration, the agencies believe that the 

national system will result in enhanced 

collaboration and coordination of all 

MPA managing agencies, including 

NOAA Fisheries and National Marine 

Sanctuaries. 

Comment Category 5: Questioning 

Eligibility of Specific Sites for the 

National System 

Summary 

Several comments questioned the 

eligibility of specific sites for inclusion 

in the national system. Eligibility 

concerns included whether sites met the 

definitions of ‘marine’ and ‘MPA,’ as 

well as concerns over a specific site’s 

management plan. In particular, several 

respondents noted that the Cherry Point 

Aquatic Reserve (WA) did not meet the 

national system entry criteria to have a 

management plan because its 

management plan is still in draft. 

Response 

According to the Framework for the 

National System of Marine Protected 

Areas of the United States of America 

(Framework), a site is eligible for 

inclusion in the national system if the 

site: (1) Meets the definition of an MPA 

as defined in the Framework; (2) has a 

management plan (can be site-specific 

or part of a broader programmatic 

management plan); (3) contributes to at 

least one priority conservation objective 

as listed in the Framework; and (4) 

cultural heritage resources must also 

conform to criteria for the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

It is important to note that only the 

‘marine’ portion of a site will be eligible 

for inclusion in the national system. 

According to the Framework, to be 

marine, a site ‘‘must be: (a) Ocean or 

coastal waters (note: coastal waters may 

include intertidal areas, bays or 

estuaries); (b) an area of the Great Lakes 

or their connecting waters; (c) an area of 

submerged lands under ocean or coastal 

waters or the Great Lakes or their 

connecting waters; or (d) a combination 

of the above. The term ‘‘intertidal’’ is 

understood to mean the shore zone 

between the mean low water and mean 

high water marks. An MPA may be a 

marine component part of a larger site 

that includes uplands. However, the 

terrestrial portion is not considered an 

MPA. For mapping purposes, an MPA 

may show an associated terrestrial 

protected area.’’ 

Recognizing the often lengthy process 

in finalizing a management plan, which 

in some cases can take years to 

complete, the agencies determined that 

an established site may submit a draft 

management plan in order to meet this 

eligibility criterion. 

Comment Category 6: Concerns About 

Potential Restrictions on Use 

Summary 

Several comments addressed the 

concern that the inclusion of a site in 

the national system will limit access to 

an area, and in particular will restrict 

recreational fishing or boating, 

sportfishing, commercial fishing, 

aquaculture operations, or coastal 

industry. 

Response 

The national system has no authority 

under Executive Order 13158 to either 

change the management or regulatory 

authority of existing MPAs or create 

new MPAs. MPAs will continue to be 

established, managed and revised under 

each site’s existing federal, state, 

territorial, tribal or local authorities and 

their associated legal processes. The 

inclusion of an MPA into the national 

system in no way ‘‘federalizes’’ any state 

or local areas included within the 

system. The Executive Order states that 

the national system is ‘‘intended to 

support, not interfere with, agencies’ 

independent exercise of their own 

existing authorities.’’ 

Comment Category 7: Information 

Available to Assess Nominations 

Summary 

Several respondents contended that 

the information available on the 

nominated sites was not sufficient for 

the public to assess whether the entry 

criteria had been met. Respondents 

noted that additional information was 

needed to ensure the transparency of the 

review process. For example, one 

respondent wanted to view information 

that indicated how, not merely whether, 

sites met the nomination criteria. 

Response 

The agencies posted information on 

the nominated sites on the public Web 

site, http://www.mpa.gov in a 

downloadable PDF format. Information 

provided in this format included: site 

name, management agency, level of 

protection, permanence, constancy, 

protection focus, fishing restrictions and 

management plan type. In addition, 

information on the primary 

conservation objective(s) addressed by 

each site, and the regulatory or 

management tools used to address the 

primary conservation objective(s) was 

provided. One week after the Federal 

Register notice appeared, based on a 

request from the public, the location of 

all federal sites sorted by the state in 

which it is located was added to the 

downloadable file to improve ease of 

utility. Users were also able to 

download GIS data for nominated sites 

as part of the MPA Inventory posted on 

www.mpa.gov. Information regarding 

the MPA Center’s assessment of 

eligibility was available to the public 

through the Web site. For example, the 

Web site provided information on the 

type of management plan for each site, 

as well as the evidence the management 

program for each site provided to 

indicate how it met the primary 

conservation objective(s) of the national 

system. 

The MPA Center recognizes the need 

to expand the data available on http:// 

www.mpa.gov and to make it more 

accessible and usable to the public, and 

is in process of developing and 

improving Web-based applications to 

address this need. 

Comment Category 8: Information 

Quality Act 

Summary 

One respondent expressed concern 

that because of general disclaimers on 

the http://www.mpa.gov Web site (at: 

http://mpa.gov/helpful_resources/ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Notices 18557 

disclaimers_pr.html), the data contained 

therein regarding the Marine Protected 

Areas Inventory does not comply with 

the Information Quality Act (IQA). The 

respondent states that in light of the 

disclaimer language, the public ‘‘has no 

reason to believe that any of these data 

are accurate, reliable, and complete or 

they have any utility.’’ If true, 

dissemination of such information 

would violate NOAA’s Information 

Quality (IQ) guidelines, published 

pursuant to the IQA. In support of this 

assertion, the respondent cites NOAA’s 

IQA guidelines as follows: ‘‘Information 

quality is composed of three elements: 

utility, integrity and objectivity. Quality 

will be ensured and established at levels 

appropriate to the nature and timeliness 

of the information to be disseminated. 

NOAA will conduct a pre-dissemination 

review of information it disseminates to 

verify quality. Information quality is an 

integral part of the pre-dissemination 

review * * * .’’ 

Response 

NOAA’s MPA Inventory information 

is reliable and complies with the NOAA 

IQ guidelines standards for utility, 

integrity, and objectivity. The content of 

the initial Marine Managed Area (MMA) 

Inventory and its successor Marine 

Protected Areas Inventory (MPA 

Inventory) were developed and 

designed in cooperation with federal, 

state and territorial agencies and were 

the subject of public comment under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. The 

definition of ‘‘MPA’’ was the subject of 

Federal Register comment processes as 

part of the inventory development 

process, and three additional times as 

part of the development and publication 

of the Framework for the National 

System of Marine Protected Areas of the 

United States of America. Data were 

collected directly from primary sources, 

and from the Federal, State, or territorial 

agency programs that designate and 

manage MPAs. Once initial data were 

collected, inventory information for 

each site was sent by the MPA Center 

to the pertinent MPA management 

agency for verification prior to posting 

on the www.mpa.gov Web site as part of 

the quality assurance/quality control 

process. 

In addition, on November 20, 2008 

the MPA Center Director sent a letter to 

MPA program managers providing each 

with a set of potential nominee sites 

from the pertinent program. The MPA 

program managers reviewed and 

verified the accuracy of the information 

provided. As a result of these review 

processes, the agencies believe NOAA’s 

MPA inventory and related information 

disseminated through the MPA Center 

Web site meet the applicable NOAA IQ 

standards. 

Regarding the disclaimer language 

posted on the MPA Center Web site (at: 

http://mpa.gov/helpful_resources/ 

disclaimers_pr.html), the agency has 

taken the respondent’s comments into 

consideration and will replace the 

existing disclaimer with more 

appropriate language regarding 

limitations on the use of the data 

contained on the MPA Center Web site. 

Comment Category 9: Gap Analysis 

Summary 

Two respondents noted the 

importance of the gap analysis 

described in the Framework document, 

and urged that the agencies move 

forward with the gap analysis to identify 

areas meeting the conservation 

objectives of the national system in need 

of additional protection. 

Response 

The regional gap analysis process 

described in the Framework will 

complement the nominations of existing 

sites to the National System of MPAs by 

providing information on areas in need 

of additional protection to MPA 

management agencies. NOAA and DOI 

are currently in the design phase of the 

gap analysis process; information on the 

process will continue to be posted on 

http://www.mpa.gov. 

Dated: April 17, 2009. 

John H. Dunnigan, 

Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–9335 Filed 4–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Minority Business Development 

Agency 

[Docket No.: 090416673–9681–01] 

Solicitation of Applications for the 

Minority Business Enterprise Center 

(MBEC) Program 

AGENCY: Minority Business 

Development Agency, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 

1512 and Executive Order 11625, the 

Minority Business Development Agency 

(MBDA) is soliciting competitive 

applications from organizations to 

operate a Minority Business Enterprise 

Center (MBEC) in the two locations and 

geographical service areas specified in 

this notice. The MBEC operates through 

the use of business consultants and 

provides a range of business consulting 

and technical assistance services 

directly to eligible minority-owned 

businesses. Responsibility for ensuring 

that applications in response to this 

competitive solicitation are complete 

and received by MBDA on time is the 

sole responsibility of the applicant. 

Applications submitted must be for the 

operation of a MBEC and to provide 

business consultation services to 

eligible clients. Applications that do not 

meet these requirements will be 

rejected. This is not a grant program to 

help start or to further an individual 

business. 

A link to the full text of the 

Announcement of Federal Funding 

Opportunity (FFO) for this solicitation 

may be accessed at: http:// 

www.Grants.gov, http://www.mbda.gov, 

or by contacting the appropriate MBDA 

representative identified above. The 

FFO contains a full and complete 

description of the application and 

programmatic requirements under the 

MBEC Program. In order to receive 

proper consideration, applicants must 

comply with the requirements 

contained in the FFO. 

DATES: The closing date for receipt of 

applications is June 4, 2009 at 5 p.m. 

Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). 

Completed applications must be 

received by MBDA at the address below 

for paper submissions or at http:// 

www.Grants.gov for electronic 

submissions. The due date and time is 

the same for electronic submissions as 

it is for paper submissions. The date 

that applications will be deemed to have 

been submitted electronically shall be 

the date and time received at 

Grants.gov. Applicants should save and 

print the proof of submission they 

receive from Grants.gov. Applications 

received after the closing date and time 

will not be considered. Anticipated time 

for processing is seventy-five (75) days 

from the closing date for receipt of 

applications. MBDA anticipates that one 

award under this notice will be made 

with a start date of September 1, 2009. 

Pre-Application Conference: In 

connection with this solicitation, a preapplication conference is scheduled for 

May 7, 2009. The time and location of 

the pre-application conference have yet 

to be determined. Participants must 

register at least 24 hours in advance of 

the conference and may participate in 

person or by telephone. Please visit the 

MBDA Internet Portal at http:// 

www.mbda.gov (MBDA Portal) or 

contact an MBDA representative listed 

below for the specific time and location 

of the pre-application conference and 

for registration instructions. 

ADDRESSES:


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES