[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29317-29321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12452]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


Response to Comments on the Second Round of Nominated Sites to 
the National System of MPAs

AGENCY: NOAA, Department of Commerce (DOC).

ACTION: Notice of updates to 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). This was the second round of nominations, 
following the nomination of 225 sites in the initial round of 
nominations, completed in April 2009. For the second round, a total of 
32 nominations were received. Following a 45-day public review period, 
114 public comments were received by the National Marine Protected 
Areas Center (MPA 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 MPA 
Center has accepted the nominations for 29 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 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d9b4a9b8f7bab6b4b4bcb7adaa99b7b6b8b8f7beb6af"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b7dac7d699d4d8dadad2d9c3c4f7d9d8d6d699d0d8c1">[email protected]</span></a>. A 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 is made up of member MPA sites, 
networks and systems established and managed by federal, state, 
commonwealth, 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.
    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.
    The act of joining the national system does not create new MPAs, or 
create new restrictions for the existing MPAs that become members. In 
fact, a site must have existing protections of natural and/or cultural 
resources in place in order to be eligible to join the national system, 
as well as meet other criteria described in the Framework. However, 
joining the national system does not establish new regulatory authority 
or change existing regulations in any way, nor does it require changes 
affecting the designation process or management of member MPAs. Nor 
does it bring state, territorial, tribal or local sites under federal 
authority.
    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 sites in the MPA's region, and nationally on issues 
of common conservation concern; fostering greater public and 
international recognition of U.S. MPAs and the resources they protect; 
priority in the receipt of available technical and other support for 
cross-cutting needs; and the opportunity to influence federal and 
regional ocean conservation and management initiatives (such as Coastal 
and Marine Spatial Planning, 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.

[[Page 29318]]

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 second round of 
nominations for the national system began on August 6, 2009, when the 
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 deadline for nominations was 
November 20, 2009. A public comment period was held from December 23, 
2009 through February 22, 2010.
    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 (see below).
    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/national-system/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.

Updates to List of National System MPAs

    The following MPAs have been nominated by their managing programs 
to join the national system of MPAs. Two nominated MPAs, Acadia 
National Park and Apostle Islands National Lakeshore have requested 
additional time to consult with stakeholders and tribal governments and 
are not included in this round of nominations. An additional MPA, the 
Queen Anne's Revenge Shipwreck site, has withdrawn from the nomination 
process. The complete List of National System MPAs, which now includes 
254 members, is available at http://www.mpa.gov.

Federal Marine Protected Areas

National Parks

Buck Island Reef National Monument
Cabrillo National Monument
Canaveral National Seashore
Cape Cod National Seashore
Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Cape Lookout National Seashore
Fire Island National Seashore
Gateway National Recreation Area
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore
Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve
Kalaupapa National Historical Park
Kaloko-Honokahau National Historical Park
National Park of American Samoa
Olympic National Park
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
Salt River Bay National Historical Park and Ecological Preserve
San Juan Islands National Historical Park
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore

National Wildlife Refuges

Blackbeard Island National Wildlife Refuge
Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge
Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge
Pickney Island National Wildlife Refuge
Tybee National Wildlife Refuge
Wassaw National Wildlife Refuge
Wolf National Wildlife Refuge

Partnership Marine Protected Areas

Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (Puerto Rico)

State Marine Protected Areas

Virgin Islands

East End Marine Park

Washington

San Juan County/Cypress Island Marine Biological Preserve

Response to Public Comments

    On January 7, 2010, NOAA and DOI (agencies) published the 
Nomination of Existing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) to the National 
System of Marine Protected Areas for public comment, for the nomination 
of 32 existing MPAs. By the end of the 45-day comment period, 114 
individual submissions had been received from a variety of state and 
tribal government agencies, non-governmental organizations, industry 
and conservation interests, advisory groups 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 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 second round of nominated sites.

Comment Category 1: Purpose and Scope of National System
Comment Category 2: Concerns with Restrictions on Use, Access and 
Associated Economic and Cultural Impacts
Comment Category 3: Concerns about Designating an Area as an MPA
Comment Category 4: Benefits of Joining the National System
Comment Category 5: Support for Nomination of Specific Sites to 
National System
Comment Category 6: Nominating Additional Sites
Comment Category 7: Questioning Eligibility of Specific Sites for the 
National System, the Definition of ``Marine'' and the Mean High Tide 
Mark
Comment Category 8: Gap Analysis
Comment Category 9: Stakeholder Engagement
Comment Category 10: Tribal Issues

Comments and Responses

    Comment Category 1: Purpose and Scope of National System
    A few comments called for more clarity about the purpose and vision 
of the national system. One respondent asked if the national system of 
MPAs could assist in specific local coastal issues (e.g., coastal 
erosion).
    Response:
    The purpose of the national system is to support the effective 
stewardship, conservation, restoration, sustainable use, and public 
understanding and appreciation of the nation's significant natural and 
cultural marine resources. The national system works across all levels 
of government to address problems that extend beyond the boundaries of 
a single MPA. Decisions

[[Page 29319]]

about national system priorities consider the interests of and 
implications for all who use, benefit from, and care about our marine 
environment.
    While the national system is concerned with local coastal and ocean 
issues, due to the national scope of the system and limited resources, 
the national system does not focus on issues particular to one site but 
rather focuses on strengthening and coordinating MPAs and MPA programs.
    The purpose and scope of the national system, and plans for its 
implementation were developed with extensive stakeholder engagement 
from 2004 through 2008. During this period, the Framework for the 
National System of Marine Protected Areas of the United States of 
America (Framework) was developed. Three separate public comment 
periods on the document were held and announced in the Federal Register 
and through other means. 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 final 
Framework document was published in November 2008.
    Comment Category 2: Concerns with Restrictions on Use, Access, and 
Associated Economic and Cultural Impacts
    Summary:
    Most comments expressed concerns that the inclusion of a site in 
the national system will limit access to an area, and in particular 
will impose additional restrictions on recreational fishing or boating, 
commercial fishing or coastal industry. Several other comments 
expressed concern that the inclusion of a site in the national system 
would adversely affect the economic or cultural well being of local 
communities.
    Response:
    As noted above, the purpose of the national system is to coordinate 
MPA agencies to support the conservation and management of marine 
resources. It is not intended to, nor does it have the authority to, 
impose new restrictions on access or use. Under Executive Order 13158, 
``this national system framework and the work of the MPA Center is 
intended to support, not interfere with, agencies' independent exercise 
of their own existing authorities.''
    MPAs will continue to be established, managed, regulated and 
revised under each site's existing federal, state, commonwealth, 
territorial, tribal or local authorities and their associated legal 
processes. Decisions about restrictions on access and use of an MPA 
will continue to be made by its managing agency in accordance with the 
authority under which the MPA was created and the goals and objectives 
of the MPA. Two hundred and twenty five existing MPAs, approximately 
half federal and half state sites, joined the National System in early 
2009 and none have revised their regulations as a result of this 
action.
    The inclusion of an MPA into the national system in no way 
``federalizes'' any state or local areas included within the system. 
Further, the inclusion of a site in the national system of MPAs will 
have no adverse impact on the economic or cultural aspects of a 
specific locale. However, it does serve to highlight the importance of 
that site's natural and cultural resources which contribute greatly to 
state and local cultural heritage and economic values. By contributing 
to the priority conservation objectives in the Framework, each site 
receives recognition for sustaining the natural and cultural resources 
on which local communities and the nation depend for recreational 
opportunities, their livelihood and their cultural heritage.
    Several comments cited data from the MPA Inventory on restrictions 
on commercial and/or recreational fishing, believing these to be newly 
proposed regulations as part of the nomination process to the national 
system. This is not the case. The MPA Inventory summarizes existing 
characteristics of U.S. MPAs, including existing regulations on 
fishing, public access, and other uses or activities. This information 
in the Inventory does not indicate that additional restrictions are 
being proposed for any site nominated to the national system.
    Comment Category 3: Concerns about Designating an Area as an MPA
    Summary:
    Many comments were concerned that inclusion in the national system 
of MPAs would designate a particular site as an MPA.
    Response:
    A site must already meet the definition of an MPA as defined by the 
Framework for the National System of Marine Protected Areas of the 
United States of America in order to be nominated to the national 
system. Many commenters appeared to assume that the term ``MPA'' refers 
to a fully protected marine reserve or highly restricted site. In fact, 
an MPA is defined by Executive Order 13158 as ``Any area of the marine 
environment that has been reserved by federal, state, territorial, 
tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for 
part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein.'' Most MPAs 
in the United States allow multiple uses such as recreational and 
commercial fishing. Inclusion in the national system does not change 
how the site's resources are managed or uses are regulated, including 
regulation of fishing.
    Comment Category 4: Benefits of Joining the National System
    Summary:
    Several comments noted that while inclusion of a site does not 
impose additional restrictions, they saw no benefit to joining the 
national system either.
    Response:
    The national system provides benefits to the nation, to 
participating MPAs, and to ocean stakeholders. Benefits to joining the 
national system include, among others:
    <bullet> Enhancing stewardship through better coordination on 
regional and national scales, improved public awareness, and enhanced 
site management capacity;
    <bullet> Building partnerships for MPAs to work together toward 
common conservation objectives;
    <bullet> Increasing support for marine conservation through the 
recognition provided by the national system;
    <bullet> Priority access to resources available for capacity 
building and stewardship improvements;
    <bullet> Protecting representative ecosystems and resources from 
all the nation's ecosystem and habitat types; and
    <bullet> Providing a transparent process for future MPA planning 
that is science-based and includes a commitment to balanced stakeholder 
involvement.
These benefits will enhance conservation and values of resources in 
MPAs over time as implementation of the national system moves forward.
    Comment Category 5: Support for Nomination of Specific Sites to 
National System
    Summary:
    Several comments supported the nomination of specific sites to the 
national system. They noted the significant ecological and cultural 
value of the areas, and added 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.
    Response:
    These comments support the goals of Executive Order 13158, which 
directs NOAA, DOI and other federal agencies

[[Page 29320]]

to sustain the ecological, cultural and economic values of the nation's 
ocean and Great Lakes resources, by establishing the national system. 
Managing agencies are responsible for nominating their individual 
sites. Comments that support the nominations of sites to the national 
system were forwarded to the appropriate managing agencies.
    Comment Category 6: Nominating Additional Sites
    Summary:
    One comment recommended additional National Parks to be included in 
the third round of nominations to the national system of MPAs.
    Response:
    Sites must be nominated by the site's managing agency. This comment 
was forwarded to the National Park Service for their consideration in 
subsequent nomination phases.
    Comment Category 7: Questioning Eligibility of Specific Sites for 
the National System, the Definition of ``Marine'' and the Mean High 
Tide Mark
    Summary:
    Several comments questioned the eligibility of sites for inclusion 
in the national system. Some eligibility concerns included whether or 
not sites met the definition of ``marine'' and whether a site should be 
included in the national system if the area's boundary extends only to 
the mean low water mark. One comment noted the importance of 
terrestrial habitats to marine species, such as turtles and wading 
birds, and asked that the definition of ``marine'' be revised to more 
adequately protect these species.
    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) meets additional criteria 
for cultural heritage MPAs (conforming to criteria for the National 
Register for Historic Places).
    Only the ``marine'' portion of a site is eligible for inclusion in 
the national system. According to the Framework, to be marine, a site 
``must be: (a) Ocean or coastal waters (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.''
    NOAA and DOI recognize the critical importance of areas above the 
high tide mark to marine species, resources, and ecosystem processes. 
Examples of such areas include turtle nesting beaches and seabird 
rookeries. The agencies have requested the Marine Protected Areas 
Federal Advisory Committee to develop recommendations about how to 
address this issue during their 2010-2011 sessions.
    All sites nominated to the national system have geographic 
information system (GIS) boundaries available to the public through the 
MPA Inventory on the http://www.mpa.gov Web site. In addition, the MPA 
Center has recently developed an interactive MPA mapping tool on the 
above Web site to make MPA boundary information easily viewable by the 
general public without GIS expertise.
    Comment Category 8: Gap Analysis
    Summary:
    One comment noted support for the planned MPA gap analysis process 
to identify marine areas in need of greater protection.
    Response:
    The regional gap analysis process described in the Framework will 
identify areas in the marine environment that contribute to the 
priority conservation objectives of the national system, including 
resources currently represented in marine protected areas. This process 
will complement the nominations of existing sites to the National 
System of MPAs by providing information on resources currently under 
management by MPA management agencies, as well as areas that may be in 
need of additional protection. NOAA and DOI are currently developing 
plans for the gap analysis process that will also support emerging 
information needs for Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning activities.
    Comment Category 9: Stakeholder Engagement
    Summary:
    Some comments were concerned that the stakeholder process did not 
provide enough information and time to allow for informed response to 
nominations.
    Response:
    NOAA and DOI are committed to stakeholder engagement as an 
essential component of the national system. The MPA Center continues to 
work with and solicit input from federal, state, commonwealth, 
territorial, tribal, and local government partners, Fishery Management 
Councils, Advisory Committees, stakeholder groups, and the general 
public about their perspectives on the national system. The Center has 
limited resources that cannot support extensive stakeholder 
consultation at the local and regional levels, but is working with its 
partners and the managing agencies to reach out to local communities to 
address questions and uncertainties they may have related to the 
national system. The majority of comments opposed to the proposed 
nominations relate to concerns about potential restrictions on fishing 
or prohibitions on access to marine areas, and possible impacts from 
such restrictions. The MPA Center will continue to clarify for the 
public and local communities that nomination to the national system 
does not impose additional restrictions or propose additional 
regulatory authority to restrict uses of marine resources.
    The national system nomination process is transparent. All 
nominated sites were published in the Federal Register, and the general 
public was invited to provide public comment on all sites nominated for 
inclusion in the national system in a 45-day public comment period. In 
addition, the MPA Center used the mpa.gov web site, newsletters, 
listserves, and other communication mechanisms to ensure the widest 
possible outreach to the public. The MPA Center then forwarded all 
public comment to the MPA managing entity. Because no comment asked for 
an extension of the comment period, we believe the 45-day comment 
period provided adequate time to gather more information.
    Comment Category 10: Tribal Issues
    Summary: Two comments focused on the need to ensure that the 
inclusion of MPAs in the national system does not infringe upon Tribal 
treaty rights. One comment noted that the Tribe supported the 
nomination of a local MPA with the recognition that the Tribe will 
continue to rely upon its usual and accustomed areas within the MPA for 
economic and subsistence activities. Another comment requested a formal 
government to government consultation on the nomination of the Apostle 
Islands National Lakeshore. This nomination is not included in the 
current round in order to provide additional time for the requested 
tribal consultation.
    Response:
    Executive Order 13158 states that ``This order does not diminish, 
affect, or abrogate Indian treaty rights or United States trust 
responsibilities to Indian

[[Page 29321]]

tribes.'' NOAA and DOI are committed to consultations with tribes as 
part of the national system development process.

Addendum: From ``Framework for the National System of Marine Protected 
Areas of the United States'' National System Goals and Priority 
Conservation Objectives

    Goal 1: For Natural Heritage Marine Resources--Advance 
comprehensive conservation and management of the nation's biological 
communities, habitats, ecosystems, and processes and the ecological 
services, uses, and values they provide to present and future 
generations through ecosystem-based MPA approaches.
    Priority Conservation Objectives for Goal 1--Conserve and 
manage:
    <bullet> Key reproduction areas and nursery grounds
    <bullet> Key biogenic habitats
    <bullet> Areas of high species and/or habitat diversity
    <bullet> Ecologically important geological features and 
enduring/recurring oceanographic features
    <bullet> Critical habitat of threatened and endangered species
    <bullet> Unique or rare species, habitats and associated 
communities
    <bullet> Key areas for migratory species
    <bullet> Linked areas important to life histories
    <bullet> Key areas that provide compatible opportunities for 
education and research
    Goal 2: For Cultural Heritage Marine Resources--Advance 
comprehensive conservation and management of cultural resources that 
reflect the nation's maritime history and traditional cultural 
connections to the sea, as well as the uses and values they provide 
to present and future generations through ecosystem-based MPA 
approaches.
    Priority Conservation Objectives for Goal 2--Conserve and 
manage:
    <bullet> Key cultural and historic resources listed on the 
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
    <bullet> Key cultural and historic resources determined eligible 
for the NRHP or listed on a State Register
    <bullet> Key cultural sites that are paramount to a culture's 
identity and/or survival
    <bullet> Key cultural and historic sites that may be threatened
    <bullet> Key cultural and historic sites that can be utilized 
for heritage tourism
    <bullet> Key cultural and historic sites that are 
underrepresented
    Goal 3: For Sustainable Production Marine Resources--Advance 
comprehensive conservation and management of the nation's renewable 
living resources and their habitats (including, but not limited to, 
spawning, mating, and nursery grounds and areas established to 
minimize bycatch of species) and the social, cultural, and economic 
values and services they provide to present and future generations 
through ecosystem-based MPA approaches.
    Priority Conservation Objectives for Goal 3--Conserve and 
manage:
    <bullet> Key reproduction areas, including larval sources and 
nursery grounds
    <bullet> Key areas that sustain or restore high-priority fishing 
grounds
    <bullet> Key areas for maintaining natural age/sex structure of 
important harvestable species
    <bullet> Key foraging grounds
    <bullet> Key areas that mitigate the impacts of bycatch
    <bullet> Key areas that provide compatible opportunities for 
education and research

    Dated: May 17, 2010.
Donna Wieting,
Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management.

[FR Doc. 2010-12452 Filed 5-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


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