[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 100 (Thursday, May 24, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29208-29235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-10096]
[[Page 29207]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15 CFR Part 922
50 CFR Part 660
Establishment of Marine Reserves and a Marine Conservation Area Within
the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 29208]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
15 CFR Part 922
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 0612242956-7123-01]
RIN 0648-AT18
Establishment of Marine Reserves and a Marine Conservation Area
Within the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary
AGENCY: National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP), National Ocean
Service (NOS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of
Commerce (DOC).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 11, 2006 NOAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
to establish a network of marine zones within the state and federal
waters of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS or
Sanctuary). State waters in the Sanctuary extend from the shoreline of
the islands to approximately 3 nautical miles from shore. Federal
waters of the Sanctuary extend from the offshore extent of state waters
to the Sanctuary's outer boundary. In this final rule, NOAA is issuing
final regulations for the federal-waters portion of the Sanctuary. NOAA
has decided to defer a final decision and seeking additional comment on
the state-waters portion of the Sanctuary pending action by the State
of California to extend the boundaries of several existing state-waters
zones to the three mile state-federal-waters boundary.
Marine zones are discrete areas that have special regulations
differing from the regulations that apply throughout or above the
Sanctuary as a whole. The purpose of these zones within the federal
waters of the Sanctuary is to further the protection of Sanctuary
biodiversity and complement an existing network established by the
State of California in October 2002, and implemented in April 2003,
under its authorities. Two types of zones are being established by this
action: Marine reserves and marine conservation areas. All extractive
activities (e.g., removal of any Sanctuary resource) and injury to
Sanctuary resources are prohibited in all marine reserves. Commercial
and recreational lobster fishing and recreational fishing for pelagic
species are allowed within the marine conservation area, while all
other extraction and injury are prohibited. This action establishes
approximately 110.5 square nautical miles of marine reserves and 1.7
square nautical miles of marine conservation area in the federal waters
of the Sanctuary. As part of this action, NOAA is also modifying the
terms of designation for the Sanctuary, which were originally published
on October 2, 1980 (45 FR 65198), to allow for the regulation of
extractive activities, including fishing, in marine reserves and marine
conservation areas, and a slight modification to the outer boundary of
the CINMS.
DATES: Pursuant to section 304(b) of the National Marine Sanctuaries
Act (NMSA), 16 U.S.C. 1434(b), the revised terms of designation and
this final rule shall take effect and become final after the close of a
review period of 45 days of continuous session of Congress, beginning
on the day on which this document is published in the Federal Register.
Announcement of the effective date of this final rule will be published
in the Federal Register at a later date.
Public comments on the state-waters portion of this rulemaking must
be received by July 23, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the final environmental impact statement,
regulatory impact review, and final regulatory flexibility analyses may
be obtained from NOAA's Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Web
site at http://channelislands.noaa.gov/ or by writing to Sean Hastings,
Resource Protection Coordinator, Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary, 113 Harbor Way, Suite 150, Santa Barbara, CA 93109; e-mail:
[email protected].
You may submit comments on the state-waters portion of this
rulemaking by any of the following methods:
E-mail: [email protected]. Include in the
subject line the following document identifier: Marine reserves in
CINMS.
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Sean Hastings, Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary, 113 Harbor Way, Suite 150, Santa Barbara, CA 93109.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Hastings, (805) 884-1472; e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary
The CINMS area is approximately 1,113 square nautical miles
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 (collectively the
Channel Islands), extending seaward to a distance of approximately 6
nautical miles. NOAA designated the CINMS in 1980 to protect the area's
rich and diverse range of marine life and habitats, unique and
productive oceanographic processes and ecosystems, and culturally
significant resources (see 45 FR 65198). The Sanctuary was designated
pursuant to NOAA's authority under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act
(NMSA; 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.). There are significant human uses in the
Sanctuary as well, including commercial and recreational fishing,
marine wildlife viewing, boating and other recreational activities,
research and monitoring activities, numerous educational activities,
and maritime shipping.
The waters surrounding California's Channel Islands represent a
globally unique and diverse assemblage of habitats and species. This
region is a subset of the larger ecosystem of the Southern California
Bight, an area bounded by Point Conception in the north and Punta
Banda, Mexico in the south. In the area between Santa Barbara Island in
the south and San Miguel Island in the northwest, the colder waters of
the Oregonian oceanic province in the north converge and mix with the
warmer waters of the Californian oceanic province. Each of these two
provinces has unique oceanic conditions and species assemblages, which
in turn are parts of distinct biogeographic regions. The mixing of
these two provinces in the vicinity of the Channel Islands creates a
transition zone within the island chain. Upwelling and ocean currents
in the area create a nutrient rich environment that supports high
species and habitat diversity.
In the Southern California Bight, marine resources have declined
under pressure from a variety of factors, including commercial and
recreational fishing, changes in oceanographic conditions associated
with El Ni[ntilde]o and other large-scale oceanographic cycles,
introduction of disease, and increased levels of pollutants. The
urbanization of southern California has significantly increased the
number of people visiting the coastal zone. The burgeoning coastal
population has greatly increased the influx of human, industrial, and
agricultural wastes to California coastal waters. Population growth has
also increased human demands on the ocean, including commercial and
recreational fishing, wildlife viewing
[[Page 29209]]
and other activities. New technologies have increased the yield of
sport and commercial fisheries. Many former natural refuges for
targeted species, such as submarine canyons, submerged pinnacles, deep
waters, and waters distant from harbors, can now be accessed due to
advancements in fishing technology and increased fishing effort.
The significant changes in ecological conditions resulting from the
array of human activities in the Channel Islands region are just
beginning to be understood. For example, many kelp beds have converted
to urchin barrens, where urchins and coralline algae have replaced kelp
as the dominant feature. Deep canyon and rock areas that were formerly
rich rockfishing grounds have significantly reduced populations of
larger rockfish such as cowcod and bocaccio.
In the Southern California Bight, commercial and recreational
fisheries target more than 100 fish species and more than 20
invertebrate species. Targeted species have exhibited high variability
in landings from year to year (e.g., squid) and in several cases have
declined to the point that the fishery has had to be shut down (e.g.,
abalone). Many targeted species are considered overfished and one
previously targeted species (white abalone) is listed as endangered.
Excessive bycatch has caused declines of some non-targeted species. The
removal of species that play key ecological roles, such as predatory
fish, has altered ecosystem structure. Some types of fishing gear have
caused temporary or permanent damage to marine habitats. The
combination of direct take, bycatch, indirect effects, and habitat
damage and destruction has contributed to a negative transformation of
the marine environment around the Channel Islands.
B. Marine Zoning
For over twenty years, NOAA has used marine zoning as a tool in
specific national marine sanctuaries to address a wide array of
resource protection and user conflict issues. Marine zones are discrete
areas within or above a national marine sanctuary that have special
regulations that differ from the regulations that apply throughout or
above the sanctuary as a whole. For example, marine zones are used to
regulate the use of motorized personal watercraft in the Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuary. Marine zones, including areas where all
extraction is prohibited, have also been established in the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary to provide for varying levels of
resource protection.
NOAA has used zoning within the CINMS since its original
designation in 1980. For example, the CINMS regulations prohibit:
1. Cargo vessels from coming within 1 nautical mile of any island
in the CINMS;
2. disturbance of marine mammals or seabirds by flying aircraft
below 1,000 feet within 1 nautical mile of any island within the CINMS;
and
3. construction upon or drilling into the seabed within 2 nautical
miles of any island in the CINMS.
In addition to NOAA, other federal and state agencies have also
established marine zones wholly or partially within the Sanctuary
(e.g., California Department of Fish and Game, National Park Service).
In 1978, commercial and recreational fishing was prohibited by the
State of California in one small marine protected area of the Channel
Islands, the Anacapa Island Ecological Reserve. The International
Maritime Organization has designated a voluntary vessel traffic
separation scheme to guide large vessel traffic running through the
Santa Barbara Channel. The National Park Service (NPS) has established
several zoned areas within the Channel Islands National Park for
different public uses, principally to protect seabird colonies and
marine mammal haul outs. More recently, the NPS is instituting a new
zoning approach to managing park lands, coasts, and adjacent waters.
Due to historic lows in the stocks of certain rockfish (e.g.,
cowcod and bocaccio), in 2001 the Pacific Fishery Management Council
(PFMC) took emergency action and established large bottom closures to
rebuild these stocks. NOAA implemented the Cowcod Conservation Area
regulations on January 1, 2001 (66 FR 2338) and the Rockfish
Conservation Area emergency regulations on September 13, 2002 (67 FR
57973). The Cowcod Conservation Area and the California Rockfish
Conservation Area partially overlay Sanctuary waters. Finally, in 2002,
the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) authorized the
establishment of marine reserves and marine conservation areas within
the state waters of the Sanctuary that prohibit or limit the take of
living, geological or cultural marine resources.
C. Marine Reserves
The number of documented successful examples of no-take marine
reserves is growing, providing substantial evidence that rapid
increases in biomass, biodiversity, abundance and size of organisms
usually result from their designation. Increased biodiversity,
abundance, and habitat quality within closed areas generally improve
the resiliency and ability of marine ecosystems to adapt to ongoing
human-caused or natural disturbance, such as climate shifts, major
storm damage, and pollution.
The designation of marine reserves can also reinforce traditional
fish management approaches to substantially reduce overall fishery
impacts to the ecosystem. Traditional management, like controls on
fishery catch and effort, may fail due to factors such as stock
assessment errors, inadequate institutional frameworks, and
uncertainty. Marine reserves can help to rebuild depleted populations,
reduce bycatch and discards, and reduce known and as-yet-unknown
ecosystem effects of fishing. In addition, marine reserves offer
scientists and resource managers a controlled opportunity to study the
influence of change on marine ecosystems in the absence of direct human
disturbance.
D. Channel Islands Marine Reserves Process, Community Phase 1999-2001
The NMSA requires NOAA to periodically review the management plan
and regulations for each national marine sanctuary and to revise them,
as necessary, to fulfill the purposes and policies of the NMSA (16
U.S.C. 1434(e)). NOAA began the process to review the CINMS management
plan and regulations in 1999. Through the scoping process, many members
of the public voiced concern over the state of biodiversity in the
CINMS and called for fully protected (i.e., no-take) zones to be
established.
In 1998, the Commission received a recommendation from a local
recreational fishing group to create marine reserves around the
northern Channel Islands as a response to declining fish populations.
In response to concerns about changes in the ecosystem and comments
raised to the Commission and during the CINMS management plan scoping
process, NOAA and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
developed a Federal-state partnership to consider the establishment of
marine reserves in the Sanctuary.
Since the marine reserves process is inherently complex, and is a
stand-alone action that is programmatically independent of and
severable from the more general suite of actions contemplated in the
management plan review process, NOAA decided to separate the process to
consider marine reserves from the larger CINMS management plan review
process. The draft management plan and DEIS for the
[[Page 29210]]
management plan review were released for public comment on May 19, 2006
(71 FR 29148). NOAA also published a proposed rule to implement the
management plan on May 19, 2006 (71 FR 29096). Please see http://channelislands.noaa.gov for more information.
The CINMS Advisory Council, a federal advisory board of local
community representatives and federal, state and local government
agency representatives, created a multi-stakeholder Marine Reserves
Working Group (MRWG) to seek agreement on a recommendation regarding
the potential establishment of marine reserves within the Sanctuary.
The CINMS Advisory Council also designated a Science Advisory Panel of
recognized experts and a NOAA-led Socio-economic Team to support the
MRWG in its deliberations.
Extensive scientific, social, and economic data were collected in
support of the marine reserves assessment process. From July 1999 to
May 2001, the MRWG met monthly to receive, weigh, and integrate advice
from technical advisors and the public. The MRWG reached consensus on a
set of ground rules, a mission statement, a problem statement, a list
of species of interest, and a comprehensive suite of implementation
recommendations. The MRWG found that in order to protect, maintain,
restore, and enhance living marine resources, it is necessary to
develop new management strategies that encompass an ecosystem
perspective and promote collaboration between competing interests. A
set of goals were also agreed upon by the MRWG:
1. To protect representative and unique marine habitats, ecological
processes, and populations of interest.
2. To maintain long-term socioeconomic viability while minimizing
short-term socioeconomic losses to all users and dependent parties.
3. To achieve sustainable fisheries by integrating marine reserves
into fisheries management.
4. To maintain areas for visitor, spiritual, and recreational
opportunities which include cultural and ecological features and their
associated values.
5. To foster stewardship of the marine environment by providing
educational opportunities to increase awareness and encourage
responsible use of resources.
The MRWG developed over 40 different designs for potential marine
reserves and evaluated the ecological value and potential economic
impact of each design. To do so, members of the MRWG contributed their
own expertise to modify designs or generate alternatives and utilized a
geospatial tool, known as the Channel Islands Spatial Support and
Analysis Tool (CI-SSAT). CI-SSAT provided opportunities for
visualization, manipulation, and analysis of data for the purpose of
designing marine reserves.
After months of deliberation, a consensus design could not be
reached and the MRWG selected two designs to represent the diverse
views of the group. These designs depict the best effort that each MRWG
representative could propose. Ultimately, the CINMS Advisory Council
provided the MRWG's two designs, as well as all of the supporting
information developed during the process, including background
scientific and economic information, to NOAA and the CDFG for
consideration and action.
Based on this information and additional internal agency analysis,
NOAA and the CDFG crafted a draft reserve network and sent it to the
CINMS Advisory Council and the former MRWG, Science Panel and Socio-
Economic Team members seeking further input. The draft reserve network
was also published in local papers and on the CINMS Web site to solicit
input from the general public. Several meetings were held with
constituent groups, including the CINMS Advisory Council's Conservation
Working Group, Fishing Working Group and Ports and Harbors Working
Group, to discuss the draft network. Following this period of input,
the CDFG and NOAA prepared a recommendation for establishing a network
of marine reserves and marine conservation areas. The recommendation
proposed a network of marine reserves and marine conservation areas in
the same general locations as the MRWG Composite Map. The composite map
was forwarded to the CINMS Advisory Council and represented two
versions of a reserve and conservation area network, one version from
consumptive interests and the other from non-consumptive interests.
These two versions were overlaid on one map, and depicted a number of
areas that the constituent groups agreed upon. This recommendation
became the basis for the preferred alternative in the State's
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review
process.
E. Establishment of State Reserves in the CINMS, 2001 to 2003
Due to the fact that the proposed network spanned both state and
federal waters, NOAA and the CDFG determined the implementation of the
recommendation would need to be divided into a state phase and a
federal phase. State waters extend from the shore to a distance of
three nautical miles. Federal waters extend beyond the limit of state
waters to the extent of the exclusive economic zone, with the outer
boundary of the CINMS at a distance of approximately six nautical miles
from shore. The state phase was to be considered by the Commission
under its authorities.
The CDFG completed an environmental review under the requirements
of CEQA resulting in the publication of an environmental document. The
draft environmental document (ED) was released for public comment on
May 30, 2002. Comments were accepted for an extended period until
September 1, 2002. The Commission and CDFG received 2,492 letters, e-
mails and oral comments. Of this total, 2,445 were form letters that
made identical comments.
The Commission certified the final ED on October 23, 2002. At this
same meeting, the Commission approved the CDFG's preferred alternative.
The CDFG published final regulations for its action in January 2003. As
part of its implementation, the FGC acknowledged the need for NOAA to
complete the network by extending the marine zones into the deeper and
federal waters of the CINMS.
F. Federal Marine Reserves Process, 2003-2007
Following the publication of the CDFG's final regulations in 2003,
NOAA's NMSP initiated the federal marine reserves process, and hosted
scoping meetings with the general public, the CINMS Advisory Council,
and PFMC. In 2004, the NMSP released a preliminary environmental
document with a range of alternatives for public review. In 2005, the
NMSP consulted with local, state, and federal agencies and the PFMC on
possible amendments to the CINMS designation document pursuant to
section 303(b)(2) of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1433(b)(2)). In addition, in
2005 the NMSP provided the PFMC with the opportunity to prepare draft
NMSA fishing regulations pursuant to section 304(a)(5) of the NMSA (16
U.S.C. 1434(a)(5)) for the potential establishment of marine reserves
and marine conservation areas.
In its response to NOAA's letter regarding draft NMSA fishing
regulations, the PFMC stated its support for NOAA's goals and
objectives for marine zones in the CINMS but recommended that NOAA
issue fishing regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the relevant authorities of
the states of
[[Page 29211]]
California, Oregon, and Washington rather than under the NMSA. To that
end, and in accordance with advice from the NOAA Administrator in his
October 19, 2005 letter to the PFMC, the PFMC recommended the Channel
Islands marine zones in federal waters be designated as Essential Fish
Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern with corresponding
management measures to prohibit the use of bottom contact gear under
Amendment 19 of the Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. To complete the
process of addressing closure of the remaining aspect of the marine
zones (i.e., in the water column) the PFMC stated its intent to pursue
those closures through other fishery management plan authorities and
complementary state laws.
NOAA reviewed the PFMC's recommendations and determined that they
did not have the specificity or record to support the use of the MSA or
state laws to establish limited take or no-take zones in the water
column and thereby did not fulfill NOAA's goals and objectives for
these marine zones in the CINMS. However, Amendment 19 to the
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan implemented, in part, the proposed
marine zones by prohibiting all bottom contact gear in the proposed
zones. Accordingly, the NMSA regulations issued in this rule prohibit
the take of resources from the zones not prohibited by the Amendment 19
regulations. Thus, along with the regulations implementing Amendment
19, the NMSA regulations establish comprehensive limited-take and no-
take zones in the CINMS in a manner that fulfills NOAA's goals and
objectives for these marine zones in the CINMS.
As stated in the summary, the purpose of these zones is to further
the protection of Sanctuary biodiversity and complement an existing
network established by the State of California in October 2002, and
implemented in April, 2003, under its authorities. The goals of the
zones are:
To ensure the long-term protection of Sanctuary resources
by restoring and enhancing the abundance, density, population age
structure, and diversity of the natural biological communities.
To protect, restore, and maintain functional and intact
portions of natural habitats (including deeper water habitats),
populations, and ecological processes in the Sanctuary.
To provide, for research and education, undisturbed
reference areas that include the full spectrum of habitats within the
CINMS where local populations exhibit a more natural abundance,
density, diversity, and age structure.
To set aside, for intrinsic and heritage value,
representative habitats and natural biological communities.
To complement the protection of CINMS resources and
habitats afforded by the State of California's marine reserves and
marine conservation areas.
To create models of and incentives for ways to conserve
and manage the resources of CINMS.
On August 11, 2006 NOAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (71
FR 46134) to prohibit the take of resources from the zones not
prohibited by the Amendment 19 regulations. NOAA subsequently issued a
correction to this notice on October 5, 2006 (71 FR 58767) to correct
certain figures presented on the size of the Sanctuary.
Between August and October of 2006, NOAA received public comments
and held two hearings on the proposed rule. Over 30,000 individuals
submitted written comments and/or presented oral testimony on NOAA's
proposal. 99% of these individuals supported the establishment of
marine zones in some form, particularly Alternatives 1A and 2 as
described in NOAA's DEIS. During the public comment period, the State
of California also submitted comments on NOAA's proposal. In its
October 2006 letter, the CDFG stated that it could only support
Alternative 1C as described in NOAA's draft environmental impact
statement (DEIS). Under Alternative 1C, NOAA would establish marine
reserves only in federal waters. NOAA's preferred alternative in the
DEIS, identified as Alternative 1A, would have established marine zones
in both federal and state waters with federal regulations overlaying
the entire network (i.e., from the outer boundary of the federal waters
reserves to the shore of the Channel Islands). As indicated in the
DEIS, Alternative 1C would leave gaps in protection between the
offshore extent of some of the state waters marine zones established by
the State of California in 2003 and the marine zones proposed by NOAA
(refer to figure 1 for an illustration of these gaps).
On March 16, 2007, the California Coastal Commission (Coastal
Commission) held a public meeting on NOAA's proposal pursuant to its
authorities under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (16
U.S.C. 1456). See http://www.coastal.ca.gov/meetings/mtg-mm7-3.html for
more information about this meeting. At that meeting, the Coastal
Commission passed a motion as follows: ``In the event NOAA elects not
to implement Alternative 1a, NOAA will implement Alternative 1c, with
the following additional provisions: Until such time as the Resources
Agency and the Fish and Game Commission designate the areas in between
the existing State-designated MPAs and the 3 mile limit (i.e., the
``gaps'' between the existing state MPAs and the federal MPAs depicted
in Alternative 1c [and shown on Exhibit 9]), or the Fish and Game
Commission/DFG and NOAA enter into an interagency agreement that
establishes MPA protection for these ``gap'' areas, NOAA will expand
Alternative 1c to include in its MPA designation these ``gaps'' between
the outer boundaries of the existing state MPAs and the state-federal
waters boundary (3nm from shore).'' At this meeting, the CDFG
representative also stated that the FGC could close these gaps in
protection using state laws by August 2007.
Based on the record, including comments received during the public
comment period and the record of the Coastal Commission, NOAA has
determined that there is sufficient information and rationale to
establish marine zones in the federal waters of the Sanctuary (i.e.,
implement NOAA's Alternative 1C). With regard to state waters of the
Sanctuary, NOAA has decided to defer action on establishing marine
zones until the FGC has had an opportunity to close those gaps in a
manner consistent with the Coastal Commission's motion and the CDFG
representative's statement. The State of California has already begun
this process by placing it on the agenda for a decision at the August
2007 meeting of the FGC. Also, the CDFG has begun preparing the
necessary documentation to support the FGC's decision. NOAA is,
therefore, leaving the record open with regard to a decision to
establish marine zones in state waters of the Sanctuary, and will be
accepting additional public comment on this specific issue.
NOAA will make a final decision with regard to its action in state
waters in fall, 2007. If the FGC is able to take sufficient action
before this time, NOAA proposes to take no further action under the
NMSA. If the FGC is not able to take sufficient action before this
time, NOAA would finalize regulations under the NMSA that would
effectively close the gaps associated with alternative 1C by extending
federal protections into state waters to meet the boundaries of the
marine zones established by the FGC in 2003. In either case, NOAA will
provide public notice of this action through issuance of a Federal
Register document at the appropriate time.
[[Page 29212]]
II. Summary of Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of
Decision
NOAA prepared a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the
proposed rule to establish marine reserves and marine conservation
areas within the Sanctuary (71 FR 46220; August 11, 2006). The DEIS was
prepared in accordance with the NMSA and National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA) requirements. The DEIS was distributed for public
comments in early August 2006. The public comment period, which closed
on October 10, 2006, yielded many comments on NOAA's proposed action
and suggestions for improving the DEIS. NOAA has prepared a final
environmental impact statement (FEIS) to address these comments and
make appropriate changes to its environmental analysis. The FEIS
contains a statement of the purpose and need for the project,
description of proposed alternatives including the no action
alternative, description of the affected environment, and evaluation
and comparison of environmental consequences including cumulative
impacts. The preferred alternative incorporates the network of marine
reserves and marine conservation areas originally identified for the
federal phase in the Commission's CEQA document.
NOAA's record of decision for this action, prepared pursuant to 40
CFR 1505.2, is set forth below:
Record of Decision
Introduction
Designated in 1980, the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary
(CINMS or Sanctuary) consists of an area of approximately 1,113 square
nautical miles (nmi2) off the southern coast of California. The
Sanctuary boundary begins at the mean high water line and extends
seaward to a distance of approximately six nautical miles (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 (collectively the Islands). Located
offshore from Santa Barbara and Ventura counties, the Sanctuary
supports a rich and diverse range of marine life and habitats, unique
and productive oceanographic processes and ecosystems, and culturally
significant resources. More than 27 species of cetaceans (whales and
dolphins) use the Sanctuary during at least part of the year. There are
also 5 species of pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) that occur in the
area. More than 60 species of birds feed in the sanctuary and more than
23 species of sharks occur here. In addition, a wealth of Chumash
Native American artifacts as well as the remains of over 100 historic
shipwrecks line the ocean floor of the Sanctuary.
The primary objective of the CINMS is to protect Sanctuary
resources. In meeting this objective, NOAA is establishing federal
marine zones in the CINMS to further the protection of Sanctuary
biodiversity, and to complement the existing network of marine zones
established by the State of California in October 2002 (and implemented
under its authorities in April 2003). The regulations implementing this
action add nine new federal marine zones to the Sanctuary (eight no-
take marine reserves and one limited-take marine conservation area).
These zones total 110.5 nmi2 as marine reserves and 1.7
nmi2 as marine conservation areas. The area of the total
network, including the existing state marine zones, is 214.1
nmi2. All extractive activities (e.g., removal of any
sanctuary resource) and injury to Sanctuary resources are prohibited in
marine reserves. Lobster harvest and recreational fishing for pelagic
finfish (with hook and line only) are allowed within the marine
conservation area, while all other extraction or injury to Sanctuary
resources is prohibited.
NOAA has prepared this record of decision (ROD) in accordance with
regulations published by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR
1505.2) implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Decision
NOAA is issuing new regulations for the CINMS. These new
regulations prohibit take of all Sanctuary resources in marine reserves
and limit take of all Sanctuary resources in a marine conservation
area.
Alternatives Considered
In its final environmental impact statement, NOAA considered three
alternatives for this action: A no action (or status quo) alternative,
Alternative 1, and Alternative 2.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition, NOAA and the State of California considered and
analyzed dozens of other spatial designs. See section 3 of the FEIS
for more information about the process used to develop the range of
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action Alternative
The no action alternative would have maintained the status quo in
the Sanctuary (i.e., no new marine zones would be designated). Under
this alternative, the NMSP would not have taken any new regulatory
action under the NMSA. Existing Sanctuary regulations (e.g., no
discharge) would continue to apply throughout the CINMS. Existing state
marine reserves and marine conservation areas and existing state and
federal management of commercial and recreational activities, including
fishing, would remain in place.
Alternative 1
Under Alternative 1, the NMSP will establish a series of marine
zones. The spatial extent of the overall marine zoning network
alternative was developed by the CDFG and NMSP in 2001, based on the
extensive work of the MRWG and its advisory panels, and is the original
proposed project in the CDFG (2002). The portions of the marine zones
within state waters were established by the FGC and CDFG in 2003.
Alternative 1 contained three sub-alternatives: 1A, 1B, and 1C. In
Alternative 1A, the boundaries of the marine zones (and their
corresponding NMSA regulations) completely overlay the existing state
marine zones and terminate at the mean high water line of the northern
Channel Islands. In Alternative 1B, the boundaries of the marine zones
(and their corresponding NMSA regulations) abut the existing state
marine zone boundaries, thereby including a small portion of state
waters. In Alternative 1C, the boundaries of the proposed marine zones
terminate at the boundary between state and federal waters (3 nmi from
shore), thereby including no state waters. Alternative 1C was NOAA's
preferred alternative.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 is based on a larger network of marine reserves
developed during the MRWG process with slight modifications to conform
to the boundaries of the existing state marine reserves and
conservation areas. Alternative 2 is the largest of the alternatives
proposed, thereby increasing protection of various habitats and species
of interest, as compared to Alternative 1A. When compared to the no-
action alternative, Alternative 2 adds 11 new marine reserves and one
new marine conservation area. Alternative 2 has a total of 276.9 nmi
\2\ as marine reserves and 12.1 nmi \2\ as marine conservation areas
for a total of 289.0 nmi 2. Alternative 2 would have had the
same regulations as Alternative 1.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
All alternatives, aside from the no action alternative, would
result in
[[Page 29213]]
environmental benefits in the form of protection of sensitive marine
habitats and species. Alternative 2 is the largest of the alternatives
proposed and includes a network of existing state marine zones and new
federal zones, and would increase protection of various habitats and
species of interest, as compared to the sub-alternatives under
Alternative 1. Therefore, this alternative is considered to be the
environmentally preferred. It was not selected because Alternative 1
better met NOAA's purpose and need.
Mitigation Measures
Because the action would not result in any environmental harm,
there are no specific mitigation measures needed to avoid, minimize, or
compensate for environmental harm.
Decision Making Process
Collectively referred to as the ``Channel Islands marine reserves
process,'' the consideration of marine zones within the CINMS occurred
in three distinct phases: (1) A community-based phase; (2) a State of
California (State) regulatory phase; and (3) a federal regulatory
phase. These three phases are described in detail in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for this action (see ADDRESSES).
In summary, the alternatives described evolved as a result of the
Channel Islands marine reserves process. Comprehensive marine zoning
network options were originally developed by NOAA and the CDFG
following a comprehensive stakeholder process conducted from 1999
through 2002. In 2002, the FGC supported establishment of state marine
zones in the state waters of the Sanctuary (0-3 nmi) \2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Refer to the Environmental Impact Report prepared by the
State of California for its 2002 action. This document is available
for download on NOAA's CINMS Web site at http://channelislands.noaa.gov/marineres/main.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the publication of the State's final regulations in 2003,
NOAA hosted scoping meetings to consider the extension of the State's
zones into deeper waters of the Sanctuary. In 2004, NOAA released a
preliminary environmental document with a range of alternatives for
public review. NOAA then consulted with local, state, and federal
agencies and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) on possible
amendments to the CINMS designation document pursuant to section
303(b)(2) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C.
1433(b)(2)). In addition, in 2005 NOAA provided the PFMC with the
opportunity to prepare draft NMSA fishing regulations pursuant to
section 304(a)(5) of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1434(a)(5)) for the potential
establishment of marine reserves and marine conservation areas.
The PFMC response to NOAA's letter regarding draft fishing
regulations stated its support for NOAA's goals and objectives for
marine zones in the CINMS, but recommended that, rather than utilizing
the NMSA, NOAA issue fishing regulations under the Magnuson-Steven
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the relevant
authorities of the states of California, Oregon, and Washington. To
that end, and in accordance with advice from the NOAA Administrator in
his October 19, 2005 letter to the PFMC, the PFMC recommended the
northern Channel Islands federal marine zones be designated as
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
(HAPC) under Amendment 19 of the Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
(FMP). The water column in the marine zones would be closed under other
fishery management plan authorities and complementary state laws.
NOAA reviewed the PFMC's recommendations and determined that PFMC
did not have the specificity or record to support the use of the MSA or
state laws to establish limited take or no-take zones in the water
column and thereby did not fulfill NOAA's goals and objectives for
these marine zones in the CINMS. Amendment 19 to the Groundfish FMP
implemented, in part, the proposed marine zones by prohibiting all
bottom contact gear in those proposed zones. Accordingly, NOAA's NMSA
regulations prohibit the take of resources from the zones not
prohibited by the Amendment 19 regulations. Thus, along with the
regulations implementing Amendment 19, the NMSA regulations establish
comprehensive marine reserves and a marine conservation area in the
federal waters part of the CINMS in a manner that fulfills NOAA's goals
and objectives for the marine zones in the CINMS.
In August 2006, NOAA published proposed regulations for this action
and released the related draft environmental impact statement (DEIS)
for public review and comment. Between August and October of 2006, NOAA
received public comment and held two hearings on the proposed rule and
DEIS. Over 30,000 individuals submitted written comments and/or
presented oral testimony on NOAA's proposal. Approximately 99% of these
individuals supported the establishment of Alternative 1A or
Alternative 2.
During the public comment period, the State of California also
submitted comments on NOAA's proposal. In its October 2006 letter, the
CDFG stated that it could only support Alternative 1C (NMSA regulations
in federal waters only) as described in the DEIS. In subsequent
consultations with State representatives and in a letter from the
Secretary of Resources dated January 2, 2007, the State reiterated that
it could only support Alternative 1C at this time. Under Alternative
1C, NOAA would establish marine reserves and a marine conservation area
only in federal waters. NOAA's preferred alternative, identified as
Alternative 1A in the DEIS, would have established marine zones in both
federal and state waters with federal regulations overlaying the entire
network (i.e., from the outer boundary of the federal waters reserves
to the mean high water line of the Channel Islands). As indicated in
the DEIS, Alternative 1C leaves small gaps in protection between the
offshore extent of some of the state waters marine zones established by
the State of California in 2003 and the federal waters marine zones
proposed by NOAA.
On March 16, 2007, the Coastal Commission held a public meeting on
NOAA's consistency determination with California's Coastal Zone
Management Plan under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act
(see http://www.coastal.ca.gov/meetings/mtg-mm7-3.html). At that
meeting, the Coastal Commission passed a motion as follows:
In the event NOAA elects not to implement Alternative 1a, NOAA
will implement Alternative 1c, with the following additional
provisions: Until such time as the Resources Agency and the Fish and
Game Commission designate the areas in between the existing State-
designated MPAs and the 3 mile limit (i.e., the ``gaps'' between the
existing state MPAs and the federal MPAs depicted in Alternative 1c
[and shown on Exhibit 9]), or the Fish and Game Commission/DFG and
NOAA enter into an interagency agreement that establishes MPA
protection for these ``gap'' areas, NOAA will expand Alternative 1c
to include in its MPA designation these ``gaps'' between the outer
boundaries of the existing state MPAs and the State-federal waters
boundary (3nm from shore).
At this meeting, the CDFG representative also stated that the FGC
could close these gaps in protection using state laws by August 2007.
Based on the record, including comments received during the public
comment period and the record of the Coastal Commission, NOAA
determined that at this time there is sufficient information and
rationale to establish marine zones in the federal waters of the
Sanctuary (i.e., implement NOAA's alternative 1C). This Record of
Decision
[[Page 29214]]
supports that determination and represents NOAA's final decision to
implement the regulations in the federal waters of the Sanctuary
associated with Alternative 1C.
With regard to state waters of the Sanctuary, NOAA has decided to
defer action on establishing federal marine zones until the FGC has had
an opportunity to close the gaps between the federal marine zones and
the state marine zones in a manner consistent with the Coastal
Commission's resolution and the CDFG representative's statement.\3\ The
State of California has already begun this process by placing it on the
agenda for a decision at the August 2007 meeting of the FGC. Also, the
CDFG has begun preparing the necessary documentation to support the
FGC's decision. If the FGC is able to take sufficient action in a
timely manner, NOAA would take no further action under the NMSA. If the
FGC is not able to take sufficient action in a timely manner, NOAA
would issue regulations under the NMSA that would effectively close the
gaps associated with Alternative 1C by extending federal protections
into state waters to meet the boundaries of the marine zones
established by the FGC in 2003. In that instance, a second record of
decision for that subsequent action would be issued to finalize such
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Closing the gaps would also be consistent with the public
record supporting the 2002 decision of the California Fish and Game
Commission to establish marine zones in the Sanctuary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The new regulations identified above apply to all users of the
Sanctuary. Based on socioeconomic information gathered by NOAA and
identified in the FEIS, the socioeconomic impacts of these regulations
can be characterized as:
Having a small impact on existing consumptive
activities (commercial fishing and consumptive recreational
activities).
Beneficial to non-consumptive recreational users. These
increased benefits take the form of increases in diversity and
abundance of wildlife for viewing and photography opportunities.
Benefits may also be derived from the decrease in the density of
users or in the reduction in conflicts with consumptive users.
Beneficial to management, research, and education
because relatively undisturbed areas (i.e., reference areas) will be
available for comparison with areas outside the marine zones; and
Beneficial for intrinsic and heritage purposes.
NOAA expects, therefore, that this rule will have no significant
socioeconomic impacts and that the implementation of marine zones in
the CINMS will have beneficial ecological impacts on marine communities
and habitats.
III. Revised Designation Document
Section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA requires that the terms of
designation include the geographic area included within the Sanctuary;
the characteristics of the area that give it conservation,
recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational, or
aesthetic value; and the types of activities subject to regulation by
the Secretary to protect these characteristics. Section 304(a)(4) also
specifies that the terms of designation may be modified only by the
same procedures by which the original designation was made. To
implement this action, the CINMS Designation Document, originally
published in the Federal Register on October 2, 1980 (45 FR 65198), is
modified to read as follows (new text in bold and deleted text in
brackets and italics):
Preamble
Under the authority of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Pub. L. 92-532, (the Act) the waters
surrounding the northern Channel Islands and Santa Barbara Island are
hereby designated a Marine Sanctuary for the purposes of preserving and
protecting this unique and fragile ecological community.
Article 1. Effect of Designation
Within the area designated as the Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary (the Sanctuary), described in Article 2, the Act authorizes
the promulgation of such regulations as are reasonable and necessary to
protect the values of the Sanctuary. Article 4 of this Designation
lists those activities which may require regulation but the listing of
any activity does not by itself prohibit or restrict it. Restrictions
or prohibitions may be accomplished only through regulation, and
additional activities may be regulated only by amending Article 4.
Article 2. Description of the Area
The Sanctuary consists of an area of the waters off the coast of
California, of approximately [1252.5] 1,128 square nautical miles (nmi)
adjacent to the northern Channel Islands and Santa Barbara Island
seaward to a distance of approximately 6 nmi. The precise boundaries
are defined by regulation.
Article 3. Characteristics of the Area That Give It Particular Value
The Sanctuary is located in an area of upwelling and in a
transition zone between the cold waters of the California Current and
the warmer Southern California Countercurrent. Consequently, the
Sanctuary contains an exceptionally rich and diverse biota, including
30 species of marine mammals and several endangered species of marine
mammals and sea birds. The Sanctuary will provide recreational
experiences and scientific research opportunities and generally will
have special value as an ecological, recreational, and esthetic
resource.
Article 4. Scope of Regulation
Section 1. Activities Subject to Regulation
In order to protect the distinctive values of the Sanctuary, the
following activities may be regulated within the Sanctuary to the
extent necessary to ensure the protection and preservation of its
marine features and the ecological, recreational, and esthetic value of
the area:
a. Hydrocarbon operations.
b. Discharging or depositing any substance.
c. Dredging or alteration of, or construction on, the seabed.
d. Navigation of vessels except fishing vessels or vessels
[travelling] traveling within a Vessel Traffic Separation Scheme or
Port Access Route designated by the Coast Guard outside of 1 nmi from
any island.
e. Disturbing marine mammals or birds by overflights below 1000
feet.
f. Removing or otherwise deliberately harming cultural or
historical resources.
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.
Section 2. Consistency With International Law
The regulations governing the activities listed in Section 1 of
this article will apply to foreign flag vessels and persons not
citizens of the United States only to the extent consistent with
recognized principles of international law including treaties and
international agreements to which the United States is signatory.
[[Page 29215]]
Section 3. Emergency Regulations
Where essential to prevent immediate, serious and irreversible
damage to the ecosystem of the area, activities other than those listed
in Section 1 may be regulated within the limits of the Act on an
emergency basis for an interim period not to exceed 120 days, during
which an appropriate amendment of this article would be proposed in
accordance with the procedures specified in Article 6.
Article 5. Relation to Other Regulatory Programs
Section 1. Fishing
The regulation of fishing is not authorized under Article 4, 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 4, Section 1,
paragraph (b) and aircraft conducting kelp bed surveys below 1000 feet
can be regulated in accordance with Article 4, Section 1, paragraph
(e). All regulatory programs pertaining to fishing, including
particularly regulations promulgated under the California Fish and Game
Code and Fishery Management Plans promulgated under the Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976, 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 4.
Fishing as used in this article and in Article 4 includes kelp
harvesting.
Section 2. Defense Activities
The regulation of those activities listed in Article 4 shall not
prohibit any activity conducted by the Department of Defense that is
essential for national defense or because of emergency. Such activities
shall be consistent with the regulations to the maximum extent
practicable.
Section 3. Other Programs
All applicable regulatory programs shall remain in effect and 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 4. The Sanctuary
regulations shall set forth any necessary certification procedures.
Article 6. Alterations to This Designation
This Designation can be altered only in accordance with the same
procedures by which it has been made, including public hearings,
consultation with interested federal and state agencies and the Pacific
Regional Fishery Management Council, and approval by the President of
the United States.
IV. Summary of Regulations
These final regulations implement NOAA's preferred alternative by
establishing marine reserves and a marine conservation area within the
federal waters of CINMS. The regulations define two new terms (pelagic
finfish and stowed and not available for immediate use), prohibit all
extractive activities and injury to Sanctuary resources within the
marine reserves, and prohibit all extractive activities and injury to
Sanctuary resources within the marine conservation area except
recreational fishing for pelagic finfish and commercial and
recreational lobster fishing (Anacapa Island Marine Conservation Area).
These regulations also add two new appendices that list the boundary
coordinates for the marine reserves and marine conservation area. These
regulations modify subpart G of the National Marine Sanctuary Program
Regulations (15 CFR part 922), the regulations for the Channel Islands
National Marine Sanctuary.
A. Establishment of Marine Reserves and Marine Conservation Areas
These regulations establish under the NMSA eight marine reserves
and one marine conservation area within the CINMS. Refer to figure 1
for a map depicting the locations of the marine reserves and marine
conservation area. The marine reserves are distributed throughout the
CINMS and extend slightly beyond the current boundaries of the CINMS in
four locations, increasing the geographic area of the Sanctuary by
about 15 square nautical miles. This action increases the overall size
of the Sanctuary from approximately 1,113 square nautical miles to
approximately 1,128 square nautical miles, an approximately 15 square
nautical mile increase. This small amount added allows the boundary of
four of the marine reserves to be defined by straight lines projecting
outside the current CINMS boundary, allowing for better enforcement of
the marine reserves. The boundaries of the marine reserves and marine
conservation area are consistent with the marine reserves and marine
conservation areas established by the Commission in 2002 in state
waters-essentially extending most of them into federal waters of the
Sanctuary. NOAA is changing the number identifying the total area of
the CINMS from approximately 1,252.5 square nautical miles to
approximately 1,128 square nautical miles. This change is based on
North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) and adjusts for technical
corrections using updated technologies. The legal description of the
CINMS is updated to reflect this change. This update does not
constitute a 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.
[[Page 29216]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24MY07.002
Under these final regulations, NOAA establishes two marine reserves
in the area around San Miguel Island, one around Santa Rosa Island, two
around Santa Cruz Island, two around Anacapa Island, and one around
Santa Barbara Island. The marine conservation area is established off
of Anacapa Island.
The total area designated marine reserves under these final
regulations is 110.5 square nautical miles. The marine conservation
area encompasses an additional 1.7 square nautical miles.
Based on the record, including comments received during the public
comment period and the record of the Coastal Commission, NOAA has
determined that there is sufficient information and rationale to
establish marine zones in the federal waters of the Sanctuary (i.e.,
implement NOAA's Alternative 1C). With regard to state waters of the
Sanctuary, NOAA has decided to defer action on establishing marine
zones until the FGC has had an opportunity to close those gaps in a
manner consistent with the Coastal Commission's motion and the CDFG
representative's statement. The State of California has already begun
this process by placing it on the agenda for a decision at the August
2007 meeting of the FGC. Also, the CDFG has begun preparing the
necessary documentation to support the FGC's decision. NOAA is,
therefore, leaving the record open with regard to a decision to
establish marine zones in state waters of the Sanctuary, and is
requesting additional public comment on this specific issue.
B. Activities Prohibited Within the Marine Reserves
Under the final regulations, NOAA prohibits any harvesting,
removing, taking, injuring, destroying, collecting, moving, or causing
the loss of any Sanctuary resource, including living or dead organisms
or historical resources, or attempting to do so, within any of the
marine reserves. The term ``sanctuary resource'' is broadly defined in
the NMSP regulations at 15 CFR 922.3 and means any living or non-living
resource that contributes to the conservation, recreational,
ecological, historical, scientific, educational, or aesthetic value of
the Sanctuary. For the CINMS, the term ``Sanctuary resource'' includes,
for example, the seafloor and all animals and plants of the Sanctuary.
It also includes historical resources (which, pursuant to 15 CFR 922.3,
include cultural and archeological resources), such as shipwrecks and
Native American remains. In addition, to enhance compliance and aid in
enforcement, these final regulations also prohibit possessing fishing
gear and Sanctuary resources inside a marine reserve, except in certain
circumstances. These final regulations allow possession of legally
harvested fish stowed on a vessel at anchor in or transiting through a
marine reserve and also allow the possession of stowed fishing gear,
provided the gear is not available for immediate use.
These final regulations prohibit only those extractive activities
within marine reserves that are not prohibited by 50 CFR part 660, the
NOAA regulations that govern ``Fisheries off West Coast States'' (MSA
regulations). Therefore, if an extractive activity is prohibited by MSA
regulations, it is not prohibited by these final NMSA regulations.
Conversely, all extractive activities not prohibited by MSA regulations
are prohibited by these final NMSA regulations within marine reserves.
In the future, if NOAA were to amend the MSA regulations to prohibit
additional extractive activities within marine reserves, these NMSA
regulations would correspondingly narrow in scope. If, for MSA
purposes, NOAA were to amend the MSA regulations to allow additional
extractive activities, these NMSA
[[Page 29217]]
regulations would correspondingly expand in scope to ensure all forms
of extraction are prohibited within marine reserves. In either case,
the MSA rulemaking making such change would provide the public with
notice of the corresponding change in applicability of the NMSA
regulation.
Regardless of the specific regulatory mechanism, the intended
result of this final rule is for all extractive activities to be
prohibited within the marine reserves.
C. Activities Prohibited Within the Marine Conservation Areas
These final regulations prohibit the same activities within the
marine conservation area as within the marine reserves except that
commercial and recreational lobster fishing and recreational fishing
for pelagic finfish are allowed in the marine conservation area at
Anacapa Island. Commercial fishing for pelagic finfish is prohibited
within the marine conservation area.
Like the final regulations for marine reserves, the final
regulations for the marine conservation area only prohibit activities
that are not prohibited by applicable MSA regulations codified at 50
CFR part 660. Any changes to the applicable MSA regulations would
result in a corresponding change in the applicability of the NMSA
regulations, as discussed above.
D. Enforcement
The final regulations will be enforced by NOAA and other authorized
agencies (e.g., the California Department of Fish and Game, United
States Coast Guard, and National Park Service) in a coordinated and
comprehensive way. Enforcement actions for an infraction will be
prosecuted under the appropriate statutes or regulations governing that
infraction. The result is that enforcement actions may be taken under
State of California authorities, the NMSA, the MSA, or other relevant
legal authority.
E. Permitting
The NMSP regulations, including the regulations for the CINMS,
allow NOAA to issue permits to conduct activities that would otherwise
be prohibited by the regulations. Most permits are issued by the
Superintendent of the CINMS. Requirements for filing permit
applications are specified in NMSP regulations and the Office of
Management and Budget-approved application guidelines (OMB control
number 0648-0141). Criteria for reviewing permit applications are
contained in the CINMS and NMSP regulations at 15 CFR 922.77 and
922.48, respectively. In general, permits may be issued for activities
related to scientific research, education, and management. Permits may
also be issued for activities associated with the salvage and recovery
efforts for a recent air or marine casualty. (Emergency activities
would not require a permit.)
Nationwide, NOAA issues approximately 200 national marine sanctuary
permits each year. Of this amount, two or three are for activities
within the CINMS. The majority of permits issued for activities within
the CINMS are for activities related to scientific research. NOAA
expects this trend to continue with the final regulations. Although
there may be an increase in the number of permits requested for
activities within the CINMS, NOAA does not expect this increase to
appreciably raise the average number of permits issued nationwide.
Therefore, NOAA has determined that these final regulations do not
necessitate a modification to its information collection approval by
the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
V. Summary of Comments and Responses
This section contains NOAA's responses to the substantive comments
received on the proposed rule and DEIS. NOAA has summarized the
comments according to the content of the statement or question put
forward in the letters, e-mails, and written and oral testimony at the
public hearings on this action. Many commenters submitted similar
enough questions or statements that they could be addressed by one
response. NOAA also made several changes in the FEIS in response to the
public comments, e.g., updating the socioeconomic and ecological impact
analyses. Several technical or editorial comments on the DEIS and
proposed rule were taken under consideration by NOAA and, where
appropriate, applied to the FEIS and this final rule. These comments
are not, however, included in the substantive list below.
NOAA's FEIS contains these comments and responses, but also
includes a table listing the names of the individuals that submitted
comments on the DEIS and proposed rule and an index indicating which
comments were submitted by each person and NOAA's response to those
particular comments.
1. Comment: Collectively, the following five reasons were
identified by commenters in support of NOAA's Alternative 2:
It provides the greatest amount of ecosystem protection,
habitat representation, and opportunities for species recovery/
restoration.
It best recognizes the intrinsic values associated with
biodiversity and ecosystem-based protection.
It contains zones of sufficient size, space, and
connectivity to maximize larval production and recruitment.
It best fulfills the mandates of the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) and the goals of the proposed network.
It best achieves recommendations in the 2004 report from
the Pew Oceans Commission and U.S. Ocean Commission.
Response: Alternative 2 would provide the greatest amount of
ecosystem protection as it is the largest spatial alternative. However,
Alternative 1 (and its sub-alternatives) provides not only a robust
level of ecosystem protection, habitat representation, and opportunity
for species recovery and restoration, but is consistent with the
existing network established by the State of California (State) in
state waters of the Sanctuary and aligned with the offshore marine
zones envisioned by the State's preferred alternative in its CEQA
document. Also, Alternative 1 (and its three subalternatives) is
consistent with the benthic habitat protections adopted by the PFMC and
NOAA Fisheries through the EFH conservation areas established by NOAA
under MSA regulations (see NOAA's final rule at 71 FR 27408; May 11,
2006). Further, implementation of Alternative 1 would fulfill the
mandates of the NMSA, achieve the goals of the CINMS zoning network,
and meet several of the recommendations put forward by the Pew Oceans
and U.S. Ocean Commissions.
Designation of Alternative 2 under the envisioned regulatory
structure may require additional administrative actions that may delay
implementation. This regulatory structure, which uses a combination of
the MSA and NMSA, may require that the current EFH designation in the
Sanctuary, which corresponds to the zone boundaries under Alternative
1, be re-designated to incorporate the larger zone boundaries proposed
under Alternative 2. Alternative 1 is the most prudent course of action
for the marine zoning network in the Sanctuary.
2. Comment: Approximately 30,000 commenters supported NOAA's
preferred alternative in the DEIS (Alternative 1A) as the most
efficient and coherent zone network for protecting Channel Islands
wildlife.
Response: In the DEIS, the three sub-alternatives analyzed under
Alternative 1 (1A, 1B, and 1C) provide different
[[Page 29218]]
boundary configurations for the marine zoning network based on the
extent of federal regulatory overlap in state waters. During the public
comment period, the CDFG submitted a letter to NOAA stating that
Alternative 1C was the only acceptable alternative. In a January 2,
2007 letter to NOAA, the Secretary of the California Resources Agency
reiterated this position again stating that Alternative 1C was the only
alternative acceptable to the State of California and that overlap by
federal regulations in state waters was never contemplated by the
State.
The NMSA allows the Governor of a state for which the NMSP is
making changes to a sanctuary's terms of designation to review and
reject those changes with regard to state waters. Because
implementation of Alternative 1A requires a change to the CINMS terms
of designation (to allow regulation of fishing and other resource
extraction in State, as well as Federal, waters), NOAA conducted a
thorough re-evaluation of Alternatives 1A and 1C, given the Secretary
of Resources' opposition to all NOAA alternatives but 1C.
As identified in the DEIS, Alternative 1C leaves small gaps between
some of the state designated marine reserves and the proposed federal
marine reserves (see section 3.2.4 of the FEIS). The January 2, 2007
letter also stated that the CDFG and the FGC would as soon as possible
initiate the process to close the gaps associated with Alternative 1C
by bringing the boundaries of a number of the existing state marine
zones up to the State-Federal jurisdictional line; that process has
commenced. NOAA's analysis identifies that, if these gaps are closed,
the differences among the three sub-alternatives are distinguished by
management considerations, not ecological and socioeconomic impacts. As
such, because the CDFG and the FGC are closing the gaps associated with
Alternative 1C, the net ecological benefits and socioeconomic impacts
between Alternatives 1A (NOAA's original preferred alternative) and 1C
(the State of California's recommended alternative) will be the same.
NOAA has determined, therefore, that Alternative 1C will accomplish the
goals of the zoning network while respecting the position of the State.
If NOAA implements Alternative 1C and the State does not act to close
the gaps in a timely manner, NOAA envisions closing the gaps via NMSA
regulations.
Furthermore, NOAA and the State strongly support a close,
collaborative working relationship to implement the CINMS zoning
network and will sign a formal agreement to ensure that management of
the network (e.g., enforcement, education and outreach, and monitoring)
is implemented in a collaborative, efficient, and effective manner.
3. Comment: Several commenters support the no action alternative
because they believe existing regulations are sufficient to meet the
goals of NOAA's action.
Response: NOAA has determined existing regulations are not
sufficient to meet the goals of this action. The State of California
has reached the same conclusion in adopting the state waters portions
of the network and is asking NOAA for prompt action in the federal
waters zones. NOAA's analysis discusses the relationship of the action
with other existing management regimes in the region (see sections 3.1
and 5.1.2 of the FEIS) and the effectiveness they have on achieving
NOAA's goals for this action.
Marine zones and sound fishery management are complementary
components of a comprehensive effort to sustain marine habitats and
fisheries. Marine zones are considered one of many tools available to
ocean managers and are not the only tool used in the project area for
this action. However, certain ecosystem functions cannot be protected
as well by other management measures. For example, size, season, and
bag limits do not prevent bycatch of non-target species or undersized
individuals nor do they fully provide for natural predator and prey
interactions. Traditional single species-based management measures
alone have not been sufficient to protect groundfish and other
populations in the CINMS region and other parts of the world.
Incidental impacts of various fishing practices may also have
unintended effects that would not occur in a marine zone, particularly
in a no-take reserve. This includes both direct impacts to the
environment (e.g., habitat damage from trawling) and indirect ecosystem
impacts (e.g., removing all large, old fish and altering the species
size composition). Marine zones of the type proposed here by their
nature provide relatively undisturbed habitats and act as ``natural
hatcheries'', which leads to benefits in total production and export of
young.
NOAA's action is intended to address a suite of ecological goals,
including providing special protection of habitats and species for
their intrinsic values. Marine zones of the type proposed here provide
insurance for management uncertainty by providing areas where species
can interact in a relatively undisturbed ecosystem. Furthermore, NOAA's
action under the NMSA does not duplicate existing NOAA regulations
promulgated under the MSA. The regulations being issued under this
action have been carefully crafted in such a way so that the
regulations being issued here under the NMSA are subject to NOAA's
regulations under the MSA. This applies to the current regime and any
future changes, so that if NOAA were to amend the MSA regulations, the
applicability of the NMSA regulations would expand or contract
automatically to ensure complete protection with no duplication. See
the final regulations for how this is achieved.
The specific integration of marine zones into fisheries management,
including reductions in overall fleet capacity, total allowable catch,
and allocation between user groups is more appropriately dealt with
through the PFMC and FGC processes, which is used to establish these
limits.
4. Comment: Several commenters support the no action alternative
because they believe that any additional zones can and should be
designated by the PFMC via the MSA and the State of California via
State statutes.
Response: In May 2005, NOAA presented the PFMC, per section
304(a)(5) of the NMSA, with the opportunity to prepare draft NMSA
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) portion of the given sanctuary. The
EEZ portion of the CINMS is from 3 to 6 nmi 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 states of
California, Oregon, and Washington.
Based on its review of the existing factual and scientific
evidence, NOAA determined that there was a credible basis for
regulations prohibiting the use of bottom-contact gear in the CINMS
marine zones under the MSA. With respect to fishing throughout the
remainder of the water column, however, NOAA determined that there was
an insufficient factual and scientific basis to support pursuit of this
aspect of the PFMC's proposal under the MSA. NOAA determined that the
PFMC's recommendations did not have the specificity or record to
support the use of the MSA or state laws to establish limited take or
no-take zones in the water column and thereby did not fulfill the goals
and objectives of the CINMS.
[[Page 29219]]
Further, MSA regulations cannot legally address other extractive
activities that could be addressed under the NMSA, such as certain
scientific research activities. In response, the PFMC changed its
recommendation under Amendment 19 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish
Management Plan (see next paragraph) to close the existing and proposed
CINMS marine zones to only bottom-contact gear.
In 2006, the PFMC submitted and NOAA approved Amendment 19 to the
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, which, among other
things, identified and described EFH within the CINMS for groundfish
species and designated the existing and proposed CINMS marine zones as
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC). Amendment 19 also
prohibited the use of bottom-contact gear in the CINMS HAPCs.
The final NMSA regulations for this marine zones action prohibit
those extractive activities within the marine zones that are not
prohibited by 50 CFR part 660, the NOAA regulations that govern
``Fisheries off West Coast States,'' which includes the Amendment 19
regulations. Therefore, if an extractive activity is prohibited by
those MSA regulations, it is not prohibited by the NMSA regulations.
Conversely, all extractive activities not prohibited by those MSA
regulations in the marine reserves are prohibited by these NMSA
regulations. In the future, if NOAA were to amend the MSA regulations
to prohibit additional extractive activities in the marine zones,
notice and opportunity for public comment would be provided regarding
those activities no longer being prohibited by regulations under the
NMSA. Likewise, if NOAA were to amend the MSA regulations to allow
currently prohibited extractive activities in the marine zones, notice
and opportunity for public comment would be provided regarding those
additional activities being prohibited under these NMSA regulations.
5. Comment: Ecosystem-based management should be favored over
traditional fisheries management in this action, because it is more
effective at meeting NOAA's purpose and need.
Response: This action to complete the CINMS marine zoning network
is a form of ecosystem-based management that is being applied to meet
NOAA's responsibility to protect Sanctuary resources. Sanctuary
resources are defined at 15 CFR 922.3 as follows:
``Sanctuary resource means any living or non-living 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.''
6. Comment: Limit the proposed designation document changes and
regulations to prohibit non-fishing activities and fishing in the water
column only.
Response: Under the NMSA, when a national marine sanctuary is
designated, NOAA must specify the new sanctuary's ``terms of
designation.'' The terms of designation include the boundaries of the
sanctuary, the characteristics that give it value, and ``the types of
activities that will be subject to regulation'' by NOAA. Terms of
designation may only be modified by following the same procedures by
which the sanctuary was designated. The types of activities subject to
regulation are usually expressed in fairly general terms. This is
necessary to allow NOAA to make appropriate modifications to the
regulations in the future, e.g., to allow for adaptive management.
However, even minor changes must be made through a full public process,
including an opportunity for the public to review the change and
provide comment before it is finalized. Furthermore, NOAA must prepare
all legally required analysis for such regulatory changes, including
appropriate environmental and economic impact analyses (under the
National Environmental Policy Act and Regulatory Flexibility Act).
The designation document amendment has been carefully crafted and
comments were solicited from NOAA Fisheries, other relevant resource
management agencies, and the PFMC. It is also crafted to be consistent
with the deliberations made throughout this process, including the
community and state phases (see the Executive Summary of NOAA's FEIS
for a summary of the process). As indicated above, the scope of
authority defined in designation documents for all national marine
sanctuaries is typically general, and the implementing regulations are
more specific. NOAA believes this provides sufficient parameters to its
authority while allowing flexibility to manage the network adaptively
in the future in response to biological, ecological, and economic
indicators of the network's effectiveness. Any proposed regulatory
adjustment to the current network would undergo rigorous environmental
review, analysis, and public input.
As indicated above, in contrast to the general scope of the terms
of designation, sanctuary regulations are often very specific and are
developed to implement the terms of designation by defining the human
activities that are prohibited or otherwise restricted. The final
regulations for this NOAA action prohibit those extractive activities
within marine reserves that are not prohibited by 50 CFR part 660, the
NOAA regulations that govern ``Fisheries off West Coast States'' (MSA
regulations). Therefore, if an extractive activity is prohibited by MSA
regulations, it is not prohibited by these final NMSA regulations.
Conversely, all extractive activities not prohibited by MSA regulations
are prohibited by these final NMSA regulations within marine reserves.
Furthermore, NOAA has determined that limiting the scope of the
regulations and terms of designation to prohibiting activities only
within the water column would leave unacceptable gaps in the cover of
the regulations. Certain activities, such as scientific research, would
not be covered by other regulations (either State or MSA regulations)
thus preventing total closure of the zones. Given this, NOAA has
determined that limiting the scope of the regulations and terms of
designation would not meet its purpose and need for this action.
7. Comment: The geographic scope of the proposed authority to
regulate fishing under the NMSA, as described in the DEIS, is too
broad.
Response: The designation document amendment has been carefully
crafted and comments solicited from NOAA Fisheries, other relevant
resource management agencies, and the PFMC. It is also crafted to be
consistent with the deliberations made throughout this process,
including the community and state phases (see the Executive Summary of
NOAA's FEIS for a summary of the process). The scope of authority
defined in designation documents for all national marine sanctuaries is
typically general, and the implementing regulations are more specific.
NOAA believes this provides sufficient parameters to its authority
while allowing flexibility to manage the network adaptively in the
future in response to biological, ecological, and economic indicators
of the network's effectiveness. Any proposed regulatory adjustment to
the current network would undergo rigorous environmental review,
analysis, and public input.
8. Comment: CINMS lacks a fisheries manager position, expert
fisheries
[[Page 29220]]
advisory bodies, an extensive stakeholder input process, and overall
adequate organization for fisheries management, which will complicate
existing fisheries management coordination.
Response: The CINMS marine zoning process has required close
coordination among staff from the PFMC, NOAA Fisheries, CDFG, FGC and
NMSP, and the constituents involved in the respective public policy
forums. See Appendix D of the FEIS for a meeting history among these
organizations during the CINMS marine zoning process.
In addition, the CINMS Advisory Council has provided, and will
continue to provide, a robust, open, and transparent community based
public forum to provide advice to NOAA on resource protection,
education, and research issues, including fishing issues within the
Sanctuary. The Advisory Council has representatives from all major
sectors that utilize the CINMS, including commercial and recreational
fishermen and the region's primary fisheries regulators, NOAA Fisheries
and the CDFG. In addition, the Advisory Council's recreational fishing
working group has representatives from local, regional, and national
fishing organizations, including United Anglers of Southern California
and the Recreational Fishing Alliance. The commercial fishing working
group includes representatives from the Santa Barbara and Ventura
fishing communities and fishing organizations such as the Sea Urchin
Harvesters Association.
9. Comment: Commenter requests funding for collaborative research
involving the fishing community.
Response: NOAA continues to support and fund the Channel Islands
Collaborative Marine Research Program (CMRP), managed by the Channel
Islands Marine Sanctuary Foundation, which involves the commercial and
recreational fishing communities. To date the CMRP has funded close to
$200,000 in research projects involving commercial and recreational
fishermen and the scientific community. If future CINMS budgets are
stable, funding for this program would continue.
10. Comment: NMSA fishery regulations need to be enforceable,
clearly understood by the public, and meet the goals and objectives of
the PFMC and NOAA.
Response: NOAA has utilized and continues to seek guidance on
enforcement of NMSA regulations provided by the PFMC Enforcement Sub-
committee, CDFG wardens, National Park Service (NPS) Park Rangers, the
NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) officials.
These enforcement experts have provided extensive input on the
regulations, and this input is reflected in the final rule. Further,
this NOAA action is intended to achieve goals established for the CINMS
marine zones under the NMSA, not specific PFMC fishery goals.
11. Comment: The various agencies are under-funded and there are
not enough staff members to monitor and enforce the existing or
proposed project.
Response: NOAA believes that adequate resources exist to manage,
monitor, and report on the CINMS marine zones. The Channel Islands
region benefits from the resources and coordinated efforts of multiple
state and federal agencies and institutions. Through formal and
informal agreements, the CDFG, NOAA, the USCG, and the NPS will
continue to work collaboratively to monitor, enforce, and manage the
marine reserves network.
In addition to research by these agencies, other research
organizations and institutions (e.g., University of California,
California State Universities, and California Sea Grant Extension
Program) have provided research, monitoring and evaluation programs and
opportunities. Existing monitoring projects will continue to provide
data on changes in the abundance of various species in the region (see
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/channel_islands/ monitoring.html).
Interagency coordination will result in more efficient use of NOAA
and State resources. CDFG enforcement staff cooperates with other
public agencies through existing agreements and there are several
enforcement agreements and funding mechanisms among the CDFG, the NPS
NOAA, and the USCG.
12. Comment: Commenter believes there is currently not enough
research for NOAA to choose Alternatives 1 or 2 and therefore supports
the no action alternative.
Response: NOAA's analysis contained in the proposed rule, DEIS and
FEIS presents detailed information on the projected biological and
socioeconomic impacts of its alternatives for this action and believes
this adequately supports the final action.
13. Comment: Commenter requests installation of artificial reefs
and rigs-to-reefs programs to create replacement fishing opportunities
to mitigate the loss of fishing grounds.
Response: Under NOAA's action, fishing would continue to be allowed
in 81% of the Sanctuary (over 800 square nmi), subject to existing
state and federal fishery regulations. NOAA expects displacement
impacts resulting from its action will be minimal (see section 5.1 of
the FEIS). NOAA does not believe there will be any significant loss of
fishing grounds and, therefore, no need to develop any mitigation
measures at this time. The CINMS social science program calls for
monitoring displacement of fishing effort to determine if any
mitigation efforts are warranted. Should displacement impacts prove to
be significant in the future, NOAA and the State have the ability to
take appropriate action under their respective authorities.
14. Comment: The action will displace fishing effort and increase
impacts in other areas.
Response: Displacement from NOAA's action is expected to be minimal
and less than significant (see section 5.1 of the FEIS). Ongoing
monitoring, research, and evaluation after implementation will provide
additional information on this issue. Should displacement impacts prove
to be significant in the future, NOAA and the State have the ability to
take appropriate action under their respective authorities.
15. Comment: There is no dedicated source of funding at CINMS for
education and outreach programs that explain fishery management
measures, marine zoning, and marine access programs.
Response: A significant amount of funding from the CINMS budget is
dedicated to extensive education and outreach efforts on the CINMS
marine zones. Since 2000, the CINMS education and outreach program has
been helping the public understand what and where the state marine
reserves and marine conservation areas are within the Sanctuary, why
they were established, and what we can learn from them (see the Public
Awareness and Understanding action plan in section III of the CINMS
draft management plan at http://www.cinms.nos.noaa.gov/manplan/overview.html). The CINMS also works closely with CDFG to match funding
for marine zoning education and outreach. Education and outreach on
regional fishery management measures is addressed by NOAA Fisheries,
the PFMC, and the CDFG.
16. Comment: NOAA should consider more stringent restrictions for
commercial lobster fishing and more lenient restrictions for
recreational lobster fishing.
Response: Lobster fishing is regulated by the FGC. The existing
marine zoning network adopted by the State of California includes two
marine conservation areas (Anacapa Island
[[Page 29221]]
MCA and Painted Cave MCA) that permit recreational lobster harvest.
Commercial lobster fishing is allowed in the Anacapa MCA, but not in
the Painted Cave MCA.
17. Comment: The FEIS should discuss the effectiveness of other
agency management actions.
Response: NOAA's DEIS included a detailed discussion the
relationship of NOAA's preferred action with other existing management
regimes in the region (see, e.g., sections 2.2 and 3.1.2.1). The
effectiveness of these regulatory regimes in achieving NOAA's goals for
this action is also discussed. These sections are included in the FEIS.
18. Comment: The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS)
Advisory Council (SAC) should be reformed to better address fisheries
issues. Specifically, the SAC lacks any members with expertise in
fisheries economics, anthropology, geography, etc.
Response: The SAC has representatives from the CDFG and NOAA
Fisheries. Representatives from these two entities, in addition to the
representatives from commercial and recreational fishing interests and
their associated community-based fishing working groups, provide NOAA
with significant insight into fisheries issues. In addition, NOAA
Fisheries and the CDFG representatives also serve as a conduit to the
PFMC and FGC, respectively, which brings NOAA additional perspective on
fisheries issues. Moreover, the vast majority of issues faced by the
CINMS and its SAC are not related to fisheries and, therefore, require
a broad and diverse SAC membership.
19. Comment: The ``effective date'' provision in the proposed
regulation is unclear, burdensome, and inconsistent with the model
language previously presented to the PFMC by NOAA for inclusion under
the NMSA 304(a)(5) process, and therefore should not be used.
Response: The effective date clause has been omitted from the final
rule.
20. Comment: Do not remove the Marine Reserve Working Group's
(MRWG) sustainable fisheries goal of integrating marine reserves with
existing fisheries management.
Response: The goals for NOAA's action are based on the NMSA. NOAA's
goals for this action do attempt to address the goals put forward by
the MRWG where appropriate.
21. Comment: The CINMS should be an ``experimental station'' for
holistic management.
Response: NOAA manages the National Marine Sanctuary System on the
principles of ecosystem-based management. This ``holistic'' approach
attempts to incorporate all functions of the marine environment into
the decision-making process at all sanctuaries, including the CINMS.
22. Comment: NOAA should expand its assessment of the action's
economic impacts to better account for non-monetary benefits.
Response: NOAA believes the analysis of the passive (non-use) value
of the marine zones is sufficient to inform its decision making on this
action (see Section 5.2.6 of the FEIS for an evaluation of the passive
values associated with NOAA's action).
23. Comment: Marine reserves are superior to marine conservation
areas in meeting NOAA's purpose and need and are more consistent with
the MRWG's recommendations.
Response: See section 3.1.2.2 of the FEIS for a discussion of the
differences between marine reserves and marine conservation areas.
24. Comment: Many commenters state NOAA should implement the
offshore waters of the CINMS marine zone network as the final phase of
the CINMS marine reserves process that began in 1999.
Response: See section 2.0 of the FEIS for a description of the
purpose of this action, which identifies complementing the existing
state network as one of the goals.
25. Comment: NOAA should consider fishing as an important cultural
resource and protect it as such.
Response: NOAA has carefully evaluated the impacts of the action on
fishing communities and has determined the impacts to be minimal. See
section 5.2 of the FEIS.
26. Comment: Commenter is concerned about the impacts of bottom
trawl and long line fishing, bycatch, harvest of bait fish, pesticides
and pollution in the ocean, and impacts to kelp and coastal ecosystems.
Response: Marine zones provide reference sites in which to gauge
the impacts of many of the commenters' concerns relative to fished
areas.
27. Comment: Commenter recommends increasing the number of regional
field game wardens and their wages, increasing fines, and making sure
catch limits are enforced.
Response: NOAA recognizes the critical role enforcement officials
play in management of the marine zoning network. This recommendation,
however, is outside the scope of NOAA's immediate action.
28. Comment: NMSA fishing regulations and designation document
amendments for the CINMS marine zones should automatically expire
(``sunset'') at the time MSA regulations are promulgated.
Response: NOAA has determined that provision a sunset date is not
appropriate because it would not provide NOAA with the flexibility to
adaptively manage and respond to unforeseen circumstances.
29. Comment: The proposed closures don't greatly affect commercial
fishermen, but the previous closures have been devastating.
Response: NOAA's analysis takes existing fishery closures into
account and acknowledges their socioeconomic and biological impacts.
For this particular CINMS action, NOAA's analysis has determined that
the socioeconomic impacts of new closures in the federal waters of the
network will be minimal (see section 5.2 of the FEIS for more details).
30. Comment: If sea urchin fishermen were offered money for their
urchin permits, they might move on to a different career, but they
can't transfer or sell their permits.
Response: The issue of permit transferability is beyond the scope
of this action and would be handled by the CDFG and FGC, who both issue
and manage these types of permits.
31. Comment: Pollution has a huge impact on water conditions and
the resources in southern California.
Response: Marine resources in the Southern California Bight, such
as kelp forest ecosystems, have declined under pressure from a variety
of factors, including commercial and recreational fishing, changes in
oceanographic conditions associated with El Nino and other large-scale
oceanographic cycles, introduction of disease, and increased levels of
pollutants. Marine reserves offer scientists and resource managers a
controlled opportunity to study the influence of change (e.g.,
pollution) on marine ecosystems in the absence of direct human
disturbance (e.g., fishing pressure).
32. Comment: The regional seal population negatively impacts the
regional halibut population.
Response: The management of seals and halibut as individual species
falls under the purview of NOAA Fisheries and the PFMC and is outside
the scope of this rule.
33. Comment: The DEIS was not distributed to the United Anglers of
Southern California.
Response: NOAA records indicate the President of United Anglers of
Southern California was sent a copy of the DEIS on Aug. 11, 2006, and
was notified electronically via e-mail of the availability of the
document on the
[[Page 29222]]
CINMS Web site or by requesting a copy from the CINMS.
34. Comment: NOAA's aerial monitoring program data does not account
for existing regulations (such as the Rockfish Conservation Area)
displacing fishing vessels. NOAA has, therefore, erroneously concluded
that there is little fishing activity in the proposed zones.
Response: NOAA's aerial monitoring program, which has been
collecting data since prior to the establishment of the Rockfish
Conservation Area, confirms that there is little fishing activity in
the geographic area associated with NOAA's action. See section 5.2.6.4
of the FEIS for NOAA's analysis of this issue.
35. Comment: There are too many marine reserves and not enough
marine conservation areas in NOAA's proposed action.
Response: Marine conservation areas will not achieve the purpose
and goals of the action as well as marine reserves. However, NOAA has
decided to establish one marine conservation area off of Anacapa Island
to ensure consistency with the State of California's marine zone
network, which also established a marine conservation area in that
location. See sections 3.1.2.2 and 5.1.1.1 of the FEIS for more
discussion on the ecological value of marine reserves compared to
marine conservation areas.
36. Comment: NOAA should implement marine parks where pelagic
fishing is allowed, especially in the Footprint area.
Response: Allowing the take of pelagic species does not fully meet
the goals of NOAA's action. See section 3.1.2.2 of the FEIS for a
discussion on the impacts of limited take.
37. Comment: NOAA's action will negatively impact uses prioritized
in the Local Coastal Plan, such as commercial fishing, tourism, and
residential sectors, and therefore the commenter supports the no action
alternative.
Response: NOAA supports healthy fisheries, economies, and harbors
and believes the zoning network is likely to support Sanctuary-
dependent and coastal dependent uses. The proposed marine zones are
expected to promote visitation and may assist, over the long term, in
the sustainability of local fisheries.
On March 16, 2007, the Coastal Commission held a public meeting on
NOAA's proposal pursuant to its authorities under section 307 of the
Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1456). At that meeting,
the Coastal Commission issued a conditional concurrence for the
consistency determination by NOAA on the grounds that, if modified as
described in the Commission's conditional concurrence below, the
project would be fully consistent, and thus consistent to the maximum
extent practicable, with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
The conditional concurrence is: ``In the event NOAA elects not to
implement Alternative 1a, NOAA will implement Alternative 1c, with the
following additional provisions: until such time as the Resources
Agency and the Fish and Game Commission designate the areas in between
the existing State-designated MPAs and the 3 mile limit (i.e., the
``gaps'' between the existing state MPAs and the federal MPAs depicted
in Alternative 1c), or the Fish and Game Commission/DFG and NOAA enter
into an interagency agreement that establishes MPA protection for these
``gap'' areas, NOAA will expand Alternative 1c to include in its MPA
designation these ``gaps'' between the outer boundaries of the existing
state MPAs and the State-federal waters boundary (3nm from shore).''
NOAA is, therefore, leaving the record open with regard to a decision
to establish marine zones in state waters of the Sanctuary, and is
requesting additional public comment on this specific issue.
38. Comment: NOAA should not reject the zone options put forward by
local fishermen.
Response: NOAA conducted a preliminary analysis on all of the
fishermen options and determined that they did not adequately or
completely protect a full range of habitats and populations in the
Sanctuary and thus do not satisfy the purpose and goals of NOAA's
action. For more, see section 3.2.5 of the FEIS.
39. Comment: Incorporate into the FEIS all of the PFMC Science and
Statistical Committee's (SSC) critique of the CINMS marine zoning
process and Sanctuary documentation.
Response: The input from the SSC has been addressed in NOAA's
analysis in the FEIS. The SSC's input can be found at http://pcouncil.org/
40. Comment: Include a verbatim copy of the original designation
document in the FEIS and proposed rule so the public can compare the
proposed amendments.
Response: The original designation document, in its entirety, and
the amendments being made by this action are included in this preamble
to the final rule.
41. Comment: NOAA's environmental review process is not a robust
stake-holder process like the PFMC process, because CDFG and the PFMC
are not represented.
Response: The CDFG, PFMC, and NOAA Fisheries have been integral
partners in the process to date. CDFG and NOAA Fisheries, which both
have membership on the PFMC, also hold seats on the CINMS SAC.
42. Comment: Include discussions and consultations with the State
of California, other agencies within NOAA, and the other agencies
within the government in the public record.
Response: All official correspondence related to this action and
all comment letters NOAA has received on this action are available on
the CINMS Web site at http://www.cinms.nos.noaa.gov/marineres/main.html.
43. Comment: Include in the FEIS the journal article written by
NOAA employee Mark Helvey that critiques the community-based phase of
the CINMS marine zoning project.
Response: NOAA has determined this article is not integral to the
decision making process for this action and should not, therefore, be
included in the FEIS.
44. Comment: Recreational fishermen have a relatively minimal
impact on the resources and should not be excluded from the CINMS
marine zones.
Response: NOAA has determined that any take of marine resources
within the marine reserves would compromise the goals for this action.
Limited take is allowed in the Anacapa Marine Conservation areas Area
in order to be consistent with the State's action, which in turn
determined that the overall benefits of limited take status in the
marine conservation areas (areas off Anacapa Island and Santa Cruz
Island, the latter area totally in state waters) might be studied in
comparison to the overall benefits of no-take status in marine
reserves. Fishing is allowed throughout the rest of the Sanctuary,
subject to other existing federal and state restrictions where
applicable.
45. Comment: Restrict sea lion populations in the CINMS region
because they may be contributing to the demise of fishing.
Response: Sea lions are protected under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, which is administered by NOAA Fisheries.
46. Comment: The decline in many species, like abalone, is due to
natural cycles and the reintroduction of sea otters, not over-fishing
or excessive take by sport divers.
Response: Abalone decline has been linked to a combination of human
and natural caused influences. For more see Karpov et al. 2000 and
Moore et al. 2002. Karpov, K. A., P. L. Haaker, I. K. Taniguchi, and L.
Rogers-Bennett. 2000. Serial depletion and the collapse of the
[[Page 29223]]
California abalone (/Haliotis/ spp.) fishery. /In/ Workshop on
rebuilding abalone stocks in British Columbia, A. Campbell, ed. Can.
Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 130: 11-24. Moore, J.D., C. A. Finley, T.
T. Robbins, and C. S. Friedman. 2002. Withering syndrome and
restoration of southern California abalone populations. CalCOFI Report.
43: 112-117.
47. Comment: The Gull Island and Footprint closures will greatly
affect harpoon sword fishermen, who have limited access to these two
areas due to weather, fishing seasons, and migration patterns of the
fish.
Response: While any impact may seem significant for those who
experience it, NOAA's economic analysis has determined that the
socioeconomic impact to fisheries from NOAA's action will be minimal.
48. Comment: How will enforcement work with a harpooned fish that
swims into a closed area?
Response: Each situation is evaluated on a case by case basis to
determine whether an enforcement response is warranted, and if so, the
appropriate course of action.
49. Comment: Commenter acknowledges the usefulness of creating an
MPA for scientific study purposes, but believes there is no urgent need
to do so in CINMS.
Response: For more on the need for this action, see section 2.0 of
the FEIS.
50. The Pacific Fishery Management Council process is a fair,
public and scientifically based process to deal with conservation and/
or fishery management questions.
Response: NOAA recognizes and supports the PFMC's role in
addressing fishery management issues.
51. Comment: The proposed closures will affect the supply of
seafood locally and nationally.
Response: On page 25 of Leeworthy, Wiley, and Stone (2005), the
potential impacts on supply and prices of various seafoods are assessed
for potential losses as measured by consumer surplus (i.e., losses to
consumers from restrictions in supply of commercial seafood). Per this
analysis, none of the alternatives considered would change the amount
of supply enough to have any effects on prices and thus, no loss in
consumer surplus. Leeworthy, Vernon R., Peter C. Wiley and Edward A.
Stone, 2005. Socioeconomic Impact Analysis of Marine Reserves for the
Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean
Service, Special Projects, Silver Spring, Maryland, May 2005.
52. Comment: If an area is closed to commercial fishing it should
also be closed to recreational fishing because recreational fishing has
an impact on the resource too.
Response: All fishing (both commercial and recreational) in the
marine reserves is prohibited. See Response 44 for information about
the Anacapa Marine Conservation Area.
53. Comment: The simultaneous rule changes to both the CINMS
management plan and designation document indicate that the NMSP
intended to create the marine zones well in advance of it having the
authority to do so, indicating the process has been designed simply to
justify the preconceived conclusion.
Response: This action and the CINMS management plan review process
are distinct processes with separate and distinct rules and amendments
to the CINMS designation document. With regard to the designation
document changes and regulations for this action, NOAA has followed the
processes to prepare NMSA regulations for fishing (and other
activities) and to amend the CINMS designation document in compliance
with the requirements of the NMSA. A history of the NMSA process for
preparing fishing regulations and amending the Sanctuary's designation
document for this action can be found on the CINMS Web site at http://channelislands.noaa.gov/marineres/main.html.
54. Comment: NOAA fails to provide scientific support for the need
to impose the severe restrictions on recreational fishing.
Response: The need for NOAA's action is detailed in general in
section 2.0 and specifically as it pertains to recreational fishing in
section 5.1.1.1 of the FEIS.
55. Comment: NOAA fails to adequately address the proposals of the
Pacific Fishery Management Council with regard to management under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Response: The PFMC's proposal that was submitted through formal
consultation did not fulfill the purpose and goals of this action (see,
for example, section 3.1.2.1 of the FEIS for more details on this
process). See also, for example, the responses to 4 and
17 above.
56. Comment: NOAA fails to consider the economic impacts on
recreational fishing beyond the charter sector.
Response: In addition to the charter sector, NOAA's economic impact
analysis on recreational fishing included evaluation of impacts to
private boat fishing and consumptive diving (see section 5.2.3 of the
FEIS).
57. Comment: The DEIS justifies a preconceived outcome, rather than
providing the analysis of a full range of options as required by the
National Environmental Policy Act.
Response: The range of alternatives and analysis of them is
sufficient under the requirements of NEPA (see section 3.1 of the
FEIS).
58. Comment: NOAA fails to properly follow the requirements of the
NMSA in preparing regulations for fishing and modifying the CINMS terms
of designation.
Response: NOAA has followed the processes to prepare NMSA
regulations for fishing and to amend the CINMS designation document in
compliance with the requirements of the NMSA. A history of the NMSA
process for preparing fishing regulations and amending the Sanctuary's
designation document for this action can be found on the CINMS Web site
at http://channelislands.noaa.gov/marineres/main.html. See also, for
example, memorandum for the record from Daniel J. Basta, Director,
National Marine Sanctuary Program, re: Reiteration of Rational for the
Decision to Issue Fishing Regulations for the Channel Islands National
Marine Sanctuary under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.
59. Comment: Acknowledge in the FEIS and final rule that fishing
regulations are being developed by the PFMC that relate to this action.
Response: See section 3.1.2.1 of the FEIS for a description of the
correlation between the PFMC's actions and this action. See also the
response to 17 above.
60. Comment: Does quantifying the difference between the biological
benefits of marine reserves versus the biological benefits of limited
take marine conservation areas advance the process of evaluating the
cost benefit analysis of the project under the NEPA?
Response: NOAA has determined that marine reserves provide greater
biological benefit than marine conservation areas. In addition,
prohibition of all take is necessary to achieve the goals for this
action. (See Response 44 regarding the one marine conservation area.)
With regard to economic evaluation, NOAA's analysis has determined that
the potential impacts are expected to be minimal.
61. Comment: Ecological response in areas that are not currently
fished or lightly fished will likely be less than that response
predicted for protection of more heavily fished areas in state
reserves.
Response: Final outcomes of the marine zones will be subject to a
variety
[[Page 29224]]
of ecological and economic responses that are challenging to predict.
As discussed, NOAA will monitor the impact of the reserves to determine
the actual responses.
62. Comment: Conduct an analysis of alternatives for the scale of
no-take reserves that could mitigate mandatory stock rebuilding
timelines and examine alternatives to the size of CINMS reserves that
would mitigate the size of the California Rockfish Conservation zone in
the Sanctuary as an explicit trade off in stock rebuilding tactics.
Response: As stated in the FEIS, the purpose of NOAA's proposed
action is to further the protection of CINMS biodiversity and to
complement the existing network of marine zones established by the
State. This action is not being proposed as a stock rebuilding measure.
The scale of marine zones in the Sanctuary is expected to primarily
affect local populations of fish, rather than stocks that range along
the entire west coast. Marine reserves that incorporate locations where
overfished groundfish can be found may protect a portion of the
population from fishing mortality as well as protect habitats from
disturbance by fishing and other gear.
NOAA's action also addresses ecological goals that do not relate to
fisheries management. The NOAA Fisheries and State groundfish closures
are directed at rebuilding specific species of groundfish, not at a
wide range of other species. In addition, the groundfish closures are
based on annual assessments and could be removed if assessments
improve.
63. Comment: Assess stock rebuilding goals and an adaptive
management approach to the MPAs in the event of an oceanographic regime
change that results in more stable recruitment of depleted fisheries.
Response: One of the benefits of complete no-take zones is that
they provide research and reference areas. Monitoring of the CINMS
zones is expected to provide information on a wide variety of ecosystem
parameters (including oceanographic effects) and the effectiveness of
closing these areas on Sanctuary biodiversity and habitat protection.
In addition, as stated above, this action is to further the protection
of biodiversity of the CINMS and to complement the existing network of
marine zones established by the State and is not being proposed as a
stock rebuilding measure. Any changes to groundfish conservation
measures would require action by the implementing authorities, the PFMC
and NOAA Fisheries.
64. Comment: Consider habitats that are important to overfished
groundfish, including shelf and slope habitats outside the CINMS
boundary as a trade off in relaxing regulations in the Cow Cod
Conservation zone.
Response: NOAA's action was developed through analysis of network
design based on ecological criteria within the boundaries of the CINMS.
Further, NOAA's action is to further the protection of biodiversity and
to complement the existing network of marine zones established by the
State and is not being done as a stock rebuilding measure for an
individual species of fish. Any changes to the Cow Cod Conservation
zone would require action by the implementing authorities, the Pacific
Fishery Management Council and NOAA Fisheries.
65. Comment: NOAA should not take on any more administrative
capacity until it develops performance criteria for synthesizing and
managing marine reserves monitoring data.
Response: CDFG and NOAA have a State/Federal partnership to monitor
the biological and socioeconomic changes occurring inside and outside
of the CINMS marine zoning network. NOAA works with a multitude of
partners, such as the National Park Service and UCSB, to analyze data
from a variety of research projects. The Sanctuary Advisory Council's
Research Activities Panel (RAP) reviews research priorities and
activities related to the marine zones and assists NOAA and the CDFG
with determining the effectiveness of the zoning network. Performance
criteria are included in the monitoring plans (see http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/ channel--islands/monitoring.html).
66. Comment: The Species of Interest list in the DEIS states that
species at the edge of their range are excluded from the list. However,
eight species on the list, including Pacific ocean perch, dark blotch
rockfish, widow rockfish, black rockfish, canary rockfish, yelloweye
rockfish, Pacific cod and Pacific herring, have never been caught at
the Channel Islands.
Response: The CINMS occurs at a biogeographic boundary between the
colder water Oregonian province to the north and the warmer water
Californian province to the south. The western portion of the Sanctuary
typically lies in the colder waters of the Oregonian Province. San
Miguel Island, with its influence of Oregonian province waters, may
offer suitable habitat for species that are more common in central and
northern California. For instance, yelloweye rockfish and widow
rockfish, which are common between Alaska and northern California, have
been documented to occasionally occur at San Miguel Island (Love et al.
2002).
67. Comment: A discrepancy exists between the fishing regulations
reported in Appendix F of the DEIS and the notes regarding the status
of fishing for certain species in Appendix G. For example, Appendix G
lists pink, red and white abalone as fished species, while Appendix F
states that abalone may not be taken.
Response: Footnote 1 in Appendix G intends to identify species that
have either been historically fished and/or currently fished in the
CINMS. The language has been clarified to highlight that species
denoted with the footnote could indicate either a historical or current
fishery.
68. Comment: The Sanctuary is only providing 1.7 square miles for
pelagic fishing, while prohibiting fishing in approximately 130 square
miles.
Response: Under NOAA's action, pelagic fishing would continue to be
allowed in 81% of the Sanctuary (over 800 square nmi), subject to
existing state and federal fishery regulations.
69. Comment: When reserves network experiments are designed to
sustain fisheries, the monitoring programs must be designed to measure
the species they are designed to manage. The commenter provides several
specific recommendations for such a monitoring program.
Response: Although NOAA's action is not being implemented to
sustain fisheries, the zone monitoring program for the CINMS network is
guided by the CDFG's Channel Islands Marine Protected Area Monitoring
Plan and the Channel Islands Deep Water Monitoring Plan Development
Workshop Report. The monitoring programs involve a variety of partners
collecting data on species, communities and habitats that occur in the
Sanctuary. Performance of the zone network will be based on analysis of
trends in biological parameters, such as abundance, mean size and
reproductive potential of various species. Performance may be
determined by either examining biological parameters at an individual
site before and after the designation of the zone or comparing
biological parameters at sites inside and outside of the zones.
A multitude of partners work with NOAA and CDFG conducting
monitoring activities and collecting information on a variety of
species and habitats. The data collected on a comprehensive suite of
species inhabiting the Sanctuary allows for an assessment of zone
effectiveness on both targeted and non-targeted species as well as
community-level changes as a
[[Page 29225]]
result of prohibited activities. NOAA and the CDFG plan a major review
of the monitoring program's results in spring of 2008. For more
information on the monitoring program, go to http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/channel_islands/monitoring.html.
70. Comment: There is no scientific validity of identifying the
transition zone as a unique region between the Californian and
Oregonian bioregions and therefore the recommendations on the number
and spacing of individual zones and total size of the preferred
alternative is flawed.
Response: The transition zone was identified as a unique region by
the Science Advisory Panel during the MRWG process. The zone is
delineated by steep persistent isotherms from satellite sea surface
temperature images. It is a region with its own dynamics relative to
the Oregonian and Californian subregions within CINMS. Unique species
interactions occur in the transition zone because of mixing of two
groups of species from the adjoining bioregions.
Marine reserves in the transition zone provide several ecological
benefits. First, they may function as replicate sites that provide
insurance that a single catastrophic event would most likely not impact
all zones at the same time. Second, establishment of marine reserves in
the transition zone enhances three of the criteria that contribute to
biodiversity conservation: habitat representation, habitat replication,
and connectivity between individual reserves that contribute to meeting
the action goals (as discussed in Section 3.3 of the FEIS). Finally,
protection of habitats and species in the transition zone is also
valuable to scientists because it allows them to utilize the unique
species' interactions to study marine evolution and ecology.
71. Comment: The DEIS describes Sanctuary resources as in decline,
which is flawed and inaccurate.
Response: Section 4 of the FEIS, Affected Environment, has been
updated vis-a-vis the DEIS to include a discussion of the current
status and trends of those species that were historically in decline
and are now showing some signs of recovery. For example, giant kelp
distribution and productivity in California has increased since the
1998 El Ni[ntilde]o event, potentially as a result of a decadal shift
in climatic conditions, although not to historical levels preceding the
1980s. However, a general declining trend in the density and abundance
of kelp canopy over the past 40 years has been documented in the
scientific literature, particularly in southern California. The decline
has been attributed to a variety of both natural and human caused
disturbances. Natural disturbances include a corresponding warming
trend in sea surface temperatures and the frequency of severe El
Ni[ntilde]o events. Human caused disturbances include increased
turbidity, siltation, pollution and commercial and recreational fishing
activities that remove animals such as California sheephead and
California spiny lobster that affect species grazing on kelp.
Over the past few years, oceanographic conditions have been
characterized by relatively cool summer sea temperatures and winters
with relatively few large swell events. Such conditions are generally
favorable for kelp resulting in stronger recruitment and an increase in
canopy area of some beds in southern California. It is unknown if the
increase in kelp productivity over the last few years will be sustained
given the inherent inter-annual variability of the oceanographic
environment. Furthermore, the effect of oceanographic conditions on
kelp productivity is not uniform across all kelp beds. Certain beds in
the Sanctuary that historically had an abundance of kelp remain mostly
devoid of kelp and are dominated by echinoderms when studied during
summer 2006. In these locations, kelp did not respond to a change in
oceanographic conditions, indicating that other factors drive
productivity.
Some marine mammal populations, such as gray whales and humpback
whales, appear to have increased due to additional protection under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act. Also refer to section 2.2 of the FEIS,
Need for Action, for further details on the need for this action.
72. Comment: Many highly migratory and epipelagic species that
traverse through the Sanctuary receive no benefit from site specific
MPAs.
Response: Highly migratory and pelagic species may receive benefits
from marine reserves even if they spend more time outside than inside
marine reserves. Highly migratory and pelagic species fulfill an
ecosystem role within marine reserves as predators on and forage for
other species. Such species may benefit from fully protected zones if
their prey is concentrated in a given area or if the zones include
breeding, aggregating or resting grounds. Scientific research suggests
that pelagic species gather in certain spots (usually banks or ridges),
particularly during critical life cycle stages. Establishment of marine
reserves in these areas is crucial, as the number and size of pelagic
animals in the food web dictates what other organisms thrive or
decline. In other words, direct pressure on pelagic species causes
indirect pressure on other species present in the ecosystem.
73. Comment: The DEIS has not addressed the ecosystem benefits of
existing fishery management to achieve the Sanctuary's biodiversity
goals.
Response: Section 2.2 (Need for Action) of the DEIS and FEIS
generally discusses the ecosystem impacts of existing fishery
management measures, while section 5.1 addresses this issue in more
detail.
74. Comment: Deepwater sponges and corals should be included as
species of interest.
Response: NOAA recognizes that there are other important species,
such as deepwater sponges and corals, that are not included in the
Species of Interest list. This section of the DEIS was written in 2000,
preceding the discovery of these deepwater species sponges and corals.
As such, there remains the possibility of other species and communities
yet to be discovered.
75. Comment: NOAA should use the best available substrate
information to update Figure 11.
Response: NOAA has updated the substrate information using United
States Geological Survey (USGS) high resolution data to refine
description of each individual marine zone where data is available. The
USGS data could not be used to re-analyze the percentage of each
habitat type included in each alternative because it is not available
for the entire Sanctuary. Currently, 20% of the Sanctuary has been
mapped with high resolution technology.
76. Comment: There is a lack of information on marine zone benefits
in temperate waters. Based on data from tropical reef ecosystems,
marine reserves may only benefit a small group of west coast nearshore
resident species.
Response: Over the last five years, many peer-reviewed research
articles have highlighted the effects of marine reserves on temperate
marine ecosystems. A meta-analysis of temperate water marine reserves
shows that many species tend to benefit from the establishment of
marine reserves as measured by biomass, density and size of individuals
as well as diversity of communities within their bounds. See Section
5.1.1 of the FEIS for a discussion of marine reserve benefits in
temperate marine ecosystems.
77. Comment: The FEIS should address the benefits of the proposed
marine reserves to southern sea otter recovery.
Response: There are no formal studies on the benefits of marine
reserves to
[[Page 29226]]
southern sea otter recovery. Sea otter sightings in the zones are rare
at this time. However, marine reserves are generally expected to
increase the biomass of apex species within their bounds and could
potentially benefit sea otters by increasing the populations of their
prey, such as abalone, urchins, clams, and crabs.
78. Comment: Provide a detailed discussion of habitat patch
replication for Alternative 1A.
Response: A discussion on habitat patch replication of Alternative
1 has been added to Section 3.3 in the FEIS.
79. Comment: Provide an analysis and discussion that describes the
actual distances between protected habitats within an MPA for each
alternative rather than the average distance.
Response: A discussion on connectivity has been added to Section
3.3, specifically, by providing a figure and discussion on the
distances between individual marine zones for each alternative.
80. Comment: Provide more detailed information on the number and
distances between patches of rocky substrate included in the MPA
network.
Response: The discussion on connectivity has been updated to
include distances between patches of rocky substrate.
81. Comment: Include Alternative 2 in the analysis of management
considerations and in the table summarizing the alternatives'
management considerations.
Response: As stated in the DEIS, the same management considerations
for Alternative 1A apply to Alternative 2. A column has been added to
Table 52 of the FEIS.
82. Comment: In Section 5.1 of the DEIS, NOAA claims adverse
ecological impacts are ``unlikely.'' If adverse ecological impacts are
defined as declines in abundance, then this term should be redefined.
Response: NOAA considers ``adverse impacts'' as those impacts that
are counter to the goals identified for this action, such as ensuring
the long-term protection of Sanctuary resources by restoring and
enhancing the abundance, density, population age structure, and
diversity of the natural biological communities. NOAA recognizes that
declines in abundance of certain species are an expected outcome of
zone designation, but does not consider this in all cases to be an
adverse ecological impact. For example, certain commercially targeted
species may increase in abundance (e.g., spiny lobsters) due to reduced
fishing pressure while their prey items decrease (e.g., purple urchin)
because of an increase in lobster predation.
83. Comment: Language in Section 5.1 indicates that relatively
little fishing activity occurs in the proposed marine zones. The
statement does not account for the fact that other regulations
currently restrict fishing in these areas. The discussion should
clarify this point by adding ``currently'' before ``relatively little
activity.''
Response: This recommendation has been added to the FEIS.
84. Comment: Provide references for assertions regarding the
ecological impacts of the no-action alternative made in section 5.1.2
of the DEIS.
Response: Section 5.1.2 provides references regarding current and
future anthropogenic stresses on California's coastal environment.
85. Comment: Add a reference for the recommended distances between
marine zones.
Response: References for recommended distances between marine zones
have been added.
86. Comment: The statement in the DEIS (section 5.1.6) that the
spot prawn trawling prohibition is a response to declining catch and
bycatch of bocaccio is incomplete and needs clarification. The trawl
closure for spot prawns was implemented primarily due to concerns of
potential damage to high relief habitat from roller gear and from
overall levels of bycatch, particularly finfishes, relative to spot
prawn catch.
Response: As the commenter states, the trawl closure for spot
prawns was implemented primarily due to concerns of potential damage to
high relief habitat from roller gear and from overall levels of
bycatch, particularly finfishes, relative to spot prawn catch. The FEIS
has been revised accordingly (see page 102 of the FEIS).
87. Comment: It is illogical to include potential impacts from the
existing Channel Islands state marine zones as this impact should have
already occurred.
Response: Under NEPA guidelines NOAA is required to consider
cumulative impacts which include the impacts of the state MPAs in the
analysis. Please see Table 25 of the FEIS, (Commercial Fishing and
Kelp--Summary of Impacts by Alternative Step 1 Analysis), which clearly
distinguishes the cumulative impact of the ``Total New Proposal.''
88. Comment: The kelp fishery should not be included in the
analysis, since no kelp beds occur in the proposed MPAs.
Response: NOAA agrees there is no impact to kelp harvesting in the
federal water marine zones (see Table 26 of the FEIS, which indicates
the ex-vessel value of kelp at 0% in the additional state and federal
water areas). However, under its NEPA guidelines (NOAA Administrative
Order 216-6), NOAA is required to consider cumulative impacts, which
include the impacts to kelp harvesting in the existing state marine
zones (Table 26 indicates the ex-vessel value for these areas is
5.48%).
89. Comment: Table 26 and Table 31 are confusing because the column
headers say ``value'' but what the tables depict is actually ``impact''
to the fisheries. It would help to add another column just before the
last one that lists the total value of each fishery.
Response: Ex vessel value is what the fishermen receive as revenue
for their catch and only represents one category or portion of the
total impact, i.e., the impact to fishermen. Other categories include
income, employment, etc. To use the word ``impact'' in the table would
be misleading, because the tables contain ``maximum potential loss'',
i.e., all ex vessel value associated with the alternative, which is not
expected as the final impact, as one would expect fishers to engage in
mitigating behavior. The total value of each fishery is provided in
Table 18 of the FEIS.
90. Comment: If $24,233,406 is used as the total value of all
fisheries (Table 24, Column 2), and $3,012,974 is the total potential
impact (Table 26 bottom of next to last column), then the percent total
impact should be 12.43, and not 12.50 as listed at the bottom of the
last column in Table 26. For Table 31, a similar problem occurs.
Response: The commenter's calculations are incorrect because they
used the total baseline kelp and commercial fishing as the numerator,
not the total of species for which the analysts have spatial data.
91. Comment: In 2003 to 2005, the landings for the port of Santa
Barbara for the nearshore, shelf, and slope rockfish fisheries should
not be considered as having ``steep'' declines. Shelf rockfish landings
actually increased during this period.
Response: The commenter's estimate of what is sustainable for
rockfish, and therefore the baseline for assessing socioeconomic
impact, is still most likely an overstatement given the generally
strong downward trend of the entire species group.
92. Comment: There isn't much fishing pressure in the proposed
reserve areas, thus the economic impact of reserve establishment will
be minimal.
Response: NOAA's analysis shows that the fishing activity in the
marine zones is indeed minimal.
93. Comment: Further closures, particularly in the Smugglers' Cove/
[[Page 29227]]
Yellow Banks area, would result in economic harm to the sportfishing
industry.
Response: There are no marine zones proposed for the Smugglers'
Cove/Yellow Banks area. Furthermore, the economic analysis associated
with this action predicts the overall impacts to the sportfishing
industry will be minimal. See section 5.2.3 of the FEIS.
94. Comment: The data used in NOAA's economic analysis are dated
and there are additional sources now available that should be used to
update the document.
Response: The estimates from Leeworthy, Wiley, and Stone (2005) are
based on the best available information. Adding one or two years of
recent data does not necessarily provide a better estimate. In
statistics, this would be recognized as an ``outlier'' influencing the
estimate of the mean.
More recent trends show that for some species the 2000-2003
averages are better measures of what could be sustainable than the
1996-1999 average used in prior analyses. Economic impacts were updated
based on these new assessments of what is sustainable and can be found
in Leeworthy, Wiley, and Stone (2005).
Although some of the information is several years old, it is the
only spatially distributed data available. The distributions represent
a historical average of areas fished over four to five year time
periods and were provided by fishermen. For a more detailed
socioeconomic impact analysis, see Leeworthy, Wiley, and Stone (2005).
95. Comment: The socioeconomic analysis underestimates the impacts
of the preferred alternative to commercial fishing.
Response: It can be expected that there will be short-term losses
to the commercial fisheries from Alternative 1. However, overall the
impacts are small and the net cost or benefits to commercial fisheries
are likely to be negligible. See also response 29 above.
96. Comment: Please clarify how the ``Baseline person days of
recreation activity'' were determined and re-evaluate these statistics.
Discrepancies between the ratio of private and charter boat dives, and
consumptive vs. non-consumptive divers seem inaccurate. Commenter
questions whether trips in Santa Barbara are less expensive than in Los
Angeles.
Response: Baseline person-days of recreation activity were
determined by a survey of all charter and party boat operations active
in the CINMS. Private boat fishing and consumptive diving data were
compiled from a variety of sources (see Leeworthy, Wiley and Stone,
2005, Appendix B).
The data does not show discrepancies or relative price differences
among geographic areas.
97. Comment: Clarify the meaning of ``employment'' in private boat
diving.
Response: Employment related to private boat fishing and diving
occurs through the expenditures paid by those engaged in the activity.
This includes fuel, food, beverages, lodging, transportation, launch
fees, etc. For each industry, there is an assumed ratio of sales and
employment. Additionally, there is a multiplier effect, which accounts
for additional employment of businesses supplying these businesses. For
a complete explanation, see Leeworthy, Wiley, and Stone (2005).
98. Comment: The kayaking statistics seem inaccurate. Commenter
claims that last year, for example, there were 7,000 kayaking days at
Scorpion Anchorage, Santa Cruz Island.
Response: The kayaking statistics only include that activity
associated with charter/party operations. The analysis does not include
non-consumptive activity undertaken with private household boats. No
institution estimates this activity. A project currently underway in
the Socioeconomic Research & Monitoring Program for the CINMS is
tracking the amount of this activity.
99. Comment: Make the tables easier to understand, and if
appropriate presented as figures instead. If the numbers are estimates,
add confidence intervals. If differences are significant, that should
be noted with the level of significance. Clarify the time period and
area in which the data was gathered.
Response: Figures would not provide the level of detail required to
provide all of the necessary information. None of the estimates were
derived through a stochastic process and therefore confidence intervals
are not calculable. The time period is stated clearly in the text.
100. Comment: Commenter states that the negative perception toward
Channel Islands MPAs by recreational fishermen has resulted in
diminished recreational fishing effort and, consequently, lower
revenues for businesses that serve recreational fishing interests in
Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties.
Response: Scientifically credible and verifiable data regarding the
statements made was not provided by the commenter and NOAA is not aware
of any such data.
101. Comment: Add an expenditure that represents guiding fees for
kayaking, e.g., a day kayaking trip is approximately $180.00 (including
boat fee).
Response: Kayaking fees are included in the analysis. See page 31
of Leeworthy, Wiley, and Stone (2005) for all recreation expenditure
information.
102. Comment: Add data from the National Economics Project,
National Park Service, and Chris LaFranchi.
Response: The commenter did not provide NOAA with sufficient
information to provide a response.
103. Comment: The impacts shown are partially an artifact of the
proposed zoned areas being temporarily closed by fisheries management
measures. Recommend noting that current EFH rules may change.
Response: In the Step 2 analysis in the FEIS, other regulations are
discussed and how they might impact the estimates presented in the Step
1 analysis, which includes ``maximum potential loss''.
104. Comment: To protect the fisheries dependent infrastructure of
Ventura Harbor, integrate into the NOAA action goals for sustainable
fisheries, maintenance of long-term socioeconomic viability, and
minimization of short-term socioeconomic loses to all uses and
dependent parties.
Response: The goals for NOAA's action are guided by the NMSA and
are clearly stated in section 2.0 of the FEIS as well as earlier in
this preamble to the final rule.
105. Comment: Regulatory agencies should promote collaboration
between competing interests to accomplish mutual fisheries goals.
Response: The SAC/MRWG process and State/Federal partnership and
coordination with the PFMC have promoted collaboration between all
interested parties. NOAA's goals for this action are not fisheries-
specific.
106. Comment: Multiplier effects for the local community and the
state economy must be factored into socioeconomic data for a fisheries
management plan to be effective.
Response: NOAA's socioeconomic analysis includes indirect impacts
to fisheries-related support services and businesses (multiplier
effects). This methodology is detailed in Leeworthy, Wiley, and Stone
(2005) on pages 13-16 for commercial fishing and 28-29 for the
recreation industry. The analysis utilized multipliers created
specifically for the commercial fishing industry. The multipliers were
obtained from the Fishery Economic Assessment Model (FEAM). The FEAM
was developed under contract to the PFMC, and is based on input-output
models detailing inter-industry relationships. The FEAM
[[Page 29228]]
was designed for regional economic analysis and processing of the
commercial fishery landings taking place within the county where the
port is located.
107. Comment: Ex-Vessel value reported in Table 19 of the DEIS
suggests that current regulations have effectively reduced the number
of commercial fishing operators and show lower catch volumes. These
trends translate into less fish harvested in the region. The percentage
of vessels reporting catch from CINMS has declined from 79% in 2000 to
an average of 47% in subsequent years.
Response: Table 19 shows a decline in vessels reporting catch from
CINMS from 79 percent in 2000 down to 34 percent in 2002, followed by
an increase between 2002 and 2003.
108. Comment: Commenter indicates there is a decrease of 86% in the
cumulative ex-vessel value for the Ventura Harbor when comparing the
study area totals for ex-vessel value by port in Table 17 (Commercial
Fishing: Study Area Totals Ex Vessel Value by Port) to Table 27
(Commercial Fishing--Alternative 1 Study Area Totals, Ex Vessel Value
by Port)
Response: The two tables are not showing the same estimate. Table
17 shows the study area total, while Table 27 shows the total in
Alternative 1. The estimate in Table 17 did not ``decrease'' to the
estimate in Table 27.
109. Comment: Ventura County has the highest economic dependency on
activities in the CINMS, relative to all counties in the study area, as
shown in Table 11 (Local/Regional Economic Dependence on CINMS Baseline
Personal Income).
Response: While any impact may seem significant for those who
experience it, the table also shows that the baseline personal income
associated with all activities in CINMS for Ventura County is less than
one quarter of one percent of personal income for the county.
110. Comment: Ensure that non-consumptive activities are
sustainable in the CINMS by balancing and promoting collaboration
between competing interests.
Response: NOAA believes that the CINMS Advisory Council provides an
ideal forum for ``competing'' interests to discuss their respective
issues regarding use of the Sanctuary and to provide input and advice
on such matters to the CINMS superintendent.
111. Comment: Provide the sources of data for analysis of charter/
party and private boating impacts.
Response: The source of the information is Leeworthy, Wiley, and
Stone (2005) and is cited at the beginning of sections 4.3.1 and 5.2 of
the FEIS. In Leeworthy, Wiley, and Stone (2005), Appendix C documents
all data used in the assessment for the recreation industry. A
cumulative analysis of impacts, including the state areas of closure,
is provided.
112. Comment: The socioeconomic analysis fails to adequately
address displacement and impacts on recreational access, ignores the
cumulative impact of existing state and federal closures, and projects
unverified supply benefits.
Response: In the Step 2 analysis in the FEIS, the potential short-
and long-term impacts to a fisherman's ability to relocate fishing
activity to areas outside marine zones is noted in qualitative terms
using an ecological-economic model. It is not possible to estimate the
net outcomes of how the ecological and economic processes will play
out. For example, replenishment effects from the closed areas could
offset the impacts of displacement or vice versa. The possibility of
long-term losses to the recreational fishing industry by restricted
access is acknowledged. Several ecological and socioeconomic monitoring
efforts are underway, while others are planned. Monitoring will help
determine what actual outcomes will occur, and the major stakeholders
were involved in developing the priority monitoring items.
113. Comment: Please update Table 11 (Local/Regional Economic
Dependence on CINMS: Baseline Personal Income) and Table 12 (Local/
Regional Economic Dependence on CINMS--Baseline Employment) and the
text explanations to reflect socioeconomic impacts to all direct and
indirect incomes related to commercial and recreational fishing.
Response: The estimates in Tables 11 and 12 do reflect
socioeconomic impacts to all direct, indirect, and induced incomes
related to commercial and recreational fishing. This methodology is
detailed in Leeworthy, Wiley and Stone (2005) on pages 13-16 for
commercial fishing and 28-29 for the recreation industry.
114. Comment: Include Leeworthy, Wiley, and Stone (2005) as an
appendix to the Final EIS.
Response: Leeworthy, Wiley, and Stone (2005) includes the sources
of all the economic data used in determining the economic impacts. This
report is available at http://channelislands.noaa.gov/marineres/main.html. As such, to avoid bulk, it was not added to the FEIS as an
appendix.
115. Comment: The references and data that analyze the value and
employment associated with ``Total Consumptive Activities'' (Table 1.3
and 1.4) ignore the additional value of businesses and services
dedicated to supporting commercial and recreational fishing; recommend
that the FEIS include the value of these businesses and support
services in order to assess overall economic impact.
Response: The additional businesses and services dedicated to
supporting commercial and recreational fishing are included in the
estimates in Leeworthy, Wiley and Stone (2005) on Tables 1.3 and 1.4
through the multiplier process. This methodology is detailed on pages
13-16 for commercial fishing and 28-29 for the recreation industry.
116. Comment: The potential impact on ports and the potential
economic costs of the percentage reductions in catch landings should be
included.
Response: Throughout the analyses the percentage impacts on ex
vessel value of the catch is presented. Ex vessel value of the catch is
just pounds of catch times the price per pound and reflects both
effects on supply and demand. There is no added value of listing
percentage of pounds of catch separately.
117. Comment: The overall potential reductions in annual income and
full and part time employment should include the values as percentages
of the regional and local commercial fishing industries as well as the
overall regional economy.
Response: The suggested percentages are in Table 25 of the FEIS.
118. Comment: Tables 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, and 34 (Commercial Fishing
Impact) do not include the values of support services and businesses
associated with commercial and recreational fishing.
Response: The impacts on ex value of the commercial fisheries are
shown in Tables 27 and 32. The impacts on support services and
businesses associated with commercial fisheries are included in Tables
33 and 34. Table 35 includes multiplier impacts for income and
employment for recreational fishing as noted in footnotes 3 and 4 of
Table 35.
119. Comment: Provide additional details on the socioeconomic,
education, and outreach options that minimize or mitigate potential
increased social costs and lawsuits, and increased costs of
enforcement.
Response: The State of California and NOAA have developed
ecological and socioeconomic monitoring plans to gauge the effects of
the marine zones. In addition, the agencies have developed interpretive
enforcement education
[[Page 29229]]
materials (e.g., brochures, signage) with affected stakeholders to
better inform users of the marine zones. Effective communication of
monitoring results through education and outreach and the application
of interpretive enforcement tools may defray or avoid these social
costs.
120. Comment: Partnering with the Sanctuary to manage the zoning
network is very important.
Response: During the community phase and establishment of state
marine zones, NOAA has relied on partners such as State of California,
National Park Service, and U.S. Coast Guard, to implement the zone
network. See the response to comment 2 for more information on
this issue.
121. Comment: The CDFG supports Alternative 1C. It will work with
FGC to fill any spatial gaps between the existing zones and the federal
water zones.
Response: NOAA acknowledges the CDFG's position on the alternatives
analyzed in the DEIS. See the response to comment 2 for more
information on this issue.
122. Comment: The CDFG supports the proposed CINMS designation
document amendments.
Response: NOAA acknowledges the CDFG's support for the proposed
changes to the CINMS designation document.
123. Comment: NOAA's action may reduce conflicts between seabirds
and fisheries, thus complementing NOAA's Office of Spill Prevention and
Response seabird restoration efforts.
Response: Although this outcome is not a direct intent of this
action, NOAA supports the Office of Spill Prevention and Response's
seabird restoration efforts. Seabirds may become entangled or hooked on
fishing gear and their feeding and breeding behaviors disrupted by
fishing activity, such as fishing at night with bright lights.
124. Comment: Consultation with the State of California is required
under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Response: NOAA has complied with all required consultations,
including the National Historic Preservation Act.
125. Comment: A number of commenters expressed general support for
marine reserves, marine conservation in general, and expanding the
CINMS.
Response: NOAA acknowledges these comments.
126. Comment: The NOAA document should define short-term losses to
both recreational and commercial fisheries, why losses will be short-
term, and how the temporal nature of the impacts will be measured.
Response: As described in section 5.2.2.2 of the FEIS, short-term
losses are defined as impacts over the next 1-5 years and long-term
impacts are defined as 5-20 years. NOAA expects the projected maximum
potential economic impacts to be primarily short-term because NOAA
expects the affected community will be able to adapt to the new
regulatory environment.
NOAA's socioeconomic monitoring plan calls for monitoring value of
commercial fisheries catch (both inside and outside the CINMS and in
state waters). Monitoring State-wide trends helps to separate out
effects that have nothing to do with the CINMS marine reserves.
For the recreational fisheries, NOAA plans to monitor the
following: (1) Spatial use patterns and intensity of use (total number
of person-days of use); (2) charter/party boats using CDFG logbooks for
Charter Passenger Fishing Vessels (CPFV); (3) private boats using the
new California recreational fishing statistics data; (4) socioeconomic
profiles of fishermen, including expenditure profiles; (5) net value or
consumer's surplus; and (6) knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of
management strategies and regulations.
For more information, see the Socioeconomic Monitoring Plan at
http://www.cinms.nos.noaa.gov/marineres/main.html.
127. Comment: The expected socioeconomic impacts to the
recreational and commercial fisheries and fishermen's income should be
compared to that sector's total income by county and not to the total
county income and regional data.
Response: The FEIS details how value of catch by each species/
species group and the total across all species/species group are
impacted as a percent of all commercial fishing catch from the CINMS.
This is also done by port and the percentages present how the percent
of the total ports value of catch is impacted by each alternative. See
appendix tables in Leeworthy, Wiley and Stone (2005) for more
information on the impacts by port and by county with the percents
being the percents of the totals for each county.
For the recreation industry, greater detail is provided in
Leeworthy, Wiley and Stone (2005) on the total impacts by county and
percents of the total CINMS recreation impacted from the total CINMS
recreation in the county.
128. Comment: As the focus of the action is Santa Barbara Channel,
data relevant to this area, not the State as a whole, should be used. A
statement is made that ``almost 20 percent of those who use
California's coastal areas for recreation are interstate or
international visitors * * *'' Does this figure also apply to the more
geographically limited Channel Islands area? Another statement is made
that as numbers of people increase (referring to coastal population
growth), so do the number of CINMS users. Are there any data to support
this statement? Does the increase in CINMS use parallel the rates of
increase elsewhere?
Response: Recognizing there is a paucity of data specific to the
CINMS or the specific local surrounding area of Santa Barbara, Ventura,
and Los Angeles counties, NOAA used the best available data to estimate
the amount of activity in the CINMS.
There were two sources of time series data for assessing trends:
NOAA Fisheries' Marine Fishing Statistics Survey (MRFSS), which has now
been replaced with the California Recreational Fishing Statistics
Program, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Survey of
Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Associated Recreation. Both estimate use
for Southern California. Leeworthy, Wiley, and Stone (2005) summarize
trends from these two sources (page 27) and the trends from the two
sources were not consistent. From 1993-1999, MRFSS shows a downward
trend, while from 1991-1996 (survey is done every five years) it shows
an upward trend. From 1999-2002, MRFSS shows an upward trend.
A 1997 California Resources Agency report estimated that for all
coastal areas 20 percent of recreation is done by out of State
visitors. A Santa Barbara County Conference & Visitors Bureau and Film
Commission report included an estimate that 20 percent of the visitors
to Santa Barbara County were foreign visitors. There are not any
surveys of the visitors to the CINMS to know if the same would hold
true for recreational users of the CINMS. The statement that ``as
coastal population grows, so will number of CINMS users'' is an
extrapolation from an assessment of national trends for ocean and
coastal (marine) recreation from the National Survey on Recreation and
the Environment (NSRE) 2000. Year 2000 data were analyzed for
demographic factors related to participation in marine recreation
activities and equations used to forecast future participation for
years 2005 and 2010. Generally, national participation rates (the
percent of the U.S. population doing an activity) are projected to
decline. However, the total number of participants is projected to
increase because the population growth more than compensates for the
lower participation rates. The statement
[[Page 29230]]
presumes these same trends may hold for California or the CINMS.
129. Comment: There is no quantitative evidence to show that non-
consumptive activities will increase in the new zones, especially
because all of the non-consumptive use occurs nearshore.
Response: The establishment of the new marine zones is expected to
result in benefits to nonconsumptive recreational users. While there is
no data currently available to directly estimate the magnitude of these
benefits, NOAA conducted a benefits transfer/policy analysis simulation
to quantify potential benefits. In addition, a two year study is now
underway to help quantify these benefits. Non-consumptive uses in the
proposed new zones are a relatively small percentage of the total non-
consumptive uses that are concentrated in the nearshore waters of the
Sanctuary. See section 5.2.5 of the FEIS for further discussion.
130. Comment: It is not clear how closures will affect the marine
zones or how they will benefit the intent of those closures. The DEIS
indicates that the proposed action would supplement the closures by
``establishing temporally permanent zones,'' but no details are given
and the statement is confusing.
Response: The action partially supplements the existing fishery
closures, such as the Cowcod Conservation Area. The designation of
marine reserves in or near areas protected by fishery closures adds
another layer of protection, further ensuring that no fishing will
occur on targeted species in the fishery closures and the adjacent
areas protected by the marine reserves. Protection of the water column
and all biophysical characteristics of marine reserves likely will
enhance the recovery of targeted species protected by fishery closures
by eliminating bycatch and further protection of habitats. Synergistic
effects may result from protection by marine reserves of species and
ecological processes consistent and adjacent to fishery closures.
131. Comment: Alternative 2 may cause negative financial impacts to
coastal communities, recreational and commercial boating, and
specifically, the ability of a local agency to repay existing state
loans that are used for the construction and improvement of small craft
harbors.
Response: The state marine zones have been in place for over three
years and there is no evidence that the ability of local agencies to
repay small harbor construction and improvement loans has been
exacerbated due to impacts on recreational and commercial boating from
the state zones. Furthermore, there is a marginal increase in the
estimated ``maximum potential impact'' to recreational and commercial
boating with the extension of marine zones from the existing state
marine zones into deeper waters of the Sanctuary with either
Alternative 1 or 2.
132. Comment: The DEIS should specifically address Environmental
Justice. The Council on Environmental Quality requires this inclusion,
and the counties under consideration differ in income and social
structure.
Response: See Section 6.7 of the FEIS for a discussion on
Environmental Justice and all other required consultations.
133. Comment: The commercial fishing sector developed five
alternatives that have lower economic impacts to both recreational and
commercial fishermen than the preferred alternative, because a balance
of marine conservation areas and marine reserves was used instead of
marine reserves only.
Response: Marine conservation areas, where certain fishing activity
and impacts to habitat and species still occurs, would not achieve the
purpose and goals of the proposed project as well as marine reserves.
However, NOAA has decided to establish one marine conservation area off
of Anacapa Island to ensure consistency with the State of California's
marine zone network, which also established a marine conservation area
in that location. See section 3.1.2.2 of the FEIS. Also, see response
44 for the reason the one marine conservation area is
included.
VI. Changes From Proposed Rule
NOAA made changes to the proposed rule issued on August 11, 2006 to
respond to public comments. The changes are as follows:
In paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sec. 922.73, the reference to the
effective date of the final rule has been removed. The purpose of this
provision was to ensure that changes made to NOAA's MSA regulations
after the effective date of the final NMSA regulations would not affect
the applicability of the NMSA regulations without public notice. NOAA
has decided (1) to insert a reference to these NMSA regulations in
NOAA's MSA regulations at 50 CFR part 660 as part of this final
rulemaking, and (2) in future notices proposing to amend 50 CFR part
660, to advise the public and seek comment on any consequences as it
relates to the regulations at 15 CFR 922.73 (e.g., that because 50 CFR
part 660 is being amended to prohibit fishing in the water column of
the marine reserves, these activities would no longer be prohibited
under 15 CFR 922.73; or because 50 CFR part 660 is being amended to
allow the use of bottom contact gear, that activity would be prohibited
under 15 CFR 922.73).
In paragraph (b)(3) of Sec. 922.73, the exception to the
prohibition on possessing Sanctuary resources has been broadened
somewhat to ensure fish that were harvested in the marine conservation
area are allowed to be in a person's possession regardless of the
status of the person's vessel.
In paragraph (a)(1), (a)(3), (b)(1), and (b)(3), the phrase ``any
living or dead organism, historical resource, or other Sanctuary
resource'' has been replaced with ``any Sanctuary resource, including
living or dead organisms or historical resources'' in each place it
appears to clarify the application of the regulation to all Sanctuary
resources.
The reference to the Painted Cave Marine Conservation Area in
paragraph (b) of Sec. 922.73 been removed. The Painted Cave Marine
Conservation Area is completely within state waters of the Sanctuary,
and is therefore (as discussed in the preamble) not subject to this
rulemaking.
The coordinates for the marine reserves and marine conservation
area in appendices B and C, respectively, have been modified so that
only federal waters are included in this final rule. As discussed in
the preamble, should NOAA decide to extend these marine reserves and
marine conservation area into state waters of the Sanctuary, another
final rulemaking action will further modify these coordinates as
appropriate.
VII. Miscellaneous Rulemaking Requirements
A. National Marine Sanctuaries Act
Section 304 of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1434) requires the Secretary of
Commerce in designating a sanctuary to submit Sanctuary designation
documents to the United States Congress (Committee on Resources of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate) and Governor of each state in which any
part of the Sanctuary would be located. The designation documents are
to be submitted on the same date the notice is published and must
include the proposed terms of the designation, the proposed
regulations, a draft environmental impact statement, and a draft
management plan. The terms of designation may only be modified by the
same procedures by which the original designation is made. In
[[Page 29231]]
accordance with Section 304, the appropriate documents have been
submitted to the specified Congressional Committees and the Governor of
California.
B. National Environmental Policy Act
In accordance with Section 304(a)(2) of the NMSA (16 U.S.C.
1434(a)(2)), and the provisions of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370(a)), an
FEIS has been prepared for the proposed action. Copies of the FEIS are
available upon request to NOAA at the address listed in the ADDRESSES
section. The FEIS notice of availability was published on April 20,
2007 (72 FR 19928). The 30-day period for the FEIS ended on May 21,
2007.
C. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Impact
This rule has been determined to be not significant within the
meaning of Executive Order 12866.
D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
The Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental and Legislative
Affairs, Department of Commerce, has consulted with appropriate elected
officials in the State of California, as appropriate. Since 1999, NOAA
has partnered with and supported the State in this effort. During the
federal phase, NOAA has continually briefed the Secretary of Resources
and the Director of the California Department of Fish and Game. NOAA
also held numerous consultations with all California resource
management agencies as required under section 303(b)(2) of the NMSA.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the requirements of section 604(a) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 604(a)), NOAA has prepared a final
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) describing the impact of the
proposed action on small businesses. Section 604(a) requires that each
FRFA contain:
1. A succinct statement of the need for, and objectives of, the
rule;
2. A summary of the significant issues raised by the public
comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a
summary of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement
of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments;
3. A description of and an estimate of the number of small entities
to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate
is available;
4. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the
classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report
or record; and
5. A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative
adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the
impact on small entities was rejected. The FRFA is available upon
request to NOAA at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section above. A
summary of the FRFA follows.
Summary of the Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
1. Statement of need. A statement of why action by NOAA is being
considered and the objectives of, and legal basis for, this final rule
is contained in the preamble section of this final rule and is not
repeated here.
2. Summary of public comments. Section V. in the preamble of this
final rule contains a summary of all of the comments submitted to NOAA
and NOAA's responses thereto. Some comments about the economic impact
of the proposed action were submitted. Refer, for example, to comment
numbers 86 through 133 for summaries of these comments and NOAA's
responses thereto.
3. Number of small entities affected. The Small Business
Administration has established thresholds on the designation of
businesses as ``small entities''. A fish-harvesting business is
considered a ``small'' business if it has annual receipts not in excess
of $3.5 million (13 CFR 121.201). Sports and recreation businesses and
scenic and sightseeing transportation businesses are considered
``small'' businesses if they have annual receipts not in excess of $6
million (13 CFR 121.201). According to these limits, each of the
businesses listed below are considered small entities. (All analyses
are based on the most recently updated and best available information.)
a. Number of commercial fishing operations. In 2003, there were 441
commercial fishing operations that reported catches from the CINMS.
Total commercial fishing revenue from the CINMS was $17.3 million in
2003.
b. Number of consumptive recreational operations. In 1999, there
were 18 recreational fishing charter/party boats operating in the
CINMS. In 1999, there were 10 consumptive diving charter/party boats
operating in the CINMS. Total reported 1999 gross revenue from these
consumptive recreational activities was $8.8 million. Total costs for
1999 were reported at $8.4 million. After all costs were paid, the
consumptive recreational activities resulted in $420,000 in profit.
c. Number of non-consumptive recreational operations. In 1999,
there were 8 whale watching operations, 7 non-consumptive diving
operations, 4 operations that offered kayaking or island sightseeing
activities, and 8 sailing operations, within the CINMS. Total reported
1999 gross revenue from these non-consumptive recreational activities
was $2.6 million. Total costs for 1999 were reported at $2.5 million.
After all costs were paid, the non-consumptive recreational activities
resulted in $82,000 in profit.
4. There are no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance
requirements.
5. Two alternatives plus a no-action alternative were considered.
The no action (status quo) alternative would not establish marine
reserves and marine conservation areas in the Sanctuary. Therefore
there is no economic impact.
Alternative 1C, the proposed alternative, including both the
existing state network and proposed extensions, would include
approximately 110.5 square nautical miles of marine reserves and 1.7
square nautical miles of marine conservation areas for a total of 214.1
square nautical miles of the CINMS when combined with the existing
state zones. The new proposed federal areas of Alternative 1C
potentially impact 0.51% (approximately $124,000) of ex vessel value of
commercial catch in the CINMS. The total maximum potential loss to the
income of commercial fishing businesses is 0.61% ($440,000) and to the
employment of commercial fishing businesses is 0.66% (13 jobs). For
consumptive recreation in the CINMS, the estimated maximum potential
loss associated with alternative 1 is $935,000 (3.5%) in annual income
and about 42 full and part-time jobs (3.7%) in the local county
economies. For non-consumptive recreation in the CINMS, the estimated
range of potential increases in income generated in the local county
economies associated with alternative 1 is between $337 and about
$380,000. The estimated range of potential increases in employment in
the local county economies is between 0.02 and 19 full- and part-time
jobs. Alternative 1C was chosen as NOAA's preferred alternative because
it best accomplished the purpose and need of
[[Page 29232]]
furthering the protection of Sanctuary biodiversity while complementing
the existing State-designated network. Alternatives 1A and 1B were
rejected because they involved the establishment of federal marine
reserves and marine conservation areas in state waters of the
Sanctuary; which was opposed by the State of California.
Alternative 2, including both the existing state network and
proposed extensions, would encompass approximately 275.8 square
nautical miles of marine reserves and 12.1 square nautical miles of
marine conservation areas for a total of 287.8 square nautical miles of
the CINMS. Alternative 2 is larger than alternative 1, and proposes
some different reserve areas not proposed in alternative 1. The new
proposed federal areas of alternative 2 potentially impact 0.82%
(approximately $197,000) of ex vessel value of commercial catch in the
CINMS. The total maximum potential loss to the income of commercial
fishing businesses is 0.91% ($650,000) and to the employment of
commercial fishing businesses is 0.97% (19 jobs). For consumptive
recreation in the CINMS, the estimated maximum potential loss
associated with alternative 2 is $1,300,000 (5.0%) in annual income and
about 59 full and part-time jobs (5.2%) in the local county economies.
For non-consumptive recreation in the CINMS, the estimated range of
potential increases in income generated in the local county economies
associated with alternative 2 is between $748 and about $841,000. The
estimated range of potential increases in employment in the local
county economies is between 0.04 and 44 full- and part-time jobs.
Please refer to comment/response 1 for the reasons alternative
2 was rejected.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject
to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) which has been approved by OMB
under control number 0648-0141. The public reporting burden for
national marine sanctuary permits is estimated to average 1 hour per
response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. This rule would
not modify the average annual number of respondents or the reporting
burden for this information requirement, so a modification to this
approval is not necessary. Send comments regarding this burden
estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to NOAA (see ADDRESSES) and by e-
mail to [email protected], or fax to (202) 395-7285.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This final rule contains no federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector.
Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and
205 of UMRA.
List of Subjects
15 CFR Part 922
Administrative practice and procedure, Coastal zone, Education,
Environmental protection, Marine resources, Natural resources,
Penalties, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Research.
50 CFR Part 660
Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries,
Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 18, 2007
John H. Dunnigan,
Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management.
Dated: May 17, 2007.
William T. Hogarth,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 15 CFR chapter IX and 50 CFR
chapter VI are amended as follows:
15 CFR CHAPTER IX
PART 922--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority for part 922 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.
0
2. Revise Sec. 922.70 to read as follows:
Sec. 922.70 Boundary.
The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary) consists
of an area of the waters off the coast of California of approximately
1,128 square nautical miles (nmi) 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 (collectively the Islands) extending seaward to a distance
of approximately six nmi. The boundary coordinates are listed in
appendix A to this subpart.
0
3. Redesignate Sec. Sec. 922.71 and 922.72 as Sec. Sec. 922.72 and
922.74, respectively.
0
4. Add Sec. 922.71 to subpart G of part 922 to read as follows:
Sec. 922.71 Definitions.
In addition to those definitions found at Sec. 922.3, the
following definitions apply to this subpart:
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).
0
5. Add Sec. 922.73 to subpart G to read as follows:
Sec. 922.73 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:
(1) Harvesting, removing, taking, injuring, destroying, collecting,
moving, or causing the loss of any Sanctuary resource, including living
or dead organisms or historical resources, 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, including living or dead
organisms or historical resources, 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
[[Page 29233]]
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:
(1) Harvesting, removing, taking, injuring, destroying, collecting,
moving, or causing the loss of any Sanctuary resource, including living
or dead organisms or historical resources, 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, including living or dead
organisms or historical resources, except legally harvested fish.
0
6. In Sec. 922.74, as redesignated, revise paragraph (a) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 922.74 Permit procedures and criteria.
(a) Any person in possession of a valid permit issued by the
Director in accordance with this section and Sec. 922.48 may conduct
any activity within the Sanctuary prohibited under Sec. Sec. 922.72 or
922.73 if such activity is either:
* * * * *
0
7. Revise Appendix A to subpart G to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart G of Part 922--Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary Boundary Coordinates
[Coordinates listed in this Appendix are unprojected
(Geographic) and based on the North American Datum of 1983.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Latitude (N) Longitude (W)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... 33.94138 -119.27422
2................................... 33.96776 -119.25010
3................................... 34.02607 -119.23642
4................................... 34.07339 -119.25686
5................................... 34.10185 -119.29178
6................................... 34.11523 -119.33040
7................................... 34.11611 -119.39120
8................................... 34.11434 -119.40212
9................................... 34.11712 -119.42896
10.................................. 34.11664 -119.44844
11.................................. 34.13389 -119.48081
12.................................. 34.13825 -119.49198
13.................................. 34.14784 -119.51194
14.................................. 34.15086 -119.54670
15.................................. 34.15450 -119.54670
16.................................. 34.15450 -119.59170
17.................................. 34.15142 -119.61254
18.................................. 34.13411 -119.66024
19.................................. 34.14635 -119.69780
20.................................. 34.15988 -119.76688
21.................................. 34.15906 -119.77800
22.................................. 34.15928 -119.79327
23.................................. 34.16213 -119.80347
24.................................. 34.16962 -119.83643
25.................................. 34.17266 -119.85240
26.................................. 34.17588 -119.88903
27.................................. 34.17682 -119.93357
28.................................. 34.17258 -119.95830
29.................................. 34.13535 -120.01964
30.................................. 34.13698 -120.04206
31.................................. 34.12994 -120.08582
32.................................. 34.12481 -120.11104
33.................................. 34.12519 -120.16076
34.................................. 34.11008 -120.21190
35.................................. 34.11128 -120.22707
36.................................. 34.13632 -120.25292
37.................................. 34.15341 -120.28627
38.................................. 34.16408 -120.29310
39.................................. 34.17704 -120.30670
40.................................. 34.20492 -120.30670
41.................................. 34.20492 -120.38830
42.................................. 34.20707 -120.41801
43.................................. 34.20520 -120.42859
44.................................. 34.19254 -120.46041
45.................................. 34.20540 -120.50728
46.................................. 34.20486 -120.53987
47.................................. 34.18182 -120.60041
48.................................. 34.10208 -120.64208
49.................................. 34.08151 -120.63894
50.................................. 34.05848 -120.62862
51.................................. 34.01940 -120.58567
52.................................. 34.01349 -120.57464
53.................................. 33.98698 -120.56582
54.................................. 33.95039 -120.53282
55.................................. 33.92694 -120.46132
56.................................. 33.92501 -120.42170
57.................................. 33.91403 -120.37585
58.................................. 33.91712 -120.32506
59.................................. 33.90956 -120.30857
60.................................. 33.88976 -120.29540
61.................................. 33.84444 -120.25482
62.................................. 33.83146 -120.22927
63.................................. 33.81763 -120.20284
64.................................. 33.81003 -120.18731
65.................................. 33.79425 -120.13422
66.................................. 33.79379 -120.10207
67.................................. 33.79983 -120.06995
68.................................. 33.81076 -120.04351
69.................................. 33.81450 -120.03158
70.................................. 33.84125 -119.96508
71.................................. 33.84865 -119.92316
72.................................. 33.86993 -119.88330
73.................................. 33.86195 -119.88330
74.................................. 33.86195 -119.80000
75.................................. 33.86110 -119.79017
76.................................. 33.86351 -119.77130
77.................................. 33.85995 -119.74390
78.................................. 33.86233 -119.68783
79.................................. 33.87330 -119.65504
80.................................. 33.88594 -119.62617
81.................................. 33.88688 -119.59423
82.................................. 33.88809 -119.58278
83.................................. 33.89414 -119.54861
84.................................. 33.90064 -119.51936
85.................................. 33.90198 -119.51609
86.................................. 33.90198 -119.43311
87.................................. 33.90584 -119.43311
88.................................. 33.90424 -119.42422
89.................................. 33.90219 -119.40730
90.................................. 33.90131 -119.38373
91.................................. 33.90398 -119.36333
92.................................. 33.90635 -119.35345
93.................................. 33.91304 -119.33280
94.................................. 33.91829 -119.32206
95.................................. 33.48250 -119.16874
96.................................. 33.44235 -119.16797
97.................................. 33.40555 -119.14878
98.................................. 33.39059 -119.13283
99.................................. 33.36804 -119.08891
100................................. 33.36375 -119.06803
101................................. 33.36241 -119.04812
102................................. 33.36320 -119.03670
103................................. 33.36320 -118.90879
104................................. 33.47500 -118.90879
105................................. 33.48414 -118.90712
106................................. 33.52444 -118.91492
107................................. 33.53834 -118.92271
108................................. 33.58616 -118.99540
109................................. 33.59018 -119.02374
110................................. 33.58516 -119.06745
111................................. 33.58011 -119.08521
112................................. 33.54367 -119.14460
113................................. 33.51161 -119.16367
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
8. Add Appendix B to subpart G to read as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 922--Marine Reserve Boundaries
[Coordinates listed in this Appendix are unprojected
(Geographic) and based on the North American Datum of 1983.]
B.1. Richardson Rock (San Miguel Island) Marine Reserve
The Richardson Rock Marine Reserve (Richardson Rock) boundary is
defined by the 3 nmi State boundary, the coordinates provided in
Table B-1, and the following textual description.
The Richardson Rock boundary extends from Point 1 to Point 2
along a straight line. It then extends from Point 2 to Point 3 along
a straight line. The boundary then extends along a straight line
from Point 3 to the 3 nmi State boundary established under the
Submerged Lands Act (3 nmi State boundary) where a line defined by
connecting Point 3 and Point 4 with a straight line intersects the 3
nmi State boundary. The boundary then extends northwestward and then
eastward along the 3 nmi State boundary until it intersects the line
defined by connecting Point 5 and Point 6 with a straight line. At
that intersection, the boundary extends from the 3 nmi SLA boundary
to Point 6 along a straight line.
Table B-1.--Richardson Rock (San Miguel Island) Marine Reserve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................... 34.17333 [deg]N 120.60483
[deg]W
2..................................... 34.17333 [deg]N 120.47000
[deg]W
3..................................... 34.12900 [deg]N 120.47000
[deg]W
4..................................... 34.03685 [deg]N 120.52120
[deg]W
5..................................... 34.03685 [deg]N 120.60483
[deg]W
6..................................... 34.17333 [deg]N 120.60483
[deg]W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.2. Harris Point (San Miguel Island) Marine Reserve
The Harris Point Marine Reserve (Harris Point) boundary is
defined by the 3 nmi State
[[Page 29234]]
boundary, the coordinates provided in Table B-2, and the following
textual description.
The Harris Point boundary extends from Point 1 to Point 2 along
a straight line. It then extends along a straight line from Point 2
to the 3 nmi State boundary where a line defined by connecting Point
2 and Point 3 with a straight line intersects the 3 nmi State
boundary. The boundary then follows the 3 nmi State boundary
northwestward until it intersects the line defined by connecting
Point 4 and Point 5 with a straight line. At that intersection, the
boundary extends from the 3 nmi State boundary to Point 5 along a
straight line.
Table B-2.--Harris Point (San Miguel Island) Marine Reserve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................... 34.20492 [deg]N 120.38830
[deg]W
2..................................... 34.20492 [deg]N 120.30670
[deg]W
3..................................... 34.10260 [deg]N 120.30670
[deg]W
4..................................... 34.15200 [deg]N 120.38830
[deg]W
5..................................... 34.20492 [deg]N 120.38830
[deg]W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.3. South Point (Santa Rosa Island) Marine Reserve
The South Point Marine Reserve (South Point) boundary is defined
by the 3 nmi State boundary, the coordinates provided in Table B-3,
and the following textual description.
The South Point boundary extends from Point 1 to Point 2 along a
straight line. It then extends along a straight line from Point 2 to
the 3 nmi State boundary where a line defined by connecting Point 2
and Point 3 with a straight line intersects the 3 nmi State
boundary. The boundary follows the 3 nmi State boundary
southeastward until it intersects the line defined by connecting
Point 4 and Point 5 along a straight line. At that intersection, the
boundary extends from the 3 nmi State boundary to Point 5 along a
straight line.
Table B-3.--South Point (Santa Rosa Island) Marine Reserve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................... 33.84000 [deg]N 120.10830
[deg]W
2..................................... 33.84000 [deg]N 120.16670
[deg]W
3..................................... 33.86110 [deg]N 120.16670
[deg]W
4..................................... 33.84700 [deg]N 120.10830
[deg]W
5..................................... 33.84000 [deg]N 120.10830
[deg]W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.4. Gull Island (Santa Cruz Island) Marine Reserve
The Gull Island Marine Reserve (Gull Island) boundary is defined
by the 3 nmi State boundary, the coordinates provided in Table B-4,
and the following textual description.
The Gull Island boundary extends from Point 1 to Point 2 along a
straight line. It then extends along a straight line from Point 2 to
the 3 nmi State boundary where a line defined by connecting Point 2
and Point 3 with a straight line intersects the 3 nmi State
boundary. The boundary then follows the 3 nmi State boundary
westward until it intersects the line defined by connecting Point 4
and Point 5 with a straight line. At that intersection, the boundary
extends from the 3 nmi State boundary to Point 5 along a straight
line.
Table B-4.--Gull Island (Santa Cruz Island) Marine Reserve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................... 33.86195 [deg]N 119.80000
[deg]W
2..................................... 33.86195 [deg]N 119.88330
[deg]W
3..................................... 33.92690 [deg]N 119.88330
[deg]W
4..................................... 33.90700 [deg]N 119.80000
[deg]W
5..................................... 33.86195 [deg]N 119.80000
[deg]W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.5. Scorpion (Santa Cruz Island) Marine Reserve
The Scorpion Marine Reserve (Scorpion) boundary is defined by
the 3 nmi State boundary, the coordinates provided in Table B-5, and
the following textual description.
The Scorpion boundary extends from Point 1 to Point 2 along a
straight line. It then extends along a straight line from Point 2 to
the 3 nmi State boundary where a line defined by connecting Point 2
and Point 3 with a straight line intersects the 3 nmi State
boundary. The boundary then follows the 3 nmi State boundary
westward until it intersects the line defined by connecting Point 4
and Point 5 with a straight line. At that intersection, the boundary
extends from the 3 nmi State boundary to Point 5 along a straight
line.
Table B-5.--Scorpion (Santa Cruz Island) Marine Reserve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................... 34.15450 [deg]N 119.59170
[deg]W
2..................................... 34.15450 [deg]N 119.54670
[deg]W
3..................................... 34.10140 [deg]N 119.54670
[deg]W
4..................................... 34.10060 [deg]N 119.59170
[deg]W
5..................................... 34.15450 [deg]N 119.59170
[deg]W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.6. Footprint Marine Reserve
The Footprint Marine Reserve (Footprint) boundary is defined by
the 3 nmi State boundary, the coordinates provided in Table B-6, and
the following textual description.
The Footprint boundary extends from Point 1 to Point 2 along a
straight line. It then extends along a straight line from Point 2 to
the 3 nmi State boundary where a line defined by connecting Point 2
and Point 3 with a straight line intersects the 3 nmi State
boundary. The boundary follows the 3 nmi State boundary
northeastward and then southeastward until it intersects the line
defined by connecting Point 4 and Point 5 along a straight line. At
that intersection, the boundary extends from the 3 nmi State
boundary to Point 5 along a straight line.
Table B-6.--Footprint Marine Reserve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................... 33.90198 [deg]N 119.43311
[deg]W
2..................................... 33.90198 [deg]N 119.51609
[deg]W
3..................................... 33.96120 [deg]N 119.51609
[deg]W
4..................................... 33.95710 [deg]N 119.43311
[deg]W
5..................................... 33.90198 [deg]N 119.43311
[deg]W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.7. Anacapa Island Marine Reserve
The Anacapa Island Marine Reserve (Anacapa Island) boundary is
defined by the 3 nmi State boundary, the coordinates provided in
Table B-7, and the following textual description.
The Anacapa Island boundary extends from Point 1 to Point 2
along a straight line. It then extends to the 3 nmi State boundary
where a line defined by connecting Point 2 and Pont 3 with a
straight line intersects the 3 nmi State boundary. The boundary
follows the 3 nmi State boundary westward until it intersects the
line defined by connecting Point 4 and Point 5 with a straight line.
At that intersection, the boundary extends from the 3 nmi State
boundary to Point 5 along a straight line.
Table B-7.--Anacapa Island Marine Reserve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................... 34.08330 [deg]N 119.41000
[deg]W
2..................................... 34.08330 [deg]N 119.35670
[deg]W
3..................................... 34.06450 [deg]N 119.35670
[deg]W
4..................................... 34.06210 [deg]N 119.41000
[deg]W
5..................................... 34.08330 [deg]N 119.41000
[deg]W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.8. Santa Barbara Island Marine Reserve
The Santa Barbara Island Marine Reserve (Santa Barbara) boundary
is defined by the 3 nmi State boundary, the coordinates provided in
Table B-8, and the following textual description.
The Santa Barbara boundary extends from Point 1 to Point 2 along
a straight line. It then extends along a straight line from Point 2
to the 3 nmi State boundary where a line defined by connecting Point
2 and Point 3 with a straight line intersects the 3 nmi State
boundary. The boundary follows the 3 nmi State boundary
northeastward until it intersects the line defined by connecting
Point 4 and Point 5 with a straight line. At that intersection, the
boundary extends from the 3 nmi State boundary to Point 5 along a
straight line. The boundary then extends from Point 5 to Point 6
along a straight line.
Table B-8.--Santa Barbara Island Marine Reserve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................... 33.36320 [deg]N 118.90879
[deg]W
2..................................... 33.36320 [deg]N 119.03670
[deg]W
3..................................... 33.41680 [deg]N 119.03670
[deg]W
4..................................... 33.47500 [deg]N 118.97080
[deg]W
5..................................... 33.47500 [deg]N 118.90879
[deg]W
6..................................... 33.36320 [deg]N 118.90879
[deg]W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29235]]
Appendix C to Subpart G of Part 9222--Marine Conservation Area Boundary
C.1. Anacapa Island Marine Conservation Area
The Anacapa Island Marine Conservation Area (AIMCA) boundary is
defined by the 3 nmi State boundary, the coordinates provided in
Table C-1, and the following textual description.
The AIMCA boundary extends from Point 1 to Point 2 along a
straight line. It then extends to the 3 nmi State boundary where a
line defined by connecting Point 2 and Point 3 with a straight line
intersects the 3 nmi State boundary. The boundary follows the 3 nmi
State boundary westward until it intersects the line defined by
connecting Point 4 and Point 5 with a straight line. At that
intersection, the boundary extends from the 3 nmi State boundary to
Point 5 along a straight line.
Table C-1.--Anacapa Island Marine Conservation Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................... 34.08330 [deg]N 119.44500
[deg]W
2..................................... 34.08330 [deg]N 119.41000
[deg]W
3..................................... 34.06210 [deg]N 119.41000
[deg]W
4..................................... 34.06300 [deg]N 119.44500
[deg]W
5..................................... 34.08330 [deg]N 119.44500
[deg]W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR CHAPTER VI
PART 660--[AMENDED]
0
10. The authority for part 660 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
0
11. Revise Sec. 660.2 to read as follows:
Sec. 660.2 Relation to other laws.
(a) NMFS recognizes that any state law pertaining to vessels
registered under the laws of that state while operating in the
fisheries regulated under this part, and that is consistent with this
part and the FMPs implemented by this part, shall continue in effect
with respect to fishing activities regulated under this part.
(b) Fishing activities addressed by this Part may also be subject
to regulation under 15 CFR part 922, subpart G, if conducted in the
Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary.
[FR Doc. E7-10096 Filed 5-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P