[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               Hawaiian Islands
               Humpback Whale
                                                                                                                             NATIONAL MARINE
               National Marine                                                                                                 SANCTUARJES
               Sanctuary


               Final Environmental Impact Statement                                 Management Plan





                                 %











                                                         RXX









                                                                                        t






                                    A Federal          State Partnership for the Protection of
                                               Humpback Whales and Their Habitat
                                                                    February 1997

                      *SVIT Or Fel
                   Q@         11
                       "Rus 01
               U.S. DepavOnent 5'ComMerce                                                                                State of Hawaii
               NsoiwidOaanic and Atmospheric Administration                                                              Office of Planning
               MARGUM *Sean Service                                                                                      Department of Business,
               010ft of *eean and Coastal Resource Management                                                            Economic Development,
               ftafta" and Reserves Division                                                                             and Tourism
               SlOWSpOng, Maryland                                                                                       Honolulu, Hawaii



                                                                                                                                                          A








                                                                        LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

                  The Act       ..... Hawaiian Islands National Marine                            MMC        ........ Marine Mammal Commission
                                     Sanctuary Act                                                MMPA       ...... Marine Marrimal Protection Act
                  APPS      .......  Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships                          MMS        ........ Minerals Management Service, DOI
                  ATOC      .......  Acoustic Thermometry of OceanClimate                         MOU/MOA. Memorandum of
                  CDUA          ...... Conservation District Use Application,                                       Understanding/Memorandum of
                                     DLNR                                                                           Agreement
                  COE       ......... U.S. Army Corps of Engineers                                MP/IR      ....... Management Plan and Implementing
                  CWA       ........ Clean Water Act (or, Federal Water                                             Regulations
                                     Pollution Control Act)                                       MP or SMP. Management Plan or Sanctuary
                  C22-AA        ...... Coastal Zone Management Act                                                  Management Plan
                  DAR       ......... Division of Aquatic Resources, DLNR                         MPRSA        ..... Marine Protection, Research, and
                  DBEDT         ..... Department of Business, Economic                                              Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended
                                     Development, and Tourism, State of                           NARS       ....... Natural Area Reserve System, DLNR
                                     Hawaii                                                       NEPA       ....... National Environmental Policy Act of
                  DEIS/MP       ...  Draft Environmental Impact                                                     1969, as amended
                                     Statement/Management Plan                                    NMFS       ....... National Marine Fisheries Service,
                  DLNR      .......  Department of Land and Natural                                                 NOAA
                                     Resources, State of Hawaii                                   NMFS-OE... National Marine Fisheries Service-Office
                  DOBOR         ..... Division of Boating and Ocean                                                 of Enforcement
                                     Recreation, DLNR                                             NMS        ......... National Marine Sanctuary
                  DOC       ......... U. S. Department of Commerce                                NMSA       ....... National Marine Sanctuaries Act
                  DOCARE        ...  Division of Conservation and                                 NMSP       ....... National Marine Sanctuary Program
                                     Enforcement, DLNR                                            NOAA       ....... National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                  DOD       ......... U.S. Department of Defense                                                    Administration, DOC
                  DOH       ........ Department of Health, State of Hawaii                        NOS        ......... National Ocean Service, NOAA
                  DOI       .......... U.S. Department of the Interior                            NPDES      ...... National Pollution Discharge Elimination
                  DOT       ......... Department of Transportation, State of                                        System
                                     Hawaii                                                       NPS        ......... National Park Service, DOI
                  EA        ........... Environmental Assessment                                  OCRM       ....... Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
                  EIS       .......... Environmental Impact Statement                                               Management, NOS
                  EPA       ......... U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                        OCSLA      ...... Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
                  ESA       ......... Endangered Species Act                                      OP    ........... Office of Planning (Formerly OSP)
                  EEZ       ......... Exclusive Economic Zone                                     OPA        ......... Oil Pollution Act of 1990
                  FEIS/MP       ...  Final Environmental Impact                                   ORMA       ....... Ocean Recreation Management Area
                                     Statement/Management Plan                                    ORMP       ....... Ocean Resources Management Plan,
                  HAR       ........ Hawaii Administrative Rules                                                    State of Hawaii
                  HINMSA        ...  Hawaiian Islands National Marine                             OSP        ........... Office of State Planning, State of Hawaii
                                     Sanctuary Act                                                OTEC       ........ Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
                  HIHWNMS Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                         PMRF       ....... Pacific Missile Range Facility
                                     National Marine Sanctuary                                    PWSA       ....... Ports and Waterways Safety Act
                  HINWR         .... Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife                           RHA        .......... U.S. Rivers and Harbors Act
                                     Refuge                                                       SAC        .......... Sanctuary Advisory Council
                  ARS       ......... Hawaii Revised Statutes, State of                           SRD        .......... Sanctuaries and Reserves Division,
                                     Hawaii                                                                         OCRM
                  IR        ............ Implementing Regulations                                 SWG        ........ Sanctuary Working Group
                  IWC       ......... International Whaling Conirnission                          USCG       ....... U.S. Coast Guard
                  KIRC      .......  Kahoolawe Island Reserve Commission                          USFWS        ..... U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, DOI
                  MFCMA         .... Magnuson Fishery Conservation and                            WESPAC         ... Western Pacific Regional Fishery
                                     Management Act                                                                 Management Council
                  N1LCD         ...... Marine Life Conservation District


                            Cover Drawing: Courtesy of Mr. George Carey, Sanctuary Volunteer at the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                            National Marine Sanctuary, Kihei, Maui, Hawaii.
                 G          Printed on Recycled Paper

                                                                                                                                                                            'j





                           A# "kl OF CO

                                   UNITrso STATr=s OEPARTMENT OF commERcr=
                                   Office of the Under Secretary for
                                   Oceans and Atmosphere
                                   Washington, O.C. 20230



                                     JAN 3 1 1997


         Dear Reviewer:



              In accordance with the provision of Section 102 (2) (c) of the National
         Environmental Policy Act of 1969, we are enclosing the Final Environmental Impact
         Statement/Management Plan (FEIS/MP) on the Congressionally designated Hawaiian
         Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary. This document was prepared by
         the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
         Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
         Administration, Department of Commerce.

              The responsible Federal official for this project is W. Stanley Wilson, Assistant
         Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, National Ocean
         Service, NOAA. Any written comments or questions regarding this FEIS/MP should be
         directed to the contact person identified below by match 19, 1997. Also, one copy of your
         comments should be sent to me in Room 5805, U.S. Department of Commerce,
         Washington, D.C. 20230.


                             CONTACT PERSON
                             Allen Tom, On-Site Liaison
                             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                             National Marine Sanctuary
                             726 S. Kihei Road
                             Kihei,-HI 96753
                             Telephone (808) 879-2818

         Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.



                                           Sincerely,
                                           A-7   LA--,

                                           Donna Wieting
                                           Acting Director
                                           Office of Ecology and Conservation



         Enclosure



       Printed on Recycled Paper






                 Hawaiian Islands
                 Humpback Whale
                 National Marine                                                                                            NATIONAL MAFUNE
                                                                                                                               SANCTUAFUES
                 Sanctuary




                               Final Environmental Impact Statement                                       Management Plan






                                          A Federal            State Partnership. for the Protection
                                                 of Humpback Whales and Their Habitat

                                                                          February 1997





                                                            ft"wty of Coe "braw













                 Sanctuaries and Reserves Division                                                                       State of Hawaii.
                 Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management                                                         Office of Planning
                 National Ocean Service                                                                                  Department of Business,
                 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration                                                         Economic Development,
                 SSMC4, NIORM-2                                                                                          and Tourism
   A             1305 East-West Highway
   I -                                                                                                                   P.O. Box 2359
   %X)           Silver Spring, MD 20910          US-Department ok               Commerce                                Honolulu, 1H 96811-2359
                                                  NOAA Coastal Services Centor Library
                                                  2234 South Hobson Avenue
                                                  Charleston, SC 29405-2413








             Title: Final Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan for the
             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary

             Abstract: The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary was designated by
             the Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act (HINMSA or Act), Title 11, subtitle C of the
             Oceans Act of 1992, Public Law 102-587.            The Act requires the Secretary of Commerce
             (Secretary) to develop a comprehensive management plan with implementing regulations to govern
             the overall management of the site and to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities. The designated
             Sanctuary consists of approximately 1300 square nautical miles of Federal and State of Hawaii
             waters from the high water mark to the 100-fathom isobath contour adjoining the islands of Maui,
             Lanai and Molokai, including Penguin Bank, the deep water area of the Pailolo Channel, and the
             waters adjacent to the Kilauea National Wildlife Refuge on Kauai, but excluding the waters within
             three nautical miles of Kahoolawe. The preferred alternative in this Final Environmental Impact
             Statement 'and Management Plan (FEIS/MP) provides that the Congressionally-designated
             boundary be expanded to include the 100-fathom. isobath around the Big Island of Hawaii, eastern
             Kauai, and portions of Oahu.

                     As expressed by Congress in the HINMSA, the purposes of the Hawaii Sanctuary are              to:
             (1) protect humpback whales and their habitat; (2) educate and interpret for the public the
             relationship of humpback whales to the Hawaiian Islands marine environment; (3) -manage human
             uses of the Sanctuary consistent with the Act and the NMSA; and (4) provide for the identification
             of marine resources and ecosystems of national significance for possible inclusion in the
             Sanctuary. Consequently, these purposes provide the foundation and focus for what is included in
             this Final EIS/MP and Implementing Regulations. The Act also requires that the Sanctuary
             Management Plan shall (1) facilitate all public and private uses of the Sanctuary (including uses of
             Hawaiian natives customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, and religious
             purposes) consistent with the primary objective of protection of humpback whales and their
             habitat, (2) set for the allocation of Federal and State enforcement responsibilities, as jointly agreed
             by the Secretary and the State, (3) identify research needs and establish a long-term ecological
             monitoring program with respect to humpback whales and. their habitat, (4) identify alternative
             sources of funding needed to fully implement the plan's provisions, (5) ensure coordination and
             cooperation between Sanctuary managers and other Federal, State, and local authorities with
             jurisdiction within -or adjacent to the Sanctuary, and (6) promote education among users of the
             Sanctuary and the general public about conservation of humpback whales, their habitat, and other
             marine resources.

                     Alternative elements considered within the FEIS/MP include: boundary alternatives
             considered by NOAA (e.g., areas of highest concentration, main Hawaiian Islands to the 100-
             fathom isobath, and/or expand to include waters to the 1,000-fathom isobath); scope of Sanctuary
             resources (e.g., identify and possibly include other resources now or later); Sanctuary
             administration (e.g., on-site, advisory councils); and resource protection strategies that include
             research and long-term monitoring, education and interpretation, coordination with existing
             resource management authorities, regulation and enforcement. Regulatory options range from
             relying on existing authorities to protect the humpback whale, to independent Federal regulations to
             protect humpback whales and their habitat, to a multi-species (ecosystem) regulatory scheme. The
             preferred boundary alternative as described in this document describes expanding the boundary to
             include the waters around all the main Hawaiian Islands from the shoreline to'the 100-fathom
             isobath, but not including specified military use areas on Kauai and Oahu, specified corrunercial
             ports and small boat harbors since they are not considered humpback whale habitat, and the waters
             within three nautical miles around Kahoolawe. The management strategies would be applied on a
             statewide basis. The management plan includes the formation of a Sanctuary Advisory Council
             (SAC) to advise the Sanctuary Manger on the management of the Sanctuary. The SAC was
             designed to provide maximum representation of public and private interest groups. The SAC will
             play an important role in providing the broad-based guidance needed to ensure the Sanctuary's


                                                                                                                Page i







               success.    A proc@ss is presented to identify additional resources of national significance for
               possible inclusion in the Sanctuary at some later date.

                       The Management Plan proposes utilization,      and reliance,. on existing Federal and State
               authorities, when possible, to manage activities that may negatively affect humpback whales and
               their habitat. The Hawaii Sanctuary consultations will be conducted by the National Marine
               Fisheries Service (NMFS) under an MOU between NOAA's SRD and NMFS to ensure that
               humpback whales and their habitat are comprehensively protected and managed within existing
               permitting, and other authorization processes. To provide supplemental protection for humpback
               whales, the Sanctuary proposes to adopt existing NMFS humpback whale take and approach
               restrictions as Sanctuary regulations. In addition, the Sanctuary proposes a regulation to ensure
               greater coordination and to strengthen the long-term protection of the humpback whale's habitat.
               Any activity not conducted in compliance with the terms or conditions of a required Federal or
               State permit, license, lease, or other specific authorization for discharging or depositing materials
               from within the Sanctuary boundary, (or from outside the boundary that enters and injures
               Sanctuary resources) or for altering the seabed, would be in violation of Sanctuary regulations.
               This regulation would apply only to those activities which are conducted without or in violation of
               existing and required Federal and State permits, licenses, leases, or authorizations. This habitat
               regulation provide's a mechanism to fill existing gaps and supplement existing authorities. The
               regulations will supplement enforcement against certain acts of non-compliance and unlawful
               activities, thus strengthening overall protection of humpback whales and their habitat.

                       This document also analyses the environmental and socioeconomic consequences of the
               preferred alternatives and the other alternatives. The potential socioeconomic impacts range from
               no change to varying degrees of impacts depending upon which regulatory alternative is selected.
               The preferred regulatory alternative is anticipated to have no negative socioeconomic impacts on
               Sanctuary users and positive environmental impacts to humpback whales and their habitat. NOAA
               is not proposing any Sanctuary restrictions on fishing or fishing activities, is not recommending
               the imposition of user fees, and is not proposing to issue Sanctuary-specific permits.
                       Research, data and information collection, information exchange, and long-term monitoring
               will be very important in trying to better understand the humpback whales, their environmental
               needs, and impacts to the whales and their habitat. The research program will include baseline
               studies, monitoring, and analysis and prediction assessments to provide information needed in
               decision making, resolving management issues, and in funding appropriate management-related
               research. Interpretive/e.ducation programs will be directed at improving public awareness and
               understanding of the Sanctuary's resources, protection measures, and the need to manage them
               wisely-to ensure their continued viability and abundance.


               Lead            Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
               Agency:         Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
                               National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                               U.S. Department of Commerce
                               Silver Spring, MD; Honolulu HI; and Kihei, HI

               Cooperating State of Hawaii
               Agencies:,      Hawaii Office of Planning
                               Department of Business,
                               Economic Development and Tourism
                               Honolulu, HI

                               and




               Page ii










                       National Marine Fisheries Service
                       National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                       U.S. Department of Commerce
                       Silver Spring, MD; and Honolulu, HI

          Contact:     Ms. Debra Malek, Pacific Regional Manager
                       NOAA-Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
                      .1305 East West Highway - SSMCAV
                       Silver Spring, MD 209 10,
                       Phone: (301) 713-3141 Ext. 162
                       Fax:  (301) 713-4306













































                                                                                        Page iii

































                             THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK









































          Page iv









                         FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE
                               HAWAIIAN ISLANDs HUMPBACK WHALE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY


                                                                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                                                                                                                  PAGE

                  List of Figures           ..................................................................................................................    Viii
                  List of Tables         ....................................................................................... :-1'*--1-**-*1-***' ix

                  Part 1: Background

                  Part I Detailed Table of Contents                       ........................................................................................ 1
                  A.     INTRODUCTION                   .........................................................................................................  2
                  B.     NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY PROGRAM                                                     ................................................... 2
                         1. National Marine Sanctuaries Act                           ............................................................................ 2
                         2. National Marine Sanctuary Progra                               ....................................................................... 3
                         3. General Benefits and Costs Resulting from Sanctuga Designation                                                  .......................6
                         4. National Marino, Sanctuary SyLtern                          .................................................I ........................7
                  C.     HAWAIIAN ISLANDS HUMPBACK WHALE NATIONAL MARINE
                         SANCTUARY                .............................................................................................................   10
                         1. Designation            ............................................................................................................   10
                         2. History of Sanctuga Designation Prol2o&a_l                                ..........................................................  12
                  D.     CONSULTATIONS                      ....................................................................................................  20
                         1. Endangered Species Act Requirements                                .................................................................  20
                         2. Resource Assessment                     ................................................................................I............ 20.
                         3. Federal Consistency Deterniination                            ......................................................................  21

                  Part H: Description of the Affected Environment

                  Part H Detailed Table of Contents                        .....................................................................................  23
                  A.     THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT                                     ..........................................................................  27
                         1. Geographic Setting                  ................................................................................................  27
                         2. Physical Characteristics                   .......................................................................................... 27
                  B.     BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES                               ....................................................................................  34
                         1. Hu=back Whales                      ................................................................................................  34
                         2. Other Marine Resources of Hawaii                             .......................................................................  57
                  C.     CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES AND USES                                                             ................................. 71
                         1.    Native Hawaiian Settlements and Social Patterns                                  ................................................. 72
                         2.    AQ.uaculture/Fishl2onds                ......................................................................................      i... 73
                         3.    Religious Practice ana Artifacts                       ..........................................................................  76
                         4.    Kahoolawelsland                ..................................................................................................  77
                         5.    Submerged Lands               .........................................   ........................................................ 79
                         6.    Traditional Native Hawaiian Uses                         ........................................................................  79
                         7.    Shipwrecks           ............................................................................................................  79

                  D. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND ACTIVITIES                                                      ...................................................... 80
                         1. Socio-Dernogral2hic Profile                      ...................................................................................  80
                         2. Human Activities                 ...................................................................................................  82
                         3.    Institutional Arrangements and Responsibilities                                .................................................   108






                                                                                                                                                                   Page v









                    Part III:        Alternatives

                    Part III Detailed Table of Contents               .................................................................................. 129
                    A.    "NO SANCTUARY" ALTERNATIVE                            .................................................................... 133
                          1. Background          .......................................................................................................... 137
                          ,2. Feasibilijy of'a "No Sanctuga" Alternative                   ......................................................... 134
                          3. Consequences of Terminating Existing Sanctua[y                       ................................................. 134
                          4. Federal Sanctuary Without State Waters                   .............................................................. 135
                    B.    SANCTUARY ALTERNATIVES                          ............................................................................ 137
                          1. BoundwZ@ Alternatives            ......................................................................................... 137-
                          2. K-egulatory Alternatives           ....................................................................................... 157
                          3. Management Alternatives               .................................................................................... 173

                    Part IV: Environmental and Socio-economic Impacts

                    Part IV Detailed Table of Contents                ................................................................................. 179
                    A.    INTRODUCTION             ...................................................................................................... 181
                    B.    BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVES                          .......................................I...................................... 181
                          1. Introduction                                                                                                  181
                          2. To-undga Alternatives            ......................................................................................... 184
                    C.    REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES                           ......................................................................... 189
                          1. Introduction        ...............o......................................................................................... 189
                          2. Fishin2 Activities          ................................................................................................ 189
                          3. Impacts of Proposed Regulations                 ........................................................................ 190
                    D.    MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES                             ........................................................................ 208
                          1. Consequences of RernoviuZ National Marine Sanctuga Designation                                   ............... 208
                          2.- Consequences of Accepting Status Quo Alternative                        ........................................... 208
                          3. Conse4uences of Sanctuga Preferred Alternative                       .......................................  210
                    E.    UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL AND
                          SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS                        ............................................................................... 215
                    F.    RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE
                          ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
                          LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY                         ............................................................................. 216
                    G.    RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROPOSED ACTION AND EXISTING
                          RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS                              ................................................................... 216
                          1. Impacts Related to Management Plan PuMoses                        .......................  ........................... 216
                          2. Relationship Between Sanctuga Management Plan and OtheLHu=back
                              Whale and Ocean Management Plans and Programs                            .......................................... 217

                    Part V: Management Plan

                    Part V, Detailed Table of Contents@             ....................                                                 ..221
                    A.    INTRODUCTION             ..................................................................................................... 223
                          1. Sanctuga Puiposes            .............................................................................................. 223
                          2. CoWrehensive Management Plan                      ...................................................................... 223
                          3. @`anctupa Goals and Objectives                .......................................................................... 225
                    B.    SANCTUARY BOUNDARY                       .................................................................................... 228
                    C.    SANCTUARY RESOURCES                       .................................................................................. 229
                          1. Humpback Whale              ................................................................................................. 229
                          2. Humpback Whale Habitat                ...................................                                     229
                          3. 5ther Resources of National Significance                   ..........                                         229



                    Page vi










                   D.     RESOURCE PROTECTION PROGRAM                                         ......................... I ........................................ 231
                          1.    Program Description               ...................................................................  ......................... 231
                          2.    Goals and Ob          -jectives     ............................................................................................. 231
                          3.    Sanctuary Reaulations                .......................................................................................... 234
                          4.    Enforcement and Surveillance                      ............................................................................. 236
                          5.    Coordination          .......................................................................................................... 241
                          6.    Research/Long-Term Monitgrin                           ........................................................................ 245
                          7.    Education/InteEpretation                 ....................................................................................... 253
                   E.     ADMINISTRATION                      ................................................................................................. 259
                          1.    Site Administration              .............................................................................................. 260
                          2.    SanctuaLy Adviso[y Council                     ................................................................................ 260
                          3.    Other Federal Aizencies                ........................................................................................ 261
                          4.    State, Regional, and County Agencies                           ................................................................. 261
                          5.    Compatible Uses of the Sanctuaj@@                        ....................................................................... 263
                          6.    Five-Year Review of Mana2ement Plan                               ............................................................... 264
                          7.    S12ecial Use Permits              ............................................................................................. 264
                          8.    Resource Protection: Roles and Responsibilities                                 ................................................ 266
                          9.    Research: Roles and Responsibilities                           ................................................................. 268
                          10. Education/Interpretation: Roles and Responsibilities                                     ......................................... 269
                          11. Site Administration: Roles and Responsibilities                                  ................................................. 270
                   F.     REVENUE AND RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT                                                    .................................................. 271

                   Part VI:                 List of Preparers                   ................................................................................ 273

                   Part VII:                List of Agencies and Organizations
                                            Receiving Copies of the Final -EIS/MP                                         ...................................... 277
                   Part VIH:                Appendixes                ........................................................................................... 281

                   Appendix A:              Responses to Comments Received on the Draft EIS/MP                                           ........................ 283
                                            Public Testimony Matrix                    ......................................................................... 321
                   Appendix B:              National Marine Sanctuaries Act, as amended                                 ........................................ 331
                   Appendix C:,             Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act                                   ................................... 347
                   Appendix D:              Sanctuary Advisory Council Charter and members                                      ................................. 351
                   Appendix E:              Agreements for Coordinated Management of the Hawaiian
                                            Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary                                         ............................ 361
                   Appendix F:              List of DOD Military Activities in Hawaii                             .............................................. 387
                   Appendix G:              Species Profile: Humpback Whale Report #2                                  .......................................... 395
                   Appendix H:              Background to the Proposed Hawaii Humpback Whale National
                                            Marine Sanctuary of 1984                    ..................................................I...................... 423
                   Appendix I:              Whale Education Programs in Hawaii                             ..................................................... 425
                   Appendix J:              Bibliography and References                      ................................................................... 429
                   Appendix K:              Designation Document and Implementing Regulations                                          .......................... 447











                                                                                                                                                                  Page vii









                                                                            LIST OF FIGURES
                                                                                                                                                    PAGE

                      Figure I- I                 SRD/OCRM Organizational Chart                       ........................................................ 4
                      Figure 1-2                  Location of National Marine Sanctuaries                      ............................................... 7
                      Figure 11- 1                Main Hawaiian Islands               ........................................................................ 27
                      Figure H-2                  Hawaii Surface Winds               .......................................................................... 30
                      Figure 11-3                 Relationship Between Height of Islands and Trade Wind Flow                                    ......... 30
                      Figure 11-4                 Hawaii Surface Currents               ..................................................................... 31
                      Figure H-5                  Sea Surface Tempeatuers               .................................................................... 32
                      Figure JI-6                 Depth of 20'C isotherm              ......                                      ........................ 32
                      Figure 11-7                 Worldwide Distribution of Humpback Whales                            .........                  ....... 37
                      Figure 11-8                 Humpback Whale Migration Routes and Population Structure                                    ........... 41
                      Figure H-9                  Results of 1993 Humpback Whale Survey Showing 100- and
                                                  1,000-fathom isobath             ........................................................................... 43
                      Figure 11- 10               Results of 1990 Survey (Calf Pods Only)                        ........................................... 44
                      Figure 11- 11               Change in Whale Density (1990 Rate--1977-180 Rate)                               ....................... 44
                      Figure H- 12                Results of 1993 and 1995 Humpback Whale Survey Showing
                                                  100-Fathom Isobath Around Kauai and Niihau                             .................................. 45
                      Figure 11- 13               Results of 1993 and 1995 Humpback Whale Survey Showing
                                                  100-Fathorn Isobath Around Oahu                    ..............................................: ....... 46
                      Figure 11- 14               Results of 1993 and 1995 Humpback Whale Survey Showing
                                                  106-Fathom Isobath Around Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and
                                                  Kahoolawe         ........................................................................................... 47
                      Figure U- 15                Results of 1993 and 1995 Humpback Whale Survey Showing
                                                  100-Fathorn Isobath Around the Big Island                        ......................................... 48
                      Figure H- 16                Results of 1993 Aerial Survey, Odontocete Sightings                             ........................ 65
                      Figure U- 17                Resident Population of Islands (1950-92)                       .............................I.............. 81
                      Figure 11- 18               Dredged Material Disposal Sites                   ......I................................................... 96

                      Figure 111- 1               State waters and the proposed Sanctaury boundary                                                   ..136
                      Figure 111-2                100-Fathorn Isobath Around Kahoolawe Island                            .....                      ...  138
                      Figure 111-3                Boundary Alternative 1: Congressionally-Designated Sanctuary                                     ....  140
                      Figure 1111-4               Boundary Alternative 2: Major Humpback Whale Concentration
                                                  Areas    ...........................................; ...................................................... 142
                      Figure 111-5                Boundary Alternative 3:               PREFERRED--Statewide                    .......................... 144
                      Figure 111-6                Boundary Alternative 3:               PREFERRED--Kauai Close-up                       ................ 145
                      Figure 1111-7               Boundary Alternative 3:               PREFERkED--Oahu Close-up                       ................. 146
                      Figure IH-8                 Boundary Alternative 3:               PREFERRED--Molokai/Lanai Close-up.. 147
                      Figure 111-9                Boundary Alternative 3:               PREFERRED--Maui Close-up                       ................. 148
                      Figure 111- 10              Boundary Alternative 3:               PREFERRED--Big Island Close-up                        .........  149
                      Figure III- I I             Selected Ports, Harbors, and Small Boat Basins Excluded from
                                                  the Preferred Boundary Alternative                    .................................................. 151
                      Figure HI-12                Boundary Alternative 4: 100-Fathom Isobath Around Main
                                                  Hawaiian Islands and Kaula Rock                      .................................................... 155
                      Figure HI-13                Boundary Alternative 5: - 1000-Fathorn Isobath Around Main
                                                  Hawaiian Islands            ................................................................................ 156

                      Figure V- 1                 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary
                                                  Administration          .....................................I.............................................. 262




                      Page viii










                                                                       LIST OF TABLES
                                                                                                                                              PAGE

                Table I- I             Changes Made to the Final EIS/MP                     .......................................................... 18

                Table 11- 1            Major Water Masses of the North Pacific                     ................................................. 33
                Table 11-2             Hawaiian Water Temperatures by Month                        .................................................. 33
                Table 11-3             Calf Pod Sightings by Survey and Region                          All Sightings (1993)          ........... 49
                Table 11-4             Calf Pod Sightings by Survey and Region                          All Sightings (1995)          ........... 49
                Table 11-5             Cetacean Species Found in Hawaii with Results of 1993 Aerial
                                       Surveys                                                                                                    63
                Table 11-6             Monk Seal Sightings in the Main Hawaiian Islands, 1984-93
                                       Reported to the National Marine Fisheries Service                         ................................... 70
                Table 11-7             Fishponds by Type and Island                ................................................................... 74
                Table H-8              Fishponds of Maui, Lanai, Kauai, and Molokai                          ........................................ 75
                Table 11-9             Population and Percent Urban                ................................................................... 80
                Table II- 10           Ethnic Diversity, Percentage by County                     ..............I .................................... 81
                Table II- I I          Job Count by Industry, by County                   ............................................................. 82
                Table H- 12            Commercial Marine Life Landed by Month/Area, Fiscal Year
                                       1992-93 (lbs.)        ............................................................................................ 83
                Table 11- 13           Commercial Fishers by Month and Area, Fiscal Year 1992-93                                   ................ 83
                Table H- 14            1993 Landings, Sale, and Value of the Commercial Fishing Catch                                    .......... 84
                Table H- 15            Marine Life Caught from Penguin Bank Catchment Area by
                                       Commercial Fishermen for Calendar Years 1991-92                             ................................ 84
                Table H- 16            Fishing Methods, Landings, Sale, and value of Catch from
                                       Commercial Fishings for 1991 (6/90-6/9 1) for the Hawaiian
                                       Islands    ........................................................................................................ 85
                Table H- 17            Fishing Vessel Activities Within Propose                    d Boundary on the Big
                                       Island (Recreational, Subsistence,'Commercial)                         ....................................... 85
                Table H- 18            Charterboat Fishing Revenues and Passengers, by County, 1990                                   ............ 86
                Table 11- 19           Overseas and Inter-Island Shipping, 1989, Freight and Passenger
                                       Traffic for Specified Harbors, 1989                   .......................................................... 87
                Table 11-20            Visitor Count and Expenditures, by County (1991)                            .................................. 88
                Table 11-21            Visitor -Accommodations by Type, and by County (199 1)                                ....................... 88
                Table U-22             Ocean Recreation Revenues and Employment by Sub-Sector, 1990                                        ......... 89
                Table 11-23            Small Craft Mooring Facilities, by Islands, 1991-92                         ................................ 89
                Table U-24             State-Registered Vessels, by County                   ......................................................... 90
                Table 111-25           Estimated Tour Boat Rev enues, by County                         ..........................................*.... 91
                Table 111-26           Characteristics of Recreational Dive Industry, by County                             ........................ 93
                Table 11-27            Revenues and Employment Produced by Ocean Recreation                                    .................... 93
                Table 11-28            EPA Hawaiian Ocean Disposal Sites                      ........................................................ 96
                Table 11-29            Defense Expenditures in Hawaii (in $ billions]                        ........................................ 97
                Table U-30             Military Personnel and Dependents, and Acreage Controlled by the
                                       U.S. Department of Defense                 ...................................................................... 97
                Table 11-31            Number of Farms, Farm Acreage, and Value of Crop Sales, by
                                       County (199 1)        .......................................................................................... 102
                Table 11-32            Crop Sales in Hawaii [in $ millions]                   ....................................................... 103
                Table 11-33            Airports and Heliports, by Control and by Islands, 1991                            ........................ 103
                Table 11-34            Aircraft Operations, by Type of Aircraft, at Major State-Owned
                                       Airports, 1991        .......................................................................................... 104





                                                                                                                                                  Pageix








                      Table III- I          Summary of Alternatives and Potential Consequences                               ........................... 131,

                      Table IV- I           Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with
                                            Alternatives        ............................................................................................. 182
                      Table IV-2            Summary of Potential Socio-Economic Impacts Associated with
                                            Alternatives        ............................................................................................. 183
                      Table IV-3            Record of Enforcement Activities for the Protection of Hawaiian
                                            Islands Humpback Whales                   ...................................................................... 213
















































                     Page x





                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                                           Pait 1: Introduction and Background
                National Marine Sanctuary

                                         PART 1:         INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

                                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                                                                                   PAGE


                A. INTRODUCTION                ...............................................................I ..........I...............................2


                B.   NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY PROGRAM                                      ................................................... .)
                     1. National Marine Sanctuaries Act                 ............................................................................2
                     2. National Marine Sanctuary Program                   .......................................................................3
                     3. General Benefits and Costs Resulting from Sanctuary Designation                              .......................6
                     4. National Marine Sanctuajy System                   ..........................................................................7

                C.   HAWAIIAN ISLANDS HUMPBACK WHALE NATIONAL MARINE
                     SANCTUARY            ............................................................................................................. 10
                     1.   Designation      ............................................................................................................ 10
                     2.   History. of Sanctuga Designation Proposal                   .......................................................... 12
                          a.   Initial Proposal: 1977-1984            ............................................................................ 12
                          b.   Kahoolawe National Marine Sanctuary Feasibility Study: 1990-1991                               .......... 12
                          c.   The Oceans Act of 1992            .................................................................................. 13
                          d.   The Draft Management Plan               ........................................................................... 14
                               i. Preferred Alternative           .................................................................................. 15
                          e.   The Final Management Plan             ................: ........................................................... 17

                D.* CONSULTATIONS                ..................................................................: ................................. 20
                     1. Endangered Species Act Requirements                     ................................................................. 20
                     2. Resource Assessment              ............................................................................................ 20
                     3. Federal CQnsistency Determination                   ...................................................................... 21

























                Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                                         Page I
                and Management Plan





               Part 1: Introduction and Background                               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                        National Marine Sanctuary


               A. INTRODUCTION

                      The Hawaiian, Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary) was
               designated by law in 1992. The Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act (HINMSA or
               Act) designated the Sanctuary and required the Secretary of Commerce to develop a
               comprehensive management plan and regulations to implement the designation. This Final
               Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan has been developed in accordance with the
               HINMSA, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), and the National Environmental Policy
               Act of 1969.

               B. NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY PROGRAM

                  1. The National Marine Sanctuaries Act

                      The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) 16 U.S.C. 1431         et apq. authorizes the
               Secretary of Commerce to designate as National Marine Sanctuaries areas of the marine
               environment that possess conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research, and
               educational, or aesthetic resources and qualities of national significance, and to provide'
               -comprehensive management and protection of these areas. The NMSA sets certain designation
               standards for National Marine Sanctuaries, including determination of national significance; the
               determination that existing State and Federal authorities are inadequate or should be
               supplemented to ensure coordinated and comprehensive conservation and management of the
               area; a determination that the designation of the area as a National Marine, Sanctuary will
               facilitate the coordinated and comprehensive conservation and management of the area; and, the
               area is of a size and nature that permits comprehensive and coordinated conservation and
               management. National Marine Sanctuaries are routinely designated by the Secretary through an
               administrative process established by the NMSA, including activation of candidate sites selected
               from the National Marine Sanctuary Program Site Evaluation List. Sanctuaries also have been
               designated by an Act of Congress, as was the case with Monterey Bay, Stellwagen Bank,
               Florida Keys and the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale national marine sanctuaries.

                      National Marine Sanctuaries are established for the protection of nationally significant
               marine resources as well as the long-term beneficial use and enjoyment of these resources by the
               public now and in the future. To meet these' objectives, the NMSA includes the following
               purposes and policies:

                      a. To enhance resource protection through comprehensive and coordinated conservation
                         and management tailored to specific resources that complements existing regulatory
                         authorities;

                      b. To support, promote, and coordinate scientific research on, and monitoring of, the
                         site-specific marine resources to improve management decision - making in National
                         Marine Sanctuaries;

                      c. To enhance public awareness, understanding, and sustainable use of the coastal and
                         marine environment through public interpretive, educational, and recreational
                         programs; and

                      d. To facilitate, to. the extent compatible with the primary objective of resource
                         protection, public and private uses of National Marine Sanctuaries.

                      In addition, the NMSA directs the Secretary to consult with appropriate State and Federal
               authorities and international governments and organizations to insure cooperation. The NMSA
               contains certain statutory prohibitions and the authority to enforce those prohibitions and
               Page 2                                                          Final Environmental Impact StatemenT
                                                                                            and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                       Part 1: Introduction and Background
             National Marine Sanctuary

             methods for assessing penalties in the event a prohibition is violated. Specifically, the NMSA
             prohibits the destruction, loss of, or injury to any sanctuary resource managed under the laws or
             regulations for a sanctuary; the possession, delivery, sale, transport, or shipment of any sanctuary
             resource taken in violation of the NMSA; interference with law enforcement under the NMSA;
             any violation of the NMSA, and regulations or permits issued pursuant to the NMSA. The
             NMSA further provides the authority to recover response costs and damages for destruction, loss
             of, or injury to Sanctuary resources. The NMSA appears in Appendix B.

                    The responsibility for carrying out the terms of the NMSA is delegated to the U.S.
             Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office
             of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
             (SRD) (Figure 1-1). SRD's role in administration and management of the National Marine
             Sanctuary Program (NMSP) includes preparing management plans for designating marine
             sanctuaries, and adopting and implementing management practices to protect the conservation,
             recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational, and aesthetic values of these important
             marine areas.

                    SRD, on behalf of the'Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), as part of the procedure for
             designating a National Marine Sanctuary, prepares the terms of the proposed designation;
             proposed mechanisms for coordination of existing authorities; a draft management plan which
             includes goals, objectives, management responsibilities, resource studies and programs; cost
             estimates for the proposed designation; a draft environmental impact statement; an evaluation of'
             the advantages of State/Federal cooperation if all or part of the site falls within State jurisdiction;
             and the proposed regulations. The Management Plan and the environmental impact statement
             are typically developed in tandem and issued as one document.

                2. The National Marine SanctuaU Program

                    The NMSP is a national system of 12 sites (Key Largo NMS and Looe Key NMS will be
             incorporated into the larger Florida Keys NMS upon the effective date of its regulations and final
             management plan). These sites protect over 13,000 square nautical miles of marine resources,
             and range in all sizes and shapes from 0.25 to 4,024 square nautical miles. An additional
             approximately 850 square nautical miles are currently under consideration for designation as
             National Marine Sanctuaries. Designed to protect natural, cultural, and/or historical features of
             the marine environment, they are currently found in eight of the twelve recognized
             biogeographical provinces in U.S. coastal waters.

                    Many people ask what a National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) is,           what its benefits are, and
             how it will affect them as Sanctuary users. There are no simple answers to these questions
             because of the varied nature and needs of National Marine Sanctuaries and the purposes of their
             designation. Sanctuaries can be located in either Federal, State, or territorial waters or some
             combination thereof. Of the 12 existing sites, 7 encompass some Territorial or State waters
             within their boundaries. As such, the designation of marine sanctuaries has led to numerous
             cooperative agreements and partnerships among Federal, State, and local governmental agencies,
             as well as non-governmental organizations, to comprehensively manage' National Marine
             Sanctuaries and ensure the cooperative attainment of the goals of enhanced resource protection
             and management. Sanctuaries strive to complement existing authorities and supplement local
             efforts when more comprehensive and coordinated protection of resources is needed.






             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                             Page 3
             and Management Plan





                 Part L Introduction and Background                                        Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                   National Marine Sanctuary











                                                             gs 01


                                                             Departmen



                                                    National oceanic and Atmospheric Admini



                                                             National



                                                   Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
                                                                               Man 9-7t

                                                        riin-cwrl" and Reserves Division


                                                                                               Operations
                                                                                             L
                                                                                                 Control
                                                                                                 Stff



                                      Technical         Marine Sanctuaries Marine Sanctuaries Eistuarine Research
                                      proiects            West Branch      East Branch        Reserve Branch
                                      Branch         r


                 Figure I-1 Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD) Organization


                         National Marine Sanctuaries are built around the existence of distinctive natural and
                 cultural resources whose protection and wise use would benefit from comprehensive planning
                 and management. Factors which are taken into account in the designation of a National Marine
                 Sanctuary include:

                             Natural   resource and ecological qualities, including its contribution to biological
                             productivity, maintenance of ecosystem structure, maintenance of ecologically or
                             commercially important or threatened species or assemblages, maintenance of critical
                             habitat of endangered species, and the biogeographic representation of the site;
                             Historical, cultural, archaeological, or paleontological significance;
                             Present and potential uses that depend on maintenance of the area's resources,
                             including commercial and recreational fishing, subsistence uses, other commercial
                             and recreational activities, and research and education; -
                             Present and potential activities that may adversely affect the area's qualities, uses, and
                             significance;
                             Existing State and Federal regulatory and management authorities and their adequacy
                             to fulfill the purposes and policies of the HINMSA;
                             Manageability of the area, including such factors as its size, ability to be identified as
                             a discrete ecological unit with definable boundaries, accessibility, and suitability for
                             monitoring and enforcement activities;
                             Public benefits to'be derived from sanctuary status, with emphasis on the benefits of
                             long-term protection of nationally significant resources, vital habitats, and resources
                             which generate tourism;

                 Page 4                                                                  Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                        and Management Plan





             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                             Part 1: Introduction and Background
             National Marine Sanctuary

                          Negative impacts produced by management restrictions on income -ge nerati nor
                          activities; and
                          Socio-economic effects of sanctuary designation.

                      Benefits associated with National Marine Sanctuary designation include enhanced
             protection of special areas for natural, historical, or cultural values through more coordinated and
             comprehensive management, which supports an appropriate mixture of regulatory and non-
             regulatory approaches such as research, long-term monitoring, education, interpretation,
             information dissemination, and enforcement. There are shared benefits among levels of
             government including financial and logistical resources which may further the achievement of
             each entity's resource protection or management mandate. Through coordination, cooperation,
             and resource pooling, cooperating agencies may be able to mutually achieve their objectives in
             an efficient manner. For example, the Florida Keys NMS is working jointly with other Federal
             agencies [National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
             Department of the Interior (DOI), and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE)], State agencies,
             local governments, and academic institutions to protect the coral reef ecosystem of the Florida
             Keys. All of these entities have worked together and pooled resources to develop and implement
             a water quality protection program vital to the marine resources of the region.

                      Sanctuary designation in some areas has led to the creation of new education,
             interpretation, and visitor centers, and in other cases has enhanced existing centers. A variety of
             education and outreach tools are produced by the NMSP to support management goals including
             brochure   s, posters, K-12 classroom curricula, on-water programs, and instructional videos.
             Research and monitoring are conducted in marine sanctuaries to provide long-term data on
             resource health and to assist in management decision-making. Volunteer programs are vital. for
             sanctuaries to support the education, research and monitoring, and management programs which
             are established and to provide avenues for local communities to participate in marine resource
             management.

                      National Marine Sanctuaries have also played an important role to e                 nsure that when
             damage has been done to sanctuary resources. and qualities, every attempt is made to repair,
             restore, and/or replace damaged and lost resources. The NMSP works with other agencies in
             responding to incidents of resource damage to minimize the impacts and to initiate restorative
             measures as soon as possible. New technologies for restoration and procedures for response
             have been direct results of sanctuary involvement.

                      One of the NMSA's policies is to facilitate public and private uses of sanctuaries when
             compatible with the primary objective of resource protection. As an example, the Sanctuary
             encourages the continued use of Hawaii's marine waters by commercial and recreational
             industries and has facilitated workshops between the enforcement officers and the boat captains
             to increase mutual awareness of each others activities and increase the boaters understanding of
             the resources and regulations designed to protect these resources. Moreover, the HINMSA
             provides that the Sanctuary shall facilitate uses of Native Hawaiians customarily and
             traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, and religious purposes. The Sanctuary has
             worked with various segments of the Native Hawaiian community to develop education
             materials, research past and present uses of the marine environment, and is working with UH-Sea
             Grant to develop a Native Hawaiian resource management intem program.

                      NOAA is also the parent agency of NMFS in addition to the NMSP. NMFS administers
             the MMPA and ESA, and manages fishery resources in Federal waters and some resources,
             including certain species of endangered marine wildlife, in both State and Federal waters.
             Sanctuaries rely on NMFS and State fishery management agencies to establish fishery
             management measures in marine waters, although in certain circumstances, the NMSP has
             determined that regulation of certain fishing methods or gear has been needed to protect specific

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                      Page 5
             and Management Plan





                 Part 1: Introduction and Background                                          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                       National Marine Sanctuary


                 historic sites or natural resources. Prior to issuing Sanctuary fishing regulations, however, the
                 NMSA requires that the appropriate Fishery Management Councils be provided with the
                 opportunity to prepare such regulations [NMSA, Section 304(a)(5)]. Cooperation with local
                 appropriate 'fishery management authorities (e.g., state authorities) is also required.

                     3. General Benefits and Costs Resulting From SanctuaU Designation

                          The net  'environmental and socioeconomic effects of designating the Sanctuary and
                 implementing the Sanctuary Management Plan and regulations are expected to @be positive.
                 While such effects are difficult to quantify, the goal of the Sanctuary'in part will be to maintain
                 or improve the humpback whale habitat, water quality, uses of Native Hawaiians customarily
                 and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, and religious purposes, aesthetics, and
                 tourism without causing any adverse effects. The major benefit of the Sanctuary is the
                 integration of efforts to protect and manage the humpback whale and its habitat and
                 corresponding human activities into one coordinated management regime. Other benefits of
                 designation include: (1) enhancement of research and long-term monitoring; (2) promotion of
                 public awareness of humpback whales and their marine environment; (3) public involvement in
                 the management of the Sanctuary; (4) facilitated coordination of initiatives implemented by
                 existing authorities; (5) formulation of long-range plans that respond to currently unforeseen
                 threats; and (6), supplement existing regulations on activities which either pose a current risk of
                 causing significant damage to humpback whales or their habitat, or that may later prove harmful
                 as use of the area increases. Formal recognition of humpback whales and the habitat value of the
                 their Hawaiian habitat should in itself focus additional attention on this area and thus encourage
                 direct special attention on managing this area so that future generations may enjoy its beauty and
                 rely upon its resources.

                         NOAA's final Sanctuary regulations will supplement existing Federal and State
                 regulatory regimes to protect humpback whales and their habitat. Human uses in the Sanctuary
                 will not be adversely affected because there will be no new, substantive regulatory restrictions.
                 permits, or authorizations instituted by the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary will work with existincy
                 Federal and State authorities to ensure that Sanctuary concerns are addressed within their permit
                 review processes, thereby eliminating the need for additional Sanctuary permits and approvals.
                 Individual agencies administering the their permits or other approvals may or may not choose to
                 accept Sanctuary recommendations. There may be some socio-economic impacts if a Sanctuary
                 recommendation is adopted by a State or Federal permitting agency, but these are expected to be
                 small in comparison to the benefits to the Sanctuary resources.

                         The Sanctuary regulations will provide additional authority for the Sanctuary to enforce
                 ESA/MMPA approach' regulations, and existing discharge and alteration of the seabed
                 restrictions under other relevant laws. Under the NMSA, the Sanctuary can impose higher
                 maximum civil penalties for violations of Sanctuary regulations than is possible under the
                 MMPA or ESA. The maximum civil penalty would likely not be applied except possibly for
                 repeat offenders or particularly egregious offenders. Impacted users would be limited to only
                 those persons subject to the regulations (as opposed to all users of the Sanctuary), and of those,
                 only those persons in violation of Sanctuary regulations. The actual impact on those persons in
                 violation of Sanctuary regulations will be relatively small because enforcement mechanisms are
                 not limited to civil penalties. Rather, oral and written warnings are given routinely in lieu of
                 civil penalties. Further, with interpretive enforcement, users subject to Sanctuary regulations
                 will be educated as to what the regulations are and why they are in place, thus increasing future
                 voluntary compliance and decreasing those potentially subject to civil penalties. Consequently,
                 there will be few impacts to Sanctuary users.
                         Education and interpretive enforcement focusing on the Sanctuary approach and habitat
                 regulations will result in greater public compliance of the regulations which will benefit

                 Page 6                                                                    Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                           and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                          'Part 1: Introduction and Background
            National Marine Sanctuary

            humpback whales and their habitat, thus increasing the experience (enjoyment of the experience
            as well as recreational   and aesthetic experience) of Sanctuary resources for all Sanctuary users.
            Further, in those instances where a person who violated a Sanctuary regulation was assessed a
            civil penalty under the NMSA, those civil penalty monies will be returned to the Sanctuary for
            management and improvement (e.g., education and outreach), as opposed to being deposited in
            the general U.S. Treasury. @inally,'NMSA enforcement will be coordinated with existing State
            and Federal authorities to minimize the duplication of enforcement efforts, thus minimizing the
            potential for cumulative effects on those users in violation of Sanctuary regulations. Overall the
            Sanctuary regulations are intended: ( 1) to improve resource protection by instituting
            supplementary regulatory, surveillance and enforcement measures and authority; and (2) to
            minimize negative socio-econonuc impacts to human uses, particularly those deemed compatible
            with the purposes of the Sanctuary. Efforts by the Sanctuary program to educate the general
            public about Hawaii's marine environment and the diverse array of human uses, particularly
            those by Native Hawaiians, will help people realize their dependence on a healthy marine
            environment and encourage them to take a more active role in the stewardship of these resources.
                4. The National Marine SanctuwZ@ System.

                     Fourteen National Marine Sanctuaries, including Hawaii, have been designated since the
            NM5P's inception in 1972 (Figure 1-2). They include in order of designation:


                             National Marine Sanctuaries

                   Olympic Coast





                                                                                                                ragen
                                                                                                          U3   .,Bank



                 Cordell Bank

                   Guff of the
                   Faralkmes.
                  Monterey Say                                                                              Monitor


                  Channel islands



                                                                                                    G    Reef
                                                                                                     rays



                                                                           Flower Garden

                 Hawaiian hilarift
                                                           -W-
                 Humpbackwriale.
                                                                                            Rorida.Keys


                                                                      SDOkm

                                                                      Soo lid
                  eFaqatele'o' 20@
                         0@y

            Figure 1-2 Location of National Marine Sanctuaries




            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                  Pa-e 7
            and Management Plan






                  Part 1: Introduction and Background                                          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                        National Marine  Sanctuary

                                                             The Monitor National Marine Sanctuary serves to protect
                                                     the wreck of the Civil War ironclad, U.S.S. Monitor, which sank in
                                 J                   225 ft. of water. It was designated in January 1975, and consists of
                                  1AWrHoaRum"
                            N.M@ Nms                 a one-square nautical mile of water (surface to bottom) located 16
                             W&     .                miles southeast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. The Sanctuary
                            Aff&'M                   regulates certain activities which might damage or destroy the
                    coo      0-                      historic wreck. The Sanctuary has led to increased knowledge of
                    L-k.0                            the Civil War and expanded exhibits in the Mariner's Museum in
                                                     Virginia. (Federal waters)
                          The Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary was designated in December 1975, and
                  provides protection and management to a 100-square nautical mile area of tropical coral reefs
                  and the offshore seabed south of Miami, Florida. The Sanctuary is a seaward extension of the
                  John Pennekamp State Coral Reef Park and includes historical and cultural artifacts and
                  shipwrecks. Regulations are designed to protect the significant natural and cultural features from
                  removal or damage, and has resulted in the installation of a protective mooring buoy system; reef
                  restoration projects from ship groundings; successful attempts to halt black band coral disease;
                  and training for marine protected areas in other parts of the world. (To become part of the
                  Florida Keys NMS; Federal waters).

                          The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary was designated in September 1980,
                  and encompasses 1,252 square nautical miles off the coast of Santa -Barbara, California. The
                  Sanctuary surrounds the four northern Channel Islands and Santa Barbara Island. It provides
                  protection to valuable habitats for marine mammals, including extensive pinniped and seabird
                  assemblages, and serves as an important migration corridor for gray and humpback whales.
                  The Sanctuary contains rich kelp forests, nearshore and benthic                            c4rcoom
                  communities, and -fisheries resources. The Sanctuary's regulatory                        U." ft*"
                  focus is on the deposition or discharge of materials, alteration of
                  the seabed, removal or damage of historical or cultural resources,
                  disturbance of marine mammals and seabirds, and exploration and                                  Chanrol
                                                                                                                  swr&s NMS
                  development of hydrocarbon (oil and gas) resources. The                                               0
                  Sanctuary is adjacent to and works in close cooperation with the
                  Channel Islands National Park, and has a wide range of education
                  and research programs focusing on the resources within the
                  Sanctuary. (Federal/State waters)

                          The Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary was                      designated in January 1981, and
                  consists of a submerged section of the' Floridareef southwest of Big Pine Key. The five-square
                  nautical mile site includes a beautiful "spur and groove" coral formation supporting a diverse
                  marine community and a wide variety of'human uses. The regulatory and non-regulatory
                  programs are similar to the Key Largo NMS described above. (To become part of the Florida
                  Keys NMS; Federal waters).
                           V                                 The Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary, designated
                                                     in January 1981, is a submerged live bottom (limestone reef) area
                           SL CROW&Ot                located on the South Atlantic continental shelf east of Sapelo
                             WWW                     Island, 'Georgia. The Sanctuary encompasses about 17 square
                             -AMIW                   nautical miles, and protects a highly productive and unusual habitat
                       SIPWO  OQW                    for a wide variety of species including corals, tropical fish, and
                                                     endangered and threatened sea turtles. It also provides migratory
                                ROM MS
                                                     passage for the Northern right whale. Regulations prohibit
                                                     alteration of the seabed, certain methods of fishing (explosives,
                                                     wire traps), damage or removal of bottom formations, and
                                                     discharge of substances or materials. (Federal waters)


                  Page 8                                                                    Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                            and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                        Part 1: Introduction and Background
            National Marine Sanctuary

                   The Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary                             CA
            was designated in January 1981, and encompasses 948 square                     Gulf of the
                                                                                           Farallone
            nautical n-liles*off the northern coast of San Francisco, California.           NMS
            The Sanctuary includes important habitats for a diverse array of                              say
            marine mammals (humpback, blue, and. gray whales, dolphins,
            seals, and sea lions) and the largest concentration of breeding
            seabirds in the continental U.S., as well as pelagic fish, plants, and    F
            benthic biota. Regulations prohibit discharge of substances,
            alteration the seabed, hydrocarbon exploration and development activities, removal of historical
            or cultural resources, and restrict commercial vessel and aircraft activities within certain
            distances of specified biologically sensitive areas. (Federal/State waters)

                   T.WM                            The Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary in
                                           @merican Samoa was designated in April 1986. The 163-acre bay
               F"@Wo           Say         site contains deepwater coral terrace formations in a submerged
               POO" .,,BAY
                                           volcano that are unique to the high islands of the tropical Pacific.
                                           The Sanctuary protects habitat for a diverse array of tropical
                Peak                       marine flora and fauna, including the endangered hawksbill sea
                                           turtle and the threatened green sea turtle. Regulations include
                                           fishing restrictions, discharges, and damage or removal of natural,
                                           historical, or cultural resources. (Territorial waters)

                   The Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, located
            approximately 20 nautical miles west of Point. Reyes, California,          POONC OCW
            was. designated in May 1989. The 397-square nautical mile site              Comm             San
            surrounds a granitic formation, which provides habitat for an              Unk NMS
                                                                                                &0 cw
            unusual assortment of marine and intertidal species, including
            colonies of purple hydrocorals. Abundant fish species attract
            feeding cetaceans and seabirds. Regulations prohibit deposition or
            discharged substances or materials, removal of or injury to
            Sanctuary resources, and hydrocarbon exploration and
            development activities. (Federal waters)

                                                   The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary was
                                   FL
                                           @ongressionally-designated in November 1990, and encompasses'
                        Fbft               approximately 2,600 square nautical miles of coral reefs, seagrass
                                           beds, and related shoreline habitats of the Florida Keys ecosystem.
                                    KwL-w  The existing National Marine Sanctuaries at Key Largo and Looe
                                           Key will be incorporated into the Florida Keys NMS. In
                     AMW                   September, 1996, SRD released a Final Environmental Impact
                                   Kw@*    Statement and Management Plan for the site. (Federal/State
                                   WON ON
                                           waters)

                   The Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary                                        LA
            ;ncompasses approximately 42 square nautical miles surrounding
            two separate submerged features, the East and the West Flower               TX        Out of Aft.*0
            Garden Banks, situated in the Gulf of Mexico over 100 nautical,
            miles off the Texas/Louisiana coast. Designated in November                            ROW Garden
            1991, the Sanctuary protects the northernmost coral reefs on the                        krft ONMS
            North American continental shelf by providing alternatives to
            anchoring (installation of mooring buoys), and prohibiting
                                                                                                    C',





















                   Tue" M4
                   A-11-an @,*A-
              F
                =@F





                                   FL





                                    My L-W



                                                                                        ,X @LA


            discharges and seabed alterations, hydrocarbon exploration and
            development activities, and injuring or taking marine organisms. (Federal waters)


            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                            Page 9
            and Management Plan





               Part 1: Introduction and Background                                 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                          National Marine Sanctuary

                              Son                    The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary was
                  Psaft       fty             designated in September 1992, and is the largest sanctuary in the
                  ocam                        national system, consisting of 4,024 square nautical miles off the
                    mom
                    B*Y        fty            central California coast. The most significant feature is the
                                   CA         Monterey Canyon, the deepest and largest submarine canyon
                                              incising the continental shelf of North America. The area is rich in
                                              natural resources and serves as a breeding, feeding, and migration
                                                                                                          . f
                                              area for 'over 26 species of marine mammals.           Signtl' icant
                                              prehistoric cultural sites as well as over 300 shipwrecks exist
                                              throughout the site and coastal area. Regulations include the
               prohibition of hydrocarbon exploration and development activities, depositing or discharging of
               substances or materials, taking or damaging Sanctuary historical resources, and the protection of
               specified biologically sensitive areas. (Federal/State waters)

                       The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary,
               designated by the Oceans Act of 1992, consists of 638 square
               nautical miles in Federal waters surrounding the entire Stellwagen       CW       &&"gen
               Bank. The Bank is highly productive and provides feeding and                       Bank NMS
               nursery grounds for more than a dozen cetacean species, including         MA       C." Cd
               the endangered humpback, northern right, sei, and fin whales.                        Adanft 0CWn
               Current commercial whale watching activities involve more than
               one million visitors to the Bank annually. Mining'for sand and
               gravel and discharging of dredged or other material is prohibited.
               (Federal waters)

                       C@
                                                     The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary was
                                              Lsignated in July 1994, and consists of 2,500 square nautical
                              WA              miles of State/Federal waters off the Washington Olympic Coast.
                                              The Sanctuary contains submarine canyons, marine mammals,
                CftV AM
                       P..ft
                       0-                     seabirds, a diverse intertidal community, important fisheries, and
                                              serves as a gray and humpback whale migration corridor. Four
                                              Native American tribes participate on the Sanctuary Advisory
                                              Council (SAC). Significant historical and cultural resources are
                                              located both within and immediately adjacent to the sanctuary.
                                              (Federal/State waters).

                       Two additional sites are currently being considered for sanctuary designation:
               Northwest Straits, Washington; and Thunder Bay, Michigan. In addition, there are 24 natural
               resource sites on,the Site Evaluation List (SEL) which have yet to be considered. Presence on
               the SEL does not guarantee a site will become a sanctuary.

               C. HAWAIIAN ISLANDS HUMPBACK WHALE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

                   1. Desination

                       The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale NMS was designated in 1992 by the Hawaiian
               Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act (HINMSA) (Title II, subtitle C of the Oceans Act of
               1992).  In Section 2302 of the HINMSA, Congress made the following findings:

                       1) The Western Pacific region has many resources and ecosystems of national
                           significance and importance.
                       2)  There are currently no sanctuaries or potential candidates in Hawaii.
                              W.






















                       3) Hawaii's marine subtropical system'is diverse and unique.


               Page 10                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                               and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                          Part 1: Introduction and Backuround
             National Marine Sanctuary

                      4)   The Kahoolawe Island National Marine Sanctuary Feasibility Study requested by
                           Congress indicated that biological, cultur@l and historical resources merited further
                           investigation as to possible sanctuary status.
                      5)   The Kahoolawe Study indicated that additional areas within Hawaii merited
                           consideration and the sanctuary status could enhance resource protection.
                      6)   Waters off the main Hawaiian Islands are important to the endangered North
                           Pacific stock of the humpback whales.
                      7)   The waters considered essential for breeding, calving and nursing of the humpback
                           whale can be damaged or lose their ecological integrity from a variety of
                           disturbances.
                      8)   The Humpback Whale Recovery Plan recommends goals and actions to increase
                           the abundance of the species.
                      9)   In 1982, Hawaiian waters were considered to be an Active Candidate for marine
                           sanctuary designation. ,
                      10)  Existing regulatory and management authorities are inadequate to provide for
                           comprehensive and coordinated management, which can be provided through the
                           [NMSA].
                      11)  Authority is needed to supplement and complement existing State and Federal
                           regulatory and management programs to provide for comprehensive and
                           coordinated conservation and management.
                      12)  Additional support, promotion and coordination of scientific research and
                           monitoring is essential to the survival of the humpback whale.
                      13)  Education, awareness, understanding, appreciation and wi           'se use of the marine
                           environment are fundamental elements for the protection and conservation of the
                           species.
                      14)  National Marine Sanctuary designation is necessary for the protection and
                           conservation of the humpback whale.
                      15)  The Sanctuary which is designated for the conservation and management of the
                           humpback whale could be expanded to include other marine resources of national
                           significance which may exist within the Sanctuary.

                      These findings provided the basis for the Congressional designation of the Sanctuary.
             The objectives of the HINMSA are to: 1) protect humpback whales and their habitat within
             Sanctuary boundaries; 2) educate and interpret for the public the importance of humpback
             whales to the Hawaiian Islands marine environment; 3) manage such human uses of the
             Sanctuary consistent with the HINMSA and the [NMSA]; and 4) provide for the identification of
             marine resources and ecosystems of national significance for possible inclusion in the sanctuary.

                      The designation builds and compliments the efforts of NMFS in protecting the humpback
             whale under specialized Federal authorities, the efforts of the State of Hawaii since it has
             designated the humpback whale as the State Marine Mammal, and the unparalleled efforts of the
             County of Maui and its residents over a twenty year period during which they have conducted
             many activities in support of humpback whale research, education, protection and recovery.
             indeed, the Congressional findings recognize the extreme imp           'ortance of the Hawaiian marine
             environment to the perpetuation of the species, that there is an important long-term need to
             protect their habitat, and that the NMSA will provide resources intended to enhance these
             ongoing efforts. The Sanctuary will primarily rely on these existing efforts to accomplish many
             of the goals and objectives set out for it to achieve by law. Likewise, the Sanctuary will facilitate
             and support other on-going efforts by agencies, organizations and the public to enhance
             protection for and awareness of the humpback whale and its habitat.

                      While it appears that the population of the North Pacific Humpback Whale has increased,
             according to stock assessment estimates taken in Hawaii over the last 18 years, researchers and
             scientists recommend caution be used in making definitive statements regarding population

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                 Page I I
             and Management Plan





                 Part 1: Introduction and Background                                          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                       National Marine Sanctuary

                 increase because of unanswered questions about the degree of mixing between humpback whale
                 populations in Japan, Hawaii, and Mexico, the amount of inter-island movements within the
                 Hawaiian Islands, and the different assessment methodologies used over time. Despite potential
                 increases in  ' the overall population, the North Pacific stock of humpback whales remains
                 endangered. NMFS's recovery goal for the North Pacific population is 60 percent of the numb                   'er
                 of whales existing before commercial exploitation or of current environmental carrying capacity.
                 To date there are only rough estimates of the pre-whaling population (15,000 whales) and little is
                 known about the environmental carrying capacity in the Hawaiian Islands. There is still a great
                 deal to learn about the humpback whale, its Hawaiian habitat, migration dynamics, and how to
                 ensure its recovery. Other efforts in Alaska, as well as national marine sanctuaries along the
                 California coast (Monterey Bay, Gulf of the Farallones, Cordell Bank and Channel Islands) and
                 Washington State (Olympic Coast) will'assist in the protection of the whale's migratory and
                 feeding habitats and add to the information base. The           'HIHWNMS can play a coordinating rote
                 within the entire Pacific basin to integrate the monitoring and research efforts on humpback
                 whales to elucidate the migratory patterns of humpback whales. In this capacity the HIHWNMS
                 can integrate Pacific-wide education, monitoring, and research efforts on humpback whales.

                     2. History of-Sanctuary Designation Prop2sal

                         a. Initial Proposal: 1977 - 1984

                         The establishment of a National Marine Sanctuary in Hawaii was first considered in
                 December, 1977, when NOAA received the nomination for a proposed Humpback Whale
                 National Marine Sanctuary in the waters between the islands of Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and
                 Kahoolawe. This four-island area was identified as the principal breeding and calving area for
                 the wintering population of endangered North Pacific humpback whales (Megaptera
                 novaeangliae) estimated at that time to be between 600 and 800 individuals.,

                         A workshop with scientists and resource managers'was convened in December of that
                 year resulting in the conclusion that a marine sanctuary would be most beneficial to the long-
                 term protection of the endangered humpback whale. The workshop participants concluded that a
                 Hawaii- statewide boundary (shoreline to the 100 fathom isobath) would provide the greatest
                 protection for humpback whales in Hawaii given their distribution and inter-island migrations.
                 The nomination was placed on the NMSP's List of Recommended Areas in October, 1979.

                         In March, 1982, NOAA declared the'site an "Active Candidate" for designation as a
                 national marine sanctuary in accordance with its regulations. Public workshops were
                 subsequently held in Hawaii in April, 1982, to discuss the purpose and evaluate the issues related
                 to management of the Sanctuary. There was considerable opposition to Sanctuary designation
                 due to fears that the Sanctuary would impose additional restrictions on fishing and vessel
                 operations. Based on comments received by NOAA from State and County agencies and the
                 general public regarding.the Draft EIS/MP that was distributed in December, 1983
                 (NOAA/OCRM, 1983), and at the request of the State Governor, further consideration of the site
                 was suspended in early 1984. (For additional information see Appendix H)

                         b. Kahoolawe NMS Feasibility Study: 1990 - 1991

                         In October, 1990, in response to recommendations from the State of Hawaii and native
                 Hawaiian groups such as the Protect Kahoolawe Ohana, President Bush directed the Secretary of
                 Defense to immediately discontinue use of Kahoolawe as a weapons range. In conjunction with
                 the presidential directive, Congress established the Kahoolawe Island Conveyance Commission
                 to prepare a report that would identify future jurisdictional responsibilities and uses of the Island
                 and its resources. Congress also directed NOAA (through Conference Report for Public Law
                 101-515 -- the Commerce, Justice, and State'Appropriations Bill) to determine the feasibility of

                 Page 12                                                                    Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                            and Management Plan






           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                    Part 1: Introduction and Backaround
           National Marine Sanctuary

           establishing a national marine sanctuary in the waters around Kahoolawe Island. NOAA was
           instructed to give special consideration to the effects that a sanctuary would have on the
           population of humpback whales that inhabit the marine environment around Kahoolawe. NOAA
           examined the marine resources within three nautical miles around Kahoolawe Island and
           consulted with Federal and State agencies and the public through a series of public meetings.
           The results of this assessment and public input were published in a report entitled "Kahoolawe
           Island National Marine Sanctuary Feasibility Study.7'

                  The study indicated that while most research suggests that the waters around Kahoolawe
           do not appear to support large numbers of humpback whales, there is preliminary evidence of
           biological, cultural and historical resources adjacent to Kahoolawe which merit further
           investigation. The study concluded that additional information was needed before the
           Kahoolawe site could be considered as having resources and uses of special national
           significance. The study also noted with concern the presence of unexploded ordnance in the
           waters off Kahoolawe from Navy bombing exercises. The study recommended that additional
           areas within the Hawaiian Islands be considered as possible components of a multiple-site,
           multiple-resource NMS. The study also analyzed existing resource management authorities and
           concluded that a NMS could contribute to enhanced resource management in Hawaii.

                  C. The Oceans Act of 1992

                  In 1992, Congress held hearings to consider reauthorization and amendments to title III
           of the MPRSA. Representatives from the State of Hawaii provided testimony to Congress on the
           need and desirability of having a Humpback Whale NMS in Hawaii. This testimony, in addition
           to the findings of the Kahoolawe Feasibility Study, provided the basis for Congressional interest
           in designation of the Sanctuary.

                  On November 2, 1992, President Bush signed Public Law 102-587, the Oceans Act of
           1992, which made numerous amendments to title III of the MPRSA, including: increasing in the
           maximum civil penalty from $50,000 to $100,00.0; adding the authority to establish advisory
           councils to assist in the designation and management of national marine sanctuaries; adding
           authority for the Secretary of Commerce to enter into agreements with any non-profit
           organization to, among others, solicit donations of funds, property, and services to carry out the
           purposes and policies of Title III of the MPRSA; and citing Title III as the National Marine
           Sanctuaries Act.

                  The Oceans Act also designated the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine
           Sanctuary. The Sanctuary, as designated, lies between 20'30' and 22'20' north latitude and
           156'00' and 159*30' west longitude. The Congressionally-designated boundary occupies all
           contiguous coastal waters between the islands of Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, and extends seaward
           of these islands to the 100 fathom isobath, a horizontal distance ranging for a few hundred
           meters seaward of the shoreline on the eastern side of Maui to Penguin Bank, some 24 nautical
           miles southwest of Molokai. The Sanctuary also includes a small rectangular area, from the
           shoreline to the 100-fathom isobath adjacent to Kilauea Point on Kauai. The Act allows for
           boundary modifications necessary to fulfill the Sanctuary's purpose, and identified the waters
           around the island of Kahoolawe for automatic inclusion as part of the Sanctuary on January 1,
           1996, unless the Secretary of Commerce certified the area is unsuitable for inclusion. In
           December, 1995, the Secretary certified to Congress that the waters around Kahoolawe are
           unsuitable for inclusion, and therefore, the waters around Kahoolawe are not included in the
           Sanctuary at this time. The HINMSA was amended in 1996 to provide a process by which the
           KIRC could request that NOAA include the marine waters within three nautical miles from
           Kahoolawe in the Sanctuary.



           Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                        Page 13
           and Management Plan





                Part 1: Introduction and Background                                           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                      National Marine Sanctuarv

                         Under the HINMSA and the NMSA, the Governor of Hawaii has the authority to, within
                45 days continuous session of Congress beginning on the (late of issuance of the Federal
                Register notice containing the final implementing regulations, certify that the Management Plan,
                regulations, or any term of the plan or regulations is unacceptable. If the Governor makes such
                certification, the Management Plan, regulation(s), or term(s) thereof will not take effect in State
                waters within the Sanctuary. The Secretary of Commerce would then make a determination as to
                whether the Governor's action will affect the Sanctuary in a manner that the goals and objectives
                of the HINMSA cannot be fulfilled, and if so, the Secretary may terminate the entire designation.
                NOAA -has coordinated and cooperated closely with the State of Hawaii in developing the
                Sanctuary's Management Plan.

                         d. The Draft EIS/MP

                         Section 2306 of the HINMSA requires NOAA to develop a comprehensive Management
                Plan and implementing regulations to achieve the policy and purposes of the HINMSA,
                following the procedures specified in sections 303 and 304 of the NMSA. Section 304(a)(2)
                requires the preparation of a draft environmental impact statement, as provided by the National
                Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The HINMSA also directs that opportunities be
                made available for the public to participate in the development of the Management Plan. To
                satisfy these requirements, as well as those of the NMSA and the NEPA, a series of scoping
                meetings were held in March, 1993, on each of the main islands and in Washington, D.C. The
                input received during those scoping meetings was extensive and covered a bioad spectrum of
                issues. The impacts many people wanted addressed were those relating to potential regulatory
                restrictions on specific industries (e.g., fishing, vessel traffic, tourism). (For a synopsis of the
                scoping meetings, see the DEIS/MP's Appendix D-1.)
                         After the scoping meetings, and in cooperation with the Office of the Governor-Office of
                State Planning,. SRD provided funding to support the organization of, and incidental expenses
                related to, the establishment of a Sanctuary Working Group (SWG) consisting of 50 individuals,
                representing Federal, State, andcounty governments, and a diverse array of interest groups. The
                SWG provided comments on a number of issues, management options, and a Discussion Paper,
                which was later used to further the public participation process for gathering input into the
                development of the Draft Management Plan. In March 1994, additional public meetings were
                held on each of the main Hawaiian Islands to gather additional input and get public reaction to
                such issues as:        1) the Sanctuary boundary; 2) potential regulations; 3) education and
                information; 4) research and monitoring; 5) administration; and 6) identification of other
                resources of national significance for possible inclusion in the Sanctuary. (A summary of the
                input received at each of those meetings is included in the DEIS/MPs Appendix D-2.)

                         The public has been sharply divided in their support for the Sanctuary. Those who
                opposed the Sanctuary were concerned that their access to marine waters may be limited by
                Sanctuary regulations -- a particularly emotional issue since Hawaii is an insular state and has
                ongoing Native Hawaiian sovereignty issues to address. Those who supported the Sanctuary saw
                its value in addressing multiple species in the context of an ecosystem management approach.
                Those who were undecided were unclear about the details of the Sanctuary such as the
                composition of the SAC, administration structure and location, and regulations.

                         Technical consultation meetings were held in February-March 1994, with different
                experts and interest groups to collect information for the DEIS/MP to establish a better
                understanding of coordination and cooperation needs and how a Sanctuary can complement and
                enhance existing efforts. Needs were identified for various marine users, including the military,
                fishing and boating interests, researchers and educators, and regulatory and enforcement
                personnel. SRD has attempted to reflect these concerns in the development of the Management
                Plan.


                Page 14                                                                    Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                           and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                     Part 1: Introduction and Backyround
            National Marine Sanctuary

                   The DEIS/MP, published in September 1995, stated the following:

                Humpback whales use Hawaiian waters for breeding and rearing their young, and migrate
                throughout the Hawaiian Islands during this time. Little or no feeding occurs during this
                time and the whales prefer the shallower warmer waters for their activities. Scientists
                believe that there is an increase in the number of whales using Hawaiian waters, in recent
                years.

                There are numerous legal protections and management plans afforded to whales, including
                international treaties promulgated pursuant to the International Whaling Commission, the
                Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), State of
                Hawaii anti-harassment regulations, and the 1991 Humpback Whale Recovery Plan
                developed and implemented by NMFS.

                 Human activities that could affect humpback whale behavior and whale habitat in Hawaii
                include: 1) noise from vessels, aircraft, and near-shore construction projects; 2) vessel
                traffic; 3) disturbance from recreational boating, tour-boating, jet skiing, and parasailing; 4)
                degradation to the water quality from waste disposal and non-point source pollution from
                coastal development; and 5) by the'physical loss of habitat or activities that may cause
                whales to abandon their habitat and/or interfere with reproductive behaviors. For most of
                these activities, additional monitoring and research would be   required before determinations
                could be made on the degree of impact on whales from such activities and any management
                schemes that would be necessary to help minimize the conflicts and impacts (see DEIS/MP,
                p. 49).

                There are a number of agencies and pieces of legislation in place offering regulatory
                protection to the humpback whale and the DEIS/MP identified no regulatory or management
                gaps in addressing these impacts. Rather, the DEISIMP cited a lack of coordination among
                the agencies in management, education, research, monitoring, enforcement, and a larger
                                                                                                             tl
                ecosystem-based framework within which to assess these impacts on a cumulative basis.

            ï¿½  Population, tourism, and uses of the marine environment will continue to increase. Changes
               in the economy and associated changes in land use patterns resulting from the decline in
               agriculture will have impacts on the amount and type of runoff into marine waters from land.
               Both the number of people on the water and the pollutants entering the water from land can
               affect the suitability of the marine waters for breeding, birthing, and rearing of young whales.

            ï¿½  Hawaiian waters support many resources of national significance other than whales including
               intertidal communities, extensive shallow and deep water coral reefs, numerous cetaceans
               and seabird species, and pinnipeds. Marine areas of special significance are protected by
               State Marine Life Conservation Districts, Fishery Management Areas, and Ocean Recreation
               Management Areas.

                       i. DEIS/MP Preferred Alternative

                   The DEIS/MP proposed the following preferred alternatives for the Hawaiian Islands
            Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary:

            Boundary

               The preferred boundary includes the area from the shoreline to the 100-fathom isobath depth
               contour (600 feet) around the following areas of the main Hawaiian Islands: Maui, Lanai, and
               Molokai, including Penguin Bank and the deep water channels connecting them, the Blia
               Island, eastern Kauai, and portions of north and south Oahu. NOAA did not include the area

            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                          Page 15
            and Management Plan





                 Part 1: Introduction and Background                                        Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                    National Marine Sanctuary

                     within three nautical miles of Kahoolawe Island, select ports, harbors, and small boat basins,
                     and military use areas off Kauai and Oahu.

                 Regulations
                     No new regulatory prohibitions were proposed for the Sanctuary. Rather, the Sanctuary will
                     essentially incorporate the following existing restrictions to enhance enforcement
                     effectiveness:

                     0   existing approach and harassment regulations that protect humpback whales promulgated
                         by NMFS under the MMPA and ESA;
                     0   regulations prohibiting discharges into the Sanctuary, or discharges outside of the
                         Sanctuary that subsequently enters the Sanctuary and injures a humpback whale and/or its
                         habitat; and

                     0   regulations prohibiting alteration of the seabed in the Sanctuary.
                     Future regulations not listed in the scope of regulations would require public notice and
                     comment and, be subject to gubernatorial review and approval.

                     No mechanisms for requiring independent Sanctuary permits are proposed.

                 Management

                     The Sanctuary will be a year-around program (rather than seasonally implemented) that will
                     focus on humpback whales and their habitat.

                     The Sanctuary will rely on an existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
                     NMFS and the National Ocean Service (NOS) to undertake enforcement activities in the
                     .Sanctuary. Under this MOU, NMFS enforces Sanctuary regulations in consultation with the
                     Sanctuary Manager. NMFS also has an MOU with the U.S. Coast Guard and DLNR-
                     Department of Conservation and Recreation Enforcement which deputizes these other
                     agencies to enforce MMPA and ESA regulations (see Appendix E).

                     Sanctuary staff will work with the Department of Health (DOH), the Department of Land and
                     Natural Resources (DLNR), EPA, Coast Guard, and COE to cooperatively monitor and
                     enforce existing water quality and alteration of the seabed activities. Sanctuary staff will also
                     consult with the appropriate Federal, State, or county agencies on any violation of discharge
                     and alteration of the seabed'requirements and'authorities. Ultimately, Sanctuary staff will
                     seek to develop an MOU or other mutual understanding between the Sanctuary Program and
                     other- agencies regarding coordinated enforcement activities and actions in Hawaii. The
                     intent of the enforcement program is to achieve voluntary compliance with the regulations
                     through education.

                     No mandatory user fees are proposed by the Sanctuary Program in the Hawaii Humpback
                     Whale National Marine Sanctuary.

                 Management Plan

                     Management Priorities: The Sanctuary         will focus on present and potential activities that may
                     adversely affect the whales directly (harassment and disturbance) and those factors that may
                     impact water quality and/or modify the seafloor -- two major components of the whale's
                     habitat.


                 Page 16                                                                  Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                         and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                       Part 1: Introduction and Back-round
             National Marine Sanctuary


                Research and Monitoring Priorities: The research program will focus on improving the
                understanding of the relationship between the status of the humpback whale stocks and the
                quality of their environment.

                Education and Outreach Priorities: The education program will focus on raising awareness
                of the significance of humpback whales and their habitat and other marine resources while
                promoting public and private uses of the.Sanctuary.

             Administration

                Location: Based on the preferred boundary, the Sanctuary headquarters will be located in
                Kihei, Maui.

                Staffing: Depending on the budget, the Sanctuary Will hire a manager, administrative
                assistant, education coordinator, research coordinator, and other staff as needed. While the
                Sanctuary will not have its own enforcement presence, SRD will explore the possibility of
                funding enforcement positions in other agencies such as NMFS, DOH, or DLNR.

                Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAQ: The SAC, comprised of 25 members with broad
                statewide representation including researchers, county representatives, and interest groups
                will serve *as an advisory body to the Sanctuary Manager and to NOAA.

                    e. The Final Management Plan

                    The DEIS/MP was released to the public in September 1995, initiating a 90-day public
             comment period that ended on December 15, 1995. Over twenty-five statewide informational
             meetings were held to assist the public in understanding the proposal and to answer questions
             and concerns. SRD also held seven formal public hearings throughout the main Hawaiian
             Islands. In total, over 250 written comments and oral testimonies were received by NOAA
             during the comment period.

                    The concerns raised in the comments addressed: boundaries; Kahoolawe; regulations;
             fishing; enforcement; management/scope; the SAC; research, education; Native Hawaiians; user
             fees; funding for the program; socio-economic impacts; need for the Sanctuary; the manner in
             which the Sanctuary was designated; and Feder     'al presence in State waters. The response to these
             public comments are found in Appendix A, and incorporated into relevant sections of the
             FEIS/MP, as appropriate.

                    NOAA's preferred alternatives for the boundary, regulations, and management remain
             similar to those listed, in the Draft EIS/MP. Changes and clarifications were made to respond to
             public comments. The following section summarizes the modifications, clarifications, or
             revisions made in the FEIS/MP.

             Part I - Introduction: In addition to providing information about the National Marine Sanctuary
             Program and the history of the Hawaii Sanctuary, Part I has been modified to provide a summary
             of NOAA's preferred alternative and to identify the significant changes made between the draft
             and final environmental impact statements.

             Part II - Description of the Affected Environment: This part was revised to reflect new or
             updated information. The most significant changes were made to the section on humpback
             whales in response to public comments. A new section was added to clarify that the
             establishment of the Sanctuary does not convey title or ownership to NOAA of Hawaii's
             submerged lands.

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                            Page 17
             and Management Plan





                     Part 1: Introduction and Background                                                   Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                                     National Marine Sanctuary

                     Part III - Alternatives: Parts of the alternatives were modified or clarified to address public
                     comments received on the DEIS/MP. The significant changes relating. to the boundary and
                     regulations-are noted in the table below.
                     Part IV - Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts.: This part has been expanded to more
                     clearly portray. the impacts between the status quo alternative and the preferred alternative.
                     Particularly, the section describing the regulatory impacts dealing with discharge and- alteration
                     of the seabed activities has been expanded to address public comments.
                     Part V - Mana2ement Plan: This part has been modified to reflect specific changes made in
                     parts 1-4 and to further clarify the roles of the various- Federal and State resource agencies as
                     they pertain to Sanctuary management.
                     Appendices: Appendix A contains NOAA's response to comments received on the DEIS/MP.
                     Appendix E contains MOUs regarding the coordination of Federal and State resource agencies
                     for activities that may impact Sanctuary resources.

                                            TABLE 1-1: Significant Changes Made to Final EIS/MP
                                Draft EIS:                     Change Made to Final                     Why Change Was Made:
                                                                        EIS/MP:
                     Boundary:                              -Boundary:                             This change clarifies and simplifies the
                     "...from. the mean highwater           "...from, the shoreline to the 100-    inshore boundary of the Sanctuary.
                     mark to the 100-fathom                 fathom isobath..." was added to        Shoreline is defined as:
                     isobath..."                            boundary definition.                   "the upper reaches of the wash of the
                                                                                                   waves, other than storm and seismic
                                                                                                   waves, at high tide during the season of the
                                                                                                   year in which the I@ghest wash of the
                                                                                                   waves occurs, usually evidenced by the
                                                                                                   edge of vegetation growth, or the    upper.
                                                                                                   limit of debris left by the wash of the
                                                                                                   waves." The Sanctuary inshore boundary
                                                                                                   is now consistent with the Coastal Zone
                                                                                                   Management Program and DLNR
                                                                                                   definition. As defined, the shoreline is
                                                                                                   also consistent with DLNR's survey and
                                                                                                   certification standards.
                     Boundary:                              "cutting across the mouths of          Clarifies that the preferred Sanctuary
                                                            rivers and streams ... 9' was added    boundary does not go up rivers, streams,
                                                            to boundary definition                 or other inland water areas.
                     Boundary:                              Listing of Ala Wai small boat          The Ala Wai small boat basin lies within
                                                            basin as a harbor excluded from        the preferred boundary. The regulations
                                                            the preferred boundary.                state specific ports, harbors, and small boat
                                                                                                   basins are to be excluded.
                     Regulations:                           County regulations and permit          Discharges and alteration of the seabed
                                                            processes have been removed            activities are primarily regulated by
                                                            from the scope of Sanctuary            Federal and State agencies.
                                                            re lations.
                     Regulations:                           Combined to read:                      To streamline the language and to be
                     Prohibited Activities                  (1) Approaching, or causing a          consistent with the list of Activities
                     (1) Approaching, within the            vessel or other object to              Subject to Regulation.
                     Sanctuary, by any means, within        approach, within the Sanctuary,
                     100 yards...                           within 1.00 yards...
                     (2) Causing a vessel or other
                     object to approach, within the
                     ISanctuary, within 100 yards...      I



                     Page 18                                                                             Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                           and ManaLyernent Plan






                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                                        Part 1: Introduction and Background
                National Marine Sanctuary


                               TABLE 1-1: Significant Changes Made to Final EIS/MP (Continued)
                           Draft EIS:                      Change Made to Final                      Why Change Was Made:
                                                      P             EIS/MP:
                 Enforcement:                           Sanctuary and State roles were         Clarifies that individual State permit
                                                        clarified regarding the                issuing agencies make the initial
                                                        enforcement of Sanctuary               determination as to whether a State
                                                        habitat related regulations            discharge or alteration of the seabed
                                                                                               permit has been violated, and would
                                                                                               therefore be in violation of a Sanctuary
                                                                                               habitat regulation.
                 Designation Document:                  Removed from the Scope of              The scope of regulations now mirror the
                 Activities Subject to Regulation:      Regulation                             actual regulations. Consequently, any new
                 f. Operation of a vessel (i.e.,                                               proposed regulations will be subject to the
                 watercraft of any description) in                                             full designation process, including public
                 the Sanctuary in a manner that                                                hearing and comment, preparation of the
                 may adversely impact any                                                      supplemental EIS/MP, and gubernatorial
                 humpback whale or humpback                                                    review and approval.
                 whale habitat;...
                 Designation Document:                  "...review by the appropriate          To clarify that the Governor will have
                 Article VI. Alteration of This         Congressional committees, and          objection authority over any proposed
                 Designation                            review and non-objection by the        modification to the terms of designation,
                 "...review by the appropriate          Governor of the State of Hawaii        which include the boundary and new
                 Congressional committees, and          and, review and approval of the        regulations. If the Governor objects, such
                 the Governor of the State of           Secretary of Commerce..."              modification will not take effect in State
                 Hawaii, and approval by the                                                   waters.
                 Secretary of Commerce..."
                 Part II - Description of               Dis@ussion of scientific data on       More current information has become
                 humpback whales                        humpback whales and their              available since the Draft EIS/MP was
                                                        habitat has been significantly         prepared. SRD has incorporated this new
                                                        updated,                               'data to make the Final EIS/MP more
                                                                                               current in its assessment of Sanctuary
                                                                                               resources.
                 Part V - Management Plan. As           Process for this review is             To outline the specific procedures the
                 noted in the NMSA, a review of         outlined in Part V which               State and NOAA will follow in
                 the Management Plan is                 involves significant participation     undertaking the review.
                 required every five years.             by the State.
                 Part V - Management Plan               Clarification made that there          To clearly state that there will be no
                 User Fees and Special Use              will be no special use permits or      special use permits or user fees in the
                 Permits                                user fees in the Hawaii                Hawaii Sanctuary. In addition, the NMSA
                                                        Sanctuary                              was reauthorized in 1996 to, in part,
                                                                                               specifically prohibit user fees in the
                                                                                               Hawaii Sanctuary.


                Other significant concerns that have been addressed during the completion of the FEIS/MP:

                ï¿½    A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between SRD and Hawaii's DOH and DLNR is
                     under development which outlines the mechanism by which NOAA and the State will
                     coordinate the review of applications for State permits to conduct discharge or alteration of
                     the seabed activities which are subject to Sanctuary regulation. A copy of the draft MOU is
                     found in Appendix E of this FEIS/MP.

                ï¿½    SRD and NMFS have developed an MOU concerning permit review and coordinated
                     consultations for activities that may affect humpback whales or their Sanctuary habitat


                Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                                     Page 19
                and Management Plan





                         Part 1: Introduction and Background                                                                           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                                                                   National Marine Sanctuary

                               (Appendix E). SRD and NMFS are also developing another MOU concerning the
                                                                                                                                                                           I
                               coordination of their other management activities in the Sanctuary.
                               NOAA's Office of General Counsel will develop a civil penalty schedule outlining the range
                               of fines associated with violations of Sanctuary regulations. The civil penalty schedule will
                               be made publicly available.
                               The Sanctuary Advisory Council                             (SAC) has been established and is working to provide
                               advice and recommendations to SRD on the implementation of the Sanctuary (See Part V for
                               more discussion on the SAC.)

                                     In addition to the changes identified above in response to public comments, numerous
                         editorial changes have been undertaken to make the document more "user-friendly," including a
                         reorganization of Parts I and V.


                         D. CONSULTATIONS

                               1. Endangered Species Act Requirements

                                     Pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, the Fish and Wildlife Service of DOI, and NMFS, have
                         been consulted regarding possible impacts on threatened or endangered species that might result
                         from the preparation and implementation of a management plan and regulations as required by
                         the Sanctuary. designation. These consultations confirmed that some five endangered (E), four
                         threatened (T) and one candidate species are.either known to, or may occasionally, occur in the
                         area; and, that Sanctuary. designation is not likely to adversely affect any of these species. The
                         species identified are:

                                           Hawksbill turtle (Eretmoehelys imbricata)                             ................................................  E
                                           Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas)                         ............................................................. T
                                           Leatherback sea turtle (Dennochelys coriacea)                                 ..........................................E
                                           Loggerhead sea turtle (Carena caretta)                            ..................................................... T
                                           Olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea)                          ......................................................... T
                                           Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi)                                     ........................................E
                                           Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)                                     ............................................E
                                           Hawaiian dark-rumped petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis).. E
                                           Newells' shearwater (Puf
                                                                                     flnus auricularis)          ................................................  T
                                           Band-rumped storm-petrel (Oceanodroma castro cryptoleucure)                                                ............. T(candidate)

                               2. Resource Assessment

                                     Section 303(b)(3), of the NMSA [16 U.S.C. ï¿½1433(b)(3)] requires a resource assessment
                         report documenting present and potential uses of the proposed Sanctuary area, including uses
                         subject to the primary jurisdiction of DOI. The resource assessment, including a description of
                         biological and cultural resources and human uses can be found in Part II of the FEIS/MP. This
                         requirement has also been met through consultations with DOI, NMFS, the Hawaii Office of
                         Planning, and in the development of a report entitled: "A Site Characterization Study for the
                         Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary" (University of Hawaii Sea
                         Grant College Program 1994). This Site Characterization Study was useful in providing many
                         significant details described in this FEIS/MP. Interested readers, can receive a copy of this
                         report from one of the Sanctuary offices, the Hawaii Office of Planning, or copies will be
                         distributed-to the following public libraries in Hawaii:



                         Page 20                                                                                                    Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                                                          and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                             Part 1: Introduction and Background
             National Marine Sanctuary

                            Kauai:     Lihue, Kapaa, Waimea, Hanapepe, and Koloa Public Libraries
                            Oahu:      Honolulu, Hawaii Kai, Waimanalo, and Kahuku Public Libraries
                            Maui:      Wailuku, Kahului, Hana, Kihei, and Lahaina Public Libraries
                         Molokai:      Molokai Public Library
                            Lanai:     Lanai Public Library
                      Big Island:      Hilo, Kailua-Kona, Keaau, Kealakekua, Kohala, and Waimea Public
                                       Libraries


                  3. Federal Consistency Determination

                      Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, requires that
             "[e]ach Federal agency activity within or outside the coastal zone that affects any land or water
             use or natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried out in a manner which is consistent to
             the maximum extent practicable, with enforceable policies of approved State management
             programs. A Federal Consistency Determination has been submitted to the Coastal Zone
             Management Program within the Hawaii Office of Planning (OP). The Hawaii OP will review
             the consistency determination along with the final Sanctuary management plan and will either
             concur or object with NOAA's determination that the implementation of the HIHWNMS Is
             consistent with Hawaii's CZMP.





































             Final Envitonmental Impact Statement                                                                     Page 21
             and Management Plan





                Part 1: Introduction and Background                                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                 National Marine Sanctuary




















                                               This Page Left Intentionally Blank































                Page 22                                                                Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                      and Management Plan






                 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                          Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment
                 National Marine Sanctuary

                           PART 11 -- DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

                                                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                                                             PAGE


                 A. THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT                          .........................................................    27
                      1.  Geographic Setting       .........................................................................       27
                      2.  Ph          Characteristics      ...................................................................     27
                             .ysical-
                          a. Geology        ...................................................................................    27
                          b. Geomorphology/Bathymetry                 .........................................................    28
                          c. Meteorology and Climatology              ........................................................     29
                          d. Oceanography          ..........................................................................      31
                          e. Ocean Chemistry          .......................................................................      32

                 B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES                      ................................................................     34-
                      1. Humpback Whales           .........................................................................       34
                          a. Natural History         .........................................................................     34
                               i.    Species Description and Taxonomy              .............................................   34
                               ii.   Distribution/Zoogeography           ......................................................    35
                               iii.  Populations and Subunits         .........................................................    36
                               iv.   Habitat Use and Behavior         .........                                                 ... 36
                                     1) Summering Areas -- Feeding             ................................................    36
                                     2) Migrations       .....................................................................     38
                                     3) Wintering Areas -- Reproduction              ...........................................   38
                               V.    Natural Mortality     ..................................................................      39
                          b .  North Pacific Population of Humpback Whales                   ....................................  39
                               i.    Use of Feeding and Wintering Areas              ...........................................   39
                               ii.   Abundance and Trends          ...........................................................     39
                               iii.  Stock Structure      ....................................................................     40
                               iv.   Humpback Whale in Hawaiian Waters                 .........................................   41
                                     1)  Historical Presence       ...........................................................     41
                                     2)  Reproduction      ..................................................................      42
                                     3)  Singing   .........................................................................       42
                                     4)  Humpback Whale Distribution             ..............................................    43
                                     5)  Humpback Whale Cow-Calf Distribution                  ..........I ....................... 49
                                     6)  Habitat Use      .....................................................................    49
                                     7)  Abundance Estimates          .........................................................    50
                          c.   Known and Potential Impacts to Central North Pacific Stock                     .................... 51
                               i.    Entrapment and Entanglement in Fishing Gear or Mooring Lines                        .......... 51
                               ii.   Collisions by Ships       ...............................................................     52
                               iii.  Acoustic Disturbance        .............................................................     52
                                     1)  Disturbance and Noise from Ships, Boats, and Aircraft                   ................. 52
                                     2)  Commercial Whale Watching Boats and Research Boats                       ................. 53
                                     3)  Noise @ from Industrial Activities (Construction and Dredging)                  .......... 54
                                     4)  Sonars    ..........................................................................      54
                                     5)  Explosions      .....................................................................     54
                                     6)  Ocean Science Studies (ATOC)              .............................................   54
                               iv.   Habitat Degradation       ................................................................    55
                                     1) Chemical Pollution (Point and Non-Point)                 ................................  55
                                     2)  Habitat Disturbance       ...........................................................     56
                          d. Protection, Legislation, and Management                  ...........................................  56


                 Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                                  Page 23
                 and Management Plan






                        Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment                                                    Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                                                       National Marine Sanctuary

                             2. Other Marine Resources of Hawaii                       .......................................................            57
                                   a.   General Information           .................................................              .................    57
                                   b.   Nearshore Ecosystems               ................................................................               58
                                        i. Shoreline Ecosystems                 ...............................................................           58
                                        ii. Subtidal Ecosystems               ...............................................................             61
                                   c.   Cetacean Species Found in Hawaii                    ..................................................            62
                                        i.    Pacific Bottlenose Dolphins             ..........  * ............................................          65
                                        ii.   False Killer Whales           .................................................................             66
                                        iii.  Spinner Dolphins           ...................................................................              66
                                        iv.   Spotted Dolphins           ....................................................................             66
                                        v.    Odontocete Prey Species               .........................................................             67
                                        vi.   Predators      ............................................................              I...............   67
                                        vii. Odontocete Distribution Trends                   .................................................           67
                                   d.   Other Endangered or Threatened Species                       ......................   1......................     67
                                        i.    Sea Turtles       ............................................................................              67
                                        ii. Hawksbill Turtles             ..................................................................              68
                                        iii.  Green Sea Turtles          .....................                                                            68
                                        iv.   Sea Birds      .............................................................................                69
                                        v .   Hawaiian.Monk Seal              ...............................................................             69

                       C. CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES AND USES                                                      ..........................      71
                             I .   Native Hawaiian Settlements and Social Patterns                         ......................................         72
                             2.    Aquaculture/Fishponds              .....................................................................               73
                                   a. Estimate of Number and Distribution                       ...............................................           74
                                   b. Fishponds Today               ......................................................................                74
                                   c. Implications for the Sanctuary                  .......................................................             75
                             3.    Religious Practices and Artifacts                .........................................................             76
                             4.    Kahoolawe Island           ......................     "'   .................................................           77
                                   a. Kahoolawe Island Reserve                   ...........................................................              77
                             5.    Submer2ed Lands             ............................................................................               79
                             6.    Traditional Native Hawaiian Uses                   .......................................................             79
                             7.    Shipwrecks         ............................................................               .....................    79


                       D.    HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND ACTIV=S                                            ..........................................          80
                             1. Socio-Demogrgghic Profile                   ...............................................................               80
                                   a. Population and Ethnic Make-Up                      .....................................................            80
                                   b. Labor Force           ............................................................................                  81
                             2. Human Activities             ............................................................................                 82
                                   a.   Fishing (Description of Activities, Numbers Involved, and
                                        Econon-iic/Cultural Importance)                ......................................................             82
                                        i.    Commercial         ........................................................................                 82
                                        ii. Recreational         ........................................................................                 86
                                        iii.  Charterboat Fishing           ...............................................................               86
                                        iv.   Aquarium Fish Industry              ...........................................................             86
                                        v .   Fishponds; and Traditional Uses                .................................................            86
                                   b .  Commercial Shipping               .................................................................               87
                                        i. Economic Contribution                 ...........................................................              87
                                        ii. Vessel Traffic         ......................................................................                 87
                                        iii.  Hawaii Ports and Harbors                ........................................................            87
                                   c.   Tourism       .................................................................................                   88
                                   d.   Ocean Recreation           ......................................................................                 88
                                        i. Recreational Activities              ............................................................              89
                                              1) Boating        .........................................................................                 89

                       Page 24                                                                                          Final Erivironmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                                             an d Management Plan






                  Hawaiian    Islands Humpback Whale                                                 Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment
                  National Marine Sanctuary

                                         2) Surfing       .........................................................................                 90
                                         3) Swinuning          .....................................................................                90
                                ii.      Commercial Activities            ............................................................              90
                                         1) Tour Boats         .....................................................................                90
                                         2) Thrill Craft       .....................................................................                91
                                         3) Competitive Events             ...........................................................              92
                                         4) Canoe Racing and Kayaking                    ................................................           92
                                         5) Diving       ..........................................................................                 93
                                iii. Economic Contributions of Ocean Recreation                            .................................        93
                           e.   Ocean Waste Disposal              ...................................................................               94
                                i.       Water Quality        ......................................................................                94
                                ii.      Point Source Discharges              .........................................................             94
                                iii.     Non-Point Source Discharges                 ...................................................            95
                                iv.      Ocean Dumping and Dredge Material                     ...........................................          96
                           f.   Department of Defense Activities                  ......................................................            97
                                i .      Expenditures       ..................................................            I.....................    97
                                ii.      Activities/Operations in Hawaiian waters                    ......................................         97
                                iii.     Other Military Operations in the Hawaiian Islands                        .............................     98
                           g .  Energy and Industrial Uses               .............................................................              99
                                i .      Hydrocarbon Resources               ..........................................................             99
                                ii.      Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion                     ...........................................            100
                                iii.     Geothermal Energy/Underwater Electrical Transmission Cables                                  ..........    100
                                iv.      Marine Hard Minerals              ..........................................................               101
                                v .      Sand Resources           .................................................................                 102
                           h.   Agriculture       ...............................................................................                   102
                           j.   Aviation      .................................................................................                     103
                           k.   Research      ................................................................................                      104
                           1.   Current Education Efforts to Address Management Concerns                                  ...................       105
                           m.   Existing Protected Areas              ..............................................................                105
                                i.       Protected Areas        ..................................................................                  105
                                ii.      Federal Protected Areas             ........................................................               106
                                         1) National Wildlife Refuges                 .................................................             106
                                         2) National Parks            ..............................................................                106
                                iii.     State Protected Areas           ...........................................................                107
                                         1)   Marine Life Conservation Districts                  .......................................           107
                                         2)   Fishery Management Areas                 ................................................             107
                                         3)   The Natural Areas Reserves System                      .....................................          107
                                         4)   Underwater Parks             ..........................................................               107
                                         5)-  Conservation Land Use Districts Protection Subzones                              ................     107
                                         6)   Other State Marine Protection Areas                  ......................................           107
                                         7)   Ocean Recreation Management Areas                       ....................................          107
                                iv.      Private Protected Areas            ..........................................................              108
                                v .      Special Protected Areas            .........................................................               108
                     3. Institutional Arrangements and Responsibilities                         .........................     i ...............     108
                           a. Federal Authorities            .....................................................................                  108
                                i.       Marine Wildlife Protection and Conservation Authorities                            ...................     108
                                         1) The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act                      ....                                        108
                                         1) The Marine Mammal Protection Act                        ......................................          108
                                         2) The Endangered Species Act                    ..............................................            110
                                ii.      National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region                             .....................      110
                                iii.     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service                .................................................            112
                                iv.      Marine Mammal Commission                     .................................................             113
                                v .      Marine/Coastal Zone Protection                  ...............................................            113
                                         1) The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972                            .............................        113

                  Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                                                    Page 25
                  and Management Plan






                     Part 11: Descfiption of the Affected Environment                                            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                                           National Marine Sanctuarv

                                  vi.     NOAA/Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management                           ...............   114
                                  vii.    National Park Service         ...........................................................        114
                                  viii.   Fisheries Management           ...........................................................       114
                                          1) The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act                              ..........  114
                                  ix.     Marine/Coastal Development              ..................................................       115
                                          1) Federal Water Pollution Control Act                .....................................      115
                                          2) Rivers and Harbors Act             ....................................................       115
                                          3) The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act                  ..................................     115
                                  X.      Water Quality     .................................................................          :.. 116
                                          1) Point and Non-Point Source Discharges                   ................................      116
                                          2) Dredging and Ocean Dumping                  ............................................      116
                                          3) Vessel Sewage          ..............................................................         117
                                  xi.     Oil Pollution    ..........................   ; ...........................................      117
                                          1) Clean Water Act         . ...........................................................         117
                                          2) Oil Pollution Act of 1990            ..................................................       117
                                          3) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the
                                              Sea by Oil/Oil Pollution Act of 196 1 /International Convention
                                              for the Preservation of Pollution from Ships, 1973                    ....................   119
                                  xii. Marine Transportation Safety               ..................................................       120
                                          1) The Ports and Waterways Safety Act                   ....................................     120
                            b     State and County Authorities            .........................................................        120
                                  i       Environmental Impact Statement Law                 ........................................      120
                                          1)  Hawaii -Coastal Zone Management Act                  ...................................     120
                                          2)  Coastal Zone Management Areas                 ..........................................     121
                                          3)  Areas of Particular Concern and Priorities of Use                   ......................   121
                                          4)  Hawaii Ocean and Submerged Lands Leasing Act                         .....................   121
                                          5)  Protection of Marine and Coastal Species                 ...............................     122
                                          6)  Water Quality Standards           ...................................................        122
                                          7)  Point-Sources of Pollution            ................................................       123
                                          8)  Non-Point Sources of Pollution               ..........................................      123
                                          9)  Oil P0* Hution     ...................................................................       124
                                          10) Ocean Recreation and Coastal Area Rules                  ...............................     124
                                          11) Humpback Whale Approach Regulations                    ................................      125
                                          12) Ocean Recreation         ...........................................................         125
                                          13) Humpback Whale Protected Waters                  ......................................      126
                                          14) Fisheries Regulation         .........................................................       126
                                          15) Other State Marine Protected Areas              .......................................      127
                                          16) Enforcement of State Regulations               ........................................      127














                    Page 26                                                                                  Final Environmental Impact StatemenT
                                                                                                                                and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                               Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment
            National Marine Sanctuary

                     This part of the Final Environmental Impact Statement describes the environmental and
            socio-economic characteristics of the affected area pertinent to the planning for and understanding
            of Sanctuary management needs. The following sections summarize information about the marine
            environment, its uses, and its users. Much of the information contained in Part II can be found in
            "A Site Characterization Study for the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine
            Sanctuary" (March 1994) prepared for NOAA by the University of Hawaii Sea Grant Colleg
                                                                                                                      L-e
            Program, School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology. All references are included in the
            bibliography located in Appendix J.

            A. THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

                 1. Geographic Setting

                     The Hawaiian Archipelago is a group of eight major islands together with 124 islets (some
            of which are unrelated to the archipelago), shoals, and reefs stretching 2400-km (about 1,490
            nautical, or 1,600 statute miles) along a southeast-northwest axis in the North Central Pacific.
            Lying in the Tropic of Cancer between 154'40' to 178'75'W longitude and 18'40' to 28'25' N
            latitude, the major islands in order of size are: Hawaii (referred to as the Big Island), Maui, Oahu,
            Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Niihau, and Kahoolawe. The,State of Hawaii consists of 16,760 sq. km
            (6,471 sq. mi.) of land; ranges in elevation from sea level to 4,205 m (13,796 ft) at the peak. of
            Mauna Kea on the Big Island; and has 1,207 km (750 mi.) of coastline with 40 sq. mi. of
            estuaries, harbors, and bays. The major ocean and interisland channels are shown in Figure 11- 1.

                     The four counties of Hawaii
            are: Hawaii, the City and County of                    160-W             158-W              156-W
            Honolulu, Kauai, and Maui.              The             A        A         A
            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
            National Marine Sanctuary as currently                    KAU-411
            designated exists predominantly within
            the County of Maui, which is                                             Oahu
                                                                  NHJ@au
            commonly refeffed to as the "four-                                        &
                                                                                               M410k.,  C1,91,
            island" area consisting of Maui,
            Molokai, Lanai, and Kahoolawe (see
                                                                                                      waui      21-N
            Figure 111-2 in the following chapter).                                         LanM
                                                                                                  4p
            Congress also designated as part of the                                                    4
            Sanctuary the waters off the shore of
                                                                                                                2
            the Kilauea National Wildlife Refuge,
            Kauai. NOAA is proposing to expand
            the Sanctuary to include the Big
            Island, eastern Kauai, and portions of
            Oahu. Hawaii is located some 2,500                         NoA
            nautical miles (4,060 km) from the                      y       y          y        y        y
            California coastline and 2,800 nautical
            miles (4,500 km) from southeastern
            Alaska, which is considered to be one                Figure   11-1  Main     Hawaiian    Islands
            of the major summer feeding grounds
            for humpback whales.

                 2. Msical Characteristics

                     a. Geology
                                                                                                          2*0









                     The Hawaiian Islands were formed during the last few             rniMon years by the gradual
            accretion of basaltic lava flows and ejecta. Their geologic features have been formed by successive

            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                 Page 27
            and Management Plan





               Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                            National Marine Sanctuary

               periods of volcanic activity interspersed with submergence, weathering, and fluctuations in sea
               level (Wyrtki 1990). The islands rise 9, 100 m above the sea floor, and the Island of Hawaii has a
               maximum elevation of4,500 m above sea level [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
               1980; Menard 1964].

                       The volcanic activity that created the Hawaiian Islands formed comparatively gradual
               mountain masses that rise abruptly from the relatively smooth archipelagic apron of the adjacent sea
               floor. This apron extends a few tens of kilometers outward from the islands and is peculiar
               because it slopes slightly upward from the base of the islands. The sea floor at the base of the
               islands is slightly depressed and forms a moat-type structure around the islands. Beyond the moat
               is a bulge or arch, apparently formed by the weight of the islands pushing the displaced material
               outward (Menard 1964).

                       The islands generally are surrounded by coral reefs and contain numerous bays. Along
               some of the windward shorelines where perennial streams empty into the ocean, estuarine-like
               conditions prevail. Abundant rainfall and persistent northeasterly trade winds contribute to the
               steady weathering of the islands. Sandy beaches are found along the shorelines of all the islands
               but are best developed on Kauai, the oldest of the main islands, and least developed on Hawaii,
               where mountain-building and shoreline creation is still occurring. In places throughout the State
               and in Maui County, there occurs a phenomenon in which there is a net loss of beach volume with
               a c.oncorrutant increase in offshore sand deposits.

                       There are no known oil and gas deposits within the nearshore area of the State, and
               manganese nodule deposits and cobalt rich crusts lie far offshore. Sand is the most commercially
               valuable nearshore mineral with large deposits located in a number of sites.

                       b. Geomorphology/Bathymetry

                       The islands of Maui, Lanai 'Molokai, and Kahoolawe are the remnants of a single massive
               volcanic conglomerate formed by at least six major and one rninor volcano. During a period of low
               sea level (in the recent geologic past), these four islands were connected to form a single island
               called "Maui Nui" [MacDonald et al. 1983; U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) 1983]. This
               island had an area of about 5,200 km2 (about one-half the size of the present island of Hawaii).
               Extensive periods of erosion, emergence, and subsidence in combination with changes in sea level
               shaped Maui Nui to its present configuration, drowning the base of the island and creating not one,
               but four separate islands. The adjoining submerged base of Maui, Lanai, and Molokai ranges in
               depth from about 30 m to 80 m. Hence, about half of the Congressionally-designated Sanctuary is
               less than 80 m in depth.

                       Penguin Bank is noted for major concentrations of humpback whales during their winter
               stay in Hawaiian waters. The average depth of water over Penguin Bank is about 60 m, but ranges
               from 50 m to 200 m. There is a lack of -information regarding the specific geology of the very near
               coastal waters (i.e., 100 m to 200 m depths). Observations made from research submersibles at
               Penguin Bank and in the general vicinity of the Congressionally-designated Sanctuary indicate that
               at depths of 60 m to 120 m the bottom is composed primarily of sand With occasional outcrops of
               coarse sediment, limestone talus, limestone holes, and platforms (B. Muffler, Hawaii Undersea
               Research Laboratory, pers. comm. 1993). In addition, carbonate organisms including red and
               green calcareous algae, bryozoans, corals, and pen shells have been observed at depths of 40 m to
               90 m on Penguin Bank (Agegian and Mackenzie 1989).

                       Bottom photography off of other coastal sites throughout the State, (e.g., Kahului Harbor,
               Maui; Nawiliwili, Kauai; Pearl Harbor, Oahu; Port Allen, Kauai; and Hilo, Hawaii) show
               -remarkable similarity at depths of 300 m to 1,600 m. At each site, the bottom is characterized by
               silty sand'and clay with only ocpasional cobbles, boulders, and rocky.outcrops.       Whereas these

               Page 29                                                            Final Environmental impact. Statement
                                                                                                 and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                               Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment
             National Marine Sanctuary

             data reflect conditions slightly beyond the 100-fathom isobath, observations from submersible
             dives suggest that these characteristics are consistent with the shallow near coastal regions with an
             increase in the presence of rocky outcrops and coral rubble at the shallow depths. .

                      The nearshore topography of Oahu is characterized by a series of marine terraces. The
             terraces, which are separated by escarpments, reflect periods of emergence, submergence, and
             changes in sea level. Specific bathymetric data have not been located for the nearshore areas of the
             islands of Maui, Molokai, and Lanai. (see insert: Information Gaps). On Oahu, however, the
             upper level terrace extends seaward to about 60. m followed by a steep escarpment and then a
             second or intermediate terrace from about 70 m to 120 m. Another steep escarpment is found at
             this depth and then a gently sloping terrace extends from about 130 m to the 600 m contour (Brock
             and Chamberlain 1968). Sonic depth recorders indicate a relatively flat or gently sloping bottom at
             depths near 200 m (100-fathom isobath) (EPA 1980).                  With few exceptions, the bottom
             topography from 400 m seaward is very steep and drops almost immediately to the abyssal plains
             at 4,800 m (2,400 fathoms). Because the submerged coasts of Maui, Molokai, and Lanai probably
             experienced similar periods of erosion, subsidence, emergence, and changes in sea level, it is
             proposed that the terraces on Oahu generally reflect similar types of geomorphic conditions.

             Information' Gaps

             While there may be many unique or unusual features found within the designated Sanctuary
             boundaries, those pertinent to physical oceanography seem to focus on two very distinctive
             characteristics: bathymetry and eddy circulation. The bathymetry of the area, bound by Maui,
             Molokai, Lanai, and Kahoolawe, along with the extension of the shallow Penguin.-Bank southwest
             of Molokai, represents a unique,. semi-enclosed, shallow protected sea in the midst of an expansive
             ocean. There is almost no information in the published literature as to the specific characteristics of
             this interisland area.

             General physical oceanographic information on the nearshore environment seaward to the 100-
             fathom isobath. is not available. The oceanographic data for waters on the periphery of the four-
             islands region outside the 100-fathom isobath is limited and somewhat dated. In the future, it may
             be useful to have a more detailed bathymetric survey using now available side scan sonar systems.
             This information, along. with suib-bottorn profiling, might offer insight into the topography that
             could influence - small-scale: current systems, sediment types and transport, and ecosystem
             characteristics and their, relation to. the distribution or migration, patterns of whales within these
             shallow waters.


                      Figure IH-12 in the following chapter shows.the degree of extension of the 100-fathom
             isobath on all the main Hawaiian Islands. Significant shelves are found around Niihau and Kaula
             Rock, northern Kauai, the eastern and western shores of Oahu, and the Big Island, whose shelf is
             greatest along the northwestern shoreline.

                      c - Meteorology and Climatology

                      Although the Hawaiian Islands are at the northern edge of the tropics, they have a
             subtropical climate due to the cool ocean currents and persistent northeasterly trade winds that
             occur about 80 percent of the time, a condition that accounts in part for the lower diversity
             exhibited by Hawaiian coral reefs and associated marine communities, relative to other -areas in the
             Indio-.Pacific region (DOC 1983). The average wind velocity is between 10 and 20 knots (kt), but
             velocities over 20 kt for more than a week are not uncommon (Patzert 1970). Ocean temperatures
             are less than that of other areas at the same latitude and range from 21'C to 29'C (70OF to 850F).
             Occasional periods of southerly, or kona, winds may bring storm events.


             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                 Page 29
             and Management Plan






                 Part II: Description of the Affected Environment                     Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                              National Marine Sanctuary

                        Winds blow many miles across the Pacific ocean before reaching the Hawaiian Islands.
                 Rainfall occurs when warm, moisture-laden tradewind air is forced up and over mountain peaks
                 causing condensation of atmospheric moisture. The northeastern sides of the islands (the direction
                 of the prevailing winds) are usually the wettest. As the winds descend the leeward slopes, they
                 become warm and dry, thus making the leeward coasts some of the driest in the State. Southerly
                 winds can also bring rains and, in fact, the more serious storms frequently come from the south.
                 Rainfall exceeding 24 inches in four hours has been recorded (Steams 1967). Annual rainfall over
                 the State varies from 25 cm (10 in) near leeward shores to almost 1,270 cm (500 in) at Mount
                 Waialeale on Kauai. Maximum precipitation usually occurs between altitudes 600 m. and 1,830 rn.
                 (2,000 ft and 6,000 ft). Precipitation is, highly variable, however, and is heavily influenced by
                 local topography and the sheltering effects of adjacent islands. This is particularly noticeable on
                 the islands of Kahoolawe and Lanai, which are relatively low and shielded from the trade winds by
                 other islands. Consequently, these islands are very dry and suffer severe wind erosion problems
                 [Blumenstock and Price 1967, Steams 1967, Blumenstock and Price 1967, DOC 1991, Hawaii
                 Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT) 19901.

                        The importance of the air-
                 sea interaction is evident in an
                 analysis of the meteorological
                 and oceanographic conditions 'of
                 the Hawaiian Islands.         The
                 islands present a formidable
                 barrier to the northeast trade
                 winds. This is particularly true
                 for the island of Hawaii, which
                 presents a solid barrier        of
                 approximately 120 km to the
                                                                                    k,
                 winds (Figure 11-2) (Patzert
                 1970).    Alenuihaha Channel,
                 between' Maui and     Hawaii, is
                 bound by mountains higher than              J.
                 those bounding both sides of the
                                                                  74Qz
                 K@uai Channel. The "thickness
                 of the atmospheric layer in which       [Figure H-2 Hawaii Surface Winds
                 the trade winds are dominant
                 extends   to    a    height     of                 MW                                  86
                 approximately 1,800 m. (Patzert                                                          4=
                 1970). The relationship between                                                          3M
                 the height of the islands and the
                 elevation of the trade wind flow
                 is clearly demonstrated in Figure
                                                                   0
                 11-3.   (Patzert 1970).       The
                 islands are over 1,000 rn above
                 the trade wind layer. The other
                 major islands may also serve as a
                                                                                                          "0
                 barrier to the wind, but are below
                 the maximum height of the trade                 3WO         1W    Isr  1i;  ar     IWL.Or4
                 winds.                                   Figure H-3    Maximum Height of Trade Winds

                       Long-term measurements of winds taken by Honolulu Weather Bureau ship observations
                 clearly show the marked effect on atmospheric circulation imposed by the islands. Wind speeds
                 decrease in the lee of each island, whereas winds in the channels increase in strength. This effect
                 is stronger in the Alenuihaha Channel than in the other channels where velocities of 20 kts to 25 kts

                 Page 30                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                            Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment
             National Marine Sanctuary

             are not uncornmon. It has been postulated (Patzert 1970) that the increase in wind velocity is due
             to the constriction of trade wind flow in the channel. by the high mountains on either side, much
             like the "Venturi effect" of flows through a narrowed opening. Shear effects upon the incident
             trade winds are also seen in the lee of Hawaii. Cyclonic eddies develop to the north and
             anticyclonic eddies develop to the south. Atmospheric eddies have been shown to be a permanent
             feature during trade wind conditions in the lee of Hawaii and may occur in the lee of the other main
             islands as well, but are likely to be far less intense because the other islands are much lower and
             smaller than Hawaii.

                     The presence of atmospheric eddies is also illustrated by the rainfall regime of the Kona
             coast of Hawaii. As previously mentioned, rainfall throughout most of the islands is considerably
             greater on exposed windward coasts than on the more protected leeward coasts; however, this is
             not the case along the leeward coast of Hawaii. Kona receives up to 150 cm/yr (60 in/yr) of
             precipitation in contrast to other leeward areas that receive less than 50 cm/yr (20 in/yr) (Patzert
             1970) because of the blocking effect of the mountains (Mauna Loa in particular) on the trade wind
             showers. Heavy winds and waves affect boating and vessel activities as well as whale watching
             during the winter season.

                     Hours of daylight have been postulated to influence the migration of the humpback whales
             from polar feeding grounds to tropical calving areas (Dawbin 1977). In Hawaii, there is little
             variation between the length of the days and nights from one part of the state to another because all
             the islands lie within a narrow latitudinal band (Blumenstock and Price 1967). Variation in length
             of day in Honolulu for'example, ranges from 13 hr 20 min (without twilight), to 14 hr 10 min
             (including twilight) at the longest day, and 10 hr 50 min to 11 hr 40 min (with and without
             twilight) for the shortest day (Blumenstock and Price 1967). This small variation in solar energy
             from one time of the year to another partially explains the slight changes in seasonal temperatures
             throughout much of the State. Persistent trade winds are a major factor in moderating the overall
             climate of the islands.

                     d. Oceanography

                     Coastal current measurements        H-4) with diameters ranging from 50 km to 150 km.
             off the Hawaiian Islands (Wyrtki et
             al. 1969; Chave and Miller 1977)
             suggest a mean velocity less than 20
             cm/sec   in most cases; however,
             extreme variability is the rule, not the
             exception. Water circulation around
             the islands is driven by a combination
             of forces including tides, the West
             Wind Drift, circulation of the Eastern
             Pacific Gyre, and local wind and
             eddy systems. The latter have been
             extensively studied by University of
             Hawaii oceanographers (Wyrtki et al.
             1967; Wyrtki et al. 1969; Wyrtki
             1970; Patzert 1970; and Patzert et al.
             1970). The main Hawaiian Islands                 WWAM CMEM
             are marked by variable current
             directions and velocity and the
             presence of well developed eddies          lFigure H-4 Hawaii Surface Currents
             (University of Hawaii, 1983--Figure



             Final Environmental impact Statement                                                             Page 31
             and Management Plan






                 Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment                            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                     National Marine Sanctuary

                 Most of the eddies are cyclonic (i.e., an     anticlockwise spiral) and are present during all seasons.
                 The eddies are relatively shallow and are concentrated in the upper 150 m, well within the depth
                 ranges of the Sanctuary.

                         Flights with- airborne radiation thermometers attempted to map the horizontal distribution
                 and movement of eddies over time by measuring cold spots that form in the center of cyclonic
                 eddies (Figure 11-5) (Wyrtki 1970). These measurements identified periods of cooler water
                 between Maui and Kahoolawe (Figure 11-6) (Wyrtki 1970); however, it was unclear if these
                 periods werethe result of eddies or more likely reflected cool water adverting through the channel
                 between Hawaii and Maui. The nearest to shore that eddies have been measured is 40 km (Patzert
                 1970). Upwelling has been noted in the central portion of the cyclonic eddies, reflecting a doming
                 character. It should be noted that to date, none of the research on eddies has included the four-
                 island area of the Sanctuary. It is unclear if the- eddies persist between the islands or if the wind
                 and resulting current patterns are so modified by the island "shadow-b.arrier" effects as to eliminate
                 the oceanic component.of the eddy close to shore.



                                                                             .0AH
                      Ifirw             or


                                                     CPRMS UH - 17
                                                                                          4@@         10;
                                                Umwce TairTura *0                /?**                &
                                                                                  . . ...... ..   %J
                                                                                                             MAUI


                                                    1"W                                                      lea
                                                                                                               170
                     202                                                           050  1 0
                   ,
                   otsi                                                             0                           Q.,  i -  .
                    we
                     ng

                                                                                                              40
                                                         na                                                  13      e
                                                                    ar
                                                                                                                      HAWAII


                       V0

                                                             NWAN
                                                                                  17

                                                                                                                     t
                                              V.4                                 ISO                      lea       1.%

               Figure U-5 Sea         Surface Temperatures                 Figure 11-6 Depth of 20" isotherm

                         e. Ocean Cherndstry

                         There are three major water masses around the Hawaiian Islands: the North Pacific Central
                 (NPQ, the North Pacific Intermediate, and the Pacific Deep Water (Table U-1) (Sverdrup et al.
                 1942). Of these, the NPC, which forms the shallow water masses and ranges in depth from 100
                 m to 300 m, is found within the Sanctuary. This water mass is characterized by temperatures
                 ranging between 10'C and 18'C and salinities of 34.2 percent to 35.2 percent (EPA 1980). The
                 NPC water has the highest salinity of the three, but this is countered by higher temperatures so its
                 relative density is lowest.






                 Page 32                                                                  Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                          and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                             Part II: Description of the Affected Environment
             National Marine Sanctuary*


                               TABLE 11-1:         ajor Water Masses of the North Pacific
                          Water Mass                   Depth (m)       Temperature(Q            Salinity (glkg)
                 North Pacific Central                  100-300                18                  34.2-35 ')
                 North Pacific Intermediate            300-1,500               10                  34.2-34.5
             1   Pacific Deep Water                  1,500-bottom            1-2.2                 34.6-34.7
             @Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1980.

                     According to Patz ert (1970), the vertical distribution of salinity between the ocean's surface
             and 150 m depth, increases slightly to 35.1 percent. The depth of this maximum can vary
             depending on the presence of a cyclonic eddy when the salinity maximum has been recorded at the
             surface.. This indicates an up-we'lling of 150 m, completely removing the water of lower salinity at
             the sea surface.

                     Variations in Hawaiian surface water temperatures range from a mean minimum of about
             21 *C (70'F) from January to February to a mean maximum of about 27'C to 28'C (8 IT to 82'F)
             from June to October. Mean monthly maximum and minimum temperatures recorded at Kaneohe,
             Oahu are illustrated in Table H-2 (Haraguchi, in Hawaii DBEDT 1990).                   Although these
             temperatures are likely to differ somewhat from temperatures in the designated Sanctuary, the
             general monthly trends can be expected to be similar.

                            TABLE 11-2: Hawaiian Water Temperatures by Month
                          Month                        Tem -perature 'F                 Temperature -F
                                                       Mean maximum                     Mean minimum
                          January                           74.7                              71.1
                        February                            75.6                              70.3
                          March                             76.5                              71.8
                           April                            77.7                              73.0
                           May                              79.5                              74.7
                           June                             U.1                               77.7
                           July                             81.1                              78.3
                          August                            81.9                              79.2
                        September                           81.9                              78.4
                          October                           81.1                              77.2
                        November                            79.3                              74.5
                        December                            75.9                              71.4
                          Annual                            78.6                              74.8
             Source: Hariguchi in: DBEDT, 1990.

                     The depth of the mixed layer varies from 50 m to 140 m (Chave and Miller        1977; Wyrtki et
             al. 1967). The thermocline extends well beyond 200 rn (100 fathoms) and has been reported to
             extend to depths between 275 m to 365 rn. in the offshore region (EPA 1980). Stratification is
             weakest in the winter -months and strongest in the summer.

                     Specific water chemistry data for the Sanctuary area, particularly the inner area between the
             islands of Lanai, Molokai, Maui, and Kahoolawe, have not been located. However-, based on
             studies conducted in comparable water depths and distances from shore, it is believed that the
             water chemistry of the outer edge of the Sanctuary is more oceanic than coastal in character. The
             persistent trade winds, tides, and exceptionally strong currents between and adjacent to the islands
             encourages maximum mixing and dispersion of nearshore waters. Major inputs from the local land
             masses are likely to be episodic and may be negligible along the borders of the Sanctuary. General


             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                              Page 33
             and Management Plan





                 Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment                                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                          National Marine Sanctuary
                 approximations of the water chemistry based on measurements taken at a nearshore site off Oahu
                 (Chave and Miller 1977), suggest that dissolved oxygen is high, perhaps supersaturated in the
                 surface waters, ranging from 5.4 ml/L at the surface to 5.7 MI/L at 100 m. At 300 m depth off
                 Oahu, these values decreased to 5.0 ml/L. A similar distribution pattern for pH was noted off
                 Oahu, in December, 1976, whe          're values in the surface waters averaged 8.1 and increased to 8.2
                 between 25 m and 50 m depths. A decrease of 7.9 was noted at 300 m. The pH values were
                 markedly lower at the same site during April 1977. Values of pH averaged 7.6 at the surface,
                 increasing to 7.7 between 100 m and 150 m depth, and then decreased to 7.6 at 400 m. In sea
                 water, pH generally ranges from 7.5 to 8.4.

                 B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

                      1 . Humpback Whales
                          The focus of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary is, as the
                 name suggests, the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), an endangered marine mammal.
                 Megaptera novaeangliae (or "long wings" of "New England") elicits a great deal of popular
                 admiration because of its size and long pectoral fins; the fact that it can often be observed from
                 shore or in nearshore areas; its often spectacular aerial displays; and its long, mystical vocalizations
                 that can be heard by divers or acoustical instruments in the water. This section summarizes
                 information about the humpback whale to inform the reader of its characteristics, status and
                 distribution, habitat use, activities which can affect or adversely impact the whale, and management
                 considerations. (A more comprehensive description can be found in Appendix G).

                          a. Natural History

                              i. Species description and taxonomy

                          Humpback. whales occur throughout the world in both coastal and open ocean areas. They
                 typically migrate between tropical and sub-tropical latitudes and temperate to polar latitudes. The
                 former areas are occupied during winter months when the whales engage in mating and the females
                 bear their young. Humpback whales are not known to extensively feed in the wintering grounds,
                 although opportunistic feeding has been observed. Polar areas are occupied in the spring,
                 summer, and fall months when feeding occurs.

                          Prior to commercial whaling, the worldwide population of humpback whales is thought to
                 have been in excess of 125,000. Between 1905 and 1960, intense commercial whaling operations
                 targeted the humpback whale worldwide. In 1966, treaties under the International Whaling
                 Commission (IWC) protected humpback whales from further harvesting by whaling operations.
                 While the exact population numbers on humpback whale abundance and distribution are unknown,
                 humpbacks are probably the fourth most numerically depleted species of the large whale family
                 (following the northern right whale, blue whale, and bowhead whale) [National Marine Fisheries
                 Service (NMFS) 199 1 ]. In 1984, it was estimated that perhaps no more than 10,000 to 12,000, or
                 about 10 percent of the estimated initial worldwide population, existed (Braham. 1984). Recent
                 revelations from the Russian President for Ecology and Health, confumiing that the Soviet Union
                 was illegally killing thousands of endangered humpbacks and other great whales in the southern
                 Hemisphere and perhaps the North Pacific and North Atlantic during the 1960's after the ban had
                 been in effect, bring further doubt about the world population (Yablokov 1994).

                          The humpback whale is one of six species listed in the Family of whales known as
                 Balaenopteridae. This family is divided into two genera, Balaenoptera and Megaptera. The genus
                 Megq@tera includes a single living species, Megaptera novaeanglide or Humpback Whale. The
                 distinguishing features which separates this genus from other whales in this family is the presence
                 of unusually long flippers (about 1/3 total body length), a more robust body, fewer throat groves

                 'Page 34                                                                     Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                               and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                           Part II: Description of the Affected Environment
            National Marine Sanctuary

                     1
            (14-35), more variable dorsal fin, and utilization of very long (up to 30 minutes), complex,
            repetitive vocalizations (Payne and McVay 1971) during courtship (NMFS 1991). The name
            Megaptera means "great wing" and refers to the very large flippers of humpback whales. All six
            species within this family have but four fingers within their flippers; the middle or third finger is
            missing (Tinker 1988).

                   The body length of humpback whales may vary somewhat in different geographical areas.
            The maximum recorded length of a humpback whale was measured at 18 in by Winn and Reichley
            (1985). The National Marine Mammal Laboratory recorded a mean length for physically mature
            humpback whales killed off California at 14.5 in or approximately 47.5 ft. (females) and 13.5 ni or
            approximately 44 feet (males) (NMFS 1991). The heaviest humpback whale measured was a 14 in
            female at 43.9 metric tons (Nishiwaki 1959). The body color of these whales is generally dark
            above and is characterized by white pigmentation on the flippers, flukes, sides, and ventral
            surface. Researchers identify individual humpbacks by photographs of the black and white
            pigment patterns on the underside of the flukes and by individually variable features (NMFS
            1991).

                        ii. Distribution and Zoogeography

                    Distribution of humpback whales is global, though it is less common in Arctic waters.
            Seasonal migrations of humpback whales occur between low latitude wintering areas used for
            mating and calving, and high latitude summer feeding areas (Calambokidis et.al. 1996). There is
            little evidence that northern and southern hemisphere populations significantly mingle. The
            populations of the two hemispheres are effectively isolated by patterns of latitudinal seasonal
            migration associated with feeding (in polar waters) and breeding (in warm low latitudes), which
            are out of phase by 6 months. However, there is suggestive evidence based on results of biopsy
            studies which indicate that transoceanic genetic exchange has occurred among North Pacific and
            Southern Ocean populations of humpback whales based on -similarities in mitochondrial DNA
            sequence (Baker et al. 1993, 1994). In addition, direct observational evidence suggests a possible
            geographical overlap of southern and northern hemisphere whales in Costa Rican waters (Acevedo
            and Smultea 1995).

                    Humpback whales are generally considered to inhabit waters over continental shelves,
            along the edges of continental shelves, -and around some ocean islands and atolls (NMFS 1.99 1).
            Concentrations of animals occur repeatedly in some areas. In the North Pacific, summer feeding
            areas include: the Alexander Archipelago, southeast Alaska; Prince William Sound, Alaska; and in
            the eastern Aleutian Islands and portions of the Bering Sea (Darling and McSweeney 1984). Dohl
            (1982) reported several hundred animals feeding off central California. Winter areas in the North
            Pacific include the Bonin, Ryukyu, and Mariana Islands, the main Hawaiian Islands, and along the
            west coast of Baja California and mainland Mexico, near the offshore area of the Revillagigedo
            Islands (Rice 1978). In the western North Atlantic humpbacks feed over the continental shelf and
            along the coast of Iceland, southwestern Greenland; the Newfoundland and Labrador coasts, the
            Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Gulf "of Maine. Feeding areas in the eastern North Atlantic include
            the British Islands north as far as Bear and Spitsbergen islands and as far east as Novaya Zemlya.
            The Lesser Antifles, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic 'are wintering areas
            for the western North Atlantic population. The eastern North Atlantic population winter in areas
            around the Cape Verde Islands, west Africa to southern Morocco (NMFS 199 1). Southern Pacific
            populations of humpbacks interchange between Antarctic feeding grounds and breeding areas
            along the coast of western Australia, Queensland, New Caldonia --'Loyalty Islands -- New
            Hebrides, Fiji and Lau Islands, Tonga, Niue, and the Cook Islands (Winn and Reichlely 1985).
            Populations of southern Atlantic humpbacks winter in coastal areas of Argentina and Brazil,
            Angola, Gabon, Sao Tome and Principe (NMFS 1991).



            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                           Page 35
            and Management Plan







                Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment                     Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                            National Marine Sanctuary

                           iii. Populations and Subunits

                       Observations of marked individuals suggest that major oceanic populations of humpbacks
                are divided into a number of distinct subpopulations which are not separated by obvious
                geographical barriers (Katona and Beard 1990, Baker et. al 1986 and 1990). At present there is no
                way to determine how unique and isolated a population must be before it is considered a "stock."
                Differences in the timing of breeding provide a particularly important criterion for distinguishing
                between populations of humpbacks in the northern and southern hemispheres because they imply
                that a barrier exists to gene flow between these two populations (Dizon et al. 1992).

                       Stocks of whales have been defined by morphological differences of various types: color
                patterns, body size, shape, and skeletal characteristics. Variation in the coloration of humpback
                whales has been used to characterize different stocks in the southern hemisphere (Winn and
                Reichlely 1985)., Researchers have reported that some southern hemisphere humpback whales
                have extensive white lateral coloration. Such extensive white lateral coloration has not been
                reported for northern hemisphere whales (Nishiwaki 1959, Glockner and Venus 1983).

                       Morphological differences between two or more'populations probably representunderlying
                genetic differences, and analyses of DNA and morphology should provide similar evidence (Dizon
                1990). Observations of continued seasonal return of individual whales identified during their first
                year of life suggests that fidelity to a specific feeding ground is the result of the calf s early
                migratory experience (Baker et al. 1987 and 1993, Clapham and Mayo 1987). Matrilineal fidelity
                within feeding groups may enhance cooperative feeding systems. For humpback whales,
                cooperation -during feeding could be optimized by forming a structured stock in which individuals
                feed among closely related individuals but breed among distantly related or unrelated individuals
                (Baker et al. 1986). Patterns of mtDNA and nuclear DNA in North Pacific humpback whales have
                revealed significant differences, particularly among feeding areas (Calainbokidis et al. in press).
                Significant differences were found in rntDNA halotypes between 39 biopsied whales in
                southeastern Alaska and 20 from central California, suggesting the genetic exchange rate between
                California and Alaska to be less than I female per generation (Baker et al. 1990 and 1994,
                Calambokidis et al. in'press, Small and Demaster 1995). These results further suggest that
                population structures among humpback whales appear to be based on matrilinear fidelity to feeding
                areas.

                46     To facilitate management of humpback whale population units, NMFS (199 1) uses the term
                stocks" to refer to groups of whales using geographically distinct winter ranges for reproduction;
                and the term "feeding aggregations" for groups using geographically distinct summer ranges for
                feeding. Some reproductive stocks appear to be comprised of whales from several feeding
                aggregations (Baker et. al 1987, Clapharn and Mayo 1987, NUTS 1991). Thirteen humpback
                whale stocks have been identified worldwide (NMFS 1991, Marine Mammal Commission 1995).
                Four stocks of humpback whales are found seasonally in U.S. waters. These are the western,
                central, and eastern North Pacific stocks and western North Atlantic stock (Marine Mammal
                Commission 1995). Figure H-7 (NUTS, 1991) illustrates the different stocks, their preferred
                summer, wintering, or year around habitats, and general migrations routes.'

                           iv. Habitat Use and Behavior

                               1) Summering areas -- Feeding
                       Humpback whales feed while on the summer range, which is usually located over a
                continental shelf at latitudes between approximately 40* to 75'. Sea surface temperatures may vary
                between very low temperate conditions 2*C near the edge of pack ice in western Greenland at 64N
                to higher temperatures at 2 1 OC about 42*N in Massachusetts Bay (NMFS 199 1).


                Page 36                                                          Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                and Management Plan










                    Oil


           rIl







                                                      Suwwmr distribution                             wintor distribution                           ves"ound

          ,a                                                                                                             GREENLAND
                                                                                                                                               Nwh


                                                                                   ALASKA
                                                          sea ofollhalsk
                                                                       a    sr.                                                                                             -600
                                                                                       um       CANADA
                                                                                      of                           Ca
                                       SOVIET UNION                                                                                                 EUROPE
                                                          46                                          USA
                    Cr                                      JAPAN                                                             mmh                                             400
                    0
                    Fill
                                                A
                                                                    Moth                               0           Lesser
                                                                   piclic
                                                                                0                                                                                           .20,
                                                                                Hawall                                                           AFRICA
                                                        Mariana ft.                                                                                                    ?
                                                                                                                   SOUTH                                                     00
                                                                                                                     AMERICA
                    Cr
                    IN                                                                                                                                                      -200
                    m                              AUSTRALIA
                    pr                                                                  SOWA Peak                                  South Atlantic               Madagascar

                                                   Tosimfga              NEW                                                                                                .400
                                                                          ZEALAND



                                                                                                                                                                              609



                                                ANTARCTIC                                                                                             ANTARCTIC
                                                                                                         ANTARCTIC
                                                                  - ----------
                                                1200W           160*            lfio*          1201-          so*            400             00            40* E
                  OF





                                   W@@7 @ARCM
                                                ANT                                                          V -
                                                                                        ='@@A"TARCTIC



           Uj






              Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment                       Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                             National Marine Sanctuary
                     Humpback whales, engage in a wide variety of feeding behaviors. Observations of feeding
              behavior reported include: bubblenetting (Jurasz and Jurasz 1979, D'vincent et al. 1985, Hain et
              al. 1995), surface rushes and lunge feeding by humpbacks, in the western North Atlantic (Watkins
              and, Schevill 1979), lobtail feeding, and using the water surface as a barrier to prevent the escape of
              prey (Weinrich et al. 1992). Descriptions of feeding behaviors are usually limited to what can be
              observed at or near the surface. Hain et al. (1995) described an, additional behavior of humpback
              whales apparently bottom feeding and prey flushing on burrowed northern sand'lance in
              Stellwagen Bank off Massachusetts. It has been suggested (Jurasz and Jurasz 1979, Watkins and
              Schevill 1979, and Hain et al. 1995) that various prey species or densities elicit different feeding
              strategies and behaviors. For more mobile and evasive species, or for more efficient feeding in
              lower densities, more sophisticated methods may be advantageous.
                     Observations of feeding in wintering areas suggest that feeding may not be entirely
              confined to so-called feeding grounds.        In the northern hemisphere, occasional feeding of
              humpback whales on known breeding grounds has been reported. In the North Atlantic, in Smana
              Bay (Dominican Republic), Baraff et al. (1991) reported feeding behavior by a single animal which
              repeatedly formed bubble clouds and exhibited surface lunges (Gendron and Urban 1993). In the
              North Pacific, one vertical lunge by a subadult humpback whale was observed off Maui, Hawaii
              (Salden 1989). A single humpback whale was also observed bubble-net feeding near the surface
              in the southern portion of the Gulf of California in March 1989 (Gendron and Urban 1993).
              Observations of juvenile humpback whales* feeding near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay was
              reported during the months of January through March 1991 and 1992 (Swingle et al. 1993).
              These observations indicate that humpback whales occasionally feed while on their breeding
              grounds and this opportunistic activity may vary according to locality and food availability.

                             2), Migrations
                     Long distance migrations of humpback whales occur seasonally between low latitu              'de
              wintering areas used for mating and calving and high-latitude feeding areas. Discovery tags used
              by commercial whalers to mark individual whales provided the first direct evidence of connections
              between summer and winter assemblages. However, information obtained from the tags were
              limited and the tags had a tendency to injure or kill the animal (Winn and Reichley 1985). In the
              western North Atlantic and the central and eastern North Pacific it was noted that individual whales
              consistently migrate to one of several discrete coastal regions where they feed during the summer
              and fall. These repeated sightings of photographically identified individuals provided further
              evidence about the beginning and end points of the rrugratory destinations of humpback whales
              (Darling and McSweeney 1984, Baker et. al, 1986, Katona and Beard 1990, and NMFS 199 1).

                     Using observations of peak concentrations of whales along the migratory route, Dawbin
              (1966), estimated that humpback whales migrate at a rate of 15' latitude (900 nautical miles) per
              month. Clapham and Matilla (1990) reported migration speeds for two individuals migrating
              between the Greater Antilles and Massachusetts Bay at a rate of 14.8" and 21' latitude per month.

                             3) Wintering Areas -- Reproduction

                     During the winter months humpback whales congregate to give birth and presumably mate
              in shallow waters near islands and continental coastlines in lower latitudes (usually between about
              Xr and 35* latitude). Sea surface temperatures in these areas vary from 25*C in waters around
              Hawaii (Herman 1979, NMFS 199 1) to 28' C in the West Indies (NMFS 199 1).

                     Female humpbacks produce one calf on average every 2.4 to 2.8 years (Chittleborough
              1965, Baker et. al 1987, Clapham and Mayo 1987). Therefore reproductively active females
              constitute a limiting resource. Males appear to compete for reproductive access to females in
              surface active pods. Competition between males appears to escalate from low-level agonistic

              Page 38                                                             Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                 and Management Plan







         Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                           Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment
         National Marine Sanctuary
         threats and displays to high-level agonism involving physical combat (Tyack and Whitehead 1983,
         Baker and Herman 1984). Social sounds produced during these agonistic pods may function as
         acoustic threats between males (Tyack 1983, Silber 1986). Juveniles presumably do not
         participate in reproductive activities until they reach sexual maturity, usually at age 4 to 6 years.
         Known juveniles have been reported on the outskirts of primarily adult "surface active groups" in
         breeding areas (Matilla et al. 1989, Swingle et al. 1993). Little information though, exists on the
         activities of juveniles during this time.

                Long complex songs produced primarily by lone, relatively stationary males is a common
         occurrence on the breeding grounds and is presumed to be a component of the humpback mating
         system (NMFS 1991, Frankel et al. 1995). The exact function of songs produced by males on the
         wintering ground is not known.

                    v. Natural Mortality

                A review of lite rature for the humpback whale recovery plan (NMFS 1991) revealed how
         little is known about the natural mortality in humpback whale populations. Factors which may
         contribute to natural mortality include parasites, predation, red tide toxins, and ice entrapment
         (NMFS 1991). Claphani and Mayo (1987) suggest it is possible that mortality in humpback
         populations is highest during the time between birth and arrival in high latitudes, and that a calf
         surviving its first few weeks of life has a relatively good chance of reaching sexual maturity.

                b. North Pacific Population of Humpback Whales

                    i. Use of Feeding and Wintering Areas

                In the North Pacific humpback whales feed over the continental shelf and in numerous deep
         water sounds and channels from California along the Pacific rim to Japan (Jurasz and Jurasz 1979,
         Darling and McSweeney 1984). The historic summering range of humpback whales in the North
         Pacific encompasses coastal and inland waters around the Pacific rim from Point Conception,
         California, north to the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea, and west along the Aleutian Islands to
         the Kamchatka Peninsula and into the Sea of Okhotsk (Small and Demaster 1995).

                Humpback whales in'the North Pacific use three primary wintering areas (Rice 1974,
         Johnson and Wolman 1984). These consist of the waters near Mexico, Hawaii, and Japan. In
         Mexico, humpback whales winter off the southern tip of Baja, around the Revillagigedo
         Archipelago, and in coastal areas off mainland Mexico. In Hawaii, humpback whales primarily
         winter in waters less than 100 fathoms deep around the main Hawaiian Islands (Herman and
         Antinoja 1977, Rice and Wolman 1978). In Japan, humpback whales utilize areas near the Bonin
         and Ryukyu Islands (Rice 1978). In addition, Stieger et al. (1991) reported observations of
         humpback whales wintering off the coast of Costa Rica.

                    ii. Abundance and Trends

                The size of the north Pacific humpback whale population was estimated earlier to be
         approximately 10 percent of the species' pre-whaling abundance (Rice 1978, Wolman 1978).
         Prior to the 1970s, most of the information concerning the natural history of humpback whales
         came from harvested specimens primarily in the southern oceans (e.g., Chittleborough 1954,
         1955; Dawbin 1966). During the past two decades the focus of research has shifted to field studies
         of free-ranging specimens aided by the use of natural markings on the flukes to identify
         individuals. Analysis of photographs of these natural markings (primarily variations of black and
         white pigment found on the ventral surface of the flukes) have contributed substantially to the
         understanding of the population structure, social ecology, and reproductive patterns of this species.


         Final Environmental impact Statement                                                            Page 39
         and Management Plan






                Part II: Description of the Affected Environment                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                              National Marine Sanctuary

                       Efforts to estimate the numbers of humpback whales in regions throughout the North
                Pacific Using capture-recapture statistics based on photoidentification is currently underway.
                However, the current abundance estimate is considered unknown because the stock has been
                increasing for the past twelve years (Small and Demaster 1995).

                           iii. Stock Structure

                       Kellogg (1929), using the observations of early whalers, suggested that humpback whales
                in the north Pacific were divided into an American and Asian stock. He proposed that the Asian
                stock wintered in tropical waters south of Japan and traveled north to feeding areas in the Sea of
                Okhotsk and along the Kamchatka Peninsula. The American stock was thought to breed in the
                waters off the west coast of Mexico and travel northward along the coast of North America to
                feeding grounds in the Gulf of Alaska, the Bering Sea, and near the Aleutian Islands. At that time,
                there was no evidence of exchange between the American and Asian stocks. Recently, however,
                Darling (199 1) reported a resight of a humpback whale seen in the waters surrounding Ogasawara,
                Japan, as well as the island of Kauai. Recent analyses of humpback whale songs recorded in the
                wintering grounds off Mexico, Hawaii, and Japan also support the possibility of cross-Pacific
                exchange (Helweg et al. 1993) since some "thirnes" (recurring features of song) were found
                common to all. three wintering, regions. The Hawaiian wintering grounds were apparently not
                known to Kellogg, nor to other authors discussing the north Pacific humpback whales (Nishiwaki
                1966).

                       More recent photographic identification data, focused primarily on the habitats in the central
                and eastern north Pacific, have revealed. patterns of exchange between southern wintering areas in
                Hawaii and Mexico, and northern feeding areas in the waters surrounding the Farallon Islands off
                the central California coast, southeastern Alaska, and western Gulf of Alaska (Perry et al. 1988).
                In contrast to migration from winter to sununer regions, cases of movement from one summer
                feeding area to. another are rare. Based on these patterns of movement, Baker and others (1986)
                proposed that humpback whale groups in the north Pacific arebest described as "structured stocks"
                that consist of several feeding herds which intermingle to breed on one or more wintering grounds.
                The relationship between and among the various stocks of humpback whales has been better
                elucidated by genetic research conducted over the past 10 years (Small and Demaster 1995; Baker
                et al., 1994;.Calombokidis et al., in press). Figure H-8 illustrates the different stocks, their'
                preferred summer, wintering, or year around habitats, and general migration routes in the North
                Pacific.





















                Page 40                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                         Part II: Description of the Affected Environment
              National Marine Sanctuary



                                  f




















                                                                          Wr

                The migratory destinations and population structure of humpback whales in the North Pacific and western North Atlantic
              oceans, based on observations of marked individuals. Regions encircled by a solid line are defined by current observations
              of seasonal return by naturally marked individuals. Regions encircled by a broken line are defined by historical patterns of
              distribution during periods of commercial whaling. Arrows connect seasonal habitats visited by individually identified
              whales but do not necessarily indicate migratory routes. Thick arrows connect regions with known sirong migratory
              interchange and thin arrows connect regions with weak migratory interchange. The broken line connecting Hawaii and
              Mexico indicates the probable presence of an intervening seasonal migration to a feeding ground by individuals sighted on
              both wintergrounds in alternate years (from Baker et al. 1990 and 1993).

              Figure H-8 Humpback whale migration routes and population structure

                            iv. Humpback Whales in Hawaiian Waters

                                  1) Historical Presence

                        Pacific whalers have sighted humpback whales in Hawaiian waters since the 1840's, but'
              there are no written records (from the Western world) of whales existing in Hawaii before this
              time. Herman (1979) suggests that humpback whales may have not "arrived" in Hawaiian waters
              until the mid- 1800's. The Native Hawaiian language does not specifically name humpback whales
              in chants or stories, however, they are known as kohold (Pukui and Elbert 1986). Unlike
              humpbacks, sperm whales (Physter macrocephalus), have long peen part of Native Hawaiian lore
              and are called paldoa. Only the ald (kings) could approach sperm whale carcasses, and the bones
              were used only by the highest chiefs. Spenn whales never became part of the everyday family
              gods (aumakua), possibly because the whales were too large, and 'most family gods were relatively
              the same size as humans. Moreover, whales were never hunted by Native Hawaiians as a major
              source of food, so their importance in sustaining the culture was less than other species which
              were utilized. There is a Native Hawaiian chant of creation called the Kumilipol which mentions
              the kohold as one of the creatures that was created.

                        Over the last 25 years, researchers have noted the tendency for humpback whales to
              congregate in shallow-water banks and island areas during the winter breeding season
              (Chittleborough 1965, Herman and Antinoja 1977) with peak abundance occurring approximately
              between mid-February and mid-March (Baker and Herman 198 1, Herman et al. 1980, Forestell
              and Mobley 199 1). Because humpback whales are not known to extensively feed during the
              winter breeding season (Dawbin 1966, Tomilin 1967), this shallow-water preference is'not likely
              based on prey availability. Other authors have conjectured that: (1) shallow, inshore waters offer
              greater protection from predators such as sharks, which is of particular concern for calves (Baker
              1985); or (2) warmer waters require less of an expenditure of metabolic energy, which is


              Final Environmental impact Statement                                                                                Page 41
              and Management Plan






                Part 11: - Description of the Affected Environment                    Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                              National Marine Sanctuary
                particularly important during a period of fasting (Brodie 1975). There are relatively large expanses
                of shallow water (less than 100 fathoms or 600 feet deep) surrounding the main Hawaiian Islands.

                               2) Reproduction
                       The social behavior of the whales while in the wintering waters is presumably related to
                reproduction, since calves are born during the winter season and gonadal activity in both males and
                females increases in the winter months (Chittleborough 1954, 1955, Nishiwaki 1959). It appears
                that the mating system is polygynous, or promiscuous (Mobley and Herman 1985), characterized
                by complex acoustic displays (i.e., 'songs'), and vigorous physical competition among males.
                Female humpbacks generally give birth to a single calf at two- to four-year intervals (Baker et. al
                1987, Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari 1984, Clapham and Mayo 1987), although some females may
                give birth two years in a row. The calf remains with its mother for approximately one year
                (Chittleborough 1954). Current rates, of neonatal mortality are unknown, but of great importance
                to assessments of the rate of rec:'overy of the species (Perry et al. 1990). Mother-calf pairs are
                frequently accompanied by a third whale, an "escort" (Herman and Antinoja 1977). The escorts
                appear to be consorting with the mother in order to mate with her, and intense aggression' among
                escorts and "intruding" whales has been observed (Tyack and Whitehead 1983, Baker and Herman
                1984, Mobley and Herman 1985). Although not all females ovulate post-partum, enough may do
                so to warrant the attention of males (Herman and Tavolga. 1980, Tyack 1983). It is generally
                difficult to determine the gender of humpback whales in the field, however, in those cases where
                discninnination has been possible, singers and escorts have proven to be males (Glockner-Ferrari
                and Ferrari 1984, Baker and Herman 1984).

                               3) Singing
                       Long, complex "songs," first identified by Payne and McVay (1971) and by Winn and
                Winn (1978) are heard throughout the humpback's winter grounds. Singing peaks during the
                winter months (Helwig 1993). ' Occasionally, songs are heard -in the late fall in high latitudes or
                along the migratory route (Frankel et al. 1995). Songs.consist of a set of themes produced in a
                consistent sequence (Payne and McVay 197 1, Frankel et al. 1995). Within a season, the songs of
                all singers typically have the same sequence of themes. During the season, the song continuously
                evolves as new changes are introduced (Payne and Payne 1985). The exact function of songs
                produced by males on the wintering ground is not known. The singer is normally a lone whale,
                however some whales sing while in groups (Baker and Herman 1984) and some sing while
                swimming (Frankel et al. 1989). Singers have also been observed to stop singing and join with
                cow-calf pairs, and sing while escorting (Tyack 1981, Darling et. al. 1983, Frankel et al. 1989,
                Helweg et al. 1993). Concurrent singing by many whales may be a form of communai'display by
                males (Herman and Tavolga 1980) which, in addition to other functions, may help to synchronize
                ovulation in females with the presence of mature males (Baker and Herman 1984). Sound-
                playback experiments have indicated that songs probably function as an advertisement rather than
                an attractant because playbacks of song rarely produced approach by whales. Other sounds that
                may indicate the presence of a female (Alaskan feeding call and Hawaiian social sounds) were
                more likely to cause whales to approach the playback source (Tyack 1983, Mobley et al. 1988).

                       Current studies of humpback song by Frankel and others (1989) modeled on the
                procedures developed by Clark, Ellison, and Beeman (1986), utilize a linear array of hydrophones
                to track vocalizing whales (singers) by their sounds (Frankel et al. 1989). Recent findings from
                acoustic-array work suggest that the initial distance between singers is one determinant of whether
                other singers will increase, decrease, or maintain their separation distance (Helweg et al. 1993).
                These results indicate that maintaining spacing among males is one function of song, as first
                suggested by Winn and Winn (1978), and that the biologically effective distance of song -is
                approximately 6 km (Frankel et al. 1991). Based on a review of accumulated evidence it has been
                proposed that a dual function of song is that it serves to establish spacing among individual singers

                Page 42                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan







             Hawaiian Islands Humpback.Whale                               Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment
             National Marine Sanctuary

             approxima  tely 6 km (Frankel et. al., 199 1). Based on a review of accumulated evidence it has been
             proposed that a dual function of song is that it serves to establish spacing among individual singers
             and as a means of advertisement to females (Helweg et. al. 1993). Data collected by Frankel et. al.
             (1995) using passive acoustic location techniques in combination with more traditional visual
             techniques to study humpback whale behavior on the wintering grounds of Hawaii, appears to
             support this hypothesis. The separation distance between singers (mean 5.1 km) was found to be
             significantly -greater than that between nonsinging singletons (mean 2. 1 km), supporting the
             hypothesis that- song functions to maintain spacing between singers (Frankel et. al. 1995).

                             4) Humpback Whale Distribution

                     Earlier aerial surveys (Herman et. al. 1980, Baker and Herman 1981, Forestell 1989,
             Mobley and Bauer 1991, Forestell and Mobley 1991) suggested that the majority of humpback
             whales were found in the shallow waters (<100 fathoms) of the main Hawaiian Islands, though
             extensive surveys in deeper waters were not conducted. Analyses of pod locations in thefour-
             islands and Penguin Bank regions revealed that whales were not distributed homogeneously
             throughout the 100-fathom isobath but were generally found in more shallow water (modal
             depth=27 fathoms) (Forsyth et. al. 1991). More recent surveys have concentrated in waters
             exceeding 100 fathoms and have found that approximately 74 percent of all humpback whales are
             found within the 100-fathorn isobath (Mobley et. al. 1993) (Figure 11-9). The fact that 26 percent
             of all sightings were in deep waters suggests that past surveys, with efforts concentrated in waters
             less than 100 fathoms, may have underestimated the number of whales present.




                                                                             1903 AerW Survey
                                                             Locations of all humpbadc whale pods sighted

                   2r -








                   210-








                   20@ -












                   161*W          1600           1590          1586           Isr           Ise*          155*

         IFigure U-9 Results of statewide 1993 humpback                      whale survey       (Mobley et al. 1993)

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                  Page 43
             and Management Plan






                Part II: Description of the Affected Environment                    Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                            National Marine Sanctuary
                       The earlier surveys (1977-80) showed wintering humpbacks to be concentrated in the
                waters of the four-islands and*Penguin Bank regions (Herman and Antinoja 1977, Herman et al.
                1980, Baker and Herman 1981). The majority of pods containing calves were also found in these
                areas (Figure II-10). Replication of this earlier effort during the 1990 season (Mobley and Bauer
                1991) showed that these regions were still preferred by adults and calves, but revealed
                substantially increased sighting rates around the islands of Niihau and Kauai (Figure II-11).
                Densities of calf pods around the Kauai/Niihau region remained low, however, with only the Oahu
                island region lower among the total of five regions. Arranged in order of decreasing sighting rates
                those islands as follows: Penguin Bank, four-islands region, Kauai/Niihau, Hawaii, and Oahu.



                               1990 SURVEY RESULTS
                                  (Cad Pods Only)                       CHANGE IN WHALE DENSITY
                                                                         (1990 Rats - 19"-80 Rob)

                                                                                                     VASd






                         adw





                                                   1AW                                                    MwA






                                 "aid
                                                                                                     CHANNIN
                                             CMPDVUM                                               WALE


                                                 as - 1.0
                                                 1.1                                            40          1.1 zo
                                                                                                  30-1



                Figure II-10 (Mobley & Bauer'         1991)          Figure II-11 (Mobley       &  Bauer   1991)

                       The 1993 aerial survey results support the findings of earlier surveys   with -regard to the
                descriptions of inshore waters as preferred habitat for humpback whales (Herman and Antinoja,
                1977, Herman et al. 1980). Figures H- 12 through 11- 15 show all 1993 and 1995 humpback whale
                sightings by region and by year (Mobley et al. 1996). The number of humpback whale sitings
                doubled from 1993 to 1995. This difference is more than expected based on the 39% increase in
                effort during 1995 (primarily in the vicinity around Kahoolawe), and also may be due, in part, to
                better seastate conditions during the 1995 survey (Mobley pers. comm.). As shown, there is a
                clear preference for inshore waters less than 100 fathoms in depth, despite more recent efforts to
                locate whales in deeper waters (Mobley et al., in press). Dunng the 1993 aerial survey, 74 percent
                of all humpback whale sightings occurred in waters less than 100 fathoms, with only 20 percent of
                effort within this depth stratum -(Mobley et al. 1994). The fact that the remaining 26 percent of
                humpback whales were found in deeper water suggest that earlier surveys which primarily
                surveyed waters less than 100 fathoms likely undercounted the wintering population (Mobley et al.
                1994). Information on the use of habitat areas within the @_Iawaiian Islands by humpback whales is
                described below.





                Page 44                                                          Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                and Management Plan






               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                             Part II: Description of the Affected Environment
               National Marine Sanctuary


                                     16030         16015        16000         15945          15930       15915         1590 .0

                                                                                                                            2230
                            2230       1993




                                                                                                                            2215
                            2215





                                                                                                                            2200
                            2200





                                                                                                                            2145
                            2145




                            2130                                                                                            21  30


                                     16030         16015        16000         15945         15930        15915         15900

                                     16030         16015        16000         15945         15930        15915         15900


                            2230 -                                                                                          2230
                                       1996
                                                                                            7




                                                                                                                            2215
                            2215



                                                                          7

                                                                                                                            2200
                            2200





                                                                                                                            2145
                            2145





                                                                                                                            2130
                            2130


                                     16030         16015        16000         15945          15930       15915         15900
                                 Figure 1. Humpback whale sightings (asterisks) and aerial survey
                                         effort (dots) for 1993 and 1995, Kauai area.
                Figure 11-12 Humpback whale sightings for 1993 and 1995 (Mobley et al. 1996)



                Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                                      Page 45
                and Management Plan







                        Part II: Description of the Affected Environment                                                             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                                                                National Marine Sanctuary





                                               R1










                                                                                                            :7









                                                                                                                ............... ..

                                                                                                          ............     ...

                                                                                                        .. . . . . . . . ..





                                                         ...... ........










                                                                                                                                                                      ï¿½R










                                                                                                                                                                      IV

                                                                                                                                                                      CM










                                                                                                                                                                      06

                                                                                                                                             C2

                                                                                                                                                                      C4

                                  tL,
                                                                                                                     v6                                               U.
                                                                                                                     c14


                     Figure 11-13               Humpback whale sightings for 1993 and 1995 (Mobley et al. 1996),,


                      Page 46                                                                                                  Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                                                      and Management Plan






                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                           Part IL Description of the Affected Environment
                National Marine Sanctuary


                                                 15715      15700     15645     15630       15615     15600,     15545


                                     2130                                                             1993           21JO



                                     2115                                                                            2115




                                     2100
                                                                                                                     2100




                                     2045
                                                                                                                     2045
                                                                                     MEW


                                     2030                                                                            2030



                                     2015                                                                            2015


                                                15715      15700     15645      15630      15615     15600       15545

                                                15715      15700     15645      15630      15615     15600      15545



                                                                                                      1996
                                     2130                   ..........                                               2130



                                     2115
                                                                                                                     2115




                                     2100 -                                                                          2100



                                     2045                                                                            2045
                                                                                       -91A A' I



                                     2030
                                                                                                                     2030



                                                                               4.
                                     2015                                                                            2015


                                                15715     15700      15645     15630       15615    15600       15545.

                                          Figure 3. Humpbackwhale sightings (asterisks) and     'aerial survey
                                                effort (dots) for 1993 and 1995, Four Island area. ,
                Figure 11-14 Humpback whale sightings for 1993 and 1995                                        (Mobley et al. 1996)


                Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                                     Page 147
                and Management Plan





                    Part II: Description of the Affected Environment                                          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                                       National Marine Sanctuary


                                                   15630            15600         15530          15500

                                                                 ............ ....... ------
                                                         3 @-4m@          I%
                                            2030                                                 1993               2030







                                                                                 ff -t
                                            2000                                                                    2000






                                                          ...........
                                            1930
                                                                                                                    1930






                                            1900                                                                   1900






                                                  15630          15600          15530           15500

                                                  15630          15600          15530           15500



                                           2030     V                                           1995               2030




                                                                                                 -A
                                           2000                                                                    2000




                                                                                        -R,

                                           1930
                                                                                                                   1930



                                                                              -?XR-

                                                                        9mv

                                           1900                                                                   1900






                                                 15630          15600          15530           15500

                                               Figure 4. Humpback whale sightings (asterisks) and aerial survey
                                                      effort (dots) for 1993 and 1995, Big Island area.
                   [Figure 11-15 Humpback whale sightings for 1993 and 1995 (Mobley et al. 1996)



                    Page 48                                                                               Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                             and Management Plan






           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                           Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment
           National Marine Sanctuary

                          5) Humpback Whale Cow-Calf Distribution

                   Mobley et al. (in press) reports that calves comprised only 5.2 percent of all whales seen i n
           1993 and 4.5 percent of all whale's seen in 1995. This is lower than the typical 7-8 percent
           reported in previous surveys (Herman and Antinqja 1977, Herman et al. 1980, Mobley and Bauer
           1991).    During the 1990 aerial surveys, all pods sighted were orbited to determine pod
           composition. For this reason, the 1990 results provide a more reliable indication of the number of
           calves present in recent years, as well as the regions preferred by pods with calves (Figure 11- 10).
           Of the 361 whale pods observed (where pod composition could be confirmed), 79 (22 percent)
           contained calves. Sixty-eight percent of all calf pods observed were seen in the four-islands and
           Penguin Bank regions. Based on these data, Mobley and Bauer (1991) described these regions as
           preferred calving grounds, probably because of the greater expanses of available shallow water
           (less than 100-fathoms). During 1993 and 1995 few pods were orbited to confirm pod
           composition and it is likely that calf pods may have been undercounted during these surveys
           (Mobley et al. in press) (Tables 11-3 and 114).
            Table 11-3:     Calf    od Sightings by Su7vey and egion --- All Sightings T1993)
                                                                     Region
                   Survey             Kauai/       Oahu       Penguin        Four         Big         Total
                                      Niihau                     Bank        Island      Island.
                      1                   3           0           0            4            3           10
                      2                   0           0           3            5            0           8
                      3                   1           0        __0             3            1           5
                      4                   1           1           6            5            0           13
                   Totals                 5           1           9            17           4           36
           Source: 1993 AT07Report, Page 15.
            Table 11-4:     Calf Pod Sightings by       Survey and     Region '-- All SightinFs" (1995)
                                                                     Region
                   Survey             Kauai/       Oahu       Plenguin       Four         Big         Total
                                      Niihau                     Bank        Island      Island
                                          1           0           2            6            2           11
                      2                   3           0           2            16           1           22
                      3                   3           2     1     4      1     8      1     1           18
                      4                   1           5,    1                                             2
                   Totals                 8           7     1     8            35     1     5           63
            Source: Mobley, pers. comm.

            Note: When density of calf pod sighting is       used (whales/nautical mile surveyed) then       both
            Penguin Bank and the Four Island region show the highest density of calf pods (Mobley, pers.
            comm.).

                           6) Habitat Use

                   Humpback whales are coastal species while on their wintering grounds (Herman and
           Antinoja 1977). Highest densities of whales and calves are typically reported in the four island
           area (Maui, Molokai, Kahoolawe, and Lanai) and Penguin Bank (Herman and Antinoja 1977,
           Herman et al. 1980, Baker and Herman 1981). Forsyth et al. (1991) found that          .whales in the
           Penguin Bank and Maui regions were located at a mean depth of 51.4 fathoms. Recent aerial
           survey data showed that 74 percent of all pods were seen in waters less than 100 fathoms deep
           (Mobley et al. 1993).


           Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                           Page 49
           and Management Plan





         Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment                     Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                     National Marine Sanctuary

                Previous studies also suggest humpback cows with a calf appear to predominate in
         shallow, generally sheltered or coastal water, while adults occur mostly in deeper, more exposed
         water (Herman et al. 1980, )Whitehead and Moore 1982, Matilla and Clapham 1989). Data
         collected near the Big Island during 1988 and 1989 suggest that temporal and spatial distributions
         of whales differed with group size and composition (Smultea 1994). During afternoon hours and
         throughout the day late in the- breeding season, groups containing a calf occurred in significantly
         'Shallower water and nearer to shore than did groups without a calf. Between-group distances were
         also found to be significantly greater for groups with a calf than distances between all other
         groups. These temporal and spatial differences may suggest that adults without a calf may use
         deep water to facilitate breeding behavior while maternal females may use shallower water to avoid
         harassment and injury to calves from sexually active males, turbulent offshore or deep sea
         conditions, or predators (Smultea 1994). Adults may prefer deep water to facilitate surface-active
         breeding behavior and propagation of song. Frankel et al. (1995) found that 50 percent of singers
         were located in water deeper than 100 fathoms suggesting that the proportion of singers found in
         deep water is higher than for other classes of whales. Claoham et al. (1992) reported that mature
         females, probably estrous, or pre-estrous, can be reliably found in large surface active or
         combative pods farther offshore than mothers and calves. Therefore, Frankel et al. (1995)
         suggests that the region frequented by mature females without calves contains the prime singing
         areas.


                Movement of humpback whales among different sub-areas within a wintering ground
         appears extensive, although the pattern and extent of this movement is unknown for whales
         wintering off the Hawaiian Islands. Earlier reports from aerial surveys over the islands of Hawaii,
         Maui, Molokai, Oahu, and Kauai (Baker and Herman 1981) found peak abundance off each island
         was staggered temporally through the season from Hawaii to Oahu. These studies 'concluded that
         whales moved through the islands in a general northwesterly direction starting from the island of
         Hawaii. However, timing of peak abundance off Kauai was anomalous from the overall trend and
         appeared to be independent from the other islands. Baker and Herman (1981) suggested that
         Kauai might therefore represent a semi-isolated sub-population,* with the deep 125 mile-wide Kauai
         Channel acting as a partial barrier between Kauai and the other islands (Cerchio in press). Six
         individual whales moved from Hawaii to the Maui region and one from Maui to Oahu, supporting.
         a general northwest. movement trend (Baker and Herman 1981). Darling and Morowitz (1986)
         reported five cases of whales moving from Maui to Hawaii, refuting a northwest trend, and
         presented evidence suggesting that the majority of the population was present off Maui through the
         peak season. More recent studies of movements of whales between Hawaii and Kauai between
         1989 and 1991 photographically identified 1,702 individuals, with 40 individuals being captured
         off both islands including 15 cases of within-year recaptures (Cerchio et al. 1991, Cerchio in
         press). Of the 15 documented transits between islands, nine whales traveled northwest from
         Hawaii to Kauai and six whales traveled southeast, originating off Kauai suggesting a similar
         degree of movement in both directions (Cerchio in press). More scientific research is needed to
         determine the extent of inter-island movement in Hawaii.

                        7) Abundance Estimates

                Of the known wintering and summering areas of humpback whales in the north Pacific, the
         Hawaiian Islands are considered to contain the largest seasonally-resident population. Earlier
         shipboard surveys of the coastal waters of the Hawaiian Islands by NMFS during the winter
         seasons of 1976-79 (Rice 1978; Wolman 1978) produced estimates of between 550-790 whales
         (mean estimate 650). More recently, mark and recapture techniques have been applied to analyses
         of fluke identification photographs that estimated 1,407 whales (95 percent confidence limits 1, 113
         and 1,701) as having visited the Hawaiian Islands during a four-year period, from 1980 to 1983
         (Baker and Herman 1987; NMFS 199 1). Because these estimates were produced using different
         abundance estimation techniques, they are not directly comparable and, therefore, cannot be relied
         on to suggest population increase.
         @age 50                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                         and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                               Part II: Description of the Affected Environment
              National Marine Sanctuary


                      Mobley. and Bauer (1991), comparing sighting rates of pods seen in the winter seasons of
              1977-80 with those seen in 1990 using identical methods, found significant increases across the
              10 to 13-year period. The authors concluded that either there had been an increase in the size of the
              north Pacific population, or that a greater proportion of the north Pacific population is wintering in.
              Hawaiian waters.

                      Aerial surveys performed during the 1991 season by Forestell. and Mobley (1991) using
              m odified line transect methods, estimated that 1,584 whales were present in coastal Hawaiian
              waters on the peak date for that season (Feb. 22, 199 1). This survey series, however, was limited
              primarily to waters within the 100-fathorn isobath.

                      The results of the 1993 survey series yielded an abundance estimate of 669 whales, with a
              confidence interval of 536-835 (Mobley et al. 1993). This estimate refers to the number of animals
              that were likely to be at the surface at the time of survey, but does not reflect the number of whales
              below the surface. Shore station results taken from a sample of over 600 surfacings from the north
              shore of Kauai (1993 Acoustic Thermomeiry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) Marine Mammal Research
              Project, unpublished data] show whales to be at the surface 19 percent of the time. The study
              estimates the population as roughly 3,000 whales, although this estimate- may vary pending more
              reliable estimates of whale surface time.

                      c. Known and Potential Impact& to Central North Pacific Stock

                      Human activities and projects can directly affect humpback             whale behavior through
              physical disturbance, and indirectly through habitat modification by,          e.g., reducing the water
              quality. Scientists generally agree that human activities, in water depths of 60 m to 100 m, can be
              disruptive to whale behavior (Tinney 1988). The extent of the disturbance depends on the
              location, type, and frequency of the activity. The scientific community is not in full agreement on
              the extent of these impacts because there is limited empirical data.

                      The Humpback Whale Final Recovery Plan (NMFS 199 1) notes that the known and
              potential impacts of human activities on whales in the Pacific include subsistence hunting,
              incidental entrapment or entanglement in fi&hing gear, collision with ships, and disturbance or
              displacement caused by noise and other factors associated with shipping, recreational boating,
              high-speed thrill craft, whale watching, air traffic, or nearshore or in-shore construction. The
              report also states that "introduction and/or persistence of pollutants and pathogens from waste
              disposal; disturbance and/or pollution from oil, gas or other mineral exploration and production;
              habitat degradation or loss assoc  iiated with coastal development-, and competition with fisheries for
              prey species..." have negative impacts on whales as well (NMFS 1991).

                          i. Entrapment and Entanglement in Fishing Gear or Mooring Lines

                      Impacts of fishing, in terms of competition for prey species, may only be a concern in areas
              where humpback whales feed, such as Alaska. Entanglement is a less likely conflict in areas
              where whales are not known to feed such as Hawaii. In Hawaiian waters deeper than 20 m,
              fishermen do not regularly use large nets. There is Ao trawling or drift gill netting allowed in
              Hawaiian waters. As a result, there have been few reported cases in Hawaii of humpback
              entanglement in fishing nets. Only a few reports of humpback whale entanglements in fishing gear
              are known (G. Nitta, 1994, pers. comm.). In one case a mother and calf were entangled in a
              shore-deployed float line. Both were released alive by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). Another
              humpback was recorded entangled in a long line gear north of the Hawaiian Archipelago.
              Humpback entanglement in mooring buoy lines has been observed in at least two instances. In one
              case, a humpback whale was found by PMRF staff off Kauai entangled in a mooring buoy, but
              was cut loose and released unharmed by the Navy. During the 1995 winter season, a juvenile

              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                Page 51
              and Management Plan






                Part IL Description of the Affected Environment                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                            National Marine Sanctuary
                humpback was cut loose from mooring lines off Kihei, Maui       by the USCG. After release, the
                injured whale remained in the nearshore area and was subsequently attacked and killed by several
                tiger sharks (G. Nitta and A. Tom, pers.. comm.). In 1996, several reports of humpback whale
                entanglements occured during the whale watch season in the waters off Kauai and the Big Island
                (A. Tom, pers. Comm.).

                            ii. Collisions with Ships
                        As ships get larger and faster, and if the numbers of vessels increase, the incidence of
                encounters can be expected to increase (NMFS 1991). Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari (1987) note
                that the number of physical injuries to calves, juveniles, and adult humpback whales as a result'of
                collisions with boats has increased in Hawaiian waters. It has also been noted that humpbacks
                seem less likely to react overtly to vessels when actively feeding than when resting or engaged in
                other activities (Krieger and Wing 1984, 1986). If such whales either accommodate to disturbance
                (Beach and Weinrich 1989) or pay less attention to ships when actively feeding they would have
                increased risk of collision. In the spring of 1996, a humpback whale calf was reportedly struck
                and killed by a unknown vessel off the west Oahu coast (G. Nitta pers. comm.).

                            iii. Acoustic Disturbance

                        Noise has also been identified as a potential disturbance to whales (Tinney 1988; Bauer and
                Herman 1986; Atkins and Swartz 1988). The impact of noise depends on three factors: loudness,
                frequency (tonal pitch), and continuity (noise changes in frequency or direction). Myberg (1990)
                stated that the responses of whales to noise in general varied a6cording to ambient noise, ongoing
                activity, and individual species. Studies in Alaska have shown that erratic noises are particularly
                ,disturbing to whales (Tinney 1988).

                                1) Disturbance and noise from ships,  boats, and aircraft.

                        Scientists have observed whales to avoid low-flying aircraft and surface vessels and areas
                near dense human habitation or disturbance (Herman et al. 1980; Tinney 1988). Tinney noted that
                commercial whale-watching, jet skiing, boating, aircraft operations, military activities, and
                scientific research can all elicit behavioral responses in whales. Responses to overflights by
                cetaceans may include visually tracking the aircraft and can result in premature diving, swimming
                away from the disturbance, and adults protecting the young by getting between the disturbance and
                the calf (Tinney 1988). The avoidance to aircraft and boats can be in response to the noise that
                boats or aiawaft produce or their physical pre *sence or motion. Studies have shown that whales
                phonate at ranges of 12 Hz to 30 kHz (Tmney 1988). Such a range overlaps with those sounds
                produced by aircraft and has the potential for masking normal sounds produced by whales. The
                severity of reaction varies across species and with environmental conditions, such as the depth of
                water and the wave conditions. The shallower the water, the more likely the sound is going to be
                reflected from the bottom, and the longer it is propagated and perceived by the whales. At angels
                greater than 13* from the vertical, much of the incident sound may not be heard underwater,
                especially in calm conditions or deep water since most will be reflected. Rougher seas provide
                water surfaces at angles more conducive for sound propagation (Richardson et al. 1995).

                        Responses of humpback whales to overflights are varied. Shallenberger (1978, in
                Richardson et al. 1985) has observed disturbances provoked by aircraft circling at 305 m but none
                at 152 m. The size of. the group of whales may be related to the response to an overflight: single
                whales and small groups showed fewer defensive responses than larger groups (Herman et al.
                1980 in Richardson et al 1995).* Groups composed of all adults tended to engage in evasive
                maneuvers while adults surrounded    'calves in mixed age pods. Defensive behavior included bubble
                blowing, protective movements by mothers toward calves, and threatening tail movements (Bauer
                and Herman 1986).

                Page 52                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                 and Management Plan






          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                             Part U: Description of the Affected Environment
          National Marine Sanctuary


                 Concern over the impacts of boating activities on whales has been growing since a 1977
          report by Wolman and Jurasz. Another study (Herman et al. 1980) indicates that human activities
          may influence distribution of whales in Hawaii. On rare occasions humpback whales reportedly
          "charged" toward the boat and "screamed" underwater, apparently as a threat (Payne 1978).
          Concerns over vessel and whale interaction centers on two questions: (1) what is the immediate
          response by whales to an approaching boat?, and (2) what are the long term changes to distribution
          and abundance patterns of the entire whale population from boating activities?

                 The effects of vessel traffic on whale behavior have been shown directly using shore
          station observation of whales at varying distances from vessels (Bauer 1986; Baker et al. 1982;
          Baker et al. 1983), as well as indirectly through demonstrations of negative distributional effects
          with vessels based on aerial survey results. Bauer (1986), observing whales in the waters off
          Maui, examined a variety of behavioral variables and found changes in respiration rates, dive
          times, and general activity levels with increasing proximity of vessels. Baker and others (1982,
          1983; Baker and Herman 1989) noted similar responses in southeastern Alaskan waters and
          showed patterns of "horizontal avoidance" (i.e., faster swimming with fewer dives) when vessels
          were 2,000 in to 4,000 m a*way, and "vertical avoidance" (i.e., longer dive times) when vessels
          were from 0 in to 2000 in away. Although, these studies did not indicate how long these
          behavioral changes persisted.

                 Forestell (et al. 1990) states, "there are reliable data which indicate that unpredictable, high-
          speed movement of any motorized vessel within 0.4 kin of whales may cause short-term changes
          in behavior, such as respiration rate or movement direction". The same study confirms that
          humpback whales avoid the Lahaina area of Maui, "in all likelihood because of the density of
          human activity" (Forestell et al. 1990). Several studies in the Hawaiian wintering grounds suggest
          that mother-calf pairs became proportionately less frequent close to shore when recreational boating
          was increasing (Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari 1985, 1990; SaIden 1988). Although, these studies
          were not able to determine.whether the link with boats was causal.

                 Reactions of humpbacks to vessels vary considerably and there is presently no indication
          that any one type of boat has a greater effect on whales, except possibly large vessels, such as
          cruise ships (Baker et al. 1983); large military or seismographic vessels (Tyack 1989); or the small
          and highly maneuverable thrillcraft (Green 1990).

                          2) Commercial Whale Watching Boats and Research Boats
                 Since whale watch trips and scientific research trips frequently operate at locations where
          humpback whales aggregate for feeding or reproduction, it could be feared that such activities
          might displace whales from important habitat. This does not appear to have happened during more
          than a decade of intensive commercial whale watching near Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts (NMFS
          1991). Humpbacks remain there for extended periods and return annually, despite exposure to
          many ships, fishing vessels, and whalew@tching boats (Beach and Weinrich 1989; Clapharn et al.
          1993). Humpbacks that are approached slowly and steadily, following established guidelines for
          whalewatching, show no "adverse reactions". However, those approached within <30m, or via
          aggressive boat maneuvers, show various changes in behavior (Richardson et al. 1995). Watkins
          (1986) noted that humpba&s in this area have become less responsive to vessels since
          whalewatching became common, but they tend to be silent when near boats. Recently, some
          hurripbacks, mainly young animals' have begun to approach slow-moving whalewatch vessels.
          Some occur in busy shipping lanes, and some are struck by vessels (Richardson et al. 1995).- The,
          situation as described above, however, may be different in Hawaii and the cumulative effects of
          whalewatch boats, scientific research boats, recreational, and commercial boat traffic on humpback
          whales needs to be assessed. To provide for better protection for humpback whales and to
          minimize effects of increasing vessel traffic on humpback whales in Hawaiian waters, NMFS

          Final Environmental Imp4ct Statement                                                              Page 53
          and Management Plan






               Part H: Description of the Affected Environment                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                           National Marine Sanctuary

               published a interim rule in 1987, under the ESA (52 FR 44912) establishing a 100-yard approach
               limit for vessels (or people), a 300-yard vessel approach limit in cow/calf areas, and a 1000-foot
               overflight limit. A final rule was published by NMFS in January 1995 (60 FR 3375) which
               retained the 100-yard vessel approach limit and 1000-foot overflight limit, but eliminated the cow-
               calf areas and the 300-yard distance requirement.

                              3) Noise from Industrial Activities (Construction. and Dredging)

                      Construction activities in the water or at or near the water's edge may cause whales to
               abandon an area (Shallenberger 1978; Herman 1979). Water-dependent construction activities
               frequently involve loud noises or vibrations associated with blasting, dredging, and filling which
               could result in displacement, injury, or mortality of humpback whales (Townsend 1991; NMFS
               199 1). Turbidity, and the discharge of pollutants or resuspension of other. sediments may result
               from these activities as well. While the actual physical loss of habitat may be small in comparison
               to the total habitat available, secondary effects associated with harbors, ramps, moorings, and
               hotels; development of tourism focusing on watching whales; degradation of water quality
               resulting from - increased surface runoff (agricultural, industrial, and residential); and sewage
               effluent from land and vessels, may likely have irreversible consequences on the distribution and
               -reproductive success of humpback'whales (Nitta and Naughton, 1989). These nearshore activities
               may especially affect cows and newborn calves who may be found in waters less than 10 fathoms
               deep.

                              4) Sonars

                      Ships and larger boats routinely use fathometers, and powerful side-looking sonars are
               common on many military, fishing, and bottom-survey vessels.            Use of active sonars in
               commercial whaling after World War II often caused* strong avoidance by baleen whales
               (Richardson et al. 1995). The emitted pulses reportedly tended to scare baleen whales to the
               surface (Reeves 1992). Reactions to 3.3 kHz sonar pulses caused wintering humpbacks whales to
               move away, and 3. 1 -to 3.6 kHz sonar sweeps increased swimming speeds and track linearity
               (Maybaurn 1990, 1993). Watkins (1986) states humpback whales. often react to sounds at
               frequencies from 15 Hz to 28 kHz, but not to pingers and sonars at 36 kHz and above. It should
               be noted that these short-term observations @provide no information about long-term effects on
               whales.

                              5) Explosions

                      Underwater explosions are common during marine construction and demolition, and during
               some military operations. Little is known about behavior of humpback whales near explosions.
               Recently, humpbacks in a Newfoundland inlet was exposed repeatedly to large explosions in
               subbottom rock (Richardson et al. 1995). Charge size was usually 200-2000 kg. Humpbacks
               were common within 10 km of the blast site. Whales -2 Ian from the blasts showed no obvious
               reactions. It is not known whether the nonresponsive whales had habituated before observations,
               began, or if any of them had suffered hearing damage. However, two dead humpback whales
               with severe -mechanical, damage to the ears were found near the blast site. The two whales
               probably were killed by the blasts, but it is not knowhow close they were to the explosions.

                              6) - Acoustic Ocean Science Studies

                      Acoustical oceanographers and other underwater acousticians project nonexplosive low
               frequency sounds into the sea to study sound propagation and ocean properties affecting
               propagation. , This type of work has been done for many years. Recently, it has become
               controversial because of the possible effect's on marine mammals. Few specific data are available
               on reactions of marine mammals to these sounds. When low frequency sounds are used for ocean

               Page 54                                                          Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                               and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                            Part II: Description of the Affected Environment
            National Marine Sanctuary

            science research, they are usually projected into the deep sound channel, where propagation is
            efficient (Richardson et al. 1995). During the Heard Island Feasibility Test in the southern Indian
            Ocean sighting rates for medium and larger-sized whales, mainly pilot, beaked, and balaenopterid
            whales were lower during than before transmissions. The transmitted sounds may have elicited
            avoidance by some whales, especially beaked whales and especially in the area visible from the
            source vessel itself. Sperm and pilot whales ceased calling within 36 hours after transmissions
            ended. Some large whales however, remained in the general area during transmissions. Reactions
            of marine mammals during the,low frequency sound transmissions during the Heard Island
            Feasibility Test were considered inconclusive due to low sample size, lack of, statistically
            significant differences, and inability to determine if whales werereacting to the ships in addition to
            r@acting to the transmitted sounds (Richardson et al. 1995).
                   More recently, scientists at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute have proposed a new
            acoustic project called Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) in the Pacific Ocean. The
            ATOC program involves sending acoustic signals from two transducers, one located in the vicinity
            of the Pioneer Searriount off the coast of California, and the other to be located off the north shore
            of Kauai. By receiving these signals at passive listening arrays located around the Pacific Rim, the
            average temperature of deep-ocean water,columns can be calculated. According to scientists at
            Scripps, if global warming is a reality, the temperature of the ocean will reveal it more reliably than
            monitoring atmospheric temperature differences.'The California ATOC source has been operating
            since October, 1995, and the Kauai source is scheduled to commence operations sometime this
            fall. A Marine Mammal Research Program (MU@VIRP) was set up by Scripps to investigate the
            effects of the low-ft-equency sounds produced by ATOC on marine mammals. The purpose of the
            ATOC MMRP, designed to be Independent of the ATOC project, is to determine: a) the baseline
            abundance, distribution and behavior of marine mammals in the vicinity of the ATOC source (with
            special focus on endangered humpback whales); and b) whether the ATOC transmissions produce
            any changes in these parameters. The ATOC MMRP has brought together some of the most
            experienced marine mammal scientists in the country to focus on these. assessments. Research will
            be carried out for the next several years. These studies should provide important data on the
            effects of low-ftequency noise onmarine mammals.

                       v. Habitat Degradation

                           1) Chemical po   llution (point and non-opoint)

                   The overall impact of pollution on habitats used by humpback whale is not known. Water
            quality degradation resulting from increased sewage effluent (containing toxic materials or daughter
            products from pesticides, heavy metals or chlorines),   pollutants (toxins, heavy metals, pesticides,
            pathogens) associated with surface runoff (agriculture, industrial, and residential), and the leaching
            of vessel hull anti-fouling compounds in enclosed harbors (e.g., tributyltin) may adversely affect
            the distribution and physical well-being of humpback whales using nearshore waters (Nitta and
            Naughton 1989). These pollutants, in high enough concentrations, may affect the health of the
            whales (UH Sea Grant, 1994). Untreated sewage dumped from vessel holding tanks and pumped
            from municipal outfall during periods of overflow, such as storms and plant malfunctions, are
            sources of many infectious agents, viral, bacterial,and mycotic, to which cetaceans have shown a
            definite susceptibility (Dailey, 1985).       Although specific data from Hawaii are absent,
            concentrations of organochlorine pesticides, heavy metals, and PCB's have been reported - in
            humpback'whale tissues from Canadian, United States, and Caribbean waters (Taruski et al.,
            1975). In addition to the Humpback Whale Recovery.Plan, other researchers agree that pollution
            from ships or shore can be a problem for whales (Tinney 1988). Additional concerns include
            pollution from cruise ships, military activities, use of driftnets, development of geothermal energy,
            sand mining activities, and development of harbors and resort facilities (Forestell et al. 1990).



            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                            Page 55
            and Management Plan






        Part II: Description of the Affected Environment                     Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                    National Marine Sanctuary

                       2) Habitat Disturbance
                Scientific studies have indicated some general tendencies of whales to avoid areas of dense
        human habitation, such as Oahu, and the area of Maui around Lahaina. (Herman et al. 1980 and
        Forestell and Brown, 1992). The surveys of Herman, Forestell, and Antinoja (1980) also showed
        sudden decreases in whale density for the waters off Lahaina Roadstead, an area of heavy vessel
        utilization. Forestell (1989) noted the same negative distributional trend for the Lahaina area as
        well as the waters adjoining the Keawakapu boat ramp on the Kihei coast of Maui during the 1985
        breeding season.
                Comparisons between earlier aerial surveys (1977-*80) with those of 1990 offer mixed
        evidence regarding vessel effects (Mobley and Bauer 1991).            Sighting rates (number of
        whales/hour of survey) increased in the majority of subregions examined across the 10- to 13-year
        period, including those areas previously described as showing negative distributional effects
        (waters off Lahaina and Kaanapali); however, those regions showing the greatest increases from
        the 1977-80 to the 1990 surveys were all characterized as leeward areas with low levels of vessel
        traffic (Mobley and Bauer 1991). Mobley and Bauer hypothesized a "spill over" effect into these
        less utilized coastal regions, suggesting that densities of whales in the four-islands and Penguin
        Bank regions had reached-some threshold level and whales were moving into other waters with
        less traffic. It should be emphasized that factors other than vessels may account for these recent
        distributional changes. A more comprehensive research study determining the impacts of vessel
        and vessel traffic on humpback whales will be a priority area during the implementation of the
        Sanctuary Management Plan.
                Aerial survey data from Foresteff aM others (1985) and Forestell (1989) indicate that
        "human impact on distribution patterns appeared to be highly localized, dynamic, and reversible."
        Forestell, et al. (1990) suggest that all boats operating regularly between Maui and Lanai are
        essentially the same from a whale's perspective. There is no evidence that the whales differentiate
        between a whale watch boat, a charter fishing boat, a privately owned recreational boat, or a
        parasail boat. Any of these. types of boats can bother a whale, and any of them may be ignored by a
        whale. What the boat is doing, and how many of them there are, is probably more important than
        what kind of boat it is (Bauer and Herman 1986).

                The authors also suggest that because whales move throughout the nearshore waters of the
        main Hawaiian Islands and humans engage in such a wide variety of activities in these same
        waters, there is a "complex and dynamic set of interactions [that] requires a comprehensive, state-
        wide monitoring and management plan" (Forestell et    al. 1990).

                In summary, scientific opinion and evidence suggest that human activities that could affect
        humpback whale behavior and whale habitat include entanglement in fishing nets and long lines
        (which are not applicable in Hawaii); noise from vessels, aircraft, and construction projects;
        shipping; disturbance from recreational boating, tour-boating, jet skiing, parasailing; degradation
        to the water quality from waste disposal and non-point source pollution from coastal development;
        and by the physical loss of habitat or activities that may cause whales to abandon their habitat
        and/or interfere with reproductive behaviors in Hawaii. For most of these activities, additional
        monitoring and research would be required before determinations could be made on the degree of
        impact on whales from such activities and any management schemes that would be necessary to
        help minimize the conflicts and impacts.

                d. Protection, Legislation, and Management
                Humpback whales first received protection in 1966 when the International Whaling
        Commission placed a moratorium on all commercial whaling. In addition, all marine mammals
        within the U.S. and territorial waters are currently protected by the. Marine Mammal Protection Act

        -Page 56                                                          Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                         and Management Plan






           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                             Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment
           National Marine Sanctuary

           of 1972 (MMPA), as amended. The MMPA established a moratorium, with certain exceptions, on
           the taking of marine mammals in the U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas, and on the
           importing- of marine mammals and marine marnmal products into the United States. NOAA's
           National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is charged with the interpretation and administration of
           this act. Humpback whales are also protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as
           amended. NMFS is also the primary resource agency charged with administration of the ESA for
           marine species,'and in 1991 released the Humpback Whale Recovery Plan pursuant to the ESA.
           The Recovery Plan established specific objectives for the conservation and recovery of humpback
           whales in U.S. waters. Humpbacks are further protected in Hawaiian waters by Federal and State
           anti-harassment regulations, enforced by NMFS (Federal Register 1987, amended by MMPA
           1994, and HAR title 13, Subtitle 11, ï¿½244-40) and the State          'of Hawaii. These regulations
           established a minimum approach distance of 100 yards for all Hawaiian waters. Violators are
           subject to fines or imprisonment or both.

               2. Other Marine Resources of Hawaii

                   While humpback whales and their habitat are the only designated Sanctuary resources at
           this time, the HINMSA requires that the Sanctuary provide for the identification of marine
           resources and ecosystems of national significance for possible inclusion in the Sanctuary (see Part
           III - Alternatives and Part V for the process of considering other resources). Section 2302 of the
           HINMSA contains three findings pertaining to other marine resources: (1) the Western Pacific
           region has many resources of national significance and importance; (2) Hawaii's marine
           subtropical ecosystem is diverse and unique; and (3) the Sanctuary, designated for the conservation
           and management of the humpback whales and their habitat, could be expanded to include other
           resources of national significance which may exist within the Sanctuary. Recommendations
           received from the public at meetings concerning other marine resources have ranged from not
           including any more resources to including all small cetacean species (dolphins); false killer and
           pilot whales; sea turtles; Hawaiian monk seals; nearshore and offshore coral reef systems; sea
           birds; large shark species; invertebrates; areas of natural beauty (Na Pali Coast); culturally
           important areas; historically and anthropologically significant areas; and the entire marine
           ecosystem. The following section describes some of the marine resources in Hawaii. This section
           is intended to merely describe some of Hawaii's other marine resources that can be found in the
           Sanctuary and serve as a list of species proposed for future inclusion in the Sanctuary.

                   a. General Information

                   The Hawaiian Islands are one of the most remote group of islands in the world. This
           isolation has played a major role in the development of the archipelago's shallow marine
           communities. The origin of most Hawaiian inshore marine species is the Indo-West Pacific Faunal
           Region (Gosline and Brock 1960; Maragos 1977; Kay 1979; Bailey-Brock 1987), the center of
           which is in the region of the Malaysian Peninsula and the Philippine Islands. With distance and
           isolation from this source, many species common elsewhere on Central Pacific reefs 'are absent in
           Hawaii. This reduction or attenuation in species with distance from the source has resulted in a
           proliferation of species (i.e., enderrdcs) in many of the taxa that have successfully colonized -the
           islands (Zimmerman 1948). Some groups such as the reef fishes are represented by a large
           percentage (29 percent) of endemic species (Gosline 1955; Randall 1987).                 Briggs (1974)
           attributes the high degree of endemism among marine organisms in Hawaiian waters to a long,
           stable climatic history as well as to the considerable geographic isolation. Endemism in the
           Hawaiian marine fauna is almost entirely restricted to the species and subspecies level of the
           taxonomic hierarchy (Kay 1977). Endemic species comprise about 20 percent of the mollusks
           (Kay 1967), 20 percent of the shallow-water -asteroids and ophiuroids (Ely 1942) and 40 percent
           of the Alpheid shrimps (Banner and Banner manuscript).



           Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                              Page 57
           and Management Plan






                Part II: Description of the Affected Environment                        Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                               National Marine Sanctuary

                        Because of the isolation and northerly geographic setting (resulting in relatively low water
                temperatures), the shallow Hawaiian marine fauna is considered to be relatively low in species
                diversity as compared to other tropical areas in the Pacific. There are about 450 species of inshore
                fishes (Gosline and Brock 1960; Randall 1980) and 40 species of 58 corals (Maragos 1977) in
                Hawaiian waters. Many of the shallow-water invertebrates have a greater- diversity of species; the
                Mollusca are represented by about 1,000 species (Kay 1979), the Polychaeta by about 243 species
                (Bailey-Brock 1987) and -the Bryozoa by about 200 species (Soule et al. 1987).
                        Comparison of the number of shallow-water species of corals, mollusks, echinoderms, and
                fishes recorded from Hawaii with those found in other island groups to the south of the Hawaiian
                Islands illustrates the attenuation. In Hawaii, there are 15 genera of corals compared to 53 genera
                in the Federated States of Micronesia (Maragos 1977). Kay (1967) records about 1,000 species
                of mollusks in Hawaii and 2,500 species in the Ryukyu Islands, 90 echinoderms are known from
                Hawaii and 345 from the Philippines (Clark and Rowe 1971), 450 species of fishes are known
                from Hawaiian inshore waters, and over 1,000 species from shallow-water habitats in the
                Federated States of Micronesia and vicinity (Myers 1989).

                        In general, benthic marine habitats are considered in three distinctive zones: littoral,
                sublittoral, and the deep sea. The littorai zone is often subdivided into a littoral fringe where marine
                and terrestrial organisms co-exist but marine forms dominate, and the eulittoral zone where marine
                species adapted to or requiring alternating conditions of submersion and ernersion are found
                (Lewis 1964). In the Hawaiian Islands, the tidal range is only about I m; thus, the eulittoral zone is
                not usually very extensive. Impinging waves may modify the extent of the eulittoral zone by
                effectively submerging shoreline areas that are usually above the 'high-water mark thereby
                obscuring otherwise clear zonation.

                        b. Nearshore Ecosystems

                        Hawaii's nearshore environment is divided into shoreline and subtidal ecosystems.

                           i. Shoreline Ecosystems

                        The littoral fringe is that area of the shoreline fringed by the seaward edge      of maritime
                vegetation, composed in Hawaii primarily of naupaka (Scaevola), hau (Hibiscus) and sea
                heliotrope (Messerschmidia). The zohe is above the reach of the waves and tides but is markedly
                affected by salt spray. Two regions are distinguishable: an upper region that is often localized in
                occurrence and characterized by broken limestone or basalt boulders, and a lower region of more
                or less continuous rocky substrate of cemented limestone or basalt (Emery and Cox 1956). In the
                upper region where boulders are covered by a canopy of maritime vegetation and the undersides
                are characterized by conditions of high humidity, at least six species of mollusks and one isopod
                are comnionly found. Seaward of the boulder region the shoreline is dominated by two littorine
                species, one of which is from the Indo-West Pacific and the other is endemic to Hawaii. Both of
                these species require access to the ocean in order to complete their life cycles, Just seaward of this,
                but above the reach of the waves, a common nerite (pipipi, NeMa picea) and two grapsid crab
                species are found.

                        Where basalt outcrops extend seaward      from the shore, extensive areas of water-leveled
                benches, vertical cliff faces, and boulder beaches are prominent features of the coastline on all the
                high islands. The shoreward portions of benches and beaches are part of the littoral fringe, but the
                seaward sections are alternately exposed and immersed by tides twice daily and scoured by waves
                seasonally. On basalt benches the highest level of wave action is marked by a line of the -alga akiaki
                (Ahnfeltia concinna). Below the Ahnfeltia is a variety of frondose algae that covers the substratum
                with increasing density on approaching the sea. This section is, in turn, succeeded seaward by a
                broad band of pink coralline algae (Porolithon), and the interface between the shore and the sea is

                Page 58                                                             Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                   and Management Plan






           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                               Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment
           National Marine Sanctuary

           marked by a mix of other algal species. The dominant mollusks seawaid of the akiaki are the opihi
           (Cellana exarata), and in the Porolithon zone the larger yellow-foot opihi, Cellana sandwicensis are
           found as well as the single urchin, Colobocentrotus atratus. The frontal slope of the substratum is
           riddled with borings from sea urchins (Echinometra oblongata and E mathaei) as well as from a
           number of mollusks. Two species of blennies (including the paoo or Istiblennius zebra) are found
           in this habitat.

                   The pattern described represents the broadest expression of eulittoral zonation found in
           Hawaii, and it is variously modified on vertical cliff faces, and in sheltered coves and ba:ys. On
           vertical cliff faces, the Ahnfeltia zone and the succeeding frondose algal zone are absent, with the
           littorines and nerites of the li'ttoral fringe merging directly into the Porolithon-encrusted zone. In
           sheltered coves and bays, especially where there are intrusions of brackish ground water, the
           Native Hawaiian oyster (Ostrea sandvicensis) will encrust vertical surfaces between the littoral
           fringe and the subtidal. Where sufficient covera:ge of water occurs, there is an assemblage of fishes
           that forage over this substrate including herbivores such as the amaama or mullet (Mugil cephalus),
           the kupipi (Abudefiduf sordidus), carnivores such as the papio (various species of the family
           Carangidae), aholehole (Kuhlia sandvicensis) and a number of wrasses or hinaleas (Labridae).

                   Calcareous or carbonate shorelines are dominant features of the coastlines of all the major
           islands except Hawaii. Solution benches are one form of the calcareous or carbonate shoreline.
           Topographically, solution benches resemble atoll reef flats, consisting of sea level platforms
           extending from I m to 30 m seaward from the shore. The benches are separated from shore by a
           raised, sharply pitted limestone zone and a nip (an indentation at the base of the vertical section).*
           Seaward of the nip, the flat-topped surface is densely matted with an algal turf. At the sloping outer
           edge, calcareous algae and to a lesser extent, corals, contribute to the structure of the bench.
           Because of its height above sea level, the surface of the bench may be exposed at low spring tides
           for periods of as long as four hours.

                   The biota -of calcareous shorelines is distinguished from that of basalt shorelines by its
           cover of thick algal turf. In and among the turf are numerous small invertebrates including
           polychaete worms, mollusks (cones, cowries, miters) and sea urchins. Both the flora and fauna are
           conspicuously zoned. The pools of the pitted zone, which are in effect the littoral fringe, are
           inhabited by small littorines and fishes including the paoo (Istiblennius zebra) as well as juveniles
           of severalfish species (mamo - Abudefiduf abdominalis, kupipi - A. sordidus, aholehole - Kuhlia
           sandvicensis). In deeper depressions on the bench that permanently hold water, a much greater
           diversity of invertebrates and fishes will be found.

                   Tide pools occur on sea level basalt outcrops, some are formed by depressions in the
           water-leveled benches, and others are formed by massive boulders fronting the sea and on the
           benches of calcareous shorelines. Physical conditions in marine pools vary with exposure to the
           sea. Tide pools that are farthest from the sea undergo striking variations in temperature and
           salinity, whereas those at the seaward edge exhibit essentially marine conditions. The most
           exposed pools are characterized by sand substrates bound by cyano-bacterial mats. Few marine
           species are found here because of the extreme conditions; among those present, however, are
           several species of mollusks, crabs, and fishes. Seaward pools are progressively more densely
           turfed with a variety of algae, and the diversity of mollusks, polychaetes, crustaceans,
           echinoderms, and fishes increases. Many of these seaward pools serveas a nursery habitat for a
           number of marine fishes including the aholehole (Kuhlia sandvicensis), the marno (Abudefduf
           abdominalis), kupipi (A. sordidus), manini Acanthurus tfiostegus), and kumu (Parupeneus
           porphyreus).

                   Sandy beaches form another distinctive shoreline in the high islands. In general, sandy
           shorelines are characterized as low, sloping beaches backed by a wall or raised coral platform.
           Sand is composed of calcareous remnants from foraminifera, mollusk shells, echinoderm, and

           Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                 Page 59
           and Management Plan





              Part II: Description of the Affected Environment                        Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                             National Marine Sanctuary
              coralline algal fragments except on Hawaii, where beaches -are composed of black sand and olivine
              (Moberly et al. 1965).
                      Hawaiian beaches may be subdivided into three zones: (1) an upper beach including the
              vegetation line; (2) a mid-beach between the high-tide line and the vegetation line, its extent
              dependent on slope and ti   'de; and (3) the lower beach that is continuously awash by waves. The
              biota of sandy beaches is associated with both sand grain size and beach slope. The biota of the
              upper beach is characterized by amphipods, isopods, and ghost crabs which burrow in the area
              (Fellows 1966). Ghost crabs are also found in the mid beach slope area and the lower beach slope
              is characterized by the mole crab (Hippa pacijica), spionid polychaetes and four species of the
              gastropods (Terebra spp.; Miller 1970).
                      Fronting many of these different shoreline types am fringing reefs. In general, Hawaiian
              reefs are not as well developed or diverse as reefs of other Pacific islands, again due to the relative
              isolation of the archipelago and its geographic position at the northern extreme of coral reef
              development; thus, water temperature serves to retard coral growth and development. More than
              one-half of the shoreline of the older islands of the chain (i.e., Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, and
              Maui) is fringed by coral reef The reefs are wide, shallow platforms extending as much as 300 m
              seaward from the shore. The reef platforms are typically subtidal, usually between depths of I m to
              3 m below mean sea level, although occasional sections may be exposed at low spring tides. The
              reef flats are predominately sand, coral rubble, and coralline algae.Crustose coralline algae are the
              dominant reef builders on Hawaiian reefs with coelenterate corals being relatively unimportant in
              the overall fringing reef habitat (Littler 1973). Coral growth is probably -best developed along the
              frontal edges of the reef flats or in adjacent (seaward) deep water areas.

                      Reef flat assemblages are perhaps the most. diverse of those occurring along Hawaiian
              shorelines partly because of the extended period of time they are submerged. Reef flats have a
              variety of habitats including solid substrates of calcareous algae and corals, stands of frondose
              algae, rubble, and sand patches. Because of the variety of habitats, the distribution of reef
              organisms is patchy; where there are sand patches, infaunal organisms such as mollusks,
              echinoderms, and polychaetes occur; where there is rubble or living coral, a multitude of other
              species including fishes are found.
                      Often estuaries are found where freshwater streams enter the ocean. Estuaries are defi@ned
              as river valleys inundated by marine waters and receiving freshwater input on the landward side;
              estuaries may also occur as the tidal portions of streams. In the Sanctuary, Cox and Gordon (1970)
              note the following areas with estuarine characteristics: Molokai: Halawa Stream and Bay,
              Pelekunu Bay, and the fishponds of South Molokai; Maui: Maliko Bay, Kahului Harbor,
              Kahakuloa Bay, Honokohau Bay, Honolua Bay, and the estuarine bays of the northeast coast of
              east Maui including Honomanu, Makaiwa, Waipio, Hoolawa, Pilale, and Kuiaha.

                      Estuarine ecosystems  isupport an endemic fauna of about 38 species. Most of these species
              are eurylialine and most are derived from marine rather than fresh water ancestors (Timbol 1972).
              Typical estuarine endemic fishes include the oopu (Awaous genivitialus), oopu nakea (A.
              stamineus), aholehole (Kuhlia sandvicensis), and the mollusk, the hihiwai (Neridna granosa).
              Estuaries are also the primary habitats of a few highly sought-after food species such as the
              introduced Samoan crab (Scylla serrata), and they are the nursery for a number of inshore marine
              fishes such as the amaama (Mugil cephalus), awa (Chanos chanos), kaku (Sphyraena barracuda),
              aholehole (Kuhlia sandvicensis), and papio (several species of the family Carangidae). Many
              estuaries in Hawaii are now affected by the invasion of exotic species such as the Tahitian prawn
              (Macrobrachium lar) which tend to replace the native biota.

                      Although estuaries do not comprise a large, well defined ecosystem type in the boundaries
              of the Sanctuary, they remain an important habitat type. Despite low rainfall along much of the

              Page 60                                                              Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                           Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment
             National Marine Sanctuary

             coastline of the Sanctuary (e.g., west Maui), many small, intennittent streams -may serve as
             important nursery habitat albeit, the availability of this habitat is transitory. Related to the usual
             estuarine habitat are mangroves. Mangroves were introduced on Molokai in 1902 and on Oahu in
             1922. On both islands there are several developed stands that now exhibit many of the
             characteristics attributed to mangrove swamps in other tropical areas, but the Hawaiian stands lack
             the extensive flora and fauna of typical large mangrove stands because of their recent development
             (Walsh 1963). Recent attempts have been made to control and otherwise remove mangroves from
             wetland areas (e.g., Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park on the Kona coast, the Nuupia
             Ponds Wildlife Management Area on Mokapu Peninsula, Oahu) where they are eliminating open
             water habitat that serves as critical foraging grounds for threatened and endangered waterbird
             species such as the kukuluaeo or Hawaiian Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni).

                        ii. Subtidal Ecosystems

                    In addition to coral communities. associated with fringing reefs, corals extend subtidally to
             depths of at least 50 m in Hawaiian waters, although the greatest development of these reefs is at
             depths from a few meters down to about 30 m.     iPrime examples of coral community development
             may be seen on submarine surfaces of recent lava flows off the coast of Maui and in the waters
             between Maui and Molokai. Coral communities are well developed around the islet of Molokini
             where commercial diive tours thrive. As discussed, coral communities are better developed where
             they are protected from high wave activity; thus, the leeward (western) coasts often have well-
             developed examples; however, coral communities are a characteristic of all subtidal areas with
             appropriate hard substratum around all of the islands. Hawaiian coral communities show a
             zonation that is related primarily to wave exposure and indirectly to depth. The three assemblages
             are described below.

                    A Pocillopora meandrina assemblage is associated with coastlines where there is
             considerable wave action and a basalt boulder or limestone/lava pavement in depths from about I m
             to about 12 m; occasionally the P. meandrina assemblage will be found down to depths of about 30
             m. Pocillopora meandfina is one of the first coral species to colonize new substrates whether they
             are lava (Grigg and Maragos 1974) or from anthropogenic sources (concrete, etc., Brock
             unpublished). This coral species is dominant in the shallow waters at Molokini Islet and at many
             sites around Lanai, Kahoolawe, and Maui islands. , The P. meandrina assemblage is often
             interspersed with other species of corals such as Porites labata and Monitopora verrucosa, soft
             zoanthid corals such as Palythoa wherculosa and Zoanthus spp., and the sea. urchins, or wana,
             Echinometra, Echinothrix, and Tripneustes.

                    More than 50 species of fishes are routinely encountered in the Pocillopora mew?drina zone
             (Hobson 1974, Gosline 1965). Included in this group. are moray eels or puhis (Muraehidae);
             squirrelfishes or alaihis and mempachis (Holocentridae); aholehole (Kuhlia sandvicensis);
             aweoweo (Priacanthus cruentatus); upapalus (Apogonidae); nenue (Kyphosus bigibius);
             commercially important goatfishes including moano (Parupeneus multifasciatus), weke (Mulloides
             flavolineatus), kumu (Parupeneus porphyreus), and occasionally the munu (P. bifasciatus) fishes
             (Pomacentridae); wrasses or hinaleas' (Labridae); palukaluka (Scarus rubroviolaceus);
             surgeonfishes including the api (Acanthurus guttatus), manini (A. triostegus), maikoiko (A.
             leucoparieus), pakuikui (A. achilles), maiii (A. nigrofuscus), maiko (A. nigroris), black kole
             (Ctenochaetus hawaiiensis), kole (C strigosus), maneoneo (Zebrasoma velifiwm), umaumalei
             (Naso lituratus) and kala (N. unicomis); gobies and blennies (Gobiidae and Blenniidae), and a
             number of smaller species. Other species often encountered in the Pocillopora meandfina zone
             include the omilu (Caranx melampygus), papios (family Carangidae), lai (Scombroides lysan),
             amaama (Mugil cephalus), nehu (Stolephorus purpureus) as well as needlefishes and halfbeaks
             (Belonidae and Hemiramphidae).



             Final Environmental impact Statement                                                           Page 61
             and Management Plan






                Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                              National Marine Sanctuary

                       Just  seaward and slightly deeper of the Pocillopora meandrinq assemblage is the zone
                dominated by Porites lobata. Where wave activity is not significant, Porites labata usually grows
                -as a rough hemisphere attaining sizes in excess of 4 m in diameter. This species lays down annual
                growth bands much like a tree thus the age of individual colonies may be determined (Knutsen et
                al. 1972). Porites lobata has a radial growth of about I cm/yr and will attain an age of close to 200
                years (Grigg 1982). In bays where wave activity may be light, the zonation of Pocilloporti
                meandrina and Porites lobata may be less obvious; in these situations, A lobata may be much more
                abundant than P. meandrina. Porites lobata is successful in populating almost any consolidated
                area from shallow depths down to 30 m but will modify its growth form in response to physical
                conditions of the environment (Maragos 1972). Where there is surge, the coral is usually flat and
                strongly encrusting; in deep or more protected waters, the coral occurs as a large lobate
                hemisphere. A number of other coral species are found in the A lobata assemblage including P.
                meandrina, Mondpora verrucosa, M. patula, M. verrilli, M. flabellata, Porites compressa, and a
                host of lesser species (Fungia scutaria, Leptastrea spp. Cyphastrea spp.).

                       The diversity of fishes encountered in the zone of Porites lobaza is greater than that seen in
                the Pocillopora meandrina zone. The difference in diversity may be related to the greater depth and
                diversity of habitats available in this *zone. Gosline (1965) reports 90 species from this biotope;
                Hobson (1974) notes that most species seen in his study of coral reef fish communities of the
                Kona, Hawaii coast were present in this coral rich habitat. Brock (1990a; 1992a,b,c; 1993a,b,c)
                has recorded more than 60 species of fish from the biotope in which Porites lobata dominates'on
                Oahu, Maui, and the Big Islands of Hawaii..      . .

                       In general, seaward of the Porites lobara zone or biotope is the biotope of Porites
                compressa whose dominated assemblages are usually found at depths below 8 in to 10 m down to
                about 30 m. Porites compressa colonies -form ftagile thickets that may cover hundreds of square
                meters of substratum. Because of its delicate structure, A compressa is usually found in deep
                water or is situated in locations that are relatively protected from the impact of storm waves.
                Protected locations include bays as well as the leeward (west) coasts of the larger islands (here
                West Maui). Again, many of the shallow-water invertebrates and fishes recorded from the
                Hawaiian Islands are found in this zone.   .Most of the conunerciaUy important inshore fishes and
                invertebrates are encountered in the biotope of Porites compressa and much of the fishing effort
                today is focused in the biotopes of P. lobata and P. compressa.

                       In deeper waters at depths greater than 25m, large boulders and coral rubble dominate the
                bottom, while hard corals and benthic algae are either absent or their presence, greatly reduced.
                Well-developed ten-aces and "drop-offs" have been reported at depths of 50, 60, and 75m and are
                assoc-iated with some of the most abundant and economically valuable fisheries in the State.
                Commonly found, for example, are bottom-dwelling carnivores such as the hapu'upu'u or grouper
                (Epinephelus quemus) and species of snappers or lutjanids including uku, o'pakapaka, ehu,
                onaga, and where sandy bottoms occur, the kona crab (Ranina ranina).

                       Little is known about biological assemblages occurring at depths greater than 100 fathoms.
                Scientific research and limited -commercial harvesting, however, has revealed the presence of
                precious corals such as the gold (Gerardia sp.), bamboo (isididea), and pink (Corallium. sp.) as
                well. as stocks of deep water caridean and penaeid shrimp. Commercial exploitation of these deep-
                water resources occurs within the waters of the. Sanctuary (DOC, 1984).

                       c. Cetacean Species Found in Hawaii

                       The order Cetacea (dolphins and whales) consists of two suborders: Odontocetes (toothed
                cetaceans) and Mysticetes (baleen whales). Generally, a useful distinction between them is one of
                size since the great whales are all Mysticetes, with the exception of the sperm whale, an
                Odontocete.


                Page 62                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan






               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                   Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment
               National Marine Sanctuary


                       Shallenberger (198 1) identified 24 species of cetaceans (five Mysticete and 19 Odontocete
               species) in Hawaiian waters on the basis of stranded specimens or field observations (see Table 11-
               5). Nitta (1988) documented all cases of stranded cetaceans recorded between the years 1936 and
               1988 which comprised 17 of these species. From both sets of data it is clear that of the Mysticete
               species, only the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeanglide) can be considered seasonally
               resident. Sightings; of the remaining four Mysticete species (Bryde's, finback, minke, and right
               whales) were so rare, as to be considered anomalous.

                       Of the Odontocete species shown in Table 11-5, five were identified on only one or a few
               instances and are similarly designated as anomalous. The remaining 14 species are designated as
               rare, uncommon, or common in order of increasing occurrence. Of the eight species of
               Odontocetes identified during the 1993 surveys of Hawaiian waters (see Figure 11- 16), four were
               found within. the 100-fathom limit (spinner dolphins, spotted dolphins, bottlenose dolphins, and
               false killer whales) and thus would likely fall within the jurisdiction of the current proposed marine
               sanctuary boundaries. It should be noted, however, that because most of the species listed in
               Table H-5 are wide-ranging, other Odontocetes would likely be found within the proposed
               sanctuary limits as well. Data from Shallenberger (1981) concerning these four species are
               summarized below. Additional pertinent data from the 1993 aerial surveys are also included.
                 TABLE U-3: Cetacean Species Found in Hawaii with Results of 1993 Aerial
                                                                Surveys*
                                                                                                            Depth of '93
                                                                                                              sightings
                       Common (Scientific) Name                      Observations       Frequency             (fathoms)
                                                                                                          <100         >100
               -MYSTICETES:
               -Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus)                    stranding (1)      Anomalous
               Bryde's whale (B. edent)                              field obs (few)    Anomalous
               -Minke whale (B. acutorostrata)                       field obs (1)      Anomalous
               Humpback whale (Megaptera                               field obs         Common             yes          yes
               -novaeanglide)                                           (many)
               -Right whale (Balaena glacialis)                      field obs (1)      Anomalous
               .ODONTOCETES:
               Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus)                    field obs        Uncommon            no           yes
                                                                        (many)
               Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops gilh)                      field obs         Common             yes          yes
                                                                        (many)
               Spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris)                 field obs         Common             yes          yes
                                                                        (many)
               Spotted dolphin (Stenella anenuata)                     field obs         Common             yes         Jes
                                                                        (many)
               -Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba)              stranding (13)         Rare
               Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno                            field obs         Common
               brednaensis)                                             (many)
               Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis)                    field obs (1).     Anomalous
               Whitesided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus                    field obs (1)      Anomalous
               obliquidens)
               Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus)                     field obs (2);         Rare
               Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps)                   stranding (8)      Unconnnon           no
               Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia simus)                       field obs (1)      Anomalous


               Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                       Page 63
               and Management Plan






               Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment                                 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                        National Marine Sanctuary

               Killer whale (Orcinus orca)                           stranding (1)        Anomalous
               False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens)               field obs           Common             yes        yes
                                                                        (many)
               Pygmy killer whale (Feresa auenuata)                    field obs          Uncommon
                                                                        (many)
               Melon-headed whale (Peponocephala                       field obs          Uncommon
               electra)                                                  (many)
               Pilot whale (Globicephala                               field obs           Common             no         yes
               macrorhynchus)                                           (many)
               Goosebeaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris)               stranding (2)           Rare             no         yes
               Densebeaked whale (Mesoplodon                         field obs (1)           Rare
               densirostris)
               Bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon                          field obs (1)        Anomalous
               ampullatus)

               Table adapted from Table 1 of Forestell & Brown (1992) that was based primarily on Shallenberger (198 1).
               Stranding results are for period 1936-87 as taken from Nitta (1987). Results of 1993 survey were added from
               unpublished data. Frequency is noted in decreasing Magnitude as follows: common, uncommon, rare, and
               anomalous.



               1993   Marine Mammal Survey

               Previous surveys in Hawaii reported only on the locations of humpback whales (Herman and
               Antinoja 1977; Rice and Wolman 1978; Herman et al. 1980; Baker and Herman 1981), thus, until
               recently, there were no data from systematic surveys which included Odontocete species. The most
               extensive marine mammal survey performed to date in Hawaiian waters was conducted during 
               February and March, 1993 as part of a baseline designed to detect the impact of the
               ATOC transmission on resident marine mammal species (Mobley et al. 1993; Forestall et al. 1993).
               ATOC was designed by the Scripps Oceanographic Institute to detect global warming trends using
               low frequency sound. A series of four aerial surveys were conducted during 1993 primarily to
               assess the abundance and distribution of humpback whales, though locations and group
               compositions of all marine mammal species seen were also documented. The surveys were
               designed to conform to line transect techniques, which permit abundance estimates to be projected
               from sighting data (e.g., Burnham, Anderson, and Laake 1980).
          
               Surveys during the  1993 series were conducted from single-engine overwing aircraft equipped
               with radar altimeters and global-positioning systems devices (GPS). These instruments were used
               to determine the location and altitude of the plane and, when combimed with the sighting angle, to
               determine the position of marine mammal pods by use of a clinometer. Precise distance estimation 
               is an essential ingredient of abundance estimation.

               Unlike previous surveys in Hawaiian waters, the majority of the 1993 effort was concentrated in
               waters deeper than 100 fathoms (see Figure II-16). Effort was distributed as follows: less than
               100 fathoms-23 percent, 100-1,000 fathoms-42 percent, greater than 1,000 fathoms-35 percent.  




               Page 64                                                                     Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                            and Management Plan







          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                             Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment
          National Marine Sanctuary


          23
           N

                                                                        1993 Aerial Survey
                                                                       Odontocete sightings

          22-





          21-




                  Stenella spp.                16 sightings
 
                  Globicephala macrorhynchus   13     "     

          20-     Pseudorca crassiderns         8     "     

                  Tursiops gilli                5     "     
                  
                  Ziphiid spp.                  3     "

                  Kogia breviceps               1     "

                  Physeter macrocephalus        1     " 
          19-
                  Unidentified odontocete      14     " 



          161W           l60W             159W           158W            157W          156W          155W
      Figure 11-16 Odontocete sightings in            Hawaii,    1993   (Mobley et al. 1993)


                     i. Pacific Bottlenose Dolphins

          Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops gilli), typically larger and more powerful than their Atlantic
          counterparts (Tursiops truncatus), are found throughout the Hawaiian archipelago including the
          northwestern islands. Shallenberger (198 1) notes they are found mostly along the edges of banks
          or shelves, usually along the 50- or 100-fathom isobaths where upwelling from deep water occurs.
          Pod sizes typically range from single individuals and small groups of three to 10 animals to large
          groups of 100 or more individuals (Shallenberger 198 1). They feed on numerous species of fish,
          squid, shrimp, and other crustaceans (Leatherwood 1975; Leatherwood, Caldwell, and Winn
          1976). Bottlenose dolphins adapt readily to captivity and a number of them have been kept and
          bred successfully at Sea Life Park and other oceanaria.

                 During the 1993 survey groups of bottlenose dolphins were sighted on five occasions
          during the 1993 survey in waters ranging from less than 100 to more than 1,000 fathoms. The
          mean observed pod size was 15.4 individuals.






          Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                               Page 65
          and Management Plan






                Part H: Description of the Affected Environment                               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                      National Marine Sanctuary

                             ii. False Killer whales

                        False killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) are found throughout the world's temperate to
                tropical oceans, but are found most often in tropical and subtropical waters (Shallenberger 198 1).
                Their habitat ranges from shallow (<100 fathoms) to deep water (>1,000 fathoms) and their
                distribution appears to be related to concentrations'of prey.' They typically travel in large pods,
                often exceeding 100 individuals, and frequently swim in broad formations, a possible mechanism
                for finding food. 'Squid beaks have been found in their stomach contents and they have been
                observed feeding on mahimahi (Coryphaena hippurus) and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)
                (Shallenberger 198 1).

                        Eight Pseudorca groups were sighted during the 1993 aerial surveys in waters ranging
                from less than 100 to 1,000 fathoms. Mean pod size was 28.6 individuals.

                             iii. Spinner Dolphins

                        Spinner   dolphins (Stenella longirost?is) are members of the genus Stenella that includes
                spotted dolphins (S. attenuata), striped dolphins, (S. coeruleoalba), and the Clymene dolphin (S.
                clymene). Spinners, so named because of their tendency to "spin" while breaching or leaping from
                the water, are found throughout the tropical Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans (Baker 1987). In
                Hawaii, they are located throughout the island chain and show distributional patterns related to
                physiography, prey distribution, sea state, water depth, bottom topography, and turbidity (Norris
                et al. 1985). They are commonly found in large groups consisting typically of 50- 100 individuals,
                though larger groups have been seen (Shallenberger 198 1).

                        Spinner dolphins have been intensively studied, particularly near Hawaii Island (Norris and
                Dohl 1980; Norris et al. 1985; bstman and Driscoll 1991; Wursig, Cipriano, and Wursig 1991).
                Spinners typically show predictable home ranges, foraging at night for food in deep water (400 in-
                2,000 m) where the'deep scattering layer (DSQ rises closer to the surface than normally occurs
                during daylight hours. Prey species for the Hawaiian spinners are not as well documented as for
                other regions but are believed to include at least two species of squid (Abralia estrostrica and A.
                trigonura) and several species of fish (particularly myctophids) (Shallenberger 198 1). Diuing the
                day. they typically return to bays and inshore regions to rest and socialize and to avoid predation by
                pelagic sharks (Norris and Dohl 1980; Wursig, Cipriano; and Wursig 199FI). Spinner dolphins
                were positively identified on eight occasions during the 1993 survey series in waters between 100-
                1,000 fathoms in depth. Mean pod size was 50 individuals. Six additional observations were
                designated as Stenella species that were likely to have been either spinner or spotted dolphins.
                These occurred in waters ranging from less than 100 fathoms to greater than 1,000 fathoms.

                            iv. Spotted Dolphins

                        Spotted dolphins (Stenella altenuata) are common in Hawaiian waters and are frequently
                confused with spinner dolphins since they are similar in size and habitat. Most of what is known
                about spotted dolphins is derived from the eastern tropical Pacific and Japanese waters due to their
                association with the purse seine tuna industry. Spotted dolphins and related species have been
                inadvertently slaughtered as a result of purse seine fishing practices in these regions.
                        Spotted dolphins are typically found in the leeward coastal waters and offshore banks of all
                Hawaiian Islands, as well as channel regions. Shallenberger (1981:53) writes, "Due -to the
                normally large herd size and the frequencies of observation, it is likely that spotted dolphins, are the
                most numerous Hawaiian cetacean (in te m-is of numbers of individuals)". Sirrdlar to spinner.
                dolphins, spotted dolphins have their own characteristic aerial behaviors including very high
                jumps, long low jumps, and tail walks (Shallenberger 198 1). Shallenberger noted that very little,
                research has been performed on'this species in Hawaiian waters. During the 1993 aerial survey,

                Page 66                                                                   Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                          and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                          Part II: Description of the Affected Environment
            National Marine Sanctuary
            spotted dolphins were positively identified in just one case, a group of five individuals, in waters
            less than 100 fathoms.

                        v. Odontocete Prey Species

                    What little is known of the feeding habits of Odontocete species in Hawaii has been gleaned
            from examinations of stranded specimens, occasional field observations, and from generalizations
            based on more extensive literature for other regions. Shallenberger noted that a significant portion
            of the diet of smaller Hawaiian cetaceans is made up of epipelagic and mesopelagic fish and squid.
            Primarily, this includes myctophid fish, some of which migrate at night to within 200 in of the
            surface, and several species of squid which also show vertical diurnal migrations, including
            Abralia ftigmura and A. astrostica. Shallenberger underscores the importance of squid to
            Odontocete diets by noting that virtually every stranded specimen examined contained squid beaks
            in its stomach contents. The myctophid species of fish are also commonly found in Hawaiian
            cetaceans (Shomura and Hida 1965). Local fish species of likely importance include: opelu
            (Decapterus pinnulatus and D. maruadsz) and akule (Trachurops crumenophthalmus).
            Shallenberger reported that Igger cetaceans have been observed eating mahimahi (Coryphaena
            hippurus), yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), and skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis). These
            species are all commercially important and their relative availability can be assessed using catch
            statistics (Shallenberger 1981).

                        vi. Predators

                    Information relevant to Odontocete predation has been primarily anecdotal (Shallenberger
            198 1), though more recent observations have occurred. Sharks have been observed to feed on live
            cetaceans in other oceans (e.g., Leatherwood, Evans and Rice 1972; Leatherwood et al. 1973, and
            more recently off Kihei, Maui (G. Nitta and A. Tom, pers. communication). In spring 1995, a
            juvenile humpback whale became entangled in a mooring buoy line. Upon release by the USCG,
            the injured whale remained in shallow water where tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuviert) repeatedly
            attacked and consumed portions of the whale (G. Nitta and A. Tom, pers. communication). Other
            accounts exist of unidentified cetacean remains in the stomach contents of tiger sharks harvested in
            Hawaii, but it is not known whether the animals were alive or dead when eaten. Additional
            indirect evidence of shark attacks on cetaceans occurs in the form of crescent-shaped scars on the
            bodies'of living specimens. Hawaiian cetaceans are also frequently seen with the small circular
            scars characteristic of non-predatory "cookie cutter" sharks (Isistius brasiliensis). These small
            bites generally heal and are not known to be fatal. Occasional visits by killer whales (Orcinus
            Orca) could also result on some predation on calves, but none have been observed thus far.

                        vii. Odontocete Distribution Trends

                    Eighty-one percent of the 0dontocete pods sighted during the 1993 aerial surveys were
            found in waters deeper than 100 fathoms. Thirty-eight percent of the sightings were in the vicinity
            of Kauai and Niihau. Interestingly, the areas favored by humpback whales, the four-islands (Maui,
            Lanai, Molokai, and Kahoolawe), and Penguin Bank regions showed the lowest incidence of
            0dontocete sightings. The Stenella species, in particular, showed a tendency to locate along the
            1 00-fathom isobath, as described by Shallenberger (198 1).

                    d - Other Endangered or Threatened Species

                        i. Sea Turtles

                    Five species of marine turtles are found in the waters around the Hawaiian Islands: green
            sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill sea turtle (Ereanochelys imbricata), leatherback
            (Dennochelys cofiacea), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), and the olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivaee.a)

            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                          Page 67
            and Management Plan






               Part II: Description of the Affected Environment                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                             National Marine Sanctuary

               (Des Rochers 1992). Leatherback, loggerhead, and olive ridley turtles are not known to nest in the
               Hawaiian Islands and are rarely seen in Hawaiian waters (Balazs 1978). Hawksbills nest on the
               main Hawaiian Islands primarily on several sand beaches on the island of Hawaii and on the east
               end of Molokai (Hawaiian Sea Turtle Recovery Team 1992). The green sea turtle is the most
               commonly found turtle throughout the Hawaiian Island chain. More than 90 percent of the
               breeding and nesting of green turtles occurs at French Frigate Shoals in the Northwestern
               Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), although a substantial -population resides and returns to the waters
               within Maui and Kauai Counties.

                          ii. Hawksbill Turtles

                      The hawksbill turtle is an endangered species under the ESA [U.S. Fish and Wildlife
               Service (USFWS) 1992]. Information on the life history and ecology of hawksbill turtles in the
               Hawaiian Islands is lacking, although these sea turtles were well known to the pre-contact
               Hawaiian people (Hawaiian Sea Turtle Recovery Team 1992). The Hawaiians did not value the
               hawksbill as a food item possibly because of its periodic toxicity due to the turtle's dietary habits.
               According to Balazs (pers. comm. 1993) no more than 15 nesting sites are recorded each year. The
               nesting period extends from July through November (Hawaiian Sea Turtle Recovery Team 1992).
               The most consistently used nesting sites are Karnehame Point on Hawaii and at the river. mouth of
               Halawa Valley on Molokai-. The NWHI appear to be unfavorable breeding and nesting grounds
               for the hawksbill turtle.

                          iii. Green Sea Turtles

                      The green sea turtle, listed as threatened under the ESA, is a long-range migrant breeder
               that spends most of its life foraging and resting in nearshore benthic habitats (Balazs, Forsyth, and
               Kam 1987).      Historically, green sea turtles nested on beaches throughout the Hawaiian
               archipelago, but today rarely outside the NW141 (Des Rochers 1992). The breeding season at
               French Frigate Shoals, which is the main nesting area within the NWHI, lasts for about five
               months from May through September (Hawaiian Sea Turtle.Recovery Team 1992).

                      There are numerous sightings of green sea turtles in the waters off Maui County including
               Honokowai, Mahko Bay, Olowalu, Kahului Bay, and Palaau Bay on Molokai. Between 1948 and
               1973, the. Island of Maui reported the highest percentage of commercial captures of sea turtles
               (Balazs 1980). Today, many turtles congregate in the warm water discharge from the power plan
               in Kahului Bay, possibly to increase their metabolism (Balazs 1980). Kahoolawe and Lanai have
               only occasional and rare sightings of the green sea turtles, although they may have served as
               important nesting grounds for green sea turtles in the past. Polihua Beach (Lanai) is the most
               documented area for green sea turtles nesting on the main Hawaiian Islands; however, there have
               been no recent observations or sightings of sea turtles at Polihua, perhaps as a result of human use
               and erosion along the shoreline (Balazs 1980)., According to Balazs (1984), Polihua Beach may
               serve as the best possibility for any future experimental restocking of sea turtles. The largest
               population of green sea turtles is located near Lanai at Keomuku and Kuahua (Balazs 1984).
               USFWS (1989) reports that green sea turtles have been seen in the off-shore waters of Kauai and
               are known to nest in the sandy bays along the coast of Kilauea Point and other areas along the
               southeast coast.

                      There are insufficient data to estimate the historical number of green sea turtles in 'the
               Hawaiian Islands. Surveys of nesting turtles at French Frigate Sboals since 1973 provide a current,
               estimate of 750 total mature female green turtles (Hawaiian Sea Turtle Recovery Team 1992).
               Because 90 percent of all green sea turtle nests are found on French Frigate Shoals, the total mature
               female population is probably less than 900 throughout the Hawaiian Islands.



               Page 69                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                 and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                            Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment
            National Marine Sanctuary
                    Green turtles feed primarily on benthic algae which is generally restricted to shallow
            depths. They have been reported to feed on 56 species of algae and nine species of vertebrates
            (Des Rochers 1992). Green turtles have been known to bask or rest on beaches (Balazs, Forsyth,
            and Kam 1987), although terrestrial basking is rare among sea turtles and has been exhibited by
            only a few populations of green sea turtles in the Pacific. In Hawaii, basking behavior seems to be
            limited to beaches in the NWHI (Balazs, Forsyth and Kam 1987).

                    Most adult green turtles reside in the nearshore waters of the main Hawaiian Islands due to
            the abundance of preferred marine vegetation, the availability of suitable habitat for resting, and the
            presence of oceanic currents that carry juveniles towards the main islands (Balazs, Forsyth, and
            Kam 1987). Major resident areas are at depths greater than 20 in but generally not exceeding 50
            m. These areas include: Kau and North Kohala Districts (Hawaii); Hana District and Paia (Maui);
            north and northeastern coastal areas bordering the Kalohi and Auau Channels (Lanai); south coastal
            areas between  'Kamalo and Halena (Molokai); Kailua and Kaneohe Bays, northwest coast from
            Mokuleia to Kawailoa Beach, south and southwest coast (Oahu); Princeville, Na Pali Coast, and.
            the south coast from Kukuiula to Makahuena Point (Kauai) (Des Rochers 1992).

                        iv. Seabirds

                    Before the arrival of the first Polynesians in the Hawaiian Islands, there were as many as
            110 species of endemic birds throughout the Hawaiian archipelago. Between the time of the arrival
            of the first Polynesians and the arrival of Captain Cook in 1778, an estimated 40 species may have
            become extinct (Hawaii Audubon Society 1989). Since the arrival of the Europeans in the Islands,
            another 22 species have become extinct (Hawaii Audubon Society 1989).      ' The dramatic increase in
            the number of extinctions has been due to the introduction of foreign plants and animals.

                    Today, 22 marine bird species can be found throughout the Hawaiian chain, mainly in the
            NWHI (Hawaii Audubon Society 1989). Of the 30 species of Native Hawaiian birds listed as
            endangered or threatened by USFWS, only one is commonly found in the vicinity of the
            Sanctuary, the Hawaiian dark-rumped petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis).

                    The Hawaiian dark-rumped petrel has been observed on the Islands of Kauai, Lanai,
            Hawai@ -and Molokai. Once Oahu's most numerous seabird, the dark-rumped petrel is now mainly
            confined to the Haleakala Crater on Maui (Berger 198 1). There are barely 400 to 600 pairs of
            petrels in the Hawaiian Islands (Sheila Conant, pers. comm. 1993). These marine birds return
            during their breeding season (March-October) to nest at elevations between 7,200 and 9,600 feet,
            the only bird species in Hawaii that nests at such high altitudes (Sheila Conant, per. comm. 1993).
            Petrels spend most of their time at sea, feeding on squid, fish, and crustaceans. They come ashore
            only to nest and raise their young. It is possible that Maui and the other Hawaiian Islands are
            merely a stop-over for breeding and nesting. No observations have been conducted.

                        V. Hawaiian Monk Seal

                    The Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinsland! ) was listed as endangered throughout
            its range on November 23, 1976. Counts have been made at the atolls, islands and reefs where
            they haul out in the northwest Hawaiian Islands since the late 1950s., By 1982, the popula     *tion had
            declined to half of its 1957-1958 level, estimated at 3,500 seals (Altonn 1991). Since the mid-
            1980's, beach counts have declined at five percent per year. NMFS estimates that currently there
            arebetween 1,300 - 1,400 animals (Gilmartin, pers. comm. 1994; J. Naughton, pers. 'comm.
            1996). The number of births declined significantly at all five major breeding locations in 1990,
            followed by some recovery in subsequent years. However, the number of births has not reached
            the level observed in the mid-to-late 1980's, and is not expected to in the near future because of the
            high losses of immature seals at French Frigate Shoals and mobbed seals at Laysan and Lisianski
            Islands.

            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                            Page 69
            and Management Plan






                Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                             National Marine Sanctuary


                        Breeding populations of the Hawaiian monk seal occur almost exclusively in the NWHI.
                Monk seals are most abundant on Kure Atoll, Pearl and Hermes Reef, Lisianski Island, Laysan
                Island, French Frigate Shoals, Necker Island and Nihoa Island. A small population of at least a
                dozen monk seals which have been reported from the island of Niihau and the offshore islet of
                Lehua. These -animals have taken up residence since the mid to late 1980s (J. Naughton, pers.
                comm.).

                        Hawaiian monk seals are vulnerable to human disturbance on pupping and haulout
                beaches, entanglement in marine debris, incidental take in commercial fisheries, possible die-offs
                from disease and naturally occurring biotoxins, male mobbing of female seals, and shark
                predation. Exploitation of the Hawaiian monk seal began shortly after 1814, when the Russian
                explorer Lisianski reporied that he observed -them in the NWHI (Hiruki and Ragen 1992). The
                monk seal served as a valuable source of oil, pelts, and food for sealers and sailors. Commercial
                activity and most incidental taking ended by the late 1800s after seal populations had been
                decimated (Hiruki and Ragen 1992).. Most, if not all, taking by humans stopped once the seal was
                listed as an endangered species.
                        Since Lisianski's exploration, there have been two major population declines in the monk
                seal's history. One, in the 1800s, occurred as a result of extensive sealing and the second,
                between the 1950s and 1970s was due primarily to human disturbance of the seal's breeding areas
                (NMFS, 1991). The latter period resulted     'in a 50 to 60 percent reduction of the seal population
                (Ragen 1993). Birth count monitoring began in 1983 at the breeding islands. From 1983 to 1988
                the number of recorded births increased from 162 to 224. In 1989, the count decreased, and in
                1990 only 143 births were observed -- the lowest number of births ever recorded (NMFS, 199 1;
                Altonn 1991).

                        Monk seals are extremely sensitive to human activity disturbances, and are rarely. seen in'
                the main Hawaiian Islands. Seal births were observed on Kauai in 1988 and on Oahu in 1991
                (Gilmartin, pers. comm. 1994). Monk seals have- also been reported basking along the beaches of
                the Main Hawaidan Islands, including Maui, Kahoolawe and Oahu (Tanji 1992, 1993). Both
                incidents verify that the main Hawaiian Islands continue to serve as temporary resting grounds. for
                the monk seal. An additional small population of at least a dozen monk seals took residence near
                the island of Niihau and the offshore islet of Lehua in the middle to late 1980s. A list of monk seal
                sightings reported to NUFS in the main Hawaiian Islands since 1985 is contained in Table 11-6.
                    TABLE 11-6: Monk'Seal Sightings in the Main Hawaiian Islands, 1984-93
                                    Repo ed to the National Marine Fisheries Service
                       Year       Kauai       Oahu        Maid      Molokai      Lanai      Kahoolawe      Hawaii
                 1984                1          9            -          9
                 1985                1          2            3          1          -             -             -
                 1986                3          10           5          -          5             1             5
                 1987               35          13           -                     -             -             I
                 1988               31          11           1          1                        1             -
                 1989               45          11           2          1                        -             -
                 1990                6          19           3          2                        1             1
                 1991                1     1    39           7          -     I    1             2             1
                 1992                2          37           6          1                        1             4
               .1 1993               3          14           7          1                        -
                Source: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Monk Seal Recove7nan



                Page 70                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                            Part II: Description of the Affected Environment
             National Marine Sanctuary

                    The first Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team, appointed in 1980, submitted its final
             recovery plan to NMFS in 1982. The plan, which includes a comprehensive research and
             management plan for the recovery of the Hawaiian monk seal, was published by NMFS in March
             1983. The objectives of the plan were to (1) identify and mitigate the natural factors causing the
             decline in the seal populations; (2) characterize seal habitat; (3) assess monk seal. populations; (4)
             document and mitigate effects of human activity; (5) implement appropriate management actions
             leading to conservation and recovery; and (6) develop educational programs. The plan outlines the
             tasks necessary to meet the objective and assigns the tasks to appropriate Federal and State
             agencies. A new recovery team was appointed by NMFS in 1989. After the new team! s first
             meeting in 1989, recommendations were submitted to NMFS. Recommendations included
             research programs, data analyses, the Kure Atoll Head Start Project, the male mobbing problem,
             population monitoring, recovery actions at Midway Island, the repair of research facilities at Tern
             Island, and priorities for the 1990 field season. The team has recommended placing observers
             aboard long-line swordfish vessels operating near the Northwest Hawaiian Islands. In December,
             1993, the point at which Hawaiian monk seal's may be considered recovered was discussed. The
             new recovery team concluded that the 1983 recovery plan still provides a useful guide to overall
             recovery needs. Instead of producing a new plan, the team recommended updating the 1983 plan
             with results of subsequent annual program reviews.

                    In summary, the marine waters around the Hawaiian Islands contain a variety of
             ecosystems (shoreline to - subtidal) and species (algae, invertebrates, fish, marine mammals,
             seabirds, sea turtles), many of which are unique to the Hawaiian Islands. In designating the
             Sanctuary, Congress found that this region has many resources of national significance and
             importance, and that the marine ecosystem is diverse and unique. Inclusion of these resources in
             the Sanctuary would heighten public and agency awareness of the importance of these resources
             and- expand the scope of the Sanctuary's management, education, research and resource protection
             programs (research, long-term monitoring, education, outreach, enforcement).              The Final
             EIS/Management Plan summarizes' some of these marine resources that have been identified by the
             public and other agencies for possible inclusion in the Sanctuary. More detailed information about
             theser'esources and did various Federal, State, and county management regimes is needed before
             the Sanctuary can proceed with its mandate to identify other resources for inclusion in the
             Sanctuary. Part V.C.3 of the Management Plan identifies a process to include the public, the
             Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) and the State in assessing whether other resources should be
             included in the Sanctuary.

             C. CULTURALIHISTORI.CAL RESOURCES AND USES

                    Resources of national significance may include cultural and historical resources such as
             those of Native Hawaiians. In addition, the Sanctuary Management Plan is required by law to
             facilitate Native Hawaiian uses customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural,
             and religious purposes. This section will explore some of the ways Native Hawaiians have
             traditionally interacted with the ocean and how those interactions could affect the Sanctuary or
             Native Hawaiian. uses. Major issues of Hawaiian sovereignty and rights are being addressed
             legally and politically in Hawaii today. The Sanctuary will not generally address these larger
             issues, but will attempt to "facilitate" customary and traditional uses as they relate to management
             of Sanctuary resources consistent with the primary objective of resource protection, and to
             establish a process for possible inclusion of appropriate culturalilhistorical resources as Sanctuary
             resources. In addition to facilitating Native Hawaiian uses, the Sanctuary must generally facilitate
             all public and private uses consistent with -the primary objective of resource protection.

                    A more thorough description of traditional uses of the Hawaiian marine environment can be
             found in Chapter 6 of the Sanctuary Site Characterization Study (University of Hawaii Sea Grant,
             1994).    Hawaiians used the ocean . for fishing, aquaculture, trade, transportation and
             communication as well as religious practices. Since the Sanctuary narrowly focuses on humpback

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                           Page 71
             and Management Plan






               Part U: Description of the Affected Environment                            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                 National Marine Sanctuary

               whales and their habitat, the Sanctuary will not directly address fishing issues (i.e., regulation of
               commercial, recreational, and traditional fisheries). However, the Sanctuary will address issues
               that may have indirect effects on fishing activities (i.e., proposals for the placement of artificial
               reefs, etc.). This section focuses primarily on aquaculture, including traditional marine fish ponds
               and religious sites which are found seaward of the high water mark.

                    1. Native Hawaiian Settlements And Social Patterns
                        The early Hawaiians arranged their land and seascapes to reflect iheir ideas of natural and
               social order. Each island was called a mokupuni or moku           Mokupuni were further divided into
               moku@o-loko [moku], such as Ewa or Waianae on Oahu. These interior island divisions were
               portioned into ahupuaa, i1i, and smaller parcels which were worked and farmed by ohana, or
               extended family units. The ahupuaa was the basic socio-economic land unit. Generally, the
               ahupuaa was a pie-shaped segment of land with its apex at the summit of the central mountain
               ridges of an island and its wider base at the shore and beyond into ocean fishing grounds. An
               ahupuaa's boundaries were usually delineated by natural features such as a ridge line separating
               two valleys. Thus, the valley of Kahanaconstituted one ahupuaa of the moku of Koolauloa on the
               northeastern side of the island of Oahu. Hawaii's place names and property laws still reflect these
               land divisions today.

               The Hawaiian ahupua'a is a traditional ancestor of the modem-day watershed concept. The court
               of the Hawaiian Kingdom described the ahupuea. principle of land use in the case of In Re
               Boundaries of Pulehunui, 4 Haw. 239, 241 (1879) as follows:

                        A principle very largely obtaining in these divisions of territory [ahupuaa] was that a land
                        should run from the sea to the mountains, thus affording to the chief and his people a
                        fishery residence at. the warm seaside, together with the product& of the high lands, such as
                        fuel, canoe tiffiber, mountain birds'   and the right of way to the sarne,, and all. the varied
                        products of the intermediate land as. might. be suitable to tlw soil,. and climate of the different
                        altitudes from the sea. soil to the mountainside- or top.
               The Hawaiians consider the land and ocean to be integrally connected and that the ahupuaa also
               include the shoreline, as well as the inshore and offshore ocean areas such as fishponds, reefs,
               channels, and. deep sea. fishing grounds. Ahupua'a were further divided into subzones, in both the
               land areas and the sea areas.

               Mauka - land areas                                  MWW - sea areas
               kuahiwi, mountain range                             pu'eone, sand edge, inshore dune, sand bar,
               wao akua, forests of the gods                       po'ina nalu, point where the waves break
               wao kele, rain forests                              kai kohola, reef lagoon
               wao kanaka, forests acccesible to man               kai pualenal yellowish. sea. at the mouth of a. stream
               wao, la'auinland forest, region
                                                                   kat ek. dark sea
               kahawai,. place: having water,: valleys             kai u1i, deep blw sea
               ko kula ukal. upland slope                          kaipopolohua mea a Kane, purplish-blue, reddish
               ko kzda kai, seaward slope                           brown sea of Kane,. far reaches of the
               ko kaha kai, shoreline                               immeasureable sea

               Source: Hawaii Non-Point Pollution Control Program (OSP 1996)

               Within the ahupuaa, everyone had access to various resources, from the sea to the upland forests.
               People living at or near the shore often exchanged fish. or nearshore produce for upland products
               with their relatives who lived farther inland. Pre-contact Hawaiian society was highly structured


               Page 72                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                      and-Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                 Part H: Description of the Affected Environment
              National Marine Sanctuary

              and hierarchical according to ascribed social status based on ranking senior and junior lineage.
              Lilikala Karneeleihiwa has conceptualized the Hawaiian system of social hierarchy as a triangle:

                      On each main island, a single Moi [King] at the apex of the society served as an
                      intermediary between the Akua and the rest of Ka Lahui [the Nation]. Several
                      levels of subordinate a1ii nui and Kahuna Nui -were followed by more numerous
                      and lesser ranking a1ii and kahuna who acted as konohiki. These people created a
                      buffer between the Moi and the vast majority of makaainana who made up the
                      foundation of the society.

                      Those at the top were kapu, or sacred, and             possessed of mana [spiritual and
                      political power]. Those at the bottom were noa, common or free from kapu and, by
                      extension, without the necessary mana . . . to invoke a kapu -- although even a
                      common fisherman, if successful, had some mana. Those in between were on a
                      sliding scale, having less mana the farther down the triangle they slipped and the
                      farther away they fell from high lineage (Kameeleihiwa 1992:45-46).

              This hierarchical system of social organization ensured that the Hawaiian nation lived in harmony
              with the spiritual and physical world (Kameeleihiwa 1992:25-26). Within the ancient Hawaiian
              social and economic systems of hierarchy and land division were the concepts of malanza aLw
              (Caring for the land) and pono (harmony, balance). The Hawaiians believed they were related to
              the land and that the abw (that which feeds) was their mother, and the plants that sustained them,
              particularly kalo (taro), were elder siblings. This was,also true for the sea. Many contemporary
              Hawaiians continue to live by these precepts, or are returning to traditional ways as a means of
              recasting their cultural heritage in today's world.

              This summary provides only a brief glimpse of ancestral Hawaiian social and religious structures.
              It is important to recognize that Hawaiian cultural concepts of-resource use such as pono and aloha
              aina (love of the land) differ significantly from contemporary western concepts.

                  2. Aguaculture/Fishponds

                      Aquaculture is an important historical         use of'the marine environment. According to
              Kikuchi (1973), "fishponds existed nowhere             else in the Pacific in types and numbers as in
              prehistoric Hawaii". Summers (1964) states            that marine fishponds are found nowhere else in
              Polynesia. Indeed, the practice of mariculture may have originated in Hawaii (Costa-Pierce 1987).
                      Historical evidence indicates that fishponds were introduced on Oahu prior to the thirteenth
              century by settlers from the Society Islands (Kikuchi 1973). The earliest aquaculture systems were
              probably composed of natural bodies of water, weirs, dams, fish traps, and artificial fish shelters
              (Kikuchi 1973). Py the fourteenth century, true fishponds were being developed throughout the
              Hawaiian Islands (Kikuchi 1973).

                      The Hawaiians built different types of fishponds to take advantage of a range of geographic
              and aquatic conditions. According to Kikuchi (1973), "the trend was to utilize practically all
              available bodies of water of some size in the construction and evolution of fishponds". The
              different fishponds that evolved for use in fresh, brackish, and marine waters have been classified
              into six main types (DHM 1990).

                  Type I:      loko kuapa - a coastal marine fishpond artificially enclosed by a seawall;
                 Type II:      loko puuone or hakuone - an isolated shore fishpond usually formed by the
                                        development of a barrier beach building a single elongated sand ridge
                                       parallel to the coast;
                Type III:      loko wai - a freshwater fishpond located inland from the shoreline;

              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                    Page 73
              and Management Plan





                Part II: Description of the Affected Environment                        Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                National Marine Sanctuary
                   Type IV:     loko ia kalo or loko loi kalo, - fishpond -that uses an irrigated taro plot as an inland
                                        water pond for the raising of fish;
                   Type V:      loko umeiki -a fishtrap similar in shape and construction to a loko kuapa with
                                        many stone lanes leading into areas enclosed by nets; and
                  Type VI:      kaheka and hapunapuna - a natural pool or a holding pond.

                        a.   Estimate of Number and Distribution

                        Estimates vary as to the number of fishponds that were built in the Hawaiian Islands.
                Costa-Pierce (1987) estimates there were 360 at the time of European contact; Kikuchi (1973)
                reports that 449 fishponds were constructed; and DI-IM Inc. (1990) lists 488 fishponds in its
                fishpond inventory.
                        The location and distribution of the type of fishponds throughout the inhabited islands
                seems to be geographically determined. For example, on the island of Molokai, which has a
                protected, shallow reef along its southern coastline, more loko kuapa were constructed there than
                anywhere else in the islands (Costa-Pierce 1987). On the island of Hawaii, where the shoreline
                drops off too precipitously for construction of large walled ponds, inland upstream freshwater
                ponds were built (Hudson 1932). The type and location of known fishponds are listed in Table H-
                7 with Type I and Type V being the most relevant.


                                       TABLE 11-7:        Fis ponds by ype and sland
                             Type         1       11      111    IV       V      VI     lim       .21   Total
                             Niihau                1                                                      1
                             Hawaii      21       61-     14      1       1      30       3       8       138
                             maw         11       12      7                       8               6       44
                             Lanai        1                               3                               4
                           Molokai       44       12      2               13                      3        74
                             Oahu        70       22      78              4                       4       178
                             Kauai    1           16      13      7           1                   14       50
                             Total    1  147 1    124     114     7       21 1  _T8       3 1     35      489
                        21= Unsure of type                          Source:  DHM Inc. 1990; Kikuchi 1973.

                        b. Fishponds Today

                        With the population decline in the second half of the nineteenth century,          much of the
                Hawaiian integrated farming system fell into disuse and disrepair. Native Hawaiians largely
                abandoned the practice of extensive aquaculture in favor of a Western-style food consumption
                patterns and the fishponds were left uninaintained. Coastal development for tourism and for
                residential purposes in thetwentieth century, especially since statehood, has led to the destruction
                of many of the ancient fishponds.

                        Apple and Kikuchi (1975) conducted a visual survey of the coast of the main Hawaiian
                Islands and found only the remains of 157 fishponds. Of the 157, only 56 could be considered for
                possible restoration (Table 11-8). Madden and Paulsen (1977) conducted a study of 67 fishponds
                and found that. only 28 were still in sufficient repair to be used for mullet (Mugil cephalus) and
                milkfish (Chanos chanos) culture. Costa-Pierce (1987) reported that, by 1987 there were seven
                ponds in use for commercial and subsistence purposes.



                Page 74                                                               Final Environmental Impact StatemenT
                                                                                                     and Management Plan







               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                       Part II: Description of the Affected Environment
               National Marine Sanctuary


                             TABLE 11-8: Fishponds of Maui, Lanai, Kauai, and Molokai
                                                                                                                              
                      Name                       Location (Ili, Ahupuaa, TMK)                         Size      Type         Owner         
                                                                                                    (acres)
               MAUI FISHPONDS - HANA DISTRICT
               Haneoo                  Haneoo/1-4-08:2 (Loko-nui;BPBM 50-Ma-A15-9)                   11.2          I           P
               Kuamaka                 Haneoo/1-4-08:4 (Loko-iki;BPBM 50-Ma-A15-8)                    1.3          I           P
               LANAI FISHPONDS
               Lopa                    Kaohai/4-9-03-,9 (BPBM50-La-Al-13)                             0.8          I           P
               KAUAI FISHPONDS
               Kee                     Haena/5-9-08:18                                                3            II          S
               Kanoa                   Hanalei/5-5-01:2                                               4            III         P
                (nameless)             Wailua/4-1-03:16                                               3            II          P
               Alekoko                 Niumalu/3-2-01:1                                               32           III         P
               (nameless)              Koloa/2-6-02:2(Hoai;BPBM 50-Ka-B4-15)                          4            II          P
               (nameless)              Lawai/2-6-02:1 (Lawai Kai)                                     2             III         P
               Nomilu                 Kalaheo-kai/2-3-10:2                                           4              III          P
               MOLOKAI FISHPONDS
               Kainaohe                Kaamola/5-6-05:22                                              17            I            P
               Ualapue                 Ualapue/5-6-01:1                                               22            I            S
               Kalokoeli               Kamiloloa/5-4-02:14                                            28            I            S
               Kupeke                  Kupeke/5-7-06:1                                                30            I            P
               Niaupala               Kaluaaha/5-6-08:8                                              34             I            P
               Aliii                    Makakupaia/5-4-06:23                                           27            I            H
               Kaope-a-Hina            Kaluaaha/5-7-09:1                                              19             I           P
               Keawanui                Keawanui/5-6-06:8                                             54              I           P
               Pahiomu                 Keonokuino/5-5-01:10                                           20            I            S
               Kihaqloko                Ahaino II/5-7-06:22                                             5             I            P
               Kulaalaniihi            Honomuni/5-7-04:34                                             4             I           P
               Waihilahila            Kailiulaq/5-7-06:27                                             4             I            P
               Kanoa                   Kawelaq/5-4-03.23                                               50            I            P
               Kipapa                 Keonokuino/5-5-01:8                                            10            I            S
               Kaqlokoiki              Wawaia/5-6-08:20                                               6          I               P
               Kamahuehue             Kamalo/5-5-02:5                                                37          I            P
               Piopio                  Mapulehu/5-7-08:77                                             17            I            P
               Puhaloa                 Manawai/5-6-04:29                                              6             I            P
               Key: P = Private; S = State of Hawaii; and H               Hawaiian Home Lands
               Source: Apple and Kikuchi 1975

                         The Governor's Task Force on Molokai Fishpond Restoration produced a recent report
               which recommended that the State of Hawaii assist to physically rebuild all of the State-owned
               Native Hawaiian fishponds on Molokai at the rate of two fishponds per year for a period of five
               years. (May 1993).

                         c. Implications for the Sanctuary

                         Fishponds are an important archaeological feature and a link with Hawaii'                  s past. A number
               of the fishponds judged by Apple and Kikuchi (1975) to be repairable are found in coastal areas
               adjacent to the Sanctuary. Restoration of exemplary fishponds and the development of a Sanctuary
               education program revolving around their history, construction, and use may be appropriate.


               Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                              Page 75
               and Management Plan






               Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                            National Marine Sanctuary

               Because restoration requires the types of activities that are regulated by a variety of existing
               agencies (i.e., discharging, depositing, alteration of the seabed), close coordination among the
               Sanctuary, Federal, State and local agencies, and Native Hawaiian interest groups, such as the
               Governor's Task Force on Moloka'i Fishpond Restoration, would be necessary.

                      The Maui Sanctuary office is located adjacent to the 1.5 acre Loko kuapa fishpond, the
               largest remaining fishpond in South Maui. The Sanctuary has worked with local Native Hawaiians
               to produce a brochure describing the fishpond and how it was used by Native Hawaiians' The
               Sanctuary, at the request of the local community, began compiling information on how to renovate
               and restore the Loko kuapa fishpond.

                  3. Religious Practices and Artifacts

                      The Hawaiian culture, conditioned by an animistic philosophy of life, viewed humankind
               as being in harmony with Nature. Hawaiians, according to Beckwith and Luornala (1970),
               "worshipped nature gods, and these gods entered to a greater or less extent into all the affairs of
               daily life." This study continues, "much that seems to us wildest fancy in Hawaiian story is to him
               [the Hawaiian] a sober statement of fact as he interprets it through the interrelations of gods with
               nature and with man." Just as the sea was an extension of the land, beliefs about the spirit world
               were an extension of the real world.

                      Many of Hawaii's myths and legends relate to the sea. In the legend of Ai Kanaka, the
               priest Kamalo is wronged by the Moi of Mapulehu and seeks retribution from the shark god
               Kauhuhu. In turn, Kamalo is instructed to collect a number of red fish to prepare as an offering on
               the day that Kauhuhu comes to deal out punishment to the offender (Forbes 1907). In other
               stories, the Hawaiian deities are appeased by sacrifices of white fish, red fish, eels, or other sea
               creatures.

                      One of the supreme Hawaiian deities, Ku, takes the form of Kuula or Kuula-Kai (Ku, or
               "abundance in the sea") as the special deity of fishermen (Beckwith and Luomala 1970).
               According to legend, Kuula was a man who resided in Hana, Maui, and possessed miraculous
               power in directing and controlling fish (Thnim 1907). Upon his death, )Cuula passed into. the
               realm of the deities and his son Aiai begins to build altars to honor his 'father (Beckwith and
               Luomala 1970; Titcomb 1972). These altars, known as koa, are found along all the major islands.
               Emory (1969) describes a koa on the island of Lanai:

                              "A typical and authentic koa stands at water's edge on the sandy point of
                      Honuaula. The irregular plaiform of stone and coral is six feet high, surmounted
                      by low altar 6 by 12 feet, littered with shells, fish bones, and fresh crabs. At the
                      back of the koa is an enclosure containing pine timbers suggestive of a recent
                      shack

               One can see from Emory's description that this koa and some others are still in use today.

                      An important religious practice connected with marine areas and fishing is the belief in the
               transmigration of the soul of a dead relative into certain species of fish (or other animals), or the
               animation of certain species by a departed one's soul. These ancestral personal deities, called
               aumakua, took the forms of sharks, eels, octopus, 'limpets, or other types of marine organisms
               (Titcomb 1972; Khil 1978; Kawaharada 1992). The aumakua were family guardians that were
               worshipped with daily prayer and by offerings of food in return for bringing good luck during
               fishing and other important undertakings Jitcomb 1972). Fishermen would not capture any
               species that were aumakua to their families. Violating the kapu against taking one's aumakua was
               thought to bring about severe punishment.


               Page 76                                                           Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                            Part H: Description of the Affected Environment
             National Marine Sanctuary

                4. Kahoolawe Island (Kohemalamalama 0 Kanaloa)

                     Kahoolawe Island is extremely important from a traditional, cultural, and religious point of
             view to Native Hawaiians, and has been designated a State of Hawaii Island Cultural Reserve as
             well as a National Archeological District. A diverse array of cultural, archeological, historical and
             environmental resources provide opportunity for greater scientific and cultural learning as well as
             practicing traditional and contemporary Native Hawaiian culture. The importance of Kahoolawe is
             best surnmarized in the Kahoolawe Island Conveyance Commission's 1993 Final Report to.
             Congress (KICC 1993), which states, "Kahoolawe serves as a cultural resource, particularly for
             Native Hawaiians, because it links past traditions with contemporary practices. It is.a place where
             cultural practices, including religious ceremonies, continue to be observed and where legends and
             traditions continue to survive, often in place names and the oral traditions relating to the island."

                     Much of what is known about the culture and traditions of Kahoolawe was recorded in an
             oral tradition called mele. Mele included songs, chants, and genealogical recitations (Aluli and
             MacGregor, 1991). However, archeological and historical reports also reveal past uses and
             provide insight into the culture. Kahoolawe Island contains the remains of numerous fishing
             shrines (ko'as) and several temples (heiaus), and stone alters (ku'ula) used to propitiate the fish
             deities and assure good catches within its coastal area. These terrestrial artifacts have traditionally
             been used as land markers to define the areal boundary of an individual's fishing grounds, or the
             boundary within which certain species of fish could be caught. Ongoing archeological evaluations
             are studying the nature of these land-based artifacts, as they relate to and have been used in the
             traditional Hawaiian land and sea management practice of ahupua'a.

                     While the terTestrial sites are not included in the Sanctuary . boundary, some of the
             archeological sites are located in underwater caves. There have been reports of "resource raiding"
             and looting by divers. . Cultural, historical, and archeological sites have not been identified at this
             time as Sanctuary resources. However, any increased surveillance or enforcement as part of
             Sanctuary management initiative could assist the KIRC in minimizing destructive activities.

                     The NMSA requires the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the State of Hawaii,
             to make an annual certification as to whether the waters within 3 nautical miles of Kahoolawe are
             suitable for inclusion in the Sanctuary. In December 1995, the Secretary, in close coordination
             with the State of Hawaii and the KIRC, certified that these waters are not suitable for inclusion in
             the Sanctuary. These waters contain unexploded ordnance from Navy activities that pose a safety
             risk to users of the area. As part of the 1996 NMSA reauthorization, the annual certification
             requirement by the Secretary was removed and replaced by a process that would allow the State of
             Hawaii and KIRC to nominate the waters around Kahoolawe for possible inclusion in the
             Sanctuary. NOAA would have to determine if these waters are suitable for inclusion and then
             initiate the Sanctuary designation process, including public meetings and governor- review, before
             including these waters in the Sanctuary.

                     a. Kahoolawe Island Reserve


                     AaWi.Session Laws:.of Hawaii (SLH),1993 established,the Kahoolawe, Island. Reserve,
             bkaddih :.aapter,6Kt6Ah Miv@iifftpv            'Statute@: (HRS)@i-.:':Aict134&provides. for the, transfer of
                      9                  '- . 11 1                        1, ; - I
                            ,ve       @:sovereip@ .-atft: waiiarrentityk.u        re gnition by the Uriited States
             therislaridleser tothe i
                                                                           pon@it& co
             and,the,S e,of'Hawai7i.    Ma'ra         of, th6, re
                                              gement,          serve s overseen. by a seven-member commission.
             The reserve@ is tobeused exclusively@ forthe preservation and 'practice of all rights customarily and.
             traditionally exercised by Native Hawaiians for cultural, spiritual and subsistence purposes;
             preservation and protection of its archeological, historical and environmental resources;
             rehabilitation, revegetation, habitat restoration, and preservation; and education.


             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                            Page 77
             and Management Plan




                        Part II: Description of the Affected Environment                                                              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                                                                    National Marine Sanctuary



                              Due to imminent peril to public health and safety, based on the presence of unexploded
				ordnance and hazardous material on the islands and in surrounding waters, the Board of Land and
                        Natural Resources (BLNR) and the Kahoolawe Island Reserve Commission (KIRC)adopted
				emergency rules, effective May 6, 1994, to September 6, 1994, ford the Kahoolawe Island Reserve
				[section 91-3(b), HRS, and section 13-1-35, Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR)].  The U.S.
				Navy has used the island as a military target since 1941 and has an established danger zone which
				includes the waters extending two miles from the shoreline.  Access into the area is restricted in
				recognition of the substantial amount of unexploded and hazardous materials present on the island
				and in the adjacent waters (CFR 763 and CFR 334.1340).

					Title X (Public Law 103-139, 107 STAT. 1418, 1479, 1484)authorized the conveyance
				and return of the island to the state and required the U.S. Navy to remove unexploded ordinance
				and environmentally restore the island.  On May 7, 1994, the island of Kahoolawe was conveyed
				to the State of Hawai`I from the U.S. Navy  THe imminent threat to public health and safety will
				continue to exist until the reserve has been cleared of unexploded ordinance and hazardous waste
				
					ON August 18, 1994, the Hawaii Administrative Rules were amended to include formal
				rules for the Kahoolawe Island Reserve (HAR, Title 13, Subtitle 12, Chapter 260).  The rules
				divided the reserve into two zones: zone A includes all of the upland areas, including the waters
				from the shoreline to a depth of 20 fathoms, and zone B includes the waters from a depth of 20
				fathoms out to 2 miles from the shoreline.  The following uses are prohibited within the reserve:

					No person shall enter the reserve for any purpose, or operate, leave unattended, beach,
					park, archor, or moor vessels or any other water craft, or use the reserve except in
					cases of emergency or as provided in this chapter.
					No person shall remove or attempt to remove any aquatic life, mineral, or vegetation
					from the reserve, except as provided in this chapter.
					No person shall engage in any activity which shall include but not be limited to: fishing
					from shore, fishing by trolling or drifting, bottom fishing, spear fishing, net or trap
					fishing, diving surfing, swimming, snorkeling, and walking in shallow waters within
					the reserve, except as specifically provided.
					No commercial activities shall be allowed within the reserve, except for vessels
					transiting the island reserve that are engaged in intra-state, inter-state, or foreign trade.

				The following uses are permitted within the reserve:
					Fishing by trolling, where the vessel remains underway at all times, shall be allowed
					within Zone B on two weekends per month, as noticed by publication in the Local
					Notice to Mariners issued by Commander Fourteenth Coast Guard District.
					Escorted access to the reserve for the purpose of the following uses may be permitted
					by written authorization of KIRC, and as necessary, subject to final approval by the 
					U.S. Navy:	
					1)  Customary and traditional Native Hawaiian cultural, spiritual, and subsistence use
					    in areas deemed safe;
					2)  Activities for the preservation, protection, and restoration of cultural, 
					    archaeological, and historical sites;
					3)  Rehavilitation, revegetation, habitat restoration, and preservation; and
					4)  Educational activities.


	There is a maximum penalty of $1,000 ford each offense, including forfeiture of license and slips

	Source:  Fact Sheet on Status of Kahoolawe-Kahoolawe Island Reserve Commission, June 1994




	Page 78													Final Environmental Impact Statement
														                 	     and Management Plan
	
	


					





















                          Page 78                                                                                                 Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                                                                         and Management Plan
 





             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                           Part II: Description of the Affected Environment
             National Marine Sanctuary


                5. Submerged Lands

                    The establishment of the Sanctuary in no way conveys,. or intends to convey, to NOAA any
             title or ownership of Hawaii's submerged lands. These lands, including those known as ceded
             lands, continue to be held in trust by the State of Hawaii. The Sanctuary will exist as a co-steward
             of the Sanctuary and its resources. Should the status of the submerged lands change at some time
             in the future (i.e., lands are conveyed to a sovereign Hawaiian nation), the Sanctuary will work
             with the appropriate entities to redefine its role if necessary.

                6. Traditional Native Hawaiian Uses

                    Section 2306 of the HINMSA directs NOAA to develop a Sanctuary Management Plan
             that, among others, "facilitates all public and private uses of the Sanctuary (including uses of
             Hawaiian natives customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, and religious
             purposes) consistent with the primary objective of the protection of humpback whales and their
             habitat." NOAA has not promulgated any regulations that would independently prohibit, restrict or
             regulate fishing, subsistence gatli6ring or any other access to the water or the Sanctuary resources.
             NOAA will work with the Native Hawaiian community to develop joint education and research
             projects that facilities their use of the marine environment and increases the general public's
             understanding of their practices and culture.

                7. Shipwrecks

                    The Hawaii    Maritime Center has    a fist of over a hundred vessels which have been
             shipwrecked since   1796. Some     'of the  ships have been salvaged or floated and a complete
             inventory of locations is not known. The number of historical shipwrecks that lie within the
             Sanctuary boundary is presently not known. At this time, shipwrecks are not considered as
             Sanctuary resources, but may be'added under the process for identifying "other resources of
             national significance" through the designation process outlined in the Management Plan. Under the
             Abandoned Shipwreck Act (ASA) of 1988, (P.L. 100-298) the State Historic Preservation Officer
             (SHPO) is given the responsibility to inventory and manage historic resources such as shipwrecks.
             Likewise, under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), Federal agencies must
             inventory, assess, and nominate to the National Register of Historic Places any
             historic/archeological properties on public lands or, in the case of Hawaiian waters, on submerged
             or bottom lands.

                    In summary, the marine waters around the Hawaiian Islands contain a variety of cultural
             (settlement patterns, religious practices, resource management practices) and historical
             (archeological sites, oral traditions, fishponds, shipwrecks) resources unique to the Hawaiian
             Islands. Inclusion of these resources in the Sanctuary would heighten public and agency
             awareness of the importance of these resources and expand the scope of the Sanctuary's
             management and resource protection' programs ftesearch, long-term monitoring, education,
             outreach, cultural awareness, and enforcement). The Final EIS/MP summarizes some of these
             cultural and historical resources.     More detailed information about these resources, and
             consultation with Native Hawaiian groups and the various Federal, State and County management
             regimes is needed before the Sanctuary can proceed with its mandate to identify other resources for
             possible inclusion in the sanctuary. Part E.6. of the Management Plan identifies a process to
             include the public and the SAC in assisting the Sanctuary with this assessment.





             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                          Page 79
             and Management Plan






               Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                            National Marine Sanctuary

               D.      HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND ACTWITIES

                       This section provides information on the users and uses of the marine environment of
               Hawaii, and the social and economic context for Sanctuary planning and management. Trends
               indicate continued growth in population, tourism, and uses of the marine environment. Shoreline
               growth and development will continue for the most part with some limitations and control required
               by county master plans and ordinances. Hawaii's infrastructure (water, sewer, coastal highways,
               etc.) will experience increased demand for electricity, oil and other sources of energy, which often
               require ocean/shordline location. Changes in agricultural uses along with shifts in land use patterns
               will provide new challenges for Hawaii; sediments. escaping agricultural lands into streams and the
               ocean may be substituted by urban runoff. New technologies in recreational vessels creating faster
               boats, and personal submersibles and increased boating density will place new strains on the whale
               population, especially cow/calf pairs seeking some seclusion during the critical first few months
               after birth. Heavy use of some famous areas such as Hanauma Bay and Molokini Shoals will
               increase the demand for new and little used areas bringing human and whale use into more
               potential conflict. These challenges, and as yet unforeseen challenges, will require the Sanctuary
               to be flexible in meeting the challenge of protection as well as facilitating uses of the ocean
               environment.

                   1. -Socio-Demo=Rhic Profile

                       a. Population and Ethnic Makeup

                       The estimated resident population of the State of Hawaii as of 1992 was 1, 159,600.
               Population breakdown by county is listed in Table H-9.          Approximately 75 percent of the
               population resides on the island of Oahu in the City and County of Honolulu; 11 percent in the
               County of Hawaii; 9 percent in Maui County (including the islands of Maui,. Molokai and Lanai);
               and 5 percent in Kauai County (including Niihau). According to the 1990 Census, 89 percent of
               Hawaii's population lives in urban areas. However, there is considerable variation by county,
               ranging from 96.4 percent urban in Honolulu to 55.2 percent in Kauai.



                                      TABLE 11-9: Population and Percent Urban
                                                              Resident                    Percent
                                                            Population                    Urban
                        State                               1,159,600                       89
                        Honolulu                              864,800                      96.4
                        Maui                                  109,000                     77.90
                        Hawaii                                130,500                      60.8
                        Kauai                                 55,300                       55.2
                        ource: Hawaii State Data Too'k,1992











               Page 90                                                            Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                 and Management Plan






               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                  Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment
               National Marine Sanctuary
                       Figure 11-17 shows how the population has grown since the 1950's. Hawaii currently
               experiences a population growth rate of two percent.


                                                 Resident Population of Islands
                                                                 1950 W 1992





                                                          How"
                                                          mad
                                                sm.000  0 KSUW



                                                400.000

                                                2W .00



                                                      19" im    1979 ien Me    Isla

                                    Figure 11-17 (DBEDT 1993)

                       There is considerable ethnic variety, with no single group in the majority, as is shown in
               Table U-10.

                        TABLE II-10: Ethnic Diversity, Percentage by County
                                           State     Honolulu           Maui        Hawaii           Kauai
                Caucasian                  24.1           25.1          21.6           22.2          18.4
                Japanese                   20.4           21            17.4           19.3          18.4
                Mixed, Part-               18             15.7          24             26.5          24.3
                Hawaiian
                Mixed, Non-                17.5           17.4          17             18.2            19
                Hawaiian
                Filipino                   11.3           10.6          15.8           10.2          17.3
                Chinese                    4.7            6             0.8            0.8           0.6
                Black                      1.5            1.9           0.2            0.3           0.2
                Korean                     1.1            1.3           0.7            0.3           0.4
                Hawaiian                   0.8            63            2.3            1.6             1
                Puerto Rican               0.3            0.2           0.6      1     0.4           0.2
                Samoan                     0.3            0.4                          0.2           0.10
               Source: Hawaii State Data Book, 1993 update.

                       b. Labor Force

                       The civilian labor force averaged 568,000 in 1992 and Statewide unemployment was 4.2
               percent. The unemployment rate varied from a low of 3.2 percent on Honolulu to 8.4 percent on
               Kauai, reflecting the economic dislocation resulting from Hurricane Iniki (1992). Ocean industries
               alone employed 18,000 persons and generated $2.9 biWon in revenues in 1992 (MacDonald and
               Deese, 1994). The industry is forecast to grow at 4.5 percent per year over 1992-1998, generating
               annual revenues of $3.8 billion and employment of about 20,250 in 1998 (MacDonald et al, 1995).

                       Table H- I I shows that Hawaii's economy is dominated by the service sector: 26.7 percent
               of the jobs are in the hotels and other services industry; 23.0 percent are in the wholesale and retail
               trade industry; 18.4 percent are in local, State, and Federal government; and 6.4 percent are in the


               Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                      Page 81
               and Management Plan





                 Part II: Description of the Affected Environment                            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                    National Marine Sanctuary

                 finance, insurance, and real estate industries. Transportation, communication and utilities provide
                 7.3 percent of the jobs, and the nonagricultural self-employed make up 6.6 percent of the jobs.
                 Construction provides 5.7 percent of the jobs, 'manufacturing provides 3.5 percent and agriculture
                 provides 2.3 percent.

                                    TABLE 11-11:         Job Count by Industry, by County
                                              State       Honolulu           Maui            Hawaii             Kauai
                 Construction                33,500          25,350          3,200           3,700              1,300
                 Manufacturing               20,400.         15,200          2,150           2,250               800
                 Transportation              32,800          27,300          NS               NS                 N S
                 Communication               10,600          51,850          NS               NS                 N S
                  and Utilities
                 Trade                       136,350         102,150         14,050          13,050             7,150
                 Finance, Real Estate        37,500          30,550          3,250           2,400              1,400
                  and Insurance
                 Hotels                      40,600          19,950          9,500           6,600              4,550
                 Other Services              117,700         96,800          8,600           8,200              4,100
                 Federal Government          34,000          32,400          450              800                350
                 State &'Local               75,000          57,600          5,900                              3,200
                 Government
                 Agriculture                 13,700          3,150           3,050           6,150              1,450
                 Non-Agriculture,            39,000          26,600          4,000           6,050              2,400
                  self employed
                 Total                       591,250         445,100         57,200          60,050             29,050
                 NS = Not Shown Separately                                      Source: Hawaii State Data Book, 1992

                    2. Human Activities

                         a. Fishing

                         Fishing has always been an important economic and recreational activity           in Hawaii, with
                 social and cultural implications outweighing economic impacts. In pre-contact             times Hawaiians
                 were adept at exploiting nearshore and intensive use of the ocean for food, tools and religious
                 offerings. Subsequent influxes of immigrants have continued the intensive use of the ocean for
                 food and recreation. The 1992 estimated total consumption of fish in Hawaii was 70.5 million
                 pounds (mlbs), of which 30.4 mlbs. with an estimated value of $62 million were caught
                 commercially; 29.9 mlbs. with a market value of $70 million were- net imports; and 10.2 mlbs.
                 were caught by recreational fishers (MacDonald and Deese, 1994). Reported commercial landings
                 have increased over the past few years. Almost 13.5 mlbs. were landed in 1989, 15.4 mlbs. in
                 1990, and 22.3 mlbs. in 1991. This increase has, to a large degree, been driven by the growth in
                 the longline fishery industry. In 1992 an estimated 70 percent of the total commercial landings
                 were from the longline fleet, which is restricted to fish located more than 50 to 75 miles from
                 shore.

                             i. Commercial Fishing

                         it has been estimated that 13 percent (1.4 mlbs) of the 1980-1990 mean annual commercial
                 landings, 10.8 m1bs., were caught "inshore" (within 3 miles of the Main Hawaiian Islands); 66
                 percent (7.2 mlbs.) were caught "nearshore" (between 3 to 20 miles); and the rest, 21 percent (2.2
                 mlbs.), were caught beyond 20 miles. The inshore commercial landings are dominated by the
                 catch of Akule (29 percent), Opelu (18 percent) and Ahi (10 percent).



                 Page 82                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                         and Management   Plan






                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                  Part II: Description of the Affected Environment
                      National Marine Sanctuary
                                  Table 11-12 lists the monthly inshore catch for the fiscal year 1992-93 by island and
                      county. The first four months of whale season (November '92 - February '93) were low catch
                      months; however the last two months, March and April '93, were the third and fourth best months
                      of the year. Honolulu leads the counties with the largest annual catch. The smallest annual catch
                      was in Kauai's waters despite the fact that Kauai had the top three catch months (March, April &
                      May, 1993). Table 11- 13 lists the number of fishers reporting catches by month and by county.

                 TABLE 11-12: Commercial Marine Life Landed by Month/Area, Fiscal Year 1992-93
                                                     (lbs.)
                           6/92     8/92     9/92    10/92   11/92   12/92   1/93   2/93   3/93    4/93    5/93    6/93    Total
              Kauai        12849    26910    5344     5573    2412    5281   9862   6322   92288   65672   75619   41831   349913
              Nimau         NA       NA       874      NA     NA       NA     NA     NA      288    2529     NA     2048     5739
              Kauai        12849    26910    6218     5573    2414    5281   9862   6322   92576   68151   75619   43879   355652
              Couny*
              Oahu*        46256    43857    4422O    49714  47699    46327  35648   42044  33026   40889   44683   40279   513872
              Penguin       5127     3253     3637     7350   6119     7463  10464    7935   4365    7455   05921    9923    89012
              Bark
              Molokai       2555     1154     1973     1671   1949     3497   3709    4390   1208    2547    1811    2680    29144
              Lanni         1430     1787     6201     1972    590     l089   1316    2269   1199    1681    2250     768    22552
              Maui         19907     16585   12230     8212   3960     5088   6510    11501  3633    3649   11390   27881    13057
              Channel       6456      6816    7540    13045   7348    11736   8095     7561  6183    4467    6208    7011    92462
              Kahoolawe     4062      1290     607     1644    180      182   1499      755  1302    2368    1086    1509    16384
              Maui         39537     30885   32189    33894  204146   29055  31593    34411 17890   20367   38662   49772   380101
              County*
              Hawaii*      45674     61820   43558    54943   27545   27058  18440    24322  35185  28494   34258   68494   469791 
              TOTAL       144316     163202  12685    144124  97802   107721 95543   107099 178677 159101  193222  202424  1719416    I
                Note:      County numbers are subtotals of island numbers.
             Source: Personal Communication, Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), Division of Aquatic
             Resources (DAR), March, 1994.


                              TABLE  II-13:        Commercial Fishers by Month and Area, Fiscal Year 1992-93
                                      6/92     8/92    9/92     11/92    12/92    1/93    2/93    3/93    4/93   5/93    6/93   Total
                                                                                                  
                      Kaui             58       42      26        17       22      21      38      40      36     46      60      45
                      Niihau           NA       NA       5        NA       NA      NA      NA      NA       4     11      NA      12
                      Kauai Co         58       42      31        17       22      21      38      40      40     57      NA      57
                      Oahu            125       134    167       187      160     126     114     132     113    115     123     101
                      Penquin B.       21        15     22        34       29      31      38      44      26     45      47      35
                      Molikai          21        10     19        18       17      15      16      18       5     20      20      22
                      Lanai            18        18     18        17        8      12      15      14      16     12      16      14
                      Maui             50        44     70        61       48      36      39      61      50     54      63      53
                      Channel          37        40     49        62       44      56      50      43      41     38      40      43 
                      Kahoolawe        18        11      8        18        6       4      15      16      16     12      13      12
                      Maui Co          165      138    186       210       152    154     173     196     154    181     199      179
                      Hawaii           142      148    141       173       130    137     117     123     137    135     146      150                                                                                                                             
                          88           528              487
                      TOTAL            490      462    525       587       464    438     442     491     444    488     528      487 
                      Source:DLNR-DAR, March, 1994
              











                      Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                                                               Page 83
                      and Management Plan






                 Part H: Description of the Affected Environment                           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                   National Marine Sanctuary

                         The commercial fishing catch from Maui represents nearly 3 percent of the State total.
                 Molokai and Lanai each contribute 0.25 percent and 0.11 percent, respectively (Table 11-14).
                 Although the catch from these islands is small compared to that of the rest of the State, these
                 fisheries are an important economic activity for resident fishers.

                     TABLE 11-14: 1993 Landings, Sale, and Value of the Commercial Fishing
                                                                  Catch
                  Island                    Lbs. landed (% of State total)            Lbs. sold             Value
                  Hawaii                           3,666,169 (14%)                    3,516,948           $6,002,218
                  Maui                               435,115 (2%)                      342,106              $894,581
                  Lanai                              26,825 (0.1%)                      23,339              $56,630
                  Molokai                            52,001 (0.2%)                      41,660              $94,066
                  Oahu                            20,232,589 (81%)                    19,926,382         $52,272,031
                  Kauai and Niihau                   517,933 (2%)                      439,194            $1,002,495
                  Total                         24,930,632(100%)                     24,289,689          $60,322,0211
                 Source: DBEDT State of Hawaii 1994.

                         Penguin Bank, located west of Molokai, is noted for its fishery productivity. Fishers from
                 Oahu as well as Maui County use Penguin Bank. Catch reports from the Penguin Bank area for the
                 calendar years 1991 and 1992 are shown in Table H- 15. These data indicate that 202,144 lbs. of
                 all fish were landed in 1991, with a total value of $641,265. In 1992, 157,556 lbs. of all fish
                 were landed from the Penguin Bank catchment area with a total value of $500,010. The data
                 below show that pelagics, including tunas, billfishes, mahirnahi@ ono, and others comprise about
                 one-half the catch. Benthic fish, including deep botton-lish, accounted for about 40 percent of the@
                 total catch.

                      TABLE 11-15: Marine Life Caught From Penguin Bank Catchment Area by
                                      Commercial Fishermen for Calendar Years 1991-92
                                           CALENDAR YEAR 1991                            CALENDAR YEAR 1992
                  FISHERIES          lbs. landed     lbs. sold       value ($)    lbs. landed      lbs. sold      value
                  Pelagic              99,351         93,966         -160,234        70,569         .66,097         113,809
                  Benthic              78,458         75,402         343,352         67,047          64,324         285,685
                  Coastal/Pel            176            174            341            266             183            346
                  Reef                  1,897          1,663          3,990           1,015           789           1,912
                  Other                22,262         22,057         133,348         18,659          18,659         98,258
                  Total               202,144         193,262        641,265         157,556       150,05T         500,01LJ
                 Source:  DLNR 1993.

                        In its 1992 Annual      Report on Bonomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the
                 Western Pacific Region, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WESPAC
                 1993) notes that for commercial fishing in the Penguin Bank, Maui/Molokai/Lanai bottom fishing
                 grounds, catch per unit effort over the past several years remains highly variable. A comparison of
                 recent data to information from the 1940s and 19.50s indicates a decline in catch per unit effort for
                 individual species. This decline is least apparent.in opakapaka and most apparent in ehu
                 (WPRFMC 1993)..

                        Data on State-wide fish catches by gear type indicate that after longlining (which is
                 prohibited within 50 miles of the Main Hawaiian Islands), the most effective methods are
                 handlining, trolling, aku pole and line, and net (see Table H- 16).




                 Page 84                                                                Final Enviro mental Impact Statement
                                                                                                       and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                             Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment
             National Marine Sanctuary


                 TABLE 11-16: Fishing Methods, Landings, Sale, and Value of Catch From
                      Commercial Fishing for 1991 (6/90-6/91) for the Hawaiian Islands
             Methods                          lbs. landed                lbs. sold                  value($)
             Longline                         14,150,055               13,872,919                  36,316,227
             Handline                         2,689,274                 2,577,860                  6,196,570
             Trolling                         2,936,552                 2,516,372                  4,43-1,943
             aku pole and line                1,274,451                 1,274,385                  1,710,584
             Net                               758,189                   707,223                   1,171,927
             Trap                              331,914                   328,481                   3,317,380
             Other                             101,212                    81,280                    208,302
            Source: DLNR 1991.

                     Nets are most often used along reef faces, on the open coast, and in embayments as both
             fixed gillnets and surround nets. Some bullpen nets are used in areas that are flat and open. There
             are no trawl fisheries in Hawaii. Table 11-17 shows an example of the types of fisheries, gear
             types used, and how vessels are used, for example off the Kona Coast of the Big Island (Tanaka,
             1994, pers. communication).

                     Hawaii has a statewide system'of Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) located for the most
             part between the 100- and 1,000-fathom isobath. FAD-associated fishing accounts for more than a
             million lbs. of fish (ahi, aku, au or marlin, mahimahi, and ono [Department of Land and Natural
             Resources (DLNR), Hawaii Fisheries Plan 1990-1995]. The FAD is composed of spheres
             attached by a chain and mooring line to concrete block anchors.


                TABLE 11-17: Fishing Vessel Activities Within Preferred Boundary on the Big
                                    Island (Recreational, Subsistence, Commercial) -
              FISHERY                    Target Species                Gear Types                 Vessel Usage
              Akule                Akule                         Handline, Net              Drift, Sea Anchor
              Bottom Fish          Lehi, Opakapaka, Onaga,       Handline, Electric         Drift, Anchor
                                   etc.                          Reel
              Crab                 Kona Crab                     Net                        Drop Off, Pick Up
              Lobster              Spiny Lobster                 Traps, Net                 Drop Off, Pick Up
              Nehu (Baitfish)      Nehu                          Net.                       Surround, Pick Up
              Opelu                Opelu                         Handline, Net              Drift, Sea Anchor
              Palu-Ahi             Ahi, Aku                      Handline, Rod & Reel       Drift, Sea Anchor,
                                                                                            Anchor '
              Reef Fishing         Menpachi, Aweoweo,            Handline Rod & Reel        Drift, Anchor, Slow
                                   Moana, etc.                                              Trou
              Spearfishing         Same as above                 Spear, Net                 Anchor
              Trolling             Ahi, Aku, Mahimahi, Ono       Handline, Rod & Reel       Medium Speed Troll
              Tropical Reef        Various Reef Fish             Traps, Net                 Anchor
              Fish                                               t                                                   -1
             Source: L. Tanaka, Big Island fishe an,.pers. communication, April 1994

                     The State of Hawaii requires a fishing license only for commercial fishers; those who catch
             -and sell fish. In 1990, DLNR-Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) issued 3,532 licenses: 3223
             to residents, 309 to non-residents, and 23 permits for licenses to fish in the Northwestern
             Hawaiian Islands. Ithas been estimated that of the 3,223 resident licenses, 140 to 290 are for the



             Final Environmental impact Statement                                                              Page 85
             and Management Plan





                Part H: Description of the Affected Environment                       Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                             National Marine Sanctuary

                150 large vessels and fewer than 500 are for full-time, small boat (under 5 net tons) fishers. The
                rest are part-time fishers, and the number of recreational fishers is several times larger.

                           ii. Recreational Fishing
                       Surveys indicate that 19-35    percent of Hawaiian residents fish, and 74 percent of the
                estimated 12,690 -"Personal boats"   were engaged in fishing as their primary activity. A 1980
                survey estimated that there were 2.1 million fishing trips taken by 235,200 residents and 82,200
                visitors: 620,000 trips were in private bo@ts, 88,000 in charter boats, and the remainder,
                1,392,000, were shoreside fishing trips. A 1984 study estimated that in 1982 73,780 passenger-
                trips were made by the charter boat industry, capturing 2.2 million pounds of fish and $8.1 million
                in total revenue.

                       Fishing takes place from boats that target a variety of bottomfish and pelagic fish. Along
                various points of the'shoreline of Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, people fish,primarily for recreational
                and possibly subsistence purposes. Because there is no licensing program or any requirements to
                report catch from recreational fishing, data are limited to a small number of creel surveys of shore
                fishers. Surveys of this type were conducted on Oahu, Kau4 and Hawaii and may provide the
                basis in the future for estimates of recreational fish catch (Smith in press). Traditional fishing
                techniques, such as throw net for reef fish and lift net for opelu, are used in some areas of the
                Sanctuary.

                           iii. Charterboat Fishing

                       Charterboat fishing is -one of the oldest sectors of the ocean recreation industry. Before the
                Second World War, Kona was known as one of the world's premier sport fishing destinations.
                After the war, charter fishing out of Kewalo B     'asin became a popular attraction for tourists in'
                Waikiki. Kona remains the primary charterboat locale. In 1990, 150 active charter vessels
                generated an estimated gross revenue of $16.9 million from 77,297 customers (See Table H- 18).

                  TABLE 11-18: Charterboat Fishing-Revenues and Passengers, by County,
                                                             1990.
                                    Oahu            Maui            Hawaii            Kauai              Total
                Vessels              28              17                97                8                150
                Revenues        $1.7 million $1.2 million        $13.3 million     $0.7 million     $16.9 million
                Passengers          23.9            13.5              32.8              7.1         77.3 thousand
                Source: Markrich, M., March 1993.

                           iv. Aquarium Fish Industry

                       Hawaii also has an active Aquarium fish industry. The number of aquarium fish collection
                permits has increased 2.5 times over the last decade. The precise number of permitees who are
                full-time collectors is not known. The 1989-1990 catch report summary indicated a Statewide
                gross revenue of $642,000 from the sale of collected fish and invertebrates (DLNR-DAR, 1993).

                           v. Fishponds, and Traditional Uses

                       The invention of fishponds in Hawaii during the thirteenth or fourteenth century was a
                unique achievement in Polynesia. It allowed the Hawaiians to move beyond the mere harvesting of
                fish into fish production and husbandry. Fishponds were found on all the major islands, but the
                most suitable locations were Kaneohe Bay and Pearl Harbor on Oahu and the southern coastline of
                Molokai. Estimates indicate that the fishponds may have produced as much as two million pounds
                of fish. The primary species of fish raised in the fishponds were awa or milkfish, and 'ama'ama

                Page 86                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                             Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment
             National Marine Sanctuary

             or mullet. A 1987 report stated that there were seven ponds in use for commercial and subsistence
             purposes. (see discussion at H.D.2., above for additional information.)

                     b. Commercial Shipping

                        i. Economic Contribution

                     Given its island geography, sea and air transportation have special importance. in Hawaii's
             economy. Approximately 80 percent of the goods consumed in Hawaii are imported from
             overseas and nearly 98 percent of these enter the State via container ships through commercial
             harbors. The only alternative to ocean transport is to ship by air. Air transport is so cost
             prohibitive only a few wealthy people could afford to live in Hawaii if all goods are brought in by
             air transport.

                     Ocean transport is forecast to grow 4.5 percent per year, generating an annual revenue of
             $2 billion in 1998 and employing 5,894.            (MacDonald, Deese, Corbin, and' Clark, State
             department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, "New Projections for Hawaii's
             Ocean Industries: A Strategic Orientation").

                         ii. Vessel Traffic

                     In 1992, 2,104 overseas vessels and 3,207 inter-island vessels arrived at Honolulu
             Harbor. (Approximately six overseas vessels and nine interstate vessels per day). Table 11- 19
             gives the level of traffic in and out of Honolulu Harbor and to and from the neighbor islands.


              TABLE 11-19: Overseas and Inter-island Shipping, 1989, Freight and Passenger
                            Traffic for Specified Harbors, 1989 [mst            million short tons]
             Overseas Cargo                     IN:                                             10.4 mst
                                                OUT:                                            1.7 mst
                                                                         7
                                                                                 -77-777
                                                                           77777
             Inter-island Cargo                 IN:                                             5.7 mst
                                                0                                               5.8 mst

                                                             Freight                          Passengers

             Hilo                                            1.6 Inst                            9,082
             Kawaihae                                        0.7 mst
             Kahului                                         2.3 mst                             9,083
             Honolulu                                        10.4 mst                           626,671
             Barber's Point                                  7.4 mst
             Nawiliwili                                      1.0 mst                             9,082
            Source: Hawaii State Ma Book, 199r, T'ables 554 and 555.

                         iii. Hawaii Ports and Harbors

                     The State's commercial harbor system consists of seven deep-draft and two medium-draft
             harbors located on five islands. Honolulu is the primary port, with over 28,000 linear feet of pier
             (about 70 percent of the system's pier space), and serves as the main entry point for imported
             goods, the main transshipment point for the neighbor islands, and the main exit point for Hawaii's
             exports. The other harbors are: Barbers Point and Kewalo, also on Oahu; Hilo and Kawaihae on
             the east and west shore of the island of Hawaii; Kahului on the north shore of Maui; Kaunakakai


             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                             Page 87
             and Management Plan






                Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment                         Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                 National Marine Sanctuary

                on the south shore of Molokai; and Nawiliwili and Port Allen on the east and south shore of Kauai.
                In Addition, there is a private harbor on the west shore of Lanai. Pearl Harbor Naval Base (closed
                to commercial traffic) is six nautical miles west of Honolulu Harbor. Two off-shore mooring
                berths, which serve the oil refineries in Campbell Industrial Park, are located off Barbers Point.

                        c. Tourism

                        The visitor industry dominates the Hawaiian economy. In 1991              Hawaii hosted 6.87
                million visitors, down slightly from the 1990 peak of 6.97 inillion (Hawaii State Data Book,
                1992). The numbers of visitors and expenditures can be seen it Table U-20. Accommodations for
                visitors is summarized in Table 11-21. Visitor-related expenditures in 1991 were $9,920,902,
                which generated: direct, indirect and induced sales of $19,376 million; total household income of
                $6,543 million; 250,900 jobs, and State and county tax revenues of $1,219 million. By
                comparison, the overall estimated 1991 Gross State Product was $28,616 million, State personal
                income was $24,045 million, the total job count was 591,250, and total State and county revenues
                were $3,334 million. Oahu is the primary tourist destination, followed by Maui County, Hawaii
                and Kauai.

                          TABLE      11-20: Visitor Count and Expen itures, by County (1991)
                                ............ ..
                                                                                   Total Visitor
                                       Average Visitor        Total Visitor                           Expenditures per
                                                                Arrivals                               Visitor per day
                                             Count                                 Expenditure
                State                       157,590            6,873,890           $9,920,902               $174
                Honolulu                    79,700             5,048,550           $5,353,171               $183
                Maui                        40,240             2,322,060           $2,225,228               $152
                Hawaii                      18,630             .1,188,630          $1,090.603               $161
                Kauai                       19,020             1,267,620           $1,104,894               $158
               Source:  Hawaii State Data Book, 1992, Tables 193, 194 and 209.

                      TABLE 11-21:         Visitor  Accommodations        by  Type,   and by     County (1991)
                                                    Total                     Hotels                    Condos
                State                              73,779                     51,134                     22,645
                Honolulu.                          37,279                     29,146                     8,133
                (Waikiki)                          32,539                     25,114                     7,425
                Maui                                9,552                     10,061                     9,491
                Hawaii                              9,170                     6,836                      2,334
                Kauai                               7,778                     5,091                      2,687
               Source:  Hawaii State Data Book, 1992, Table 680.

                        d. Ocean Recreation

                        As was previously discussed, Hawaii's economy is heavily dependent on tourism. One
                important aspect of Hawaii's appeal to visitors is the wide range of ocean recreation opportunities.
                In 1990 the ocean recreation industry generated an estimated revenue of $509,million and created
                5,788 jobs. (See Table 11-22) In 1992, the ocean recreation industry increased its estimated
                revenue to $560 million while providing a slightly higher number of jobs, (5,846). (MacDonald
                and Deese, 1994). Overall, the growth of the ocean recreation industry during the last decade has
                been dramatic, providing a boom to Hawaii's economy but also resulting in numerous problems
                requiring directed management.





                Page 88                                                               Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                     and Management Plan






                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                      Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment
                National Marine Sanctuary


                TABLE 11-22:           Ocean Recreation Revenues and EMPI yment by Sub-sector, 1990
                                                                     Revenues                                      Jobs
                Total                                                   574.6                                     5,771

                ---------                                               -------                                   -------
                Tour boats and Cruise Ships                             225.3                                     3,204
                Recreational fishing                                     99.0                                       na
                Surf Shops and manufacture                               93.3                                      692
                -Personal boating                                        62.4                                      779
                Competitive events                                       36.7                                       80
                Dive shop                                                27.5                                      617
                Charter boat fishing                                     16.9                                      203
                Billfish tournaments                                     3.9                                        na
                Jet skiing                                               4.5                                        93
                Parasailing                                              3.5                                        70
                Kayaking                                                 .1.6                   1                   33
                Source: MacDonald and Markrich, 1992, Markrich, 1993.

                             i. Recreational Activities

                                  1) Boating

                         The State has 19 small boat harbors and 50 boat launching ramps which cater to
                recreational public and small commercial ocean recreation operators. As of December 31, 1991
                there were 5,731 individual small craft mooring berths: 4,643 catwalks and piers; 510 other
                moorings; and 578 offshore moorings (See Table U-23). There is considerable excess demand for
                these facilities; 2,400 valid applications for moorage are on file at DLNR, as of 1994.
                          TABEE 11-23: Small Craft Mooring Facilities, by Islands, 1991-92
                                     Catwalks and              Other             Offshore                Total          Applications
                                          Piers              Moorings           Moorings                                   On File
                Honolulu
                   SBH                    1,287                  181                 318                 1,786              1,600
                   Other                  2,948                  0                    82                 3,030                NA
                .Maui                       75                   173                  87                 335                  245
                Hawaii                     251                   120                  91                 462                  480
                Kauai                       82                   36                    0                 118                  75

                --------                  -------               -----                -----               -------            -------
                State                     4,643                  510                 578                 5,731              2,400
                 A = Not Availa le SBH              Small Boat Harbors
                Source: Small Craft Mooring Facilities Utilization Report, Quarter Ending: December 31, 1993,
                DLNR-Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation (DOBOR)

                         The DLNR-Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation (DOBOR) maintains a register of all
                documented vessels in the State. As of December 31, 1993 there were 13,832 vessels registered,
                of which 12,175 were classified as pleasure boats. There are appr                        .oximately 1,800 vessels
                documented by the USCG (see Table 11-24). It has been estimated that 75 percent of the pleasure
                boats engage in fishing as their primary activity.




                Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                             Page 89
                and Management Plan





                Part H: Description of the Affected, Environment                         Hawaiian fslands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                 National Marine Sanctuary


                                    TABLE 11-24: State-Registeri!d Vessels,             by County
                                  Moored                         Moored
                                                                      -and
                                 on Water           %           on L               %             Total           %
                Honolulu           1,918           13.9           6,883           49.8           8,801          63.6
                Maui                175             1.3           .1,389          10.0           1,564          11.3
                Hawaii'             161             1.2      1    1,833     1     13.3           1,994    1     14.4
                Kauai                82             0.6.     1    1,391           10.1           1,473          10.7
                State              2,336           16.9      1    11,496          83.1       M-13,832           100.0
               Source:   Report of Docum7nntmeTV=ssel Registration, for Periodfi-orn: January 1, 1993 to 7ecember
               31,1993, DLNR-DOBOR

                                2) S urfing

                         Surfing played an    important part in ancient Hawaiian culture and has        become a very
                popular activity in Hawaii and around the world. There are several types of surfing done around
                Hawaii such as longboarding, shortboarding, bodyboarding, and windsurfing.                    Maui has
                developed a reputation for superb swell conditions with clean breaks and fast waves. These
                conditions favor those just starting to learn as well as the more experienced riders. Surfers can
                choose from a variety of locations and conditions. The more extreme sites are at the outer reef
                where waves can reach up to 40 feet. The meek at heart can choose locations where swells vary
                from 2- 10 feet. Best of all, surfing season is all year round. There are 1,600 surfing locations in
                Hawaii located on the various islands. It is estimated that 23,000 people surf on a typical Nusy day
                (Hawaii Ocean and Marine Resources Council 199 1).

                         As a result of surfing being a large recreational activity, a substantial amount of revenue is
                brought in through service to -surfers. Surf shops in 1989 created $15.8 million in revenues,
                which was a 12 percent growth from the last period, and employed 251 people (MacDonald. and
                Deese 1989).

                                3) Swimming

                         The natural beauty of the beaches are considered one of the most important factors in
                attracting tourism. The Hawaiian Islands have about 310 miles of sandy beach available for
                swimming and other activity. On a typical busy day 170,000 people are@ using the beaches for
                swimming or sunbathing (Hawaii Ocean and Marine Resources Council 1991). In 1988 tourism
                was estimated to bring in $9.2 billion, and much of that was due to ocean and beach recreation
                (Hawaii Ocean and Marine Resources Council).

                            ii. Commercial Activities

                                1) Tour Boats

                         The tour boat industry includes a large and diverse collection of activities, including dinner
                or lunch cruises, snorkel excursions, glass bottom boat trips, submarine trips and ferry boat trips.
                Whale watching is often combined with other activities during the season. In 1990 the combined
                estimated revenues for the almost 200 tour boats were $91.5 million; the total estimated
                employment was 1,944 persons; ano the estimated number of passengers was 2.6 million. (See
                Table 11-25)




                Page 90                                                               Final Environmental Impact StatemenT
                                                                                                      and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                              Part U: Description of the Affected Environment
             National Marine Sanctuary


                         TABLE 11-25: Estimated Tour Boat Revenue                     by County, 1990
                                    Oahu              Maui            Hawaii             Kauai              Total
             Companies               1                '30                12                14                72
             Vessels                 37                63                19                79                198
             'Employees              974               427              203               340               1,944
             Revenues        1     $42.1       1     $299               $7.2             $12.3       1 $91*5 million
             Passengers             1.45              0 - 1@7           0.16              0.40       1 2.61 million
            Source: Markrich, 1993.

                     Each island's tour boat industry has different characteristics. On Oahu, dinner cruises are
             the dominant activity generating about 75 percent of total revenues. Activities are centered at the
             beach at Waikiki, Kewalo Basin, Honolulu Harbor, Kaneohe Bay, Keehi Lagoon, and Haleiwa
             Harbor. On Maui, the dominant activity is snorkeling, primarily at Molokini Crater, which
             generated 80 percent of revenues. Points of departure are Lahaina, Maalaea, Mala wharf, the
             beach in front of the hotels at Wailea and Kaanapali, and Keehi boat ramp. On Kauai, the main
             activities are the Na Pali Coast tours with 57 percent of the revenues and the Wailua River boat
             rides with 19 percent of the revenues and 72 percent of the passengers. Vessel moorings are at
             Hanalei, Wailua River, and Port Allen/Nawiliwih. On the Big Island, the dominant activities are
             dinner cruises and snorkeling trips to Kealakekua, with 76 percent of the revenues. Points of
             departure are the moorings at Kailua-Kona, the beach in front of various resorts on the Kona-
             Kohala coast, and Honokahau/Kawaihae/Puako. One cruise ship company is currently operating
             in Hawaii.

                     Whale watching takes place Statewide with the major points of departure including the
             areas offshore of Lahaina, Kaanapali, Napili Bay/Honokowai, Molokini Island, Makena Bay/La
             Perouse Bay, Kihei, Kamaole Beach, and Maalaea Bay.

             Commercial whale watching has been described as:

                           a highly seasonal trade lasting only from mid-December through April.
                         Approximately 80 percent of the business is conducted by four large
                         companies, utilizing eight vessels. Most of the large vessels doing whale watch
                         tours operate out of Lahaina. However, as many as 28 different vessels are
                         involved in the whale watch trade during the season, and it is common for
                         owners of smaller vessels, catering to snorkel tours, to offer whale watch
                         excursions when times are slow (Markrich in prep.).

                     In general, the ocean 'recreation industry of Maui is undergoing significant changes as
             consumer preferences and available recreation technology changes. Tour boat operators out of
             Maalaea are generally using small vessels and taking passengers out for combined snorkel/whale
             watch excursions. Glass-bottom boat rides are on the decline; submarine and inflatable raft snorkel
             tours are popular and growing. The ferry boat business also grew steadily during the 1980s
             (Markrich in prep). The Maui to Molokai ferries, which are partially subsidized by the State,
             transport workers and others from Molokai to Maui hotels. The ferry service to Lanai is privately
             owned.

                             2) Thrill Craft (Personal Watercraft)

                     Thrill craft are defined by State regulations as vessels 13 feet or less in length capable of
             speeds in excess of 20 mph. The two main categories of thrill craft are jet skis (or waveriders) and
             parasailing.


             Final Environmental impact Statement                                                               Page 91
             and Management Plan






                Part H: Description of the Affected Environment                         Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                               National Marine Sanctuary

                       There are at least twelve operating jet ski businesses Statewide, with total direct revenues in
                1990 of $4.5 million and a work force of 93 people. The operators reported carrying 129,000
                people. Operators are required to have a permit and operate within designated thrill craft area,
                including: offshore Hawaii Kai, Kaneohe Bay, and Sand Island on Oahu; offshore of West Maui;
                and, offshore East and West Big Island. Certain restrictions apply during whale season.

                       Parasail rides have been available in Hawaii since the mid 1980s and State regulations
                limit them to Waikiki, Hawaii Kai, Lahaina and Kona. There is one parasail operation in Maui
                working out of Lahaina. Due to concerns by the State that jet skis and parasail boats harass
                whales, the State has established rules that no jet skis or parasail operations can take place
                during the winter season from December 15 through May 15, a period when many tourists are
                visiting Hawaii. The 1990 reported revenues were $3.5 million, the work force consists of 70
                employees, and 107,00 passengers were served.

                               3) Competitive Events

                       Competitive events include ocean sailing races, ocean swimming races and triathlons,
                surfing and boardsailing contests. These all have relatively short-term impacts on the marine
                environment.

                       Hawaii is the venue for several levels- of yacht racing including long distance races,
                international racing in Hawaiian waters, and locally organized yacht club events. The        ' three
                long-distance races are the Victoria-Maui International Yacht Race from British Columbia to
                Lahaina, the Pacific Cup Race from Berkeley, California to Kaneohe Bay, and the Transpacific
                Yacht Race from Los Angeles to Honolulu. The International Kenwood Cup is a large
                statewide race of ocean-going yachts held in Hawaiian waters. The Transpacific race is held in
                odd-numbered years and the rest in even-numbered ones. An estimated 132 local races are
                held -each year near or around the main Hawaiian Is"lands from February to October and are
                organized by the Honolulu based Hawaii Yacht Racing Association. The ocean sailing races
                can have as many as 70 boats and the total expenditure for the 1990 season (1991 for the
                Transpacific) was $13.8 million.

                       In 1990, sporting events that have an ocean swim component drew 2,100 out-of-state
                -participants with a total of 12,200. They generated $14 million in expenditures in 1990.
                Eighteen coniniercial and amateur events were held on Oahu, three on Maui, and 18, including
                three major triathlons, were held on the island of Hawaii. Popularity of the Big Island
                commercial events, such as the Ironman triathlon, has grown so much that the Kona Coast is
                now considered one of the premier ocean swimming centers in the world. In 1992, 1,379
                people participated in the Kona Ironman triathlon. (Hawaii Dept. Business, Economic
                Development, and Tourism, 1993).

                       Boardsurfing was an important sport in pre-contact Hawaii. Currently, four types of
                competitions make use of the nearshore surf: board surfing, board sailing, body surfing and
                body boarding. In 1990 four professional surfing contests were held at the north shore of
                Oahu and four professional boardsailing events were held, three on Maui and one on Oahu.
                The various competitions included almost 900 participants and generated about $4 million in
                revenues. However, these events have been troubled by competition with other users for
                waves and public beach areas.

                               4) Canoe Racing and Kayaking
                       Hawaiian outrigger canoe racing is an important cultural tradition that dates back to pre-
                contact Hawaiian society and has attained international popularity. In 1990 six outriigger canoe


                Page 92                                                             Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                   and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                               Part H: Description of the Affected Environment
              National Marine Sanctuary
              racing associations containing 62 clubs and 6,610 paddlers participated in 37 regattas and 32
              long distance rac@s.

                     'Kayaking is becoming an increasingly popular sport in Hawaii. In 1990 approximately
              20 amateur kayak events were held, nine on Oahu, six on Maui and five on the Big Island, and
              generated $245,000. Sales of kayaks generated $600,000, and kayak tours on Kauai, Maui
              and the Big Island generated $846,000 in revenues. The largest share of the kayak tour
              revenue came from the Na Pali Coast tours on Kauai.

                              5) Diving

                      The estimated gross revenues from 47 dive shops interviewed in 1987 were $19.8
              million (DBEDT 1992). . These dive shops conducted 54,000 introductory dives, 68,000
              certified dives, and 128,000 snorkeling trips. The dive shops used 66 boats to take their
              clients to almost 200 dive sites around the State.

                      The recreational dive industry is dominated by tours from Maui, primarily trips to
              Molokini Crater, as is shown in Table 11-26. Maui accounted for 51 percent of the introductory
              dives, 49 percent of the certified dives, 86 percent of the snorkel trips, and 57 percent'of the
              gross revenues. The Kailua-Kona area of the Big Island is also growing in popularity as a
              dive/snorkel destination.


              TABLE II-_26: Characteristics of Recreational Dive In ustry, by County, 1987
                                     Oahu               Maui             Hawaii             Kauai             Total
              Companies                15                14                14                 4                 47
              Vessels                  21                27                17                 4                 66
              -Intro Dives           15,810           27,675              7,774             2,720            53,979
              -Certified             15,090           33,225             14,505             4,915            67,735
              -Snorkeling            9,000            110,450             7,358              1,260           28,068
              -Revenues              $4.9               $11.3             $2.5              $2.5          $19.8 million
              Dive sites               50                66                54                26                 196
              Most popular 1           23        1       19,               21                 6                 69
              ource: Tabata, 1992.

                          iii. Economic Contributions of Ocean Recreation

                      Ocean Recreation is a major source of revenue for Hawaii. Table 11-27 summarizes the
              revenue and employment ocean recreation produced in 1989.

                   TABLE 11-27: Revenues and Emplo ment Produced by Ocean Recreation
              Ocean Recreation                  Revenues            Revenue Growth                   Employment
                                               (in millions)
              Recreational fishing                 $78.4                        11                        NA
              Cruise ships                         58.7                         24                      1,050
              .Tour & Charterboats,                49.2                         12                      1,070
              Competitive events                   26.2                         20                        NA
              Personal boating                     21.2                          3                        81
              Dive Shops                           19.8                         31                        518
              1 Surf Shops                         15.8           1             12                        251           -1
              Source: MacDonald arid Deese 1989.



              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                 Page 93
              and Management Plan





                Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment                        Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                National Marine Sanctuary


                        e. Ocean Waste Disposal

                            L Water Quality -

                        Hawaii marine waters are affected by both point-source and non-point source discharges
                originating from industrial, agricultural, municipal and home operations, and from urban and
                industrial storm water runoff. The primary sources of point source pollution include: thermal
                discharges from electric generating plants, process wastewater from sugar mill facilities, and
                irrigation tailwater. Non-point sources of pollution originate primarily from rainfall events and
                subsequent drainage into streams during high rainfall periods. Poor water quality is common
                during those conditions, especially in bays and harbors where streams enter the bays and
                circulation is limited. These areas   include: Nawiliwili, Waimea and Hanapepe Bays on Kauai;
                Kahului Bay on Maui; South Molokai; Hilo Bay and the Harnakua Coast on the Big Island; and
                Kaneohe, Kailua and Haleiwa Bays on Oahu.

                        -In the latest 305(b) Water Quality Report produced in response to the Clean Water Act
                (CWA) (P.L. 92-500, as amended) requiring states to report the status of their surface and ground
                water quality, the overall quality of waters in the State was rated as "very good" (INALAB, INC.,
                April 1992). High levels of toxicity have rarely been detected in most coastal waters with some
                exceptions (e.g. Ala Wai Canal). All ocean waters, bays and estuaries in the State fully support
                beneficial uses, with an exception being along the west Maui coast line (Lahaina and Kihei) where
                seasonal macroalgae blooms (Cladaphora and Hypnea), which may be related to excess nutrients,
                interfere with aquatic recreational activities. The report notes: "..habitat destruction, introduction
                of alien species, intensive fishing, and surface runoff containing high concentrations of sediments,
                bacteria, nutrients and other chemicals have, over time,    *caused alterations in aquatic community
                structure and publicly-perceived decrease in the aesthetic qualities of surface waters."

                        Overall many areas of the state are concerned with sewage spills (often the result of heavy
                storm events). However, progress is being made to address water quality problems (i.e., in 1990,
                the State adopted the nation's most stringent standards for the protection of marine recreational
                waters from pathogenic contamination) and maintain water quality standards (i.e., DOH developed
                new standards for 97 toxic pollutants (HAR Chapter 11 -55)). Clearly, concerns over the
                protection of the habitat of the humpback whale will relate to the need to ensure that any future
                degradation of water quality will not harm the whales.

                            ii. Point Source Discharges

                        Point-source discharges result,from. human activities    .that discharge water or wastes
                from a specific point --.such as factories or sewage pipes. Section 402 of the CWA regulates
                and establishes a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program
                for the discharge of any pollutant or combination of pollutants, into waters of the U.S..
                Permits are required for all point sources of pollution including wastewater treatment facilities,
                municipal storm sewers serving large (greater than 250,000) or medium sized (greater than
                100,000) populations, storm water discharges associated with industrial facilities, electric
                generating facilities, industries, and agricultural facilities. EPA has delegated the responsibility
                for administering the NPDES permit program to the Hawaii Department of Health (DOH).
                DOH requires permit holders to monitor discharges and to submit reports on a periodic basis.
                        In 1991, there were 15 wastewater facilities with NPDES permits in the State and
                eleven of those were discharging a total of 143.32 million gallons per day into ocean waters.
                The remaining four permit holders used injection wells or reuse of effluent for irrigation or
                disposal (Tarnas and Stewart 1991:74). There are two ocean disposal sites off Oahu for which
                CWA 301(h) waivers have been granted to permit primary discharge instead of the normally

                Page 94                                                              Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                    and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                               Part II: Description of the Affected Environment
              National Marine Sanctuary

              consent decree to determine the environmental consequences of releasing primary treated
              sewage effluent in the marine waters (Mamala Bay Study Commission, 1993). There are only
              a few harbors and marinas in the State where boaters can have their sewage removed from the
              boats, consequently, most sewage is released in the nearshore marine waters.

                          iii. Non-Point Source Discharges

                      In recent years, the nation's coastal Waters have experienced serious water quality
              problems. Many of these problems are the result of what is commonly called non-point source
              pollution or polluted runoff. These terms both refer to pollution that enter a body of water as a
              result of water flowing over the surface of the land, such as rainfall, irrigation, or snowmelt.
              Common non-point source pollutants include soil, fertilizers, pesticides, animal wastes, oil,
              grease, litter, lawn clippings, and home lawn care chemicals. These and other pollutants end up in
              streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries and coastal waters all across the country.

                      The consequence of non-point source pollution are varied: increased risk of disease from
              water recreation, algae blooms, fish kills, contaminated fish for human consumption, destroyed
              aquatic habitats, and turbid waters (HCZMP, 1996). Though some polluted runoff results from
              natural causes, most results from people's activities on the land and water. Much non-point source
              pollution is preventable.

                      Non-point sources of pollution in Hawaii include sediments, nutrients, toxic chemicals,
              pathogens, acidity, and freshwater inflows. Sediments from eroded soi            'Is increase turbidity in
              coastal waters and can accumulate on critical habitats such as coral reefs. Researchers have
              estimated the sediments generated by each island to be 182,944 tons/year for Hawaii, 294,300
              tons/year for Kauai, 138,320 tons/year for Lanai, 207,020 tons/year for Maui, 214,560 tons /year
              for Molokai, and 102,700 tons/year for Oahu, for a total of 1,139,844 tons per year (HCZMP
              1996). Nutrients, including fertilizers, washed into coastal waters may lead to eutrophication -- the
              increased decomposition of organic materials in coastal waters leading to a depletion.of oxygen.
              Toxic chemicals, including metals, petroleum-based products, and pesticides, can pose a
              significant risk to coastal water quality and marine organisms. Coastal water containing significant
              amounts of pathogens -- disease-causing organisms, such as bacteria, viruses, and parasites --
              pose a threat to human and other aquatic animal health, such as humpback whales.

                      Land-based activities are the primary source of polluted runoff problems statewide.
              Agriculture, forestry, urban, marina, and hydromodification activities cause most of these
              problems. Storms and heavy rains generate runoff which picks up the non-point sources of
              pollution associated with these activities and carries them downstream to the coastal waters. In
              addition, when land-based activities degrade wetlands and riparian areas, they damage important
              natural areas that would otherwise absorb and filter polluted runoff before it reaches coastal waters.

                      Agriculture can produce nutrient runoff which rriay include some toxic chemicals as well as
              soil disturbances resulting in deposition of sediments. Heavy rains in agricultural areas antagonize
              non-point source discharges of pollution. Nutrient runoff is detrimental to coastal zones resulting
              in eutrophication and depleting oxygen levels. The runoff of toxic -chemicals such as pesticides
              and herbicides can also be damaging to coastal waters and humans. Soil deposition results in soil
              erosion on land and.increased turbidity in coastal waters. The increased turbidity can negatively
              effect growth on reefs which are critical habitats in the area.

                      Non-point source discharge from urban areas result from wastewater, stormwater runoff,
              and cesspool seepage. These sources contribute pathogens, inorganic solids, and sedimentation to
              coastal waters. Eutrophication, decreased oxygen levels, and increased turbidity can result- from
              such sources. Non-point source discharges accumulate in urban areas through channelization of
              storm drains from roads and industrial areas to coastal waters.

              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                Page 95
              and Management Plan






                Part II: Description of the Affected Environment                          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                 National Marine Sanctuary

                        Larger scale channelization, or hydromodifications, can be damaging to coastal waters
                because stream flow has been altered in some way. These alterations may bypass wetlands or
                other areas important for natural filtration. Channelization can also increase runoff flow into
                coastal waters. Examples of areas with increased flows are Hilo Bay and Kaneohe Bay.

                        Recreational boating and the wastes associated with such an activity contributes tor non-
                point source discharges. Such wastes include petroleum products, organic and inorganic wastes,
                and paint shavings.

                            iv. Ocean Dumping and Dredge Material

                        The Honolulu Engineer District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) operates
                three major programs which have a significant influence on the marine waters of Hawaii, including
                Regulatory, Civil Works Construction, and Civil Works Operation and Maintenance. The Corps
                regulates the transport of dredged materials to five EPA-designated deep water ocean disposal sites
                (see Table U-28 and Figure 11-18), and is also involved with twenty-six river and navigation
                projects, twelve flood control projects, and eight beach erosion control projects. All of the dredged
                material disposal sites are located outside the Sanctuary boundary.             Additional projects are
                currently planned or under construction. The projects are often initiated at the request of State of
                Hawaii or local governments and approved by Congress.

                               TABLE 11-28:, EPA Approved Hawaii Ocean Disposal Sites
                 Site                              Depth (m)       Area (n mi2)        Distance From Shore (n mi)
                 Kauai/Nawiliwili                      1,120            0.8                         3.3
                 Kauai/Port Allen                      1,160            0.8                         3.2
                 South Oahu                            475              L-5                         3.3
                 Maui/Kahului                   1      365       1      0.8      1                  5.0-
                 HawaiijHilo                    1      340       1      0.8      1                  4.0



                            160*W             159,         158,          IS7'           I S6'         Iss,




                                                                                                            22*N
                              --de-INauri iWili
                              Part Allen0

                                                         OAHU

                                                                        MOLOKAI
                                                    South Oahu
                                                                                  Kahului
                                                                                                            21'
                                                                                   MAM
                                                                     LANAII,P%


                                                                                                            20*
                                       0             lio          200                                   Hilo
                                                Nautical Mile*
                                                                                              AWAII
                                        0             so         100

                                            *=Dredged Material Disposal Site

                                                                                                            19*
             ,Figure 11-18 Dredged Material Disposal Sites                 (EPA   1980)


                Page 96                                                                Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                      and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                              Part Il: Description of the Affected Environment
             National Marine Sanctuary

                     f - Department of Defense Activities

                         i. Expenditures

                     The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) has long played an important role in Hawaii's
             economy. The 1991 estimate of Federal Defense expenditures in Hawaii on goods and services
             was $3.3 billion. This was a modest increase in real terms since 198 1, shown in Table 11-29.
             Most of this spending occurred on Oahu. The regional impact is shown in Table U-30.

                          TABLE 11-29: Defense Expenditures in Hawaii [in $ billions]
                                                               1981                                1991
             Defense Expenditures                            $2,041.2                           $3,300.0
             GSP Price Deflator                                93.3                               146.2
             Real Defense Expenditures                       $2,187.7                           $2,257.2
            Source: Hawaii State Data Book, 1992, Tables 319 and 4 10.


             TABLE 11-30: Military Personnel and Dependents, and Acreage Mntrolled by the
                                               U.S. Departm nt of Defense
                                                Military                   Military                    Tota--]
                                               Personnel                 Dependents                   Acreage
             State                              52,965                     56,994                     238,937
             Honolulu                           52,729                     56,709                     81,459
             Maiii                                 17                        23                       6,327*
             Hawaii                                80                        129                      101,882
             Kauai                                139                        133                      20,492
              Does not include Knhoolawe.
            Source: Hawaii State Data Book 1992, (Tables 313 and 320)

                         ii. Activities/Operations in Hawaiian Waters

                     Hawaii is important for national defense purposes because of its strategic location and
             facility use for both operational and training purposes. Many of the defense facilities (e.g., Pearl
             Harbor, bases, test ranges) are located on or near the water where transit and training activities
             occur. The U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines all have extensive personnel and equipment
             based in the Hawaiian Islands. Even with the downsizing of the military establishment, activities
             in Hawaii are not expected to decrease in the long-term (e.g., some units will leave but will be
             replaced with other units from overseas stations) (DOD Briefing, March, 1994).

                     The Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) located at Barking Sands off the west of Kauai
             also plays a significant role as a u-dining facility and is used year-round for air, surface and
             subsurface training. There are existing limitations of public use both on the water and on the land
             during specific times of testing exercises. PMRF uses underwater instruments, airplanes and
             helicopters to ensure that humpback whales are not in the vicinity prior to initiating testing
             exercises.

                     The State of Hawaii Department of Defense/National Guard also conducts military training
             exercises in conjunction with other Federal armed services and non-military activities such as
             responding to emergencies (e.g. helicopter firefighting including water bucket pickups and training
             and search and rescue operations) in and near the Sanctuary. The Hawaii Air Guard operates aerial
             refuelers (tankers), tactical airlifters, 'and tactical fighters. The Army Guard operates tactical and


             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                              Page 97
             and Management Plan






                Part H: Description of the Affected Environment                    Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                          National Marine Sanctuary

                transport helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. In addition, a large number of visiting (transit)
                aircraft from U.S. military forces fly similar missions in support of the Hawaii based units.

                The following examples demonstrate some of the types of Department of Defense military
                operations which occur in or around the Sanctuary. Also see listing in Appendix F. *
                1 .Submarine Sea Trials. Sea trials usage for submarines upon completion of major repairs such
                   as post-overhaul and post depot-modernization period. This usually occurs in the vicinity of
                   Penguin Bank in the Kaiwi Channel.
                2. Submarine Transit Usage (submerged and surfaced throughout islands, Penguin Banks).
                   Occasional port visits to Maui and the other islands.
                3. Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Exercises. Usually two per year, lasting several days with
                   surface ships and submarines and including the use of expendable equipment such as smoke
                   floats'and bathythermograph probes. Shallow waters are a necessary element in meeting the
                   training requirements. Other exercises including the launching of recoverable, inert (non-
                   explosive) torpedoes are conducted regularly. In some cases, pa@ssive (non-noise emitting)
                   hydrophones are placed in arrays on the ocean floor for tracking purposes, Which can also be
                   used for non-military uses such as marine mammal or underwater acoustic research. The
                   Pacific Missile Range Facility has prepged a draft environmental assessment on such an
                   operation (PMRF Draft Environmental Assessment For A, Temporary Hawaiian Area
                   Underwater Tracking System, April 1994).
                4. Special Operations. Necessary to use shallow water areas to meet the littoral mission of the
                   Navy. Usually conducted once a year and last about 24 hours involving submarines and small
                   surface craft. Inert ordinance is used and retrieved.
                5. Helicopter and Fixed-Wing Aircraft Operations. Search and rescue, passenger and cargo
                   transfer and special' training operations are conducted at low altitudes using night     vision
                   devices, etc.
                6. Surface Ship Operations. These operations include submarine sea trial escort, dive rescue, and
                   salvage operations. Transit throughout MHI's.
                7. U.S. Marine Corps Operations involve practicing amphibious landings and raids from
                   day/night helicopter operations from Oahu to other islands and bases.

                           iii. Other DoD Military Operations In The Hawaiian Islands

                Surface Operations
                ï¿½  Search and Rescue Operations (Inside and outside 100-fathom Isobath)
                0  Firefighting operations, including water bucket pick-ups
                ï¿½  Pierside Training and Maintenance (Inside 100-Fathom Igobath)
                ï¿½  Dry Docking Operations at Pearl Harbor
                ï¿½  Harbor Movements by Ships, Submarines, Boats and Auxiliary Craft
                ï¿½  Anchoring
                ï¿½  Transit Operations Between Harbors and Operating Areas (Within the 100-Fathom Isobath)
                ï¿½  Special Operations Involving Swimmers and Small Boats (Within the 100-Fathom Isobath)
                ï¿½  Salvage Operations and Towing (Within the 100-fathom Isobath)
                ï¿½  Transit OperationsBetween Operations Area (Outside 1 00-Fathorn Isobath)
                ï¿½  Towing Operations (Outside 100-Fathom. Isobath)
                ï¿½  Engineering, Navigation, Seamanship, and General Warfare-Related Training Exercises
                   (Outside 100-Fathom Isobath)
                ï¿½  Replenishment Operations Underway (Outside 100-Fathom. Isobath)
                ï¿½  ASW Operations (Within and Outside 100-Fathom Isobath)
                *  Amphibious Warfare Operations
                ï¿½  Anti-Surface Warfare Operations (ASUW) (Within and Outside the 100-Fathom Isobath)
                ï¿½  Anti-Air Warfare (AAW)Operation (Outside the 1 00-Fathom Isobath)


                Page 98                                                         Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                               and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                           Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment
            National Marine Sanctuary
               Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) and Demolition Operations (Within 100-Fathorn Isobath
               Mine Warfare and Mine Counter-Measure Operations by Surface Ships (MCM) (Within and
               Outside the 100-fathorn Isobath)

            Subsurface Operations
               Transit Operations (Surfaced and Submerged) to and from Ports and Operating Areas
               Post Maintenance Shallow Water Dives
               Deep Water Dives and Surfacing
               Special Warfare Operations with Swimmers and Small Craft
               ASW and Anti-Surface Warfare Operations
               Torpedo Exercises Using Retrievable Non-Explosive Torpedoes
               Mine Warfare (MIW) Training During Submarine Transit of a Field of Bottom-Practice Mines
               MIW Training for Submarines, Including the Launching of Recoverable Exercise (Inert) Mines

            Air Operations
               Landing and Takeoff by Helicopters and Fixed-Wing Aircraft from Shore Bases
               Landing, Takeoffs, and Training Flights at Altitudes above 50 Feet by Helicopters from Ships
               Training Flights and Transfers of Personnel and Equipment by Helicopters and Fixed-Wing
               Aircraft at Altitudes above 50 Feet
               Low Flying Tactical Helicopter Flights Transiting Between Island Training Areas at Altitudes
               Between 200 and 500 Feet
               Launches of Target Drones and Missiles from Shore Bases
               Operations from Patrol (P-3) Aircraft and Helicopters against.Actual Submarines or Mobile
               Targets
               Insertion/Extraction of Special Forces (SF)/USMC Reconnaissance (RECON) Troops from
               Helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft into the water
               Aircraft Carrier Operations
               Air Combat Maneuvering
               Live Missile Firings by Aircraft Versus Target Drone
               Bombing, Missile Firing, and Gun Exercises by Aircraft Using Surface Targets or Kaula Rock

                   g - Energy and Industrial Uses

                   Use of the ocean waters surrounding Hawaii as a potential source of energy is important
            given the State's relative isolation and its dependence on imports to meet energy demands. The
            State supports many forms of alternative energy research and development, most of which focus
            on the ocean. During the 1980's Hawaii became the world's leading site for Ocean Thermal
            Energy Conversion (OTEC) research and implementation. OTEC facilities are intended to replace
            traditional fossil fuel electrical generation capacity. Other potential energy resources from the
            ocean, though not currently a priority, include marine biomass plantations for the generation of
            methane gas, wave power generators, and tidal power generators.               In addition, existing
            conventional energy facilities in Hawaii affect the ocean directly in a number of ways. Hawaii's
            most important energy source, crude oil, is transported to Hawaii via large oil tankers. The crude
            oil is unloaded at an offshore mooring site near Barbers Point, Oahu, where it is processed at two
            oil refineries. Oil-burning electrical generation plants are sited near the ocean and use ocean water
            for cooling systems.

                       i. Hydrocarbon (oil and gas) Resources

                   Hawaii has no natural reserves of conventional energy sources which include petroleum,
            natural gas, or coal. There are, therefore, no proposals for exploration, development, or
            production of hydrocarbon resources in the vicinity of the Sanctuary. Crude oil, all of which must
            be delivered by tanker, is Hawaii's primary energy source. Per capita oil consumption in 1988
            equaled approximately 285 million Btu, or about 45 barrels of oil per person. Nearly 60 percent of

            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                          Page 99
            and Management Plan






              Part II: Description of the Affected Environment                       Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                            National Marine Sanctuary

              the annual Statewide demand for oil is     related to transportation needs, such as aviation fuel.
              Electric utilities are the next largest consumers of oil. Due to the State's mild climate, however,
              there are. virtually no consumer heating needs, and residential energy consumption is relatively low
              (Schultz 199 1).

                          ii. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion

                      Hawaii is the primary site for OTEC research and implementation.               Research and
              development of OTEC methodology are focused on the conversion of renewable solar energy
              stored in the ocean into electrical energy. The OTEC system is generally comprised of two
              components. The first system is a system of warm and cold seawater intake and discharge pipes.
              The second is a plant facility consisting of pumps, turbine generators and heat exchangers. While
              the methodology and operating costs for OTEC are relatively inexpensive, the capital costs of
              constructing installations large enough to provide community power are high, especially when
              contrasted with the currently low price of oil. Nonetheless, OTEC research in Hawaii has grown
              since 1975, when the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority established the Kona
              Seacoast Test Facility located at Keahole Point on the Big Island as the primary OTEC research
              facility in the United States. Between 1979 and 1989, growing interest in OTEC projects
              supported expansion of the Seacoast Test Facility,into the Hawaii Ocean Science and Technology
              (HOST) Park. An OTEC demonstration project that produced net electrical power for the first time
              with an open-cycle system has been operating here since 1993. A closed-cycle system OTEC pilot
              plan began in 1995.

                      A variety of State authorities have jurisdiction over all ocean energy development projects
              in Hawaii including: DLNR; Department of Transportation (DOT)-Harbors Division; DOH; Public
              Utilities Commission, and relevant County planning commissions. In addition, such projects may
              be subject to the jurisdiction of Hawaii's Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program.

                          iii. Geothermal Energy Production/Underwater Electrical Transmission Cables

                      Hawaii has one geothermal energy facility located on the Big Island near Puna. The Puna
              Geothermal Venture (PGV) produces electric energy from a geothermal power plant and
              geothermal wellfield located approximately 21 miles south of Hilo in the Puna District. PGV is
              sited on about 500 acres of land in the Kapoho area of which approximately 25 acres houses the
              facility. The PGV facility is in the geologic region known as the East Rift Zone, found on the
              eastern flank of the Kilauea Volcano.

                      PGV supplies electric power to homes, businesses and a wide variety of consumers across
              the Big Island. PGV is the first commercial geothermal power plant in the State of Hawaii and is
              currently producing 25 megawatts of power -- enough electricity to meet the energy needs of over
              25,000 Big Island residents and visitors. At this time, geothermal energy is the only large-scale
              commercially produced alternative to fossil fuels in Hawaii. Solar and wind energy production are
              still in experimental stages and do not produce enough power for large-scale commercial
              application.

                      The State of   Hawaii is investigating the feasibility of placing a deep-water electrical
              transmission cable and support system to deliver electricity from geothermal energy resources on
              the Big Island to consumers on Oahu. The undersea cable could transmit up to 500 megawatts
              (MW) of electrical power, almost half of Oahu's current demand. This transmission system is also
              envisioned to provide back-up electrical power to other Islands during power emergencies (Schultz
             .1991).

                      The preferred route for the undersea transmission cable will begin at Puna on the Big
              Island, move north and west to Waimea over land, then crosses the Alenuihaha Channel to Maui at

              Page 100                                                            Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                 and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                               Part Il: Description of the Affected Environment
             National Marine Sanctuary

             a depth of 6,350 feet. On Maui, the cable comes onto land at Huakini, crossing the southern tip of
             the Island to submerge again at Ahini. From there, it runs northwest past Lanai and Molokai,
             through the Auau Channel at a depth of 4 10 feet, before heading across the Kaiwi Channel under
             2,240 feet of water to Waimanalo on Oahu (Schultz 199 1).
                     The cable project wig be implemented in conjunction with the development of a 500-MW
             geothermal generation plant on the Big Island in a joint effort called the Hawaii
             Geothermal/Interisland Transmission Project. In 1989, Hawaiian Electric sent out a Request for
             Proposals (RFPs) to 33 organizations to finance, design, construct, install, operate and maintain a
             500-MW geothermallinterisland transmission project. That same year the State of Hawaii awarded
             a major contract to Environmental and Energy Services Company (ERC) to prepare the project's
             master plan and environmental impact statement.

                         iv. Marine Hard Minerals

                     Manganese crusts and nodules containing iron, manganese, cobalt, copper, nickel, and
             platinum are found in deep waters. outside the Sanctuary. Manganese nodules of commercial
             interest are located in international waters. The metal of primary *interest (on which economic
             feasibility is largely based) in the nodules is nickel. Copper and cobalt are also important revenue
             products as are manganese and molybdenum. Manganese crusts are generally found on
             seamounts, many of which,would be within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The primary
             metal of interest in crusts is cobalt. Heavy metals, such as platinum, are also important.
             Manganese crusts have been located adjacent to Hawaii and Johnston Island, and are most typically
             found at depths between 800 and 2,400 meters or more, well outside the Sanctuary boundary. To
             date, more research and exploration have been directed toward the technology of seabed nodule
             development than has for manganese crust development. However, although present information
             about manganese crusts is preliminary, it is * known that cobalt concentrations in crusts are
             approximately four times greater than those found in nodules, and the total value of additional
             metals found in crusts is also higher than that found in nodules. These factors will likely support
             additional efforts into learning more about development of manganese crusts, particularly because
             crusts tend to occur in shallower waters within the EEZ, whereas nodules are often located in
             deeper waters outside the EEZ, where jurisdiction is less clear.

                     In general, a marine minerals industry located in Hawaii would provide a domestic source
             of important strategic materials, and would significantly alleviate the current dependence upon
             imported cobalt, manganese, and nickel resources. The investment costs to establish a crust
             mining operation in the sea would be very high; given the investment costs and limited availability
             of sites, it is not likely that any other such operation would be established. Despite these
             difficulties, such an industry in Hawaii would diversify the State's economy into areas other than
             the traditional tourism, government (civilian and military), and construction industries.

                     The NOAA licenses are for areas off the South American coast international waters. DOI
             regulates ocean mining within 200 miles whle NOAA regulates it outside of 200 miles per an
             agreement between DOI and NOAA. Only the area of DOI jurisdication is relevant to the Hawaiian
             waters.

                     The Department of the Interior (DOI) has concluded that leases for ocean minerals can be
             issued under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). The DOI, Minerals Management
             Service, Office of Strategic and International Minerals (OSEIA) issues permits for exploration and
             commercial recovery. In addition, NMFS and WESPAC would play consultative roles in the
             development of any manganese development proposal. Necessary permits for harbor facilities to
             accommodate processing, transportation and other needs related. to ocean minerals development
             would fall within the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers. Finally, EPA is responsible for water
             quality and protection of the benthic community beyond the State's territorial sea.

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                Page 101
             and Management Plan






                 Part II: Description of the Affected Environment                           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                    National Marine Sanctuary



                             v. Sand Resources

                         Sand is the most valuable nearshore mineral in Hawaii (Shannon 1991). Sand resources
                 are vitally important to coastal areas for shore protection and as a source material for construction
                 materials (i.e., concrete). The Worth of Hawaii's beaches as a recreational focus for residents and
                 tourists goes beyond any dollar estimate. Some of the most popular,beaches (e.g., Waikiki and
                 Ala Moana) are maintained against erosion and sand loss by replenishing activities. Maintenance
                 of public beaches, and the need to compensate beaches for rising sea levels provide an impetus to
                 investigate the feasibility of mining nearshore sand resources to meet these needs.

                         Sand for beach replenishment is currently obtained from graded onshore, inland sand
                 dunes located on Kauai, Maui, and Oahu. However, sand from these sources is in limited supply
                 and, in fact, inland dune sand on Oahu is predicted to be depleted in less than ten years (Shannon,
                 1991). Also, the cost of transporting sand for beach replenishment from the Neighbor Islands to
                 Oahu, combined with restrictive State regulations have further encouraged study of prospecting for
                 sand deposits within nearshore waters (i.e., within State waters). Several potential sand deposit
                 sites have been identified through these studies. Presently, there is no sand mining activity within
                 the Sanctuary. There is, however, concern for future shortfalls of sand supplies. The prospect of
                 mining offshore sand deposits will become greater as onshore sand deposits become depleted.

                         With certain exceptions, sand mining has been effectively banned in Hawaii since 1978.
                 However, in the event that the -State of Hawaii determines to pursue development of nearshore
                 sand mining operations for beach replenishment,' it will be required to comply with provisions of
                 the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 404 of the CWA,
                 and possibly Title I of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. Direct jurisdiction
                 over sand mining activities would rest with DLNR, which would issue perinits through a
                 Conservation District Use Application (CDUA) process and through a Corps of Engineers CWA
                 Section 404 permit.

                         h. Agriculture

                         As of 1991 there were an estimated 4,500 farms in Hawaii with over 1.7 million acres.
                 Table 11-31 gives the breakdown of farms and acreage by county.


                   TABLE 11-31: Number of Farms, Farm Acreage, and Value of Crop Sales, by
                                                             County (1991
                                  NuntxrofFarrns      FarmAawge         Sugar    Pixopple Flowers         Oda       Livesaxk
                                                         (11000)
                  State Total          4,500              1,710       $174.8      $107.8      $68.1     $113.1       $90.1
                  Honolulu            -900                 125          30.6       62.2        26.2       10.0       41.8
                  Maui                   600               355          57.9       45.7 1 8.0         1 22.8          10.0
                  Hawaii               2,600              1,005         43.6                  3-1.3       64.2       3 3.4
                  Kauai                 400                225          42.8                   2.5        6.1        5.0
                 Source: Hawaii State Data Book, 1992, Table; 5 =&r

                         The value of crop sales in 1991 was $464 million, or 16 percent greater than total sales in
                 198 1. In real terms, however, there was a 28 percent decline, shown in Table 11-32.





                 Page 102                                                                Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                        and Management Plan






           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                            Part II: Description of the Affected Environment
           National Marine Sanctuary


                              TABLE 11-32: Crop Sales in Hawaii [in $ millions]
                                              1981                      1991                    % change
           Nominal Value
           of Crop Sales                     $401.3                    $463.8                     +15.6%
           CPI_U                              91.7                      148.0                     +61.4%
           Real Value of
           Crop Sales                        $437.7           1        $313.4                      28.4%
           Source: Hawaii State Data Book, 1992, Tables 563 and 411.

                   Unprocessed sugar cane was the largest single crop with $174.9 million in sales in 199 1.
           Second was pineapples with $107.8 million in sales, and third'was flowers and nursery products
           with $68.1 million. Table 11-31 gives the breakdown by county. Sales of livestock registered
           $90.1 million in sales.

                   Since 1981 total farm acreage statewide has declined from 1,965,000 acres to 1,700,000
           acres in 1992, and the total acreage.in crops has declined as well from 291,300 acres in 1981 to
           212,200 acres in 1992. The decline in cultivated land (79,100 acres) was due primarily to a
           decline in sugar cane (70,400 acres), most of which was on the Big Island (43,200,acres). The
           decline in Pineapple (14,800 acres) occurred mostly in Maui County which lost 15,900 acres,
           while there was a 1,100 acre increase on Oahu. Other agricultural products saw a 6,100 acre
           increase.

                   j. Aviation
                   The State of Hawaii has seven commercial and seven general aviation airports. In addition,
           there are six military and two semi-private airports. The distribution of these facilities is shown in
           Table 11-33. In 1992 there were 21 helicopter tour companies with 91 aircraft, using 3 semi-
           private heliports, eight of which are on the Big Island. Table H-34. shows the number of aircraft
           operations at the major State-owned airports in Hawaii.


                  TABLE 11-33: Airports and Heliports, by Control and by Islands, 1991
                                                          Airports                                   Heliports
                              Commercial          General          Military          Private
           Hawaii                   2                2                1                                    8
           Maui
           Kahoolawe
           -Lanai
           Molokai
           Oahu                     1                2                3
           Kauai                                                                        1                  2
           Niihau                   -                                                                      2
           Kure Atoll               -                                                   -                  -
           TOTAL                    7                7                6                 2                  13     _J
           SOURCE: Hawaii State Data Book, 1992, Table 53 1.






           Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                            Page 103
           and Management Plan





                Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment                            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                    National Marine Sanctuary


                   TABLE 11-341: Aircraft Operations, by type of Aircraft, at Major State-Owned
                                                             Airports, 1991
                                     All
                                                                     Air             Air                   General
                                Movements          Carrier          Taxi          Aviation                 Military
                 Honolulu          403,566         196,037         65,390         113,799                  28,340
                      Int'l
                  Hilo Int'l       88,206          19,596          38,504           20,802                 9,304
                  Kahului          180,857         51,668          74,410           491717                 5,062
                   , Lihue         112,679         30,825          64,341          11  027                 6,486
                  Keahole          56,140          26,478          11,069           15,265                 3,328
                  Molokai          47,898            124           35t3O4           10,367                 2,103
               SOURCE:      Hawaii State Data Book, 1992, Table 534.

                         k. Research

                         A significant amount of research is conducted on ocean and coastal resources in the Main
                Hawaiian Islands. Some examples of research on humpback whales includes: whale identification
                (fluke photographs and mark-recapture studies); audio mapping and tracking; and behavioral
                studies (social dynamics, effects of boats and other human water craft on whale behavior).
                Research institutions include the University of Hawaii, Kewalo Basin Marine Mammal Laboratory,
                Pacific Whale Foundation, Center for Whale Studies, Albright College, Moss Landing Marine
                Laboratories, Southern Illinois University, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, and the Hawaii
                Wildlife Fund (E. Nitta, NMFS, pers. comm. 1993). Some of this work is supported by NMFS;
                however, most is supported by private non-profit organizations through public contributions.

                         Evans (19  '92) compiled a list of research projects initiated and funded by NMFS, designed
                to address NMFS concerns. Much of this work was done in Alaska, although the results have
                direct relevance to-the Sanctuary. These studies focused on a variety of topics including:
                (1) impacts of vessel traffic on humpback whale behavior-, (2) resource assessments; (3) surveys of
                humpback whale populations;- (4) surveys of humpback whale foraging; (5) effects of oil on the'
                marine environment, including humpback whales; and, (6) periodic workshops and conferences to
                compile and compare information on humpback whales, marine marnmal researchers, and the
                review and reevaluation of whale watching programs and management needs.

                         Research is also conducted on other cetaceans in the area. The most extensive marine
                mammal surveys performed to date in Hawaii was conducted from February to March 1993 and
                repeated from February to April in 1995 to evaluate the effect of the ATOC transmission on marine
                mammals. The ATOC project involves a low frequency acoustic transmission designed to measure
                oceanic thermal characteristics. The aerial surveys were conducted to determine baseline
                population dynamics and distributions throughout the State. This year the ATOC Marine Mammal
                Research Program will investigate the effects. of ATOC sound sources on the distribution and
                behavior of marine mammals, particularly the humpback whale.

                         The Sanctuary area has also been the site of research on coral reefs. Other marine research
                is focused on the marine resources around Kahoolawe, which includes studies on sea turtles, water
                quality, fish, and corals (Jokiel et al. -1993). NOAA, EPA, and DOH have supported significant
                research and monitoring projects in west Maui which focus on determining the factors relating to
                the macroalgae blooms in the nearshore waters of west Maui. The different types of research focus
                on monitoring and determining the dynamics of potential impacts of different land uses on
                nearshore water quality. Special attention is placed on nutrient loading which may cause nuisance
                algal blooms (J. Harrigan, DOH, pers. comm. 1993).


                Page 104                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                         and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                               Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment
             National Marine Sanctuary*

                     1. Current Educational Efforts to Address Management Concerns

                     Various public and private groups are involved in educational efforts relating to humpback
             whales. A detailed list of such programs, based on the Environmental Educaiion Resource Guide
             by the Hawaii Environmental Education Association (HEEA), and on further discussions with
             various environmental education organizations is given in Appendix I.

                     The Bishop Museum Education Program offers elementary schools guided tours through
             the Bishop Museum's whaling exhibits., The USFWS Kilauea Point National Wildlife Reftige on
             Kauai operates a public information center at the refuge and produces publications on conservation
             issues which are available to schools and the general public (HEEA, 1993). They are currently
             working with the Hawaii Sanctuary to include information on humpback whales.

                     Major Federal and State agencies that participate in humpback whale environmental
             education programs in Hawaii include: NMFS, the Sanctuary, the State of Hawaii, and the
             University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program. NNTS educational efforts include public
             meetings and public hearings related to changes in the marine mammal regulations and
             informational brochures (Evans 1992). The Hawaii Sanctuary conducts education and outreach
             activities on- and off-site for school children and adults.          The Sanctuary has also worked
             cooperatively with Federal and State agencies, and the private sector to produce information
             brochures about humpback whales, watching whales and summaries of Federal regulations
             pertaining to whales.

                     The State of Hawaii has designated the humpback whale as its State marine mammal. No
             educational campaign focusing specifically on humpback whales has been initiated by any State
             agency; however, administrative rules relating to management of human activities potentially
             affecting whales have been promulgated, as described below. . DLNR-DAR has a network of
             educational specialists dispersed throughout the Main Hawaiian Island chain, as a means of
             generating and distributing information and literature relevant to the resources of the marine
             environment. These efforts are supported by the Sport Fishing Institute and thus have focused on
             marine resources other than whales.

                     The University of Hawaii Sea Gran' t (UHSG) has conducted several workshops, and has
             developed reports and brochures to educate the public about humpback whales. These include a
             guide for the amateur whale watcher (UHSG 1985), a catalog of individual identification
             photographs (Perry et al. 1988), and numerous articles in its newsletter, Makai..

                     There are numerous other private and non-profit groups conducting educational efforts that
             include humpback whales. These include the Pacific Whale Foundation, Ocean Mammal Institute,
             Whales Alive, Hawaii Wildlife Fund, Earthtrust, Hale Kohola (House of the Whale), Hawaii
             Maritime Museum, Moanalua Gardens Foundation, Sea Life Park, Waikiki Aquarium, West Coast
             Whale Research Foundation Center for Marine Conservation, and Greenpeace. In addition,
             several programs develop curriculum material for local elementary schools that include a focus on
             humpback whales in Hawaii, including work supported by the Malama Kai Foundation, Friends
             for the Future, and other Hawaii-based groups.

                     m. Existing Protected Areas, Cultural and Historical Resources

                         i. Protected Are4s

                     Hawaii's marine and coastal environments are major contributors to its economy and an
             integral part of its history and culture. Certain marine and coastal areas are currently protected
             under Federal, State or county law and additional sites may be designated in the future. The
             Federal government uses a variety of different programs, including regulatory mechanisms and

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                               Page 105
             and Management Plan






                 Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment                       Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                               National Marine Sanctuary

                 special area or site specific management plans (national parks, wildlife refuges, critical habitat and
                 species management) to protect unique or significant habitats, while the State has established and
                 maintains natural area preserves, wildlife preserves, marine preserves and unique ecological
                 preserves. For purposes of a comprehensive management plan, it is important to understand
                 where all these existing protected areas are located, their purposes and regulations, and how the
                 Sanctuary can most effectively work with and coordinate these units to ensure both Federal and
                 State objectives are met. There are numerous opportunities to conduct joint research, education
                 programs, interpretive displays, etc. within these units for humpback whales and their habitat, or
                 potentially in the future for other resources if designated as Sanctuary resources.

                            ii. Federal Protected Areas

                         Existing Federal protected areas in marine waters include two main groups, both
                 administered by DOI.

                                 1) National Wildlife Refuges

                         The Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge was created in 1909 primarily to protect
                 numerous sea and shore birds. The Refuge includes all the Northwestern Hawaiian islands and
                 reefs from Nihoa Island to Pearl and Hermes Reef including some 1,800 acres of emergent land
                 and over 250,000 acres of submerged land. These islands and offshore waters provide habitats for
                 over five million seabirds of 18 different species, including albatross, boobies, higate birds,
                 petrels, shearwaters, storm-petrels, terns and tropic birds. There are also three endemic species of
                 land birds, endangered Hawaiian @ Monk Seal and the t       'hreatened green turtle. Remnants of
                 prehistoric occupation by early Polynesians are, also protected on Nihoa and Necker Islands.
                         The@ Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge, established in 1985, consists of 187 acres, is
                 located approximately 2 miles -north of Kilauea on the northem-most point of Kauai. Public use of
                 the refuge averages more than 300,000 visitors annually. The point itself is a remnant of the former
                 Kilauea volcanic vent that erupted about 15,000 years ago. Today, only a small U-shaped portion
                 remains, but it includes a spectacular 586 foot ocean bluff. On calmer days, visitors can see
                 humpback whales from the spectacular overviews. Sanctuary purposes are consistent with Refuge
                 purposes which, among others, include:

                            endangered species management
                            migratory bird management
                            environmental education and interpretation
                            cultural and historic resource protection
                            contamination clean-up
                            law enforcement
                            research opportunities

                         Other important native wildlife refuges include Pearl Harbor and James Campbell NWRs
                 on Oahu; Hanalei and Huleia NWRs on Kauai; Kakahai NWR on Molokai; Kealia Pond NWR on
                 Maui; and Hakalau Forest NWR on Hawaii.

                                2) National Parks

                         In some marine areas adjacent to coastal national   parks, the National Park Service (NPS)
                 manages human activitie's that may impact park resources. Under the Hawaii National Parks Act,
                 the NPS can extend its jurisdiction over the adjacent marine areas and develop rules regulating
                 fishing and taking of other marine.life. However, since these marine areas are located in State
                 waters, -management strategies would require a joint Federal-State plan. Areas managed by the
                 National Park Service in Hawaii include: Haleakala and Volcanoes National Parks; Kalaupapa,

                 Page 106                                                            Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                    and Management Plan






           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                         Part II: Description of the Affected Environment
           National Marine Sanctuary

           Kaloko-Honokohau, Pu'uhonua o Honaunau, and Puukohola Heiau National Historic Sites, and
           the USS Arizona Memorial.

                      iii. State Protected Areas

                          1) Marine Life Conservation Districts

                   Marine Life Conservation Districts (NlLCD) protect unique areas of the Hawaiian marine
           environment. DLNR-DAR is responsible for establishing, managing and regulating human uses in
           the MLCDs. MLCI)s have been designated at Hanauma Bay, Waikiki and Pupukea on Oahu;
           Manele-Hulopoe on Lanai; Molokini Shoal and Honolua-Mokuleia on Maui; and Kealakekua Bay
           Wailea Bay, Lapakahi and the old Kona airport on the Big Island.

                          2) Fishery Management Areas

                   State regulations restrict fishing activities within Fishery Management Areas (FMA),
           established and managed by DLNR-DAR. Established FMAs include the Northwestern Hawaiian
           Islands; Waikiki-Diamond Head Shoreline on Oahu; Hanwnaulu Bay and Ahukini Recreational
           Pier, and Waimea Bay and Recreational Pier on Kauai; Manele Harbor on Lanai; Kahului Harbor
           on Maui; and Kailua Bay, Puako Bay and Reef, and Kawaihae Harbor on Hawaii.

                          3) The Natural Area Reserves System

                   The Natural Area Reserves System (NARS) is administered by DLNR's Natural Area
           Reserve System Commission and has one site with a marine -component, Ahihi-Kinau on Maui.
           The goal is to protect unique natural areas from loss due to population growth and technological
           advances.

                          4) Underwater Parks

                   Two MLCDs, Hanauma Bay and Kealakekua Bay, are also designated State Underwater
           Parks, managed by DLNR-DAR. DLNR-Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation (DOBOR) has
           been assigned responsibility for regulating all vessel traffic within Kealakekua Bay.

                          5) Conservation Land Use Districts Protective Subzone

                   Conservation Land Use Districts Protective Subzones (CLUDPS) help preserve natural
           ecosystems necessary to native fish species. All of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, excluding
           Midway, is a CLUDPS.

                          6) Other State Marine Protected Areas
                   Marine Laboratory Refuge on Coconut Island in Kaneohe Bay on Oahu; fishing restrictions
           in boat harbors & canals including Honolulu Harbor, Ala Wai Canal, Kapalarna Canal, Heeia Kea
           Wharf, Pakai Bay and Waialua Bay, Oahu; Hilo Harbor, Hawaii; Alakai Wilderness Preserve,
           Kauai, Paiko Lagoon Wildlife Sanctuary, Oahu      Hawaii State Sea Bird Sanctuaries, managed by
           DLNR's Forestry & Wildlife Division.

                          7) Ocean Recreation Management Areas

                   In 1988, DOT-Harbors established ten Ocean Recreation Management Areas (ORMA)
           along heavily-used stretches of coastline on the Islands of Hawaii, Maui, Oahu, and Kauai to help
           alleviate marine user conflicts and ensure that humpback whale mothers and calves would continue
           to have nearshore areas to utilize. The responsibility for management of the ORMAs was

           Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                      Page 107
           and Management Plan





                 Part ]I:. Description of the Affected Environment                         Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                   National Marine Sanctuary
                 transferred with the recreational boating program from DOT to DLNR in 1992. ORMA regulations
                 limit commercial operations to designated zones, and in some ORMAs on Maui and the Big Island,
                 completely ban thrillcraft operations during the primary humpback breeding and calving months
                 (December 15 to May 15 of each year). The boating program was transferred from DOT to DLNR
                 on July 1, 1992, and ORMA rules are now managed by DLNR-DOBOR.

                             iv. Private Protected Areas

                          The Nature Conservancy manages two preserves with significant                 coastal resources:
                 Moomomi and Pelekunu Preserves on Molokai.

                             v. Special Protected Areas
                          Anchialine pools are protected as unique- ecosystems only in Cape Kinau Nat@ral Area
                 Reserve, Volcanoes National Park, and Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park.

                     3. Institutional Arrangements and Respgnsibilities

                          a. Federal Authorities

                                 i. Marine Wildlife Protection and Conservation Authorities

                                      1) The Fish and Wildlife Act (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act)

                          The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a, et seq.), the Migratory Marine Game-
                 Fish Act (16 U.S.C. 760c460g), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-666c)
                 and other acts express, the will of Congress to protect the quality of the aquatic environment as it
                 affects the conservation, improvement and enjoyment of fish and wildlife resources.
                 Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 transferred certain functions, including certain fish and
                 wildlife-water resources coordination responsibilities, from the Secretary of the Interior to the
                 Secretary of Commerce. Under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) and
                 Reorganization Plan No. 4. any Federal agency that proposes to control or modify any body of
                 water must first consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine
                 Fisheries Service, as appropriate, and with the head of the appropriate state agency exercising
                 administration over the wildlife resources of the affected state.

                          The FWCA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to, among other things:'(1) provide
                 assistance to, and cooperate with, Federal, State, and public or private agencies and organizations
                 in the development, protection, rearing, and stocking of all species of wildlife, resources thereof,
                 and their habitat, in controlling losses of the same from disease or other causes, in minimizing
                 damages from overabundant species, in providing public fishing areas, including easements across
                 public lands for access thereto, and in carrying out other measures necessary to effectuate the
                 purposes of the Act; (2) make surveys and investigations of the wildlife of the public domain,
                 including lands and waters-or interests therein acquired or controlled by any agency of the United
                 States; and (3) accept donations of land and contributions of funds in furtherance of the purposes
                 of this Act. Such areas made available to the Secretary of Interior pursuant to this Act are
                 administered by the Secretary directly or in pursuant to cooperative agreements in accordance with
                 such rules and regulations for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife,
                 resources thereof, and its habitat thereon.
                                      2) The Marine Mimmal Protection Act

                          The Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1361 et @Leq.), as amended, is designed to
                 protect all species of marine mammals in U.S. waters. The MMPA established a moratorium, -with

                 Page 108                                                                Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                        and Management Plan -






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                            Part II: Description of the Affected Environment
            National Marine Sanctuary

            certain exceptions, on the "taking" of marine. mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the
            high seas, and on the importing of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the United
            States. The term "take" is statutorily defined to mean "to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt
            to harass, hunt, capture or kill any marine mammal." Under the MMPA, the Secretary of
            Commerce is responsible for the conservation and management of pinnipeds (other than walrus)
            and cetaceans. The Secretary of Interior is responsible for walrus-, sea otters, polar bears,
            manatees and dugongs. The Secretary of Commerce has delegated NIMPA authority to NMFS-
            The MMPA established the Marine Mammal Commission, which advises USFWS and NMFS on
            marine mammal issues and sponsors relevant scientific research. Part of the responsibility NMFS
            has under the act involves monitoring populations of marine mammals to make sure that they stay
            at optimum levels. Optimum sustainable population is defined as, "with respect to any population
            stock, the number of animals which will result in the maximum productivity of the population or
            the species keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of
            which they form a constituent element" [16 U.S.C. ï¿½1362(8)]. If a population falls below its
            optimum level, it is designated as "depleted," and a conservation plan is developed to guide
            research and management actions to restore the population to healthy levels.

                     'Me MMPA provides that the moratorium on taking can be waived for specific purposes
            (primarily for research, education, public display and incidental to corrunercial fisheries) if the
            taking will not disadvantage the affected species or stock. It also indicates that permits may be
            issued to take or import any marine marnmal species, including depleted species, to conduct
            scientific research or to enhance the survival or recovery of the species or stock. Permits may also
            be issued to take or import non-depleted species for public display. These permits are very specific
            in designating numbers and species of animal that can be taken, as well as times, -dates, places and
            methods of taking. The MMPA sets maximum civil penalties at $10,000 and maximum crirninal
            penalties at $25,000.

                     In 1994, Congress amended the MMPA, establishinga new regime to govern the taking of
            marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing. This new regime included the preparation of
            stock assessments for all marine mammal stocks in waters under U.S. jurisdiction, development
            and implementation of take reduction plans for stocks that may be reduced or are being maintained
            below their optimum sustainable population levels due to interactions with commercial fisheries,
            and studies of pinniped-fishery interactions. The amendments requirt NMFS and USFWS to
            establish regional scientific review groups to prepare the stock assessment reports for all marine
            marnmal stocks in U.S. waters.

                     For scientific research, enhancement and public display, -the 1994 Amendments of the
            MMPA established new authority to issue permits and authorizations while' eliminating other
            responsibilities. The term "harassment" was statutorily defined to mean any act of pursuit,
            torment, or annoyance which

                     1. (Level A Harassment) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal
                     stock in the wild; or
                     2. (Level B Harassment) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
                     stock in the wild by causing disruption or behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to,
                     migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
                     New provisions establish General Authorizations for low impact scientific research projects
            involving Level B harassment of non-endangered marine mammals, and allow NMFS to issue
            permits for educational and commercial photography purposes. Lastly, the 1994 amendments
            eliminated much of NMFS jurisdiction over marine mammals held for public display and changed
            documentation requirements involving their transport and import, as well as inventory record
            keeping.


            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                           Page 109
            and Management Plan






                Part H: Description of the Affected Environment                           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                 National Marine Sanctuary

                                    3) The Endangered Species Act

                        The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. ï¿½1531 et @Leq.) provides protection for
                listed endangered or threatened species in U.S. territorial waters and upon the high seas. The ESA
                provides for the conservation of species which are in danger of extinction throughout all or a
                significant portion of their range. The most significant protection provided by the ESA is the
                prohibition, with exceptions, on "taking". The term "take" is defined broadly to mean "harass,
                harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to. attempt to engage in such
                conduct" [16 U.S.C. ï¿½1532(19)]. The regulations in 50 C.F.R. ï¿½17.3 also define the term
                "harass" to mean "an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury
                to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns
                which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. "Species" is defined by the
                Act to mean either a species, a subspecies, or, for vertebrates only, a distinct population.

                        An individual or organization may petition to have a species considered for listing under the
                act as endangered or threatened. The listing of species qualifies it for increased protective
                measures. Generally, the USFWS coordinates ESA activities for terrestrial and freshwater
                species, while NMFS is responsible for marine and anadromous species. Within 90-days of a
                listing apetition's filing, an agency decision must be made on whether to reject the petition, or
                accept it and to conduct a status review of the species. NMFS or USFWS can also initiate a status
                review of a species without a petition for listing. If a status review is conducted, it is initiated, with
                a public solicitation of information anddata relevant to the population size and life history of the
                species. A one-year time limit is placed on making the decision to propose a species for listing.
                Concurrent with the final listing decision, critical habitat necessary for the continued survival of the
                species may be designated... For this decision, economic,impacts must be considered.

                        Once a species is listed recovery plans are prepared which identify conservation measures
                to be initiated to improve the species' status. In addition, Section 7 of the ESA requires all Federal
                agencies to use their authorities to conduct conservation prog'rams and to consult with NMFS (or
                USFWS) concerning the potential effects of their actions on any species listed under the ESA.
                Consultations occur on an on-going basis under Section 7 with- Federal action agencies to avoid,
                minimize or mitigate the impacts of their activities on listed species. Each Federal agency must, in
                consultation and with the assistance of the Secretary of Commerce (or Interior), insure that any
                action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued
                existence of any. endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
                modification of habitat of such species. NMFS also reviews non-Federal activities which may
                affect species listed under the ESA and issues section 10 permits for the incidental "take" of those
                species. Finally, Section 6(f) of the ESA provides that states may regulate endangered species if
                the state protection measure is more restrictive than the ESA.

                            I NUFS, Southwest Region

                        NOAA's NMFS has a variety of missions which are directly involved with marine
                resources in the Sanctuary. In general, these include implementation of the provisions of the
                Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, the MMPA, the ESA, and the Fish and
                Wildlife Coordination Act (finther discussion of NMFS' roles is presented in Part Three of the
                Final,EIS, Section 1: Status Quo Alternative). The NMFS Southwest Regional Office is located in
                Long Beack California. This regional office oversees NMFS activities operating out of the Pacific
                Area Office in Honolulu, and the NMFS-Office of Enforcement (OE) in Honolulu. NMFS also
                operates the National Marine Mammal Laboratory in Seattle, and a Research Center in La Jolla,
                CA. Under the provisions of the MMPA and ESA, NMFS has Federal regulatory authority over
                the management of the Federally-protected humpback whale (also the Hawaiian monk seal.and sea
                turtles) in the waters around Hawaii.


                Page 110                                                               Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                      and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                 Part II: Description of the Affected Environment
             National Marine Sanctuary

                      The humpback whale was listed as an endangered species under the ESA &I June 1970.
             Section 4(f) of the ESA requires preparation of a recovery plan for the conservation and protection
             of each listed endangered and threatened species, unless it is determined that such a plan will not
             promote the conservation of the species. In July 1987, NMFS created a Humpback Whale
             Recovery Team to assist in the development of a recovery plan. In November 1991 a final
             Humpback Whale National Recovery Plan (Plan) was completed. NUFS and other state and
             Federal agencies are coordinating their efforts in the implementation of the Humpback Whale
             Recovery. Plan. The Sanctuary could facilitate full implementation by providing a forum for
             encouraging other agencies to fulfill their obligations under the plan and by providing additional
             resources to ensure continuation of important studies, enforcement, and education efforts.

                      One of the principal objectives of the Plan is'to identify the need to designate critical habitat
             for humpback whales. Critical habitat is defined, in part, as "the specific areas mithin the
             geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is fisted . . . on which are found those
             physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (H) which may
             require special management considerations or protection" [16U.S.C. ï¿½1532(5)(A)]. Amongthe
             factors that should be considered for such designation include, but are not limited to: physical
             space, food or physiological requirements, cover/shelter, sites for breeding/rearing of offspring,
             and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical
             and ecological distributions of listed species (see 50 C.F.R. ï¿½424.12).

                      There are no immediate restrictions on human activities in an area designated as critical
             habitat. Critical habitat designation primarily affects those actions authorized, funded, or carried
             out by Federal agencies. The designation notifies Federal agencies that a listed species is
             dependent on a particular habitat and that any Federal action which may affect that habitat is subject
             to the consultation requirements of section 7 of the ESA. State and private activities that are
             conducted without any Federal involvement (e.g., fisheries not regulated by the Federal
             government, boating), are not subjected to the section 7 consultation process. However, it is
             possible that critical habitat designation could indirectly affect other user interests and coastal
             development, such as the Corps of Engineers' harbor and channel improvement projects. The
             ESA section 7 consultation process ensures that NMFS has the ability to review and recommend
             changes, if necessary, to activities that may directly or indirectly impact humpback whales or their
             habitat.

                      The Plan also identifies numerous management and data collection activities that would
             assist humpback whale recovery efforts. These activities include:
                              monitor human-related environmental factors affecting population recovery;
                              develop Federal-State and public-private partnerships for protecting whale
                              populations;
                              encourage protection of whale habitats;
                              measure changes in whale population sizes;
                              perform new field studies on population dynamics and model whale populations;
                              identify and reduce direct human-related injury and mortality;
                              promote education to achieve recovery goal; and
                              review permittees/permit procedures and adjust process accordingly.
                      In response to a growing concern for reducing human-induced interactions with humpback
             whales, NNTS promulgated interim regulations for approaching humpback whales in Hawaii. 50
             C.F.R. ï¿½222.3 1. NMFS also designated specific cow/calf waters around the north and east coast
             of Lanai and in the Maalaea Bay area of Maui which were removed by the 1994 reauthorization of
             the NIMPA. As provided in 50 C.F.R. ï¿½222, Subpart C, the regulations state that it is unlawful to:

                          operate any aircraft within 1,000 feet of any humpback whale;

             Final Environmental impact Statement                                                                  Page I I I
             and Management Plan





                Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment -                       Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                 National Marine Sanctuary

                            approach by any means, within 100 yards of any humpback whale;
                            cause a vessel or other object to approach within 100 yards of a humpback whale; or
                            disrupt the normal behavior or prior activity of a humpback whale by any other act or
                            ornission.

                        These are the current regulations on which enforcement actions are based. NMFS-OE
                operates an enforcement program to enforce these regulations during the whale season. NMFS has
                a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the USCG, and the Department of Land and
                Natural Resources to enforce Magnuson Federal Fishery Regulations, MMPA, and ESA
                regulations. The Hawaii DLNR enforcement officers have been deputized to enforce the above
                Federal regulations. NMFS-OE acts as a coordinating body and investigates reported violations of
                these laws. Each season, NMFS places enforcement agents on Maui to observe compliance with
                the approach regulations. The officer also travels to other islands as needed.

                        The goal of enforcement is to achieve voluntary compliance with theapplicable laws.
                NOAA's policy for enforcement within national marine sanctuaries is to prevent, through
                education, violations of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, individual Sanctuary regulations, and
                other related conservation laws. NOAA strives to maintain a sufficient enforcement presence
                within the sanctuaries to respond immediately to violations, and to also have investigative expertise
                available to respond to complex cases.

                NOAA uses three principal enforcement methods to achieve this goal within the sanctuaries:

                        *   Education -- Emphasis on education as a primary tool to ensure that the public utilizes
                            National Marine Sanctuaries in a manner consistent with long-term resource
                            conservation and protection. Education includes an effort to inform sanctuary visitors
                            of the requirements of the regulations plus the management/conservation rationale on
                            which the regulations are based. The expectation is that those users of the sanctuaries
                            who understand the rules and the rationale behind them will comply voluntarily. An
                            additional anticipated benefit is that off-island, as well as local Sanctuary visitors, will
                            become advocates of responsible use of the Sanctuary resources. Education by
                            enforcement officers is most frequently done during the conduct of patrols and
                            inspections, but also involves programs that target local citizen, civic, business and
                            government organizations.

                        *   Patrols/inspections - Every effort is made to provide sufficient levels of patrols and
                            inspections in the sanctuaries by enforcement personnel of the States, NOAA, USCG,
                            and other Federal agencies to protect sanctuary resources. This presence is intended to
                            ensure that users of sanctuary resources are familiar with the regulatory requirements,
                            deter violations of the law, and provide for quick response to violations that do occur.
                        0   Investigations - An investigative capability is            ed to ensure proper
                            documentation of and response to unlawful acts that are complex enough to require
                            specialized in-depth investigation. Investigations will be used to determine culpability
                            for unlawful acts, or when personnel conducting routine patrols and inspections do not
                            have sufficient time or expertise to fully document a case.

                            iii. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

                        The role of USFWS in Hawaii is predominantly land-based; however,               the agency does
                have some limited management responsibilities in certain State waters (e.g. endangered species
                protection). USFWS is responsible for implementing provisions of the MMPA, ESA, Fish and
                Wildlife Coordination Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.                  USFWS also maintains


                Page 112                                                              Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                      and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                              Part II: Description of the Affected Environment
            National Marine Sanctuary

            management and enforcement jurisdiction over the following          National Wildlife Refugees in the
            Hawaiian Islands:

                                               Oahu:     Pearl Harbor and James Campbell NWRs
                                               Kauai:    Hanalei, Huleia and Kilauea Point NWRs
                                            Molokai:     Kakahai NVVR
                                               Maui:     Kealia. Pond NV*rR
                                             Hawaii:     Hakalau Forest NWR
                     Northwest Hawaiian Islands:         Hawaiian Islands NWR

                    None of these National Wildlife Refuge boundaries extend below the shoreline, however,
            many are located in waters adjacent to the Sanctuary.

                    In the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, USFWS protect the lagoons at French Frigate Shoals
            and Pearl and Hermes Reef. However, other islands in the HINWR such as Nihoa, Necker,
            Gardner Pinnacles, Lisianski, Laysan, and Midway Islands have little or no special Federal
            protection (Harrison, 1985) other than for the Hawaiian monk seal. Critical habitat for the
            Hawaiian monk seal has been designated by NMFS out to 20 fathoms around these islands and
            atolls and the atolls of Kure and Midway. There is increasing support for extending the role of the
            Federal government into the waters adjacent to the HINWR and, to the Kilauea Point -National
            Wildlife Refuge in Kauai in.order to better coordinate the protection of many endangered refuge
            habitants (monk seals, sea turtles, and seabirds) which'depend on both the land and sea
            environments.

                         iv. Marine Mammal, Commission

                    In carrying out the functions of the MMPA, the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce
            are required to consult with the Marine Manunal Commission (MMC), a special independent
            advisory body created by the NROPA. The role of the MMC is very broad. Among other things, it
            must conduct a continuing review and study of all stocks of marine mammals and of all activities of
            the United States relating to them; it must conduct further studies as it deems necessary; and it must
            make formal recommendations for the protection and conservation of marine mammals. With this
            authority, the MMC can directly and indirectly affect many Federal, State and local marine resource
            management decisions.

                         v. Marine/Coastal Zone Protection

                             1) The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1, 972

                    As amended, the CZMA, 16 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1451 et @Leq., declares that it is the national policy to:

                    ï¿½    preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the
                         resources of the national coastal zone for this and succeeding generations;
                    ï¿½    encourage and assist the states to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the
                         coastal zone through the development and implementation of management
                         programs to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal
                         zone, giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and aesthetic
                         values as well as to needs for compatible economic development-,
                    ï¿½    encourage the preparation of special area management plans;
                    ï¿½    encourage, the participation and cooperation of the public, State and local
                         governments, and interstate and other regional agencies, as well as the Federal
                         government in carrying out the purposes of the CZMA;
                    ï¿½ encourage coordination and cooperation with and among the appropriate
                         Federal, State, and local agencies in collection, analysis, synthesis, and

            Final Environmental,Impact Statement                                                              Page 113
            and Management Plan






               Part H: Description of the Affected Environment                        Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                              National Marine Sanctuary

                           dissemination of coastal management information, research, and technical
                           assistance; and
                           respond to changing circumstances affecting coastiil environments and coastal
                           resource management.

                       Coastal states voluntarily address and carry out this national policy through their Federally-
               approved coastal zone management programs. Section 315 of the CZMA establishes the National
               Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRs). This program allows the Secretary of Commerce to
               designate representative national estuarine ecosystems that are suitable for long-term research and
               which contribute to the biogeographical and typological balance of the System. On Nov. 5, 1990,
               the CZMA was reauthorized, and amended to include, in part, provisions on non-point source
               pollution. Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) required
               states to develop and submit to the Secretary of Commerce a Coastal Non-point Pollution Control
               Program for approval. The purpose of the program is to develop and implement management
               measures for non-point source pollution to restore and protect coastal waters, working in close
               conjunction with the other State and local authorities. Hawaii's Office of Planning is currently
               developing this program in cooperation with DOH, EPA, and NOAA.

                           vi. NOAA/Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

                       NOAA's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management (OCRM) oversees
               management of the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD) and the Coastal Programs Division
               (CPD). CPD has primary responsibility over the administration of the Federal CZMA and
               provides technical. and financial assistance to the states' to implement provisions of the CZMA.
               SRD oversees the designation and management of national marine sanctuaries. and national
               estuarine research- reserves. In 1976, at the request of the State, OCRM designated the joint
               Federal-State Waimanu Valley National Estuarine Research Reserve on the Big Island (Hawaii).
               This area is managed through the efforts of DLNR with NOAA providing matching funds for
               administration, education, and research within the reserve. In 1996, NOAA and the State of
               Hawaii, agreed to de-designate Waimanu as a NERR, and leave the site as a State Natural Area
               Reserve. OCRM continues to work with the State of Hawaii in their implementation of a federally-
               approved coastal management plan.

                           vii. National Park Service

                       The National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for managing Haleakala and Volcanoes
               National Parks, and Kalaupapa, Kaloko-Honokohau, Pu'uhonua o Honaunau, and Puukohola
               Heiau National Historic Sites, and the USS Arizona Memorial. Most of these parks are in upland
               or coastal areas though several of these parks have underwater components that are adjacent to the
               sanctuary or overlap with sanctuary boundaries. If determined necessary to fulfill the purposes
               and objectives of a national park, the NPS could manage living marine resources in nearshore
               waters provided that ajoint Federal-State management plan is developed. Such an arrangement is
               currently under consideration for the waters adjacent to the Kaloko-Honokohau, National Historic
               Parkin Kona (Tarnas and Stewart, 199 1).

                          viii. Fisheries Management

                       The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act) 16 U.S.C.
               ï¿½ 1801 et Le_q., provides for the conservation and management of all   'fishery resources in the zone
               between three and 200 nautical miles offshore (EEZ), anadromous species and continental shelf
               resources of the United States. NMFS is charged with establishing guidelines for and approving
               fishery management plans (FMPs) prepared by the appropriate Regional Fishery Management
               Council for selected fisheries within Federal Waters. These plans determine levels of commercial


               Page 114                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                           Part H: Description of the Affected Environment
             National Marine Sanctuary

             and recreational fishing that are consistent with the goal.of achieving and maintaining an optimum
             yield for each fishery.

                    WESPAC prepares the FMPs for the fisheries around American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii,
             the Northern Mariana Islands, and other United States possessions in the Pacific. NMFS approves
             the fishery plans and works with WESPAC and the industry on implementation. NMFS also
             enforces provisions of the plans.

                    WESPAC also works in conjunction with DLNR-DAR to jointly manage fisheries. For
             example, to prevent conflict between different gear types, an emergency rule prohibiting longline
             fishing within 50 nautical miles of Maui County, including Kahoolawe, was promulgated by
             WESPAC 56 FR 28116, June 19, 1991; 56 FR 31689, July 11, 1991; and, 56 FR 47701,
             September 20, 199 1. The emergency rule was effective from June 14, 1991 through December
             16, 1991. WESPAC has formally recommended that this closure be made permanent. The State
             adopted WESPAC's area closure and has prohibited longlining in State Waters (DNLR-DAR,
             1992).

                        ix. Marine/Coastal Development

                            1) Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)

                    In addition to covering the clean-up and maintenance of America's water supply, the CWA
             also governs classification criteria and conservation of the nation's wetlands, under its Section 404
             permit program. This program states requires a permit from the from the U.S. Army Corps of
             Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters of the U. S..
             Navigable waters also include wetlands areas. The Corps of Engineers administers this program,
             based on EPA-developed guidelines. (Also see discussion of CWA as it pertains to water quality
             in section x.-Water Quality).

                            2) Rivers and Harbors Act

                    The Corps of Engineers administers Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899,
             which requires a permit for construction "in, under, across, or on the banks" in any coastal or tidal
             waters below the mean high water mark that involves placing a structure or altering navigable
             waters. The construction of any structure, any excavation, or any fill activity in the territorial sea
             or on the outer continental shelf is prohibited without a Corps permit. While major projects require
             a regular permit, the Corps of Engineers also administers a "nationwide" permit program and a
             regional permit program for projects of limited scope to reduce delays and paperwork for small
             projects. All Corps of Engineers' permits apply throughout the Sanctuary boundary.

                            3) The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

                    The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) 43 U.S.C. ï¿½1331 gt =., establishes
             Federal jurisdiction over the mineral resources of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) beyond 3
             nautical miles, and gives the Secretary of the Interior primary responsibility for managing OCS
             mineral exploration and development. The Secretary's responsibility has been delegated to the
             Minerals Management Service (MMS) within DOI. The MMS has overall responsibility for leasing
             OCS lands hydrocarbon activities and hard minerals mining. In unique or special areas, MMS may
             impose special lease stipulations designed to protect specific geological and biological resources.
             These stipulations may vary among lease tracts and sales.
                    The MMS is also charged with supervising OCS -operations, including the approval of
             plans for exploratory drilling and applications for pipeline rights-of-way on the OCS. Several
             types of regulatory authority are. used in carrying out the MMS supervisory role. Such authority

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                         Page 115
             and Management Plan






                 Part H: Description of the Affected Environment                          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                  National Marine Sanctuary

                 includes the enforcement of regulations issued pursuant to the OCSLA (30 C.F.R. ï¿½ï¿½250 and 256)
                 and the enforcement of stipulations applicable to particular leases.

                             x. Water Quality

                                 1) Point and Non-point Source Discharges

                         The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act (CWA)), 3 3 U. S. C. ï¿½ 125 1 et
                 ic-q., was established in 1977 as a maJor amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of
                 1972 and was substantially modified by the Water Quality Act of 1987. . This act is the Nation's
                 principal water pollution prevention statute.        The CWA provides for the restoration and
                 maintenance of water quality in all waters throughout the country, with the ultimate goal of
                 "fishable and swimmable" water quality. The act established the National Pollutant Discharge
                 Elimination System (NPDES) permitting system, which is the regulatory mechanism designed to
                 achieve this goal. The authority to implement the NPDES'prograrn has been delegated to those
                 states, including Hawaii,, that have developed a program substantially the same or as least as
                 stringent as the Federal NPDES program. The NPDES permit program covers all point source
                 discharges including stormwater discharges. By definition, point-source discharges these are
                 pollutants that flow from specific points such as factories or sewage plants. The 1987 amendments
                 to the CWA modified the thrust of NPDES program activities. Greater emphasis was placed on
                 monitoring and control of toxic constituents in wastewater, the permitting of outfalls composed
                 entirely of stormwater, and sewage sludge disposal. These'changes in the NPDES program
                 resulted in more closely controlled discharge. limits and expanded the number of chernical
                 constituents monitored in the effluent.

                         Throughout the last two decades, a major emphasis of the CWA has been on cleaning up
                 point sources" of pollution. Due progress has been made in controlling the emission of these
                 pollutants and attention has shifted toward the other pollutants, know 'as "non-point" -sources.
                 These pollutants result from land use and practices in a watershed which get are carried by
                 precipitation runoff to streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries and coastal waters. The 1987 amendments
                 to the CWA also placed a new emphasis on controlling polluted runoff. Section 319, CWA,
                 requires states to develop non-point source pollution control programs and submit assessment and
                 management plans to the EPA. Section 303 (d), CWA, required, each state to identify waterbodies
                 not achieving water quality standards, categories and subcategories of non-point source pollutants,
                 and state water pollution control programs. Section 305(b), CWA, requires states to monitor water
                 quality.

                         The EPA Region IX office in San Francisco, has regulatory responsibilities related to
                 sewage outfalls, ocean disposal activities, and non-point pollution under the CWA. EPA has
                 delegated these responsibilities to the Hawaii Department of Health. EPA provides oversight for
                 the State administration of water quality programs.

                                 2)      Dredging and Ocean Dumping

                         Title -I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), 33 U.S.C. ï¿½1401
                   &eq., also known as the Ocean Dumping Act, prohibits: 1) any person from transporting,
                 without a permit, from 1he United States any material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean
                 waters (defined to mean those waters of the open seas lying seaward of the baseline from which
                 the territorial sea is measured); and 2) in the case of a vessel or aircraft registered in the United
                 States or flying the United States flag or in the case of a United States agency, any person from
                 transporting, without a permit, from any location any material for the purpose of dumping it into
                 the ocean waters.




                 Page 116                                                              Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                       and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                               Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment
            National Marine Sanctuary

                     Title I of the NVRSA also prohibits any person from dumping, without a permit, into the
            territorial sea, or the 12-nautical-mile contiguous   zone to the extent that it may affect the territorial
            sea or the territory of the Uniied States, any material transported from a location outside the United
            States. EPA regulates, through the issuance of permits, the transportation for the purpose of
            dumping, and the dumping of 0 materials except dredged material. The COE oversees the
            transportation, for the purpose of dumping, of dredged material. ,

                     Dredging activities and their impacts on navigation and the environment are regulated by the
            COE under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (dredging), by EPA and the COE
            under Section 404 (discharge of dredge or fill materials within 3-nautical miles of the shoreline) of
            the CWA (3 3 U.S.C. ï¿½ 125 1 et =.), and Section 103 (ocean disposal of dredge materials) of Title
            I of the MPRSA (33 U.S.C. ï¿½1401 et @Leq.). Permit applicants are required to comply with CZN1A
            Federal consistency requirements, and obtain CWA, Section 401, Water Quality Certifications
            prior to being issued a permit by the COE. Under Section 103 of the MPRSA, EPA designated
            five dredge material ocean disposal sites in Hawaii, and in cooperation with the COE, established
            test procedures to determine the acceptability of dredge materials for ocean dumping. All five sites
            are located outside the proposed Sanctuary boundary in waters deeper than 100-fathoms.

                             3) Vessel Sewage

                     The CWA requires vessels to. comply with marine sanitation regulations issued by EPA and
            enforced by the USCG (33 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1322). All vessels equipped with installed toilet facilities
            must contain operable and certified marine sanitation devices. USCG regularly inspects vessels to
            ensure these devices are properly worldng.

                         xi. Oil Pollution

                                 1) The Clean Water Act

                     The Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibits the discharge of oil or other hazardous substances in
            quantities that may be harmful to the public health or welfare or the environment, including but not
            limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private property, shorelines and beaches. The
            CWA's jurisdiction includes discharges: (1) in navigable waters of the U.S., adjoining shorelines,
            or into the waters of the contiguous zone, and (2) in connection with activities under the OCLSA or
            the Deep Water Port Act of 1974, or which may affect natural resources belonging to, appertaining
            to, or under the exclusive management authority of the U.S., except, in the case of such discharges
            into the waters of the contiguous zone or which may affect the above-mentioned natural resources,
            where permitted under the Protocol of 1978 Relating to the International Convention for the
            Prevention of Pollution from Ships.

                                 2) Oil Pollution Act of 1990

                     The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), Public Law 101-380, addresses a wide range of
            problems associated with preventing, responding to, and paying for oil spills. It does so by
            creating a comprehensive regime for dealing with vessel and facility-caused oil pollution. The
            OPA provides for environmental safeguards in oil transportation greater than those existing before
            its passage by: setting new standards for vessel construction, crew licensing, and manning;
            providing for better contingency planning; enhancing Federal response capability; broadening
            enforcement authority; increasing penalties; and authorizing multi-agency research and
            development. A one billion dollar trust fund is available to cover clean-up costs and damages not
            compensated by the spiller.

                     Section 4202 of the Off Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), 33 U.S.C. ï¿½ 2701 gi aeq.,
            amended Subsection 0) of Section 311 of the CWA [33 U.S.C. 1321 (j)] to address the

            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                Page 117
            and Management Plan





                Part II: Description of the Affected Environment                        Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                               National Marine Sanctuary

                development of a National. Planning and Response System. The OPA called for the creation- of
                planning teams to develop contingency plans to address oil and hazardous waste spills and
                responses. The National Response Team (NRT) is primarily a planning, policy, and coordination
                body and does not respond directly to incidents. EPA coordinated this team and USCG is the
                Chair. They are responsible for developing a National Contingency Plan (NCP). A Regional
                Response Teams (RRT) is comprised of Federal and State (or Territory) representation and are
                responsible for developing a Regional Contingency Plan (RCP). EPA and USCG co-chair this
                team. Like the NRT, the RRT is mainly a planning, policy and coordinating body, and does not
                respond directly to incidents. The RRT has Federal and State representation. The RRT provides
                guidance and technical assistancelo Area Committees.

                        As part of the National Planning and Response system, Area Committees ate to be
                established for each area designated by the President. These Area Cominittees are to be comprised
                of qualified personnel from.Federal, State and local agencies. Each Area Committee, under the
                direction of the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) for the area, is responsible for developing an
                Area Contingency Plan (ACP) which, when implemented in conjunction with the NCP and the
                RCP, shall be adequate to remove a worst case discharge of oil or a hazardous substance, and to
                mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of such a discharge, from a vessel, offshore facility, or
                onshore facility operating in or near the geographic area. Each Area Committee is also responsible
                for working with State and local officials to pre-plan for joint response efforts, including
                appropriate procedures for mechanical recovery, dispersal, shoreline cleanup, protection of
                sensitive environmental areas, and protection, rescue, and rehabilitation of fisheries and wildlife.
                The Area Committee'is also required to work with State and local officials to expedite decisions for
                the use of dispersants and other mitigating'substances and devices.
                        Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorzation Act of 1986 (SARA). is entitled
                the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (Right-to-Know Act). This Federal
                statute requires emergency response planning at the State and local level. The State of Hawaii
                established the Hawaii State Emergency Response Corrunission (HSERC) to comply with this
                requirement and designated DOH as the lead agency to implement the Right-to-Know Act. The
                HSERC was required to delineate emergency planning districts and appoint local emergency
                respon 'se committees to facilitate the preparation and implementation of local emergency plans.
                Hawaii's four counties (Hawaii, Honolulu, Maui and Kauai) represent the emergency planning
                districts for the State. The HSERC established a technical subcorrunittee to draft a State plan to
                provide statewide guidance on oil and hazardous substances emergency response. This plan is the
                Hawaii Oil and Hazardous Substances Emergency Response Plan and is incorporated in the ACP.

                        Of particular note is that Title I of the OPA establishes liability and limits to liability. Any
                party responsible for the discharge, or the substantial threat of discharge, of oil into navigable
                waters or adjoining shorelines or the EEZ is liable for removal costs and damages [OPA ï¿½ 1002(a)].
                Recoverable damages include damages for injury to natural resources, real or personal property,
                subsistence use, revenues, profits and earning capacity, public services, and the cost of assessing
                those damages [OPA ï¿½ï¿½1002(b), 1001(5)].
                        The measure of penalties for damaging natural resources includes the cost of restoring,
                rehabilitating, replacing, or acquiring the equivalent of such resources; the diminution in value
                pending restoration; plus the reasonable cost of assessing -damages [OPA ï¿½1006(d)(1)]. NOAA
                has the responsibility of promulgating damage assessment regulations and compliance with the
                regulations will create a rebuttable presumption in favor of a given assessment [OPA ï¿½ 1006(e)].
                        Sums recovered by a trustee for natural resource damages are retained in a revolving trust
                account to reimburse or pay costs incurred by the trustee with respect to damaged resources.



                Page 118                                                             Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                    and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                               Part II: Description of the Affected Environment
             National Marine Sanctuary

                     Title IV, subpart A, (Prevention) gives added responsibility to USCG regarding merchant
             marine personnel. It also imposes new requirements on the operation of oil tankers (double hulls
             on new vessels, and eventually on older vessels).

                     Title IV, subpart B, (Removal), substantially amends subsection 311(c) of the CWA,
             requiring the Federal government to effectively ensure immediate removal from navigable waters or
             adjoining shorelines or the EEZ of harmful quantities of oil or hazardous substances. [OPA
             ï¿½4201(a)]. It also requires a revision and republication of the National Contingency Plan within
             one year, OPA ï¿½4201(c), that will include, among other things, a fish and wildlife response plan
             developed in consultation with NOAA and USFWS [OPA ï¿½4201(b)]. The USCG and EPA will
             coordinate operations for the control or removal of oil and hazardous substances resulting from
             offshore spills.

                                  3) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by
             Oil/Oil Pollution Act of 1961/International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,
             1973

                     The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954 and
             the Oil Pollution Act of 1961 have been superseded by the International Convention for the
             Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the related 1978 Protocol (MARPOL
             73n8), and implemented in the United States by the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 1980, as
             amended in 1982 and 1987 (APPS). The APPS, in implementing Annex I of MARPOL 73/78,
             regulates the discharge *of oil and oily mixtures from seagoing ships, including oil tankers. The
             APPS, in implementing Annex II of MARPOL 73n8, regulates the discharge of noxious liquid
             substances from seagoing ships. Enforcement of the APPS is the responsibility of USCG.

                     When more than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land, any discharge of oil or oily
             mixtures into the sea from a ship subject to the APPS, other than an oil tanker or from machinery
             space bilges of an oil tanker subject to the APPS, is prohibited except when: 1) the oil or oily
             mixture does not originate from cargo pump room bilges; 2) the oil or oily mixture is not mixed
             .with oil cargo residues; 3) the ship is not within a Special Area; 4) the ship is proceeding en route;
             5) the oil content of the effluent without dilution is less than 100 parts per million; and, 6) the ship
             has in operation oil-water separating equipment, a bilge monitor, bilge alarm or combination
             thereof [33 C.F.R. ï¿½151.10(a)]. The restrictions on discharges 12 nautical miles or less from the
             nearest land are more stringent [3 3 C.F.R. ï¿½ 15 1. 1 0(b)].

                     A tank vessel subject to the APPS may not discharge an oily mixture into the sea from a
             cargo tank, slop tank or cargo pump bilge unless the vessel: 1) is more than 50 nautical miles from
             the nearest land; 2) is proceeding en route; 3) is discharging at an instantaneous rate of oil content
             not exceeding 60 liters per nautical mile; 4) is an existing vessel and the total quantity of oil
             discharged into the sea does not exceed 1115000 of the total quantity of the cargo that the discharge
             formed a part (1/30000 for new vessels); 5) discharges, with certain exceptions, through the above
             waterline discharge point; 6) has in operation a cargo monitor and control system that is designed
             for use with the oily mixture being discharged; and 7) is outside the Special Areas (33 C.F.R.
             ï¿½ 157.37).

                     The APPS is amended by the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987
             (I@VPRC& which implements Annex V of MARPOL 73n8 in the United States. The MPPRCA
             and implementing regulations at 33 C.F.R. ï¿½ï¿½151.51 to 151.77 apply to U.S. ships (except
             warships and ships owned.or operated by the U.S.) everywhere, including recreational vessels,
             and to other ships subject to MARPOL 73n8 while in the'navigable, waters or the EEZ. They
             prohibit the discharge of plastic or garbage mixed with plastic into any waters and the discharge of
             dunnage, lining, and packing materials that float within 25 nautical miles of the nearest land. Other
             unground garbage may be discharged beyond 12 nautical miles from the nearest land. Other

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                               Page 119
             and Management Plan





               Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                             National Marine Sanctuary-

               garbage ground to less than- one inch may be discharged beyond        three nautical miles from the
               nearest land. Fixed and floating platforms and associated vessels     are subject to more stringent
               restrictions. "Garbage" is defined as all kinds of victual, domestic and operational waste,
               excluding fresh fish and parts thereof, generated during the normal operations of the ship and liable
               to be disposed of continuously or periodically, except dishwater, gray water, and certain
               substances (33 C.F.R. ï¿½151.05). USCG regularly enforces the provisions of these this law
               throughout the EEZ.

                          xii. Marine Transportation Safety

                                1) The Ports and Waterways Safety Act

                       The Port and Tanker Safety Act (PWSA) of 1978, 33 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1231         et      as- amended,
               is designed to promote navigation and vessel safety and the protection of the   marine environment.
               The PWSA applies out to 200 nautical miles and authorizes USCG to establish vessel traffic
               services for ports; harbors, and other waters subject to congested vessel traffic, or which are
               otherwise hazardous. Two such services are the Vessel Traffic Separation Scheme and designation
               of necessary fairways.

                       In addition to vessel traffic control, the USCG regulates other navigational and shipping
               activities and has promulgated numerous regulations relating to vessel design, construction, and
               operation designed'to minimize the likelihood of accidents and to reduce vessel source pollution.
               The 1978 amendments to the PWSA establish a comprehensive program for regulating the design,
               construction, operation, equipping, and banning of all tankers using U.S. ports to transfer oil and
               hazardous materials. These requirements are, for the most part, in agreement with "protocols
               (passed in 1978) to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973,
               and the International Convention on Safety of Life at Sea, 1974.

                       In addition to enforcing fishing and ve5sel discharge regulations, the USCG is also
               responsible for regulating vessel traffic, maintaining boater safety, and coordinating search and
               rescue operations. The l4th Coast Guard District Office is located in Honolulu; USCG stations are
               located at Honolulu Harbor;* Coast Guard Air Station at Barbers Point Naval Air Station;
               Nawiliwili Harbor, Kauai; Maalaea Harbor, Maui; and Hilo Harbor, Big Island.


                       b. State and County Regulatory Authorities

                               1) Environmental Impact Statement Law

                       The State's environmental impact statement law (HRS, ï¿½343) is modeled on the National
               Environmental Policy Act. It requires that     'Environmental Assessments (EA) be prepared for
               actions undertaken by, or requiring the approval of, State and county governments that may have
               negative environmental impacts. If it is determined that such an action will have no negative
               environmental impact a "negative declaration" 'is made. If the State agency preparing the EA
               determines there may significant environmental impacts, an EIS must be prepared and made
               available for public comment. In the marine environment, the Governor has the authority to accept
               or reject the EIS (Tarnas and Stewart 1991:52).

                               2) Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Act
                       Chapter 205A, HRS, provides the legal foundation for the State's CZM Program. The law
               requires that any action within the Coastal Zone, which includes all land and water within the
               State's jurisdiction except Federal lands, must be consistent with the policies and objectives
               stipulated in HRS 205A. However, under authority provided through the Federal CZNLk, Federal

               Page 120                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                 and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                               Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment-
             National Marine Sanctuary

             actions, whether in or outside the coastal zone, that are reasonably likely to affect the coastal zone
             must comply with the C72VIA's Federal consistency requirement. -Under HRS 205A, Special
             Management Areas (SMAs) provide for special protection of resources directly on the coast within
             the jurisdiction of each of the four,Counties.

                              3) Coastal Zone Management Areas

                      Through HRS Chapter 205A, the state legislature created "Special Management Areas"
             (SMAs) along the coasts of the State and gave the counties authority to issue permits for
             development activities'in these areas (Office of State Planning, 1990). SMAs extend inland a
             minimum of 100 yards and, in undeveloped areas surrounding bodies of surface water subject to
             salinity intrusion or tidal influence, often extend further inland. The counties are to "seek to
             minimize, where reasonable": dredging, filling, or other alteration of bays, estuaries, salt marshes,
             river mouths, sloughs and lagoons; the reduction in size of beaches or other public recreation areas;
             developments that would, restrict access to coastal areas; developments that would "substantially
             interfere with or detract from the line of sight toward the sea from State highway nearest the coast";
             and, "any development which would adversely affect water quality, existing areas of open water
             free of visible structures, existing and potential fisheries and fishing grounds, wildlife habitats, or
             potential of existing agricultural uses of land." Permits are issued by counties after environmental
             analyses and public hearings are conducted.

                      A second type of coastal zone management area designation under Hawaii CZM statutes
             establishes shoreline setbacks of not less than 20 feet and not more than 40 feet inland from the
             shoreline (HRS, Chapter 205A, as amended). With some minor exceptions, the law prohibits the
             mining and taking of sand, dead coral or coral rubble, rocks, soil, or other beach or marine -
             deposits from the shoreline area, or within 1000 feet    'seaward from the shoreline, or in water of 30
             feet or less in depth in the territorial -sea. In addition, structures (or portions of structures) including
             but not limited to seawalls, groins and revetments, are not permitted within the shoreline. area
             without a variance by the particular county authority (Hawaii Office of State Planning, 1990).

                              4) Areas of Particular Concern and Priorities of Use

                      The C0VIA requires that states include in their management programs an inventory and
             designation of areas of particular concern (APCs) or interest within the coastal zone as well as a
             priority of uses in these areas, including those of lowest priority. Criteria for designating APCs
             includes areas of unique habitats, historic or cultural value, high natural productivity, substantial
             recreational value, and areas where development and facilities are dependent upon the utilization of,
             or access to, coastal waters [see 15 C.F.R. ï¿½923.2 1 (b)]. Hawaii has several programs which. meet
             the requirements of the APC concept noted above that are managed under different agencies within
             the State.

                              5) Hawaii Ocean and Submerged Lands Leasing Act

                      The Hawaii StateConstitution gives the State the power to manage and control the marine,
             seabed, and other resources located within the boundaries of the State including its archipelagic
             waters, and reserves to the State all such rights outside State boundaries not specifically limited by
             Federal and international law (HRS, Chapter. 190D). Under the Hawaii Ocean and Submerged
             Lands  ' Leasing Act, the DLNR, in agreement with DOT, may lease State'. marine waters and
             submerged lands for.marine activities. DLNR has jurisdiction over conservation district lands,
             under which fall all lands seaward of the shoreline to the limit of the State's jurisdiction (three
             nautical miles). The BLNR reviews CDUAs to allow construction or activities in conservation
             lands (e.g., seawalls, revetments, installation of moorings), although the DLNR can deny pen-nit
             applications or attach conditions to them. Under State law, sand mining is currently prohibited
             except for: permitted replenishment or protection of public lands (Chapter 171-58.5, HRS) 'or

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                Page 121
             and Management Plan






                Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment                        Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                               National Marine Sanctuary

                where the mining or taking is authorized by a variance (Chapter 20-5A-44, HRS). However, the
                DLNR may not lease any areas when existing programs of DLNR (i.e., MLCDs, Shoreline
                Fisheries Management Areas, or NARS) will suffer adverse impact as a result of the proposed
                activities (HRS, Chapter 205).
                        DOT issues permits for ocean dredging, filling, construction, and dumping materials below
                the mean high water mark. The DOT permit is similar to those pem-iits issued by the Corps of
                            Zn
                Engineers, however, DOT reviews the proposed activity from a State perspective and may object to
                a project the Corps of Engineers has allowed (or vice versa). ADLNR CDUA permit may also be
                required for' activities conducted in submerged lands.

                                6) Protection of Marine and Coastal Species

                        It is the State's policy to protect endangered species of indigenous plants and animals and
                introduce new plants  'and animals only after ensuring that such introductions will pose negligible
                ecological hazard (HRS, Chapter 344). DLNR accords those species designated "endangered" or
                "threatened" under the Federal ESA the same status under State law. DLNR may also designate
                other-species under administrative rule. The regulations are variable according to the species
                designated but include complete prohibitions, seasonal taking, minimum size measurements, bag
                limits, and for certain crustaceans such as lobsters and crabs no spearing or taking with eggs.
                Some methods of baitfish capture are also restricted by net type and net size, regulations and a
                special license requirement.

                        Hawaii prohibits the removal of any live covered rock, or live stony coral from the waters
                of the  state, including any live reef or mushroom coral. It is also unlawful to take, destroy,
                possess, or sell any pink or gold corals taken from waters of the state except from the Makapuu
                Beds of Oahu which are regulated by permit and weight limits. Marine algae collection is perri-litted
                except for removal of the holdfast or taking when reproductive nodes are present. Algae collection
                is limited to one pound per person per day for home consumption. Licensed commercial operators
                can collect up to ten pounds per day per license with the exception, of Maui where no commercial
                taking is allowed. Clams, oysters, and other shellfish, excluding opihi, are prohibited from any
                taking (DLNR-DAR, 1991).

                                7) Water Quality Standards

                        DOH has established water quality standards for Hawaii in Chapter 11, HAR, based on
                Federal CWA standards. Marine waters are classified as either Class AA or Class A. Class AA
                waters include "pristine" areas along Hawaii's coastline and "...all embayments in preserves,
                reserves, sanctuaries, and refuges" [HAR, ï¿½11-54-006(a)(2); Stewart and Tarnas 1991].' No
                effluent discharge is allowed in Class AA waters at depths less than 10 fathoms. Allowable uses in
                these waters include "oceanographic research, the support and propagation of shellfish and other
                marine life,. conservation. of coral r6efs. and wilderness areas, - compatible recreation and aesthetic
                enjoymenf' [HAR, ï¿½11-54-03(c)(1)]. Class A waters are protected for recreational purposes,
                aesthetic enjoyment, and for activities compatible with the protection and propagation of fish,
                shellfish, and wildlife [HAR, ï¿½ 1 1-54-03(e)(2)]. In addition, there are basic State water quality
                rules that apply to both Class AA and Class A waters that control ocean dumping, thermal
                pollution, turbidity, and nearly 100 toxic substances (HAR, Chapter 11-54; Tarnas and Stewart
                199 1). These criteria are among the, most stringent in the Nation (DOH 1990, Water Quality
                Management Plan for the,City and County of Honolulu). DOH is responsible fqr monitoring and
                enforcing these regulations.

                        Marine bottom ecosystems are designated as Class I and Class II. Class I bottom areas are
                protected to keep them "...as nearly as possible in their natural pristine state with an absolute
                minimum of pollution from any human source. Allowable uses of marine bottom ecosystems in

                Page 122                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                   and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                              Part II: Description of the Affected Environment
            National Marine Sanctuary

            this class are passive human uses without intervention or alteration, allowing the perpetuation and
            preservation of the marine bottom in a most natural state, such as for non-consumptive scientific
            research, non-consumptive education, aesthetic enjoyment and passive activities and preservation"
            [ï¿½ I 1-54-03(d)(1)]. In Class II bottom areas, any action that would permanently modify the bottom
            environment is allowed only with the approval of the Director of Health who must consider the
            environmental impact and public interest of such action [ï¿½ I 1-54-04(d)(2)]. Detailed regulations for
            both Class I and Class 11 bottom.environments are contained within the HAR [ï¿½ I t-54-03(d)(1)].

                            8) Point Sources of Pollution

                     NPDES penriits are required for all point sources of pollution including wastewater
            treatment facilities, electric generating facilities, industries, and agricultural facilities. EPA has
            delegated this permit authority to DOH. NPDES permits require pen-nit holders to monitor outfall
            areas and submit reports on a periodic basis. Once a year, DOH conducts site inspections to assure
            sampling techniques and obtains "split samples" to determine analytical accuracy. DOH also
            performs pollutant source and ambient water quality monitoring at over 76 fixed monitoning
            stations statewide. In 19.91, there were 15 wastewater facilities with NPDES pen-nits in the State
            and eleven of those were discharging a total of 143.32 million gallons per day into ocean waters.
            The remaining four permit holders used injection wells or reuse of effluent for irrigation or
            disposal (Tarnas and Stewart 1991:74).

                            9) Non-Point Sources of Pollution

                     In 1987, the U.S. Congress amended the Clean Water Act (CWA) to place new emphasis
            on controlling polluted runoff. Section 319 of the CWA, for example, requires states to develop
            non-point source pollution control programs and submit assessment and- management plans.
            Section 303(d) of the CWA requires each state to identify waterbodies not achieving water quality
            standards (water quality limited segments) by categories and subcategories of non-point source
            pollutants. Section 305(b) of the CWA requires states to monitor and produce reports on the
            State's overall water quality. Various State and county agencies have mechanisms in place to
            control non-point source pollution. The DOH reactivated its Non-point Source Pollution Program
            in response to the 1987 CWA amendments and assisted the county governments in complying with
            CWA ï¿½208.        DOH also developed a non-point source pollution Assessment Report and
            Management Plan that was completed in 1990 under the CWA. ï¿½319 (b) requirements. The
            Management Plan identified best management practices and measures to be undertaken which
            reduce pollutant loading from non-point sources, programs. and funding assistance to support their
            implementation, and a schedule for implementation. The best management measures included in
            the 1990 plan were to be implemented largely through existing programs and regulations with
            technical support from the U.S. Soil Conservation Service and the Hawaii Association of
            Conservation District, the Cooperativ& Extension Service, DLNR, DOT, and other State and
            Federal Agencies as well as private groups. In 1993, the State Legislature enacted a statute
            establishing the statutory framework for a regulatory non-point source pollution program

                     In 1990, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA),
            modifying the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZM) Act of 1972. CZARA, section 6217, entitled
            "Protecting Coastal Waters," requires states with CZM programs to develop and implement coastal
            non-point pollution control programs to be approved by NOAA and EPA. Federal funding for
            approved programs will come from EPA, under section 319 of the CWA, and from NOAA under
            section 306 of the CZMA. States must provide matching funds for their programs.                       State
            programs are to be developed jointly by the coastal zone management agency and the water quality
            agency, and must be based on guidelines developed by the EPA and NOAA.

                     Hawaii responded to these requirements by coordinating the existing efforts of the Hawaii
            Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) and the Hawaii Department of Health (DOH).

            Final Environmental impact Statement                                                              Page 123
            and Management Plan






                  Part 11: Description 6f the Affected Environment                                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                          National Marine Sanctuary

                  Hawaii has had an approved Coastal Zone Management Program since 1978. Hawaii has also had
                  an EPA-approved voluntary non-point pollution control program since 1987. The development of
                  Hawaii's coastal non-point source pollution control program brings together the CZM Program's
                  experience in coordination, and land and water use control, and DOH's expertise in water pollution
                  management. The plan was developed to (1) be realistic and implementable, given Hawaii's
                  environmental, political, and cultural realities, (2) create an appropriate rrux of regulatory and non-
                  regulatory mechanisms to implement the program, and (3) involve affected parties in the program
                  development process. The plan will be implemented through both reg@ilatory and non-regulatory
                  mechanisms. The CZM Program convened an informal working group and five focus groups
                  which met on a regular basis, to assist with program development. The CZM Program and DOH
                  also had extensive. consultations with groups that will be affected by the coastal non-point pollution
                  control program. The CZM Program submitted the draft non-point pollution management plan to                                     Ll
                  NOAA and EPA in July 1996. The program should be fully developed by the end of 1997.

                          The intent of the Hawaii coastal non-point pollution control program is to build upon,
                  rather than duplicate, existing programs. The array of existing programs will be loosely bound
                  together in a. "network" under the rubric of the coastal non-point pollution control program.
                  Ultimately, there will be one statewide program for the management and control of polluted runoff,
                  elements of which will implemented by a number of existing agencies.

                          Coordination will be a central theme of the developing phases of the Hawaii coastal non-
                  point pollution program. )While the CZM Program has the lead in coordinating the developmen                    't of
                  the overall program, the development of the separate program elements themselves has been a
                  shared responsibility. The CZM Program and DOH, with significant assistance from other State,
                  Federal, and county agencies, non-governmental organizations, and individuals, have jointly
                  developed Hawaii's Coastal Non-Point Pollution Control Program management plan. The Coastal
                  Non-Point Pollution Control Program will continue to rely on the resources, expertise, program,
                  and authorities of other agencies and organizations during its continuing development and
                  implementation. In addition, opportunities for public participation will continue -to be part of
                  Hawaii's coastal non-point pollution control program.

                          In addition, the individual counties issue grading permits for construction activities that
                  specify erosion control measures that must be implemented for activities that involve earth moving
                  or grading..

                                    10) Oil Pollution

                          DOH monitors State waters for oil and chemical*spills in cooperation with USCG. Chapter
                  342D-51, HRS, requires that all discharges 'of oil, petroleum products, and other hazardous
                  substances into State waters be reported to DOH within 24 hours of a spill. Failure to report a
                  discharge or take corrective action can result in fines of up to $10,000 per day (J. Harrigan, 1994,
                  pers. communication). Since 1991, DOH has been working closely with USCG and other Oceania
                  Regional Response Teams to develop response plans and other requirements of the OPA.
                          DOT-Harbors is authorized to regulate and control polluting discharges in State waters.
                  HRS 266-3 specifically authorizes DOT to promulgate and administer regulations that "...prevent
                  the escape of fuel or other oils onto the harbors, ocean waters, and streams,either from any vessel
                  or from pipes or storage tanks upon the land" (Tarnas and Stewart 1991:75).

                                   11) Ocean Recreation and Coastal Areas Rules

                          DLNR-DOBOR has responsibility for promulgating and administering rules governing
                  boating and ocean recreation (Act 272, SLH 199 1). Title 13, Subtitle 11, HAR, contains rules
                  governing boating and ocean recreation in coastal areas of the State. Many of the provisions

                  Page 124                                                                    Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                               and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Hump6ack Whale                            Part il: Description of the Affected Environment
             National Marine Sanctuary

             contained in Title 13, Subtitle I I deal with small boat harbors, vessel numbering requirements,
             accident reports, fines, enforcement and records, and vessel equipment requirements. However,
             there are specific provisions restricting activities,that could prove detrimental to the humpback
             whale and its habitat (see 12) "Ocean Recreation" below for examples).

                            12) Humpback Whale Approach Regulations
                    Title 13, Subtitle'11, HAR, ï¿½244-40 (a) states that, "(n)o person shall appr  oach by any
             means, or operate a vessel or other type of watercraft, or cause a vessel or other-type of water craft
             to approach within one hundred yards of any humpback whale within the waters of the State.
             Chapter 244-40 (b) further states that "(n)o person shall approach by any means, or operate a
             vessel or other type of watercraft, or cause a vessel or other type of water craft to approach within
             one hundred yards of any humpback whale." This chapter also incorporates Federal regulations
             (50 CFR, Part 222, subpart D, ï¿½222.3 1) governing the approach of humpback whales in Hawaiian
             waters.


                            13) Ocean Recreation

                    HAR Title 13, Chapter 244 also details restrictions on    specific ocean near-shore recreation
             activities within: Waikiki ocean waters, Makapuu ocean waters, two sub-zones in Kealakekua Bay
             ocean waters, Kailua Beach Park ocean waters, Ahihiau ocean wateIrs, Pokai Bay ocean waters,
             Ala Moana Beach Park ocean waters, Manele-Hulopoe marine life conservation district, Kaanapali
             ocean waters, and in Maunalua Bay ocean waters. These nearshore areas are defined in detail in
             the DNLR-DOBOR regulations and prohibited activities for each area are listed. A separate set of
             rules governing activities in local [shore] ocean waters and shores are contained in Chapter 254.
             Specific rules are included for Kailua Bay [shore] Ocean Waters [and shores], Brennecke Beach
             [shore] Ocean Waters, and Point Panic [shore] Ocean Waters. Chapter 255 contains another set of
             rules for Waikiki Beach. Most of the rules in chapters 254 and 255 deal with nearshore activities
             that have little relevance to the protection of humpback whales and their habitat, but they may be
             relevant to the protection of other resources in the future.

                     HAR Title 13, Chapter 256 contains rules governing activities in the ten ORMAs
             designated by the-State. These include the North Shore Kauai ORMA (Sub-chapter 2), the South
             Shore Kauai ORMA (Sub-chapter 3), the North Shore Oahu ORMA (Sub-chapter 4), @ the
             Windward Oahu ORMA (Sub-chapter 5), the South Shore Oahu ORMA (Sub-chapter 6), the West
             Maui ORMA (Sub-chapter 7), the South Maui - ORMA (Sub-chapter 8), the North Maui ORMA
             (Sub-chapter 9), the East Hawaii Island ORMA (Sub-chapter 10), and the West Hawaii ORMA
             .(Sub-chapter 11). The primary purpose of the ORMAs and the rules governing activities in them is
             "to reduce conflicts among ocean water users, especially in areas of high activity" (ï¿½ 13-256- 1):
             There are, however, specific provisions intended to protect humpback whales.

                     HAR Title 13, Chapter 256 states that thrill craft operations, "shall be curtailed in certain
             designated areas..., .(within the ORMAs) ... as necessary,...to avoid possible adverse impacts on
             humpback whales or other protected marine life..." Thrill craft, which are defined in the rules to.
             include (but not be limited to) jet skis, wet -bikes, surf jets, miniature speed boats, and h6vercraft,
             are also prohibited in marine - life conservation districts or marine natural area reser           'ves.
             Recreational thrill craft can operate in non-designated ocean recreation managpment areas between
             five hundred feet from the shoreline or the outer edge of the fringing reef, whichever is greater,
             and two miles off the islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui and Hawaii (ï¿½13-256-17). However, no
             commercial thrill craft, high speed boating or water sledding activities may be conducted in State
             waters unless the owner has a comniercial operating area use permit and commercial operations are
             limited to designated areas within the ORMAs (ï¿½ 13-256-18).



             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                           Page 125
             and Management Plan





               Part 11: Description o-f the Affected Environment                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                             National Marine Sanctuary
                       Parasailing operations are also limited to designated areas within the ORMAs, with the
               explicit intention-of avoiding . ..... possible adverse impact on, humpback whales and other protected
               marine life." During the period from December 15 to May 15, the maximum speed for parasailing.
               is limited to eighteen (18) knots.with a lower speed designated for shuttling passengers'to and from
               the parasailing areas (ï¿½ 13-256-19).
                       HAR Title 13, Chapter 256 (2)-(l 1) define the geographical boundaries of the ten ORMAs
               in considerable detail. They delineate areas within the ten zones for which specific rules apply.
               Prohibited and permitted activities for each of the specific areas are listed. Some areas are limited
               to recreational use and commercial activities are prohibited. In some areas within ORMAs, activity
               zones are further delineated and prohibited activities (e.g. operating or mooring a vessel or
               sailboard) are specified. In some cases, the number of "operators" is also specified.

                       Recreational thrill craft zones have also been designated for the North Shore- Oahu, South
               Shore Oahu, Windward Oahu, East Hawaii, and West Hawaii ORMAs. Commercial thrill craft
               zones have been designated within the North Shore Oahu, South Shore Oahu, Windward Oahu,
               West Maui, and East Hawaii ORMAs. Conunercial and recreational thrill craft operations in most
               designated areas within the ORMA rules are explicitly prohibited from December 15 to May 15 of
               the following year, although there -are some exceptions [e.g., Zone D, Haleiwa Restricted Zones,
               North Shore Oahu ORMP--HAR, 'Title 13, Chapter 256-61(d); Zone A, Kualoa Ocean Water
               Restricted Zone]. These exceptions are reportedly in areas that are shallow and which, according
               to DOBOR officials, have been determined by NMFS to be areas not frequented by, humpback
               whales.

                              14) Humpback Whale Protected Waters

                       HAR Title 13, Chapter 256-112 delineates the Maui Humpback Whale Protected Waters,
               which overlap portions. of the West Maui and the South Shore Maui ORMAs. Within, the
               Humpback Whale Protected Waters        . ..... no person shall operate a thrill craft, or engage in
               parasailing, water sledding or commercial high speed boating or operate a motor vessel towing a
               person engaged in water sledding or parasailing..." between December 15 and May 15 of the
               following year.

                       Many of the ocean recreation and coastal area rules contained in Tide 13 are clearly aimed at
               providing protection to the humpback whale and its habitat. However, the Legislative Auditor
               (1993) reports that boaters complain that the sheer volume of the regulations makes them seem
               excessive and virtually impossible to understand. Marine Patrol officers have also complained that
               the complexity of the rules makes them extremely difficult to enforce. The Legislative Auditor's
               December 1993 report states that "(t)hey do not reflect a comprehensive approach to a boating
               program" (The Auditor 1993).

                              15) Fisheries Regulations

                       DLNR-DAR is responsible for the development and administration of fishery regulations
               within State waters. State regulations impose minimum size, gear type, bag limits, and/or seasonal
               restriction on over 20 species of reef, lagoon, and bottomfish species as well as several varieties of
               crabs and lobsters. Gill nets used in State waters must be inspected every two houts; undersized,
               illegal, or unwanted catch must be released. Gill nets may not be left in the water for more thad
               four hours in any twenty-four hour period. Under DAR regulations, the taking of live stony
               corals, clams, oysters, and other shellfish, sea turtles, and monk seals is prohibited. The State
               prohibits the use of drift gill nets, and fishing with explosives, electro-fishing devices, poisons,
               intoxicants, and chemicals (Hamnett 1991:40; DLNR-DAR 1993). State law also prohibits,long-
               fine fishing in State waters, and Federal regulations prohibit long-line fishing within 75 nautical


               Page 126                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Mana(yement Plan






           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                          Part 11: Description of the Affected Environment
           National Marine Sanctuary

           miles of Oahu and 50 nautical miles of the islands in Kauai, Maui, and Hawaii Counties (Univ. of
           Hawaii Sea Grant, 1994).

                          16) Other State Marine Protected Areas

                   The State has established Marine Life Conservation Districts (MLCDs) to protect unique
           areas, in the marine environment (HRS ï¿½ 190). MLCDs have been designated at Hanauma Bay
           (Oahu), Kealakekua Bay (Hawaii), Manele-Hulopoe (Lanai), Molokini Shoals (Maui), Lapakahi
           (Hawaii), Pupukea (Oahu), Wailea Bay (Hawaii), and Waikiki (Oahu). DLNR-DAR is
           responsible for promulgating and administering regulations in the MLCDs. Generally, regulations
           prohibit the taking of marine life except by permit for scientific, educational, and other purposes
           that would cause minimal environmental impact (HRS 190-4; Tarnas and Stewart 1991:53). Two
           MLCDs have also been designated State Underwater Parks; Hanauma Bay and Kealakekua Bay
           (HRS ï¿½ 184).

                   Fishery Management Areas (FMAs) have already been established in: the Northwest
           Hawaiian Islands, Waikiki-Diamond Head Shores; Hanamaulu Bay, and Ahukini Recreation Pier
           (Kauai); Waimea Bay, and Waimea Recreation Pier (Kauai); Kahului Harbor (Maui); Kliflua Bay
           (Hawaii); Manele Harbor (Lanai); Puako Bay, and Puako Reef (Hawaii); and Kawaihae Harbor
           (Hawaii). DLNR-DAR is responsible for designating and developing regulations to restrict fishing
           activities in FMAs (HAR, Title 13, Chapter 47-54; Tarnas and Stewart 1991:53).

                   The State has established the Natural Area Reserve System (NARS) to protect unique
           natural areas from loss due to population growth and technological advances (HRS ï¿½ 195; Tarnas
           -and Stewart 1991:53-54). The NARS Commission is responsible for recommending criteria and
           evaluating potential sites for inclusion. DLNR is responsible for administering the NARS which
           includes a reserve at Ahihi-Kinau on Maui that has a marine component.
                   Other marine and coastal areas have been designated to restrict consumptive uses of the
           marine environment. Waters surrounding Coconut Island in Kaneohe Bay on Oahu have been
           designated a Marine Laboratory Refuge. Fishing and gathering have been restricted within the
           Alakai Wilderness Preserve on Kauai, Paiko Lagoon Wildlife Sanctuary on Oahu, and sea bird
           sanctuaries at several sites throughout the State (Tarnas and Stewart 1991:54).

                          17) Enforcement of State Regulations

                   There are several Federal and State agencies involved in the enforcement of State and
           Federal regulations that contribute to the protection of the humpback whale and its habitat. DLNR-
           Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement (DOCARE) enforces state regulations
           concerning fisheries, protected species, hunting and wildlife, MLCD's, MFAs, NARs and
           underwater parks, in cooperation with other Federal, State, and county agencies. On July 1, 1996,
           all functions, duties, equipment and personnel were transferred from the'Department of Public
           Safety's Marine Patrol to DLNR-DOCARE. DOCARE was given the added responsibility to
           enforce boating regulations, to inspect boats for safety requirements, and to conduct search and
           fescue operations.










           Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                        Paae 127
           and Management Plan





                Part II: Description of the Affected Environment                           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                   National Marine Sanctuary

























                                                This Page Left Intentionally Blank




























                Page 128                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                        and Management Plan






                    Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                                    Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences
                    National Marine Sanctuary

                        PART III                 ALTERNATI                VES AND THEIR POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES

                                                                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                                                                                                               PAGE

                    A.     "NO SANCTUARY" ALTERNATIVE                                    ....    ................................................                133
                           I .   Backzround          ............................................................................                          w.. 133
                           2. Feasibility of a "No Sanctupa" Alternative                              ...........................................                134
                           3  '  Consequences of Terminating Existing Sanctg-ar_y                                ....................................            134
                           4.    Federal Sanctu= Without State Waters                             ..............................................                 135

                    B      SANCTUARY ALTERNATIVES                                  .........................................................                     137
                           1. Boundpa Alternatives                    ..................................................................                       1. 137
                                 a.      Background         ............................................................................                         137
                                         i. Kahoolawe Island Marine Waters                        ...............................             .............      137..
                                         ii. Northwest Hawaiian Islands                    ...................................................                   139
                                 b.      Boundary Alternative 1: Status Quo--Congressionally-Designated
                                         Boundary      ..................      I ...............................                                                 139
                                 c.      Boundary Alternative 2: Include Only Those Areas of 1:@ihest Re*po*r'te*d
                                         Concentration of Humpback Whales                         ................................................               141
                                 d       Boundary Alternative 3: Expand Congressional Boundary to Include
                                         100-Fathom Isobath Around the Big Island, Parts of Oahu, and Eastern
                                         Kauai -- PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE                                        ....................................              143
                                         i.  Description of Military Use Areas                     ..............................................                152
                                             1) Kauai and Niihau                 ...........................................................                     152
                                             2) Kaula Rock             ................................          : .................................             152
                                             3) Oahu         ..............................................               ............................           153
                                         ii. Conclusion          .......................................................................                         153
                                 e.      Boundary Alternative 4: Expand Congressional Boundary to Include
                                         100-Fathorn Isobath Around the main Hawaiian Islands and Kaula Rock                                                ...  154
                                 f.      Boundary Alternative 5: Expand Congressional Boundary to Include
                                         1,000-Fathom Isobath Around the main Hawaiian Islands                                      .....................        156
                           2.    Regulatoly-Altematives                ..................................................................                        157.
                                 a.      Background          ...........................................................................                         157
                                 b .     Regulatory Alternative 1: Status Quo--No New Sanctuary Regulations                                              .....   158
                                         I.  Description of Proposed Regulatory Action                             .................................             158
                                         ii. Impact to Resources                ............................................................                     160
                                         iii. Impact to Users          ....................................................................                      160
                                         iv. Conclusions         ......................................................................                          160
                                 c.      Regulatory Alternative 2: Adopt National Marine Fisheries Service
                                         (NMFS) Humpback Whale Approach Regulations                                     ...............................          160
                                         i. Description of Proposed Regulatory Action                              ..................................            160
                                         ii. Impact to Resources                .............................................................                    161
                                         iii. Impact to Users          ..................................................................                        162
                                         iv. Conclusions         ......................................................                   I................      162
                                 d.      Regulatory Alternative 3: Adopt NMFS Humpback Whale Approach
                                         Regulations and Relevant Federal and State Regulations Protecting '
                                         Humpback Whale Habitat--PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE                                                       ..............      162
                                         i. Description of Proposed Regulatory Action                              ..................................            162
                                         ii. hnpact to Resources                ............................................................                     165
                                         iii. Impact to Users          ....................................................................                      165,
                                         iv. Conclusions         ......................................................................                          1-6-6



                    Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                                                               Page 129
                    and Management Plan





                      Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential (@onsequences                                     Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                                             National Marine Sanctuary
                                e.   Regulatory Alt      .emative 4: Adopt N@IFS Humpback Whale Approach
                                     Regulations and Promulgate Independent Sanctuary Regulations to
                                     Protect Humpback Whale Habitat                 ..................... ;  ............................    166
                                     i. Description of Proposed Regulatory Action                      .................................     166
                                     ii. Impact to Resources            ..............................................................       168
                                     iii., Impact to Users      ......... I .........................................................        168
                                     iv. Conclusions       ..........................    : ...........................................       1,69
                                f.   Regulatory Alternative 5: Promulgate Strict Independent Sanctuary
                                     Regulations on Any Marine Uses and Activities Potentially Affecting
                                     Humpback Whales and Their Habitat                   ...............................................     169
                                     i. Description of Proposed Regulatory Action                      .................................     169
                                     ii. Impact to Resources            ............................................................         170
                                     iii. Impact to Users       ....................   ................................................      @171
                                     iv. Conclusions       .......                     ...............................................       171
                                g.   Regulatory Alternative 6: Promulgate Regulations Protecting All Marine
                                     Resources of National Significance                ................................................      171
                                     i. Description of Proposed Regulatory Action                      ...................................   171
                                     ii. Impact to Resources            ............................................................         173
                                     iii. Impact to Users       ...................................................................          173
                                     iv. Conclusions       .......................................................................           173
                          3.    Management Alternatives            .................................................................         173
                                a. Scope of Resource Coverage                ........................................................        174
                                     i .  Humpback Whale and Its Habitat, with Other Resources Identified
                                          at a Later Date for Possible Inclusion--PREFERRED
                                          ALTERNATIVE               ..............................................................           174
                                     ii.  Identify and Designate Other Resources of National Significance for
                                          Inclusion in the Sanctuary Now              .................  I..........................         175
                                b. Administration         ...................  : .....................................................       176
                                     i.   Management Responsibility              .....................................................       176
                                          1) NOAA/SRD--PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE                                          ....................   176
                                          2) Other Federal Agenci            *es  ....................................................       176
                                          3) State Oversight        ..............................................................           176
                                          4) Combination of Options               ....................................................       177
                                     ii.  Management Implementation Period                 ...........   ................................    177
                                          1) Seasonal (December - May)                ...............................                        177
                                          2) Permanent (Year-Round) --PREFERRED ALTERNA@IVE*.'.*.. 177
                                     iii. Enforcement       .......................................                                   ...... 178
                                          1) Status Quo         .....................................................................        178
                                          2-) Enhanced--PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE                                     ........................   178
















                     Page 130                                                                                  Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                                   and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                     Part JIL Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences
              National Marine Sanctuary


                                                    TABLE III-1
               Summary of Alternatives and Potential Consequences
                                                              5
                                                                 Environmental        Socio-        Institutional*
                          "Ok
                                       v
                          i@                   -W. ,                 Impacts        Economic          Impacts
                          ,,a
                                                                                      Impacts


              1  Status Quo - boundary as designated by
                 Congress (100-fathom isobath around Maui                                0
                 County, excluding Kahoolawe waters, and a
                 small portion off Kauai)
              2. Include only those areas of highest reported
                 concentrations ofhumpback whales                                        0
              3. Expand Congressional boundary to include
                 100-fathom isobath around Big Island, parts                             0
                 of Oahu, and eastern Kauai
              4. Expand Congressional boundary to include
                 100-fathom isobath around the Main                                      0
                 Hawaiian Islands and Kaula, Rock
              5. Expand Congressional boundary to include
                 1000-fathorn isobath around the Main                                    0
                 Hawaiian Islands
                                                          . . ....... . ...


              1  Neither incorporate existing regulations nor           0                0                0
                 promulgate new Sanctuary regulations
              2.. Adopt existing humpback whale approach                                 0               H
                 regulations; promulgate no independent
                 Sanctuary regulatory prohibitions
              3. Adopt existing humpback whale approach
                 regulations and additional habitat protection                           0
                 measures; allow all authorized/ permitted
                 activities by other authorities; promulgate no'
                 independent Sanctuary regulatory prohibitionE
              4. Adopt existing humpback whale approach
                 regulations; promulgate independent                                     0
                 Sanctuary regulations to prohibit certain
                 activities.
              5. Promulgate strict Sanctuary humpback whale            (++)
                 and habitat protection regulations
              6. Promulgate Sanctuary regulations to protect           (++)              0
                 all resources of national significance

              The symbols indicate the net sum of all negative and positive impacts for each category

              Legend:
               (+)   Beneficial impacts could result
               (++) Significant positive impacts could result
                 0   No impacts anticipated
                     Possible negative impacts could result
                     Significant negative impacts could result


              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                          Page 131
              and Management Plan






                 Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences                     Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                     National Marine Sanctuary


                                                 TABLE III-1 (continued)
                   Summary of Alternatives and Potential Consequences
                                                                         Environmefital        Soclo-         Institutional*
                                                                             Impacts         Econ)mic           Impacts
                                                                                               Impacts
                                                                                Sam.
                                                                                      PW
                                                                                                           maim
               LIN
                 1.  Scope of resource coverage:
                             Humpbac whale and its habitat                                        0
                             Multiple species                                  (++)               0
                2. Management responsibility:
                             NOAA/SRD                                          (+)                0                 +
                             Other Federal agencies                                               0                 +
                             State oversi ht                                                      0                 +
                                          9
                             Combination of options                                               0                 H
                3. Management implementation period
                             Seasonal                                                             0                 +
                             Permanent (year-round)                            (++)               0                 +
                4.   Enhance enforcement of existing regulations
                     and laws relating to the protection of                    (++)               0               (++)
               I   I Sanctuary resources

                The symbols indicate the net sum of all negative and positive impacts for each category

                 Institutional consequences are those impacts on other government agencies that could result from the
                Sanctuary conducting its operations. Such operations could include reviewing permits or assisting in
                enforcement activities.


                 Le2end:
                  (+)    Beneficial impacts could result
                  (++) Significant positive impacts could result
                    0    No impacts anticipated
                         Possible negative impacts could result
                         Significant negative impdcts could result
















                Page 132                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                         and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                         Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences
              National Marine Sanctuary

                      Part III provides a list of alternatives for consideration for the Final Management Plan.
              Alternatives are considered with regard to various provisions of a comprehensive management plan
              which contains strategies and goals -to protect, increase scientific knowledge, and promote public
              understanding of Sanctuary resources, while considering the manageability of the Sanctuary, and
              facilitating compatible human uses of the area. Alternatives include the "No Sanctuary" option
              (rejected), and the Sanctuary option which assesses various boundary, regulatory, and
              management (or administration) alternatives for the Sanctuary. NOAA's preferred alternatives are
              summarized as follows:



              NOAA's Preferred Alternatives:

                   0  Boundary: All the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI), from the shoreline to the 100-fathom
                      isobath, not including selected areas such as ports, harbors, and small boat basins and
                      significant military use areas on W. Kauai and E. and W. Oahu.
                   0  Regulations:       Essentially adopt existing Federal and State regulations that provide
                      protection for humpback whales and their habitat.
                   0  Resources:       Management focus on humpback whales and their habitat, with other
                      resources of national significance to be considered for possible inclusion at a later date.
                   0  Management: A year-,round Sanctuary presence with a headquarters office on Maui, a
                      Sanctuary manager, education and research coordinators, and a Sanctuary Advisory
                      Council consisting of broad public representation.

                      The preferred alternatives seek to fulfill the purposes of the Hawaiian Islands National
              Marine Sanctuary Act and of the Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan (ORMP) (Technical
              Supplement, January 1991, pp. 55-57); that while there are numerous agencies and regulations
              addressing the management of humpback whales and their habitat, there is little coordination of
              these mechanisms, a lack of public involvement in the regulatory process, and inadequate
              enforcement of the regulations.   'Moreover, through the SAC, the Sanctuary will provide a unique
              forum to address these issues in Hawaii's marine environment.


              A. NO SANCTUARY ALTERNATIVE

                   1. Backzround

                      Even though the Sanctuary was designated by law through Congressional and Presidential
              action, many people voiced objections to the Sanctuary and the manner in which it was established
              with no significant public input or concern for potential economic impacts. , Comments received at
              scoping meetings, public comments on the DEIS/MP, as well as petitions signed by many
              individuals, identified the following objections to the Sanctuary as designated:

                              a sanctuary is not needed because humpback whales are already protected by
                              existing laws and their populations appear to be increasing because of these laws
                              additional Federal government intrusion is not required or desired;
                              fear of the imposition of mandatory user fees;
                              Congressional boundary promotes inequitable economic impacts to the County of
                              Maui over other island counties; and
                              unknown regulations associated with "sanctuary" status raises concerns regarding
                              potential restrictions on marine uses and industries.

                      Because of uncertainty, as to how the. Sanctuary would impact ocean and coastal users,
              many people opposed the Sanctuary out o          f concern that it would invoke measures such as
              prohibiting all boating or fishing in Maui County (or statewide) waters, raising the possibility of

              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                               Page 133
              and Management Plan





                 Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences                Hawaiian-Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                               National Marine Sanctuary
                 loss of livellhoods or restrictions on Native Hawaiian rights of access, and entail seriou,s economic
                 consequences. Several hundred commercial and recreational boaters signed the following petition:
                 "We oppose any further regulation and/or prohibition of fishing activities and Native Hawaiian
                 uses of the ocean that the 'Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale'National Marine Sanctuary' might
                 impose." In response to these concerns, sufficient provisions are incorporated into the Final
                 EIS/MP to ensure that boating and fishing activities are taken into account to allow for a mutual
                 accommodation of user group needs and protection of humpback whales and their habitat.
                 Furthermore, this FEIS/MP provides information as to what the impacts of the Sanctuary will be,
                 thus addressing any misperceptions regarding the Sanctuary.

                    2. Feasibility of a "No Sanctuggy" Alternative

                        Because the Sanctuary was Congressionally-designated, the "No Sanctuary" option is not
                 within NOAA's authority to initiate. Implementation of the "No Sanctuary" alternative can only
                 occur at this point in Hawaii by:

                                Conizressional Action: Congress can repeal the HINMSA; or

                                State of Hawaii Action:        The  Governor of Hawaii has had two previous
                                opportunities to object to the Sanctuary designation within the seaward boundary of
                                the State of Hawaii; namely, while Congress was considering the HINMSA prior to
                                its enactment (State testimony was supportive of the Act); and 45 days after the date
                                of enactment of the HINMSA (Governor John Waihee sent a letter to NOAA
                                Administrator John Knauss supporting a continuation of the process). There is an
                                additional provision in. the Act which permits the Governor to certify to the
                                Secretary of Commerce within 45 days after issuance of the Final Management Plan
                                and regulations that the FinpLI Management Plan, Implementing Regulations, or any
                                terms thereof, are unacceptable. If such a -certification is made, such terms will
                                not take effect in the area of the Sanctuary lying. within the seaward
                                boundary of the State. Under the Act, the Secretary of Commerce could then
                                terminate the entire Sanctuary designation if the Secretary determined that the
                                objections by @he Governor, would affect the Sanctuary in such a manner that the
                                 goals and objectives" of the HINMSA could not be fulfilled.

                    3. Consequences of Terminating the Existing Sanctuga

                        The consequences of terminating the Sanctuary wo* uld include:

                                existing Federal and State authorities that may protect humpback whales and their
                                habitat would continue to be enforced by the appropriate agencies and would
                                continue to follow the guidance of the Humpback Whale Recovery Plan and any
                                other implementation plans developed by the NMFS or other authority;

                                existing coordination mechanisms would remain in place; the general public would
                                not have their concerns addressed via a coordinating forum such as the SAC and
                                thus may have less ability to influence research, education, enforcement, and
                                management as it relates to the humpback whale and their habitat-, and







                 Page 134                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                   and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                         Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences
              National Marine Sanctuary

                          0    withdrawal of any potential funding for the conduct of FederAlly-funded research,
                               education, and information dissemination, and additional enforcement assistance
                               under the NMSA related to Sanctuary resources (i.e., any positive benefits which
                               may accrue as a result of Sanctuary Program implementation). All contracts and
                               contractors.that. provide services to the Hawaii Sanctuary would be terminated.

                           0 use of the Kihei, Maui and Honolulu, Oahu offices as a public education and
                               outreach facilit
                                              ,y would be discontinued

                          0    Termination of volunteer water quality monitoring project on Maui


                  ,4. Federal Sanctuaa without State Waters

                      Should the State territorial waters could be withdrawn from the Sanctuary by the Governor,
              a Sanctuary could still be implemented in the remaining Federal waters outside of Hawaii's
              territorial sea (primarily within the 100-fathom isobath waters of Penguin Bank) (Figure 111-1).
              The Secretary of Commerce would need to determine if the goals and objectives of the HINMSA
              could still be met within this limited area. This action would have obvious implications for the
              boundary, regulations, and management options (i.e., education, research, monitoring, and
              enforcement programs).































              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                               Page 135
              and Management Plan












                               Oil
               QQ
                                                                                                                                          Hawaiian Islands Humpb
                                                                   Kaual                                                                                          National Marine





                                                                                                                         Oahu

                               rA




                                                                                                                                                              mob"






                                                                                                                                                                           K
                                                                                                                                                                            IM        MSJA


                                                 Bound Areas Extend From Shoreline to 100-Fath                                                                              Kahoolaws
                                                                                                       orn laobath
                                                 with     -x,;6pUon @ol Specific Exclusion Areas
                                                       NOAA's proposed aroma for Inclusion In Sanctuary Boundary



                               eD




                                                 This map was woduced by the Offb8 or State Planning (OSP)
                                                 for plannkv pulwses. It Should not be used for bounaary
                                                 me' "'Ions or other spatial analysis beyond the Amo-
                                                 ationfl., the data. information regardkV compliallon dalft                State Waters within Sanctuary: 1,359.5 square miles
                                                 NO accuracy of the data presented can be oUsIned ftom OSP.                State Waters outside of Sanctuary: 1,519.1 square miles
                                                                                                                           Sanctuary outside of State Waters: 724.3 square miles
                                                 Sources:                                                                  Total State Waters: 2,878.6 square miles
                               to                           Military Installations - Extracted data from TRW-RIEDI         Total Sanctuary Area: 2,083.8 square miles
                                                 RMIlai information SwAce. 1989, 1992, " 1993.
                                                 Coastal Reserves, RaftVas, Sanctuaries. and Parke - Screen-dignized
                                                 from Retare  Maps of the Islands of Hawall, 3rd edhion. 1990.
                                                 coastline - UnrSGGS DL, files. 1:24.000. 19113.
                                                 Managed Areas - DLNR, Recreation Map. 1:24,000, 1969. And USGS            M/ State Waters: 0-3 miles from shoreline
            P)                                   DLG administrakon At", 1:24.000, 1983.
            :I                                   Marine Facifiles - DLNR-DOBOR. Small Cran Navigational Facilities.
            W   C)                               1989.                                                                              100 Fathom Isobeth
            (IQ                                  One-Hundred Fathom isobeth - Droned from ROAA Havilcid Chan,
            (D                                   1:260,000, 1989.


                CD






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                      Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences
             National Marine Sanctuary

             B. SANCTUARY ALTERNATIVES

                 1. Bounda[y Alternatives

                     a. Background,

                     The boundary defines the primary ge       Iographic extent of Sanctuary management and
             resource expenditure. Although a Sanctuary boundary was initially established by the HINMSA,
             the Act allows for consideration of boundary modihcations.

                     Section 2305(d) BOUNDARY MODIFICATIONS -- No later tha                      'n the date
                     of issuance of the draft environmental impact statement for the Sanctuary under
                     section 304(a)(1)(C)(vii) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
                     of 1972 [16 U.S.C. 1434(a)(1)(C)(vii)], the Secretary in consultation with the
                     Governor of Hawaii, if appropriate, may make modifications to the boundaries of
                     the Sanctuary as necessary to fulfill-the purposes of this subtitle.

             This section examines several boundary alternatives, in addition to the Congressionally-designated
             boundary, which NOAA consideredwhile preparing the Draft EIS/MP. Each alternative discusses
             the benefits to the Sanctuary's resources, and the environmental, socio-economic, and institutional'
             consequences. The following two areas are not included in any Sanctuary boundary alternative
             identified later in this section.

                         i. Kahoolawe Island Marine Waters

                     The marine waters around Kahoolawe are depicted in Figure HI-2. The HINMSA states
             that the marine environment within 3-nautical miles of the upper reaches of the Wash of the waves
             on the shore of Kahoolawe was to be automatically included in the Sanctuary on January 1, 1996,
             unless the Secretary of Commerce certified in writing to Congress that the area was not suitable for
             inclusion in the Sanctuary. Th   -e Secretary made such a certification of unsuitability in December
             1995, due to the presence of une'xploded ordnance in the waters around Kahool       'awe and to await
             the development of the Kahoolawd Island Reserve Commission's (KIRC) Ocean Management
             Plan.

                     The HINMSA was amended in 1996 to eliminate the annual finding of suitability by the
             Secretary, and instead provided a process by which the KIRC could request for the inclusion 6f the
             marine waters within three miles of Kahoolawe in the Sanctuary. -Should NOAA determine that
             Kahoolawe waters may be suitable for inclusion in the Sanctuary, NOAA will prepare a
             supplemental environmental impact statement, management plan, and implementing regulations for
             that inclusion. This. process will include the opportunity for public comment. Further, the
             Governor would have the opportunity to certify his or her objection to the inclusion, or any term of
             that inclusion, and if this occurs, the inclusion or term will not take effect       ,(See HINMSA,
             Appendix Q.
                     .Kahoolawe Island marine waters represent a special case for consideration. After 40 years
             of being used for military training purposes, in May 1994, Kahoolawe was conveyed back to the
             State of Hawaii (Title X of P.L.. 103-139, 107 STAT 1418, 1479-1484, signed into law on
             November 11, 1993). Title X provides a mechanism and funding for the U.S. Department of
             Defense (DOD) to remove a certain amount of unexploded ordnance and for the environmental
             rernediation of the Island so that it may once again be used for cultural, historical, archaeological,

                     Institutional consequences are those impacts on other government agencies that could result from the
             Sanctuary conductingits operations. Such operations could include reviewing permits or assisting in enforcement
             activities.


             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                          Page 137
             and Management Plan






                 Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                National Marine Sanctuary

                 and educational purposes. While the clearance of unexploded ordnance on the land will require a
                 10-year program of remediation and restoration, there are unanswered questions regarding,when
                 and how the marine waters also will be made safe. At best, only those areas of the water where
                 access to land is necessary will probably be cleared, and even then there are problems associated
                 with removing unexploded ordnance in coral reef waters.

                        An aerial survey of humpback whales near Kahoolawe Island conducted in 1992 indicated
                 that the whales seem to prefer the north shore of Kaho6lawe; that the waters may be frequented
                 primarily by reproductively active. adults; and that the number of whales observed was substantially
                 less than was found throughout the remainder of the four-island area (Forestell & Brown, 1992).
                 The study noted that it was unknown whether whales avoided these waters due to the militarv's
                 former.use of the Island as a target range, but postulated that increased humpback whale use of
                 these waters in the future could be a possibility since bombing had ceased. Conversely, because of
                 limited human access to the area, it is unknown if the whales use Kahoolawe's nearshore waters as
                 a haven from boating activities, notwithstanding military use. Thus, the overall significance of
                 Kahoolawe's waters to the humpback whales is undetermined at this time. However, as boat
                 density is less around Kahoolawe than around other parts of the four-island area, and may remain
                 so into the future if access to Kahoolawe remains. limited, the site could increase in significance if
                 the whales seek more sheltered areas.

                                                                                     In addition to humpback whales,
                                                                             the waters around Kahoolawe harbor an
                                                                             abundance of other natural, - cultural,
                                                                             historical, and archeological resources
                                                            ........ M010kin,
                                                                             (see Part II for a more detailed
                                                                             description). Natural resources include
                                                                             other species of marine marnmals
                               100                                           (whales, dolphins, and monk seals), sea
                                                                             turtles, fish, algae, and coral reef
                                                                             ecosystems. Since Kahoolawe has been.
                                           Kahoolawe                         closed to public access for over 50
                                                                   ........      s, it offers a unique opportunity for
                                                                             year
                                                                             researchers to compare impacts of land-
                                                                             use practices and human use on coral
                            . ......................                         reef environments' around            Hawaii
                                                                             (Jokiel, et al. 1993).      Some of the
                                                                             archeological resources include fishing
                                                                             shrines Ro'os), sacred temples (heiaus);
                 Figure  111-2 Kahoolawe 1sland                              stone altars used to attract fish (ku'ula),
                                                                             and shipwrecks. Native Hawaiians use
                 Kahoolawe as a center for cultural activities and religious practices. The Island and its surrounding
                 waters are important for linking past traditions with contemporary practices. Potential benefits of
                 Sanctuary status include cooperation in educational/interpretative programs on traditional cultural
                 uses (i.e., ahupua'a "mountain top to reef' resource use and management), protection of religious
                 and archeological sites (from mean highwater mark seaward to 3-nautical miles), enforcement, and
                 technical assistance for management and research programs.








                 Page 138
                                                                                     Final Environmental Impact Statement*
                                                                                                    and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                         Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences
              National Marine Sanctuary

                       The Kahoolawe Isla:nd Reserve Commission (KIRC) has management authority'ovor the
              Island-and the water out to the 2-nautical mile limit. Until such time as the KIRC has deten-nined
              its long-term management program for Kahoolawe Island and its surrounding waters, and that all
              potential issues associated with unexploded ordnance have been resolved, the waters within 3-
              nautical miles of Kahoolawe will not be included in the Sanctuary.

                               ii. Northwest Hawaiian Islands

                       Because this area is not currently considered an important humpback whale winter breeding
              area, and to date few humpback whales have been reported around the atolls, islands, banks, and
              reefs of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) (Nitta & Naughton, 1989), NOAA is not
              considering the NWHI in the boundary alternatives for the Sanctuary.

                       This area is managed as a National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in order to protect the many
              important species both on the NWHI and in their surrounding waters, and there is* very limited
              access permitted (even for research purposes). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS
              have some responsibilities in certain State waters around the NWHI, generally limited to protecting
              selected nearshore waters, such as the lagoons of the French Frigate Shoals and Pearl and Hermes
              Reefs, for seabirds, sea turtles, and. Hawaiian monk seals. Other islands in the NWR, however,
              such as Nihoa, Necker, Gardener Pinnacles, Lisianski, Laysan, and Midway, have tittle or no
              special Federal protection (Harrison, 1985). Beyond the nearshore,water areas, marine uses (such
              as long-line fishing) are regulated by NMFS to protect endangered species of sea turtles, Hawaiian
              monk seals, and other marine mammal and endangered species.

                       The NWHI are rich in important endangered species and seabird colonies other than the
              humpback whale. In the future, should any of these other species be considered for inclusion in
              the Sanctuary through the selection process identified in Part V(C) of the Management Plan, this
              area could be considered for inclusion in the Sanctuary if sanctuary status is detenTiined to be
              beneficial to the protection and comprehensive management of the species considered.


              b. BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVE I (FIGURE 111-3)

                                   Status Quo (Congressionally-designated boundary)
                               Waters within Maui County and off Kilauea Point, Kauai

                       This boundary, as currently designated by law, includes the submerged lands and waters
              off the coast of the Hawaiian Islands seaward of the upper reaches of the wash of the waves on
              shore:

                           a.  to the 100-fathom (183-meter) isobath adjoining the islands of Lanai, Maui,
                               and Molokai, including Penguin Bank, but excluding the area within 3-
                               nautical miles of the upper reaches of the waves on the shore of Kahoolawe
                               Island;
                           b.  to the deep water area of Pailolo Channel from Cape Halawa, Molokai,             to
                               Nakalele Point, Maui, and southward; and
                           c.  to the 100-fathom isobath adjoining the Kilauea National Wildlife Refuge on
                               the Island of Kauai.








              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                Page 139
              and Management Plan







                 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                         Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences
                 National Marine Sanctuary






                                                                                                                                      Moloka                                                                                 




                              






                                                                     
    Sanctuary boundary      designated by the      Act of 1992
               The waters within 3 nautical miles of Kaho'olawe are being assessed for
               possbile inclusion into the Sanctuary by January 1,1996

                 100 Fatham Isobath



                 Figure III-3 Boundary Alt. 1: Congressionally-designated boundary


                        This boundary's coastal mileage is approximately 255 statute miles, with a total ocean area
                 of approximately 1400 square miles. This boundary includes the waters from the shoreline to the
                 100-fathom isobath and acknowledges the overall importance of the four-island area of Maui
                 County, including Penguin Bank and the Pailolo Channel, to the humpback whale. Research
                 conducted in this area over the past twenty years has shown that humpback whales continually
                 return to these waters in higher densities than to other parts of the State (Nitta and Naughton, 1989;
                 Mobley et al. 1993), and that this area encompasses one of the most important humpback whale
                 cow-calf nursing areas in the State. The area adjoining the Kilauea National Wildlife Refuge on the
                 Island of Kauai, while not as frequented by humpback whales as the waters in Maui County, adds
                 breadth to the Sanctuary with a beautiful vantage point and a visitor center frequented by thousands
                 of visitors annually. The potential compatibility of the Sanctuary with the Refuge is excellent (see
                 Part II.D.1.a). Under this boundary alternative, Maui County and Kilauea Point, Kauai would
                 continue to serve as a focal point of management interests.

                        The existing boundary has been criticized by some Maui County residents and marine users
                 because it singles out Maui County for potential, management and enforcement measures which
                 they believe could have negative impacts to their economy. Some residents have also indicated at
                 public meetings that any sanctuary in Hawaiian waters should include the entire state since whales
                 are found throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Scientific evidence also shows that humpback whales
                 are distributed and utilize habitat throughout the MHI and not just in the Maui County area (Mobley
                 et al., 1993). While it is true that enforcement of existing laws has focused on the four-island area,
                 and/or particular designated cow/calf areas in the past, enforcement has also been applied
                 Statewide. As. evidenced by the "deputization" program where the NMFS Office of Enforcement
                 deputized State authorities to assist in the enforcement of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
                 (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), relative to protection of humpback whales,
                                                                                                                           a
                                                             


























                 Page 140                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                           and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                      Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences
             National Marine Sanctuary

             enforcement should be reflected on a Statewide basis in the future as long as resource needs can be
             met.

                     It is not anticipated that implementation of this boundary alternative will result in numerous
             adverse impacts to Maui County's economy. Rather, the fact that Maui County can claim its
             waters as a National Marine Sanctuary may provide some economic advantages over other islands.
             For example, the Maui Visitors Bureau recently developed a poster/activity brochure highlighting a
             Maui marinescape picture featuring a humpback whale and text that mentions the Sanctuary
             Nationally, marine sanctuaries attract tourists, researchers, the media, schools, and educators. In
             most cases, visitor information/research centers are built and Federal funds are provided for
             conducting research, education, and interpretive outreach. With the exception of the Kilauea Point
             National Wildlife Refuge on the Island of Kauai, Maui County would be the greatest beneficiary of
             the Sanctuary designation under this alternative and of any future funding. Indeed, some Maui
             residents support a narrow Sanctuary boundary limited only to. Maui County as a way of
             14 monopolizing" Sanctuary benefits.

                     Both NOAA and     the State of Hawaii find that   this boundary has major limitations with
             respect to humpback whale distribution which would        minimize the potential effectiveness of a
             comprehensive management plan. NOAA and the State see the need and desirability of having a
             modified Statewide boundary to which all aspects.of the,program. could be applied (i.e.,
             enforcement, research, monitoring, education, information dissemination, regulatory review, and
             evaluation of effectiveness).

                     In conclusion, although this boundary alternative encompasses areas known to be heavily
             used by humpback whales, it fails to include other areas of the MAI, such as waters around the
             Big Island, Kauai and Oahu, that humpback whales utilize for transit, courting/mating, breeding,
             calving, and resting activities. While implementation of this boundary alternative is not anticipated
             to have adverse impacts, any.potential positive or negative socio-econornic impacts will be focused
             in Maui County and the small portion off- Kilauea Point, Kauai.


             c. BOUNDARY ALTEI?NATIVE 2 (FIGURE 111-4)

                        Inclusion of Areas of Highest Humpback Whale Concentrations

                     Although whales may be found throughout the MH1 during their winter residency, research
             indicates there are a,number of distinct aggregation areas where the majority of humpback whales
             frequent. These areas include, in order of relative siting rates: Penguin Bank; the Auau Channel
             and the area between Maui, Kahoolawe, and Lanai); West Hawaii (between Kailua-Kona and
             Upolu Point); and near the Islands of Niihau and western Kauai (Figure IH-4) (Forestell and
             Brown, 1992; Nitta and Naughton, 1989; Mobley, et al. 1993; Cerchio 1993). These areas tend to
             be in waters less than 100-fathoms, on the leeward sides of the MH1, and in areas not heavily
             influenced by human activities. Whale movement among the major aggregation areas has been
             documented by photo-identification of individual whales (Darling & Juarez, 1983; Cerchio et al.,
             1991); it remains unclear, however, to what extent these separate areas may be favored,by
             individual whales (Forestell and Brown, 1991). This boundary alternative would consist of a
             multi-component boundary based upon these high whale concentration areas. This alternative does
             not include the areas identified under section B. 1. a. of this section: Kahoolawe Island Marine
             Waters and the NWHI.







             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                          Page 141
             and Management Plan





               Hawaiian Islands Humpback'Whale                     Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences
               National Marine Sanctuary




                   22    Whau        Kamm



                        Kaula Rock


                                                                        Yolakai

                   21                                                           ........
                                                                      Lanai         maw


                                                                            Vatoolawe




                    20


                                                                                          VAns       Hft







                               .160           159           138            157           1@6           155
                   Figure 111-4 B    oundary Alt. 2: Major areas of humpback whale distribution
                   (modified from Forestell &-.Brown 1992)

                      This boundary alternative would establish the Sanctuary in discrete areas in and outside the
               Maui County area; provide Sanctuary management focus to less than the entire State area; @ and
               ensure protection and priority focus on what appear to be the humpback whale's most frequented
               habitat areas. This boundary alternative, however, is based upon firnited whale sighting data and
               neglects the fact that humpback whales utilize nearly all the waters around, the MHL for transit,
               courting/mating, breeding, calving, and resting. More recent aerial surveys indicate that other
               Island waters, such as portions of Kauai, Niihau, and Oahu, also support high humpback whale
               concentrations (Mobley, et al., 1993; Cerchio, 1994). These, same surveys have also found
               significant numbers of'humpback, whales utilizing. waters deeper than 100-fathoms (Mobley et al.
               1993). As whale population densities increase, other areas of the State that are not currently used
               may become more heavily utilized. Furthermore, this boundary alternative does not take into
               consideration specific environmental or behavioral factors that can modify humpback whale
               distributions, including increasing human use and development in some of the high whale density
               areas which may cause whales to shift their distribution to less disturbed habitat. Implementation
               of this boundary alternative is not anticipated to have adverse impacts.

                      In-conclusion, although this boundary alternative encompasses a series      of discrete areas
               known.to be extensively used by humpback whales, it fails to include other are-as of the MHI.that
               humpback whales utilize for transit, courting/mating, breeding, calving, and resting activities.
               This multi-component boundary does not allow for adequate protection of humpback whales and
               their habitat throughout their Hawaiian range or address management needs (research, education,
               and enforcement, among othets) uniformly throughout the State. In addition, NOAA, in
               consultation- with the State, determined that this boundary fails to recognize the importance of DOD
               military use areas and activities that are essential to national security and defense.



               Page 142                                                          Final -Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                and Management Plan






                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                              Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences
                National Marine Sanctuary

                d. BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVE 3 (FIGURE- ILLS)

                                                    PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
                Expansion of Congressionally-designated boundary to include 100-fathorn isobath
                                     around Big Island, parts of Oahu, and eastern Kauai
                        Figure 111-5 depicts NOAA's preferred Sanctuary boundary based on the best available
                humpback whale distribution data, management needs, and recognition of human uses. Figures
                111-6 to III-10 depict enlarged views of each of the islands. This alternative best achieves the
                primary goals and objectives of the HINMSA, while facilitating compatible human uses of the
                area. The preferred boundary includes the submerged lands and waters off the coast of the MHI
                seaward from the shoreline", cutting across the mouths of all rivers and streams--

                             a.   to the 100-fathom (183 meter) isobath adjoining the islands of Maui, Molokai, and
                                  Lanai, including Penguin Bank, but excluding the area within 3-nautical miles of
                                  the upper reaches of the wash of the waves on the shore of Kahoolawe Island; ,
                             b .  to the deep water area of the Pailolo Channel from Cape Halawa, Molokai, to
                                  Nakalele Point, Maui, and southward;
                             c.   to the 100-fathom isobath around the island of Hawaii;
                             d.   to the 100-fathom isobath from Kailiu Point eastward to Makahuena Point, Kauai;
                                  and,
                             e.   to the 100-fathom isobath from Puaena Point eastward to Mahie Point, andfrom the
                                  Ala Wai Canal eastward to Makapuu Point, Oahu.

                The term "shoreline" is the inshore Sanctuary boundary. This was changed from the                            11  mean
                highwater mark," which was used in the Draft EIS/MP, to be consistent with Hawaii Coastal Zone
                Management Program and Department of Land and Natural Resources definition. The Sanctuary's
                inshore boundary cuts straight across the mouths of rivers and streams.

                This alternative would add approximately 544 statute miles to the Congressionally designated
                boundary's coastal mileage of 255 statute miles. The total area included in this boundary
                alternative is approximately 2 100 square miles.


















                         As defined in the Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 13, Chapter 222, shoreline means, "the upper reaches
                of the wash of the waves, other than storm and seismic waves, at high tide during the season of the year in which the
                highest wash of the waves occurs, usually evidenced by the edge of vegetation growth, or the upper limit of debris
                left by the wash of the waves."

                Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                        Page 143
                and Management Plan





                Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                              National Marine Sanctuary







                        CD >%
                        75   CU



                        -@d  CU                                                        x
                        0
                        CU
                        @O Cl)
                        CL
                        E
                        = CU
                        x

                        CO
                             cc

                           10
                        C13





                        ca

                        Cd






                                           0






                                                                                                       cc




                                                                                        ILIA
                                                                                       a         juj     Z
                                                                                        all
                                                                                        fit, 11  j!jm
                                                                                       A]           A-

                                                                  U1 8


                                                                       z
                                                                                                   .331 Icc! 2 'a' lot


                Figure 111-5 Boundary Alt 3: NOAA's preferred Sanctuary boundary


                Page 144                                                            Final. Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                        Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences
            National Marine Sanctuary








                                                                                      L16

                       U4
                     4IR Ci
                         U
                      UA4
                                                                                              I



                       P














                            a!









                      R


                 y-








                                                                                          A



                  CO

                                                                                                    rz



                                                                                           Is's
                                                                                                     A559
                                                                                                    j7111

                                                                  Oz
                          lie    -
                                fl
                    *2 W  tldw  2!



            Figure 111-6 NOAA's preferred Sanctuary boundary                     Kauai


            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                             Page 145
            and Management Plan















                 (IQ

                                                                                                                                                                                            ThIS Mop wm produced by ft 001ce of
                                                                                                                                                                                            mr planrong purposes. it 0110M not be
                                                                                                                                                                                            m@OOMWKQFMVMnlOoMt&otbiwntosrpmoWWonantuaivyW@s no
                             P.-I                                                                                                                                                           and smeary of the des presented cm
                             00
                                                              Oahu

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          - Screw
                                                                                                                                                                                                    OW miltm Indefladons
                                                                                                                                                                                                 Cky & County of Honoluki 018, 1
                                                                                                                                                                              SOL&
                                                                                                                                                                                                  InFornmon Service. 1989. IQW@
                                                                                                                                                                                            Coastal Reserves. Refuges. 6v@ctuwlm,
                                                                                                                                                                                            frOM Reference M" of the Islands of H
                                                                                                                                                                                            C6115tifte, - UGGS DLQ 111m, 124,000. 1
                                                                                                                                                                                            Manlowl Aram - DLNR. Rearsallon Map
                                                                                                                                                                                            DLG administralon Also, 1:24.000. ISW.
                                                                                                                                                                                            Mark,  Facildeq - OLNRWBOR. ScKd
                                                                                                                                                                                            nes.
                                                                                                                                                                                            One-Hundred Fathom Mobath - Draw
                                                                                                                                                                                            1250A0, INS.


                                              Kim Point                                              K&WEA SA
                                              MAIL
                                                                         01111olhom ILF.
                                                   Makus-
                                                          S.P.                                                                                                                                                            Scale 1


                                                                                                                                                                                                                        0




                                                                     W


                                                                                            a                                                                                                                                Kano
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             M.C.
                                                                                                                                                            Coconut Island Hawaii Marino LoboatM fugs;f
                                          AblirvAntlonic
                                                                                                                                                                                          AU0111 Kai M.
                                          A.F. - Air Field                                                                                                                                    Kilmoho Y.C.
                                          AF.B. - Air Force Bass
                                          M-C-1111. - Marine Come Sao Hawall
                                                                                                                                                                                                            EW 1 11
                                          MAS. - Naval Air Stionn
                                          KIL* - Navol one

                                                                                                                                                             or M.N.
                                          N.A.R. - Natural Area Re"M
                  tri                     KP. - National Park                                                                                                  Nonolult;
                                          R.P. - Roolorial Park
                                          ami.s, - Goom Swouary
                                          S.P. - Stan Park                                                                             lits M                  Airport
                                          G-RA @ Stood, 19180roallon Ar"
                                          U. P. - riderwider Park                    A       atm..                                      U.N.                                   Lagoon                  awa Basin
                                          W.P. - watetimt P"                         Barbara    I H.
                                                                                                                                                                       ,      a                       La Marino &a
                                          W.S. - WIND Sanchiory                                                                                   in                                                  Amfac M.
                                                                                                                                                  M IML                           Honolulu A                         More# Kai A
                                                                                                                                                                                                                Maisialuo Bay
                                          0. - Basin                                                                                                       and Is d SA              /.7-.,
                                          DA - Said Harbor                                                                                                           Kakaako      A&Wj, A141 'wal"AH.         PAD La
                                          H. - tiorom                                                         SaFtiors Point N.A.Z.                                                                              St. to VS4.
                                          L - Lsooon                                                                                                                               an
                                          K - marina
                                          I&L.C.D. - Marine Los Consamaijon DIgartoo
                                                                                                                                                                                              W Akl                     gFg
                                                                                                                                                                        Ala              T.   Uwal
              A)                                                                                                                                                            wal canal
             (IQ                          R. - Rom
                                          6
                                            Z.H. - Smog Said Harbor
                                          B.C. - Sa*Q.Ckeb
              CD                          W - Wharf
                                                                                                                                                                                                                94""-
                                               - YANDIA Club
                                          Y.C.


















             (IQ             1..4
              0
                                                                                                                                        BEEIRM
                                                                                                                                                                                      SOLS.                                   "N

                                                                                                       0
                                                                                                    Ou an Pramme                                                                             IN
                                                                                                                                      Pids Au
                                                                                                                                                                                                 01okul
                                                                                                                                                                                                 WAR.
                                                                                                                        11-mllokal    Airput
                             W

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              2F .................................. ,,,


                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Rif,



                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ILA-


                                                                                                                                                                                                R,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  IWO
                             to                                              Molokai and Lanai
                                                                                                                                                                                                'Nap-. -,i
                                                                                                                                                                                                   'C',
                                                                                                                                                                                                   _gar
                                                                             AbbvAdkuW
                             Cr
                                                                             WAR.- NOMW Ar" RWMWVO                                                                                                         t! z 0_1
                                                                             KH.S. - Nallanal Hfalodc Pm*
                                                                             BOLS. - Seam awwwary
                                                                             S.P. - Stme Park
                                                                             S.H. - Said Harbor                                                                                                   ANDRaM
                                                                             H. - HmrbW
                                                                                                                                                                                        N       qw-g-11:15Z
                                                                             H.R. - Harbor Rwnp                                                                                                            I  --ii
                                                                             ULCO. - Mwkw Lee Canservation District
                                                                             ILM.S.E - NatkwkW Matins Sanctuary                                                                                                    gy    vgn
                                                                             (Exclusion nurnber for d"M exclusion atop)
                                                  Scale  1:2972H



                                                         26          5 1111"
                                             This mmp was produced by da OMw of Buts Pkirwiuai
                                             Mf poww" pulposee it Smald no Do u8m of bou
                                             Intarpraudorm at other spolml analyaw bwp(W th6 lmk-
                                             SUM of go dats. InlannOw          &V W= Oat"
                                                                don PrOOOZO
                                                                              'aa be
                                             aw accuracy of me                                kom OSP.
                                                                                                                                                                                                               4W
                                             sourcm                                                                                                                      nal Alrporl
                                             All                Inmelloo     Extwed do& from TRW-REDI
                                             a Wp 6=,= S.":                  low. Im. and low.
                                             Comal RoswvW Refugm Sorwtumlem. and Pa" - scroon-ftOzed
                                             iram flobvenca Mar 014: Idands at H
                                             CAMOne - Uses      m       124.000.   :;.Wk W GdOW 1990,                                                                         HVIOPOO
                                             kU"&40                                 1:94.000. 190. And U808                                                                   UI CO
                                             OL13 mdrr=o@ DL.NK R:2G4Gr,%bnIr
                                                             n               I,
                                             martno Fwm" - DLNR-DOOOFL 8.80 (Aaft Navipiond FWAKW&
                  V                          Iwo.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         9
                  A)                         One-Hundrad Facham kabob - De       ftm NOAA N"cal Chart,
                 (IQ                         1260,0006 Im.














                    V
                    $0



                    00                                                                                                                                                                               ThW MV *M prodt"d by ft Oft
                                                                                                                                                                                                     Ior pMnrdng pwposm It 6hould nW
                                0-4                                                                                                                                                                  hd=fs or ww %WU gradyd
                                00                                                                                   Maui                                                                                       a D@ Amomsaaw re"
                                0-4                                                                                                                                                                       sawracy of Va do& prosenm

                                                                                                                                                                                                     sourcew
                                                                                                                                                                                                     A            MI" IfUdWindons - Ex
                                                                                                                                                                                                     R=".Informadon Service. INS
                                                                                                                                                                                                     Coasw RaGervew, Rotgas, SUMAUM
                                                                                                                                                                                                     &Om Relarenta UTO       Ow WwWs
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         L
                                                                                                                                                                                                     CaNdne - USGS LO On. 124.00
                                                                                                                                                                                                     MWMQW Aron - DLNR. Aacreallon
                                                                                                                                                                                                     ULU somwisrawn in". 1:24.000. 1
                                                                                                                                                                                                     Madne Facieses - OLNR-DOSM, am
                                                                                                                                                                                                     IND.
                                                                                                                                                                                                     One-HurKired Faffiom Isobeth - Orem
                                                                                                                                                                                                     120.000. 1989.

                                                                                                                                                                                                N l.11"                                  sc
                                                             KIPAWA Wed
                                                           I Noul AlrW                                                                                                                               041;
                                                                                                                                                                                                        U      ".F
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   0
                                                         N" w                                                                    KshWul Alrpon                                                                 "EM
                                                           Llhold N.













                                to












                    0
                                                                                                                               kara S.P.


                                                                                                                                                                                                   OM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         F           no:

                                                                                                                                        1-10nau NAN.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Nadonal
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         N.P.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         seas. - Seablr
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         S.P. - Stale p

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         H. - Harbor
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         M.LCA - Mad
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         A. - Ramp
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         W. - Wharf

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         N.M.S.E. - Not
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         (ExWusion num






       Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences
       National Marine Sanctuary








                                                          Ui


                                                          Ej

                                                          low
               CU                        ce                  's
                                         %1                 142
                            z                                '2- 1 J
               3:
               cz           W                                g 0
                                                    SIM
                                           (d          ZL
                            01                                  E
                                                   .vI *   .11? i
                                                       a  if w-i
                                                          H gi
                                                            WT
                                al                        Ts cr
                                =                         3 B -
                                ==a E6                        21-Td
                                                             clill
                                                            iE
                                                           .82
                                                    Ail












                                                       ai








                 r=


             0
            ui
                       vi                        cd
                Oci
                3-4   cd
                &Z                               z
                                            cz


                                 2i
                                                     A


                                35

                                                   Ic
                                         bc








                                                     9L


                                                    z Go




       Figure 111-10 NOAA's preferred Sanctuary boundary Big Island


       Final Environmental Impact Statement                     Page 149
       and Management Plan





                Part III: Alternatives and '17heir Potential Consequences             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                             National Marine Sanctuary

                        Humpback whale distribution studies -indicate that whales do not extensively use harbors or
                small boat basins as preferred habitat. Although whales may occasionally venture into harbors and
                boat basins, high levels of human activity and constrained space precludes them from -carrying out
                normal behaviors and activities. In this 'regard, NOAA did not include major ports, harbors, and
                small -boat basins in this boundary alternative because evidence indicates such areas do not
                constitute whale habitat and because of activities that occur within harbors (both in and out of the
                water) that are incompatible with a National Marine Sanctuary. Such activities include, but are not
                limited to, vessel painting, 'shore-based boat cleaning, toxic paint releases from moored vessels,
                and sewage disposal. This 'exclusion also recognizes the importance of these areas to Hawaii's
                economy; the numerous necessary operation and maintenance activities which must occur on a
                routine basis; that such activities ate regulated by existing State and Federal processes.

                        Approaches to ports and harbors and offshore anchorages are not being excluded from the
                Sanctuary boundary because these areas are considered humpback whale habitat. Humpback
                whales, especially mothers and calves, regularly use these inshore waters for nursing and resting
                areas. Vessels traffic in and out of ports and mooring areas will continue to. be subject to the
                existing 100-yard humpback whale approach regulations.

                        The ports, harbors, and small boat basins which are excluded from the preferred Sanctuary
                boundary are identified below, and can be seen in Figure 111- 11.

                Maui                           Oahu                                      Lanai
                Kahului Harbor                 Ala Wai Small Boat Basin                  Kaumalapau Hfrbor
                Lahaina Boat Harbor                                                      Manele Harbor
                Maalaea Boat Harbor            Hawaii (Big Island)
                                               Hilo Bay Harbor                           Molokai
                Kauai                          Honokohau Boat Harbor                     Hale o Lono Harbor
                Hanarnaulu Bay                 Keauhou Bay                               Kaunakakai Harbor
                Nawiliwili Harbor              Kawaihae Boat. Harbor/Small Boat Basin



                        Under this alternative, the boundary would extend from point to point across the mouths of
                these harbors, as shown in Figure HI-10, and as noted by the geographic coordinates presented in
                Appendix K. Activities within these selected ports, harbors, and small boat basins would not be
                subject to Sanctuary regulations, but spillover impacts and new construction seaward of the
                existing harbors could be subject to Sanctuary review, regulations, and consultation. The Hawaii
                Department of Health classifies the above ports, harbors, and boat basins as, "class N' waters
                (Hawaii Administrative Rules ï¿½ 11-504-06), which have lower water quality standards to allow for
                discharge activities associated with port and harbor operations.
                        Although Sanctuary regulations would not apply in these areas except for discharaes
                outside the boundary that enter and injure a Sanctuary resource, all other Feder4 State, and county
                regulations relating to harbor Construction, maintenance, discharges, - and humpback.. whale
                approach would continue to apply. While the Sanctuary regulations do not prohibit the
                construction of new harbors or the expansion of existing harbors conducted in compliance with a
                valid Federal or State permit, plans for such development within the Sanctuary will be reviewed
                through NOAA's consolidated ESA Section 7 and the NMSA'* Section 304(d) consultation
                processes in order. to offer recommendations and comments to ensure that Sanctuary resources are
                adequately considered. At that, time, NOAA will determine whether to'revise the Sanctuary
                boundary to exclude the new. or expanded port, harbor or boat basin.




                Page, 150                                                          Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                 and Management Plan















                                         Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                         National Marine Sanctuary 

            Part III: Alternatives and their Potential consequences
                         Hawiian         Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary
                                         1: Ala Waj Harbor, Ohau. 1:19,717                                                                                                K
                                         2: Hilo Harbor, Big Island.  1:116,038

                                         3:           Harbor & Small Boat                                                                   
                                            Basin, Big Island   1:27,950 
                                         4:        Boat Harbor & Small Boat
                            
                                            Basin, Big Island 1:40,707


                                         5:     Bay, Big Island.  1:18,077
                                         6:  Kahului Harbor, Maui. 1:51,939
                            
                                      7: Lahaina Boot Harbor, Maui. 1:11,365

                                         8: Maalea Boat Harbor, Maui. 1:15,174

                                         9: Halo o       Harbor, Molokai. 1:12,243

                                         10: Kaumalapau  Harbor, Molokai. 1:33,821

                                         11: Kaumalapau Harbor, Ianai. 1:14,621
                                         12: Manale Harbor. Ianai. 1:7,291                                                                         
                                         13: Ranancalu Bay. Kauai. 1:31,822                              
                                         14:          Harbor, Kauai. 1:58,726
 
                                         Sources:
                                         Exclusion Zone Boundary - OSP & NOAA. 1995.
                                         Coastline - USGS DLG files, 1:24,000. 1983.                                            ILL                                                                      - ------------
                                                                                     







                                                                                                                                       Bale o Lane
                                                                                                                                                                              Harbor               
                                                                                                                                      Bay
                                       
                         
                                                    



         Figure III-11 Boundary alt. 3: Excluded Ports, Harbors and small boat basins


                           


                           
                                                                                                                          



                                                                                                                                                                  r
                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                              2
                                                                                                                                                                        14
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              no
                                     Page 151










                                                                                                


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 




                                                                                                                                                           if






                Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences                 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                National Marine Sanctuary

                        In addition to. the above areas, this proposed boundary alternative also does not include
                certain significant specified military use areas.
                            i. Description of Military Use Areas

                        Part of the Sanctuary's mandate is to facilitate human uses of the Sanctuary consistent with
                the primary purpose of protecting the humpback whale and its habitat. DOD is one of the largest
                users of Hawaii's marine environment. Specific areas off Kauai, Niihau, Kaula Rock, and Oahu
                have been identified by DOD as military, use areas where the United States and its allies conduct
                numerous activities that are crucial to the readiness and proficiency of the armed forces. NOAA, in
                consultation with DOD and the State has determined that not including these selected military use
                areas in the Sanctuary boundary facilitates the conduct of essential military activities while still
                achieving an appropriate level of resource protection. While not including such areas may be
                inappropriate for an ecosystem based sanctuary, it is appropriate here where the only SanctLiary
                resources are the humpback whale and its habitat, and where DOD remains subject to the ESA, the
                MMPA, and other relevant Federal environmental laws. In addition, DOD operating procedures
                include special precautions to ensure the protection of humpback whales prior to any training
                exercises or testing which may occur during whale season (see list of military activities in
                Appendix F)., NOAA has consulted with DOD on these activities and has determined that the
                precautions DOD takes (some of which include: visual and instrumental search of range sites for
                whales, delay testing or use of explosives in presence of whales, avoidance of whales, minimal
                use of live ammunition, training of personnel to adhere to enviroritmental regulations, and operation
                orders) are sufficient to adequately protect humpback whales and their habitat.

                        Selected military use areas not included in this Sanctuary boundary alternative are the
                Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF), located in west Kauai; Niihau; Kaula Rock; and on Oahu
                Mahie Point Oust north of Kaneohe Bay) to Makapuu Point Oust south of Bellows Air Force. Base)
                and from the Ala Wai Canal (east of Pearl Harbor) northward along the Waianae Coast to Puaena
                Point Oust east of Dillingham Air Field).

                                1) Kauai [Barking Sands (PMRF)] and Niihau

                        Figure 111-6 shows the area around the western half of Kauai not included in this boundary
                alternative (dark area is included in the Sanctuary. boundary). DOD conducts many operations at
                and near PMRF considered essential to national security and defense. Test ranges extend far
                beyond the 100-fathom. isobath, with agreat deal of test activities occurring well outside the 100-
                fathom isobath boundary along the western side of Kauai and the Niihau area. However, the west
                Kauai and Niihau areas still lie within designated PMRF use zones.

                        Since this area is also recognized as important to humpback whales [aerial surveys and
                fluke-photo identification have found apparent increases in humpback whale populations in this
                area over the last few years (Forestell and Mobley, 199 1; Cerchio, et al., 1993; Cerchio, 1994)],
                the Sanctuary will continue to coordinate closely with DOD and NUTS to ensure that PMRF
                Command procedures remain adequate for the protection of humpback whales.

                                2) Kaula Rock

                        Kaula Rock is a small island     and associated coral reef located about 30 miles south of
                Niihau. Research indicates that humpback whales use the shallow waters around Kaula Rock for
                reproductive activities (Mobley et al. 1993). The degree of relative distribution of these whales is
                virtually unknown. Most humpback whale research has not focused on this area and is the result
                of "spillover" research from Niihau or from other projects around Kaula Rock. In the past, DOD
                has used Kaula Rock as a bombing range. Though the island is no longer used in this way, some
                military training activities still occur in the vicinity and the island remains in a designated military

                Page 152                                                             Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                    and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                         Part III: Alternatives and 'Meit Potential Consequences
             National Marine Sanctuary

             use zone. Also, Kaula Rockis extremely isolated, and effective management of the island would
             be difficult given current fiscal.and human resource constraints.

                             3) Oahu

                      Figure 111-6 depicts the areas around Oahu which are not included in the Sanctuary's
             preferred boundary (dark areas are included in the Sanctuary boundary). DOD and its allies
             conduct numerous operations in the Pearl Harbor area and along the Waianae Coast (west to
             northwest 0   'ahu) considered vital to national security and defense. The Marine Corps also
             conducts'numerous training activities in the Kaneohe Bay/Bellows Air Force Base area on eastern
             Oahu vital to national security and defense. DOD takes special precautions to ensure the protection
             of the whales prior to any training exercises or testing which may occur during whale season. The
             Sanctuary will continue to coordinate closely with DOD and NMFS to ensure that Naval and
             Marine Command and operational procedures remain adequate for the protection of humpback
             whales.


                         ii. Conclusion

                      Figures from Part 11 (11-9 through 11-15) also indicate that humpback whales are found
             throughout the MHI (see Part H.B. for'a more thorough discussion of humpback whale
             distribution). These data represent static observations of humpback whales and the movement of
             individual whales over time. Researchers are gaining evidence that hurripbacks are able to swim
             the length of the MHI in less than a week, though the frequency or relative amount of interisland
             migration is unknown. Cerchio (et al. 199 1, and 1993) photo-identified a whale off Kauai and a
             collegue of Cerchio found the same whale seven days later off the Big Island. These studies also
             showed that humpback whales migrate between the Islands in either direction, though the degree
             and social structure of humpback inter-island movement is not ftilly understood. However, it is
             accurate to say that humpbacks are distributed throughout the MHI and move throughout the
             Islands during the whale season.

                      Some areas of the state tend to show higher concentrations of humpback whales than others
             (i.e., the Kohala Coast of Big Island versus the Hilo side). While the degree of habitat preference
             is not completely understood, humpback whales are known to distribute themselves in warm,
             shallow waters (generally less than 100-fathoms) often on the leeward sides of the Islands.
             Distributions vary.according to an individual whale's gender and age and the time of year. For
             example, mother-calf pairs have been found in waters less than 30-fathoms (360 feet) while the
             calf is very young (Glockner-Ferrari @nd Ferrari, 1987). As the calf matures and gains strength
             and the ability to swim more efficiently, the pair will gradually shift habitats to deeper waters. In
             contrast, male humpback whales and unaccompanied females (no calf or escort) utilize nearshore
             waters much less frequently than mother-calf pairs, tending to be found in deeper waters, out to the
             1000-fathom isobath and beyond.

                      Human presence and disturbances may also affect humpback whale distribution and habitat
             use. It has been hypothesized' that whales may move from previously "preferred" habitats to less
             disturbed sites because of * increased boater use, coastal development, and other human
             disturbances (Darling & Juarez, 1985; Cerchio, et al. 1991). Clearly, there are many complex
             social, environmental, and human factors that contribute to the overall, humpback whale
             distribution patterns and habitat use. Any comprehensive and coordinated management program
             must take all of these factors into consideration to be successful.

                      Numerous complaints were heard throughout the public scoping meetings that whale
             harassment occurs off Kauai, Oahu, and western Hawaii (Big -Island)              ' and that there is little
             enforcement presence. Apparently, many individuals have           the perception that the NMFS whale
             approach regulations apply only in Maui County. While it is true that in the past some of the rules

             Final Environmental impact Statement                                                               Page 153
             and Management Plan






                Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                              National Marine Sanctuary

                (e.g., NMFS's 300-yard approach regulations) applied only to designated cow/calf areas off of
                Maui and Lanai, current approach regulations (i.e.,'NMFS 100-yard approach regulations) apply
                everywhere within Hawaii's 200-mile eiclusive economic zone. On islands other than Maui,
                many individuals claimed they were not aware of the separation rules and therefore, in the absence
                of information, would approach whales closer than 100 yards. In order to achieve greater
                compliance with existing -humpback whale approach regulations, better diss'ernii nation of
                information and educational efforts are required on a Statewide basis. Both whales and humans
                use the waters within the MHI. As both the human and the whale populations       ,in Hawaii continue
                to increase and expand to other parts of the State, there w   .ill be a need to consider marine areas
                other than Maui County for potential management purposes.

                        In conclusion, this boundary alternative proposes to expand the Congressionally-
                designated boundary to include waters around parts of all of the MHI (excluding Kahoolawe).
                NOAA selected this boundary as the preferred alternative because it more accurately reflects the
                current understanding of humpback whale distribution and habitat use in Hawaii, res onds to
                                                                                                            p
                statewide management needs (including research and * long-term monitoring, education and
                outreach, coordination with statewide agencies., and enforcement of regulations) and recognizes the
                human uses of the Sanctuary, including those activities DOD considers essential to national
                security and defense. Implementation of this boundary alternative is not anticipated to have
                adverse impacts and any potential positive or negative socio-economic impacts will be dispersed
                throughout the areas included in this boundary.

                e. BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVE 44FIGURE 111-12)

                             Expansion of Congressionally -designated boundary to include
                                   100-fathom isobath around all MH1 and Kaula Rock

                        As depicted in Figure 111- 12, this boundary alternative is based on the most recent availabi 'e
                data and management needs for the humpback whale. This alternative includes more area to fulfill
                the HE%;MSA's primary goal to protect humpback whales and their habitat. The boundary includes
                Kaula Rock, Niihau, Kauai, Oahu, the existing four-Island area, and the Big Island of Hawaii.
                This alternative does not include the areas identified under section B. I. a. of this section:
                Kahoolawe Island Marine Waters and the NWHI. Wffile this alternative is similar to the preferred
                alternative in having -a statewide focus, it includes the waters within I 00-fathoms of Niihau and
                Kaula Rock, as well as those military use areas around Kauai and Oahu. The boundary would
                extend seaward from the shoreline:

                            a.  to the 100-fathom (183 meter) isobath adjoining the islands of Niihau, Kauai,
                                Oahu, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and the Big Island (Hawaii), but excluding the area
                                within 3-nautical miles of the upper reaches of the waves on the shore of
                                Kahoolawe Island;
                            b . to the 100-fathom. isobath around Kaula Rock; and
                            c.  to the deep water are of the Pailolo Channel from Cape Halawa, Molokai, to
                                Nakalele Point, Maui, and southward.

                        The total area included in- this boundary alternative is approximately 2600 square miles.
                This boundary recognizes recent humpback whale distribution data which show that humpback
                whales are distributed throughout the MHI and around Kaula Rock (Mobley et al. 1993).
                Humpback whale use of the Kaula Rock area has been noted in other reports (Nitta and Naughton,
                1989; Townsend, 1991; Mobley et al. 1993). * This boundary also recognizes that Kaula Rock,
                Niihau, and western Kauai areas -are frequented.by humpback whales. Aerial surveys and fluke-
                photo identification have found apparent increases in the number of humpback whales in this 'area
                over the last few years (Foriestell and Mobley, 1991; Cerchio, et.al., 1993; Cerchio, 1994). This


                Page 154                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                   and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                         Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences
              National Marine Sanctuary

              boundary would provide a more uniform boundary that would take into consideration all areas of
              humpback whale use.







                           Nrlhau

                         4                                              Moloks'i
                         Knula Rock



                                                                   LWMIS .1        maul


                                                                           Kaho*o1swe






                                                                                             Hawarl


                                           waten to ft 100 famm
                                           off ; the Wain H2Wad=an1SWnd5
                                           excJuding the watws off of K&MO'01-ws



                  Figure 111-12 Boundary Alt. 4: (main Hawaiian Islands shoreline to the
                 1fathom isobath

                      Utilizing the same humpback whale distribution data noted in the final four paragraphs of
              the alternative "Y section, this Sanctuary boundary alternative allows for protection of humpback
              whales and their habitat now and in the future uniformly throughout the MHI. As both the human
              and the whale populations in Hawaii continue to increase, there will be a need to consider all
              marine areas for potential management purposes. The expanded area recognizes that humpback
              whale distribution and habitat use is not static and is responsive to numerous social,
              environmental, and human influences. This boundary would also provide more consistency for
              marine users of the State than would a piecemeal boundary. A uniform statewide boundary would
              also best achieve the mandate,to promote comprehensive and coordinated management for whales
              in their Hawaiian habitat.

                      Although this boundary alternative more accurately reflects the curreht understanding of
              humpback whale distribution and habitat use than does boundary alternative "Y' -- the preferred
              alternative -- NOAA, in consultation with the State, determined that from a management
              perspective, this boundary fails to recognize the importance of DOD military use areas and
              activities that are essential to national security and defense. Moreover, this boundary alternative is
              slightly larger in scope than boundary alternative "Y', and includes the marine waters around the
              islands of Niihau and Kaula Rock@ The inclusion of these extra marineoLreas, which are remote
              and difficult to access, could hinder effective resource management efforts in these areas and
              detract management efforts from other parts of the MHI. Consequently, this boundary alternative
              is not the preferred alternative. Implementation of this boundary alternative is not anticipated to
              have adverse impacts. Any potential positive or negative socio-economic impacts will be dispersed
              throughout the areas included in this boundary.




              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                               Paze 155
              and Management.Plan






                 Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                National Marine Sanctuary

                 L BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVE 5 (FIGURE 111-132

                                 Expand Congress ionally-designated boundary              to include
                                             1,000-fathom isobath around the MHI

                         It is generally agreed among researchers that humpback whales     are primarily distributed in
                 waters less than 100-fathoms, (Nitta and Naughton, 1989; Mobley et al. 1993). In recent years,
                 however, it has become evident that a significant number of humpback whales can be found in
                 deeper waters outside the 100-fathom isobath, which may reflect greater efforts and new
                 methodologies used to survey beyond the 100-fathom isobath. While the majority of humpback
                 whale sightings remain in waters less than 100-.fathoms, approximately 27 percent of recent survey
                 sightings indicate the presence of whales in waters between the 100-fathom and the 1,000-fathom
                 isobath (Mobley et al. 1993).

                         This boundary alternative proposes to extend the boundary from the shoreline to the 1,000-
                 fathom isobath surrounding the MHI of Niihau, Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, the Big
                 Island (Hawaii) and Kaula Rock in order to provide a Sanctuary boundary inclusive of the entire
                 humpback whale Hawaiian habitat. This alternative does not include the areas identified under
                 section B. La of this section: the waters around Kahoolawe Island and the NWHI. As depicted in
                 Figure IH-13, this alternative includes waters which are or may be important humpback whale use
                 areas, particularly as the whale and@huffian populations increase and there is a potential need for
                 "buffer space" outside the 100-fathom isobath. The boundary includes mostly, but not entirely,
                 Federal waters, and would require the same Federal/State partnership existing under the
                 Congressionally-designated Sanctuary.



                              N il





                          Kaula Rock



                                                                                           AM










                                                                                             Hawaii





                    Figure    111-13 Boundary Alt. 5: main Hawaiian Islands                    shoreline to the
                     1000 fathom isobath


                         This boundary extens  'ion would not alter the overall focus of Sanctuary management, as
                 currently identified. The boundary would include more marine waters frequented by fishers
                 (commercial, traditional/subsistence, and recreational), but not necessarily change the management
                    I



















                 regime. This boundary also includes military use areas since this boundary alternative is based


                 Page 156                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                    and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                      Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences
             i*4ational Marine Sanctuary

             upon a contiguous concept that incorporates most of the known humpback whale habitat in the
             MHL

                     In conclusion, this boundary alternative includes the most comprehensive area reflecting
             recent data showing that humpback whales are found in waters both within and outside the 100-
             fathom isobath. Despite the,advantage of including nearly all of the humpback whale's Hawaiian
             habitat in the Sanctuary boundary (management and protection), however, this boundary was not
             selected as the preferred alternative because it would likely exceed the resources (financial and
             staffing) of the Sanctuary program needed to effectively manage the site. Most of the proposed
             area included in this boundary are located significantly offshore (e.g. up to 40 miles in some
             places). Research and enforcement activities would be dispersed throughout this area and may
             strain the program's ability to effectively manage nearshore areas of the State. Since most human
             and wh@le activities (as well as interactions) occur in relatively shallow waters (generally less than
             100-fathoms), Sanctuary management efforts -should focus in these areas.            In addition, this
             boundary alternative fails to recognize the importance of DOD military use areas and activities that
             are essential to national security and defense. Implementation of this boundary alternative is not
             anticipated to have numerous adverse impacts. Any potential positive or negative socio-economic
             impacts will be dispersed throughout the areas included in this boundary.

                2. Regulatory Alternatives

                     a. Background

                     One purpose of the Sanctuary is to manage human uses of the Sanctuary consistent with the
             HINMSA and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). Section 2306 of the HINMSA
             requires NOAA to issue a comprehensive management plan and implementing regulations to
             achieve the policies and purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated. The. management plan
             must also facilitate all public and private uses of the Sanctuary (including uses of Native
             Hawaiians) consistent with the primary purpose of protecting humpback whales and their habitat.
             Additionally, section 304(a)(1)(A) of the NMSA authorizes NOAA to issue proposed regulations
             that may be necessary and reasonable to implement the designation of a National Marine Sanctuary.
             Therefore, any regulations issued to implement the Sanctuary designation should be necessary and
             reasonable to achieve the purposes and policies of the HINMSA; primarily to protect the humpback
             whale and its habitat, while allowing for human uses compatible with this primary purpose of the
             Sanctuary. Further, Section 304(c) of the NMSA [ 16 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1434(c)] states that:.

                         1) Nothing in this title shall be construed as terminating or granting to the
                             Secretary the right to terminate any valid lease, permit, license, or right of
                             subsistence use or o
                                                 f access that is in existence on the date of designation of
                             any national marine sanctuary.
                         (2) 77ze exercise of a lease, permit, license, or right is subject to regulation by
                             the Secretary consistent with the purposes for which the sanctuary i          .s
                             designated.,

                     Unlike most other National Marine Sanctuaries, which, are ecosystem-based,                   the
             HUBVNMS is unique in that Congress designated it primarily to protect the humpback whale and
             its habitat. However, the HINMSA also provides for the Sanctuary to identify other marine
             resources of national significance for possible inclusion in the Sanctuary. The scope of the
             management plan and the regulatory alternatives reflect these provisions.

                     Regulatory alternatives are available under the NMSA and the HINMSA to assist in the
             management and protection of Sanctuary resources. Sanctuary regulations strive to          complement.
             existing Federal, State, or county authorities where those authorities and regulations do not
             adequately protect Sanctuary resources or where they need to be supplemented to ensure

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                           Page 157
             and Management Plan






                   Part III: Alternatives and17heir Potential Consequences                          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                            National Marine Sanctuary

                   coordinated and compreh       ensive protection for humpback whales and their habitat. Generally,
                   NOAA uses the minimal amount of authorities to regulate a narrow range of activities that presently
                   or potentially threaten Sanctuary resources or uses while encouraging compatible uses of the
                   marine environment. At this time, the following human activities have been identified as having
                   possible impacts to humpback whales or their habitat (cause-effect relationships have not been
                   determined in many cas        'es):   direct collision by marine       ivessels; human approaches and/or
                   harassment of humpback whales; whale disturbance or displacement caused by sound; introduction
                   and/or persistence of pollutants and pathogens from waste disposal; point and non-point source
                   pollution; and habitat degradation or loss associated with coastal development (Nitta and
                   Naughton, 1989; NMFS 1991; Townsend 1991).

                            For activities in the State waters of the Sanctuary, there are a number of existing State
                   administrative mechanisms by which the Sanctuary may participate to make recommendations on
                   issues relevant to the protection and management of Sanctuary resources. The Sanctuary may (1)
                   participate in the development of State regulations by providing public comments and technical
                   assistance when requested, addressing Sanctuary concerns during the public comment period-, (2)
                   request the opportunity to review and comment on any, permit application for the conduct of an
                   activity that may impact the Sanctuary or its resources at the earliest stages of consideration; '(3)
                   request consultation with the State staff reviewing agency to discuss in detail a pennit under
                   consideration and NOAA's interest and recommendations in the matter; (4) participate in a hearing
                   to examine an applicant, present evidence, and if requested by the penrlit granting authority, to
                   prepare draft findings of fact and conclusions of law; (5) seek reconsideration of a State pen-nit and
                   request the Governor to review the@ particular problem. These mechanisms may be utilized in
                   conjunction with any of the regulatory alternatives listed below.

                            Six regulatory alternatives are discussed below. The alternatives are presented in "bundles"
                   of regulations proposed to protect Sanctuary resources and ensure comprehensive and coordinated
                   conservation and management of the Sanctuary. The alternatives range from ','no additional
                   Sanctuary regulations" to a full-scale regulatory regime to protect and manage an ecosys                .tem-based
                   Sanctuary. In each case, the regulatory alternative also discusses a -management philosophy or
                   strategy to which the regulations would be applied, and briefly compares the impacts to resources
                   and uses.
                   b. -REGULATORY ALTiRNATIVE I

                            Status quo -- no Sanctuary regulations. Neither incorporate existing
                                      regulations nor promulgate new Sanctuary prohibitions

                                i.   D escription of Proposed Regulatory Action

                            Under this alternative, the Sanctuary would play a low-key role, relying entirely on existing
                   State, Federal, and county programs to serve as the regulatory and enforcement authorities
                   protecting humpback whales and their habitat. Primarily, this includes the authorities of the NMFS
                   which has responsibilities under the ESA and the NUMPA. In addition to regulating the taking and
                   harassment of humpback whales and other marine mammals, NMFS consults under Section 7 of
                   the ESA to comment and make recommendations' on the potential impacts of Federal or Federally-
                   funded or authorized projects and activities on humpback whales and their habitat. Further, under
                   Section 304(d) of the NMSA [16 U.S.C. ï¿½1434(d)], the Sanctuary also consults and makes
                   recommendations on Federal activities likely to destroy, cause.of the loss of, or injure Sanctuary
                   resources.







                   Page 159                                                                      Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                  and Management Plan





             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                       Part III: Alternatives and 'Meir Potential Consequences
             National Marine Sanctuary

                     State and county agencies also have a number of ongoing programs which recognize the
             importance of the humpback whales and their habitat. For example, in 1976, the humpback whale
             was designated by the Hawaii State Legislature as the Official State Marine Mammal. In 1990, the
             Hawaii Department of Transportation passed a law regulating the use of thrill craft in certain cow-
             calf areas while the whales are present in Hawaiian waters. The State Department of Land and
             Natural Resources (DLNR) issues permits for NMFS-approved research activities in State waters.
             There are also several programs that address water quality issues in Hawaii waters. The State
             Department of Health (DOH) administers the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
             under the Clean Water Act in State waters. In addition, DOH and the Hawaii Coastal Zone
             Management Program are jointly developing non-point source pollution programs. (See discussion
             on existing authorities in Part ILE).

                     Many individuals. have expressed concern that. there is sufficient existing authority to
             protect humpback whales and their habitat and that no new authorities or regulations are required at
             this time. They are concerned about overlapping administrative authorities, financially wasteful
             duplication of effort, and perhaps more confusion in an already highly-regulated environment. The
             argument is made that the Sanctuary can best focus its initial efforts on assisting the overall goals
             of providing better and more focused research, education, and information about the resources and
             applicable regulations which in turn would greatly assist the overall enforcement program.

                     Under this alternative, therefore, the Sanctuary would not promulgate new regulations or
             incorporate existing authorities as Sanctuary regulations. NOAA/SRD would consult with NMFS,
             State agencies, and others to monitor the status of humpback whales and their habitat. The
             Sanctuary would principally rely on section 304(d) of the NMSA, in which Federal agency actions
             internal or external to the Sanctuary, including private activities authorized by licenses, leases, or
             permits, that are likely to destroy, cause, the loss of, or injure any sanctuary resource are subject to
             consultation with the Secretary of Commerce. The Sanctuary could make recommendations on
             such activities, including requesting the activity be conducted outside of the Sanctuary. The
             Sanctuary would have no direct regulatory or enforcement authority over such activities, and could
             generally not prevent an activity from occurring, or condition an activity to be conducted in a
             manner that protects Sanctuary resources. Also, non-Federal activities that may harm Sanctuary
             resources that do not require a Federal license, lease, or permit are not subject to section 304(d),
             and the Sanctuary would not have consultation authority under the NMSA to review such activities
             and make recommendations to ensure the protection of Sanctuary resources. The Sanctuary would
             also rely on section 312 of the NMSA which makes any person who destroys, causes the loss of,
             or injures any Sanctuary resource liable for response costs and damages.

                     While there are non-regulatory mechanisms under State law by which the Sanctuary may
             seek to mak@ recommendations to protect Sanctuary resources, they would not, by themselves,
             enable the Sanctuary to comprehensively and uniformly manage and protect the humpback whale
             and its habitat throughout the boundaries of the Sanctuary. Rather, the Sanctuary would have to
             pursue problems on a case-bY7case basis, relying on existing State processes and remedies that
             may not be timely or adequate, and do not guarantee that the Sanctuary's concerns are addressed.
             Further, the some of these State processes may not be available to the Sanctuary because of legal
             restrictions on the Federal government. Also, the existing non-regulatory mechanisms under. State
             law do not apply to activities in Federal waters and. the Sanctuary would have to use other
             mechanisms to address such activities. Finally, even if full reliance on State mechanisms is viable'
             the Sanctuary's role with respect to activities in State waters that impact the humpback whale and
             its habitat would be solely that 6f a commentor on State permits and legislation. This limited role
             may fail to Mfill the responsibilities Congress, in, the HINMSA, imposed upon NOAA as the
             Federal trustee of nationally significant resources -- the humpback whale and its habitat, to
             comprehensively manage and protect these resources.



             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                            Page 159
             and Management Plan





                Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                            National Marine Sanctuary

                           ii. Impact to Resources

                       Management, coordination, and recovery efforts would continue to be carried out by
                NMFS under the ESA and MMPA, and by other relevant State and Federal agencies for the
                protection of the humpback whales habitat. No additional impacts to the resources would be
                expected. The additional efforts of the Sanctuary Program to focus on the non-regulatory aspects
                associated with coordination, education, interpretation, research, and long-term monitoring would
                provide some additional benefits in the way of the lessening the likelihood of taking or harassment
                undertaken by individuals due to a misunderstanding or ignorance of the laws.

                           iii. Impact to Use rs

                       The status quo would have no additional impact on users, who would remain under current
                standards and authorities.


                           iv. Conclusions

                       Under this alternative the Sanctuary would have no direct regulatory or enforcement
                authority and limited ability to influence decision making, other than commenting or making
                recommendations on Federal, State, or county actions, permits or State legislation, or ensure that
                comprehensive management considerations are taken into account. This alternative has the benefit
                of not adding an additional regulatory regime and would satisfy the concerns of many who have
                commented throughout the public participation process.       It does not, however, provide the
                Sanctuary with the authority to comprehensively, uniformly, and directly protect humpback whales
                and their habitat. Also, relying solely on existing authorities may conflict with Congress' express
                findings in the HINMSA thatexisting regulatory and management programs are inadequate and
                that authority is needed for comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management of
                humpback whales- and their habitat that will complement existing regulatory authorities.

                c. REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 2

                      Adopt, existing NMFS humpback whale approach regulations to provide
                         additional authority to enforce provisions of law under the NMSA;
                         provide Sanctuary support to the full implementation of those laws;
                               promulgate no new, substantive regulatory prohibitions.

                           i. Description of Proposed Regulatory Action'

                       This alternative would incorporate as Sanctuary regulations, the following humpback whale
                approach regulations that exist under the auspices of the MMPA and the ESA:

                           Approaching, or causing a vessel or other object to approach, within the Sanctuary, by
                           any means, within 100 yards of any humpback whale except as authorized under the
                           Marine Mammal Protection Act, as amended (NIMPA), and the Endangered Species
                           Act, as amended (ESA);
                           Operating any aircraft above the Sanctuary within 1,000 feet of any humpback whale
                           except when in any designated flight corridor for takeoff or landing from an airport or
                           runway or as authorized under the MIMPA and the ESA;
                           Taking. any humpback whale in the Sanctuary, except as authorized under the MMPA
                           and/or the ESA;
                           Possessing within the Sanctuary (regardless of where taken, moved, or removed from)
                           a humpback whale (living or dead) taken in violation of the MMPA or the ESA.



                Page 160                                                          Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                         Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences
              National Marine Sanctuary

                      As Sanctuary regulations, NOAA may enforce violations of these approach restrictions
              under the authority of the NMSA,,thus providing the Sanctuary with a management tool to directly
              protect the humpback whale, and to' monitor and -assess the number and type of violations within
              the boundaries of the Sanctuary. Also, the incorporation of these regulations under the NMSA
              authority allows for increased civil penalties which could be imposed on violators and serve as a
              greater deterrent to non-compliance, and therefore increased protection for the humpback whale.
              Further, penalties recovered under the NMSA would be directed back into the Sanctuary to support
              Sanctuary activities and programs. Although this enforcement capability is provided by the
              Sanctuary, the primary focus o     'f the enforcement program is on voluntary compliance through
              education and outreach efforts. See section III(b) or V(d)(4) on enforcement.

                      The Sanctuary regulations proposed in this alternative focus on activities that directly.affect
              the humpback whale. By incorporating those regulations routinely enforced by the NMFS, the
              Sanctuary can provide a more effective enforcement capability for protecting and managing the
              humpback whale in the Sanctuary. Another advantage of the regulations proposed in this
              alternative is that they do not add a duplicative layer of permitting or'approvals necessary to
              conduct activities that directly affect humpback whales. As the regulations are incorporated, those
              activities conducted in compliance with a valid permit or authorization under the MMPA or the ESA
              would not require a separate Sanctuary permit because they would be in compliance with the
              Sanctuary regulations. The Sanctuary has developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
              with NMFS (see Appendix E) to coordinate and consult on permits and authorizations issued under
              the MMPA or the ESA by which Sanctuary concerns and conditions will be incorporated directly
              into the NMFS permit. Thus, the Sanctuary regulations proposed in this alternative complement
              the existing NMFS authorities.

                      This alternative proposes to supplement NMFS humpback whale approach regulations that
              protect only the humpback whale. Amendments made to the M!V1PA in 1994 provide NMFS with
              greater authority to protect marine.mammal habitat (MMPA Amendments of 1994, Public Law
              103-238, April 30, 1994). These amendments mandate the creation of Regional Scientific Review
              Groups to look at impacts of human and environmental factors on marine manimals, and allows the
              agency- to develop and implement conservation plans to alleviate such identified impacts. The
              Sanctuary would work with NMFS and other agencies and researchers in Hawaii to gain a better
              understanding of the potential impacts and threats to humpback whales in Hawaii. The Sanctuary
              would also work closely with existing Federal, State, and county authorities to protect the habitat
              of the humpback whale, as required by the H-INMSA. Inan effort to support a comprehensive
              regulatory/enforcement program to achieve voluntary compliance with regulations that protect the
              humpback whale and its habitat, the Sanctuary would develop outreach programs to ensure that
              marine resource users are better informed and educated about the regulations; work on the
              development of an acceptable monitoring program          .with respect to compliance with a pertinent
              authorities; and assist and cooperate in any efforts to make improvements to laws and regulations
              as appropriate through supporting better research and information on which to base management
              decisions.

                      This alternative builds on the status quo alternative, by which the Sanctuary will rely          on
              existing authorities for the protection of the humpback whales' habitat, but would add direct
              regulatory authority under the NMSA to protect humpback whales.

                          ii. Impact to Resources

                      This alternative would offer more protection to the humpback whales because the Sanctuary
              would have direct regulatory and enforcement authority and a greater ability to influence decision
              making. Enhanced resource protection also results from the increased deterrence value associated
              with the potential for increased penalties under the NMSA. Essentially, incorporating the NMFS
              humpback whale approach and taking regulations provides the Sanctuary with the authority to,

              Final Environmental Impadt Statement                                                               Page 161
              and Management Plan






                 Part III: Alternatives and '17heir Potential Consequences               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                 National Marine Sanctuary

                 ensure greater compliance with these regulations.          In addition, enhanced coordination and
                 utilization of the expertise of other State and Federal authorities *would continue to provide
                 beneficial impacts to the humpback whale population. The additional efforts of the Sanctuary
                 Program to focus on the non-regulatory aspects associated with (@oordination, education,
                 interpretation, research, and long-term monitoring would provide additional benefits in the way       of
                 lessening the likelihood.of taking or harassment by individuals due to a misunderstandincr            or
                 i-norance of the laws.

                             iii. Impact to Users

                         No  new additional substantive obligations are imposed under this alternative since marine
                 users are currently subject to the NMFS humpback whale approach regulations. Consequently,
                 there will generally be no negative socio@economic impacts to users of the Sanctuary. There may
                 be greater socio-econornic impacts on persons in violation of the approach regulations because the
                 maximum Sanctuary civil penalty- could be higher than civil penalties under the MIMPA and ESA.
                 An incidental benefit to the Sanctuary and its users could result because monies recovered as
                 penalties for unlawful activities would be used for Sanctuary management and improvement.

                             iv. Conclusions

                         This regulatory alternative, is not the preferred alternative for many of the same reasons
                 regulatory alternative "L" While the Sanctuary will have regulations that,enhance protection for
                 the humpback whale, the Sanctuary would have no direct regulatory or enforcement authority to
                 comprehensively and uniformly protect the humpback whales' habitat throughout the Sanctuary
                 boundary.


                 d. REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 3

                                                  PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
                 Adopt a) existing NMFS humpback whale approach regulations and b)                           additional
                     State and Federal prohibitions governing the discharge of materials                   into the.
                  Sanctuary and alteration of the seabed of the Sanctuary; allow such -activities if
                  authorized/permitted by appropriate Federal or State authorities; promulgate no
                                           new substantive Sanctuary prohibitions.

                             i. Description of Proposed Regulatory Action

                         This alternative would incorporate as Sanctuary regulations, the following humpback whale
                 approach regulations that exist under the auspices of the MMPA and the ESA:

                             Approaching, or causing a vessel or other object toapproach, within the Sanctuary, by
                             any means, within 100 yards of any humpback whale except as authorized under the
                             Marine Mammal Protection Act, as amended (NMT& and the Endangered Species
                             Act, as amended (ESA);
                         0   Operating any aircraft above the Sanctuary within 1,000 feet of any humpback whale
                             except when in any designated flight corridor for takeoff or landing from an airport or
                             runway or as authorized under the MMPA and the ESA;
                         9   Taking any humpback whale in the Sanctuary, except as authorized under the MMPA
                             and/oi the ESA;
                         0   Possessing within the Sanctuary (regardless of where taken, moved, or removed from)
                             a humpback whale (living or dead) taken in violation of the MMPA or the ESA.



                 Page 162                                                             Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                     and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                      Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences
             National Marine Sanctuary

                     In addition to the humpback whale approach and "take" regulations listed above, the
             following regulation would be issued to ensure adequate protection for humpback whale habitar.

                     0  The following activities are prohibited and thus unlawful for any person to conduct or
                        cause to be conducted:

                     0)     Discharging or depositing any material or other matter in the Sanctuary;
                     (ii)   altering the seabed of the Sanctuary; or
                     (iii)  discharging or depositing any material or other matter outside the Sanctuary if the
                            discharge or deposit subsequently enters and injures a humpback whale or
                            humpback whale habitat, provided that:

                     such activity requires a Federal or State permit, license, lease, or'other authorization, and
                            (1) is conducted without such permit, license, lease, or other authorization; or
                            (2) is conducted not in compliance with the terms or conditions of such permit,
                            license, lease, or other authorization.

                     Finally, the Sanctuary would also add the following prohibition to ensure the facilitation of
             Sanctuary enforcement activities, which enhance resource protection:

                        Interfering with, obstructing, delaying or preventing an investigation, search, seizure or
                        disposition of seized property in connection with enforcement of either of the Acts or
                        any regulations issued under either of the Acts.

                     In designating the Sanctuary, Congress found that "the. existing State and Federal
             regulatory and management programs applicable to the waters of the MHI are inadequate to provide
             the kind of comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management o@ humpback whales
             and their habitat that is available wider the [NMSA]. " Further Congress found that "[authority] is
             neededfor comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management of humpback whales and
             their habitat that will complement existing Federal and State regulatory authorities" [HINMSA,
             sections 2302(l 1) and 2302(12)]. Thus, while there are an abundance of existing Federal, State,
             and county authorities with overlapping -regulatory jurisdiction within the Sanctuary (see Part
             II.E.3), they are not coordinated or focused specifically on the protection and management of the
             humpback whale and its habitat. The SAC will provide the forum for coordinating regulatory
             agencies, interest groups, Native Hawaiians, and others in the framework of protecting humpback
             whales and their habitat. Such will also contribute to decision-making regarding permitted
             activities within the Sanctuary, by providing advice and recommendations to the Sanctuary
             Manager.

                     In addition to the benefits described in regulatory alternative "2," the regulations proposed
             in this alternative seek to complement existing protection for habitat from the adverse impacts that
             could result from degradation of water quality or physical alteration of the seabed. Greater
             resource protection will ensue from this alternative because this habitat regulation provides the
             Sanctuary with direct regulatory and enforcement authority over illegal discharge or deposit, or
             alteration of the seabed activities that could adversely impact the humpback whale's habitat.
             Enhanced resource protection would also result from the increased deterrence value associated with
             the potential for increased penalties under the NMSA.

                     As discussed in the Introduction to this section, the HIHV*TNMS is unlike any other
             National Marine Sanctuary in that its primary purpose is to protect the humpback whale and its
             habitat. In light of the limited scope of the Sanctuary, the narrow proposed definition of what
             constitutes the humpback whale's Hawaiian habitat, and in the 'absence of better scientific
             information on the specific effects of the impacts of various human activities on this habitat, NOAA
             finds that at this time it is not necessary to add independent Sanctuary regulatory and administrative
             Final Environmental impact 7tatement                                                          Page 163
             and Management Plan






                Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences                   Hawaiian, Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                 National Marine Sanctuary

                review and approval processes to protect the humpback whale habitat,        This is particularly the case
                since the MMPA was recently modified to expanded the role of NMFS in managing and protecting
                marine mammal habitat. Section 117 of the M1VIPA establishes "Scientific Review Groups" (one
                of which is specific to the Pacific, including Hawaii) which are required to advise the Secretary of
                Commerce on, among other. things, "the actual, expected, or potential impacts of habitat
                destruction, including marine pollution and natural environmental change, on specific marine
                mammal species or stocks, and for strategic stocks (e.g., endangered stocks), appropriate
                conservation or management measures to alleviate any such impacts." Also, Section 112 of the
                NIMPA was revised to include, "If the Secretary determines ... that impacts on rookeries, mating
                .grounds, or other areas of similar ecological significance to marine mammals may be causing the
                decline or impeding the recovery of a strategic stock (e.g., endangered stocks), the Secretary may
                develop and implement conservation or management measures to alleviate those impacts..." The
                Sanctuary will work closely with NMFS to ensure that humpback whale habitat management is
                accomplishe'd in a coordinated and complementary manner.

                        This alternative recognizes that there are a number of different Federal and State authorities
                that regulate activities in or near the Sanctuary that may adversely impact water quality or the
                seabed (the humpback whale's habitat). Existing authorities applicable to water quality and the
                seabed generally require applicants to meet certain standards and take rriiiigative actions which in
                the absence of additional data, are consistent with the purposes of the HINMSA to protect this
                habitat (e.g., water quality standards, reduced noise from construction). These authorities include:
                (1) The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA); (2) the Clean WaterAct (CWA); (3) the
                Rivers and Harbors Act; (4) Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act; (5) the
                Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships; (6) the Oil Pollution Act (OPA); (7) the Outer Continental
                Shelf Lands Act; (8) Hawaii Revised Statute (HRS) Chapters 34213-51, 343, 205, 205A, 266-3.
                and 190D; and (9) Hawaii 'Administrative Rules, Title 13. (See Part-H.E and Part V.G. of the
                Draft EIS/MP).

                        During scoping meetings, inter-island meetings, and technical consultations, Federal and
                State agencies and others identified that problems exist with respect to sufficient resources and
                capabilities to coordinate, implement, and enforce violations of the various existing laws. Further,
                these laws have broader or different mandates than that of the Sanctuary.' This regulatory
                alternative, therefo*re, balances the goal of adding necessary authority which complements existing
                Federal and State regulatory programs with jurisdiction in the I Sanctuary with the need to
                comprehensively and uniformly manage and protect the humpback whale and its habitat. The
                regulations proposed in this alternative will complement existing authorities by avoiding a
                duplicative Sanctuary permitting or approval process for discharge or deposit, or alteration of the
                seabed activities in the Sanctuary. Further, the regulations enable the Sanctuary to supplement
                existing aut 'horities by adding an independent enforcement mechanism under the authority of the
                NMSA for unlawful or, unpermitted discharge or alteration. of the seabed activities in the
                Sanctuary. Regulations proposed in this alternative will also provide the authority for penalties
                under the NMSA, and therefore greater deterrence, for activities conducted in violation of a State or
                Federal permit, or for an unpermitted activity. Further, penalties recovered under the -NMSA may
                be used for the benefit of the Sanctuary and its users.
                        Disadvaniages of the regulations proposed in this alternative are that by providing the
                Sanctuary with only a mechanism to enforce discharge or deposit, or alteration of the seabed
                activities conducted without or not in compliance with a required Federal or State permits, the
                Sanctuary has limited independent authority to prevent or stop these types of activity from being
                conducted in the Sanctuary. Further, there will be no requirement in the proposed regulations for
                persons conducting activities to obtain a Sanctuary permit, certification, or authorization by which
                the Sanctuary can impose additional conditions to protect the humpback whale's habitat, if
                necessary. Similarly, the Sanctuary will be unable to require other agencies to impose any such


                Page 164                                                              Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                      and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                         Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences
              National Marine Sanctuary

              conditions to a Federal or State pen-nit for discharge, deposit, or alteration of the seabed activities
              in order to further protect the humpback whale and its habitat.

                      However, the Sanctuary may use existing State mechanisms, described in the Introduction,
              to review and make recommendations on activities at the early stages of a proposal. Combining
              this management approach with the ability to enforce non-compliance of valid Federal or State
              permits, or unlawful discharge or alteration of the seabed. activities will provide a comprehensive
              approach to protecting the humpback whale's habitat without duplicating existing authorities.
              Further, at this time evidence indicates that there, are no known unregulated discharge or deposit, or
              alteration of the seabed activities identified as occurring in the Sanctuary that adversely impact the
              humpback whale's habitat. Finally, as previously stated, in the absence of additional scientific
              information'to the contrary, it appears at this time that the existing regulatory authorities in place
              adequately protect water quality and the submerged seabed as they relate to th6 humpback whale's
              habitat. The research program proposed in the Management Plan will add to the base of scientific
              information on the humpback whale's habitat.

                      To adequately implement this alternative, and provide more comprehensive, coordinated
              management and protection of the humpback whale and its habitat,, the Sanctuary will enter into
              formal agreements (e.g. Memoranda of Understanding) with Federal and State agencies to allow
              the Sanctuary to review and propose recommendations on the activity early ori in the penmtting
              process. This is consistent with the type of agreement that the Sanctuary and NMFS has prepared
              for permits and authorizations issued under the MMPA and ESA. Thus, while not having veto
              authority over activities that are conducted in compliance with valid Federal or State permits, a
              process will be in place to ensure Sanctuary concerns are addressed. Again, this is based on the
              determination that existing -authorities are in place to generally protect water quality and the physical
              submerged lands in the Sanctuary. The MOUs also provide a reporting provision whereby the
              Sanctuary may keep track of and monitor the types of activities that are being conducted in its
              boundaries, with the perspective of how such activities impact humpback whales and their habitat.

                          ii. Impact to Resources

                      Increased protection shall be afforded the         humpback whale and its habitat because
              supplemental education and enforcement capabilities        will be available under the NMSA and a
              greater deterrence value associated with the potential for NMSA penalties which.may be used to.
              manage and improve the Sanctuary. Sanctuary regulations to protect the humpback whale and its
              habitat provide the Sanctuary with a tool to ensure greater overall compliance with existing
              authorities. In addition, greater comprehensive coordinaoon with and utilization of the expertise of
              other State and Federal authorities would provide beneficial impacts to the humpback whale
              population. The additional efforts of the Sanctuary Program to focus on the non-regulatory. aspects
              associated with coordination, education, interpretation, research, and long-term monitoring would
              provide additional benefits in the way of lessening the likelihood of taking or harassment
              undertaken by individuals due to misunderstandings or ignorance of the law. Other resources may
              incidentally benefit from decreases in non-compliance with existing permits designed to safeguard
              against marine pollution and habitat destruction.

                           iii. impact to Users

                      Human uses in the Sanctuary will not be adversely'affected because there will be no new,
              substantive regulatory restrictions or prohibitions instituted by the Sanctuary under this alternative.
              The NMFS humpback whale. approach and taking regulations continue to apply, and discharge,
              deposit and alteration of the seabed activities must be conducted in compliance with the terms
              conditions of the applicable Federal or State permit.& or. authorizations, to avoid violating Sanctuary
              regulations. Thus, no negative socio-econorpic impacts are expected to result from this alternative.
              This alternative also does not impose independent Sanctuary. permit requirements. However,

              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                               Page 165
              and Management Plan






               Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                            National Marine Sanctuary

               through coordination with Federal and State agencies and the public, the Sanctuary may              e
               recommendations to ensure that certain activities are conducted in-a manner that does not injure
               Sanctuary resources. Individual agencies administering the permits or other approvals may or may
               not choose to accept Sanctuary recommendations. There may be some socio-economic, impacts
               from Sanctuary recommendation is adopted by a State or Federal permitting agency, but these are
               expected to be small in comparison to the benefits to the Sanctuary. Further, there may be greater
               socio-economic impact on persons in violation of approach, discharge or alteration of the seabed
               restrictions because Sanctuary maximum civil penalties could be higher than other Federal and
               State civil penalties, however these would be less severe than criminal penalties imposed under
               such other laws.


                           iv. Conclusions

                       Unlike most other National Marine Sanctuaries, the HEHVvNMS is unique in that Congress
               designated it to protect primarily the humpback whale and' its habitat.        Notwithstanding the
               Congressional finding in the HINMSA that existing regulatory and management programs are
               inadequate to provide comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management of humpback
               whales and their habitat, it has been argued by Federal and State agencies and the general public
               that there are in fact sufficient authorities existing to protect water' quality and the. submerged
               seabed in the Sanctuary (humpback whale's habitat). Therefore, as there are a number of existing
               authorities that directly protect the.humpback whale '(i.e., ESA and MMPA), and also directly or
               indirectly pro tect the humpback whales' habitat (i.e., MMPA, CWA, OPA, HRS Chapter 342D-
               5 1), and in the absence of additional scientific information regarding the impact of human uses on
               humpback whale habitat, the Sanctuary will rely on these authorities as much as possible and seek
               only to supplement enforcement of non-c6mpliance of valid permits from other Federal or State
               authorities. By essentially incorporating other authorities as Sanctuary regulations, the 'Sanctuary
               seeks to address Congress' findings, achieve and fulfill its trustee and management
               responsibilities, and avoid'adding unnecessary, duplicative administrative procedures, while still
               ensuring protection of humpback whales and their habitat.


               e.  Regulatory Alternative 4

                  Adopt existing NMFS humpback whale approach regulations; and promulgate
                           new Sanctuary, regulations governing the discharge of materials
                           into the Sanctuary and alteration of the seabed of the Sanctuary
                           i. Description of Proposed Regulatory Action

                       This alternative would incorporate as Sanctuary regulations, the following humpback whale
               approach regulations that exist under the auspices of the MNIPA and the ESA:

                           Approaching, or causing a vessel or other object to approach, within the Sanctuary, by
                           any means, within 100 yards of any humpback whale exceptas authorized under the
                           Marine Mammal Protection Act, as amended (MMPA), and the Endangered Species
                           Act, as amended (ESA);
                           Operating any aircraft above the Sanctuary within 1,000 feet of any humpback whale
                           except when in any designated flight corridor for takeoff or landing from an airport or
                           runway or as authorized under the M1vTA and the ESA;
                       0   Taking any humpback whale in the Sanctuary, except as authorized under the MMPA
                           and/or the ES A;
                       0   Possessing within the Sanctuary (regardless of where taken, moved, or removed from)
                           a humpback whale (living or dead) taken in violation of the MMPA or the. ESA.


               Page 166                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whaie                         Part III: Alternatives andMeir Potential Consequences
            National Marine Sanctuary

                    In addition, this regulatory alternative would add the following independent Sanctuary
            regulations to protect the'humpback whale's habitat:

            The following activities are prohibited and thus unlawful for any person to conduct or cause to be
            conducted:

                        Discharging or depositing, from within the boundary of the Sanctuary,,any material or
                                 c'
                        other matter except:

                                  f                          materials (bait) produced and discarded during
                        (i) fish ish parts and chummi.
                        traditional fishing operations conducted in the'sanctuary;
                        (ii) biodegradable effluent incidental to routine vessel operations (e.g., cooling water,
                        deck wash down and graywater as defined in section 312 of the Federal Water
                        Pollution Control Act), excluding oily wastes from bilge pumping;
                        (iii) engine exhaust.

                        Discharging or depositing, from beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary, any material or
                        other matter except those listed in (i)-(iii) above, that subsequently enters and injures a
                        Sanctuary resource or quality.

                        Drilling into, dredging, or otherwise altering the seabed of the Sanctuary; or
                        constructing, placing, or abandoning any structure, material, or other matter on the
                        seabed of the Sanctuary, except:

                        (i) anchoring vessels;
                        (ii) traditional fishing operations;
                        (iii) installation of navigation aids by the U.S. Coast Guard or Corps of Engineers.

                    Under this alternative, discharge and alteration of the seabed activities would be prohibited
            and would require a Sanctuary pem-iit, certification, or authorization in order to be conducted. The
            Sanctuary would not wholly rely on existing authorities but rather would have direct, independent
            regulatory authority to influence activities that may impact humpback whales or their habitat.

                    With regard to protection of the humpback whale's habitat, existing discharge, deposit, or
            alteration of the seabed activities being conducted pursuant to valid permits, leases, licenses, etc.,
            executed prior to the effective date of Sanctuary designation (November 4, 1992) could not be
            terminated by the Sanctuary. Such discharges or deposits, and alteration of the seabed activities
            would be allowed, subject to all prohibitions, restrictions, or conditions imposed by applicable
            regulations, permits, licenses.- or other authorizations and consistency reviews issued or conducted
            by the appropriate authority. However, pursuant to the provisions of the NMSA, the Sanctuary
            may regulate the exercise of these existing permits consistent with the purposes for which the
            Sanctuary is designated.

                    The Sanctuary could authorize permits issued by other authorities after the date of
            Sanctuary designation for activities which are otherwise prohibited by the Sanctuary regulations,
            such as discharges occurring outside Sanctuary boundaries which could enter and injure a
            Sanctuary resource or quality. The Sanctuary could deny authorization or require additional
            conditions necessary to protect the humpback whale and its habitat. In all cases, the Sanctuary
            would consult with the relevant permitting authority and provide scientific information concerning
            the humpback whale and its habitat to other regulatory authorities. The Sanctuary would cooperate
            with other authorities to formalize the consultative and management roles of the Sanctuary. To
            facilitate such coordination, memoranda of understanding. and/or protocol agreements may be
            developed.


            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                               Page 167
            and Management Plan





                   Part III: Alternatives and '17heir Potential Consequences                   Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                       National Marine Sanctuary

                           The disadvantage of this alternative is that there is limited scientific evidence on the impacts
                   of human uses on whale habitat and there are existing State and Federal regulatory authorities in
                   place that generally protect humpback whale habitat (water quality as physical alteration of the
                   seabed). Consequently, a Sanctuary permit and approval requirement would add another review
                   layer to the already burdened permit review processes in. Hawaii without adding significant
                   additional protection to humpback whale habitat. An independent,. comprehensive regulatory
                   review process is warranted when protecting an ecosystem environment where existing authorities
                   are inadequate to do so or need to be supplemented, or if scientific evidence indicates that habitat
                   could be afforded greater protection by such a process. However, the Sanctuary's resources are
                   only the humpback whale and its habitat, and presently there is limited scientific information on
                   human impacts to habitat. Regulatory mechanisms that protect, directly and indirectly, humpback
                   whales and their habitat are already in place, and placing additional regulatory requirements may
                   not translate into greater protection for the resources.

                           This alternative would provide additional authority necessary to achieve Sanctuary policies
                   and purposes consistent with the HINMSA's finding that "regulatory andmanagement regimes are
                   inadequate" to protect the humpback whale and its habitat as well as the recommendation for
                   improved coordination. among managing agencies and the public in resource management issues
                   identified in the Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan.

                               ii. Impact to Resources

                           Increased protection could be afforded to the humpback whale and its habitat because the
                   Sanctuary will have independent regulatory prohibitions in place, and will more closely review
                   proposed activities that may potentially affect the humpback whale and its habitat. Activities under
                   valid pre-existing permits cannot be terminated by the Sanctuary, but could be conditioned to
                   protect Sanctuary resources.         Prohibited activities would require a Sanctuary permit or
                   authorization before they may be conducted. The Sanctuary would also have greater ability to
                   modify or deny activities that could harm Sanctuary resources.

                           Enforcement capabilities, allowed under the NMSA would also add a greater deterrence
                   value, associated with the potential for Sanctuary civil penalties which could be used for the benefit
                   of the Sanctuary. Sanctuary coordination with and utilization of the expertise of other State and
                   Federal authorities would continue. The, additional efforts of the Sanctuary Program to focus on
                   the non-regulatory aspects associated with coordination, education, interpretation, research, and
                   long-term monitoring would provide additional benefits to Sanctuary resources. Other resources
                   may incidentally benefit from compliance with Sanctuary regulations.

                               iii. Impact to Users

                           The Sanctuary may not terminate any activity authorized by any validlease, permit, license,
                   approval, or other authorization in existence on the effective date of Sanctuary designation issued
                   by any Federal, State, or county authority, or by any valid right of subsistence use of access in
                   existence on the effective date of Sanctuary designation, although the Sanctuary could impose
                   terms and conditionsto protect Sanctuary resources. After the effective date in which the
                   regulations take effect, the Sanctuary would review, and if necessary, condition certain existing
                   activities permitted by other authorities (point source discharges, alteration of the seabed activities).
                   NOAA may impose some conditions (i.e., conduct the activity during the non-whale season, or
                   limit a use away from a particularly sensitive area) which may in-tum lead to additional economic
                   burdens on the applicant. However, such impact would be warranted to protect Sanctuary
                   resources.


                           Any activity authorized by a valid lease, permit, license, approval, or other authorization
                   issued after the date of Sanctuary designation (including permit renewals) must have approval

                   Page 168                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                            and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                       Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences
              National Marine Sanctuary
              from, and be in compliance with any terms or conditions imposed by the Slinctuary. For activities
              that involve approaching humpback whales within 100 yards (or overflight within 1000 feet), the
              Sanctuary would use the existing NMFS MIMPA/ESA permit procedures to address its concerns.
              With -independent Sanctuary regulations to protect habitat, the Sanctuary could deny or add
              conditions on activities that could lead to restrictions in uses or add economic burdens on the
              applicant. For* example, the Sanctuary, upon receiving a permit application for dischargin             g
              primary sewage, could deny approval or condition approval of the permit (given sufficient
              information linking primary, sewage to negatively affecting the whales or their habitat) on
              upgrading to secondary treatment. Such a scenario could impose additional costs on an applicant.
              The Sanctuary will work closely with existing Federal, State, and county authorities to determine
              which activities may negatively affect Sanctuary resources and thus be more closely scrutinized.
              This alternative does not necessarily require more stringent standards, however, the Sanctuary may
              require that certain activities be modified to protect Sanctuary resources.. There may also be greater
              socio-econornic impact on persons unlawfully conducting prohibited activities 'because the
              Sanctuary civil penalties could be higher than other Federal and State penalties.

                          iv. Conclusions

                      Some   members of the general public believe that the Sanctuary should provide more
              comprehensive and direct protection for the humpback whale's habitat which would provide
              greater proteIction to the humpback whale. The regulations in this alternative relating to discharges
              and alteration of the seabed would provide the Sanctuary with additional authority to more
              independently and directly protect humpback whales and their habitat in Hawaii, and provide
              greater comprehensive oversight of activities which take place in or out of the Sanctuary which
              might not otherwise take into account the protection of the humpback whale or its habitat.
              However, the Sanctuary would be adding an additional review and permitting process for activities
              that may affect the humpback whale that are already regulated in the Sanctuary with little additional
              benefit in light of the existing data regarding habitat. -Unlike other Sanctuaries where such an
              overarching review and permitting scheme is necessary to manage and protect an ecosystem
              environment, the resources of the Hawaii Sanctuary are, at this time, limited to the humpback
              whale and its habitat. With little scientific information on humpback whale habitat, the effects of
              burnan activities on water quality and the physical seabed as they 'relate to the humpback whale and
              its habitat appear, at the present time, to be more appropriately regulated using and in coordination
              with existing authorities.


                  Regulatory Alternative
                      Promulgate strict regulations on all          marine uses and ictivities having
                       the potential to adversely affect the        humpback whale and its habitat;
                     provide the greatest protection for the humpback whale and its habitat;
                            maximum regulation for humpback whales and their habitat.
                          i. Description of Proposed Regulatory Action

                      Under this alternative, the Sanctuary would not incorporate the NMFS regulations
              described in regulatory alternatives "2" and "4"; norvould it rely on existing Federal, State, or
              county authorities. Rather, the Sanctuary would independently regulate activities in and around the
              Sanctuary that could adversely affect the humpback whale and its habitat.

                      Many facets of information regarding the humpback whales are missing and perha:ps may
              never be fully known, yet many human use activities have been identified in the Humpback Whale
              Rec6very Plan, and other sources as "possibly" affecting humpback whales.


              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                           Page 169
              and Management Plan





                 Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences                    Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                    National Marine Sanctuary

                         The range of activities potentially affecting humpback       whales is large.    Almost anything
                 that humans do in or near the water could affect the whales.         Certain activities, however, appear
                 more likely to have possible adverse effects due to the noises       they produce or their proximity to
                 whales. They include the following (from Townsend, R., July 199 1):

                         Marine transport          -       Warship operations                       Surfing
                         Commercial fishing        -       Commercial submarine rides               Water-skiing
                         Recreational fishing      -,      Marine construction - -                  Kayaking
                         Diving and snorkeling             Near-shore construction                  Aircraft operations
                         Thrillcraft operations            Near-shore resort operations             Sewage dumping
                         Parasail operations               Agricultural operations                  Commercial cruising
                         Whale watching                    Recreational boating                     Scientific research

                         In addition, there is the potential for such activities as Ocean Thermal'Energy Conversion,
                 Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate, laying of ocean cables, commercial and military rocket
                 launches from,near-shore based facilities, hydrofoils or hovercraft, sand mining; and other
                 projects, activities, and uses,which have potential impacts but for which there is little information
                 on their actual effects.

                         The HINMSA defines "adverse impact" as an "impact that independently or cumulatively
                 damages, diminishes, degrades, impairs, destroys, or otherwise harms" [Sec. 2303(l)]. Long-
                 term cumulative adverse impacts on the humpback whale and its habitat from activities in the
                 Sanctuary may not be detectable for years. Therefore, this alternative would impose a variety of
                 regulations to prohibit, restrict, or Emit uses, either seasonally or permanently, in an effort to
                 protect the humpback whale, and generally improve the waters around the Hawaiian Islands to
                 provide optimum humpback whale habitat.

                         This regulatory alternative would place restrictions on marine resource users, where the
                 potential,exists for those uses to have adverse impacts on humpback whales, their behavior, health,
                 reproductivity, or habitat.       This alternative would represent a "precautionary" approach to
                 regulation partly in recognition of the humpback whale's status as an endangered species.
                 Regulations affecting vess    'el t'raffic (vessel separation lanes, vessel speeds, vessel density in
                 specifically identified areas), noise standards for vessels and aircraft, seasonal restrictions on
                 recreational marine activities, regidlation of commercial and recreational fishing, more stringent
                 water quality measures, as examples, woula be developed as needed. This regulatory approach
                 could use special use zoning much like the State's Marine Life Conservation District authority but
                 be potentially utilized on an extensive scale to ensure safe zones for humpback whale use during
                 the winter months when the whales are present in Hawaiian waters, or to prevent or condition
                 projects or activities occurring throughout the year which might degrade the whale's habitat.

                         Under this alternative, the Sanctuary would play a greater role in reviewing activities
                 subject to Sanctuary regulations. Activities being conducted pursuant to valid permits executerl
                 prior to the effective date of Sanctuary designation (November 4, 1992) could not be tern-iinated by
                 the Sanctuary, although pursuant to the provisions of the NMSA, NOAA may regulate the exercise
                 of activities under such existing permits consistent with the purposes for which the Sanctuary is
                 designated".

                              ii. Impact to Resources

                         This regulatoq alternative provide's the greatest protection for the humpback whale and its
                 Hawaiian habitat. The Sanctuary would prohibit or restrict, and require review and approval for,
                 activities that may potentially impact Sanctuary resources. This option provides, greater habitat
                 protection than the previous alternative because it -requires that a number of activities be renewed
                 and approved by the Sanctuary, and would impose a variety of use restrictions to lirnit the amount

                 Page 170                                                                Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                         and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                       Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences
             National Marine Sanctuary

             of human interaction with the whales. Enforcement of Sanctuary regulations would be one of the
             priorities of the Sanctuary. The possibility of higher maximum civil penalties under the NMSA
             will also add a greater deterrence value. Coordination with, and utilization of expertise from other
             State and Federal agencies would continue. The additional efforts of the Sanctuary Program to
             focus on the non-regulatory aspects associated with coordination, education, interpretation,
             research, and long-term monitoring would also provide additional benefits to Sanctuary resources.
             Other resources will likely benefit from higher water quality standards, restricted human uses of
             the marine environment, and a greater compliance with Sanctuary regulations.

                         iii. Impact to Users

                     The Sanctuary will have the authority to regulate (but not terminate) activities authorized by
             permits, licenses, leases, etc., in existence on the date of Sanctuary designation.            Further,
             Sanctuary approval would be required for any new activity prohibited by the regulations. The
             Sanctuary may impose some minor restrictions (e.g., conduct the activity during the non-whale
             season, or relocate an activity away from a particularly sensitive area) or more major restrictions
             (uniform 300-yard vessel approach limits, restrict vessels from certain areas when whales are
             present, establish vessel speed limits, limit the number of whalewatching vessels or the number of
             vessels viewing each whale, prohibit thrill craft during whale season, limit certain types of
             discharges within or outside the Sanctuary, develop more stringent water quality standards, limit
             types of in-water or nearshore construction activities) which will likely add significant socio-
             economic burdens on marine resource users and the marine recreation industry. Certain activities
             that are found to, or have the potential to adversely impact, Sanctuary resources would be regulated
             by the Sanctuary. Aggressive enforcement of Sanctuary regulations could significantly impact
             commercial and recreational users if fines were repeatedly levied upon these groups.               The
             Sanctuary would work closely with existing Federal, State, and county authorities to determine
             which activities may negatively affect Sanctuary resources and thus require closer scrutiny and
             possible Sanctuary regulation.

                         iv. Conclusions

                     This alternative would afford the greatest protection to humpback whales in the absence of
             adequate scientific evidence on the impacts on the humpback whale and its habitat resulting from
             many of the activities listed above. However, this alternative would likely result in the most severe
             socio-economic impacts, to marine users. NOAA believes that in this instance, where the only
             resources under the jurisdiction of the Sanctuary is the humpback whale and its habitat, where
             there is little scientific evidence on human use impacts to humpback whales and their habitat, and
             where there are other authorities in place to protect, directly and indirectly, humpback whales, this
             alternative would be overly restrictive. If NOAA/SRD determined that greater restrictions are
             necessary to protect humpback whales and their habitat, NOAA would work with the SAC and the
             State as it develops such restrictions, as well as provide notice and comment under the
             Administrative Procedure Act, and, if necessary, issue a Supplemental EIS/MP.


             g. REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 6

                         Promulgate regulations to include management concerns related
                     to other resources of national significance (multi-species) and manage
                                          the Sanctuary on an ecosystem basis.

                         L Description of Proposed Regulatory Action

                     Under this alternative, the Sanctuary would designate other marine resources and
             ecosystems of national significance as Sanctuary resources and issue regulations to

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                           Page 171
             and Management Plan







                Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                             National Marine Sanctuary

                comprehensively protect, conserve,  and manage these resources. While this regulatory alternative
                proposes to include more resources than the other alternatives, the level of regulation would not
                likely be as stringent as those of regulatory alternative '.5."

                        In designating the Sanctuary, Congress - recognized the significant and unique marine
                resources and ecosystems within the Hawaiian Islands, in addition to humpback whales and their
                habitat [HINMSA section 2302(l). and 2302(4)]. Furthermore, one of the purposes of the
                Sanctuary is "to manage such human uses of the Sanctuary consistent with (the'HINMSA and the
                NMSA)." [HE-4MSA, Section 2304(b)(3)]. The NMSA provides for comprehensive ecosystem-
                based protection and management of national marine sanctuaries. Another purpose of the
                Sanctuary is "to provide for the identification of marine resources and ecosystems of national
                significance for possible inclusion in the Sanctuary..." [11INMSA, section 2304(b)(4)]. Other
                marine resources have been identified in both the scoping meetings and inter-island meetings on the
                Sanctuary, including: coral and benthic communities, fringe reefs, bottlenose and spinner
                dolphins, hawksbill turtles, green sea turtles, seabirds, the Hawaiian Monk Seal, and Native
                Hawaiian cultural and historical resources. Under this alternative, NOAA would include these
                resources and other marine resources and ecosystems as Sanctuary resources. As a result, certain
                additional regulations would be required to achieve the more comprehensive management and
                protection of these resources and qualities. The Sanctuary's review of activities would be
                broadened to include the potential for adverse impacts to such other resources and qualities (e.g.,
                the impact of water quality on the marine ecosystem or an oil spill impact on a colony of seabirds)
                in addition to the humpback whale and its habitat.

                        Consistent with other national marine sanctuaries, which protect and manage ecosystem
                marine environments, the following activities may be regulated (including prohibition) by the
                Sanctuary under this alternative:

                          Taking of sea turtles, marine mammals and seabirds;
                          Removal, taking or injuring of historical and cultural resources;
                          Removal, taking or,injuring of any live coral;
                          Discharge of primary treated wastewater or other harmful discharges into Sanctuary;
                          Operation of marine vessels (or activities) that could adversely impact Sanctuary
                           resources;
                          Alteration and/or construction of the seabed,
                          Mineral mining development; or
                          Certain fishing techniques that could damage Sanctuary resources.
                        As. listed in regulatory alternative "4," the ORMP notes that additional measures may be
                necessary to protect the marine environment in Hawaii. The ORMP indicates that there is
                inadequate coordination, public input, and enforcement in the management of Hawaii's marine
                resources. NOAA would initiate a more detailed analyses of existing resource management
                agencies and programs before it could clearly determine what regulations are necessary to manage
                and protect an ecosystem environment.
                        While authorities exist to protect the humpback whale and its habitat (water quality and
                physical alteration of the seabed), the Sanctuary would supplement such authorities under this
                alternative to provide enhanced protection for the entire marine ecosystem, as well as for cultural,
                historical, recreational, and aesthetic resources. The Sanctuary would provide comprehensive
                review and management of activities in the Sanctuary to ensure that the policies and objectives of
                the ORMP, the HINMSA, and the NMSA can be achieved for all Sanctuary resources, based on an
                ecosystem approach.



                Page 172                                                          Final Environmental Impact Staternento
                                                                                                 and Management Plan







            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                       Part IR: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences
            National Marine Sanctuary

                        ii. Impact to Resources

                    This regulatory alternative is based upon an expanded definition of Sanctuary resources that
            includes other natural marine resources (sea turtles, seabirds, other marine mammals, coral reef
            assemblages, fish), Native Hawaiian cultural and historical sites, shipwrecks, and other historical
            resources. Increased protection will ensue to, not.only the humpback whale and its habitat, but all
            other living and non-living resources of -the Sanctuary. Regulations would be those necessary and
            reasonable to protect and manage all resources and qualities of the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary will
            have the ability to closely review, condition, and if necessary prohibit activities that may potentially
            aff6ct any Sanctuary resources. Since the scope of Sanctuary resources is expanded, the Sanctuary
            would took at activities that may affect resources other than the humpback whale. The Sanctuary
            would work with existing Federal, State, and county agencies, if possible, to coordinate and seek
            to use existing permit review procedures and not duplicate ongoing efforts.              However, the
            Sanctuary would have greater authority to modify or stop activities that harm any Sanctuary
            resource or quality. Enforcement capabilities, authorized under the NMSA, will also add a greater
            deterrence value associated with the potential for increased penalties. The additional efforts of the
            Sanctuary Program to focus on the non-regulatory aspects associated with coordination, education,
            interpretation, research, and long-term monitoring would be expanded to address all Sanctuary
            resources.

                        iii. Impact to Users

                    Regulations protecting and managing an ecosystem-based Sanctuary could result in some
            adverse impacts to users. In general, however, ecosystem-based sanctuaries regulate only a
            narrow range of activities with minimal impact to, users. Under this regulatory alternative, the
            Sanctuary would regulate activities from an ecosystem perspective. The Sanctuary may require
            changes to proposed activities (e.g., conduct the activity to minimize impacts to coral reefs or
            relocate the activity away from a particularly sensitive resource area) that may lead to additional
            economic burdens on the applicant. If a proposed activity is determined to adversely impact
            Sanctuary resources, it may not be allowed to occur in the Sanctuary. Since the scope of
            Sanctuary resource in this alternative would have been expanded to include other living and non-
            living marine resources (cultural, historical, other natural resources), the Sanctuary would more
            closely scrutinize activities that hold the potential to impact these other resources. For example,
            -with regard to discharge activities, the Sanctuary would be looking at potential impacts on coral
            reefs, algae, plankton, and other components of the ecosystem. Thus, there is a greater likelihood
            that a particular activity may affect a Sanctuary resource. NOAA will work closely with Federal,
            State, and county agencies to identify specific activities known to affect various components of the
            marine environment so that the permit review and approval procedure can be streamlined and occur
            to the extent practicable within existing permit review processes. This alternative does not
            necessarily require more stringent standards or independent Sanctuary permits, however, the
            Sanctuary may recommend that certain activities be modified to protect a broader range of
            Sanctuary resources. There may be a greater socio-economic impact on persons unlawfully
            conducting prohibited activities because Sanctuary civil penalties could be higher than other Federal
            and State penalties.

                        iv. Conclusions

                    It is premature to determine at this time what other marine resources should be included in
            the Sanctuary, or what regulatory authorities might be required to protect and manage those
            resources. The Sanctuary has not fully assessed or determined whether other marine resources and
            ecosystems in Hawaii are nationally significant and should be included as Sanctuary resources.
            Rather, the Sanctuary has developed a process for the consideration of other resources to be
            included at a future date (see discussion on alternative D.La below), with adequate study, review,
            and public participation. If NQAA/SRD determines that the Sanctuary should be expanded to

            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                             Page 173
            and Management Plan






                 Part IH: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences                    Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                   National Marine Sanctuary

                 include other resources, it may issue a supplemental EIS/MP and proposed regulations specifically
                 identifying the resources proposed to be included as,Sanctuary resources and activities of concern
                 to provide for comprehensive management and protection for all Sanctuary resources.


                     3. Managgement Altematives
                         This section examines different elements of a management program as identified by the
                 Draft Management Plan, including the scope of the resources addressed by the Sanctuary, and the
                 Sanctuary management and administrative framework. To a large degree, the alternatives
                 described below are dependent on which Sanctuary boundary is finally selected (i.e., both the
                 administration and management of the Sanctuary will differ if the Sanctuary includes only the Maui
                 County area, or waters surrounding all four counties and Kahoolawe.).

                         a. Scope of Resource Coverage
                         Although the HINMSA identifies humpback whales and their habitat as the Sanctuary's
                 resources, it allows for the identification of other marine resources of national significance for
                 possible inclusion in 'the Sanctuary's management regime, opening the consideration of a multi-
                 species or ecosystem Sanctuary.

                             i. (Status quo) Humpback VVhale and Its Habitat, With Other Resources Identified at a
                                 Later Date for Possible Inclusion
                                     PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

                         This alternative would implement the primary purpose of the HESIMSA to focus attention
                 on the humpback whale and its habitat as Sanctuary resources. Habitat increases the scope of
                 management concern, but it does. so in a way which links the concerns of the habitat to the needs of
                 humpback whales.* For example, sediment plumes from non-point sources of pollution may be
                 smothering coral reefs in a bay, but if there is no linkage to the protection of humpback whales, it
                 would at this point in time not be a priority Sanctuary issue of concern. If that same sediment
                 plume were found to be resulting in the degradation of habitat and contaminants were being                  .
                 absorbed by the,whales or causing whale avoidance of the area, then sedimentation would be an
                 issue of concern requiring some remedial action. To focus the Sanctuary Management Program on
                 these resources satisfies the primary purpose of the Sanctuary as well as the concerns of many
                 Hawaii resource users to minimize the amount of management authority the Federal Government
                 would exercise in State waters. It could take many years before all humpback whale management
                 activities are enhanced to the degree that people feel that real progress has been made in furthering
                 the goals of humpback whale protection.

                         The Act finds that:

                         "The marine sanctuary designated for the conservation and management of
                         humpback whales could be expanded to include other marine resources of national
                         significance which are determined to exist within the sanctuary" [Section 2302(16)];

                 and requires NOAA:

                         "to provide for the identification of marine resources and ecosystems of national
                         significance for possible inclusion in the sanctuary designated by (the HINMSA)"
                         [Sec. 2304(b)(4)].

                         In order to fulfill this requirement of the HI1,qMSA and to meet the concerns of the State of
                 Hawaii and many marine resource users, a special process which resembles the current site

                 Page 174                                                               Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                        and. Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                        Part III: Alternatives and "Ibeir Potential Consequences
             National Marine Sanctuary

             selection process for the designation of National Marine Sanctuaries has been included in the Final
             Management Plan. This process permits the full consideration of all species put forward through
             the identification process, allows public and, special interest input and deliberation in addition to the
             advice,ptovided by the SAC. It also provides the State with the opportunity for full review* to
             determine if the inclusion of additional resources in State waters is in the State's interest.

                     The task of keeping rn,-irine ecosystems healthy is costly. Better science and information
             gathering is necessary. Above all, the cooperation among all levels of government, the necessary
             input and support from a broad constituency, and the additional financial and technical assistance
             that can be brought to bear on comprehensive management may be the only way to solve our future
             problems in the coastal and marine environment. This alternative then provides the time and the
             process to accomplish this goal of looking at the marine environment as an integrated whole, and
             not simply as a collection of individual resources and issues.

                         ii. Identify and Designate Other, Resources of National Significance for Inclusion in
                             the Sanctuary Now

                     Throughout the EIS/MP scoping and public participation process, a number of individuals
             expressed the desire to see the Sanctuary include multiple resources and that it become
             comprehensive in scope and work jointly with State authorities to address some of the water
             quality problems affecting other marine resources. The Sanctuary solicited comments on this issue
             because of the HINMSA's requirement to investigate other marine resources for possible inclusion
             in the Sanctuary, but also to assess public expectations of the Sanctuary. In the management of the
             other marine, sanctuaries, SRD believes that managing a sanctuary on a comprehensive, ecosystem
             basis provides the best ripe of long-term protection for, special marine areas. However, expanding
             the list of Sanctuary resources also expands the potential management effects on users. The
             process of Sanctuary selection and designation usually takes a considerable amount of time and
             resources to conduct studies and ensure ftdl public participation in the selection and designation
             process.

                     There is authority to identify and designate other resources of national significance and
             propose those resources to the public for inclusion prior to issuance of the Final Management Plan
             and Implementing Regulations. Through public input, many (if not all) resources within the
             Hawaiian Islands which could be located within the current or expanded Sanctuary boundary were
             mentioned. Marine turtles, endangered species, (e.g., Hawaiian monk seal), seabirds, coral reefs,
             and other cetaceans were some of the most frequently resources cited. Moreover, Congress found
             that this region has many resources of national significance and importance, and that the marine
             ecosystem is diverse and unique [HINMSA, Section 2302(l) and 2302(4)].
                     Including these other resources would potentially require different and additional types of
             management strategies and regulations to ensure the comprehensive protection and management of
             the resources and to enable the consideration of those resource's requirements (see Regulatory
             alternative `V above). Additional research and information gathering is necessary; including an
             analysis of whether the resources meet "national significance" criteria before final decisions are
             made.











             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                             Page 175
             and Management Plan







                Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                              National Marine Sanctuary

                        b. Sanctuary Administration

                            i.  Management Responsibility

                                1) NOAA/SRD
                                        PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

                        The preferred management alternative is to identify a Sanctuary Manager,* who would be a
                NOAA.employee of SRD, as soon as possible following issuance of the Final EIS/MP. The
                Sanctuary has had an on-site Program Specialist to handle day-to-day activities and outreach since
                1991. The SRD Chief and the Pacific Regional Manager (Silver Spring, MD) have been handling
                policy and administrative matters thus far. The initial proposed staffing of the SRD Field Office
                would consist (in addition to the Manager) of an administrative assistant and a research or an
                education/interpretation coordinator. Hiring a Sanctuary Manager immediately upon completion
                the Final EISYMP would assist in establishing Sanctuary visibility,at an early phase and continue
                efforts previously performed by the On-site Program Specialist.

                        Under this alternative, an independent management and administrative system for the
                Sanctuary would be established and housed in the NOAA-owned headquarters facility located in
                Kihei, Maui. A satellite office is located in Honolulu. Depending in part. on the size and
                configuration of the final Sanctuary boundary, seasonal satellite offices (or the headquarters) could
                be opened on other islands. Due to numerous points of access to the Sanctuary, a centralized
                Sanctuary headquarters/information center may not provide optimum access to the variety of
                commercial and recreational Sanctuary users. The need for and timing of "satellite" information
                centerswould be determined as development of the Sanctuary programs increased.

                        A variety of Sanctuary program activities would be phased in, with the initial focus on
                research and education/interpretation. The Sanctuary headquarters would coordinate directly and
                actively with other Federal and State agencies in the implementation of the rnanagement plan. The
                Sanctuary Manager and staff, with the advice of the already established SAC would begin the
                process of informing the public and regional officials of the Sanctuary's mandate, regulations, and
                research and education programs.

                               2) Other Federal Agencies

                        A Federal agency with delegated responsibility for managing Sanctuary resources which is
                headquartered in the vicinity of the site would be given the role and responsibility of ad-ministering
                the HIHWNMS. NMFS's Pacific Area Office in Honolulu is the most lik6ly candidate to manage
                the Sanctuary under this option since they already have primary responsibility for managing
                humpback whales under the MMPA and the ESA, and have ongoing research, education, and
                management programs for humpback whales in Hawaii. This would also serve,to place the
                responsibility for Sanctuary administration as well as regulatory enforcement all under one agency.
                Other candidates could be the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Park Service of the
                Department of the Interior which have facilities and infrastructure available on all the MHI.

                               3) State Oversight

                        A State agency, such as DLNR, which establishes,, manages and regulates Marine Life
                Conservation Districts and other State facilities, could serve as the on-site manager and
                enforcement in cases Where State waters are involved. In this instance, the State may handle all
                responsibilit.'ies of on-site management and enforcement with the exception of duties assigned by
                Federal law to Federal agencies, or (through agreement with Federal agencies) handle certain or all
                of the related Federal responsibilities. This is the option SRD used in the past for management of
                two Florida Keys sites and for Fagatele Bay, American Samoa. Over the years, however, SRD

                Page 176                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan







             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                     Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences
             National Marine Sanctuary

             began employing Sanctuary managers as Federal employees. Recent full term employee limitations
             in the Federal workforce may make this a viable option.

                            4) Combination of Options

                    This option would rely on the expertise of existing agencies, organizations, and programs
             to implement the Sanctuary management agenda. Education, research, and/or enforcement would
             be contracted out or delegated to other agencies. This alternative may prove to be appropriate as
             the priorities developed in the yearly action plan dictate. Therefore, consideration of this option
             will be considered on a yearly basis with input from the SAC.

                        ii. Management Implementation Period

                    Humpback whales are seasonal and migratory visitors to Hawaii. Many people inquired if
             the Sanctuary would be in place only six months of the year (December - May) when the whales
             are present (e.g., the current NUFS enforcement program is a seasonal activity).. Concerns were
             expressed over efficiency and cost of year-round program as well as the need. Consequently two
             alternatives are under consideration.

                            1) "Seasonar' (December - May),

                    This alternative would coincide with the presence of the whales in Hawaii. All aspects of
             resource protection and management (research, education, monitoring, enforcement) would take
             place only during this time frame. Programs for education and some aspects of research and
             monitoring would be limited in their potential during this period as not all such activities are
             directly related to the physical presence of the whales. This management period would favor the
             Sanctuary being run by the headquarters office with members of the SRD present for six months of
             the year, or through contractual arrangements made with other institutions or agencies. This
             approach would likely limit any efforts for a Sanctuary-sponsored visitor's center, but linkages
             with existing facilities could be established.

                            2) "Year-round"
                                    PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

                    Notwithstanding the half-year presence of the humpback whales in Hawaiian waters, there
             are many activities envisioned by the Sanctuary Program which require year-round effort and
             presence. Even though the whales are not continually present, efforts to manage and protect their
             habitat must continue on year-around basis. There are many types of human activities that could
             affect the whale's habitat (i.e., near-shore or in-water construction projects, water quality and oil
             spills) that may impact whether or not the whales will return to previously used areas. Continual
             monitoring of projects is necessary to ensure that humpback whale habitat is maintained and
             preserved, despite the whales' physical absence. Also, efforts to sponsor and coordinate research,
             long-term monitoring, and education programs, and to perform administration tasks such as
             administering the SAC and its working groups and    'coordinating with other agencies, institutions,
             and interest groups, are just some of the many reasons for having a year-round presence. The
             HIHWNMS currently employs a full-time on-site program specialist in Maui and has contracted
             staff on Oahu and Kauai. These staff are continually busy responding to public information needs,
             planning activities and events, and developing research and education programs for upcoming
             whale seasons. During the formative years of program development, there is going to be a
             significant amount of work on a year-round basis including the need to manage the process for
             considering other resources of national significance.




             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                         Page 177
             and Management Plan







                Part III: Alternatives and Their Potential Consequences             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                           National Marine Sanctuary

                           iii. Enforcement

                               1) Status, quo

                        An internal Memorandum of Agreement exists between NUFS and the National Ocean
                Service, which oversees the National Marine Sanctuary Program, concerning the enforcement of
                laws within National Marine -Sanctuaries (January 1992; and supplement drafted in March 1.993).
                NUTS's Office of Enforcement (NMFS-OE) has the responsibility for enforcement within
                designated sanctuaries. This measure was developed to achieve greater economy by eliminating
                duplication of effort in the oversight and administration of NOAA enforcement efforts. While the
                mechanisms are in place to streamline operation and minimize costs by avoiding duplicate
                enforcement systems, the most important element is that the decision to prosecute any alleged
                violation of regulations promulgated under the NMSA rests the Sanctuary, the NMFS-OE, and
                NOAA's Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement and Litigation.

                               2) Enhanced Enforcement
                                      PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

                        The preferred enforcement alternative enhances and. complements the existing enforcement
                arrangement that SRD has with NMFS-OE, and would seek to re-establish the agreement that
                NMFS-OE had with the State of Hawaii (Marine Patrol and DLNR-Division of Conservation and
                Resource Enforcement) and Coast Guard for Federally-protected species and fisheries regulations.
                The Sanctuary would provide assistance and support for NMFS-OE to enforce Sanctuary
                regulations and to support the enforcement efforts by those State agencies that are deputized to
                enforce pertinent regulations. The,Sanctuary would seek to expand the deputized enforcement
                agreement between NMFS-OE and the State to include the NMSA and Sanctuary regulations.-
                Enhanced efforts could include:

                           Increased interpretive enforcement presence: interpretive enforcement would place a
                           greater emphasis on education and outreach as a tool to reduce harassment and
                           approach violations instead of simply issuing citations. Additional funding through the
                           NMSA would be provided to ensure NMFS* and State agencies had sufficient resources
                           (adequate patrol vessels; camera and radio equipment) to accomplish surveillance and
                           interpretive enforcement.

                        ï¿½  NMSA resources for increased monitoring and enforcement by State agencies (DOH
                           and DLNR) to increase compliance with relevant permits and other authorizations
                           which protect humpback whale habitat.
                        ï¿½  Support for enhanced training in law and procedures for enforcement personnel by
                           supporting attendance at the NNES Training Center in Georgia and local on-site
                           training.
                        ï¿½  Use of a voluntary citizen monitoring program,  .as exemplified by DLNR's Volunteer
                           Conservation and Resources Enforcement Officer Program, in cooperation with NMFS
                           and State enrichment officials.

                The philosophy of enforcement has been described earlier in Part 1. The'impacts of enforcement
                are described in Part IV and the conduct of enforcement is described in Part V.






                Page 178                                                         Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                               and Management Plan







              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                    Part IV: -Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences
              National Marine Sanctuary                                                Associated with Alternative Courses of Action

                     PART IV: POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC
                     CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF
                                                                     ACTION

                                                      TABLE OF-CONTE
                                                                                                                       PAGE

              A. INTRODUCTION              .............................................................................   181

              B. BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVES                      ...........................................................    181
                    1 . Introduction    ...............................................................................    181
                 .2.    Bound= Alternatives          ...................................................................   184
                        a. Boundary Alternative (1)         ...........................................................    184
                        b. Boundary Alternative (2)         ............................................................   185
                        c. Boundary Alternative (3) - Preferred Alternative               ...............................  186
                        d. Boundary Alternative (4)         ............................................................   187
                        e. Boundary Alternative (5)         ...........................................................    188
              C. REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES                        .......................................................... 189
                    1. Introduction     ...............................................................................    189
                    2. Fishing Activities      .........................................................................   189
                    3. L=acts of E=osed Regulations              .......................................................   190
                        a. Overflights     ............................................................................    190
                             i.   Status Quo: No Additional Regulation           .......................................   190
                                  1) Impacts on Resources        ......................................................    190
                                  2). Impacts on Users      ............................................................   190
                             ii.  Sanctuary Alternative - Preferred        ..............................................  191
                                  1) Impacts on Resources        ......................................................    191
                                  2) Impacts on Users       ...........................................................    191
                        b. Approaching Humpback Whales                ..................................................   192
                             i.   Status Quo: No Additional Regulation           ........................................  192
                                  1) Impacts on Resources        ......................................................    192
                                  2) Impacts on Users       ...........................................................    193
                             ii.  Sanctuary Alternative - Preferred        .............................................   193
                                  1) Impacts on Resources        ......................................................    193
                                  2) Impacts on Users       ...........................................................    193
                        c. Taking Humpback Whales              .........................................................   194
                             i.   Status Quo: No Additional Regulation           ...............0...... 0 ................ 194
                                  1) Impacts on Resources        ......................................................    194
                                  2) Impacts on Users       ...........................................................    195
                             ii.  Sanctuary Alternative - Preferred         .........................................0 ... 195
                                  1) Impacts on Resources        ......................................................    1195
                                  2) Impacts on Users       ...........................................................    196
                        d.   Discharges or Deposits      ........... 0 ................................................... 196
                             i. Status Quo: No Additional Regulation             ......................................... 196
                                  1) Impacts on Resources        ......................................................    196
                                       a)  Water quality standards       ................................................  197
                                       b)  Discharges from point sources         .......................................   197
                                       c)  Pollution from non-point sources          ..................................... 198
                                       d)  Hazardous Waste, Oil, and Trash Disposal             .........................  199
                                       e)  Dredged materials     ......................................................    199
                                       d)  Ocean disposal sites    ......  0.............................................  200
                                  2) Impacts on Users       ...........................................................    20.0

              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                             Page 179
              and Management Plan







                    Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences                        Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                    Associated with Alternative Courses of Action                                                   National Marine Sanctuary

                                  ii. Sanctuary Alternative -Preferred            .............................................    201
                                       1)   Impacts on Resources         ........................................................  201
                                            a)   Water quality standards        .................................................  201
                                            b)   Discharges from point sources           ........................................  202
                                            c)   Pollution from non-point sources           ......... I........................... 202
                                            d)   Hazardous Waste, Oil, and Trash Disposal               .........................  202
                                            e)   Dredged materials       ............................ I ........................... 203
                                            d)   Ocean disposal 'sites     .....................................................   203
                                       2)   Impacts on Users       ............................................................    21N
                             e. Alteration of the Seabed         ....;........ 6 ........i......................................   205
                                  i.   Status Quo: No Additional Regulation              .......................................   205
                                       1) Impacts on Resources. .         .....................................................    205
                                       2) Impacts on Users         .............................................................   205
                                  ii.  Sanctuary Alternative - Preferred          .............................................    206
                                       1) Impacts on Resources           .......................................................   206
                                       2) Impacts on Users         ....................................   e ...................... 207

                    D.   MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES                         ......................................................    208
                         1 . Consequences of Re=ving National Marine Sanctu= Designation                            .............  208
                         2.  Conseg@Lences of Accepting Status Qw Alternative                   .................................  208
                             a. Sanctuary Resources            ................................................................    209
                             b. Administration        ................ : ........................................................  209
                             c. Research and Education           .............................................................     209
                             d. Enforcement         ..........................................................................     210
                         3. Conmgp-ences of Sanctu= Preferred Alternative                     ...................................  210
                             a. Sanctuary Resources (Future Consideration of Other Resources)                       .............  210
                             b. Administratio      n   .......................................................................     210
                             c. Research and Education           .............................................................     211
                             d. Enforcement        ............................................................. ! ............... 212

                    E.   UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC
                         IMPACTS       .....................................................................................       215

                    F .  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE
                         ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
                         LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY                      ..........................................................    216

                    G. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROP08ED ACTION AND EXISTING
                         RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS                            ............ **'****  ............................... 216
                         1. !=acts Related to Managmnt PI                         =ses                            ................ 216
                         2. Relationship Between SancM= Mana ment@i@@6i@er
                             Whale and Ocean Managgment Plans and Prog=                         .................................  217
                             a. Final Recovery Plan for the@ Humpback Whale                    ..................................  217
                             b    Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan                 ......................................    217










                    Page 180                                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                          and Management Plan







            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale          Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences
            National Marine Sanctuary                                   Associated with Alternative Courses of Action

            A. INTRODUCTION

                    In selecting the appropriate boundary, regulatory and management alternatives for the
            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA evaluated the potential
            environmental and socioeconomic consequences of each alternative on Sanctuary users and
            resources. This section discusses. the consequences of the status quo as well as the Sanctuary,
            preferred alternatives. A summary of the, environmental impacts are described in Table IV- I and
            the socioeconomic impacts are described in Table IV-2.

            B. BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVES

                1. Introduction

                    All the boundary alternatives presented in this document would allow some level of
            coordinated and comprehensive conservation and management and provide protection for
            humpback whales and their Hawaiian habitat. The positive and negative socioeconomic effects of
            any boundary decision will depend in large part on which regulatory option is selected for the
            Sanctuary. Clearly, more restrictive regulatory regimes can be expected to have greater impacts
            than less restrictive regimes, and such effects will increase with a larger Sanctuary boundary. The
            main socioeconomic consideration in comparing a Sanctuary boundary around Maui County and a
            boundary including the waters around all or portions of the main Hawaiian Islands is that in the
            expanded options, any socioeconomic effects will spread out throughout the expanded area.
                    With the Congressionally-designated Maui County option, benefits will only accrue largely
            to Maui County: Maui will become the destination for viewing humpback whales within a
            "Sanctuary"; research and education programs and Sanctuary funds will be directed to Maui
            County to address Sanctuary needs; monies for harbor signage, coral reef monitoring and water
            quality monitoring programs; press articles dealing with national marine sanctuaries will focus on
            Maui County. Likewise, any costs associated with the Sanctuary will be borne primarily by the
            Maui County residents: individuals or companies may receive violation notices for harassment of
            whales; greater attention and scrutiny may be required of proposed projects which could degrade
            whale habitat. From the perspective of the Statewide boundary option,. all the counties will
            presumably be affected in relation to the area of the Sanctuary around each island, population,
            visitor use, whale use, and other relevant factors.




















            Final- Environmental Impact Statement                                                       Page 181
            and Man.agement Plan












                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              >
                                         TABLE IV-1:                     Summa          Y of Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with Alternatives
        00
                 Alternatives       Reg. All. 1:      Reg. Alt. 2:       Reg. All. 3:         Reg. All. 4:         Reg. Alt. 5:      Reg. Alt. 6:      Boundary         Boundary All. 2:       Boundary Alt. 3:        Boundary           B                   Ca.
                                    Status Quo-      Incorporate         (Preferred        Comprehensive           Proactive         Regulation          Alt. 1:             Highest              (Preferred             Alt. 4:              L
                                         -use           Existing         Alternative)      Regs to Protect         Humpback          to Protect       Status Quo-           Reported              Alternative)            too-              I
                                      Existing          NMFS             Incorporate         Whales and              Whale             Added             -Maui           Concentrations             Expand              Fathom              Fatho             Er
                                         Regs           Whale              Regs to              Habitat            Protection        Resources        County and                                Congressional           Isobalh             Isobath           >
                                                      Approach             Protect                                 Philosophy                            Part of                                  Boundary to          Statewide         Statewide
                                                          Regs           Whales and                                                                      Kauai                                    Include Big
                                                                           Habitat                                                                                                             Island, Eastern
                                                                                                                                                                                               Kauai, and Parts
                  Resources                                                                                                                                                                        of Oahu                                                    (D

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              0
                 Hu arback               0                                                                             +
                       es
                 Wha es                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       0
                 Humrback                0                 0                 +                     +                   +
                       t
                 Wha e
                 Habitat                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              =   0
                 Water                   0                 0                 E)                    +                   +                 +            Potential environmental impacts associated with individual
                 Quality                                                                                                                              boundary alternatives will depend upon which regulatory
                 Seaflood                                                                                                                             alternative is applied. More restrictive regulations (i.e., regulatory
                 Bcnihos
                                                                                                                                                      alternative 5) may have greater environmental impacts applied                                               0
                 Marine                  0                 0                 0                     0                                     +            over larger areas (boundaries 34) as compared to the
                 Mammals                                                                                                                              Congressionally-designated area (boundary 1). All potential
                 Historical/             0                 0                 0                     0                   0                 +            environmental impacts associated with anj of the regulatory
                 Cultural                                                                                                                             alternatives are expected to be positive.
                 Seabirds                0                 0                 0                     0                                     +
                 Sea Turtles             0                 0                 0                     0                   E)                +
                 Fish                    0                 0                 0                     0                   E)                +
                 Coral Reefs             0                 0                 0                     E)                  E)                +


                 Key of Symbols:                      +      =  Significant beneficial environmental impacts
                                                      0      =  Moderate beneficial environmental impacts
                                                      0      =  Status quo or minimal environmental impacts
       PC
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ounda@@





                                    TA-BLE IV-2: Summary of                                   Potential Negative Socio-Economic Impacts Associated with Alternatives                                                                                                     z X
         CD. :3       Alternatives      Reg. All. 1:       Reg. All. 2:        Reg. Alt. 3:         Reg. Alt. 4:           Reg. Alt. 5:     Reg: All..6:        Boundary         Boundary All. 2:        Boundary All. 3:         Boundary           Boundary
                                        Status Quo-       Incorporate          (Preferred         Comprehensive            Proactive         Regulation           Alt. 1:             Highest               (Preferred              Ali. 4:            Alt. 5:           0
                                            -Use             Existing          Alternative)       Regs to Protect          Humpback          to Protect        Status Quol            Reported              Alternative)             100-              1000-             -
                                                                                                                                                                                  Concentrations              Expand               Fathom              Fathom
                                           Existing           NMFS             Incorporate          Whales and              Whale              Added              -Maui
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Isobath
                                             Regs             Whale              Regs to               Habitat             Protection         Resources        County and                                 Congressional             Isobalh                                   E.
                                                           Approach              Protect                                   Philosophy                             Part of                                   Boundary to           Statewide          Statewide                I
                                                                Regs           Whales and                                                                         Kauai                                     Include Big                                                  =
                                                                                 Habitat                                                                                                                 Island, Eastem
                      Sanctuary
                                                                                                                                                                                                         Kauai, and Parts                                                     C.
                          Users                                                                                                                                                                              of Oahu                                                          -3

                      Commercial              0                 0                   0                     0                    +                 0
                      T @nsport     __
             W                      ional
                      Recr at                 0                 0                   0                     0                    +                 0
                      Bowing         I
                      Tour Boats              0                 0                   0                     0                    +                 0             Potential socio-economic impacts associated with individual
                      Diving                  0                 0                   0                     0                    G)                0             boundary alternatives will depend upon which regulatory
                      Thrill Craft            0                 0                   0                     0                    +                 0             alternative is applied. More restrictive regulations (i.e., regulatory
                      Fishponds               0                 0                   0                     0                    E)                0             alternative 5) may have greater socio-economic impacts applied
                      Military                0                 0                   0                     0                    +                 0             over larger areas (boundaries 3-4) as compared to the
                      Tourism                 0'                0                   0                     0                    E)                0             Congressionally-designated area (boundary 1). -Tbere are few
                      Research                                                                                                 0                 0             anticipated socio-economic impacts associated with regulatory
                                              0                 0                   0                     0
                      Education               0                 0                   0                     0                    0                 0             alternatives 1, 2, and 3 regardless of the boundary since there are
                      Commercial                                                                                                                               no new regulatory prohibitions proposed by the Sanctuary.
                                              0                 0                   0                     01                                     0
                      Fishing                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 <
                      Recreational            0                 0                   0                     0                    E)                0                                                                                                                            0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         0
                      Fishing
                      Charter                 0                 0                   0                     0                    0                 0
                      Fishing
                      Aquarium                0                 0                   0                     0                    +                 E)
                      Industry
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         >    cn
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              0
                      Surfingl                0                 0                   0                     0                    0                 0             Key of Symbols:                                                                                                0.
                      Swimming                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                0
                      Native                  0                 0                   0                     0                    E)                0             +      Significant potential for negative socio-economic impacts                                               0
                      Hawaiian                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                0
                      Whale                   0                 0                   0                     0                    +                 0             E)      Moderate potential for negative socio-economic impacts
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         0
                      Watching                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           r_
                      Agriculture             0                 0                   0                     0                    +                 0             0      Minimal or no negative potential for socio-economic impacts                                             0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         0
                      Shoreline               0                 0                   0                     E)                   +                 E)
            (2        Development
                      Industrial/             0                 0                   0                     E)                   +                 E)
            00
                      Municipal/                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              rA
                      Dischar es







                 Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences         Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                 Associated with Alternative Courses of Action                                  National Marine Sanctuary

                     2. Boundga Alternatives

                         a. Boundga Alternative (U: Status Quo - boundary as designated by Congress (100-
                             fathom isobath around Maui County, excludingKahoolawe waters, and a small portion
                             off Kauai)

                         The Congressionally-designated boundary is fully discussed in Part III(B)(1)(b), and is
                 shown in Figure 111-2. This is the smallest boundary alternative which was considered, and
                 encompasses waters within the 100-fathom isobath around Maui, Lanai and Molokai, including
                 Penguin Bank, and the deepwater Pailolo Channel. A small portion adjacent to the Kilauea
                 National Wildlife Refuge, on Kauai. The waters around Kahoolawe were not included-in this
                 boundary alternative in the Draft or Final EIS/MP; the HIT*4MSA mandated their inclusion as of
                 January 1, 1996, unless the Secretary of Commerce certified these waters as unsuitable for
                 inclusion in the Sanctuary. Such a certification was made in December 1995.

                         The area included in this boundary alternative is heavily used by humpback whales for
                 breeding, calving and nursing and comprises Hawaii's largest area of water less than 100-fathoms
                 deep. The waters off Kilauea Point add an excellent opportunity for humpback whale education
                 and interpretation at the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service Center, Kilauea Point National Wildlife
                 Refuge, on Kauai Island.

                         This boundary alternative provides additional protection to humpback whales and their
                 habitat in the specified area through supplemental resource protection, research and long-term
                 monitoring, education, outreach, coordination and enforcement activities.               All Sanctuary
                 management efforts would concentrate on the Maui County and Kilauea Point areas, thus
                 benefiting the whales and this specific component of their Hawaiian habitat. Other marine
                 resources in this area may incidentally experience benefits associated with the additional protection
                 and public awareness programs for the humpback whales and their habitat. However, this
                 boundary alternative does not effectively provide for comprehensive or coordinated man             ment
                 throughout the humpback whale's main Hawaiian Island range. Humpback whales inhabit and
                 transit areas throughout all the main Hawaiian Islands, and this alternative will not effectively
                 protect them while they are in waters around Kauai, Niihau, Oahu and. the Big Island. Moreover,
                 this boundary alternative will limit the Sanctuary's ability to provide supplemental research,
                 education and enforcement in these other whale habitats around the State.

                         This boundary alternative, taken in conjunction with the preferred regulatory alternative
                 (3), would focus Sanctuary regulations and corresponding enforcement mechanisms on Maui
                 County and the small area off Kilauea Point. Since regulatory alternative (3) does not add any new
                 substantive regulatory prohibitions, permit requirements or approvals than those already required,
                 implementation of this boundary alternative is not anticipated to result in significant adverse
                 impacts to Maui County's economy or to marine user groups in this area. Any research,
                 education, coordination or enforcement initiated a's a result of the Sanctuary will ultimately lead to a
                 better understood marine environment and will benefit both human and non-human users of the
                 area. Any impacts resulting from establishing the Sanctuary, positive (e.g., education, research,
                 monitoring, public participation, enforcement and coordination) or negative (e.g., civil penalties),
                 would be bome exclusively by the residents of Maui County and the small area off Kilauea Point,
                 Kauai.









                 Page 184                                                             Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                     and Management Plan





             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale           P@t IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences
             National Marine Sanctuary                                    Associated with Alternative Courses of Action
                     b. Bound= Alternative (21: Areas of highest          reported concentrations of humpback
                        whales.                                              i

                     This boundary alternative is based on a variation of boundary alternatives (1). and (3). It is
             fully described in Part III(B)(2)(c), and shown in Figure 111-3. It was developed partially in
             response to public comments at scoping meetings and comments received on the DEIS/UP calling
             for expansion of the Sanctuary to include areas of high whale concentration, and particularly cow-
             calf areas, near islands other than those in Maui County. The boundaries were drawn based on
             humpback whale distribution data (Nitta and Naughton, 1989; Forestell and Brown 1992; Mobley
             et al. 1993).

                     This boundary alternative would focus Sanctuary management on those discrete areas
             within the 100-fathom isobath throughout the Hawaiian Islands documented to have higher
             humpback whale concentrations thari other parts of the state. However, this alternative does not
             take into account the possibility of changes in whale distribution and habitat preference over time
             because of social, environmental or human influences. Moreover, this alternative, does not
             consider the movement of whales between these areas of higher whale concentration. Overall, this
             boundary alternative does not provide uniform and comprehensive protection of humpback whales
             throughout their habitat in the Hawaiian Islands.        Resource protection, research, long-term
             monitoring, education, outreachand management programs would be conducted on a piecemeal
             basis in the areas included in the boundary.

                     In generaL the environmental impacts of this boundary alternative would be positive for a
             larger portion of the humpback whale's Hawaiian habitat, as Sanctuary programs would be
             targeted at areas with a high concentration of humpback whales. Because of this larger focus area
             for Sanctuary programs, the importance of coordination and cooperation between the Sanctuary
             management and various state and county agencies, as well as academic and private organizations,
             would increase. The importance of these cooperative efforts would be heightened, as areas of high
             humpback whale utilization axe subject to potential shifts in or abandonment of habitat, due to
             human use pressures. This boundary alternative does not allow for future expansion or changes in
             humpback whale distribution.

                     This boundary alternative, taken in conjunction with the preferred regulatory alternative
             (3), would focus Sanctuary regulations and corresponding enforcement mechanisms. on discrete
             areas on Niihau, Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Maui and Hawaii. Since regulatory alternative (3) does
             not add any new regulatory prohibitions, permit requirements or approvals than those already
             required, implementation of this boundary alternative is not anticipated to result in significant
             adverse impacts to the local economy or to marine user groups in this area. Any research,
             education, coordination or enforcement as a result of the Sanctuary will ultimately lead to a better
             understood marine environment and will benefit both human and non-human users of the area. All
             impacts, positive or negative, will be borne exclusively by the residents adjacent to or who use
             these waters.

                     This alternative expands the boundary scope beyond alternative (1) to include specific
             areas of the main Hawaiian Islands outside Maui County known to have high concentrations of
             humpback whales. Taken in conjunction with the preferred regulatory alternative (3) which does
             not add any new substantive regulatory prohibitions, permit requirements or approvals beyond
             those already required, implementation of this boundary *alternative is not anticipated to result in
             adverse socioeconomic impacts to the economy or to marine users within this boundary. Any
             research, education, coordination or enforcement initiated as a result of the Sanctuary will
             ultimately lead to a better understood marine environment and will benefit both humafi and non-
             human users of the area. Any impacts resulting from establishing the Sanctuary, positive (e.g..,
             education, research, monitoring, public participation, enforcement and coordination) or negative
             (e.g., civil penalties), would affect this broader area.

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                          Page 185
             and Managiment. Plan






                 Part IV: Potential Environmental and'socioeconomic Consequences            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                 Associated with Alternative Courses of Action                                      National Marine Sanctuary

                          c. Bound= AlteWative (3)               Preferred Alternative:           Expand Congressional
                              boundary to include 100-fathom. isobath around Big Island, parts of Oahu, and eastern
                              Kauai, excluding specified ports, harbors, small.. boat basins.
                          This boundary alternative more adequately reflects humpback whale distribution and habitat
                 use in   the main Hawaiian Islands (primarily throughout the 100-fathom isobath region) than
                 alternative (1) or (2). It is fully described in Part III(B)(2)(d), and shown in Figure. 111-5. Over
                 73% of the whales, and particularly the mother and calves, sighted in aerial surveys conducted
                 during the 1993 season were found to be distributed in waters less than .100 fathoms deep (Mobley
                 et al. 1993). Recent studies have also shown that humpbacks are highly mobile and transit between
                 islands while residing in Hawaii (Cerchio et al. 1991, Cerchio 1994). Boundary alternative (3)
                 takes these factors into consideration and, incorporates the majority of humpback whale habitat.
                 This alternative was also developed in response to particular comments from the public and whale
                 researchers and experts during the scoping meetings, other public information meetings, and
                 during the DEISIMP public comment period. The boundary lines are based on humpback whale
                 distribution data and provide more continuous statewide management regime for research, long-
                 term monitoring, education, outreach and man           ment programs throughout the main Hawaiian
                 Islands.

                          Although humpback whales have been seen occasionally off the NWHI, less favorable
                 oceanographic conditions including cooler and rougher waters may inhibit reproductive and
                 nursing activities in this area, and research indicates that humpback whales do not use it
                 frequently. Ports, harbors, and small boat basins are normally enclosed or semi-enclosed areas
                 that support heavy levels of human activities. Vessel traffic, dredging, construction, and waste
                 discharge produce noise and pollution which make these places less than ideal for humpback whale
                 habitat.

                          While preferring the statewide boundary within the 100-fathom, isobath, SRD recognizes
                 the important role of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) in the Hawaiian Islands both to
                 national security and to the Hawaiian economy. NOAA and the State of Hawaii have determined
                 that not including certain military use areas in the Sanctuary boundary would facilitate military uses
                 and training without compromising protection for humpback whales and their habitat. SRD has
                 consulted with DOD on existing military activities in the Hawaiian Islands and has determined that
                 DOD has institutional mechanisms in place to avoid and minimize disturbances to humpback
                 whales (for a list of activities, see Appendix F). Military activities remain subject to all other
                 applicable authorities (MMPA, ESA, Rivers and Harbors Act, etc.) in Hawaii, and the statutory
                 provisions of the NMSA.

                          Military use areas and excluded ports, harbors, small boat basins are identified in Part
                 M(B)(2)(d)(i) and M(B)(2)(d) and shown in Figures 111-5 and III- 11, respectively. The
                 Sanctuary exclusion areas would not significantly diminish the Sanctuary's ability to provide
                 comprehensive conservation and protection for the whales and their habitat.

                          The environmental impacts of this boundary alternative would be positive. The Sanctuary
                 would have the ability to comprehensively protect humpback whales and whale habitat through
                 education, research, and regulation throughout the majority of the humpback whale's habitat.
                 Although the physical area of the Sanctuary would be smaller than the ftffl statewide 100-fathom
                 isobath and 1000-fathom. isobath boundary alternatives (no major exemptions) described below,
                 the protection, education, and management encompassed in the Sanctuary's programs would be
                 extended to a larger portion of the humpback whale's wintering habitat than the status quo
                 alternative or the areas of highest whale concentration.

                          This alternative expands the boundary scope beyond alternatives (1) and (2) to include
                 most areas of the main Hawaiian Islands from the shoreline to the 100-fathom isobath except for

                 Page 186                                                                Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                         and Management Plan







             Hawaiian Islands Humpback, Whale            Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences
             National Marine Sanctuary                                       Associated with Alternative Courses of Action

             the waters around Kahoolawe; selected ports, harbors and boat basins; and specific rrdlitary use
             areas around W. Kauai and Oahu. Taken in conjunction with the preferred regulatory alternative
             (3) which does not add any new substantive regulatory prohibitions, pen-nit requirements or
             approvals beyond those already required by existing authorities, implementation of this boundary
             alternative is not anticipated to result in adverse socioeconomic impacts to the economy or to
             marine users within this boundary. Any research, education, coordination or enforcement initiated
             as a result of the Sanctuary will ultimately lead to a better understood marine environment and will
             benefit both human and non-human users of the area. Any impacts resulting from establishing the
             Sanctuary, positive (e.g., education, research, monitoring, public participation, enforcement and
             coordination) or negative (e.g., civil penalties) would affect this broader area.


                     d. Bound= Alternative (41: Expand Congressional boundary to include 100-fathom
                         isobath around the main Hawaiian Islands and Kaula Rock, and excluding specified
                         ports, harbors, and small boat basins.

                     This boundary alternative is a variation of boundary alternative (3). It is fully described in
             Part M(B)(2)(e), and shown in Figure M-12. The difference is that this boundary alternative
             .includes the waters around Kaula Rock, Niihau and all areas around Kauai and Oahu. Selected
             ports, harbors and small boat basins are not included, but military use areas around Kauai, Niihau
             and Oahu would be included in the boundary. This alternative, like alternatives (2) and (3), also
             responds to public comments received during the scoping meetings, other public meetings, and
             during the DEIS/MP public comment period calling for an expanded, uniform statewide boundary
             instead of a Maui County-only boundary. The boundary is based on humpback whale distribution
             data with the goal of providing a continuous management regime throughout the main Hawaiian
             Islands. Research, long-term monitoring, education, outreach and management programs are
             anticipated to be more effective if applied uniformly.

                     This boundary alternative more adequately reflects the humpback whale distribution and
             habitat use in the main Hawaiian Islands (primarily within the 100 fathom isobath) and Kaula
             Rock, especially those areas used my mothers and calves. It also includes the waters around
             Niihau and the western portion of Kauai, an area that researchers believe is or has always been
             (only recent focus on that area ofthe state for humpback whale research) an important humpback
             whale breeding and nursing area (Mobley et al. 1993; Cerchio et al. 1991; Cerchio 1993). This
             boundary allows for uniform protection and monitoring of the whales throughout their range in the
             main Hawaiian Islands and is more easily recognized by the public since there are no major
             exclusion areas.

                     Both human and humpback whale populations are increasing throughout the Hawaiian
             Islands. The fact that whale distribution is not static and is responsive to numerous social,
             environmental and humaii influences implies the need for an expanded area to accommodate
             changes. This boundary alternative allows- for the protection of humpback whales and whale
             habitat now and in th  'e future. The boundary also includes the areas of high human uses so that,
             should conflicts arise, the Sanctuary managers will have the latitude to directly address them
             uniformly throughout the humpback whale's range in Hawaii. However, this boundary does not
             recognize the military use areas in the vicinity of western Kauai/Niihau and Oahu. NOAA, in
             consultation with DOD and the State of Hawaii, has determined that the existing military use areas
             are essential to national defense and to the economy of the State of Hawaii. As such, NOAA
             determined that these areas should not be included in the Sanctuary boundary. Not including such
             areas is appropriate here, where the only Sanctuary resource is the humpback whale and its habitat,
             and where DOD remains subject to applicable humpback whale protection laws and regulations.
             This boundary alternative also includes the waters around two remote islands Niihau and Kaula
             Rock. Expanding research, long-term monitoring, enforcement, and outreach programs to these


             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                               Page 187
             and Management Plan







                Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                Associated with Alternative Courses- of Action                                     National Marine Sanctuary
                outlying -areas may over-extend the existing resources and make overall management throughout
                the main Hawaiian Islands less effective.
                        As with the status quo and preferred boundary alternatives.' the environmental impacts of
                this boundary alternative would be positive. The Sanctuary management would have the ability to
                protect humpback whales and their habitat uniformly throughout the main Hawaiian Islands,
                through education, . research, and regulation.          The protection, education and management
                encompassed in the Sanctuary's programs would be extended to a larger portion of the humpback
                whale's wintering habitat than under the status quo alternative.
                        This alternative expands the scope of the Sanctuary to include the waters around all of the
                main Hawaiian Islands from the shoreline to 100-fathom isobath, including Niihau and Kaula
                Rock, excluding the waters around Kahoolawe and selected ports, harbors and boat basins. This
                boundary alternative does not exclude military use areas. NOAA has rejected this alternative
                because it fails to recognize the importance of DOD military use areas and of activities that are
                essential to the national security. 'Taken in conjunction with the preferred regulatory alternative (3)
                which does not add any new substantive regulatory prohibitions, permit requirements or approvals
                beyond those already required, implementation of this boundary alternative is not anticipated to
                result in adverse socioeconomic impacts to the economy or to marine users within this boundary.
                Any research, education, coordination or. enforcement initiated as a result of. the Sanctuary will
                ultimately lead to a better understood marine environment and will benefit both human and non-
                human users of the area. Any impacts resulting from establishing the Sanctuary, positive (e.g.,
                education, research, monitoring, public participation, enforcement and coordination) or negative
                (e.g., civil penalties), would affect this larger main Hawaiian Islands area.

                        e. Bound= Altema        tive (5): Expand Congressional boundary to include 1000-fathom
                            isobath around the main Hawaiian Islands

                        This boundary alternative is the largest of all and encompasses most of the Hawaiian
                habitat range of humpback whales. It is fully described in Part M(B)(2)(f), and shown in Figure
                111- 13. As described in Part II, recent scientific surveys that have included deep-water whale
                habitats revealed that up to 27% of the humpback whales, particularly males, were found in waters
                deeper than 100 fathoms (Mobley et al. 1993). This boundary option expands the scope of habitat
                protection to include deeper water areas used by humpbacks. The previous alternatives are
                primarily designed to protect calving and nursing areas, while alternative (5) includes additional
                deepwater habitat areas important to humpback whales such as singing, resting, and breeding.,
                This alternative also responds to'public comments received during the scoping meetings, other
                public meetings, and during the DEIS/UP public comment period calling for the most expansive
                statewide boundary to protect humpback whales and their Hawaiian habitat. The boundary lines
                were drawn based on humpback whale distribution data with the goal of providing a continuous
                management regime that encompasses the greatest amount of hump-back whale habitat in Hawaii.

                        This boundary alternative more than triples the size of the 100-fathom isobath (Statewide)
                boundary, and allows for the most comprehensive protection and management of humpback
                whales and'their habitat, through research, long-term monitoring, education/interpretative
                outreach, agency coordination, and enforcement activities.              Envirorumental impacts of this
                boundary alternative would be positive, because the Sanctuary's resource protection progr@ms
                would be applied to a continuous statewide area. Nearly all of the whale's habitat would be
                managed and protected under the Sanctuary regime. Other marine resources would also benefit
                indirectly from this, protection. - However, costs and other re                                 iated with
                                                                                    source requirements assoc
                managing this large area may not allow the Sanctuary to achieve or My implement all of its goals
                and objectives.



                Page 189                                                                Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                       and Manaxement Plan







               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                 Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences
               National Marine Sanctuary                                            Associated with Alternative Courses of Action

                        This alternative expands the scope to include the waters around all of the main Hawaiian
               Islands out to 1000 fathoms, including Niihau and Kaula Rock, and excludes the waters around
               Kahoolawe, and selected ports, harbors and boat basins. It contains no provisions to exclude
               military use areas; NOAA has determined that this alternative fails to recognize the importance of
               DOD military use areas and activities essential to the national security. Taken in conjunction with
               the preferred regulatory alternative (3) which does not add any new substantive regulatory
               prohibitions, permit requirements or approvals beyond those already required, implementation of
               this boundary alternative is not anticipated to result in adverse socioeconomic impacts to the
               economy or to marine users within this boundary. Any research, education, coordination or
               enforcement initiated as a result of the Sanctuary will ultimately lead to a better understood marine
               environment and will benefit both human and non-human users of the area. 'Any impacts resulting
               from establishing the Sanctuary, positive (e.g., education, research, monitoring, public
               participation, enforcement and coordination) or negative (e.g., civil penalties), would affect nearly
               everyone in the State.


               C. REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

                    1. Introduction

                        This section analyzes the environmental and socioeconomic consequences of the five
               activities included within the scope of the proposed Sanctuary regulations., It also mentions fishing
               activities, which are not proposed to be regulated in the preferred alternative but are discussed to
               clarify misperceptions and concerns raised throughout the public process.                       Each activity is
               analyzed in the context of both the Sanctuary preferred regulatory alternative and the status quo
               alternative. There are also two regulations proposed in the preferred Sanctuary alternative which
               are intended to facilitate enforcement of the other Sanctuary regulations:                   these prohibit the
               possession of Sanctuary resources or interference with enforcement.
                        Overall the proposed regulations are intended:' (1) to improve resource protection by
               instituting supplementary regulatory, surveillance and enforcement measures and authority; and (2)
               to minimize negative impacts to human uses, particularly those deemed compatible with the
               purposes of the Sanctuary.

                        Under section 304(c) of the NMSA, NOAA cannot terminate valid leases, permits, licenses
               or rights of subsistence use or access existing as of the date of Sanctuary designation, although
               NOAA can regulate the exercise of such authorizations and rights consistent with the purposes for
               which the Sanctuary was designated.

                    2. Fishing Activities:

                        Status Quo -- Preferred: No Additional Regulation

                        Most fishing gear types used in Hawaii's commercial and recreational fisheries, including
               longline, handline, trolling, and pole and line, do not pose any imm din threats to humpback
               whales. Large gillnets and drift nets that have led to marine marnmal incidental mortality or injury
               in other areas, including Alaska, the Pacific West Coast, and the Northeast United States, are not
               used in Hawaiian waters.              Consultations with NMFS, the DLNR's-Division of Aquatic
               Resources, and the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council' staff resulted in
               NOAA to determine that no regulation of fishing operations are presently needed to protect

               'DLNR-DAR is th    ,e lead State agency responsible for maintaininig the aquatic resources within State of Hawaii
               territorial seas which lie within the Sanctuary. WESPAC is the lead Federal entity that manages fishery resources in
               Federal waters which lie within the Sanctuary, such as the Penguin Bank area and Pailolo Channel.

               Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                       Page 189
               and Management Plan







                Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences       Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                Associated with Alternative Courses of Action                                 National Marine Sanctuary

                humpback whales and their habitat. The Sanctuary managers will work closely with existing State
                and Federal fishery management agencies to ensure that impacts on humpback whales and their
                habitat are considered. Sanctuary staff will also continue to work with the commercial and
                recreational fishing communities to address their concerns.
                        The preferred regulatory altqmative as depicted in the Sanctuary's Management Plan would
                place no, additional restrictions on fishing activities and thus have no negative impacts on the
                fishing industry. Recreational and commercial fishing will continue to-occur within the Sanctuary,
                subject to regulatory mechanisms currently in place under existing State and Federal authorities,
                including the 100-yard humpback whale approach regulations, which apply to all users of the
                marine environment.

                    3. I=Iqts of Proposed Regulations

                        a. Overflights

                            i. Status Quo: No Additional Regulation

                                1) Impacts on Resources

                        Before the institution of regulations in 1987 prohibiting the operation of motorized aircraft
                within 1,000 feet of any humpback whales, helicopters and airplanes could come in close to
                individual whales in order to give passengers a clear view of them. Even underwater, whales are
                visible from aircraft in the clear waters surrounding the Hawaiian islands.

                        Low-flying motorized aircraft were identified as a source of possible harassment to
                humpback whales in Hawaii (Herman et al. 1980; Tinney 1988; Nitta and Naughton, 1989;
                Townsend 199 1). The close presence or noise of the aircraft may frighten them and elicit a change
                in their behavior. Shallenberger (1978) and Herman et al. (1980) found however that humpback
                whales do not react consistently to aircraft. . Aircraft flying as high as 1,000 feet can elicit
                responses from whales, while aircraft flying at half that height sometimes do not. Factors that may
                affect humpback whale behavioral responses to aircraft include: aircraft type; engine loudness and
                pitch; aircraft speed; wind speed, wave height, wate   'r depth, distance from shore, and the age,
                gender, number and activities of the whales. Effects may be greater on calves, who spend more
                time at the surface than adults.

                        Low-flying motorized overflights that may effect humpback whales are currently regulated
                by the NMFS humpback whale approach, regulations. Aircraft operations in Hawaii consist of
                scheduled commercial operations, air taxi and tour services, general aviation (private flying) and
                military aircrafL The regulations prohibiting the operation of any motorized aircraft within 1,000
                feet of any humpback whale applies throughout Hawaii's EEZ and does not target geographical
                areas of humpback whale habitat or distribution. The National Park Service is also considering
                promulgating more, restrictive overflight restrictions for tour aircraft and helicopters above
                Volcanoes and Haleakala National Parks.

                                2) Impacts on Users

                        The charter helicopter and airplane industry is rapidly growing throughout the main
                Hawaiian Islands. Tourists are flown to scenic areas - 'volcanoes, valleys, mountains, waterfalls
                and coastal areas -- to experience the beauty and splendor of H;iwaii. The 1,000 feet overflight
                regulation was designed to create a "safety bubble" around humpback whales so they would not be
                disturbed by low-flying motorized aircraftj especially during their critical breeding stage. NOAA
                has concluded based on the growth in the local aviation industry since 1987, when the approach
                regulations were implemented, and the lack of documented complaints from pilots or of problems

                Page 190                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan







             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale               Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences
             National Marine Sanctuary                                         Associated with Alternative Courses of Action

             with the enforcement, that the regulations have not adversely impacted the tour aircraft industry in
             Hawaii.

                          ii. Sanctuary Alternative -- Preferred: Prohibit the operation of any motorized
                              aircraft within 1,000 feet of any humpback whale unless authorized by the ESA or
                              N4M[PA

                              1) Impacts on Resources

                      The distinction between this alternative and the Status Quo alternative is the             additional
             authority for the Sanctuary to enforce and penalize any violations of the NMFS overflight
             regulation, in that violations of the overflight regulations are subject to NMSA enforcement
             mechanisms. These include a higher potential maximum civil penalty for offenders than those
             under a MMPA or 'ESA violation. NOAA-SRD will consult with the NNTS-Office of
             Enforcement (OE) and the State of Hawaii on any violations of Sanctuary overflight regulations.
             The existence of a higher maximum civil penalty should provide an additional deterrent to illegal
             overflight activities, thereby increasing protection for humpback whales. The Sanctuary overflight
             regulation also ensures that SRD play a role in any future changes in the overflight regulations that
             may impact humpback whales. In addition, the Sanctuary will continue to offer the context for
             coordination of various activities that might affect humpback whales and their habitat, including
             reviewing and commenting on proposed activities that may impact the whales and coordinating
             with existing agencies to address potential conflicts. The Sanctuary's education and research
             programs can also help benefit whales and whale habitat.

                              2) Impacts on Users

                      Private, commerciaL charter and military aircraft regularly fly within the boundaries of the
             Sanctuary. However, all of these aircraft are presently subject to the NMFS 1,000-foot "safety
             bubble" over humpback whales. The Sanctuary would not add any new prohibitions or permit
             requirements so there would be no negative economic impacts to aircraft operators. Passengers
             would still be able to enjoy general scenic and whale observation opportunities, albeit from
             altitudes of 1,000 feet or greater if flying above humpback whales. The regulation recognizes that
             many airports in Hawaii are located near the water and contains a provision that exempts aircraft
             from the regulation when in any flight corridor for takeoff from or landing on an airport or
             runway. However, this exemption applies only to Sanctuary regulations (and potential for
             Sanctuary civil penalties) and does not exempt such activities from the NMIFS 1,000 foot
             overflight regulation.

                      There may be an overall positive socioeconomic effect on the aircraft and tour industry.
             Given a better understanding of humpback whales and the regulations -protecting them, and given
             the educational focus of enforcement officers, the helicopter and airplane tour experience would be
             improved. Better coordination, enforcement, education, and participation in the Sanctuary
             management process may increase industry compliance with regulations. As such, the industry
             may actually experience an overall reduction of any impacts of these regulations and better overall
             dialogue with resource managers. Ultimately this will provide additional protection for humpback
             whales.

                      The Department of Defense (DOD) has consulted with SRD on military                    activities that
             'involve flights below 1,000 feet. The DOD, through the U.S. Navy, also has consulted with
             NWS regarding its activities in Hawaiian waters. No adverse affects to fisted species were
             identified, provided that certain mitigative measures were instituted by the various commands
             active in areas where humpback whales occurred. DOD has standard operating procedures and
             training protocols in place to assure that pilots avoid humpback whales. DOD remains subject to
             all applicable -requirements of the MMPA and ESA.

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                  Page 191
             and Management Plan






                Pan IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                Associated with Alternative Courses of Action                                      National Marine Sanctuary


                        Pilots -and researchers that need to fly within 1,000 feet of humpback whales for research
                purposes are required to obtain a NUFS research permit. The Sanctuary will have the opportunity
                to review and comment on research pem-iit applications submitted to NMFS, with the purpose of
                ensuring that Sanctuary resources are adequately protected. It is possible that SRD involvement in
                the review process could result in changes that would involve minor costs in time to applicants, but
                no significant socioeconomic impacts are anticipated.

                        b. Approaching Humpback Whales

                             i. Status Quo: No Additional Regulation

                                 1) Impacts on Resources
                        Thereare many different types of vessels currently operating in and near the Sanctuary,
                including oil tankers, military ships, container ships, tug and barge, fishing boats, cruise ships,
                tour boats, whalewatching vessels, dive boats, zodiacs, sail boats, kayaks, thrillcraft, and a variety
                of recreational craft. The effects of vessel traffic on whale behavior have been studied using
                shorestation observation of whales at varying distances from vessels (Bauer 1986; Baker et al.
                1982; Baker 1983, Green 1990), and aerial surveys of boat-whale interactions. Thus far, most
                research has focused on identifying short-term responses to vessels. Long-term changes to
                humpback whale distribution or behavior has not been investigated in Hawaii.
                        Contact between vessels and whales may occur when vessels approach whales or when
                whales approach vessels of their own accord. Humpback whales will often respond to
                approaching vessels by avoiding contact. Several scientists have investigated the effects of
                approaching vessels on humpback whales and noted short-term "horizontal avoidance behavior
                consisting of faster swimming and longer dives, 'followed by "vertical avoidance" behavior,
                consisting of longer dive times (Baker and Herman 1989; Green 1990; Forestell et al. 1990).
                There is no clear indication that any one type of vessel has a greater effect on whales than any
                other, except that small, high-speed thrillcraft or other highly maneuverable craft apparently cause
                a greater-than-average avoidance response (Green 1990; Forestell et al. 1990).                   Long-term
                implications of these short-term behavior modifications are unknown. More research is needed to
                investigate the long-term effects of human-whale interactions. Increasing humpback whale and
                human populations will likely mean mom interactions in the future.

                        All approaches to humpback whales are subject to the NMFS approach regulations
                throughout Hawaii's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). These regulations make it unlawful: (a) to
                approach a humpback whale within 100 yards; (b) to cause a vessel or other object to approach a
                humpback whale within 100 yards; or (c) to opemte any motorized airm-aft within 1000 feet of a
                humpback whale. The regulations apply to all commercial, recreational and military vessels, and
                to buman swimmers or humans with objects such as windsurfers.                     The purpose of these
                regulations is to avoid direct coflision,with or harassment of whales. The State of Hawaii has
                incorpomted the NMFS approach regulations into State code and can enforce these regulations
                under State law (HRS Title 13, Subtitle'l 1, ï¿½244-40). The State imposes additional restrictions on
                conunercial and recreational thrillcraft, water sledding, parasailing vessels and high speed
                motorcraft during the whale season (December 15 to May 15) in its "Humpback Whale Protected
                Waters" located off West and South Maui (HAR, Title 13, Chapter 256-112). In addition, to
                reduce the occurrence of a vessel collision or grounding, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
                established a voluntary vessel truffic lane which routes larger vessels, such as oil tankers and
                container ships, to the north side of Oahu and into the commercial ports near Honolulu or Barber's
                Point.




                Page 192                                                                Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                       and Management Plan.






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale           Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences
            National Marine Sanctuary                                   Associated with Alternative Courses of Action

                    In the short term, these approach regulations help minin-iize incidences of direct humpback
            whale harassment and presumably help the whales to carry out their normal activities in Hawaiian
            waters with reduced levels of disturbance from humans. However, no studies have investigated
            the long-term effectiveness of these regulations in increasing the humpback whale reproductive
            rates or rates of survival.

                            2) Impacts on Users

                    The NMFS humpback whale approach regulations have been in existence since 1987.
            Enforcement records indicate there has been no major impacts on vessel traffic or operations (see
            Table W-3). These 100-yard approach regulations do not prohibit or unnecessarily restrict the
            operation of vessels in the Hawaiian Islands. The regulation specifically governs all individuals or
            vessels approaching whales within 100 yards throughout Hawaii's EEZ. Although citations can,
            be issued for violations of these regulations, no one user group has been entirely restricted or
            disadvantaged by the presence of the regulation (see Table IV-3). A discussion of enforcement
            activities is given in Part H(D)(3), Part M(B)(3)(iii), and Part V(D)(4).

                    NMFS has developed a Cooperative Agreement with USCG and the Hawaii DLNR-
            Department of Conservation and Recreation Enforcement (DOCARE) regarding enforcement
            activities related to the humpback whale approach regulations. DOCARE officers have been
            deputized to enforce the Federal whale approach regulations. T"he State of Hawaii may also pursue
            violations of State humpback whale approach regulations and thrincraft restrictions in specific
            areas from December 15 to May 15 under State regulations.

                        ii. Sanctuary Alternative -- Preferred: Prohibit approaching or causing another
                            vessel or other object to approach within 100 yards of a humpback whale unless
                            authorized by the ESA and MENTA.

                            1) , finpacts on Resources

                    Under this alternative, the ESA/NllvWA humpback whale approach regulations would be
            incorporated as Sanctuary regulations. The distinction between this alternative and the status quo
            alternative discussed previously is the additional authority for the Sanctuary to enforce ESA and
            MWA "approach" regulations under the NMSA and to be involved in the NMFS permit review
            process. Thus, the Sanctuary will have the authority under the NMSA to apply enforcement
            mechanisms and pursue civil violations of these approach regulations, and will be more directly
            involved in humpback whale protection and management efforts. The net effect of the regulation
            will benefit humpback whales and their wintering habitat (as encompassed by the Sanctuary) due
            to increased deterrence and compliance with regulations in place to protect the whales from
            potentially harmful approaches. Also, since this regulation focuses attention on a certain types of
            activity (approaching whale by boat), Sanctuary education and research programs can be focused
            on these activities that have the most potential for negatively impacting the whales. The overall
            result is greater knowledge of and protection for humpback whales and their habitat. A public that
            is better informed because of Sanctuary resource protections regulations will be more aware of the
            need to respect Sanctuary resources and will be more likely to comply with these existing approach
            regulations. The net environmental effect of this regulation on the Sanctuary area will be positive.,

                             2) Impacts on Users

                    As an insular state, Hawaii is dependent upon commercial shipping (and inter-island
            barging) to import and export goods and petroleum products. The marine recreation industry also
            contributes significantly to the Hawaii economy:         it accounted for $560 minion in 1992
            (MacDonald and Deese, 1994). SRD recognizes that the boating and shipping industry is crucial


            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                         Page 193
            and Management Plan







                 Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences       Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                 Associated with Alternative Courses of Action                                National Marine Sanctuary

                 to the economy of Hawaii and is not proposing to institute additional regulatory prohibitions -on
                 vessel traffic.

                        The socioeconomic impacts of this regulatory option are expected to be small and positive.
                 No additional and substantive vessel traffic restrictions would be added to the NMFS 100-yard
                 approach regulations. The Sanctuary regulation is'merely supplementing existing prohibitions,
                 and not adding additional permits or authorization requirements. The distinction between this
                 alternative and the status quo alternative discussed previously is the additional authority for the
                 Sanctuary to enforce ESA/NWPA approach regulations under the NMSA. Under the NMSA, the
                 Sanctuary can impose higher maximum civil penalties for violations of Sanctuary regulations than
                 is possible under the MMPA or ESA. The maximum is $100,000 under the NMSA, and $25,000
                 under the MNWA and ESA. The maximum civil penalty would not normally be applied except
                 possibly for repeat offenders or particularly egregious offenders. Impacted users would be limited
                 to only those persons subject to the regulations (as opposed to all users of the Sanctuary), and of
                 those, only those persons in violation of Sanctuary regulations. The actual impact on those
                 persons in violation of Sanctuary regulations will be relatively small because enforcement
                 mechanisms are not limited. to civil penalties.  ' Rather, oral and written warnings are given
                 routinely in lieu of civil penalties (See Table IV-3). Further, with interpretive enforcement, users
                 subject to Sanctuary regulations will be educated as to what the regulations are and why they are in
                 place, thus increasing future voluntary compliance and decreasing those potentially subject to civil
                 penalties. Consequently, there wW be few impacts to Sanctuary users.

                        Education and interpretive enforcement focusing on the Sanctuary approach regulation will
                 result in greater public compliance of the regulation which will benefit humpback whales, thus
                 increasing the experience (enjoyment of the experience as well as recreational and aesthetic
                 experience) of Sanctuary resources for all Sanctuary users. Further, in those instances where a
                 ,person who violated a Sanctuary regulation was assessed a civil penalty under the NMSA, those
                 civil penalty monies will be returned to the Sanctuary for management and improvement (e.g.,
                 education and outreach), as opposed to being deposited in the general U.S. Treasury. Finally,
                 NMSA enforcement will be coordinated with existing State and Federal authorities to minimize
                 duplication of effort, thus minimizing potential cumulative effects on those users in violation of
                 Sanctuary regulations.

                        C. Taking Humpback Whales

                            i. Status Quo: No Additional Regulation

                                1) Impacts on Resources

                        Humpback whales are currently protected by the MWA and the ESA, which are both
                 implemented by NMFS. The ESA and MWA prohibit the "take" of all marine mammals and
                 endangered species, a term broadly defined under the two laws. The NIWA defines "take" as "to
                 harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture or kill any marine rnammal,111 and
                 the 1994 amendments to the NUvIPA define harassment as a any act of pursuit,- torment, or
                 annoyance which (at Level A Harassment) "has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine
                 mammal stock in the wild7' or (at Level B Harassment) "has the potential to injure a marine
                 mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns including, but not limited
                 to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering."
                        The approach regulations promulgated by NMFS are thus in fact a protective measure to
                 prevent harassment of humpback whales. NMFS also has the authority under the ESA to

                 The ESA (1988) similarly defines "take" as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or collect, or
                 attempt to engage in any such-conduct."

                 Page 194                                                          Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale           Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences
             National Marine Sanctuary                                    Associated with Alternative Courses of Action

             designate and protect oceanic habitats that are found to be critical for species listed as endangered,
             such as the humpback whale. The N01PA, which was reauthorized in 1994, requires NMFS to
             establish Regional Scientific Review Groups to examine the impacts of human and envimm-nental
             factors on marine mammals, and to develop and implement conservation plans to alleviate such
             impacts. The NMFS Regional Scientific Review Groups have not yet been established and their
             scope will include topics other than humpback whales.

                    Potential threats to humpback whales range from direct injuries or harassment of a single
             animal or population to indirect or cumulative degradation of their habitats. Neither the MNTA nor
             the ESA ftilly prevent such degradation of habitats. Section 7(a) of the ESA requires consultations
             on Federal actions which may affect endangered species or their critical habitats. However, this
             section applies only to activities authorized, funded, permitted, or carried out by the Federal
             agencies, not to direct private or state actions.

                    The anticipated net effects of the status quo alternative on Sanctuary resources are expected
             to be positive. The N&TA and ESA "take' regulations help minimize incidences of direct
             humpback whale harassment and harm, and presumably help the whales to carry out their normal
             activities (resting, breeding, calving and nursing) in Hawaiian waters with reduced levels of
             disturbance from humans. The 'take" regulation is a standard regulation applied to all marine
             mammals under the MWIPA and ESA, and prohibits persons from harassing, hunting, capturing,
             killing or attempting so conduct such an activity. This regulation, as implemented through the
             MbTA and ESA, was responsible for ending the commercial whaling in the U.S. EEZ and
             allowing whale populations, including humpbacks, to naturally recover.

                            2) Impacts on Users

                    The NRAPAYESA marine mammal 'take" regulations have been in existence since 1972.
             Enforcement records indicate there has been no major impacts on vessel traffic or operations (see
             Table IV-3). Since 1987, most enforcement actions resulted from persons in violation of the 100-
             yard approach regulation and not the "take" regulation. The 't*e" regulation specifically governs
             all individuals or vessels approaching whales throughout the U.S. EEZ. Although citations can be
             issued for violations of these regulations, no one user group has been entirely. restricted or
             disadvantaged by the presence of the regulation. A discussion of enforcement activities is given in
             Part H(D)(3), Part III(B)(3)(iii), and Part V(D)(4).

                    NMFS has developed a Cooperative          Agreement with USCG and the Hawaii DLNR-
             Department of Conservation and Recreation        Enforcement (DOCARE) regarding enforcement
             activities related to the humpback whale approach regulations. DOCARE officers have been
             deputized to enforce the. Federal ESA&&TA "take" regulations. The State of Hawaii may also
             independently pursue violations of State humpback whale "take" regulations.


                        ii. Sanctuary Alternative -- Preferred: Prohibit the "taking" or possession of
                            humpback whales (or parts) unless authorized under the ESA and MNIPA.

                             1) Impacts on Resources

                    Under this alternative, the ESAMVIPA humpback whale "take" regulations would be
             incorporated as Sanctuary regulations. The distinction between this alternative and the status quo
             alternative discussed previously is the additional authority for the Sanctuary to enforce ESA and
             MNTA "take" regulations under the NMSA and to be involved in the NMTS permit review
             process. Thus, the Sanctuary will have the authority under the NMSA to apply enforcement
             mechanisms and pursue civil violations of these approach regulations, and will be more directly
             involved in humpback whale protection and management efforts. The net effect of the regulation

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                          Page 195
             and Management Plan







                Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences        Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                Associated with Alternative Courses of Action                                 National Marine Sanctuary

                will benefit humpback whales and their wintering habitat (as encompassed by the Sanctuary) due
                to increased deterrence and compliance with regulations in place to protect the whales from
                potentially harmful "takes". Also, since this regulation focuses on a certain types of activity
                (harass, kill, hunt, capture or attempt to do so), Sanctuary education and research programs can be
                focused on these activities that have the most potential for negatively impacting the whales. The
                overall result is greater knowledge of and protection for humpback whales and. their habitat. A
                public that is befter informed because of Sanctuary resource protections regulations will be more
                aware of the need to respect Sanctuary resources and will be more likely to comply with these
                existing "take" regulations. The net environmental effect of this regulation on the Sanctuary area
                will be positive.

                                2) Impacts on Users

                        The socioeconomic impacts of this regulatory option are expected to be small and positive.
                No additional and substantive "take" prohibitions would be added by the Sanctuary to the existing
                ESAMMPA 'lake" regulations. The Sanctuary regulation is merely supplementing existing
                prohibitions and not adding additional permits or authorization requirements. The only distinction
                between this alternative and the status quo alternative discussed previously is the additional
                authority for the Sanctuary to enforce ESA/MWA "take" regulations under the NMSA. Under the
                NMSA, the Sanctuary can impose higher maximum civil penalties for violations of Sanctuary
                regulations than is po "ssible under the MWA or ESA. The maximum is $100,000 under the
                NMSA, and $25,000 under the MWA and ESA. The maximum civil penalty would not normally
                be applied except possibly for repeat offenders or particularly egregious offenders. Impacted users
                would be limited to only those persons subject to the regulations -(as opposed to all users of the
                Sanctuary), and of those, only those persons in violation of Sanctuary regulations. The actual
                impact on those persons in violation of Sanctuary regulations will be relatively small because
                enforcement mechanisms are not limited to civil penalties. Rather, oral and written warnings are
                given routinely in lieu of civil penalties (See Table IV-3). Further, with interpretive enforcement,
                users sub ect to Sanctuary regulations will be educated as to what the regulations are and why they
                are in place, thus increasing future voluntary compliance and decreasing those potentially subject to
                civil penalties. Consequently, there win be few impacts to Sanctuary users.
                        Education and interpretive enforcement focusing on the     Sanctuary "take" regulation will
                result in greater public compliance of the regulation which will benefit hurnpback whales, thus
                increasing the experience (enjoyment of the experience as well as recreational and aesthetic
                experience) of Sanctuary resources for all Sanctuary users. Further, in those instances where a
                person who violated a Sanctuary regulation was assessed a civil penalty under the NMSA, those
                civil penalty monies will be returned to the Sanctuary for management and improvement (e.g.,
                education and outreach), as opposed to being deposited in the general U.S. Treasury. Finally,
                NMSA enforcement will be coordinated with existing State and Federal authorities to minimize
                duplication of effort, thus minimizing potential cumulative effects on those users in violation of
                Sanctuary regulations.


                        d. Discharges or Deposits

                           -i. Status Quo: No Additional Regulation

                                1) Impacts on Resources
                        Under the status quo alternative, discharges and deposits will continue to pressure the
                resources of the coastal zone. As the population of Hawaii continues to increase, human uses of
                the ocean and adjacent watersheds will result in an increase of discharges and deposits into
                Hawaii's nearshore -waters (OSP 1996). The consequence to humpback whales of continuing with

                Page 196                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale           Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences
              National Marine Sanctuary                                    Associated with Alternative Courses of Action

              the status quo will be further degradation of the humpback whale's habitat, particularly in coastal
              areas which are of critical importance to newly born calves.

                      The cumulative effects of point source pollution, including sewage spills, and non-point
              source pollution from surface runoff and airborne contaminants can result in degraded water
              quality, algae blooms, and other problems (OSP 1996). These problems       'have begun in particular
              to affect nearshore areas such as West Maui and Marnala Bay. The impact of degraded water
              quality on humpback whales is not known precisely. but some of the pollutants can be presumed
              to be harmful (Dailey 1985; Taruski et al. 1975). Without a coordinated approach and clear goals
              for protecting the coastal resources, human activities may continue to degrade the humpback
              whale's habitat. Although numerous laws and regulations apply to,the disposal of wastes and
              other types of discharges into the marine environment, most decisions are made on a case-by-case
              basis and do not focus specifically on investigating the effects of pollutants on humpback whales
              or their habitat. A coordinated approach and clear goals for protecting whales habitat from further
              degradation is currently lacking.

                                 a) Water quality standards

                      The Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) has developed water quality standards based on
              Federal EPA water quality standards established. under the Clean Water Act (CWA). DOH
              classifies marine waters as Class AA or Class A waters, and marine bottom ecosystems are divided
              intoClass I and Class 11. There are basic water quality criteria applicable to all waters that address
              floating debris, thermal pollution, turbidity and nearly 100 toxic substances (HAR, Chapter 11 -
              54). These criteria are among the most stringent in the Nation (DOH 1990, Water Quality
              Management Plan for the City and County of Honolulu). DOH is responsible for monitoring and
              enforcing these standards.

                                 b) Discharges from Point Sources

                      The Clean Water Act furnishes some protection to marine resources from the harmful
              effects of effluent discharges. Under the status quo alternative, the Hawaii Department of Health
              (DOH) would continue to regulate and monitor point source discharges, including stormwater
              discharges, through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, (NPDES) permitting
              process, water quality certifications, and other general permits. DOH's primary concern is about
              human health. DOH does not have the staff, resources, or mandate to monitor or consider
              discharges from the perspective of humpback whale health.

                      Two outfall plants, the -Sand Island and HonouliuU Wastewater Treatment Plants, n           ow
              discharge partially treated waste directly into ocean waters off Oahu outside the preferred
              Sanctuary boundary alternative. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DOH have
              issued a Clean Water Act 301(h) waiver of secondary treatment requirements for these two
              wastewater treatment plants until additional studies determine the relative impacts of these
              discharges on nearshore resources (Mamala Bay Study Commission, 1993). Ocean outfalls and
              injection wells scattered throughout the state also discharge municipal wastes, industrial wastes
              and agricultural wastes which have received secondary treatment.

                      Ocean outfalls, particularly those discharging partially treated matter in nearshore waters,
              are monitored but must be assessed to determine their impacts to humpback whales and whale
              habitat. While research specifically investigating water quality effects on humpback whales is
              lacking, data from more general studies on water quality could be used to address management
              concerns or structure future research projects. While existing Federal and State regulations are
              intended to achieve a permanent reduction of harmful waste loads in the interests of marine
              environmental protection, limitations on resources and other obstacles have hindered
              implementation and regional waste treatment facilities are still not equipped to render ocean

              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                          Page 197
              and Management Plan






              Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences       Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
              Associated with Alternative Courses of Action                                National Marine Sanctuary

              discharges environmentally safe. For example, a number of discrete areas around. Hawaii 'have
              degraded water quality to varying degrees, including Kaneohe Bay, Marnala Bay, and West Maui.
              Local land point-source pollution, including _municipal, industrial, and agriculture discharges; and
              non-point source discharges, from urban runoff and agricultural practices (discussed below) are
              believed to be the cause of these problems. More research is needed on the relative culpability of
              these sources;'on the potential health threats to whales, and the marine environment generally, and
              on the best solutions in terms of management.

                     The continued decline in water quality, reduction in fish catches, and beach closures from
              occasional sewage spills are all signs of continuing pressure on the marine resources of Hawaii. It
              can be assumed that the demands of an increasing human population will likely result in further
              degradation of water quality in the absence of a comprehensive and coordinated management
              effort. There is no single agency that reviews the discharges from the perspective of their effect on
              humpback whales or on the health of the habitat which whales depend on.

                                 c) Pollution from Non-Point Sources

                     Non-point source pollution is mainly a consequence of land use practices of farmers, resort
              developers, construction companies and everyone else who affects surface runoff in the
              watershed. Surface runoff may contain various amounts of pollutants including heavy metals,
              toxins, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, infectious pathogens, and inorganic sediments. Evidence
              is growing that coral reefs and nearshore habitats have been harmed by non-point sources of
              pollution and sedimentation. It is also possible that pollutants enter the ocean surface from
              discharges into the air but the magnitude and effects of these airborne pollutants on whales have
              not been studied. Madne rnamm-al are known to bioaccurnulate PCB's and other pollutants in
              their tissues (Taruski et al., 1975). It is not known how much of this pollution is absorbed
              directly through their skin, eyes and other membranes in comparison to -how much is taken in
              through swallowing water or eating contaminated food. However, since humpback whales are not
              known to regularly feed in HawaiL food ingestion is the least likely of these sources.

                     Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA),
              which amended the CZMA requires states with C2M programs to develop and implement coastal
              non-point pollution control programs to be approved by NOAA and EPA. State programs are to be
              developed jointly by the coastal zone management agency and the water quality agency, and must
              be based on guidelines developed by the EPA and NOAA. Hawaii responded to these
              requirements by coordinating the existing efforts of the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program
              (CZMP) and DOH. To assist with program development of the Coastal Non-Point Pollution
              Control Program Management Plan, the C2M Program convened an informal working group and
              created five focus groups (agriculture, forestry, urban, marinas and recreational boating,
              hydromodifications and wetland/riparian areas) which met on a regular basis. The Hawaii CZMP
              submitted the draft non-point pollution management plan to NOAA and EPA in July 1996. The
              plan address over 56 management measures which will be implemented through both regulatory
              and non-regulatory mechanisms. The management measures are based on technical and economic
              achievability, rather than on cause-and-effect linkages between particular land use activities and
              particular water quality problems. The intent of the Hawaii coastal non-point pollution control
              program is to build upon, rather than duplicate, existing programs. The array of existing programs
              will be loosely bound together in a "network" under the rubric of the Coastal Non-Point Pollution
              Control Program. The program should be fully developed by the end of 1997.
                     The Hawaii CZMP and DOH, with significant assistance from other State, Federal, and
              county agencies, non-governmental organizations, and individuals, have jointly -developed
              Hawaii's Coastal Non-Point Pollution Control Program management plan. The Coastal Non-Point
              Pollution Control Program will continue to rely on the resources, expertise, program, and
              authorities of other agencies and organizations during its continuing development and

              Page 198                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                               and Management Plan







             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale          Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences
             National Marine Sanctuary                                   Associated with Alternative Courses of Action
             implementation. In addition, opportunities for public participation will continue to be part of
             Hawaii's coastal non-point pollution control program.

                                d) Hazardous Waste, Oil, and Trash Disposal

                    Pollutants and trash from vessels or upland sources are sometimes transported far distances
             by ocean currents before reaching the Hawaiian Islands. Marine mammals can ingest litter and
             have been found entangled in plastic packing material or discarded fishing gear worldwide,
             although the incidence of marine mammal entanglement is generally higher in areas where
             commercial fishing activities and marine mammal feeding occur simultaneously, such as Alaska.
             NMFS has indicated that commercial fishing activities in Hawaii do not pose significant threats to
             humpback whales (Nitta and Naughton, 1989). Ile incidence of mortality or disturbance
             associated with marine debris remains unclear.

                    The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act (MPPRCA) of 1987 amends the
             Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships. The purpose of the amendment is to implement Annex V of
             the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73178), which
             prohibits ships from disposing plastics, such as fishing lines and bags. This protects marine
             animals and seabirds from ingesting these wastes while foraging, or from becoming entangled in
             debris. The MPPRCA regulations also prohibit, for example, the disposal by ship of paper, rags,
             glass, metal bottles, crockery and similar refuse less than 12 nautical miles from the nearest 4and;
             the disposal of dunnage lining and packing materials that float less than 25 nautical miles from the
             nearest land; and the disposal of victual waste less than 12 nautical miles from land (if ground, 3
             nautical miles).

                    Discharges, such as the cooling waters from boat engines and fish wastes, which are used
             by and discarded from fishing vessels, are unlikely to harm the resources of the Sanctuary.
             Discharges resulting from military activities in the area, such as smoke markers, sonobuoys and
             ordinance, are slight and do not appear to pose a threat to humpback whales. As part of their
             Standard Operating Procedures, the military surveys training sites by air, boat, and passive sonar,
             when available, for humpback whales, other humans, and wildlife before training activities
             commence. In the event that humpback- whales are present, the activity will be delayed until the
             range is clear. DOD vessels are also required to be equipped with oil-water separators. The water
             effluent from these devices must meet standards of 20 parts per million (ppm) oil within 12
             nautical miles from land or 100 ppm, beyond 12 nmi from land. The oil portion is retained on
             board for shore disposal.

                    During 199 1, the Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response (HEER) Office of the
             Hawaii Dept. of Health received a total of 453 oil and hazardous substance emergency spill
             notifications (Hawaii State Emergency Response Commission, 1992). Over 83% of these
             notifications originated in Oahu. Petroleum was the most commonly reported material released,
             accounting for about'70% of spills, followed by spills of unknown origin at about 6%.
             Miscellaneous other substances such as paint, soap, mercury and sulfuric acid accounted for
             another 6%. Some of the possible effects of oil spills on humpback whales include: damage to
             skin or eyes upon contact, fouling of baleen, and physiological problems from ingestion and
             inhalation. Although the effects of oil on humpback whales has not-been fully investigated,
             scientists hypothesize that oil could cause short- and long-term harm. Humpback whale calves and
             pregnant females may be particularly susceptible to spills since they are more likely to be found in
             nearshore waters and spend more time at the surface.

                                e) Dredged mater ials
                    Dredging activities and their impacts on navigation and the environment are regulated by
             the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                        Page 199
             and Management Plan






                Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences        Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                Associated with Alternative Courses of Action                                 National Marine Sanctuary

                1899 (dredging), by EPA and the Corps under Section 404 (discharge of dredge or fill materials
                within 3-nautical miles of the shoreline) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and Section 103 (ocean
                disposal of dredge materials) of Title I of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
                (MPRSA; 33 U.&C. ï¿½ 1401 2t Mq.). Permit applicants are also required to comply with Coastal
                Zone Management Act Federal consistency requirements, and obtain CWA, Section- 401, Water
                Quality Certifications prior to being issued a permit by the Corps. Applicants may also be required
                to obtain separate permits from State agencies for activities conducted within State waters. For
                example, a DLNR Conservation District Use Applications (CDUAs) permit is required for
                activities conducted in submerged lands of the State.

                                   f) Ocean disposal sites

                        Ocean dumping, municipal outfalls,     and dredged material disposal can smother benthic
                biota and introduce substances into the marine environment which may affect birds, fish and
                marine mammals. Title I of the MPRSA regulates the transport of materials for the purpose of
                dumping it into ocean waters. Section 102 of the MPRSA allows the EPA to designate disposal
                sites or time periods for'dumping that will mitigate adverse impact on the environment to the
                greatest extent practicable. EPA must develop site man                plans that include a baseline
                assessment of the resources, monitoring, management conditions and the type and amount of
                materials to be dumped. EPA must also consider the potential impacts of the ocean disposal sites
                on marine sanctuaries and other protected areas. Section 103 of the MPRSA establishes a permit
                system by which the Corps may issue permits for the transportation of dredged materials for the
                purpose of dumping it into ocean waters (in EPA approved sites). The Corps must determine that
                the dumping will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or
                the marine environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities.

                        In 1980, the EPA, in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, designated five
                dredge material ocean disposal sites in Hawaii. All five sites are located outside the proposed
                Sanctuary boundary in waters deeper than 100-fathoms. Some "clean" dredge disposal materials
                are used to replenish beach areas or are used to provide shoreline protection in areas experiencing
                coastal zone erosion. Because of the complexities of sediment, water, and biological interactions,
                it is dffficult, though necessary. for effective management, to analyze the natural disturbance regime
                at the potential disposal site and its relation with the associated benthic communities. The effects
                of ocean dumping on humpback whales or their habitat in Hawaii is unknown.

                               2) Impacts on Users

                        Under the status quo, existing Federal and State authorities will continue to regulate and
                monitor discharges and deposits of materials in and outside the Sanctuary. However, most
                regulatory decisions pertaining to dischargers are made on a case-by case basis with the primary
                intent of facilitating human uses rather than protecting the environment.         Use of nearshore
                Hawaiian waters for discharges has been adopted as an acceptable alternative without special
                consideration given to humpback whales or their habitat. Therefore, from the Sanctuary
                perspective, certain gaps remain in the existing regulatory structure in terms of its mission of
                protecting humpback whales.

                        Under the status quo, the Sanctuary manager would attempt to work with existing agencies
                to ensure that humpback whales and their habitat are given due consideration. No Sanctuary
                regulations or permit requirements would be added. Impacts to users would be insignificant.
                Sanctuary education and outreach programs may increase compliance 'with regulations and help
                facilitate public efforts to alleviate or eliminate unnecessary discharges into marine waters.
                Likewise a research program may be able to answer some of the unknowns concerning the effects
                of 'discharges on humpback whales.


                Page 200                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale           Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences
             National Marine Sanctuary                                    Associated with Alternative Courses of Action

                         ii. Sanctuary Alternative -- Prefeffed: Prohibit discharges or deposits that take place
                            without, or in violation of the terms -or conditions of a required Federal or State,
                            permit, license, lease or other authorization.

                             1) Impacts on Resources

                     Under this alternative, the Sanctuary would supplement the authority of existing agencies
             that regulate discharge and deposit activities. This regulation improves the protection of humpback
             whale habitat by supplementing enforcement of existing discharge and deposit requirements,
             thereby strengthening compliance with the terms and conditions of required leases, permits or
             licenses issued by Federal or State authorities under the Clean Water Act, River and Harbors Act,
             Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, and relevant State laws and codes. The
             proposed regulation complements the existing regulatory system and ensures that humpback
             whales and their habitat are given consideration in existing permit processes. The Sanctuary
             would work within the permit review processes of relevant State and Federal agencies to ensure
             that the humpback whale's habitat is maintained and not degraded.

                     The distinction between this alternative and the status quo alternative discussedpreviously
             is the additional authority for the Sanctuary to -enforce violations of existing Federal and State
             discharge and alteration of the. seabed regulations under the NMSA and to be involved *in their
             permit review process. Thus, the Sanctuary will have the authority under the NMSA to apply
             enforcement mechanisms and pursue civil violations of these discharge and deposit regulations,
             and will be more directly involved in humpback whale protection and management efforts. The net
             effect of the regulation will benefit humpback whales and their wintering habitat (as encompassed
             by the Sanctuary) due to increased deterrence and compliance with regulations in place to protect
             the whales from potentially harmful discharge and deposit activities.

                     Since this regulation focuses on a certain types of activity (point and non-point discharges,
             marine construction, dredging), the Sanctuary education and research programs can be focused on
             these activities that have the most potential for negatively impacting the whales. The overall result
             is greater knowledge of and protection for humpback whales and their habitat. A public that is
             better informed because of Sanctuary resource protections regulations will be more aware of the
             need to respect Sanctuary resources and will be more likely to comply with these existing
             regulations designed to maintain water quality and the integrity of the seabed. Finally, any
             information gained through the Sanctuary's long-term research and monitoring programs will
             benefit the entire marine ecosystem and, in turn, all industries that depend on a healthy marine
             environment. The net environmental effect of this regulation on the Sanctuary area will be
             positive.

                                 a) Water quality standards

                     DOH has established EPA-approved water quality standards for Hawaii in Chapter 11,
             HAR, based on Federal CWA standards. Marine waters are classified as either Class AA or Class
             A (see description of Class AA and A waters in Part II(D)(3)(b)(7)). There are basic State water
             quality rules that apply to both Class AA and Class A waters that control ocean dumping, thermal
             pollution, turbidity, and nearly 100 toxic substances (HAR, Chapter 11-54). DOH is responsible
             for monitoring and enforcing these regulations. The NMSP has no independent water quality
             standards for individual national marine sanctuaries. NOAA will work with DOH to ensure that
             water quality is maintained, at a minimum, to the State standards within the Sanctuary. The
             Sanctuary program will work with other Federal and State agencies to ensure that waters in the
             Sanctuary are not degraded below these standards or below current water quality levels.
                     Additional research is necessary to determine the need and type of water quality
             management strategies specific for the humpback whale and its habitat that should be developed.

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                          Page 201
             and Management Plan






                  Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                  Associated with Alternative Courses of Action                                           National Marine Sanctuary

                  As one of the research priorities, NOAA will focus on relating specific water quality parameters,
                  concentrations, or loadings, to the "health" of the humpback whale in Hawaiian waters.

                                        b) Discharges from Point Sources
                           A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit is required
                  for discharges from wastewater treatment facilities, stormwater sewers from                  *medium and large
                  cities, electric generating facilities, industries and agriculture facilities. EPA has delegated, this
                  permit authority to the Hawaii DOH. NPDES permits require dischargers to monitor outfall areas
                  and submit data to DOH on a periodic basis. DOH also performs pollutant source and ambient
                  water quality monitoring it over 76 fixed monitoring stations statewide.

                           The Sanc    tuary will work closely with DOH to ensure that Sanctuary concerns are
                  addressed in their existing NPDES permit program. The Sanctuary will not issue independent
                  discharge permits or have independent approval authority. SRD is developing an MOU with DOH.
                  (and DLNR for alteration of the seabed activities) that will specify procedures for Sanctuary review
                  of NPDES permits. A draft of this MOU can be found in Appendix E. The Sanctuary will be able
                  to provide advice and recommendations to DOH on specific permits, but it will not have
                  independent authority to deny any discharge activities issued by DOH. A separate MOU will be
                  developed that will detail enforcement procedures between NOAA and the State.

                                        c) Pollution from Non-Point Sources
                           SRD recognizes the great amount of effort undertaken by the Hawaii C2M program and
                  DOH to develop the Coastal Non-Point Pollution Control Program, pursuant to Section 3.19 of the
                  CWA and Section 6217 of the* CZARA. This program includes both regulatory and n.on-regulatory
                  management measures to control non-point source pollution originating from a variety of sources
                  in the State. The Sanctuary will primarily act to assist these agencies implement measures
                  identified in the non-point pollution control program and to identify other technical and financial
                  assistance to implement these programs. The Sanctuary will look toward these agencies to provide
                  guidance and to help identify areas where the Sanctuary can supplement their efforts to implement
                  the water quality plan, especially as it pertains to long-term monitoring programs and efforts to
                  improve the humpback whale's habitat..

                           Policies that pertain to water quality developed within the Sanctuary program will be
                  closely reviewed and coordinated with the Coastal Zone Management Program and DOH. The
                  Haw'aii Sanctuary's regulatory structure. will not increase restrictions nor result in reduced
                  flexibility of the Hawaii C2M Program or DOH to implement this program. 'Me Sanctuary has
                  already co-sponsored a coastal water quality position with the West Maui Watershed Program and
                  will provide additional support to the DOH this next year for monitoring projects

                                        d) Hazardous Waste, Oil, and Trash Disposal

                           NMFS, Southwest Region (SWR) is the NOAA representative on the Oceanic Region IX
                  Regional Response Team (RRT), and on the Area Committee established under the Oil Pollution
                  Act of 1990. NMFS-SWR will continue to represent NOAA's interests, including those of the
                  Sanctuary, on the RRT and the Area Committee. NMFS-SWR will coordinate with the Sanctuary
                  Manager on issues that may effect the Sanctuary, and bring those concerns to the attention of the
                  RRT and Area Committee. As appropriate, the Sanctuary Manager will be invited to participate on
                  the RRT and Area Committee by the U.S. Coast Guard and EPA.

                           In the event of a spill, NMFS-SV*7R will coordinate with the RRT and Area Committee
                  according to the provisions outlined in the Federal On-Scene Coordinator Area Contingency Plan.
                  For incidents involving the release or potential release of oil or hazardous materials that injure,

                  Page 202                                                                    Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                               and Management Plan







              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale           Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences
              National Marine Sanctuary                                    Associated with Alternative Courses of Action

              destroy or cause the loss of Sanctuary or other NOAA trustee resources, the Damage Assessment
              and Restoration Program (DARP) will assume the lead responsibility within NOAA for conducting
              damage assessment, litigation and restoration activities. SRD may request a co-lead role. NMFS-
              SWR, Pacific Area Office will coordinate and work with other NOAA members of the Damage
              Assessment and Restoration Program (DARP), the Sanctuary, and other Federal agencies to ensure
              that oil spill and hazardous materials wastes disposal response efforts are coordinated.

                      SRD and NNTS are currently developing an MOU to address NOAA management issues
              in the Sanctuary, including coordination under the Fish and Wildlife Act and Oil Spill and
              Hazardous Waste Contingency Planning. The Sanctuary will also work with existing government
              agencies and the public'to promote proper trash disposal and coastal clean-up efforts.

                                  e) Dredged materials

                      Alteration of the seabed activities, including dredge and fill, and their impacts on navigation
              and the environment are regulated by the Corps under Section 10 of the RHA (dredging), by EPA
              and the Corps under Section 404 (discharge of dredge or fill materials) of the CWA, and Section
              103 (ocean disposal of dredge materials) of Title I of the MPRSA. Permits are also required by
              several State agencies for activities in State waters. The Hawaii Departinent of Transportation
              issues permits for ocean dredging, filling, construction and dumping materials below the mean
              high water mark.. A DLNR Conservation District Use Applications (CDUAs) permit may also be
              required for activities conducted in submerged lands-, which is reviewed by the State Land Board
              for potential impacts to state lands.

                      The Sanctuary will work within these existing State and Federal permit review processes to
              ensure Sanctuary concerns are addressed. SRD and NMFS are developing an MOU concerning
              Federal permits and consultations for activities that- affect the Hawaii Sanctuary. NNIFS will
              remain the lead, and work closely with the Sanctuary manager to address Sanctuary concerns
              through existing permit review mechanisms under NEPA and FWCA, and through interagency
              teams, such as the Pacific Regional Dredging Team administered by the Corps. This consolidated
              NUFS and SRD permit review will includes all NEPA actions and other permit programs reviewed
              under the FWCA, such as the CWA Section 404 and RHA Section 10 permits that may affect
              Sanctuary resources. NNFS will remain the lead agency and coordinate between the Corps of
              Engineers and EPA.

                      In addition, SRD is developing an MOU with the State of Hawaii (DOH and DLNR) to
              address discharge and alteration of the seabed activities. This MOU will specify procedures for
              Sanctuary review of applications for State permits relating to discharge and alteration of the seabed
              activities in the Sanctuary. A draft of this MOU can be found in Appendix E. The Sanctuary will
              be able to provide advice and recommendations to DLNR on specific permits, but it will not have
              independent authority to deny any discharge activities issued by DLNR. A separate MOU will be
              developed that will detail enforcement procedures between NOAA and the State

                      The Sanctuary will work within these existing permit review structures to ensure their
              concerns are address, but it will not have independent authority to restrict or deny discharge or
              alteration of the seabed activities under CWA Section 404, RHA Section 10, State of Hawaii
              CDUA permits, or other permits issued by other Federal or State agencies.

                                  f) Ocean disposal sites

                      There are currently five EPA-approved ocean dredge disposal sites in Hawaii. None of
              these disposal sites are located in or adjacent to the proposed Sanctuary boundary. The Corps
              regulates the transport of dredged materials to these sites. The Hawaii Sanctuary regulations do
              not expressly prohibit new ocean disposal sites from being located'within or adjacent to the

              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                           Page 203
              and Management Plan






                 Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                 Associatedwith Alternative Courses of Action                                       National Marine Sanctuary

                 Sanctuary. However, Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (Ocean
                 Dumping Act) establishes general criteria for the selection of disposal sites, including a requirement
                 that EPA consider the impacts of such disposal sites on marine resources and areas possessing
                 significant resources, such as marine sanctuaries. Further, Title I requires EPA to prepare an
                 Annual Report to Congress that assesses the extent to which the marine environment has been
                 impacted by materials disposed at ocean disposal sites, including the movement of such materials
                 into marine sanctuaries.

                          Prior to citing a new ocean disposal site in or near the Sanctuary, EPA and the Corps
                 would be required to consult with SRD, pursuant to the section 304(d) consultation provision of
                 the NMSA. - SRD and NUFS have consolidated the NMSA 304(d) and ESA Section 7
                 consultation provisions. NUFS will remain the lead contact and work with SRD to ensure that the
                 Sanctuary's concerns are addresses. Further, sections 306 and 312 of the NMSA make it
                 unlawful for any person to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure any Sanctuary resource, and
                 provides for liability should such occur, respectively. As regarding disposal sites located outside
                 the boundary, the Sanctuary would be concerned if authorized disposals result in sediment plumes
                 -entering the Sanctuary that could or actually injure a Sanctuary resource. At this.time, the relative
                 impacts of degraded water quality and sediments on humpback whales is relatively unknown.

                                  2) Impacts on Users

                          Under this regulatory preferred alternative the Sanctuary would sup             plernent existing
                 authorities that regulate discharge and deposit activities. This regulation. would not place additional
                 substantive prohibitions, more stringent standards, or independent permits on marine users.
                 Instead, the regulation would requires that the Sanctuary work closely within the existing
                 administrative and regulatory framework established by NUFS, EPA, DOH, and the Corps. The
                 Sanctuary would not add a duplicative permitting or approval process and would not prohibit or
                 restrict discharge or deposit activities which do not require Federal or State authorization. Most
                 ports, harbors, small boat basins, and areas of primary sewage discharge in Hawaii are not
                 included in the proposed Sanctuary boundary and would continue under status. quo management,
                 although Sanctuary managers could comment on individual projects outside the boundaries which
                 might affect the Sanctuary.

                          The only distinction between this alternative and the status quo alternative discussed
                 previously is the additional authority for the Sanctuary under the NMSA to enforce violations of
                 the terms and conditions of permits and other authorizations issued by Federal or State authorities
                 for disposal or discharge activities in the Sanctuary. NOAA-SRD will consult with the appropriate
                 Federal or State agency on any violation of discharge and deposit requirements and authorities
                 before any NMSA enforcement ktion is taken. The actual enforcement process will be detailed in
                 an enforcement agreement that will be developed between NOAA and the State of Hawaii's DOH
                 and DLNR.

                          This added enforcement authority would provide a greater deterrent to violations of existing
                 discharge and deposit regulations. Under the NMSA, the Sanctuary can impose higher maximum
                 civil penalties for violations of Sanctuary regulations than is possible under the MMPA or ESA.
                 The maximum is $100,000 under the NMSA, and $25,000 under the MMPA and ESA. - The
                 maximum civil penalty would not be applied except for repeat offenders or particularly egregious
                 offenders. Irnpacted users would be limited to only those persons subject to the regulations (as
                 opposed to all users of the Sanctuary), and of those, only those persons in violation of Sanctuary
                 regulations. The actual impact on those persons in violation of Sanctuary regulations will be
                 relatively small because enforcement mechanisms are not limited to civil penalties. Rather, oral
                 and written warnings are given routinely in lieu of civil penalties (See Table IV-3). Further, with
                 interpretive enforcement, users subject to Sanctuary regulations will be educated as to, what the
                 regulations are and why they are in place, thus increasing future voluntary compliance and

                 Page 204                                                                Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                        and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale             Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences
              National Marine Sanctuary                                        Associated with Alternative Courses of Action
              decreasing those potentially subject to civil penalties. Consequently, there will be few impact        s to
              Sanctuary users.
                       Education and interpretive enforcement focusing on the Sanctuary discharge and deposit
              regulations will result in greater public compliance of the regulation which will benefit humpback
              whales, thus increasing the experience (enjoyment of the experience as well as recreational and
              aesthetic experience) of Sanctuary resources for all Sanctuary users. Further, in those instances
              where a person who violated a Sanctuary regulation was assessed a civil penalty under the NMSA,
              those civil penalty monies will be returned to the Sanctuary for management and improvement
              (e.g., education and outreach), as opposed to being deposited in the general U.S. Treasury.
              Finally, NMSA enforcement will be coordinated with existing State and Federal authorities to
              minimize duplication of effort, thus minimizing potential ctunulative effects on those users in
              violation of Sanctuary regulations.


                       e. Alteration of the Seabed

                          i. Status Quo: No Additional Regulation

                               1) Impacts on Resources

                       Under the status quo alternative, alteration of the seabed activities will continue to pressure
              the resources of the coastal zone. Deterioration of coastal habitat and degradation of water quality
              will continue if predicted increases occur in activities that involve alteration of and construction on
              the seabed (OSP 1996). These activities include-harbor -expansion, nearshore construction,
              dredging, sand mining and the laying of pipes, cables and mooring buoys on the ocean floor.
              Such activities can result in the disruption or displacement of habitat by humpback whales and
              increased turbidity levels. Moreover, loud noises or vibrations associated with blasting, drilling,
              dredging, and filling may result in the displacement@ injury or even mortality of nearby humpback
              whales (Townsend 1991; Ketten et al. 1993). Large-scale projects, such as the creation of a new
              harbor, can cause permanent loss of habitat. While such losses may be small in comparison to the
              total habitat available, secondary effects such as pollution or human-whale interactions my result
              from more people using the newly created or expanded harbors, boat ramps, moorings, hotels and
              condominiums and thus increase potential threats due to whales. The consequence to humpback
              whales of continuing with the status quo will be ftu-ther degradation of the humpback whale's
              habitat, particularly in coastal areas which are of critical importance to newly born calves.

                       Most alteration of the seabed activities are overseen by the Corps (RHA, Section 404 CWA
              and DLNR (CDUA). Both agencies have permit applications and review processes in place to
              ensure that navigable waters are maintained, human and wildlife needs are addressed, and that the
              State's public lands are used wisely. However, these permits are evaluated on a project by project
              basis, and often no consideration is given to the cumulative effects of such activities on humpback
              whale populations or their habitat. Without a coordinated approach and clear goals for protecting
              the coastal resources, human activities may continue to degrade the humpback whale's habitat. A
              coordinated approach and clear goals for protecting whales habitat from ftu-ther degradation is
              currently lacking.

                               .2) Impacts on Users

                       The Corps is the primary permit-granting authority at the Federal level, and DLNR is the
              primary permitting authority at the State level through the CDUA process. The Corps and DLNR
              circulate permit applications to respective Federal and State agencies for review and comment.
              DOH for impacts on water quality; NMFS for impacts on marine mammals and fisheries; USFWS
              for impacts on turtle and seabirds; and EPA if a Federal environmental impact statement is

              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                Page 205
              and Management Plan







                Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences        Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                Associated with Alternative Courses of Action                                 -National Marine Sanctuary

                required. The Hawaii CZMP is responsible for determining whether proposals are consistent with
                the State CZMA. Each project is evaluated on a case-by-case basis as to its potential impacts on
                commerce, navigation, human uses, and the environnient.
                       The status quo would not add any new regulations or permit requirements. Existing
                Federal, State and local authorities would continue to regulate projects involving alteration or
                construction on the seabed, The Sanctuary would comment on the design and scope of projects as
                they pertain to humpback whales, through the existing penrnit review processes available to the
                general public. There would be minimal impacts to human uses from this alternative. The
                Sanctuary's research and education programs could help ensure that users are familiar with
                existing rules and regulations. Routine harbor maintenance, expansion or construction would
                continue to be regulated by the State-of Hawai@ the counties, Corps, and EPA. New ocean dump
                sites could be established within the Sanctuary upon obtaining EPA and Corps permits. Sand
                mining is currently prohibited, with certain exceptions under State and county regulations.
                Department of the Navy activities such as the placement of passive hydroacoustic arrays and cable
                on the ocean floor or other training exercises would not be affected.


                           ii. Sanctuary Alternative - Preferred: Prohibit alteration of the seabed activities
                               conducted in violation of the terms or conditions of a required Federal or State
                               permit, license, lease or other authorization

                                1) Impacts on Resources

                       Under tins alternative, the Sanctuary would supplement the authority of existing
                agencies-EPA, COE, DOH, and DLNR--that regulate alteration of seabed activities such as
                dredge, drill, fill, and construction. This regulation improves the protection of humpback whale
                habitat by supplementing enforcement of existing alteration of the seabed activities, thereby
                strengthening compliance with the terms and conditions of required leases, permits or licenses
                issued by Federal or State authorities under the Clean Water Act, River and Harbors Act, Marine
                Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act and relevant State laws and codes. This regulation
                does not prohibit or restrict those alteration of the seabed activities which do not require Federal or
                State authorization. The proposed regulation complements and supplements the existing regulatory
                system and ensures that humpback whales and their habitat are given consideration in existing
                permit processes. The Sanctuary would work within the permit review processes of relevant State
                and Federal agencies to ensure that the humpback whale's habitat is maintained and not degraded.

                       The distinction between, this alternative and the status quo alternative discussed previously
                is the additional authority for the Sanctuary to enforce violations of existing Federal and State
                alteration of the seabed regulations under the NMSA and to be involved in their permit review
                process. Thus, the Sanctuary will have the authority under the NMSA to apply enforcement
                mechanisms and pursue civil violations of these discharge and deposit regulations, and will be
                more directly involved in humpback whale protection and management efforts. The net effect of
                the regulation will benefit humpback whales and their wintering habitat (as encompassed by the
                Sanctuary) due to increased deterrence and compliance with regulations in place to protect the
                whales from potentially harmful alteration of the seabed activities. The Sanctuary will consult with
                the appropriate Federal orState agency on any violation before any NMSA enforcement action is
                taken.

                       Since this regulation focuses on a certain types of activity (dredge, fill, marine
                construction, cable laying), the Sanctuary education and research programs can be focused on
                these activities that have the most potential to negatively impact the whales. The overall result is
                greater knowledge of and protection for humpback whales and their habitat. A public that is better
                informed because of Sanctuary resource protections regulations 'will be more aware of the need to

                Page 206                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                   and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale            Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences
             National Marine Sanctuary                                     Associated with Alternative Courses of Action
             respect Sanctuary resources and will be more likely to comply with these existing regulations
             designed to maintain water quality and the integrity of the seabed. Finally, any information gained
             through the Sanctuary's long-term research and monitoring programs will benefit the entire marine
             ecosystem and, in turn, all industries that depend on a healthy marine environment. The net
             environmental effect of this regulation on the Sanctuary area will be positive.

                             2) Impacts on Users

                     Alteration of the seabed activities, including dredge and fill, and their impacts on navigation
             and the environment are regulated by the Corps under Section 10 of the RHA (dredging), by EPA
             and the Corps under Section 404 (discharge of dredge or fill materials) of the CWA, and by
             Section 103 (ocean disposal of dredge materials) of Title I of the -MPRSA. Permits are also
             required by several State agencies for activities in State waters. The Hawaii DLNR issues CDUA
             permits for activities that may affect submerged state lands which are reviewed by the State Land
             Board. The Sanctuary will work within these existing permit review structures to ensure that
             Sanctuary concerns as related to the humpback whales and their habitat are addressed. The
             Sanctuary will not have independent authority to restrict or deny discharge or alteration of the
             seabed activities under CWA Section 404, RHA Section 10, State of Hawaii CDUA permits, or
             other permits issued by other Federal or State agencies. This regulation does not prohibit or
             restrict those alteration of the seabed activities which do not require Federal or State authorization.
             Most ports, harbors and small boat basins are excluded from the proposed Sanctuary boundary
             and would continue under status quo management, although the Sanctuary could still comment on
             projects.

                     SRD and NUFS. are developing an MOU concerning Federal permits and consultations for
             activities that afkct the Hawaii Sanctuary. NUTS will remain the lead, and work closely with the
             Sanctuary manager to address Sanctuary concerns through existing permit review mechanisms
             under N`EPA and FWCA, and through interagency teams, such as the Pacific Regional Dredging
             Team administered by the Corps of Engineers. This consolidated NNTS and SRD permit review
             will include all NEPA actions and other permit programs reviewed under the FWCA, such as the
             'CWA Section 404 and RHA Section 10 permits that may affect Sanctuary resources. NNTS will
             remain the lead agency and coordinate between the Corps of Engineers and EPA.

                     In addition, SRD is developing an MOU with the State of Hawaii (DOH and DLNR) to
             address discharge and alteration of the seabed activities. This MOU will specify procedures for
             Sanctuary review of applications for State permits relating to discharge and alteration of the seabed
             activities in the Sanctuary. A draft of this MOU can be found in Appendix E. The Sanctuary will
             be able to provide advice and recommendations to DLNR on specific permits, but it will not have
             independent authority to deny any discharge activities issued by DLNR. A separate MOU will be
             developed that will detail enforcement procedures between NOAA and the State

                     The only distinction between this alternative and. the status quo alternative discussed
             previously is the additional authority for the Sanctuary under the NMSA to enforce violations of
             the terms and conditions of permits and other authorizations issued by Federal or State authorities
             for alteration of the seabed activities in the Sanctuary. NOAA-SRD will consult with the
             appropriate Federal or State agency on any violation of alteration of the seabed requirements and
             authorities before any NMSA enforcement action is taken. The actual enforcement process will be
             detailed in an enforcement agreement that will be developed between NOAA and the State of
             Hawaii's DOH and DLNR.

                     This added enforcement authority would provide a greater deterrent to violations of existing
             alteration of the seabed regulations. Under the NMSA, the Sanctuary can impose higher maximum
             civil penalties for violations of Sanctuary regulations than is possible under the MNTA or ESA.
             The maximum is $100,000 under the NMSA, and $25,000 under the MMPA and ESA. The

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                            Page 207
             and Management Plan







                Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences         Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                Associated with Alternative Courses of Action                                  National Marine Sanctuary

                maximum civil penalty would not normally be applied except possibly for repeat offenders or
                particularly egregious offenders. Impacted users would be limited to only those persons subject to
                the regulations (as opposed to all users of the Sanctuary), and of those, only those persons in
                violation of Sanctuary regulations. The actual impact on those persons in violation of Sanctuary
                regulations will be relatively small because enforcement mechanisms are not limited to civil
                penalties. Rather, oral and written warnings are given routinely in lieu of civil penalties (See Table
                IV-3). Further, with interpretive enforcement, users subject to Sanctuary regulations will - be
                educated as to what the regulations are and why they are *'in place, thus increasing future voluntary
                compliance and decreasing those potentially subject to civil penalties. Consequently, there will be
                few impacts to Sanctuary users.

                        Education and interpretive enforcement focusing on the Sanctuary alteration of the seabed
                regulation will result in greater public compliance of the regulations which will benefit humpback
                whales, thus increasing- the experience (enjoyment of the experience as well as recreational and
                aesthetic experience) of Sanctuary resources for all Sanctuary users. Further, in those instances
                where a person who violated a Sanctuary regulation was assessed a civil penalty under the NMSA,
                those.civil penalty monies will be returned to the Sanctuary for management and improvement
                (e.g., education and outreach), as opposed to being deposited in the general U.S. Treasury.
                Finally, NMSA enforcement will be coordinated with existing State and Federal authorities to
                  . . .   duplication of effort, thus minimizing potential cumulative effects on those users in
                violation of Sanctuary regulations.


                D. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

                    1. ConseQW&nces of No Sanctu= Alternative

                        Should the Sanctuary be rejected by the State of Hawaii and subsequently terminated by the
                Secretary of Commerce, the main economic impact will be the loss to the State economy of any
                Federal Congressional appropriations for the Sanctuary, which would otherwise have been spent
                in Hawaii for salaries, contracts, supplies, rent, etc. Consumer surplus from improved visitor
                satisfaction due to the Sanctuary's educational,- research and enforcement efforts would also be
                lost, as would any benefits to the tourist industry from any increases in tourism due to Sanctuary
                designation. There will be no direct economic impact to user groups from the removal of the
                Sanctuary from State waters, however, several full time contractors and ongoing education and
                research projects would be terminated. Existing authorities and regulations will continue to apply,
                but there will be no central agency coordination, enhanced enforcement, direct public involvement
                in whale management, and no Sanctuary-sponsored education, research, or interpretation as
                described in Part V. The human pressure on areas shared with the humpback whale will continue
                to increase, as will the number of conflicts, even if the whale population remains at its current
                level. Whether any 'new institutions would be as comprehensive and timly as the Sanctuary is
                unknown. Humpback whale critical habitat designation by NUFS und            *er the ESA may become
                more likely, and would probably include certain areas. of the main Hawaiian Islands important for
                reproduction and nursing activities.

                   2. Qnsequences of Acccpjing Status Qw Al=ative
                        Presently, numerous Federal, State, and various other regional and county government
                agencies are vested with some regulatory authority over specific resources and human activities.
                However, no single entity has management jurisdiction to ensure coordinated and comprehensive
                management and protection of humpback whales and their habitat. Generally, each agency
                manages a narrow geographic area, species or functional jurisdiction. Present arrangements,
                therefore, fail to provide the scope and invite the public. participation needed for sufficient
                protection of humpback whales and their habitat. Although humpback whales are protected

                Page 208                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                   and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale           Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences
              National Marine Sanctuary                                   Associated with Alternative Courses of Action
              primarily under two laws--the MAPA and the ESA-resource limitations have prevented the
              implementation of numerous education, research and long-term monitoring and enforcement
              initiatives. Moreover, the humpback whale and its Hawaiian habitat are not the sole focus of these
              laws. The formal designation of the. Sanctuary requires the Sanctuary management. to focus on
              providing coordination of existing regulatory structures and non-regulatory programs to ensure
              long-term protection of the humpback whales and their habitat.

                     a. Sanctuary Resources

                     The HR*4MSA specifically identifies humpback whales and their habitat as Sanctuary
              resources. However, the HINMSA also mandates the Sanctuary to identify other "marine
              resources and ecosystems of national significance for possible inclusion in the Sanctuary." The
              Sanctuary is not however obligated to include other resources under its management regime. The
              status quo alternative would only consider the humpback whale and its habitat.

                     This alternative would focus attention on the humpback whale and its habitat as the primary
              Sanctuary resources. Habitat increases the scope of management concern, but it does so in a way
              which links the concerns of the habitat to the needs of humpbacks. This focus on humpback
              whales satisfies the concerns of many Hawaii resource users who want to minimize the
              management authority of the Federal Government in State waters. This limited scope may have
              fewer potential negative or positive impacts on resources users than would the scope of the
              Sanctuary if it were to include other marine resources or the ecosystem.

                     b. Administration

                     The status quo administrative option would delegate most Sanctuary management
              responsibilities to an existing Federal or State agency. This option could reduce the administrative
              costs, including office space and staff, needed to manage a site. However, existing agencies are
              already limited in their budgets for staff *and programs, and may not be able to effectively
              implement the numerous responsibilities of the Sanctuary in addition to their own responsibilities.
              Existing agencies also lack the institutional knowledge and experience that SRD has in managing
              national marine sanctuaries. Moreover, in this era of shrinking government' agencies, existing
              agencies may not be able to create the necessary infrastructure or hire sufficient staff to administer
              the site. Retaining the Sanctuary within an existing agency would also inhibit the development of
              an independent Sanctuary identity and may actually foster status quo management. In turn, this
              would not improve and supplement existing management efforts. Sanctuary management would
              be very -complicated and uncoordinated if the research, education and enforcement components of
              the management program were split up between different State and Federal agencies.

                     c. Research and Education

                     The existing management system contains no coordination mechanism for maximizing the
              area's value for research and education, which could best be done through a comprehensive
              program framework. A variety of different individuals and organizations conduct significant
              research and outreach efforts in the Hawaiian Islands. Much of this work has been supported by
              private or non-profit organizations through public contributions and foundation grants.              In
              addition, government agencies such as the NMFS fund research and education projects when
              funding is available. However, to date, State and Federal agencies have not had the ability to
              commit significant resources to support coordinated humpback whale research and education
              programs. As a result, scientific research and information dissemination on humpback whales has
              been pursued in a fragmented fashion which often does not address specific management needs.




              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                          Page 200
              and Management Plan






                Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences       Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                Associated with Alternative Courses of Action                                National Marine Sanctuary


                        d. Enforcement

                        A reliable and effective enforcement capability is necessary to ensure that regulations are
                observed. Currently, humpback whale approach regulations are enforced by NMF-S-OE, with
                assistance by officers from USCG and the Marine Patrol. Officers from these agencies have been
                deputized through a Cooperative Agreement with NUFS to enforce Federal regulations for the
                protection of endangered species, including the humpback whale. These agencies have all been cut
                back in their budgets for staff and operations and have had to reduce on-water enforcement efforts.
                        A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) exists within NOAA between NMF9 and NOS
                concerning the enforcement'16f laws within National Marine Sanctuaries (Jan. 1992; amended in
                March 1993). NMFS-OE is responsible for enforcement within designated Sanctuaries. This
                measure was developed to achieve greater economy by eliminating duplication of effort in the
                oversight and administration of NOAA enforcement efforts.

                    3. ConseguenGes of Sanctu= Preferred Altgmatiye

                        This alternative supports full-time staffing and immediate Sanctuary presence in the
                Hawaiian Islands in order to cultivate Sanctuary support gained, and Sanctuary management
                conducted, during the development of the site. The wide variety of opportunities for interpretation
                and research requires the full-time attention of individual research and education 6oordinators. The
                Sanctuary Manager would be able to devote her/himself to the comprehensive coordination of
                existing agencies involved with resource protection. This initiative would help make the transition
                to full-time management, and to solidify.public support for the Sanctuary in its stewardship role.

                        a. Sanctuary Resources (Future Consideration of Other Resources)

                        In addition to the humpback whale and its habitat, the HH'4MSA calls for the identification
                of other resources of national significance for possible inclusion in the Sanctuary. At this time,
                NOAA and the State do not believe that an ecosystem-based Sanctuary is appropriate for Hawaii at
                the present time because of recent efforts by the State to develop and implement the recently
                completed Hawaii Ocean Resource Management Plan . However, to fulfill the requirements of the
                HI114MSA, the Sanctuary has developed a process which provides for the identification of marine
                resources and ecosystems of national significance for possible inclusion in the Sanctuary. The
                Sanctuary is not however, obligated to include other resources in the management regime.
                        The Sanctuary Management Plan outlines a process to identify and possibly include. other
                marine resources based on the support and assistance of the State, the Sanctuary Advisory.
                Council, user groups, and other members of the public. This process allows a reasoned and
                participatory approach to identifying resources, gathering information, and soliciting input and
                support from the public. There is little doubt that the community is divided on this issue. In time,
                NOAA would prefer to see a large marine ecosystem considered in toto, and including all major
                species and resources. However, additional resources will only be included after a very thorough
                review and public process. The impacts of adding additional resources to the scope of the
                Sanctuary management program would not be known until a detailed analysis is completed of
                added management measures, if any are determined to be needed.

                        b. Administration

                        Under the preferre  d management alternative, Sanctuary administration functions and-
                programs would be phased in, with initial emphasis placed on research and education/interpretative
                activities. An independent administrative and management system would be housed in a NOAA-
                operated facility; Sanctuary staff members would be hired or contracted as needed. They would
                work under the direction of the Sanctuary manager to carry out the Sanctuary goals for research,

                Page 210                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                 and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale           Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences
             National Marine Sanctuary                                    Associated with Alternative Courses of Action

             long-term monitoring, education, outreach and enforcement. As an independent entity that
             internally has a citizen Sanctuary Advisory Council and other working groups within its
             management structure, the Sanctuary would be in a better position to coordinate and facilitate
             discussions between agencies and the public. The socioeconomic impacts would be positive in
             that the Sanctuary operations would bring money into the Hawaiian economy in terms of salaries,
             contracts, supplies and facilities, and the programs carried out by the Sanctuary staff would benefit
             the resources and users of the resources.

                     c. Research and Education

                     The impacts, resulting from implementation of the research and education program are
             expected to be positive. The research program would coordinate the study of humpback whales
             and their habitat with developing effective management strategies. The education and outreach
             program would be designed to enhance public awareness of humpback whales and their Hawaiian
             habitat, and the importance of protecting such a special marine resource.

                     The research program would provide a coordinated effort to obtain vital baseline and
             monitoring,data on humpback whales and their habitat, and on human activities in the Sanctuary.
             Information on the humpback whale's population abundance, distribution, behavior, and habitat
             needs would be used in assessing the health of the Hawaiian Islands marine. environment and the
             effects of human activity in the area. This would improve management's ability to develop long-
             term planning for the Sanctuary and for humpback whale recovery efforts.

                     While some whale research can be done from observation platforms on land using spotting
             scopes, studies involving photography for. fluke identification, gender determination, behavioral
             responses, etc. require closer observation of the whales in their natural environment than the 100
             yards normally allowed Researchers who approach humpback whales within 100 yards are
             required to get a NWS MMPA/ESA research permit. To avoid a duplicative review process,
             SRD and   'NMFS-Office of Protected Resources have developed a MOU to jointly review and
             comment on M[MPA/ESA research permit applications. Thus, the Sanctuary will work within the
             existing MWA/ESA research permit process to address Sanctuary concerns. The net effect on the
             research community will be minimal since they will not be required to obtain a separate Sanctuary
             permit.

                     One of the purposes of the Sanctuary is to conduct or to sponsor research on Sanctuary
             resources. Much of the Sanctuary-funded research will address specific management issues and
             provide opportunities for researchers to share techniques and exchange information.               The
             Sanctuary will work closely with NUFS, the Marine Mammal Commission, MMPA scientific
             review groups, local and national researchers, and other interested parties to sponsor field
             workshops, symposia, or other programs to enhance the exchange of information. The Sanctuary
             will also encourage research on other marine resources and ecosystems so that the Sanctuary
             Manager, the Sanctuary Advisory Council, and ultimately NOAA can determine whether other
             resources should be included in the Sanctuary. Research and long-term monitoring programs can
             provide the Sanctuary and other resource managers with the necessary information for better
             resource management and protection. The Management Plan proposes that the SAC establish a
             Research Working Group to focus on'complementing existing efforts and filling needed research
             gaps.

                      To date, the Sanctuary has provided funds to assist graduate students in the completion of
             research reports, co-sponsored and funded research coordination meetings and technical
             consultations, and. funded and collaborated with NMFS to organize a "Workshop to Assess
             Research and Other Needs and Opportunities Related to Humpback Whale Management in the
             Hawaiian Islands," held in Kaanapali, Maui on April 26-28, 1995. This last workshop brought


             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                          Page 211
             and Management Plan






                Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences        Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                Associated with Alternative Courses of Action                                 National Marine Sanctuary

                together researchers and resource managers to help NMFS and the Sanctuary identify priorities in
                the implementation of the Humpback Whale Recovery Plan and the Sanctuary Management Plan.

                        The Sanctuary Education and Outreach Program will also play a crucial role in Sanctuary
                management efforts. NOAA is a scientific and management agency often described as the "Earth
                Sciences" agency. The direction received from the leadership of NOAA places great emphasis on
                using the sciences to benefit the resources as well as the public, either working independently or
                cooperatively with existing institutions and organizations. Projects will be initiated to achieve one
                of the purposes of the HE*4MSA, "to educate and interpret for the public the relationship of
                humpback whales to the Hawaiian Islands marine environment." The Management Plan [Part
                V(D)] identifies the goals, objectives, and strategies to achieve those objectives. Funds will be
                used to develop educational programs or support the development of programs which can be used
                by schools, information or visitor centers, and marinas.

                        The Sanctuary has also sought out opportunities for partnerships with government agencies
                and the private sector to develop educational outreach programs. For example, the Sanctuary
                worked with the State, Maui County and the Pacific Whale Foundation to develop the "Watching
                Hawaii's Humpback Whales" brochure, worked with NUFS to develop a pocket humpback whale
                information/approac*h regulation guide, participated in numerous whale celebrations, and
                developed educational displays with other organizations and museums. The Sanctuary has also
                initiated a Maui Education Working Group to help identify priorities for educational programs and
                to promote information exchange. This group will serve as a model for an SAC Education
                Working Group.

                        d. Enforcement

                        The overall impacts of the Sanctuary enforcement program should be positive since its goal
                is enhanced coordination and support of existing authorities, and to achieve voluntary compliance
                through education. The authority vested in NMFS under MMPA and the ESA have been used to
                protect humpback whales in Hawaii since the 1970s. The Sanctuary Management Plan calls for
                the continued use of that authority to prevent the 'taking" or harassment of whales. The
                Sanctuary wiU rely upon a MOU between NUFS and NOS concerning the enforcement of laws
                within National Marine Sanctuaries. Under      'the terms of the MOU, NMFS-OE will provide
                enforcement in the Sanctuary, in consultation with the Sanctuary manager. NMFS also has a
                Cooperative Agreement with USCG and DLNR-DOCARE, which deputizes these agencies to
                enforce MNWA and ESA regulations. The Sanctuary will work with@DOH, DLNR, EPA, USCG,
                and COE to cooperatively monitor and enforce existing water quality, discharge, and alteration of
                the seabed regulations. NOAA will consult with the appropriate Federal or State agencies on any
                violation of discharge and alteration of the seabed requirements and authorities. Ultimately,
                NOAA will seek to develop a'MOU or other form of agreement between the Sanctuary and other
                agencies on coordinated enforcement activities and actions.

                        Throughout the Sanctuary scoping process and at subsequent town meetings, numerous
                individuals and organizations expressed concern that the Sanctuary would lead to closure of their
                businesses and loss of their livelihoods or way of life. Many were worried that the Sanctuary
                would become more intrusive in the future and place restrictions on their. activities.     Since the
                existing authorities will serve as the basis for enforcement, an analysis of historical enforcement is
                provided below.

                        Table IV-3 shows by year, a history of enforcement of the approach regulations by the
                NMFS Southwest Enforcement Division, with the number of complaints received (often phoned in
                by other marine users or other agencies), the type of harassment reported, and warnings and
                citations issued. While the number of citations reflects to some degree the number of patrol days
                by agents, it also reflects the reporting of individual observations of violations on land or water.

                Page 212                                                           Final Envirorunental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan










                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     z x
                         TAB, L19 IV -3:                Record        of Enforcement Activities for the Protection of Hawaiian                                                        Islands Humpback Whales
                                                                                                                    sh
                    Year        Complaints       Sailing      Power       Wind        Hand        Thrill    Commercial      Aircraft     Whale Research           Other       Total Warnings Citations             Unfounded              aul
                                 Received       Vessels      Vessels     Surfer      Power        Craft      Fishermen                   Watch                                                                     or Lack of             at I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Evidence              Da s           CL
                    1976-7              58            3            8          0            0          0             0            3             5          9            0           28 1      2            2-1                             NR
                    1977-8              51            6            7          0            0          0             1            4             3          6            0           27 1      3            4                               NR
                    -1978-9             35            9            7          0            0          1             1            0             1          2            2           23        6            7                               NR
                                                                                                                                               Ull            ANUARY
                                                                                                      PRETATION OF
                                                                                                                                                  LIS     D
                    -1979-80            16            3            1          0            0          0             0            6             0          6            0.          16        0                                            NR
                    1990-1              24            1            5          0            0          0             0            4             3          8            3           24        0            3                               NR
                    1981-2              28            3            7          0            0          0             0            2             4          7            3           26        12                                           104
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          116            P_
                    1982-3              66            16           19         3            4          1             1            5             19         It           1           79        21           6                                              ep
                    19834               35            5            11         0            2          2             0            0             7          8            0           35        20           2                               117
                    1984-5              19            5            3          0            2          1             0            0             6          0            1           18        13           .0                              67
                    1985-6
                    Maui                38            6            9          2            1          2             0            3             7          5            3           39        20                            15             80
                    Other Is.           I                          I
                    1986-7
                    Maui                35            8            11         3            0          0             1            0             6          4            2           35        12                            23             76
                    Other Is.           10            1            4          0            1          0             0            0             1          2            2           11        3                             8
                    1987-8
                    Maui                68            19           24         0            4          2             2            1             4          7            6           1         22                            39             73
                    Other Is.           26            1            11         1            0          0             o            o             3          6    1       4           26        7
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           19
                                                                              JFR C"                                                                                                           i.4 Elt4j'@ 19; 8
                                                                   "0 1. P      ow,        M04
                    1988-9
                    Maui                38            2            8          0            8          2             1            1             9          6            1           38                                      18             57
                                                                                                                                                                                             8
                    -Other Is.          18            2            7          0            1          0             1            1             2          4            0           [a        7                             9              -
                    1989-90
                    Maui                23            2            to         1            2          1             0            1             3          1            2           23        7                             11             61
                    Other Is.           13            0            6          0            0.         1             0            2             3          1            0           13        0        '_::@':of            12
                    T9-9-6: -I                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Z1
                    Maui                40            4            11         0            4          0                          1             16         7            2           40        12                            19             65
                                        12            2            7          1            0          1             01           1             0          0            0           12        0
                    Other Is.
                    1991-2*             86            0            25         12           24  1      1             0            2             13         0            9           86        11           17".             56             202
                    1992-3*             47            3            10         0            6   1      1             2            0             9          12           4           47        7                             30             122
                    -F9-93-4*           43            3            0          3            9          0             0            0             9          4            8           43                                      39             Ill
                    1994-5
                    Maui                28            1            4          1            7          0             0            2             0          0            13          28      N/A          IN/A               27             103-
                    Other Is.                                      7          0. -0                   1             0            0             5                       3           16      N/A          N/A                0
                    f9-95-6*
                    Maui                41            9            9                       3          3                          3             4                                                                           A
                                                                                                      -                          2             -          I                                N/A          WA              N/A                          CD  0
                                                                                                                                                                       1           41      N/A          N/A             N/                           <
                    Other Is.           19            1            7                       5                                                                                                                                                         o   a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     0
                       NMFS Office of Enforcement concentrates the majority of its humpback whale enforcement in the Four-Island area of Maui County,
                       although the data combines Maui County with the other islands.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     0
                        In 1995-6 there were 2 unknown vessels reported and 10 humpback whale strandings.
          QQ
           a        N/A: Data not available
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  @
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          S


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          M
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Pat
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Da
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          NR
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          NR




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          2651
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          02
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          2


















                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     0







               Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences         Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
               Associated with Alternative Courses of Action                                   National Marine Sanctuary

                       From 1976 through 1991, most complaints were lodged against power vessel operators,
               whale watch vessel operators, researchers an     'd sailing vessel operators. Few complaints were
               recorded against commercial fishers, and no citations have been issued to them. Records show
               that a substantial number of the complaints have involved activities on islands other than Maui, but
               that few citations have actually been issued as, a result, whether because of a lack of evidence or
               because the complaints were felt to be unfounded. 'NMFS-OE requires corroborating evidence to
               support a complaint in the form of photos, film or video; otherwise, it is difficult to enforce the
               approach regulations if an enforcement officer is not physically present when the violation occurs.
               For the latest 1993-1994 season of record, the NMFS investigated a total of 47 complaints during
               the migration season and took formal action in only eight cases. None of the incidents involved
               commercial whale watching vessels operating in Maui County. One case involved a charter vessel
               from Honolulu and another involved a charter helicopter in Kauai County. The remaining six
               incidents involved private citizens that allegedly violated the NUFS approach regulations (E.
               Witham, pers. comm. 1994).

                       NNTS issued nearly three times as many warnings as actual citations--4he intent - of
               enforcement is not to issue as many citations as possible, but rather to achieve compliance with the
               regulations. The enhanced enforcement the Sanctuary will bring does not necessarily imply an
               increase in -the number of enforcement officers or in the issuance of citations -for violation of whale
               approach regulations. Part of the increased effort will be to educate users about the approach
               regulations and other Sanctuary regulations, as these address activities most likely to have some
               impact to humpback whales or their habitat. The Sanctuary will also work to initiate and foster
               better dialogue between the user groups and the enforcement officers. Enforcement efforts will      I be
               expanded throughout the main Hawaiian Islands if the preferred Sanctuary boundary alternative is
               ultimately selected. Successful enforcement, however, will be measured over time by fewer
               complaints and citations, better informed marine users, and higher compliance with the
               regulations.

                       Historically, citations or fines, for violation of the NNTS humpback whale approach
               regulations have ranged from a few hundred to several thousand dollars, and, in a few cases, to
               the confiscation of personal property such as a wind-surfboard. Fines are levied according to the
               violation and the surrounding circurn tan es. Penalties for regulations established under the
               NMSA are created under civil law and therefore differ from those established under some other
               Federal/State jurisdictions within the Sanctuary (those established under criminal law). This will
               have both positive environmental benefits and overall positive socioeconomic benefits for the
               Sanctuary. The resources of the Sanctuary will receive a greater level of protection by'providing
               civil authority to other agencies through cross-deputization. Enforcement of regulations is best
               facilitated by agencies cross deputizing to enforce civil penalties.    -
                       Civil authority and coordinated enforcement under the NMSA have positive socioeconomic
               impacts on society in general in that there are cost savings to the publicwhen agencies can share
               authorities and combine human and material resources. The Sanctuary regulations provide_
               supplemental civil penalty options. In some cases, civil may be more appropriate than criminal. in
               some cases, use of both civil and criminal may be appropriate. The resources can be better
               protected when there are more options for individuals enforcing the regulations. This, in turn,
               should lead to greater environmental and socio-economic benefits.
                       Civil authority lends itself more freely to an educational and interpretive approach to
               enforcement of regulations in National Marine Sanctuaries. Simply the message that something is
               a Sanctuary violation is all that is needed to gain compliance with the vast majority of Sanctuary
               users. This concept underscore of the most important goals of a Sanctuary enforcement program -
               - to obtain through education voluntary compliance with regulations in place which provide
               Protection (directly and indirectly) for humpback whales and their habitat., However, if voluntary
               enforcement is not effective, the NMSA provides the authority for NOAA to assess civil penalties

               Page 214                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale           Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences
             National Marine Sanctuary                                    Associated with Alternative Courses of Action

             of up to $ 100,000 per day, per violation. While it is very unlikely that a violation of the whale
             approach rules would result in the levy of such a high fine, the Sanctuary program has the option
             to assess a range of civil penalties based on the circumstances of the violation. Furthermore, civil
             penalties collected under the NMSA may be used to manage and improve the Sanctuary.


             E., UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONIMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS

                     The implemen  tation of a management plan designed to protect humpback whales and their
             habitat will not produce adverse environmental impacts, regardless of the management alternative
             selected for regulations, boundaries, research, long-term monitoring, education, and outreach.
             Humpback whales . and their habitat will benefit from additional research, educational and
             protective measures. The Management Plan does not envision implementing projects related to th6
             Sanctuary which would degrade environmental quality.

                     The attention drawn by the mere fact of Sanctuary designation may increase the number of
             tourists to Hawaii, at least temporarily. This in turn will lead to some socioeconomic benefits, due
             to increased tourist dollars---and some socioeconomic costs, due to increased pressure on the
             habitat (pollution and human-whale interactions). However, publicity for Hawaii is already high
             from other causes, and Sanctuary designation is not expected to add substantially to the rapidly
             increasing annual flow of tourists. Both positive and negative socioeconomic impacts from
             increased tourism are expected to be relatively minor. A greater consequence of the Sanctuary is
             likely to be the enhanced experience of those visitors who would have come to Hawaii in any, case.

                     Certain human activities may be affected because of the need to protect the whales. Since
             the Sanctuary will essentially rely on existing Federal and State authorities to protect the humpback
             whales and their habitat, these effects will not be attributable to the Sanctuary per se. For example,
             the State of Hawaii administers ppvisions of the Clean Water -Act regulating point-source
             discharges and requiring discharges to meet minimum water quality standards.                     These
             requirements would not change under the Sanctuary management regime and the social and
             economic impacts caused by them would continue. The Sanctuary may make recommendations on
             permit applications through consultation with other agencies, that conditions be placed on activity
             permits in order to lessen impacts on humpback whales or their habitat. These recommendations,
             if adopted, may place some additional economic or social constraints on the applicant, however,
             any such impacts will likely be outweighed by the benefits to Sanctuary resources. Moreover,
             agencies are not mandated to follow such recommendations. Finally, if certain violations of law
             are prosecuted under the NMSA , violators could potentially face civil fines greater than the current
             maximum under other laws, although it is likely that in most instances, fines will not significantly
             increase over those assessed under the MMPA and the ESA.


















             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                           Page 215
             and Management Plan






                 Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                 Associated with Alternative Courses of Action                                      National Marine Sanctuary

                 F. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE
                     MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

                         Hawaii is one of the largest single breeding areas for humpback whales in the world.
                 Sanctuary designation emphasizes the importance of the humpback whale and its Hawaiian habitat.
                 The overall purpose of the Sanctuary's Management Plan and its strategies for agency
                 coordination, research, education, and enforcement is to enhance long-term protection and         ' increase
                 public awareness and appreciation for these resources. The Management Plan does. not- propose
                 any short-term uses of the environment which would degrade long-term productivity. Increased
                 protection of humpback whale habitat and greater compliance with existing regulations will likely
                 benefit other marine species in Hawaii and contribute to a healthier marine environment in the long-
                 term.



                 G. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROPOSED ACTION AND E)USTING RESOURCE
                     MANAGENIENT PLANS

                     I - 1"acts Related to Man=ment Plan R=oses

                         Section 2306 of the HINMSA calls for the preparation of a comprehensive management
                 plan to:
                            Facilitate all public and private uses of the Sanctuary (including uses of
                            Hawaiian natives customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence,
                            cultural, and religious purposes) consistent with the primary objective of
                            the protection of humpback whales and their habitat.

                         The Management Plan and regulations do not open up access to public and private uses
                 where th  'ose uses and activities are restricted by other laws, regulations, or governance options.
                 For example, the Sanctuary would not open up access to restricted use zones such as the State
                 MLCD's, military exclusion or target zones, or other areas designated by FederaL State, or county
                 authorities with more restrictive standards. The Sanctuary Management Plan would place no
                 prohibitions on activities and uses which are in compliance with existing authorities. The
                 Management Plan provides for the establishment of a Sanctuary Advisory Council which will be
                 representative of the many public and private* uses of the marine environment in order to ensure
                 that the concerns of these users are given every consideration in future Sanctuary related activities
                 (see Part V and Appendix D). The Management Plan also proposes a proactive program to work
                 with various users, including Native Hawaiians, to facilitate their continued use and access to the
                 marine waters.

                             Set forth         the allocation         of Federal          and State           enforcement
                             responsibilities, as jointly agreed by the Secretary and the State of
                             Hawaii; and ensure coordination and cooperation between Sanctuary
                             managers and other-Federal, State and local authorities with jurisdiction
                             within or adjacent to the Sanctuary.

                         The Management Plan's preferred regulatory alternative is to utilize existing authorities,'
                 and allow all activities within or outside of the Sanctuary which are conducted under, and in
                 compliance with, a required permit, license, lease or other specific authorization from other Federal
                 and State authorities. One of the benefits of the program will be its ability to ensure coordination
                 and cooperation among appropriate agencies. The benefits associated with such coordination and
                 cooperation are often subtle, but important, because the potential for conflict is minimized and
                 better management decisions are ultimately made.


                 Page 216                                                                Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                        and Management Plan






              Haw aiian Islands Humpback Whale               Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences
              National Marine Sanctuary                                           Associated with Alternative Courses of Action

                           Identify research needs and establish a long-term ecological monitoring
                          program with respect to humpback whales and their habitat.

                       The Management Plan describes the elements of a long-term research and monitoring
              program along with priorities and a method for determining research needs. The Sanctuary
              Manager, the Research Coordinator, the Sanctuary Advisory Council, and NMFS will hc1p to set
              an agenda to meet the goals and objectives of all pertinent legislation--the ESA, the MMPA, the
              NMSA, and the HINMSA. The task will be to ensure that funding devoted to research and
              monitoring will complement other activities and to strive to incorporate research findings into
              management. Many other interested parties are conducting research on humpback whales in
              Hawaii, including academic institutions, non-profit organizations, and other government agencies,
              and all have legitimate roles. There may be a point at which coordination between researchers and
              sharing a common database or research protocol may benefit not only the research community, but
              the whales as well.

                  2. Relationship BeiReen Sanctu= Management Plan and Other Humpback Whale and Ocean
                       Man=ment Plans and Programs

                       a. Final Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale

                       The Final -Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale seeks to achieve a level"of 60 percent of
              the pre-commercial exploitation population (considered a maximum sustainable yield level) before
              NMFS will consider downlisting it Erom endangered to threatened, or de-listing the humpback
              whale as an endangered species altogether (NMFS, 1991). In Hawaii, this would equate to a
              population of approximately 9,000 whales for the eastern North Pacific stock. Recent estimates
              indicate that perhaps some 3,000 whales migrate to Hawaii each winter (Mobley et al. 1993). It
              may take many more years of directed or focused attention, not just in Hawaii, but in Alaska and
              other Pacific Coast environments and perhaps the waters off Japan, to ensure that the population
              can continue to increase by ensuring that human activities remain compatible and habitats remain
              conducive to the recovery effort.

                       The Final Recovery Plan identifies four major objectives which will help lead to a recovery
              of the whale population. The objectives include:

                       ï¿½ maintain and enhance habitats used by humpback whales currently or historically;
                       ï¿½ identify and reduce direct human-related injury and mortality;
                       ï¿½ measure and monitor key population parameters; and
                       ï¿½ improve administration and coordination of recovery program for humpback whales.
                       Both the Management'Plan and Annual Plans for the Sanctuary will be able to materially
              assist in achieving these objectives and many of the relevant sub-tasks identified under each
              objective. The Management Plan suggests that the Recovery Plan serve as a guide to direct some
              of the future efforts of Sanctuary implementation. Furthermore, in Hawaiian waters, the
              Sanctuary will be able to provide a leadership role in recovery; as one Sanctuary objective is to
              provide a comprehensive and coordinating role for the protection of humpback whales. The
              National Marine Sanctuary Program will be able to form linkages and support for NMFS activities
              in these other areas of the Pacific in order to develop a more comprehensive program for
              humpback whale protection.

                       b. Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan

                       In order to understand how the Sanctuary will be coordinated with the existing
              management regime in Hawaii, it is useful to examine the State's policy on marine ecosystem
              protection as articulated in the Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan (ORMP) developed by

              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                    Page 217
              and Management Plan






                 Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                 Associated with Alternative Courses of Action                                      National Marine Sanctuary

                 the Hawaii Ocean and Marine Resources Council (OMRC). The                  ORMP    9s I section on marine
                 ecosystem protection presents main objectives and p6licies:

                         The main objective is to:
                         Provide for protection of marine and coastal ecosystems, and establish a comprehensive
                         system of marine and coastal protected areas within an integrated program which protects,
                         preserves, and enhances marine species and areas of exceptional resource value on each
                         main island, representing each of the natural ecosystems and resourcesfound in the marine
                         and coastal environment of the State (OMRC 1991:27).

          V              The four main policies to implement these objective are:
                 Policy A: Expand protection of species, , natural habitats, and other resources of
                 exceptional value, thereby minimizing environmental degradation from marine and
                 coastal activities and uses (OMRC 1991:27).
                         Implementing actions direct DLNR and the Hawa            -Hii Office of State Planning (OSP) to
                 prepare "a comprehensive and cohesive statewide master plan for marine and coastal protected
                 areas ... "; "identify areas of exciptional resource value which should be considered for protected
                 area status"; and "establish a system of marine and coastal protected areas throughout the State to
                 protect the best examples of these natural ecosystems and resources on each island" (OMRC
                 1991:27). The establishment of the Sanctuary in Hawaii can -complement this effort because the
                 HINMSA states that the purposes of the Sanctuary are, inter alia       . ..... to protect humpback whales
                 and their habitat;" "to manage such human uses of the Sanctuary consistent with this subtitle and
                 Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act;" and "...to provide for the
                 identification of marine resources and ecosystems of national significance for possible inclusion in
                 the Sanctuary."

                 Policy B:. Facilitate coordinated and comprehensive inter-agency management
                 where jurisdiction overlaps exist between Federal, state, and county governments
                 in marine and coastal protected areas (OMRC 1991. 28).

                         Implementing actions direct DLNR and OSP, in conjunction with appropriate Federal,
                 State, and county agencies, to "facilitate and coordinate Federal, state, and private-cooperative
                 research and monitoring efforts at developing baseline information regarding the locations of
                 critical habitats of endangered and threatened species"; "Encourage the designation of these critical
                 habitats as protected areas"; and "Encourage joint efforts of Federal, State, county, private, and
                 community involvement in marine life and water quality monitoring programs" (OMRC 1991:28).
                 The establishment of the Sanctuary could complement these efforts. According to the HINMSA,
                 the Sanctuary Management Plan is to "ensure coordination and cooperation between Sanctuary
                 managers and other Federal, State, and county authorities with jurisdiction within or adjacent to the
                 Sanctuary."

                 Policy@ C. Improve enforcement of regulations protecting marine and coastal
                 protected areas and species (OMRC 1991:29).

                         Implementing actions include establishing several Memoranda of Understanding between
                 Federal and State agencies to enable personnel from these agencies to enforce both State and
                 Federal regulations" (OMRC 1991:29). The HRqMSA states that the Sanctuary Management Plan
                 shall "...set forth*the allocation of Federal and State enforcement responsibilities, as jointly agreed
                 by the Secretary [of Commerce] and the State of Hawaii". This builds on efforts already
                 underway such as the cross-deputization of State enforcement agency personnel to enforce Federal
                 laws and regulations. The Marine Patrol has been deputized to enforce NMFS rules regarding

                 Page 218                                                                Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                        and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socio 'economic Consequences
              National Marine Sanctuary                                           Associated with Alternative Courses of Action

              harassment of marine mammals. There have been other efforts, to coordinate enforcement
              activities, such as a UH Sea. Grant supported project called REACH (Resource Enforcement And
              Conservation Hawaii) that sponsored a series of workshops for Federal, State, and county
              enforcement agencies to improve coordination and public participation.

              Policy D: Enhance local community awareness, appreciation, and participation in
              marine conservation and preservation efforts (OMRC 1991. 29)@,
                       Various implementing actions include holding public programs focusing on natural,
              culturaL and historical values; facilitating public participation in ocean resources management plan.
              development; and supporting the development of interpretive centers (OMRC 199 1).                            T he
              HR*4MSA supports this policy as it states that one purpose of the Sanctuary is to "educate and
              interpret for the public the relationship of humpback whales to the Hawaiian Islands marine
              environment." Also, the HRqMSA states that the Sanctuary Management Plan will "promote
              education, among users of the Sanctuary and the generalpublic, about conservation of humpback
              whales, their habitat, and other marine resources." During development of the Draft EIS/MP,
              NOAA provided numerous opportunities for public participation in the planning process.

                       As shown in this analysis, the purposes for which. the S             anctuary has been established
              complements the State's policies and objectives regarding marine ecosystem protection as set forth
              in the ORMP.



































              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                     Page 219
              and Management Plan







                 Part IV: Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                 *Associated with Alternative Courses of Action                                     National Marine Sanctu
























                                            TMS PAGE EqrENnONALLY L= BLANK



































                 Page 220                                                                Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                        and Management Plan






               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                                      Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
               National Marine Sanctuary

                                       PART V: SANCTUARY MANAGEMENT PLAN

                                                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                                                          PAGE

               A. NTRODUCTION                 .............................................................................   223
                    1.   Sanctu= Purgoses          .......................................................................    223
                    2.   Comprehensiy-c Managgment Plan              ......................................................   223
                         a. Purposes of the Management Plan                .................................................  223
                         b. General Uses of the Management Plan                 ............................................  224
                    3.   Sanctu= Goals and Q_bjectives            .........................................................   225
                         a. Short-Term Objectives           ...............................................................   226
                         b. Long-Tenn Objectives            ...............................................................   227

               B    SANCTUARY BOUNDARY                      ...............................................................   228

               C.   SANCTUARY RESOURCES                     ...............................................................   229
                    1. Hu=b,%k Whale             .........................................................................    229
                    2. Hmpback Whale Habitat               ................................................................   229
                    3. Other Resg=es of Natignal Significance                  .............................................  229
                         a. Process to Include Other Resources             ................................................   230

               D.   RESOURCE PROTECTION PROGRAM                            .................................................  231
                    I .  Progmm Descripfion          .....................................................................    231
                    2.   Goals and Qbjectives       .............. ; ......................................................   232
                    3.   SancW= Regulations            ....................................................................   234
                         a. Humpback Whale Protection              ........................................................   234
                         b. Humpback Whale Habitat Protection                ......... : .................................... 235
                         c. Future regulations        ....................................................................    236
                    4.   Enforcement and Surve&nce              ............................................................. 236
                         a. Enforcement Philosophy             ............................................................   237
                         b. Integrating Existing Enforcement Efforts              ..........................................  237
                         c. Conduct of the Enforcement Program                 .............................................  238
                         d. Enforcement Program Goals and Objectives                  ......................................  239
                    5.   Coordination      ...............................................................................    241
                         a. Permit Review         ........................................................................    241
                              i. ESA and MMPA Permit Coordination                   ........................................  241
                              ii. Humpback Whale Habitat Permit Review                   .................................... 241
                                   a. NEPA and FWCA Coordination                ............................................  241
                                  b. State discharge and alteration of the seabed permits               ...................... 242
                         b. Sanctuary Consultation           ..............................................................   242
                         c. Oil Spill and Hazardous Waste Contingency Planning                     .......................... 243
                              i. Existing Capabilities        .............................................................   243
                              ii. Sanctuary Action        .................................................................   244
                         d. Damage assessment and restoration              ................................................   245
                    6. Research/Long_-Term Monitoring               .......................................................   245
                         a. Introduction      ............................................................ .                  1),1,q
                                                                                                                                 T
                         b . Research and Long-Term Monitoring Program Goals and Objectives                           ......... 247
                         c. Framework for Research             ............................................................   250
                              i. Baseline Studies       ..................................................................    250
                              ii. Monitoring      ........................................................................    250

               Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                                Page 221
               and Management Plan






                    Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan                                                          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                                        National Marine Sanctuary

                                   iii. Predictive Studies       .................................................................     250
                                   iv. Data and Information System               ....................................................  251
                              d.   Selection and Management of Research Projects                  ......  ............................ 251
                                   i. Research Permits          .......................................   I..........................  252
                                   ii. Annual Sanctuary Research Plan               .................................................  252
                                   iii. Monitoring Research Project Progress               ...  ...................................... 253
                                   iv. Information Exchange           ..................   4........................................   253
                         7.   Education/In=retation             ..................................................................     253
                              a.   Introduction     .............I ...............................................................     253
                              b .  Education and Interpretation Program Goals and Objectives                      .................... 254
                              c.,  Education and Interpretation Opportunities              ..........................................  257
                              d .  Education and Interpretation Programs              ..............................    I .............. 258
                                   i. On-Site Visitor Programs             ........................................................    258
                                   ii. Visitor Center/Headquarters Programs                ........................................    259
                                   iii. Outreach Programs          ...............................................................     259

                    E. ADMINISTRATION                  .........................................................................       259
                         1.   Site Administration        ........................................................................      260
                         2.   SancM= Advisoa Council                .............................................................      260
                         3.   Other Federal Agcncio          ...................................................................       261
                        .4.   State. Regional. and County Agencies               .................................................     261
                         .5.  CorQatible Uses of the Sanctu=                ......................................................     263
                         6.   Five-Year Review of Managcment Plan                  ................................................    264
                         7.   SpCcial Use Pem3its        ..........................................................      t ............ 264
                         8.   Resource Protection: Roles and Re=nsibilities                    .....................................   266
                              a. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division               .................................................     266
                              b. Sanctuary Manager           ...............................................................       : ... 266
                              c. Sanctuary Advisory Council               ........................................................     267
                              d. Federal Agencies         .....                                       . ***,***",*******,*******"*.267
                              e. State, Regional, and &@tiy**@jencies                 .............................................    267
                         9.   Research: Roles and Reaponsibilities               ..................................................    268
                              a. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division               .................................................     268
                              b. Sanctuary Manager or Research Coordinator                     ......................................  269
                              c - Sanctuary Advisory Council (Research Working Group)                         ........................ 269
                         10. Education/Int=tatione Roles and ReapoMibilities                        ................................   269
                              a. Sanc    'tuaries and Reserves Division          .................................................     269
                              b. Sanctuary Manager or Education Coordinator                     ....................................   269
                              C. Sanctuary Advisory Council (Education Working Group)                           ...................... 270
                         11 . Site AdnliWstration: Roles and Resposibilities                  .......................................  270
                              a. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division               .................................................     270
                              b. Sanctuary Manager           ....................................................................      270
                              c. Sanctuary Advisory Council               ........................................................     271
                              d. Federal, State, and County Agencies                 ..............................................    271

                    F. REVENUE AND RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT                                       ......................................   271









                    Page 222                                                                              Final. Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                             and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                         Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
              National Marine Sanctuary

              A. INTRODUCTION

                  1. Sanctu= Purposes

                      The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary) was
              Congressionally designated by the Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act (HINMSA, or
              Act) on November 4, 1992 (Subtitle C of Public Law 102-587, the Oceans Act of 1992). Section
              2304 of the A6t establishes the Sanctuary's purposes as follows:

                      (1) to protect humpback whales and their habitat   'within the Sanctuary;
                      (2) to educate and interpret for the public the relationship of humpback whales to the
                          Hawaiian Islands marine environment;
                      (3) to manage human uses of the Sanctuary consistent with the HR*4MSA and Title III of
                          the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)', as amended; and
                      (4) to provide for the identification of marine resources and ecosystems of national
                          significance for possible inclusion in the Sanctuary.

                      These purposes are consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the National Marine
              Sanctuary Program (NMSP), which are to: enhance resource protection through comprehensive
              and coordinated conservation and management; support, promote, and coordinate scientific
              research on, and monitoring of, site-specific marine resources; enhance public awareness,
              understanding, appreciation and wise use of the marine environment; and facilitate to the extent
              compatible with the primary objective of resource protection, public and private uses of national
              marine sanctuaries.

                  2. Cg=hensive Managcment Plan

                      In addition to designation of the Sanctuary, Section 2306 of the HR*4MSA requires that
              NOAA prepare, in consultation with interested persons and appropriate Federal, State and local
              authorities, a 'comprehensive management plan and implementing Sanctuary regulations, in
              accordance with the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), to achieve the purposes and
              objectives of the Sanctuary.

                      a. Purposes of the ManagernentPlan

                      Section 2306(a) of HINMSA, states that the management plan shall:
                      ï¿½   facilitate all public and private uses of the Sanctuary (including uses of Hawaiian
                          natives customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, and religious
                          purposes) consistent with the primary objective of the protection of humpback whales
                          and their habitat;
                      ï¿½   set forth the allocation of Federal and State enforcement responsibilities, as jointly
                          agreed by the Secretary and the State of Hawaii;
                      ï¿½   identify research needs and establish a long-term ecological monitoring program with
                          respect to humpback whales and their habitat;
                      ï¿½   identify alternative sources of funding needed to fully implement the plan's provisions
                          and supplement appropriations [under section 2307 of this subtitle ] and section 313 of
                          the NMSA (16 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1444);
                      ï¿½ ensure coordination and cooperation between Sanctuary managers and other Federal,
                          State, and County authorities with jurisdiction within or adjacent to the Sanctuary; and



              'Tide M of the MPRSA is also known as the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA).

              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                               Page 223
              and Management Plan






            Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan                                     Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                         National Marine Sanctuary

                        promote education among users of the Sanctuary and the general public about
                        conservation of the humpback whales, their habitat, and other marine resources.
                    Finally, section 2306 of the Act requires that NOAA provide for the public's participation
            during the development of the comprehensive management plan. To ftilfill this requirement,
            NOAA held six public scoping meetings and accepted written and oral comments on each of the
            main Hawaiian Islands and one in Washington, D.C. during March 15-30,1993; held seven public
            meetings and accepted written comments on each of the main Hawaiian Islands (two on the Big
            Island) during March 10-21, 1994; and participated.in four public Sanctuary Working Group
            (SWG) meetings comprised of members of Sanctuary user groups, Native Hawaiians, and other
            Federal, State, and county agencies.
                    The Draft EIS/M? was released to the public on September 15, 1995. During the 90-day
            public comment period, NOAA held over 25 statewide public information meetings to describe the
            Draft EIS/MP and answer questions. In addition, seven formal public hearings were also held to
            receive formal oral and written testimonies. By the end of the comment period, NOAA received
            over 250 written comments and oral comments on the DEISM. Apart from formal meetings,
            NOAA's on-site Sanctuary staff person, assisted by two contractors (one on Kauai and one in
            Honolulu), has conducted outreach efforts and spent considerable time meeting with various public
            interest groups and government agencies.

                    b. General Uses of the Management Plan

                    The specified requirements of the Sanctuary's management plan are       compatible with the
            overall sanctuary management concept embodied in the NMSA, and its implementing regulations
            (15 CFR Part 922), which require that a management plan be prepared for each national marine
            sanctuary. The HINMSA requires NOAA to comply with the NMSA in developing the
            management plan and implementing regulations. Section 2306(a) of the HINMSA requires the
            Sanctuary to follow the procedures specified in sections 303 and 304 of the NMSA, 16 U.S.C.
            ï¿½ï¿½1433 and 1434.

                    The management plan proposes actions tailored to specific issues affecting the Sanctuary.
            The plan recognizes the need for facilitating human uses of the Sanctuary compatible with the
            primary purpose of protecting humpback whales and their habitat. Successful implementation of
            the management plan will requirei continuing cooperation and coordination among many Federal,
            State and county agencies and representatives, -as well as private organizations and individuals.
            Information exchange, sharing of facilities and staff, and coordination of policies and procedures
            for resource protection will be features of all Sanctuary programs, including research, monitoring,
            enforcement and education. This management plan is designed to provide guidance for
            management of the Sanctuary for at least the first five years of its operation. During this period,
            management initiatives will generally fall into five fundamental program areas: resource protection,
            research and long-term monitoring, education and outreach, administration, and enforcement. The
            following sections of this management plan describe the goals, guidelines, and initiatives for,each
            of these programs. In general, the management plan:

                    0   focuses on Sanctuary goals and objectives, management responsibilities, and guidelines
                        for the resource protection, research, education, and administration programs of the
                        Sanctuary; and
                    *   establishes an administrative framework which addresses the need for cooperative and
                        coordinating programs and activities with other Federal and State agencies, as well as
                        private organizations and interested citizens to ensure effective management of the
                        Sanctuary.



            Page 224                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                             and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                         Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
            National Marine Sanctuary
                    The Sanctuaties and Reserves Division (SRD), within NOAA is responsible for overall
            management of the Sanctuary. SRD has been working in partnership with the State of Hawaii to'
            develop the Sanctuary management plan and will look to develop partnerships with other Federal,
            State and county resource management agencies, and other organizations, as' appropriate, during
            implernentation. As required by Section 304(e) of the NMSA [16 U.S.C. ï¿½1434(e)], the
            Secretary, at a minimum of every five years, shall evaluate the substantive progress towards
            implementing the management plan and goals for the Sanctuary, and shall revise the management
            plan and regulations, as necessary, to fulfill the purposes and policies of the Sanctuary. Although
            variable funding for staff and program. development may affect specific aspects of Sanctuary
            management described in this plan, the goals and objectives of the plan will remain unchanged
            unless, if after the ongoing and five-year review, SRD makes specific changes.

                3. Sanctu= Goals and Qbjectives
                    Management strategies planned for the Sanctuary are directed towards meeting specific
            goals and objectives contained within this management plan. Short and long term implementation
            objectives are listed below. Although goals and objectives are discretely identified, in many
            instances, the goals meet overlapping purposes. For instance, in addition to addressing specific
            objectives, both research and educational activities also contribute to resource protection and to the
            enhancement of compatible public uses of the Sanctuary.
                    The highest management priority for the Sanctuary is the long-term protection of the North
            Pacific population of humpback whales and their wintering habitat. Effective protection and
            management of these resources is dependent on the Sanctuary's size, location, accessibility,
            staffing, budget@ and the coordination of management responsibilities between the State of Hawaii,
            Federal agencies, and the various marine users. The Sanctuary receives moderate-to-high'Ievels of
            human use, with particularly high levels of visitation year-around. . The proximity to shore and
            accessibility of the site indicate the need for a Sanctuary' management structure which provides for
            coordination of resource protection, research, education, and administrative activities.

                    Understanding the ecological relationships between humpback whales and the habitats
            upon which they depend is of primary importance for providing comprehensive and coordinated
            protection of this endangered species. The Sanctuary management plan proposes research and
            monitoring programs which will characterize and monitor environmental conditions 'over the short-
            and long-term. This continuing program will provide the basis for detecting significant changes in
            the status of humpback whale populations and their wintering habitat. These data bases and
            predictive studies will, in turn, provide the basis for improved decision making, the formulation of
            action plans, and response mechanisms to unforeseen threats to the Sanctuary's environment.

                    Interested individuals, organizations, and government agencies will play an important role
            in achieving resource protection goals in the Sanctuary. Inherent to this management plan, and
            critical to its success, are effective education and interpretive programs to enhance public
            understanding and support for management objectives. The HIHWNMS will provide a unique
            opportunity to inforni the public about both the value of protecting its valuable resources and the
            need for long-term management of the overall Sanctuary. Communicating these messages
            effectively to the public will depend on publications, exhibits, and special outreach events tailored
            to a variety of public audiences. Mutual objectives shared between NOAA and the State of Hawaii
            demonstrate clearly the challenges and opportunities outlined in this Sanctuary management plan.
                        Following is a preliminary listing of short- and long-term objectives for the Sanctuary,
                        involving activities in the resource protection, 'research and long-term monitoring,
                        education and outreach, administration and enforcement. Additional items and projects
                        will be added as both the need and means are identified.


            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                               Page 225
            and Management Plan






                Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan                                          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                   National Marine Sanctuary

                         a: Short-Term Objectives

                Facilitate Coordination and Coolmration

                         An important first Sanctuary. task will be to strengthen working relationships with
                appropriate Federal, State and county agencies to ensure the Sanctuary mandate can be achieved
                through a cooperative management strategy. Of particular importance to the success of this
                management plan is the continuing involvement and coordination of various Federal and State
                authorities involved in activities which either directly or incidentally afford protection for
                humpback whales and their habitat. Since the Sanctuary is relying on these existing authorities and
                their permitting processes, it is crucial to develop working partnership so that mutual concerns and
                mandates are constructively addressed.

                         Efforts to establish and strengthen working relationships have already been initiated
                through meetings, communications, and participation on Sanctuary advisory groups/working
                groups among NOAA on-site Sanctuary Staff and representatives of Federal, State, and county
                agencies. Sanctuary staff will continue these activities through meetings with, and directed
                outreach to, other agencies and institutions operating in the Sanctuary area, to solicit their input in
                the on-going development of the site, to familiarize them with the Sanctuary's mandate and staff,
                and to determine appropriate working relationships and mutual agendas. These meetings will
                include, among others, the Departinents of Health; Land and Natural Resources; Transportation;
                Business, Economic Development and Tourism; State Planning; Education; Public Safety;
                Kahoolawe Island Reserve Commission (KIRC), Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), and the
                University of Hawaii. Additionally, outreach and discussions will continue with representatives of
                county governments and agencies, as well as Native Hawaiian groups, local businesses, tourism
                and recreation industry, agricultural, recreational, and fishing representatives, to ensure that local
                concerns related to the Sanctuary's management are addressed., Finally, NOAA will continue to
                develop working relationships and agreements with representatives of Federal agencies with
                jurisdictional responsibilities in the area of the Sanctuary, including: the National Marine Fisheries
                Service (NMFS) (wid3in NOAA), Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. Coast Guard
                (USCG); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)
                [U.S. Air Force,- U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                (COE)].

                         The Sanctuary staff. will work with other'agencies to facilitate coordination of resource
                management programs, and to encourage the exchange of information related to these programs.
                The Sanctuary will also support management-related research and mom-itoring activities through
                funding, staffing, and by other appropriate means as available. Among the most important items on
                the Sanctuary's research agenda is a comprehensive characterization of the North Pacific humpback
                whale's status, vital rates and winter habitat. These data will contribute significantly to refining the
                Sanctuary's management.

                         The commercial, recreational, Native Hawaiian and other interested publics can play
                important roles in attaining resource protection and management goals in the Sanctuary. Educational
                and interpretive programs will be aimed at improving public understanding of, and hence support
                for, the Sanctuary's management objectives. Important to the success of these activities is
                coordination with, and support of, existing interpretive and education programs. Communication
                tools to aid in this overall objective will include publications, exhibits, school curriculum, and
                special events that convey the national significance of the Sanctuary's resources, in particular, the
                humpback whale, to both the in-state and the out-of-state publics. The Sanctuary's management
                plan, in part through its educational program, will highlight the linkages between the health of the
                Sanctuary's resources and qualities, and the future vitality of public uses,. such as Native Hawaiian
                uses, fishing and whale related activities.


                Page 226                                                                Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                       and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                         Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
             National Marine Sanctuary

             Facilitate Sanctuga Advisory Council Activities

                     The Hawaii Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) has met five times since it was established
             by NOAA in March, 1996. The SAC consists of appointed representatives of Federal and State
             government agencies, representatives from individual counties, Native Hawaiians, fishermen,
             research and education organizations, and commercial and environmental interests. The purpose of
             the SAC is to provide advice and recommendations to the Sanctuary Manager and NOAA on the
             continued development and management of the Sanctuary. The SAC has helped NOAA respond to
             public comments received on the Draft EIS/MP and has formed education and research working
             groups to help the Sanctuary identify Sanctuary priorities and opportunities to work with the local
             community. * The SAC will play a key role in advising on management priorities, and in
             coordinating Sanctuary activities with those of other State and Federal agencies. NOAA will work
             closely with the SAC and support its efforts to facilitate coordination with affected user groups and
             government agencies. NOAA will assist the SAC in forming working groups and helping to ensure
             broader public input into the management of the Sanctuary.

             JJpgrade Sanctu= Offices and Hire/Cona-act Additional St

                     NOAA will continue to upgrade its Sanctuary office in Kihei, Maui, housing administrative
             offices and staff. The site and facilities ar@ owned - by NOAA and will likely remain the
             administrative headquarters of the Sanctuary. NOAA will also evaluate the financial resources of
             the Program and determine where, if any, additional Sanctuary offices or staff need to be
             established. Over the longer term, a Sanctuary Visitor Center may also be established either on-
             site, or in conjunction with another facility or organization.

                     b. Long-Term Objectives

             lm=ved Data Base on HmnMback Whales and Status of Their Habitat

                     To meet the primary objective of long-term protection of the central North Pacific
             population of humpback whales and their habitat, NOAA anticipates implementation of targeted
             research and monitoring program to address the status of these resources over the long-term.
             In addition to Sanctuary-supported research and monitoring, it is anticipated that NOAA will
             also enter into cooperative projects with other Federal, State and/or private agencies,
             organizations or individuals to achieve the overall primary goal of long-term resource
             protection.

             Establish a-Sanctu= Visitor Center. Intl=tive Signage-and Education Materials
                     Following the identification of appropriate locations and funding, NOAA may establish
             or work with existing organizations to create a Sanctuary Visitor Center, housing interpretive
             displays and printed materials about the Sanctuary and its resources, other marine resources
             and Native Hawaiian culture. Interpretive signs would be installed at boat ramps and various
             access/observation points to inform ocean users of the Sanctuary's resources and applicable
             regulations. The Visitor Center would also provide a facility for Sanctuary programs
             developed for interest groups and the general public.
             Identify&stablish AlWmative Sources of Funding to J=1ement and- Enhance the Sanctu='s
             Proerams

                     Section 2306 of the HINMSA requires NOAA to "identify alternative sources of funding
             needed to ftilly implement the plan's provisions". The NMSA has several mechanisms for the
             Sanctuary to fulfill this requirement, including seeking cooperative agreements, donations and
             acquisitions, and working. with nonprofit organizations to solicit donations. The Sanctuary will

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                               Page 227
             and Management Plan






                 Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan                                         Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                   National Marine Sanctuary

                 work with the community to explore the feasibility of enhancing revenues through voluntary
                 measures.

                 Identify A"tional Marine Resources and Ecosystems for Pgssible Inc usion in the Sanctuga

                         After the implementation of the final management plan, NOAA anticipates initiating the
                 public process of identifying additional marine resources and ecosystems for possible inclusion in
                 the Sanctuary through a focused initiative as described in Part C(4) of this Management Plan. This
                 process would allow substantial public, State, and county agency input to help the Sanctuary
                 assess whether other resources should be included in the Sanctuary.

                 ELv&-Year Review of Mgnag&ment Plan

                         Not more than five years after the final management plan and regulations become effective,
                 NOAA, in consultation with the Governor, and with the assistance of the SAC, will evaluate the
                 progress made toward implementing the Sanctuary management plan, regulations, and goals. The
                 results of this evaluation will be used by NOAA, in consultation with the Governor, to determine
                 whether changes to the management plan and/or regulations are necessary, and to revise the
                 management plan and/or regulations accordingly. Changes in the terms of the designation
                 document require preparation of an environmental impact statement and Governor approval.

                 B. SANCTUARY BOUNDARY

                         The boundary of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Vylale National Marine Sanctuary
                 consists of the submerged lands and waters off the coast of the Hawaiian Islands seaward from the
                 shoreline, cutting across the mouths of all rivers and stream -

                         (1) to the 100-fathorn (183 meter) isobath adjoining the.islands of Maui, Molokai, and
                             Lanai@ including Penguin Bank, but excluding the area within three nautical miles of the
                             upper reaches of the wash of the waves on the shore of Kahoolawe Island;
                         (2) to the deep water area of Pailolo Channel from Cape Halawa, Molokai, to Nakalele
                             Point, Maui, and southward;
                         (3) to the 100-fathom isobath around the Island of Hawaii;
                         (4) to the 100-fathom isobath from Kailiu Point eastward to Makahuena Point, Kauai; and
                         (5) to the 100-fathom isobath from Puaena'Point eastward to Mahie Point and from the Ala
                             Wai Canal eastward to Makapuu Point, Oahu.

                 Excluded from the Sanctuary boundary are the following commercial ports and small boat harbors:

                 Maui                                                                      Lang
                 Kahului Harbor                   Ala Wai Small Boat Basin                 Kaumalapau Harbor
                 Lahaina Boat Harbor                                                       Manele Harbor
                 Maalaea Boat Harbor              Hawaii (Big-bland)
                                                  Hilo Bay Harbor
                 Kauai                            Honokohau Boat Harbor                    Hale o Lono Harbor
                 Hanamaulu. Bay                   Keauhou Bay                              Kaunakakai Harbor
                 Nawiliwili Harbor                Kawaihae Boat Harbor and
                                                     Small Boat Basin

                         The waters around the island of Kahoolawe are not included in the Sanctuary at this time.
                 NOAA has and wiH continue to work closely with the Kahoolawe Islands Reserve Commission,
                 the State of Hawaii, and the Navy to assess whether Kahoolawe should be included in the
                 Sanctuary at a later date.


                 Page 228                                                               Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                        and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                     Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
             National Marine Sanctuary

                     The establishment of the Sanctuary in no way. conveys, or intends to convey, to NOAA any
             title or ownership of Hawaii's submerged lands. These lands, including those known as ceded
             lands, continue to be held in trust by the State of Hawaii. The Sanctuary will exist as a co-steward
             of the Sanctuary and its resources. Should the status of the submerged lands change at some time
             in the future (i.e., lands are conveyed to a sovereign Hawaiian Ration), the Sanctuary will work
             with the appropriate entities to redefine its role if necessary.

             C. SANCTUARY RESOURCES.

                 1. Hu=back Whale

                     The HINMSA designated the Sanctuary for the primary purpose of protecting endangered
             humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) and their habitat within the Hawaiian Islands marine
             environment. The Sanctuary will focus its management efforts to protect humpback whales in their
             Hawaiian habitat by supporting resource protection, research, long-term monitoring, education and
             interpretation programs and by supporting efforts to improve coordination among the management
             agencies, researchers, educators and various user groups.

                 2.         ack Whale Habitat

                     The marine waters surrounding the Hawaiian Islands comprise only a portion of the overall
             habitat of the humpback whale (i.e., Alaskan feeding grounds, migration routes, etc.). But these
             waters are essential because they provide breeding, calving, nursing and resting areas for the
             majority of the endangered North Pacific humpback whale population. Thus, Hawaii is one of the
             most important humpback whale breeding grounds in the world. Most humpbacks can be found in
             the warm, protected nearshore waters less than 100 fathoms (600 feet) deep (NMFS 1991, Nitta
             and Naughton 1989). Cows with calves tend to be distributed in more nearshore waters on the
             leeward sides of islands, often within the 10-30 fathom isobath (60-180 feet) depth (NMFS 199 1).
             SRD, in consultation with NUFS, has defined humpback whale habitat, for purposes of Sanctuary
             management, as:

                     "those areas in the waters around Hawaii dw provide space for individual and
                     population growth and normal behavior of humpback whales, and include sites
                     usedfor reproductive activities, including breeding, calving and nursing."

                 3.  Other Resources of National Signifwance

                     The HR*4MSA established the Sanctuary to focus attention on humpback whales and their
             habitat as its primary resources. Initial efforts of the Sanctuary will be directed at comprehensive
             and coordinated protection of humpback whales and their habitat. Section 2304(b)(4) of the Act
             also requires NOAA to provide for "the identification of marine resources and ecosystems of
             national significance for possible inclusion in the sanctuary." (Emphasis added). Further, Section
             2306(a)(6) of the Act states that the Sanctuary Management Plan will "promote education among
             users of the Sanctuary and the general public about conservation of humpback whales, their
             habitat, and other marine resources." (Emphasis added).
                     Within five years after the Final Management Plan has been approv    ed, a  process will be
             put in place that will allow widespread public participation in the identification  of other marine
             resources or ecosystems of national significance. These identified resources may or may not be
             included in the Sanctuary management regime depending on their national significance, need to
             supplement existing management authorities to provide and ensure coordinated and comprehensive
             conservation and management (i.e., through the collaborative management process envisioned by
             the Sanctuary), and degree of public and State support.


             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                        Page 229
             and Management Plan






                  Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan                                         Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                    National Marine Sanctuary

                          The process to identify other resources and ecosystems will be conducted over a number of
                  years (time frame undetermined) after the final management plan is approved. The initial priority
                  will be to review other resources already identified in public scoping meetings held in March 1993,
                  ,public meetings held in March 1994, public hearings and comments on the Draft EIS/MP, and
                  recommendations from the SAC. Additional resources may be identified through nominations,
                  review and evaluation, and further impact analysis. The assessment of other resources for possible
                  inclusion into the Sanctuary will be conducted by the Sanctuary Manager in consultation with the
                  SAC and with full public participation.

                          a. Process to Include Other Resources

                          SRD developed the following process to allow widespread public participation in the
                  identification of other marine resources for possible inclusion in the Sanctuary. First, the public
                  will be notified of the nomination process. Second, the resources/ecosystems would be identified.
                  Third, the identified resources/ecosystems would be evaluated for national significance and
                  potential management gaps. Fourth, results of evaluations would be given to the Sanctuary
                  Manager for consideration. And fifth, if resources are determined to be candidates for inclusion,
                  public notice and opportunity for comment will be given before any change relating to other
                  resources or management thereof is incorporated.
                  Step 1. Notirication: Three months prior to the start period, the Sanctuary will publish a
                  Federal Register Notice, print notices in local newspapers, and use other means to inform the
                  'public of the nomination process and to call for nominations (along with criteria and format) for the
                  identification of other marine resources and ecosystems for possible inclusion in the Sanctuary.
                  The Notice will summarize public comments and other pertinent information received up to that
                  point, and provide a standard format for the public to submit recommendations for nominating
                  other resources for possible inclusion into the Sanctuary.

                  Step 2. Nomination: The period of consideration will be for a specified time period (i.e., 3
                  to 6 months), at which time the nomination period will close.

                  Step 3. Evaluation:           During this period, a technical working group of the SAC (see
                  "Administration" section) will review the nominations based on standards identified in the
                  Sanctuary Management Plan, research the status of these resources, and review all regulations and
                  management regimes that apply to these resources. The SAC will provide the Sanctuary Manager
                  its recommendations on the nominations.

                  Step 4. Recommendation to Sanctuary Manager:                          All proposals, along with their
                  justification, will be integrated and developed for further review, analysis, and evaluation by the
                  Sanctuary Manager (in consultation with NOAA) and the SAC in accordance with an agreed upon
                  review process (= sample process listed below). A consolidated proposal will then be distributed
                  for public review, discussion, and identification of concerns and support.

                          Resource ReviewXvaluation: Proces&:

                          Andrnbif6f. olbg'tcal;i., historic-44n& cultural- resources: have. bee'addentified as
                                           S.
                          possibl6Hawaii ancuiary, -resources, m4Mtkm to@ humpback whales and their
                          habitaL. In: examinfin th     resources. imid.theiiuses, the. program will apply the
                          sanctuary- &si         standards: described, iff"NMSA. ï¿½. 303(a), consistent with the
                          HINMSA. The:following approach will'beused.by the@Sanctuary Manager and the
                          SAC to: assess, whether. other resources should, qualify as sanctuary resources and thus
                          be included. in the Sanc tuary ma agement regime.



                  Page 230                                                               Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                         and Management Plan







               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                          Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
               National Marine Sanctuary


                       I       Is the resource of special national significance? See Appendix B [NMSA
                               ï¿½303(a)(2)(A) and ï¿½303(b)(1)]. If not, go to step. three.

                       2a.     Are there management gaps which the sanct      uary program can fill?

                               Management gaps for the purposes of this review will include any regulatory,
                               administrative, or management deficiency. The review will specify whether
                               the gaps result from shortfalls'in regulatory authority or jurisdiction or from
                               agency implementation constraints.. Constraints may include, but are not
                               limited to, limitations in non-regulatory management efforts such as
                               education, research, monitoring, enforcement, and staffing. See Appendix B
                               [NMSA ï¿½303(a)(2)(B),(D)]. If not, go to step 3.

                       2b.     What are the management gaps and how can they be filled (research,
                               monitoring, education, enforcement, regulation, staffing, etc.)? See Appendix
                               B [NMSA ï¿½ 303(a)(2)(B),(D)]

                       2c.     Will the designation of the resource as a Sanctuary resource facilitate the
                               objectives of the NMSA and the policies and purposes of the HINMSA? See
                               Appendixes B and C (NMSA ï¿½303(a)(1); HR*4MSA ï¿½2304(b)(3)].

                       3a.     Should there be further study of the resource and its management because the
                               resource may be of special national significance and suitable for Sanctuary
                               management? - If not, no further action.

                       3b.     What other study is necessary to determine the significance of the resource
                               and the need for additional management measures? Compile a list of research
                               needs based. upon this review.

               Step 5. Public Review: Further public and agency review win be held prior to any action
               being taken, to include additional resources, along with the proper resource protection and
               management regime, research, and education needs, etc. If necessary, a supplement to the Final
               EIS/MP will be prepared and distributed prior to that review. NOAA will work with the State of
               Hawaii and Federal agencies to assure that such additions are coordinated with the goals of these
               other agencies.


               D. RESOURCE PROTECTION PROGRAM

                   I - Program Description

                       The designation of the HIHWNMS focuses attention on the )value of and need for
               protection of the central North Pacific population of humpback whales and their wintering habitat.
               The resource protection program complements existing non-regulatory and regulatory mechanisms
               to protect humpback whales and their habitat. To ensure that these resources and qualities are
               protected, the Sanctuary resource protection program includes: (1) goals and objectives; (2)
               education and outreach; (3) coordination of permit review and consultations; (4) Sanctuary
               regulations; (5) enforcement and surveillance; and (6) research and long-term monit6ring. The.
               Sanctuary recognizes that the people of Hawaii extensively depend upon the marine environment
               for commerce, recreation and culture, and will work to -facilitate public and private uses of the
               Sanctuary (including Native Hawaiian uses) consistent with the primary objective of resource
               protection.




               Fina'I Environmental Impact Statement                                                               Page 231
               and Management Plan







                  Part V:  Sanctuary Management Plan                                            Hawaiian. Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                        National Marine Sanctuary

                      2.   Goals and Objectives

                           The highest management priority for the HIHWNMS is the long-term protection of
                  humpback whales, and their habitat within the Sanctuary's boundary. Approximately 65 percent
                  of the Congressionally-designated Sanctuary lies w          'ithin the waters of the State of Hawaii, and
                  therefore many of the activities affecting the Sanctuary's resources and qualities are presently
                  gIoverned by existing Federal and      *State authorities. The Sanctuary will work closely with these
                  existing agencies to ensure coorduiiated and more efficient management of humpback whales and
                  their habitat.

                           Two specific plans relate directly to the protection of the humpback whale and its habitat.
                  NMFS developed a Final Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale in 1991 (NMFS Recovery Plan)
                  which summarizes current information on humpback whales, identifies problems"that may interfere
                  with their recovery, and recommends research or management actions to restore and maintain this
                  endangered species. The major objectives of the plan are to:

                               0 Maintain and enhance habitat;
                               0 identify and reduce human-related mortality, injury and disturbance;
                               -   measure and monitor key, population parameters to determine if recommended
                                   actions are-successful; and
                                   improve administration and coordination of the overall recovery effort for this
                                   species.

                           In mid-1990 the State of Hawaii organized a planning, team to identify critical issues,
                  prepare technical papers and suggest policies and implementing actions to improve coastal and
                  ocean resource management in the State (Hawaii Ocean and Management Resources Council,
                  1.991). Extensive public input during the creation of the Hawaii Ocean Resources Management
                  Plan (ORMP) revealed several critical concerns -about the existing sector-specific- management of'
                  Hawaii's ocean and coasts by Federal," State and County agencies, including:

                               0   The current system of managing ocean and coastal resources               is diffused among
                                   State and County planning, management and regulatory activities, poorly
                                   coordinated and inadequate.
                               0   Existing mechanisms and procedures for resolving ocean and coastal user and
                                   regulatory conflicts are inadequate.
                               -   Existing enforcement systems for ocean use laws and regulations are inadequate.
                               0   Public participation in and awareness of ocean and coastal resources, as well as
                                   their management, are lacking.
                               0   Current ocean and coastal management programs are reactive and issue-driven
                                   rather than anticipatory.

                           The Hawaii OFJVT identified priority recommendations to address the above concerns.
                  These include:

                               0   Implement a regional planning approach;
                               0   Improve the information base;
                               0   Establish carrying capacities;
                               0   Develop conflict resolution procedures;
                               0   Enforce ocean use laws and regulations;
                                   Improve public participation; and
                                   Anticipate critical issues.

                  The Hawaii ORMP also contains seictor-specific recommendations that detail major objectives and
                  policies for implementation by various State agencies.,

                  Page 232                                                                  Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                            and Management Plan







               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                          Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
               National Marine Sanctuary


                      The goals and objectives of the Hawaii Sanctuary's Resource Protection Program were
               developed to complement and coordinate existing management and regulatory efforts, fill gaps,
               enhance public participation and awareness, and to address some of the identified problems;
               objectives and policies contained within t   'h@ Hawaii ORMP, the NMFS Recovery Plan, and other
               programs, such as point and non-point source pollution control. initiatives, as they relate to the
               protection of the humpback whale's Hawaiian habitat. The Hawaii Sanctuary seeks to complement
               existing management regimes without adding or increasing the current regulatory                           and
               administrative requirements.

               Sanctuary Goals: The NMSA, HINMSA, and the NMFS Recovery Plan establish the.
               following resource protection goals, including to:

                               protect and maintain humpback whales and their habitat;
                               provide authority for comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management
                               of the Sanctuary, and activities affecting Sanctuary resources in a manner which
                               complements existing regulatory authorities;
                               identify and reduce human related mortality, injury, and disturbance, and manage
                               such human uses of the Sanctuary consistent with the HE14MSA and the NMSA;
                               set forth the allocation of Federal and State enforcement responsibilities, as jointly
                               agreed by the Secretary and the State of Hawaii;
                               ensure coordination, cooperation and improved administration between Sanctuary
                               managers and other Federal, State and county authorities with jurisdiction within or
                               ,adjacent to the Sanctuary;
                               support, promote and coordinate long-term monitoring and scientific research on
                               Sanctuary resources;
                               enhance public awareness, understanding, appreciation, and wise use of the
                               Sanctuary; and
                               facilitate all public and private uses of the Sanctuary (including uses of Hawaiian
                               natives customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, and
                               religious purposes) consistent with the primary objective of the protection of
                               humpback whales and their habitat.

               Sanctuary Objectives: To fulfill the mandate of providing for the long-term protection of the
               central North Pacific population of humpback whales and their habitat, the Hawaii Sanctuary will
               rely upon the following objectives and strategies

               Qb-jective 1:   Coordinate and complement policies and procedures among the various government
                   agencies sharing regulatory responsibility for protection and management of humpback whales
                   and their habitat (see part 4, below);

                   Strategy 1. 1: Develop formal and informal coordination mechanisms with appropriate Federal
                       and State resource management authorities to implement resource protection. strategies and
                       to ensure that the protection of the humpback whale and its habitat are considered within the
                       existing resource management framework.

                   Strategy 1.2: Incorporate existing Federal and State regulations that protect humpback whales.
                       and their habitat into the Sanctuary regulatory regime (see part 3 below and Appendix K.).
               Qbjective 2: , Complement coordination among appropriate, Federal, State and county auihoritie's
                   to enhance enforcement of existing laws and regulations that fulfill Sanctuary goals'(see part 5
                   below);




               Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                Page '133
               and Management Plan






                 Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan                                     Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                               National Marine Sanctuary

                    StrateU 2. 1: The Sanctuary Manager will work closely with NUFS-Office of Enforcement
                         (NMFS-OE) to coordinate the enforcement activities of existing Federal and State
                         authorities in the Sanctuary.
                 Objective 3:   Encourage parti  'cipation by interested agencies and the public. in the development of
                    procedures to address specific resource protection and management concerns (e.g., research,
                    monitoring, enforcement, education, andemergency-response programs) (also see Research,
                    Education Sections of the Management Plan);
                    Strategy 3. 1: Facilitate efforts by the SAC to advise the Sanctuary manager and NOAA on
                         Sanctuary policies and program priorities. Encourage the SAC to form working groups to
                         address research, education and other resource protection issues.
                    Strategy 3.2: Convene workshops and meetings between Sanctuary staff, the SAC, other
                         Federal, State and county agencies and the public to assist in identifying, developing and
                         implementing action plans and assigning responsibilities for education, research and
                         monitoring, enforcement. and other resource protection strategies.
                 Objective 4:   Promote public awareness of, and. voluntary compliance with, Sanctuary
                    regulations and objectives and other authorities, through education and interpretive programs
                    stressing resource sensitivity and wise use (see Education and Interpretation Section of
                    Management Plan);

                 Miective 5:    Utilize the research and monitoring results from existing -management agencies and
                    researchers to develop effective resource protection strategies and to improve management
                    decision making (See Research & Long-Term Monitoring Section of Management Plan).

                    3. Sanctu= Regulations

                         Hawaii's humpback whales may be.directly affected by vessel approaches or collisions,
                 and noise. from boats, aircraft, nearshore or in-water construction or other acoustic generating
                 activities. . Indirect impacts may result from the degradation of whale habitat. Sources of habitat
                 degradation include point and non-point source pollution and the physical alteration or diï¿½turbance
                 of the seafloor (which can re-suspend contaminated sediments, alter the depth, modify submerged
                 characteristics which provide protection from open seas, change the acoustic properties of a site,
                 and displace whales from preferred nearshore areas). For management purposes, the Hawaii
                 Sanctuary will focus on present and potential activities that may adversely affect the whales directly
                 (harassment and disturbance) and those factors that may impact water quality and/or modify the
                 seafloor -- the two. major components of the whale's habitat.
                         Because@ there are many existing Federal and State laws and regulations, and conservation
                 efforts by the public, that directly and/or indirectly protect humpback whales and their habitat, the
                 Hawaii Sanctuary will supplement these authorities to the maximum extent practicable by filling'
                 gaps and providing a safety net of regulatory protection. The following sections detail how the
                 Hawaii Sanctuary will work within existing regulatory regimes.

                         a. Humpback Whale Protection

                         SRD is proposing Sanctuary regulations that supplement existing regulatory regimes to
                 protect humpback whales. The proposed Sanctuary regulations essentially incorporate thi NMFS
                 humpback whale approach regulations for Hawaii and regulations that prohibit taking or
                 possessing a humpback whale or parts thereof Thus, violations of the terms or conditions of
                 these NMFS whale approach regulations would also constitute a violation of the Sanctuary
                 regulations. The Sanctuary prohibitions would not apply if the activity is authorized under the

                 Page 234                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                   and Management Plan







             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                       Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
             National Marine Sanctuary

             Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) or the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Specifically, the
             Sanctuary regulations include the following prohibitions:

                             Approachin                a vessel or other object to approach, within the Sanctuary,
                                       @ 9, or causing
                             by any means, within 100 yards of any humpback whale except as authorized under
                             the MMPA, as amended, 16. U.S.C. 1361                 and the ESA, as amended, 16
                             U.S.C. 1531 et

                             Operating any aircraft above the Sanctuary within 1,000 feet of any humpback
                             whale except when in any designated flight corridor for takeoff or landing from an
                             airport or runway or as authorized under the MMPA and the ESA;

                             Taking any humpback whale in the Sanctuary except as authorized under the
                             MMPA and the ESA;

                             Possessing within the Sanctuary (regardless of where taken) any living or dead
                             humpback whale or part thereof taken in violation of the MMPA or the ESA;

                     The State of Hawaii. also regulates the operation of commercial and recreational thrillcraft,
             water sledding, parasailing vessels, and high-speed motorcraft. Commercial thrillcraft activities,
             are limited to Ocean Recreation Management Areas (ORMAs) and commercial operators must
             obtain commercial operating area use permits from the Department of Land and Natural Resource
             (DLNR)-Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation to conduct these activities.               Recreational
             thrillcraft operators can operate outside of certain non-designated ORMAs (seaward 500 feet from
             the shoreline to the outer fringing reef, whichever is greater, and two miles off Kauai, Oahu, Maui
             and Hawaii). However, commercial and recreational thrillcraft operations are prohibited in most
             designated ORMA areas, with some exceptionsi including the Humpback Whale Protected Waters
             Area on the west and south coast of Maui, between December 15 and May 15 for -the protection of
             the humpback whales (HAR, Title 13, Chapter 256-112). These regulations are an important step
             by the State of Hawaii to protect the humpback whale while in Hawaiian waters. The Sanctuary
             will work with the State, counties and various interests, to assess the long-term effectiveness of
             these regulations in protecting the whale from certain vessel traffic threats.

                     b. Humpback Whale Habitat Protection

                     Degradation of water quality and the physical alteration of the submerged lands within the
             Sanctuary are concerns regarding the humpback whales' habitat. Scientific evidence generally
             relates degradation of water quality or alteration of the physical habitat as having potentially
             adverse impacts on humpback whales,. although specific cause-effect relationships have been
             difficult to establish.   The Sanctuary will begin to target research efforts to more clearly
             characterize the types of activities and degree to which they may impact individual whales and
             populations in the short- and long-term.         In addition, the Sanctuary will work closely to
             supplement- and complement existing Federal and State regulations that address water quality and
             alteration of the seabed activities that are related to humpback whales and their habitat. To
             supplement enforcement and enhance complia        'nce with such existing regulations, the Sanctuary
             regulations include the following prohibitions:

                     Discharging or depositing any material or other matter in the Sanctuary; altering the seabed
                     of the Sanctuary; or discharging or depositing, from beyond the boundary of the
                     Sanctuary, any material or other matter that subsequently enters the Sanctuary and injure's a
                     humpback whale or humpback whale habitat, provided that:

                     such activity requires a Federal or State permit, license, lease or other authorization, and is
                     conducted:


             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                           Page 235
             and Management Plan






                  Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan                                        Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                  National Marine Sanctuary


                          (i) without such'permit, license, lease or other authorization; or
                          (ii), not in'compliance with the terms and conditions of such permit, license, lease, or other
                              authorization.

                          This proposed Sanctuary regulation      is based on an analysis -of existing regulations and
                  extensive consultations with other government agencies and the public. NOAA concluded that, at
                  this time, there are adequate regulations on the books that generally protect water quality and the
                  physical submerged lands in the Sanctuary. However, NOAA also found that the Sanctuary could
                  help supplement the enforcement of, and improve compliance with, these regulations which will
                  not only increase protection for humpback whales and their habitat, but also improve the marine
                  environment generally. This Sanctuary regulation recognizes and relies on the authorities and
                  permit processes that govern water quality and seabed integrity while bringing the Sanctuary's
                  perspective and expertise to tile process.
                          The proposed habitat regulation     provides enhanced resource     protection for. the whales'
                  habitat since violations of 'valid Federal or State permits, leases, licenses, or specific authorizations
                  also constitute a violation of Sanctuary regulations. Any authorized discharge or alteration -of the
                  seabed activities will not be a violation of Sanctuary regulations. . The proposed regulatory regime
                  to protect humpback whale habitat provides a backdrop or safety net to existing authorities to
                  ensure compliance with valid permits, leases, and authorizations, and supplements the enforcement
                  of permit violations and unlawful discharges or alteration of the seabed activities.

                          C. Future Regulations

                          NOAA cannot make the guarantee that future Sanctuary regulations will never be
                  necessary. It is possible that in the. future resource managers may identify a specific type of
                  activity that could negatively impact Sanctuary resources or create conflicts among other Sanctuary
                  users. Further, if in the future other marine resources and ecosystems' are included in the
                  Sanctuary, additional regulations may be necessary to manage and protect such resources.. While
                  non-regulatory options would generally be pursued first, regulation is one type of management tool
                  that NOAA may choose to consider in order to protect Sanctuary resources. Prior to issuing a new
                  regulation, NOAA must first identify and support that there is a need for the new regulation (e.g.,
                  that a Sanctuary resource is -being, or could be negatively affected by some activity or that an
                  activity is creating a conflict among Sanctuary users). NOAA would work with other Federal and
                  State resource management agencies, the research community, and affected user groups'to collect
                  all relevant and available information and scientific data that will be used to more clearly define the
                  problem and identify potential solutions. - NOAA would also seek advice and recommendations
                  from the SAC and other resource management agencies prior to initiating any rulemaking.

                          If after coordinating with existing agencies and the SAC NOAA determines to propose a
                  new regulation, NOAA is required to, at a minimum, follow the procedures of the Administrative
                  Procedure Act, requiring that adequate public notice and opportunity for public comment be given
                  for any new regulation. Further, if NOAA proposed a regulation outside the scope of regulations
                  listed in the Sanctuary Designation Document, NOAA would be required to go through the
                  designation process, including public review and comment, at least one public hearing, preparation
                  of a Supplemental EIS, and gubernatorial review and non-objection. If the Governor objects, the
                  regulation would not take effect in State waters. If NOAA proposed to change an existing
                  regulation, NOAA would provide for public review and comment and, although not required to do
                  so, gubernatorial review and non-objection.




                  Page 236                                                              Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                       and Management Plan,







             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                         Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
             National Marine Sanctuary

                 4. Enforcement and Surveillance

                     An essential feature of the resource protection program is an effective enforcement program
             which includes education. NOAA's primary enforcement objective in the Sanctuary is to achieve
             resource protection by gaining, voluntary compliance with the Sanctuary regulations and other
             authorities that apply within the Hawaii Sanctuary. The -Sanctuary anticipates a State-Federal
             cooperative enforcement system involving the State of Hawaii DLNR and Department of                 *Health
             (DOH), USCG, and NMFS. The Sanctuary is also proposing to add a Sanctuary regulation to
             ensure that enforcement investigations proceed with minimal obstruction.                  The Sanctuary
             regulation's prohibit:

                             Interfering with, obstructing, delaying or preventing an investigation, search,
                             seizure or disposition of seized property in connection with enforcement of either of
                             the Acts or any regulations issued under either of the Acts.

                     a. Enforcement Philosophy

                     The law enforcement program is an essential component of resource protection within the
             Sanctuary. A goal of Sanctuary enforcement is to primarily prevent adverse resource impacts. The
             Sanctuary's enforcement'program will focus on "interpretive enforcement", emphasizing outreach
             and education activities for Sanctuary users in order to prevent the occurrence of violations. This
             style of enforcement seeks voluntary compliance primarily 'through the education of users.
             Interpretive law enforcement emphasizes informing the public through educational tnessag            Ies and
             literature about responsible behavior before they impact Sanctuary resources. This objective will
             be met by putting into place enforcement personnel on-site to carry-out education/interpretation
             activities; to deter'violations of Sanctuary regulations; and to provide quick response to any
             violations that do, occur. In addition, NOAA will work to expand the existing deputization
             agreement (see below) to bring Sanctuary concerns into this enforcement framework.

                     While interpretive enforcement is the primary tool of the enforcement program, preventative
             enforcement is also necessary. Preventative enforcement is best achieved by maintaining sufficient
             patrol presence within the Sanctuary to deter violations and by preventing, through education,
             inadvertent violations of the law. Successful enforcement relies on frequent water or land-based
             patrols. Water patrols will ensure that users of the Sanctuary resources are familiar with the
             regulations; deter willful or inadvertent violations of the law; and provide quick response to
             violations and/or emergencies.

                     b. Integrating Existing Enforcement Efforts

                     Across the nation, Federal, State and cctunty/local     agencies are increasingly entering into
             cooperative relationships to more efficiently carry out management and enforcement
             responsibilities. ,Federal, State and County laws provide government agencies with a variety of
             tools to protect marine resources. In so doing, these laws      strengthen law enforcement capabilities
             by allowing agencies to build and rely upon each other's experience and physical resources. In
             addition, local residents are helping by detecting and          reporting various violations including
             harassment incidences and discharge violations.

                     The success of Sanctuary enforcement largely'depends upon how well the enforcement
             entities are coordinated. Because of limited resources at the Federal and State levels, current
             enforcement assets must be targeted and used in an efficient and directed effort to achieve
             compliance with existing and proposed regulations.. ' Consequently, the coordination of
             enforcement assets will be an integral component of continuous resource management. To achieve
             this coordination objective, the Sanctuary may seek to develop an agreement under which Federal
             Sanctuary enforcement officers are cross-deputized to enforce existing State regulations, and State

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                Page 1-37
             and Management Plan






                    Part V:  Sanctuary Management- Plan                                               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                              National Marine Sanctuary

                    enforcement officers are deputized to enforce           Sanctuary regulations. Such a cross-deputization
                    agreement already. exists between NMFS-OE; USCG; and the Hawaii DLNR-Division of
                    Conservation and Resources Enforcement, and State Marine Patrol to enforce Magnuson Federal
                    Fishery regulations, MMPA, and ESA regulations. However, the recent effinination of the State
                    Marine Patrol necessitates a. re-examination of state marine enforcement entities and
                    responsibilities. The Sanctuary will work closely with NMFS-O.E to revise such an agreement and
                    include the enforcement of Sanctuary regulations. Cross-deputization would foster a strong
                    working relationship between NOAA and the State of Hawaii, as well as assist in increasing
                    abilities to attain mutual goals of enhanced resource. protection for the humpback whales and their
                    habitat.

                             there is an existing memorandum of agreement between NMFS and the National Ocean
                    Service related to enforcement within the NMSP, which:

                                 *    provides a mechanism to address the Sanctuary's enforcement needs;
                                 0    contributes to the attainment of NOAA's strategic goals and objectives;
                                 0    achieves greater economy by eliminating duplication of effort;
                                 0    enhances the availability and effective use of necessary enforcement resources; and
                                 0    provides a mechanism for Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management
                                      (OCRM) and NMFS-OE to systematically and routinely develop enforcement
                                      programs for all marine sanctuaries.

                    Thus, NMFS-OE wffl remain the primary enforcement entity responsible for enforcing the
                    -humpback whale approach regulations           -in the Sanctuary. NMFS-OE will coordinate enforcement
                    activities in the Sanctuary with the Sanctuary Manager, and with other State and Federal
                    enforcement agencies. NMFS-OE, in close cooperation with the Sanctuary Manager, will continue
                    to investigate potential approach violations, prepare enforcement reports, and coordinate with
                    NOAA's Office of General Counsel (NOAA-GC) to detem-iine whether, to pursue potential
                    violations.

                             The enforcement of Sanctuary discharge and alteration of the seabed regulations will
                    require more close coordination with other agencies, since a violation of this Sanctuary regulation
                    is dependent upon whether there is a violation of an existing discharge or alteration of the seabed
                    regulation of a non-NOAA agency. As such, the Sanctuary Manager will work closely with
                    NMFS-OE and NOAA-GC to coordinate enforc*ement activities with DOH and DLNR violations of
                    discharge and alteration of the seabed permits and authorizations that also violate Sanctuary
                    regulations. NOAA will rely upon the relevant permit/authorization granting agency to determine if
                    their permit or authorization has been violated. - Sanctuary enforcement actions from NOAA may
                    only take place after such determination has been made. NOAA will develop an MOU with the
                    State of Hawaii concerning the coordination of enforcement activities in the Sanctuary.

                             In general, existing MOUs establish a framework that allows for Sanctuary Program
                    management of enforcement activities in national marine sanctuaries. Under these agreements,
                    NMFS-OEJs required to develop, for SRD's approval, an annual enforcement plan' for each
                    national marine sanctuary, which identifies enforcement priorities.

                             C. Conduct of the Enforcement Program

                             Sanctuary enforcement -operations are a major component of Sanctuary management. A
                    NMFS Special Agent (Sanctuary Agent) will serve as coordinator of the operational enforcement
                    program on behalf of, and working in close consultation with, the Sanctuary Manager. The
                    Sanctuary Agent is -provided through an existing MOU between NOAA's Assistant Administrator
                    for Fisheries and the Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management.
                    The Sanctuary agent will. coordinate operational enforcementwith all participating agencies through.

                    Page 238                                                                      Final Environmental Impact Staternent
                                                                                                                    and Management Plan







              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                      Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
              National Marine Sanctuary
              their respective chains of command.        Enforcement win be conducted in accordance with
              enforcement operational plans, to be developed jointly between NMFS-OE and 'the Sanctuary
              Manager. Enforcement operating plans, subject to revision as necessary, will include enforcement
              priorities, patrol schedules, procedures for documenting violations, boarding procedures,
              information needs, and other instructions to conduct day-to-day enforcement.

                      Through provisions    *of the Sanctuary's enforcement plan, the Sanctuary Agent win
              coordinate the actions of this multi-agency group, and ensure all participants receive appropriate
              training, equipment and support to conduct enforcement operations. The Sanctuary Agent will also
              assist in the development and delivery of Sanctuary education and outreach products designed for
              Sanctuary users and constituents, and intended to improvt voluntary compliance with Sanctuary
              regulations. These activities may include education/interpretive programs for the commercial whale
              watch industry, commercial 'and recreational fishing industries, hotel and. tourism industries,
              conservation organizations, civic and business organizations, and public school systems.

                      As part of the continuous management process, an -enforcement review program will be
              established for the Sanctuary that involves the SAC.          This program will ensure that the
              management issues are being addressed by all agencies involved in Sanctuary enforcement, and
              that the proper training, background and resource protection information is reaching the
              enforcement staff. Every effort will be made to provide the enforcement officers with information
              so they become familiar with the type of humpback whale research that occurs in the area.

                      d. Enforcement Program Goals and Objectives

              Sanctuary Goals: The primary goal of enforcement in the NMSP is to protect Sanctuary
              resources by achieving voluntary compliance with the applicable authorities. Effective enforcement
              of relevant Federal and State authorities that protect the humpback whale and its habitat within the
              Sanctuary is necessary. The principle goals associated with Sanctuary enforcement include:

                          0   Promoting public stewardship of the marine resources through. interpretive
                              enforcement efforts; and
                          0   increasing the public's understanding of why it is important to comply with
                              Sanctuary regulations; and
                          0   achieving voluntary compliance with applicable Federal, State, and County
                              authorities.


              Sanctuary Objectives: To achieve these goals, the Sanctuary manager will work with NMFS-
              OE and applicable Federal and State enforcement authorities, and the public to accomplish the
              following objectives:

              !2b_jective 1:  Establish Cooperative Agreements and Efforts
                  Strategy-L.l: Develop partnerships with other Federal and State enforcement agencies in
                      order to provide a uniform and coordinated enforcement presence throughout th6
                      Sanctuary.

                  Strategy 1.2: Maintain an active relationship with Federal and State enforcement agencies to
                      identify areas of mutual concern and to develop cooperative responses to enforcement
                      issues.

                  Strategy 1.3: Enter, if necessary, into memoranda of understanding, cooperative enforcement
                      agreements, and joint operation plans with other enforcement agencies as appropriate.


              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                           Page 239
              and Management Plan







               Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan                                     Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                             National Marine Sanctuary

                   Strategy _14: Facilitate communication among       enforcement assets to avoid duplication of
                       effort.

                   Strategy 1.5: Promote cooperation, standardization of gear, and coordination of limited
                       resources such as vessels, radios, radio frequencies and training.

                   Strategy 1.6: Promote training and cross deputization among enforcement agencies.

               Qbjgctive 2:    Facilitate Conununity Involvement

                   Strategy 2. 1: Encourage public involvement by encouraging site-specific interpretive patrols.

                   Strategy 2.2: Involve USCG, power squadrons, charter boat,          whalewatching and fishing
                       organizations in promoting compliance with Sanctuary regulations.

                   Strategy 2,3: Maintain an active dialogue with citizen groups seeking to enhance compliance
                       with Sanctuary regulations.

                   Strategy 2.4: Conduct community outreach programs to encourage compliance with
                       Sanctuary regulations and citizen involvement in reporting violations.

                   Strategy 2.5: Involve the SAC and interested public in assisting develop annual enforcement
                       plans.

                   Strategy 2.6: Establish an Enfor6ement/Regulation SAC Sub-Working Group consisting of
                       relevant regional law enforcement organizations and interested Sanctuary user groups.

               Objective 3:    Develop Education and Awareness Programs

                   Strategy 3, 1: Emphasize education as a tool to achieve compliance with regulations.
                   Strategy 3.2 : Promote stewardship of the general public through specific outreach programs
                       regarding voluntary compliance with Sanctuary regulations.
                   Strategy 3.3: Train user. groups about regulations and procedures for reporting violations
                       (witness statement forms).

                   Strategy 3.4: Identify major user groups and develop and disseminate specific materials to
                       these groups through meetings and workshops.
               Wb ective 4:    Coordinate Operations

                   Strategy 4. 1: Maintain an investigative capability to ensure quick response. to unlawful acts.
                   Strategy 4.2:   Develop and maintain the capability to effectively respond to violations of
                       Sanctuary regulations and to emergencies.

                   Strategy 4.3:   Develop enforcement operation plans that identify specific enforcement
                       strategies and priorities and outline the best means of achieving them.
                   Strategy 4.4:   Develop regulations for the Hawaii Sanctuary that are *comprehensible to the
                       general public and emphasize ease of enforcement.



               Page 240                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                 and Management Plan







              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                          Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
              National Marine Sanctuary

                 5. Agency Coordination

                      a. Permit Review

                      The Hawaii Sanctuary is unique among the other national marine sanctuaries when it comes
              to regulations and permitting. As proposed, the Sanctuary does not contain additional substantive,
              Sanctuary restrictions or prohibitions, nor contain separate requirements for Sanctuary permits,
              certifications, or authorizations. SRD, in consultation with the State of Hawaii and other Federal
              agencies, and after reviewing the scientific literature, has determined that the existing Federal and
              State regulations are presently sufficient to provide protection for humpback whales and their
              habitat; the only resources of the Sanctuary proposed at this time. As such, SRD is seeking only to
              supplement existing Federal and State regulations that pertain, directly or indirectly, to the
              protection of the humpback whale and its Sanctuary habitat. The Sanctuary wiU work within the
              permit review processes of these authorities that are already in place to ensure that humpback
              whales and their Sanctuary habitat are considered. The Sanctuary will also rely upon the collective
              experience of the Hawaii Sanctuary Advisory Council to provide advice and recommendations to
              the Sanctuary Manager and NOAA on issues pertaining to. Sanctuary management.

                          i. ESA and M?v1PA Perrnit Coordination

                      In August 1995, NOAA's National Ocean Service and NMFS signed a MOU concerning
              permits and consultations for activities that affect the HIHWNMS (Appendix E). This agreement
              sets forth specific. procedures by which NMFS-Office 4 Protected Resources and SRD will
              cooperate and c  'oordinate on the issuance of permits and other authorizations, and with respect to
              consultations under the ESA, NUVIPA, HINMSA, and the NMSA, for activities that may affect
              humpback whales and their Sanctuary habitat. This MOU was developed to reduce agency
              duplication and establish a more coordinated NOAA response to activities that could adversely
              impact humpback whales or their Sanctuary habitat. NMFS will remain the lead agency, and will
              work closely with the Sanctuary Manager to incorporate Sanctuary concerns into permits issued
              under the ESA and MMPA.
                      Most of the permits that will be subject to this. M6U will likely concern research conducted
              within 100 y4ds of humpback whales in Sanctuary waters issued under the MMPA and ESA. The
              research permitting procedure will remain virtually unchanged, since the Sanctuary will, through
              the process described in the MOU, provide its concerns within the 30-day public comment period
              that NMFS is required to provide the public, thereby ensuring there is no added delay to action
              taken on the permit. Delays may only occur if the project was particularly controversial or if
              NMFS and SRD needed additional time to resolve differences concerning the permit. NOAA
              expects that there will be few instances where this will occur.

                          ii. Humpback Whale Habitat Permit Review

                                  (a) NEPA and FWCA Coordination

                      The NMFS Pacific Islands Habitat Conservation Program (HCP) conducts National
              Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) reviews of
              Federal environmental assessments, environmental impact statements, and applications for permits
              under the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA). These reviews
              include, but are not limited to, CWA Section 404 permits and RHA Section 10 permits issued by
              the Corps.

                      SRD and NMFS are developing an MOU concerning the coordination of management
              activities of NMFS and SRD in the Sanctuary. In addition to other issues, this MOU addresses the
              coordination of NOAA's NEPA and FWCA reviews. NMFS-SWR will remain the NOAA lead

              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                               Page 241
              and Management Plan






                 Part V: SanctuaryManagement Plan                                        Hawaiian Islands Hum pback Whale
                                                                                                 National Marine Sanctuary

                 for FWCA/NEPA reviews in Hawaii. The NMFS Pacific Islands Environmental Coordinator will
                 notify the Sanctuary Manger (and vice versa), of all FWCA/NEPA reviews for activities that may
                 affect Sanctuary resources and include the Sanctuary in the review process. This consolidation
                 ensures that Sanctuary concerns are coordinated with NMFS,. and that they are addressed within
                 existing NEPA and FWCA review processes. The Sanctuary's regulatory structure was designed
                 so that the Sanctuary works within the existing review structures, and as such, it will not have
                 authority to deny discharge or alteration of the seabed activities under CWA Section 404 or. RHA
                 Section 10 or other permits issued by'other Federal or State agencies.

                                     (b) State of Hawaii Discharge and Alteration of the Seabed Permits
                         To facilitate coordination and to ensure that comprehensive and coordinated protection of
                 humpback whales and their habitat is effectively achieved using existing authorities, SRD has
                 developed a MOU with DOH and DLNR. The MOU establishes mutually agreeable procedures for
                 coordinated review of activities requiring permits from the State for proposed activities that are
                 subject to Sanctuary regulations (i.e., discharge and alteration of the seabed activities), and that
                 may impact humpback whales or their habitat. In addition, the MOU calls for the agencies to work
                 together to monitor permitee compliance with     'the terms and conditions of State permits for such
                 activities, and to coordinate the enforcement of violations of Sanctuary regulations and
                 corresponding State regulations or permits.

                         The  Sanctuary will focus, its review on those discharge and alteration of the. seabed
                 activities that have the potential of adversely impacting humpback whales or their habitat,
                 including:     National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Water Quality
                 Certifications, other general permits, and Conservation @ District Use Applications. The Sanctuary
                 regulation was developed to supplement existing Federal and State authorities, and as such, does
                 not have authority to deny such permits. The Sanctuary will work closely within these DOH and
                 DLNR permitting processes to ensure that humpback whales and their habitat are giv'en due
                 consideration.

                         b. Sanctuary Consultation Procedures

                         Section 304(d) of the NMSA, 16 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1434(d) requires' that Federal agency actions
                 internal or external to a national marine Sanctuary, including private activities authorized by
                 licenses, leases, or permits, that.are likely to destroy,, cause the loss of, or injure any sanctuary
                 resource are subject to consultation with the Secretary of Commerce (or designee). Federal
                 agencies proposing such actions are required to provide the Sanctuary with a written statement'
                 describing the action and its potential effects on Sanctuary resources at the earliest time, but no later
                 than 45 days before the final approval of the action. If the Secretary finds that a Federal agency
                 action is likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a Sanctuary resource, the Secretary (within
                 45 days of -receipt pf complete information on the proposed project) shall recommend reasonable
                 and prudent alternatives, which may include conduct of the action elsewhere, which         'can be taken
                 by the Federal agency implementing the agency action that will protect Sanctuary resources. The
                 agency head who' receives the Secretary's recommended alternatives shall promptly consult with
                 the-@Secretary on the alternatives. If the agency head decides not to follow the alternatives, the
                 agency shall provide the Secretary with a written statement explaining the reasons for that decision.

                         Under section 7 consultation procedures required by the ESA, NMFS routinely revi
                                                                                                                      iews
                 and comments on environmental impact statements, proposed permits, or other authorizationï¿½ for
                 Federal projects (e.g., construction, dredging, sound generation) and Federally permitted activities
                 which may affect humpback whales. As a result of section 7 consultation, NNTS may recommend
                 specific measures to minimize impacts (e.g. changes to timing and/or location of actiorr).



                 Page 242                                                             Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                      and Management Plan








             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                       Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
             National Marine Sanctuary
                     NOAA is committed to avoiding" unnecessary duplication of existing consultation
             requirements under the NMSA and the ESA. The MOU between SRD and NMFS on coordinated
             permit reviews also addresses coordinated consultation for Federal actions.                The  * MOU
             consolidates the ESA Section 7 as implemented by NMFS and the NMSA Section 304(d)
             consultation requirement as implemented by SRD for activities affecting Sanctuary resources in
             Hawaii (Appendix E). As a result, agencies that initiate ESA section 7 with NMFS for an activity
             that may impact humpback whales or their habitat, will also have initiated the NMSA section
             304(d) consultation. NMFS will coordinate with the Sanctuary and issue one response that
             satisfies both section 7 and section 304(d) consultations. NMFS will work closely with SRD to
             ensure that Sanctuary concerns are addressed in the joint-consultation provision. After review and
             completion of -the joint-consultation, NMFS will issue one NOAA response that fulfills both the
             ESA section 7 and -the NMSA section 304(d) consultation requirements; thus eliminating the need
             for two separate consultations.


                     c. Oil Spill and Hazardous Waste Contingency Planning

                     Both,living and non-living resources of the Sanctuary are susceptible to natural and human-
             related changes. Because many of these changes are gradual in nature, they may only be detected
             or forecast through long-term monitoring of environmental and biological indicators. However,
             certain changes in conditions which may result from specific, dramatic events (e.g., oil or other
             toxins introduced into the environment through an accidental vessel collision), pose serious threats
             to both Sanctuary resources and to public health and safety.

                         i. Existing Capabilities

                     Section 4202 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90;          33 U.S.C. ï¿½ 2701 et ig-q-)
             amended Subsection 0) of Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [FWPCA; 33
             U.S.C. 1321 (j)] to address the development of a National Planning and Response System. OPA
             called for the creation of planning teams to develop contingency plans to address oil and hazardous
             waste spills and responses. The National Response Team (NRT) is primarily a planning, policy
             and coordination body and does not respond directly to incidents. The NRT membership consists
             of 15 Federal agencies with responsibilities, interests and expertise in various aspects of
             emergency response to pollution incidents and is responsible for developing a National
             Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA serves as the@ chair and USCG serves as vice-chair. The Oceania
             Regional Response Team (ORRT) is comprised of Federal and State (or Territory) representation.
             Like the NRT, the ORRT is mainly a planning, policy and coordinating body, and does not
             respond directly to incidents. The ORRT has Federal and State representation. EPA and USCG
             co-chair the team. ORRT provides guidance and assistance to Area Committees and is responsible
             for developing Regional Contingency Plans (RCP).

                     . As part of the National Planning Response and Planning System, Area Committees are to
             be established for each area designated by the President. These Area Committees are to be
             comprised of qualified personnel from Federal, State and local agencies. Each Area Committee,
             under the direction of the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) for the area, is responsible for
             developing an Area Contingency Plan (ACP) which, when implemented in conjunction with the
             National Contingency Plan (NCP) and Regional Contingency Plan (RCP), shall be adequate to
             remove a worst case discharge of oil or a hazardous substance, and to mitigate or prevent a
             substantial threat of'such a discharge, from a vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility operating
             in or near the geographic area. Each Area Committee is also responsible for working with State
             and local officials to pre-plan for joint response efforts, including appropriate procedures for
             mechanical recovery, dispersal, shoreline cleanup, protection of sensitive environmental areas, and
             protection, rescue, and rehabilitation of fisheries and wildlife. The Area Committee is also


             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                           Page 243
             and Management Plan







               Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan.                                         Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                  National Marine Sanctuary

               required to work with State and local officials to expedite decisions for the use of dispersants and
               other mitigating substances and devices.

                        Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).entitled
               the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRKA). . This Federal statute
               requires emergency response planning at the State and local level. The State of Hawaii established
               a Hawaii State Emergency Response Commission (HSERC) to comply with this requirement and
               designated DOH as the lead agency to implement the EPCRKA. The HSERC was required to
               delineate emergency planning districts and appoint local emergency response committees to
               facilitate the preparation and implementation of local emergency plans. Hawaii's four counties
               (Hawaii, Honolulu, Maui and Kauai) represent the emergency planning districts for the State. The
               HSERC established a technical subcommittee to draft a State plan to provide statewide guidance on
               oil and hazardous substances emergency response. The result is Hawaii's Oil and Hazardous
               Substances Emergency Response Plan. This plan is incorporated in the Area Contingency Plan
               (ACP).

                            ii. Sanctuary Action

                     Contingency plans provide the basis under which agencies and individuals respond to oil
               spills, chemical releases, vessel groundings and other events which may threaten natural resources
               and human life. As a resource trustee, the National Marine Sanctuary Program is involved in
               several levels of contingency planning with various State and Federal agencies. The National
               Contingency Plan provides the basic framework and organization under which all oil and chemical
               response efforts are conducted. It provides for a National Response Center, which acts as a
               nationwide notification and reporting point for all spill incidents, and defines the roles of the
               regional response teams, Federal and state on-scene coordinators, and special forces.                   The
               Regional Response Tearns (RRT) are aligned within the boundaries of the Federally defined
               Regions, and provide for large scale contingency planning and resolution of issues related to
               response actions at the Federal-state interface level. The regional response plans generally deal with
               strategic issues which affect large areas, and cross many local jurisdictional boundaries. The Local
               Area Committees (LAC) are mandated by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The boundaries and size of
               these Local Areas vary from region to region, and generally tend to follow county or city
               boundaries in most areas. A few Local Areas have been delineated to,coincide with the limits of
               Coast Guard Districts or Marine Safety Office areas. The Local Area Contingency plans are much
               more detailed in nature and are tasked to consider several potential worst-case-scenarios for the
               local area, making these plans tactical in scope and effect.

               The National Marine,, Sanctuaries are represented at both the regional and local levels by
               involvement in the RRT and LAC processes. Information specific to the National Marine
               Sanctuaries is frequently inserted into the respective plans. In addition, individual sanctuary-
               specific planning and support activity is underway which will provide detailed information about
               the sanctuary resources needed by the response agencies in the event of an incide       -nt. The sanctuary
               plan will also provide policy guidance to the sanctuary manager and other staff that deal with the
               many issues which are involved in emergency response, damage assessment, and restoration
               planning. One page information briefs have been prepared for insertion'into the Regional and
               Local Area Contingency plans for each National Marine Sanctuary. The purpose of this insert is to
               inform the Regional Response Team, Local Area Committee members and -other individuals and
               agencies interested in oil. and chemical spill response issues about the basic information which
               would be needed during the first few hours of an emergency response action. Each insert page
               provides a small map showing the general relationship of the sanctuary boundary to the adjacent
               coastline, and a listing of the exact coordinates of the boundary on the back of the page. A brief
               history of the sanctuary i   'ncludes the date(s) of designation, reference to the major legisl       .ative
               mandates, and the nature of the trustee responsibility. A brief contact list for key sanctuary
               personnel, and a review of the major natural resources potentially at risk complete the information.

               Page 244                                                               Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                      and Management Plan








             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                          Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
             National Marine Sanctuary

             These inserts will be revised     as needed and distributed to the DOC Regional Response Team
             representatives and Local Area Committee members as needed to maintain awareness of the
             National Marine Sanctuaries' existence and needs.

                      NMFS and HAZMAT represent NOAA on the Area Conniiittee established under the Oil
             Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90). NMFS assisted the. U.S. Coast Guard in the development of the
             Area Plan for -the Pacific Region which incorporates guidelines for response procedures, use of
             dispersants, in-situ burning, coordination among Federal and State agencies, and damage
             assessment. The Sanctuary will work in close coordination with NMFS, the Western Pacific'
             Regional Response Team (RRT), and the Hawa                *ii State Emergency Response Commission
             (HSERC), to ensure that Sanctuary concerns are addressed in these local response plans.

                      d. Damage Assessment and Restoration Efforts.
                      Section 312 of the NMSA, 16 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1443, authorizes NOAA to commence civil actions
             to recover for response costs and damages against persons who destroy, cause the loss of, or
             injure sanctuary resources in National Marine Sanctuaries. In Hawaii, Sanctuary resources include
             the humpback whale and its Sanctuary habitat. Damages include compensation for: the cost of
             restoring, replacing, or Acquiring the equivalent of the destroyed, lost, or injured sanctuary
             resource; the value of the lost-use of sanctuary resources pending restoration or replacement or the
             acquisition of equivalent resources, or the value of a.sanctuary resource if it cannot be restored.
             replaced, or an equivalent acquired; the cost of performing damage assessments; and the reasonable
             cost of monitoring.

                      Funds recovered from damage actions must be spent according to specific priorities
             delineated inthe statute. Twenty percent of recovered response costs and damages, up to a
             maximum balance of $750,000, must be used to finance future -response actions and damage
             assessments. The remaining funds must be spent according to this order of priority: (1) restoring,
             replacing or acquiring the equivalent of the sanctuary resources which were the subject of the
             action; (2) managing and improving the National Marine Sanctuary affected by the incident; and (3)
             managing and improving any other National Marine Sanctuary.

                      When an incident results in destruction, loss, or injury to national marine sanctuary
             resources, SRD collaborates with several other elements within NOAA to respond and to initiate
             the damage assessment and restoration process. Chief among these is the D         'amage Assessment and
             Restoration Program (DARP) consisting of the National Ocean Service's (NOS) Damage
             Assessment Center (DAQ, the. National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) Restoration Center
             (RC), and the Office of the General Counsel. Other Federal and State agencies may, be involved
             and include the Coast Guard, Navy, and State environmental protection and maritime enforcement
             agencies.

                      NOAA's ultimate goal in damage          assessment is to restore injured coastal and marine
             resources. The natural resource damage assessment process is design                 ,ed to be fair to the
             responsible party while obtaining adequate compensation to the public to restore injured resources.
             Section 312 is codified in the Sanctuary regulations at 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 945.9.

                  6. Research and Long-Term Moni

                      a. Introduction

                      Research and long-term monitoring are critical to achieving the Sanctuary*'s primary goal of
             resource protection for the humpback whale and its Sanctuary habitat. To protect and conserve
             humpback whales and their habitat for the benefit of present and future generations, it is necessary
             to improve our present understanding of the humpback's vital life. rates (age at sexual maturity,

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                Paue 245
             and Management Plan






                Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan                                    Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                            National Marine Sanctuary

                pregnancy rates, variability in reproductive success, calving intervals, age-specific mortality and
                survivorship rates, longevity), abundance, distribution, movement, behavior and interrelationships
                with its Hawaiian habitat, and in other areas crucial to the whale's survival, such as the Alaskan
                feeding grounds. It is also. necessary to identify how these parameters change over time due to
                natural or human-induced factors. While much scientific research has been and continues t      o be
                collected on humpback whales, there remain many unanswered questions and unknowns
                concerning habitat requirements, population dynamics, threats and impacts, and in fully
                understanding vital rates and social behaviors. Such baseline information is needed to develop an
                understanding of Sanctuary resources and ensure the effective implementation of management
                strategies using the best available scientific information.
                       Information from research and long-term monitoring activities will be used to:
                           0   provide NOAA and the.public with a means to evaluate the effectiveness of,the
                               Sanctuary in protecting the humpback whale and its habitat;
                           *   provide a means to distinguish between the effects of human activities and natural
                               variability on identified and perceived impacts to humpback whales and their
                               habitat;
                               develop hypotheses about cause-effect relationships which can then be investigated;
                               evaluate management actions; and
                               verify and validate- quantitative predictive models used to evaluate and select
                               management actions.

                       A number of existing local    and mainland researchers and institutions. currently conduct
                research. on humpback whales and     their habitat. They will be encouraged to participate in the
                development and implementation of the Sanctuary's Research -and Long-Term Monitoring
                Program. In coordination with the SAC's Research Working Group, NMFS, and other
                researchers and resource managers, the Sanctuary Manager (and research coordinator) will develop
                a research and long-term monitoring program that will complement existing efforts and fills needed
                gaps. The Sanctuary research program will also coordinate with the education/interpretation
                community to broaden public understanding of the need for research on humpback whales and
                their habitat, the type of research occurring within the Sanctuary, and results from research-
                activities. This coordination will extend to the research agendas of other national marine
                sanctuaries whose scientific inquiries address humpback whale populations in both the Pacific and
                Atlantic Oceans.
                        The Sanctuary Monitoring Program will focus both on North Pacific humpback whales and
                components of the Sanctuary's habitat which -are important to humpback whales (e.g., chemical,
                physical and biological oceanography, human activities, spatial and temporal needs). Long-term
                monitoring and the resulting data bases will provide the basis for interpreting and/or predicting
                natural and human-induced events in the Sanctuary and in areas adjacent to the Sanctuary. General
                directions and priorities for additional research are provided in this section as a guide for
                identifying and selecting appropriate future Sanctuary research. projects. The process for preparing
                an annual Sanctuary Research Plan (SRP) and annual report is also discussed below.

                        Finally, the process to identify additional -marine resources and ecosystems of national
                significance for possible inclusion in the Sanctuary (see Part III, C of the Management Plan) will
                also involve developing recommendations for research objectives and strategies' that correspond
                with the identified resourg6s. Step 3 of the research review/evaluation process addresses further
                study of additional marine resources and ecosystems. Inquiry into the significance of the'identified
                resources or the need for additional management may be warranted. The Sanctuary will look for
                guidance and recommendations from the SAC Working Groups or sub-committees established to
                assist in this area. These recommendations would be considered in developing a proposal and
                modifications to the yearly SRP for the Sanctuary. If a supplemental EIS/MP, is necessary, it will

                Page 246                                                          Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                 and Management Plan







             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                     Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
             National Marine Sanctuary

             be reviewed by the public before changes are made to the management plan and implementing
             regulations.

                     b. Research and Long-Term Monitoring Program Goals and Objectives

                     The primary goals of a Research and Monitoring Program are to improve understanding of
             the central North Pacific population of humpback whales and their wintering habitat; to address and
             resolve specific management concerns; and to coordinate and facilitate information exchange
             among the various researchers and institutions, agencies, and the general public.

             Sanctuary Goals: The HINMSA and the NMFS Humpback Whale Recovery Plan establish the
             following research and monitoring goals:

                            Development of a greater understanding of humpback whales, their habitat
                            requirements and the factors responsible for negatively impacting their recovery;
                            Identification of research needs and priorities;
                            Establishment of a long-term ecological monitoring program with respect to
                            humpback whales and their habitat;
                            Establishment of str  iong communication and cooperation between. the scientific
                            community and resource managers;
                            Coordination of research efforts to achieve the most beneficial results;
                            Promotion of public awareness and resource stewardship; and
                            Identification of resources and ecosystems, in addition to humpback whales and
                            their habitat, for possible Sanctuary management.

                     The Sanctuary -Research and Long-Term Monitoring Program will play an integral role in
             the overall effort to implement portions of the NMFS Humpback Whale Recovery Plan and other
             long-term protection plans for the humpback whale and itg habitat.

             Sanctuary Objectives: To achieve these goals, the Sanctuary Manager and Sanctuary Research
             Coordinator will work with NUFS and the SAC's Research Working Group to accomplish the
             following objectives2:

             Qbjective 1:   Characterize the central- North Pacific Stock of humpback whales and their
                 Hawaiian habitat to establish a baseline for detecting and monitoring natural- and human-
                 induced changes.

                 Strategy 1. 1: Survey and evaluate available   information on humpback whales to determine
                     baseline information on vital rates, population estimates, distribution, migration, birth and
                     survivorship, and behaviors.

                 Strategy 1.2: Survey and evaluate available information on humpback whales and their habitat
                     to identify essential habitat and to determine critical data and information gaps.

                 Strategy 1.3: Survey and evaluate available information to identify potential human activities
                     and natural phenomena responsible for potential injury, harassment or disturbance to
                     humpback whales and their habitat.


             2Note: The following objectives, strategies and tasks represent goals that the Sanctuary will strive to fulfill over the
             next 5- 10 years. However, resource and staff limitations may hinder the completion of all tasks. Each year, the
             Sanctuary Manager and Research Coordinator will coordinate with the SAC Research Working Group to develop an
             annual Sanctuary Research Plan based upon available resources and identified priorities for that year. The Sanctuary
             research priorities will be congruent with priorities established by the. national program.

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                         Page 247
             and Management Plan







                   Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan                                            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                        National Marine Sanctuary


                       Strategy 1.4: Provide support to analyze existing and previously collected data and publish in
                           scientific journals or for new projects that fill needed knowledge-gaps.
                   Objective 2:     Establish a.coordinating framework and procedures for identifying, selecting and
                       sponsoring research projects to ensure.that the research topics are responsive to management
                       concerns and that research results contribute to improved management decision making in the
                       Sanctuary.
                       Strategy2j: Establish a SAC Research Working Group to provide advice and
                           recommendations to the SAC, Sanctuary Manager and Sanctuary Research Coordinator on
                           identifying, selecting and sponsoring Sanctuary research projects based on research and
                           management needs.

                           Task 2. 1. 1:    Develop guidelines for conducting Sanctuary sponsored research projects.

                       Strategy 2.2: Annually evaluate t      he effectiveness and efficiency of the Sanctuary research
                           program and its integration with other resource protection and education objectives.
                   Objective 3:     Develop a comprehensive long-term ecological monitoring program to fill
                       knowledge gaps and address management related issues and concerns. The program should
                       incorporate experimental designs that can help detect and discern the cause or causes of future
                       changes and trends in the vital parameters and the important habitats and habitat components of
                       the humpback population that "winters" in Hawaii.

                       Strategy 3. 1: Develop and implement a coordinated long-term program for monitoring the
                           distribution, abundance, age-sex composition, movement patterns, survival/mortality,
                           habitat use and behavior of 'whales in,.and possibly adjacent to the 'Sanctuary.

                           Task 3. 1. 1:    Conduct a thorough analysis of existing photographic mark-recapture data
                                information systems to determine the steps needed to ensure the system can be used to
                                asses population abundance, distribution and movements, and other population
                                parameters.

                           Task 3.1.2:      Support NUFS efforts'to continue the statewide mark-recapture effort using
                                researchers through the state.

                           Task 3.1.3:      Collaborate with NUFS to support a coordinated long-term statewide aerial
                                survey program to monitor changes in population abundance and distribution.

                       Strategy 3.2: Develop and implement a long-term program for identifying, assessing and
                           monitoring threats and impacts to humpback whales and their habitat. Scientific protocols
                           should be designed to discern cause and effect relationships between variables. ' Identify
                           steps to be taken to assess and eliminate, minimize, or mitigate threats.

                           Task 3.2. 1:     Support systematic research of vessel traffic and acoustic impacts on
                                humpback whale behavior and distribution. Studies should investigate cause and effect
                                relationships of how noise, and vessel or aircraft movement, speed, type and density
                                impacts humpback whales.

                           Task 3.2.2:      Monitor water. quality and effects of vessel, point and land-based pollution
                                on humpback whales and their habitat. Facilitate scientific studies that discern cause
                                and effect relationships. between water quality and humpback whales. Explore other
                                aspects of the humpback whale habitat as indicators of pollutant impacts on the

                   Page 248                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                             and Management Plan







             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                      Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
             National Marine Sanctuary

                        environment since humpback whale may not manifest the impacts of such pollutants for
                        many years.

                 Strategy 2.3: Monitor all research activities conducted in the Sanctuary and obtain data and
                     data analyses from such research activities to the maximum extent practicable. Ini     itiate a
                     voluntary research registry for all research projects, whether focusing on the humpback
                     whale or other aspects of its'habitat in the Sanctuary.

             Q_bjective 4:  Develop a data and information management system for tr        acking and integrating
                 new information into an evolving understanding of humpback whales and their@habitat.

                 Strategy 4. 1: Assess the effectiveness of existing databases and information systems used for
                     long-term monitoring of humpback whales and their habitat. Include an analyses of data
                     compatibility, utility, purpose, costs, accuracy (data , verification), and accessibility
                     (whether or not researchers will provide proprietary data).

                 Strategy 4.2: Identify, in consultation with researchers, educators, and Federal, State and
                     county agencies the types of data and information that should be stored, and the most
                     effective and user-friendly means for accessing this data and information.

                 Strategy 4.3: Explore the feasibility of developing a GIS or other appropriate data/information
                     technologies cooperatively with other Federal, State and county agencies involved in ocean
                     and coastal resource management. The 'GIS should include information on humpback
                     distribution, the biological, physical, chemical parameters of humpback whale habitat, and
                     human activities in and adjacent to the Sanctuary).

             Qbjective 5:. Encourage information exchange among all organizations and agencies undertaking*
                 management-related research in the Sanctuary to promote more informed management and
                 decision making.

                 Strategy 5. 1: Facilitate communication with the research and education communities, user
                     groups, and the public to promote mutual understanding of each other's -role in encouraging
                     public knowledge and appreciation of humpback whales and their habitat.

                 Strategy 5,2: Incorporate research results into S 'anctuary education and interpretive programs
                     and publications in a format and language.useful to resource users and the general public.

                 Strategy 5.3: Develop a program to disseminate scientific research results, including an
                     information exchange network, conferences, and support for the publication of research
                     findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

                 Strategy 5.4: , Develop, in cooperation with local education and conservation organizations,
                     teacher enrichment programs to facilitate the transfer of information into science, math,
                     environmental and social studies into K- 12 and curriculum.

             Qbjgctive 6:    Facilitate the process to evaluate marine resources, in addition to humpback whales
                 and their habitat, for possible inclusion in the Sanctuary.

                 Strategy 6. t: Support research into marine resources, in addition to humpback whales and
                     their habitat, that may be of special national significance and suitable for Sanctuary.
                     management. Explore the significance of these resources and the need for additional
                     management measures.



             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                          Page 249
             and Management Plan






                   Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan                                             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                         National Marine Sanctuary'

                       Strategy 6.2: Work with the SAC's Research Working Group in developing additional
                            research objectives and strategies that correspond with identified resources.


                            c. Framework for Research
                   The Sanctuary's rese@rch program will consist of five principal categories:

                                    baseline. studies to determine features and processes of the North Pacific humpback
                                    whale wintering habitat; vital rates, behavior, abundance, and distribution of
                                    humpback whales; interactions among the living resources comprising the North
                                    Pacific humpback whale wintering habitat; and types and patterns of human
                                    activities within and around the Sanctuary;             . .
                                    monitoring studies to document changes in humpback whale behavior, Sanctuary
                                    use patterns, environmental quality of Sanctuary habitat components, and human
                                    activities and their effects on Sanctuary resources;
                                    predictive studies to assess causes and effects          of ecological and environmental
                                    changes to determine trends and anticipate Sanctuary management issues;
                                0   data and information storage system to catalogue past, present and future research
                                    studies so that these results are easily accessible to the public;
                                0   studies of marine resources, in addition to humpback whales and their habitat, for
                                    possible inclusion in the Sanctuary.

                   Each of these categories is described in more detail below:

                                i. Baseline Studies

                            Baseline seasonal studies will generally be directed at better understanding the status
                   (abundance, distribution and survivorship),' condition (vital rates) and behaviors of the central
                   North Pacific population of humpback whales win          'tering in Hawaiianwaters, their particular habitat
                   requirements, and the status and condition of that habitat. In addition,. initial baseline studies inay
                   also focus on the effects of human activities on both the humpback whales and on                      resources
                   comprising their habitat.

                                ii. Monitoring

                            In addition to data bases documenting living and non-living components of the Sanctuary,
                   successful management requires knowledge and understanding of long-term changes occurring
                   within the Hawaiian Islands system., Humpback whales reach sexual maturity in 7-9 years.
                   Females calve about every two years. Therefore impacts to humpback W hales will take a long time
                   to detect, and a long-term monitoring program will need to recognize and observe trends over a 20-
                   50 year time frame. The monitoring program should include studies that can help detect and
                   deterrnine the probable or possible causes of changes (natural or human-cause'd) in the distribution,
                   abundance, age-sex composition,. and habitat-use patterns of humpback whales and key
                   characteristics of the habitat. Consistent and comparable long-term data are needed to identify
                   spatial and temporal trends in these parameters. Monitoring, studies should also be established to
                   investigate the relationship of water quality and human activities on humpback whales                 and their
                   habitat.


                                iii. Predictive Studies

                            The Sanctuary research program will conduct, as necessary, targeted studies that address
                   management needs, analyze. the causes and consequences of system changes, and predict the



                   Page 250                                                                   Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                              and Management Plan







             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                     Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
             National Marine Sanctuary
             effects on humpback whales of new or increased levels of human activity within or around the
             Sanctuary.

                        iv. Data and Information System

                     An important component of the research program is to establish a mutually agreeable
             system for storing/archiving and retrieving past, present and future research data and other relevant
             information. The Sanctuary will work with researchers and government agencies to determine the
             best way to facilitate information storage and retrieval.       Possible systems could involve a
             Geographic Information System (GIS), computer accessible network, Internet, on-site data center,
             fluke-photo catalogue and other appropriate data'systerns.

                        v. Marine Resource Studies

                     Finally, the research program will support research into marine resources, in addition to
             humpback whales and their habitat, that may be of special national significance and suitable for
             Sanctuary management. The studies will explore the significance of these resources and the need
             for additional Sanctuary management measures. The Sanctuary will work with the SAC's
             Research Working Group in developing additional research objectives and strategies that
             correspond with identified resources


                     d. Selection of Sanctuary-Funded Research Projects

                     Sanctuary funded research projects will primarily focus on management issues and
             concerns related to the central North Pacific population of humpback whales which frequent the
             main Hawaiian Islands. The Sanctuary Manager, Sanctuary Research Coordinator, and SAC
             Research Working Group will develop research selection procedures to ensure that the Sanctuary's
             research program is consistent with the policies and directions of the NMSP. Sanctuary-funded
             research projects will be selected in accordance with research priorities and monitoring needs
             identified in the annual Hawaii Sanctuary Research Plan.

                     Several preliminary areas of research have been identified by the public during the
             development of this final management plan. These include:

                             Characterization of the humpback whale habitat within the 100 fathom isobath;
                             Determination of humpback whale population vital rates (e.g., age at sexual
                             maturity, pregnancy rates, variability in reproductive success, calving intervals,
                             age-specific mortality and survivorship rates, longevity) and population abundance
                             and distribution.
                             Assessment of various human impacts on humpback whales and their habitat (e.g.,
                             vessel traffic type and volume; acoustics; water quality; research; deep-sea waste
                             disposal, alterations of the seabed).
                             Development of temporal and spatial data bases to measure the "carrying capacity"
                             of human activities, with respect to humpback whales and their habitat.
                             Compilation of an annual report on Sanctuary-sponsored research on humpback
                             whales and their habitat to enhance Sanctuary management and resource protection'.

                     Sanctuary funded research will be coordinated by. the Sanctuary Research Coordinator,
             who will work closely with'the SAC's Research, Working Group, NMFS Southwest
             Region/Center, and the National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMUL). Coordination will be
             particularly important between NMFS and the Sanctuary since NMFS is involved with the
             coordination of humpback whale research throughout the entire Pacific basin. As such, Sanctuary
             funded research priorities may differ from those by NMIFS given to humpback whale research

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                         Page 251
             and Management Plan







                 Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan                                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                National Marine Sanctuary

                 efforts throughout the larger Pacific basin area. The Sanctuary Advisory Council's Research
                 Working Group will be responsible for providing advice and recommendations to the SAC and the
                 .Sanctuary Manager on: priorities for research topics; establishing evaluation criteria for Request for
                 Proposals (RFP's); establishing reporting and publishing guidelines; monitoring the quality of
                 ongoing research; and. distributing preliminary findings for peer review. The Sanctuary Research
                 Coordinator will consult with NUFS-SW and the NMML to ensure that the proposed research is
                 consistent with the objectives of other NOAA humpback whale research efforts in the Pacific.
                 Final Sanctuary approval for research projects will be made following receipt by the principal
                 investigators of necessary permits -from appropriate agencies. Where possible, collaborative
                 research projects - will be developed to study humpback whales in surnmer feeding grounds in
                 Alaska and migration routes to and from these areas. The Pacific Region of the NMSP provides an
                 excellent platform for research since humpback whales are found off the Olympic Coast, Gulf of
                 the Farallones, Cordefl Bank, Monterey Bay, Channel Islands, and Fagatele Bay National Marine
                 Sanctuaries.


                            i. Research Permits

                        Research activities that involve approaching humpback whales within 100 yards, or taking
                 as defined by the MMPA and'ESA are required to obtain a NNMS research permit. For such
                 activities conducted in State waters, a DLNR-DAR research permit is also required. No new or
                 additional Sanctuary permit will be required to conduct such research in the Sanctuary. SRD has
                 developed a MOU with NMFS to work within their.existing permitting structure to review and
                 provide recommendations on proposals to conduct research, on humpback whales within the
                 Sanctuary. This review process will occur during the thirty-day public review process required
                 under the MMPA.

                            ii. Annual Sanctuary Research Plan (SRP)

                        An annual SRP will be prepared by the Sanctuary Manager, with assistance from the SAC
                 Research Working Group. The annual SRP is a brief description of the research goals for each
                 fiscal year and a description of how these goals fit into those of the Sanctuary management plan.
                 SRD will then incorporate the annual SRP into a national plan that includes SRPs for each
                 Sanctuary. Steps in the annual process include:

                    (1) Identifying Sanctuary managern   ent concerns;

                    (2) Establishing research priorities, based upon    the identification of management concerns.
                        Research priorities  'will be established by the Sanctuary Manager in consultation with the
                        SAC and. its Research Working Group, and relevant NMFS Scientific Review Groups.
                        Important factors to be considered in establishing research priorities include:

                        ï¿½ whether immediate or evolving management issues can be resolved through directed
                            research by the Sanctuary or other means;
                        ï¿½   prospects of related research in progress; and
                        ï¿½   availability of funding and equipment for research.support.

                    (3) Holding research workshops on an occasional basis to facilitate the identification of
                        research problems or opportunities. After the management issues and research priorities
                        are developed, a draft SRP is prepared.
                    (4) Preparing a SRP that includes documentation of how each project meets. SRD's selection
                        criteria.



                 Page 252                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                   and Management Plan







           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                      Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
           National Marine Sanctuary
              (5) A research announcement and request for detailed research proposals is prepared. The
                   announcement and request for proposals will discuss the identified management concerns,
                   and summarize past and current related research. Its purpose is to solicit proposals from
                   the scientific community,that'satisfy the criteria specified in the SRP.

                      iii. Monitoring Research Project Progress
                   The Sanctuary Manager (or Research Coordinator) will coordinate with NMFS Pacific Area
           Office to'monitor humpback whale research in the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary Manager will assist
           NMFS, as necessary, to maintain records of all current research, equipment,bding used on the site,
           frequency of researchers' visits to the site, and progress to date on each current research project.
           To the extent possible, the Sanctuary Manager will help facilitate research activities within the
           Sanctuary. Final research reports may be peer reviewed by scientists recognized in the particular
           field of inquiry, as well as by resource managers. before final approval of the report by NMFS.
           Particularly outstanding research reports may be published by SRD or NMFS in its Technical
           Report/Memorandum Series.

                       iv. Information Exchange

                   Direct SRD funding for research is limited. To complement and augment directly funded
           research, SRD encourages research funded by other sources,* particularly where it supports
           management objectives to protect the humpback whale and its habitat. For example, water quality
           or whale monitoring programs conducted by a Federal, State, or county agency provide a wealth of
           data which have direct application for Sanctuary management. To assist in this information
           exchange effort, SRD will make available to other agencies and interested private institutions
           Sanctuary resource data obtained from past and ongoing research projects.

               7. Education and Outreach

                   a. Introduction

                   Public awareness, understanding, and appreciation for the special values of humpback
           whales are essential for their protection and continued vitality. The Sanctuary education and
           interpretive program will focus on enhancing public understanding and appreciation of humpback
           whales and their relationship with the Hawaiian Islands marine environment. A well-informed
           public and user community will not only cultivate a greater appreciation of the need to protect
           Sanctuary resources, but also, enhance voluntary regulatory compliance. The Sanctuary will
           accomplish this by working with existing public and private-sector' educational, programs and
           institutions to produce and disseminate information, promote public participation, develop outreach
           activities for the visitor and local population, and provide information to various user groups on the
           Sanctuary regulations designed to ensure resource protection.

                   Changing information gaps and needs demand that education and outreach be a continuing
           and evolving process. Information translation, packaging and dissemination is an important part of
           resource protection. While the primary purpose of the Sanctuary is protection of resource and site
           qualities, the Act also requires, NOAA to facilitate public and private uses (including Native
           Hawaiian uses) consistent with the primary objective of resource protection.,

                   There are two major groups of people that the Sanctuary intends to target: residents and
           visitors of Hawaii. State of Hawaii statistics indicate @hat 80 percent of the visitors and residents
           engage in some form of ocean or coastal activity. It is imperative that these ocean users are
           educated users. Effective education programs occur at the community level. The Sanctuary will
           work with communities and groups to ensure that this occurs.


           Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                          Page 253
           and Management Plan







                Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan                                     Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                             National Marine Sanctuary

                        TheffINMSA mandates the development of an educatio       in and interpretation program for the
                humpback whale and its habitat, and other marine resources found within the Hawaiian
                environment. Strong support for such an education program was received from the public during
                the March 1993 and 1994 public meetings and technical consultations. In addition, the NMVS
                Humpback Whale Recovery Plan and H         'awaii Ocean Resources Management Plan specifically
                promote education and outreach as an important management tool for resource protection.

                        A number of existing local agencies and private institutions currently provide education
                opportunities on these resources.      These agencies will be encouraged to participate in the
                development. -and implementation of the Sanctuary's Education and Interpretation 'program.
                Through partnerships, MOUs, and cooperative agreements, the Sanctuary will - work- to
                complement and assist existing efforts to develop and disseminate information about the humpback
                whale and its habitat, and other resources to visitors and residents /state-wide. In addition, the
                Sanctuary will encourage and work with researchers to develop and incorporate research results
                into educational programs and products.

                        b. Education and Outreach Program Goals and Objectives

                        The primary goals of the Education and Outreach Program are to: enhance knowledge of
                the Sanctuary's purposes, goals and regulations; improve public awareness and understanding of
                the humpback whale and its habitat; facilitate responsible human uses within the Sanctuary;
                encourage public participation; and facilitate information exchange between the various
                environmental educators and interpreters, scientists, agencies, and the general public.

                Sanctuary Goals: The NMSA and the HINMSA, have established additional education and
                outreach goals, to:

                                promote public understanding, support, and participation in the Hawaiian Islands
                                National Marine Sanctuary and the NMSP;
                                educate and interpret for the public the relationship of humpback whales to the,
                                Hawaiian Islands marine environment;
                                promote education among users of the Sanctuary and the general public about
                                conservation of humpback whales, their habitat, and other marine resources
                                enhance public awareness, understanding, appreciation, and wise , use of the
                                Hawaiian Islands marine envirom-nent;
                                facilitate environmental education opportunities for all segments of society-,
                                promote and. foster a clear awareness of the economic, biological, recreational,
                                educational, research and diverse cultural values of the Hawaiian Islands, as well as
                                the interdependence of these values upon one.another;
                                facilitate all public and private uses if the Sanctuary (including uses of Hawaiian
                                natives customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and
                                religious purposes) consistent with the primary objective of protection of humpback
                                whales -and their habitat; and
                                provide opportunities for citizen involvement in developing and implementing
                                education programs.









                Page 254                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                 and Management Plan






               HawaiiadIslands Humpback Whale
                                                                                             Part V' S a*nctuary Management Plan
               National Marine Sanctuary

               Sanctuary Objectives: To achieve these goals, the Sanctuary Manager and Education
               Coordinator will work with the SAC's Education Working Group to accomplish the following
               .objectiveS3:

               QbLective 1:     Enhance public awareness, understanding and appreciation of humpback whales
                   and their habitat.

                   Strategy 1. 1: Develop and disseminate, in cooperation with existing education organizations,
                       educational materials and programs aimed at enhancing public awareness and appreciation
                       for humpback whales and their winter habitat, and demonstrate the need for their
                       protection.

                       Task 1. 1. 1:      Develop pamphlets, brochures, newsletters, marine education resource
                            directories, videos, fact sheets, and education packets on the humpback whale's
                            biology, behavior, migration, distribution and habitat preferences in a variety of
                            languages for broad public distribution.

                       Task 1. 1. 3:      Develop cooperative arrangements with, existing institutions to develop
                            information products and programs and to co-locate information displays on humpback
                            whales and their habitat throughout the Sanctuary.
                   Strategy 1,2: Educate users about the'possible threats and impacts to humpback whales in
                       Hawaii and elsewhere and actions that can be taken to prevent or mitigate these impacts.

                       Task 1. 2. 1:      Provide educational materials to the public about impacts from human
                            activities in Hawaii (approaching and disturbing whales, pollution, runoff, vessel
                            traffic, noise, high seas driftnets).

                       Task 1.2.2:        Support existing efforts to expand the annual Boat Captains, training
                            program for whalewatch captains and other interested boaters.

                       Task 1.2.3:        Encourage public stewardship. Provide action items that individuals and
                            groups can do to ensure the protection for humpback whalis and their Hawaiian habitat
                            (i.e., reduce pollution and degradation, observe humpback whale approach regulations,
                            participate in marine conservation and outreach programs)-

               Qbjective 2:     Create public awareness of the HIHWNMS and the NMSP.

                   Strategy 2. 1: Distribute and present information about the national program mission and other
                       sites to interested groups.
                       Task 2. 1. 1:      Develop brochures, newsletters and oilier media, including multi-lingual
                            interpretive signs and kiosks at various vantage points (boat ramps, scenic lookouts,
                            tourist information centers) to educate the public about Sanctuary resources and the
                            HIHWNMS.


               3Note:  The following objectives, strategies and tasks represent long-term goals that the Sanctuary will strive to
               fulfill over the next 5-10 years. However, resource and staff limitations may hinder the completion of all tasks.
               Each year, the Sanctuary -Manager and Education Coordinator will coordinate with the SAC Education Working
               Group to develop an annual Sanctuary Education Plan based upon available resources and identified priorities for that
               year. The Sanctuary education priorities will be congruent with priorities established by the national program.
               Many of the following objectives, strategies and tasks directly resulted from the many ideas suggested by the public
               during the statewide March 1993 and March 1994 public meetings and technical workshops.

               Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                        Page 255
               and Management Plan






                Part V: .9anctuary Management Plan                                        Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                 National Marine Sanctuary


                        Task 2.1.2:      Participate in environmental awareness celebrations, festivals, conferences
                             and workshops.
                    Strategy 2.2: Clearly articulate the purpose, goals and objectives, regulations and resources
                        of the HIHWNMS wit      'h specific emphasis on the need to use the resources and area wisely
                        to ensure sustained use.

                    Strategy 2.3: Promote, in cooperation with other non-profit organizations, the concept of
                        support groups and cooperating associations to facilitate public and volunteer.participation,
                        and add additional resources to implement the HIHWNMS program.
                    Strategy 2.4: Develop an information/educationtresearch network with other marine
                        sanctuaries conducting research on humpback whales and their habitats.

                        Task 2.4. 1:     Collaborate with other national marine sanctuaries and summarize existing
                             research and education efforts on humpback whales and their habitat.

                        Task 2.4.2:      Initiate cooperative education/research programs and projects among other
                             sanctuaries with humpback whales.

                Q@Jective 3:     Establish a coordinating framework and procedures for identifying, selecting and
                    sponsoring education projects to ensure that the education topics are responsive to management
                    concerns and that the education products contribute to greater understanding and appreciation
                    of the Sanctuary, humpback whales and the broader Hawaiian Islands marine environment.

                    Strate    3. 1: Establish a Sanctuary Advisory Council Education Working Group to provide
                        advice, recommendations, and information, to the Sanctuary Manager, Sanctuary Education
                        Coordinator, and the SAC on identifying: (1) current activities in the education community;
                        (2) methods and opportunities to establish cooperative efforts; (3) direction for the
                        Sanctuary Education Program; (4) ways to prevent duplicative efforts; (5) guidelines for the
                        production. of educational materials; and to (6) develop annual        Sanctuary education and
                        outreach plan.

                    Strategy 3.2: Develop standards and application criteria for Educational Request for
                        Proposals (RFPs).

                    Strategy 3.3: Develop, with assistance from the SAC Education Working Group, guidelines
                        for project selection and awards.

                    Strategy 3.4: Create opportunities for public involvement'to encourage feedback on the
                        effectiveness of education/interpretive programs, so that ineffective programs can be
                        restructured and successful ones promoted.

                Objective 4:     Encourage information exchange among all persons, organizations and a
                    undemiking environmental education and research activities in the Sanctuary.                   gIencies
                    Strategy 4. 1: Collaborate with other education organizations and institutions to generate joint
                        opportunities to provide interpretive/education services, including extension and outreach
                        programs, marine curriculum, newsletters, volunteer programs and workshops.
                    Strategy 4.2: Initiate a coordination network with humpback whale educators and researchers
                        in the North and South Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.


                Page 256                                                              Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                     and Management Plan







              Hawaiiadlslandi Humpback Whale                                             Part V: Sanc,tuary Management Plan
              National Marine Sanctuary
                  Strategy 4.3: Facilitate communication between the education and research. communities and
                       tourism/recreation industry to promote mutual understanding of each other's role in
                       encouraging public knowledge and appreciation of humpback whales and their habitat.

                  Strategy 4.4: Incorporate research results into Sanctuary education and interpretive programs
                       and disseminate publications in a format and language useful to resources users and the
                       general public.
              Objective 5:     Develop a user friendly depository for information and research results pertaining to
                  Sanctuary resources and management information.

                  Strategy 5. 1: Archive research results and reports in depositories/libraries in at least one
                       central. location and explore the possibility of using the public library system throughout the
                       islands to make information accessible to the public.

                       Task 5. 1. 1:    Explore the feasibility for an on-line computer interactive information
                           storage/retrieval system (e.g.,' Internet or an. on-line server), after assessing existing
                           computer interactive resources.

              QbJective 6:     Establish cooperative education programs with Native Hawaiian groups to develop
                  programs that educate the general public about Native Hawaiian traditions, culture, resource
                  uses and religion as they relate to Hawaii's marine environment.

                  Strategy 6. 1: Nurture a cultural awareness based upon the Native Hawaiian tradition of
                       respect for the ocean and its resources as a central theme of the. Hawaiian culture.

                  Strategy 6.2: Document Native Hawaiian knowledge of traditional and cultural management
                       techniques for incorporation into management and education programs.

                       Task, 6.2 @ 1: Recognize and encourage the rehabilitation of traditional Native Hawaiian
                           resource management and subsistence . demonstration projects (Ahupua'a, Konohiki
                           fisheries, Taboos, fish ponds, etc.)

                  Strategy 6.3: Support efforts to translate Native Hawaiian stories, myths and legends
                       concerning the marine environment into written records.'

                       Sanctuary education programs and activities will be coordinated by a Sanctuary Education
              Coordinator who will work closely with the SAC's Education Working Group. The Education
              Working Group will be responsible for providing advice and recommendations on: the
              development of annual Sanctuary Education Plans; generating and establishing priorities for
              education topics; establishing evaluation criteria for Request For Proposals (RFPs); monitoring the
              quality of ongoing education programs; and distributing preliminary findings for peer review. The
              Sanctuary Manager and Education Coordinator will work to implement the recommendations of the
              SAC Education Working Group. The effectiveness of the Education Program will be evaluated
              annually by the Sanctuary Manager, Education Coordinator and SAC.

                       C. Education and Interpretation Opportunities

                       Education and interpretation     opportunities for the Sanctuary will be targeted toward, three
              basic user audiences: visitors to the Sanctuary; visitors to the Sanctuary headquarters and satellite
              offices; and interested individuals or. organizations not visiting either location (off-site). Numerous
              education and interpretation opportunities exist for all types of audiences.



              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                    Page.157
              and Management Plan







                 Part V: SanctuaryManagement Plan                                      Hawaiian Islands Hu'mpback Whale
                                                                                              National Marine Sanctuary
                        The accessibility of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary to
                 numerous recreational and commercial boaters, swimmers, surfers, divers, commercial fishermen,
                 and scientific researchers, provides a variety of ways in which to reach the visiting public with
                 information about the Sanctuary's resources and programs. Various tools exist to reach on-site
                 us6rs:' brochures and other informational materials distributed aboard whalewatch vessels;
                 recreational charterboat captains; and research and educational institutions sponsoring vessel trips
                 to the site.

                        The establishment of the Sanctuary headquarters on Maui with other potential satellite
                 offices on the neighbor islands will provide a focal point for interested members of the public who
                 may or may not intend to actually visit all areas of the Sanctuary. These offices will make available
                 'information and interpretive materials on humpback whales, Hawaii's marine ecosystem, Native
                 Hawaiian traditional and cultural activities, recreational. activities, and Sanctuary regulations.

                        Some of the educational and interpretive materials will be presented in audio-visual formats;
                 others in printed form. The Sanctuary headquarters will also provide a location for the public to
                 learn about other private or government marine resource management activities occurring within or
                 near the Sanctuary. Information will also be provided on how the Sanctuary program coordinates
                 with other public and private institutions or agencies to ensure the continued protection and
                 viability of Hawaii's humpback whales and their habitat.
                        Finally, Sanctuary interpretive staff will conduct outreach activities to make Sanctuary
                 information available to individuals, schools, and organizations throughout the main Hawaiian
                 Islands. These materials will be directed to both those persons who frequently use the Sanctuary
                 and those who are not likely to use the Sanctuary, but who are nonetheless interested in leaming
                 about the HIHWNMS and the NMSP.

                        d. Education and Interpretation Programs

                        Interpretation for the Sanctuary will consist of three distinct programs:

                                on-site visitor programs for whalewatching vessels, and other recreational marine
                                users and visitors to the Sanctuary;
                                visitor center prograrnsfor individuals visiting the Sanctuary headquarters, or other
                                satellite information centers; and
                                outreach programs for interested individuals and groups not, visiting the Sanctuary
                                or its headquarters, but who desire to learn more about the Sanctuary's resources
                                and qualities.

                            i.  On-Site Visitor Programs

                        On-site education and outreach provided by the HIHWNMS Manager (or education
                 coordinator) will consist primarily of printed materials describing humpback whales and their
                 habitat, and the Sanctuary, management program. These materials will be made available for
                 distribution at local government offices, marine recreation businesses, marinas, whalewatching
                 vessels, humpback whale interpretive centers, tourism information centers, airports; harbors and
                 other local establishments. The program will rely heavily on the cooperation of the tourism,
                 whalewatching and marine recreation industry for 'successful implementation. Many of the
                 commercial whalewatch vessels incorporate the onboard services of a naturalist      'to identify and
                 discuss various species of cetaceans. The Sanctuary will work with these services to incorporate
                 verbal information on the Sanctuary in their interpretive discussions, in addition to brochures or
                 other printed materials which excursion participants may carry home with them.                 Local
                 organizations and businesses, such as the Whale Museum, Pacific Whale Foundation. Save the


                 Page 258                                                          Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan







             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                       Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
             National Marine Sanctuary

             Whales, Whales Alive, Hawai'i Wildlife Fund, Earthtrust, Waikiki Aquarium, Sierra Club, and
             others may also be interested in co-sponsoring special excursions to the Sanctuary.

                         ii. Visitor Center/Headquarters Programs

                     The establishment of a Sanctuary headquarters in the area and the existence of other visitor
             and information centers throughout Hawaii provide an opportunity to inforra visitors to these sites
             about humpback whales and their habitat, and the Sanctuary program. Although most visitors and
             residents use Hawaii's.marine waters for a variety or purposes, many do not fully understand or
             appreciate the significance of this national resource. Educational exhibits and brochures about the
             Sanctuary's resources can only help to enhance people's appreciation for the special qualities of
             this unique marine environment. Exhibits, audio-visual information, and printed materials will be
             available to the public at the Sanctuary visitor center/headquarters. Additional potential distribution
             points for Sanctuary brochures and other materials include NMFS's Honolulu Laboratory, Kilauea
             Point National Wildlife Refuge on Kauai, Kealia Pond NWR in Maui, at variou's national parks in
             Hawaii, Hanauma Bay MLCD and other aquariums, museums and environmental centers
             throughout Hawaii.

                         iii. Outreach Programs

                     The Sanctuary educational program will aim to reach groups throughout the Hawaiian
             Islands and elsewhere who have An interest in Hawaii's marine environment, but who may not.
             visit or experience the area first-hand. This project entails identifying these groups and making
             educational materials and presentations available to them.
                     These programs will be carried out in conjunction with similar local programs to provide
             off-site education. Where possible, the Sanctuary will involve coordinating the cooperative efforts
             of local and regional environmental education programs and organizations (e.g., Department of
             Education, DLNR, Waikiki Aquarium, University of Hawaii Sea Grant and Marine Options
             Programs, environmental organizations, and Native Hawaiian groups). Additionally, Sanctuary
             staff will make interpretive materials and presentations available to local and regional schools,
             universities and interested user groups. Materials may include slide presentations and traveling
             exhibits, curriculum materials and other teacher aids. Opportunities will be assessed for Sanctuary
             outreach locations in areas of heavy public visitation, such as highway scenic pull-offs, State parks
             and public docks.


             E. ADMINISTRATION

                     This section of the management plan describes the administrative roles of the Sanctuary, the
             SAC and the various agencies that will be involved in Sanctuary management. It also identifies
             strategies to coordinate their activities, and provides for periodic evaluation of the overall
             effectiveness of the management plan. Sanctuary management consists of five basic functions:
             resource protection (including enforcement), research, education, and administration.
             Administration oversees all other functions and establishes who is responsible for implementing
             specific programs. The administrative framework ensures that all management activities are
             coordinated.

                     SRD    will develop a cooperative partnership with the State of Hawaii and NMFS to
             implement   'components of this Final Management Plan for the Sanctuary. SRD will coordinate its
             on-site activities through cooperative agreements and/or specific MOUs with existing Federal and
             State agencies, and non-govemmental organizations, as appropriate. The general administrative
             roles of each agency are described below and listed in Pan II(E)(3) of this Final EIS/MP.


             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                           Page 259
             and Management Plan







                 Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan                                           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                     National Marine Sanctuary


                      1. Site Administration

                         The NMSP is administered by SRD. SRD is headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland,
                 and has on-site Sanctuary staff that are responsible for managing each of the individual sanctuary
                 sites. SRD works with the on-site Sanctuary Manager to develop a site budget and implement
                 program policies on the local level. Funding priorities will be reviewed and adjusted annually to
                 reflect evolving conditions in the HIHWNMS and NMSP priorities and* requirements. SRD also
                 establishes policies and procedures in response to specific issues in each Sanctuary. Detailed SRD
                 responsibilities are fisted under the resource protectionj research, education/interpretation, and
                 general administration sections which follow.
                         Depending on the budget and per@onnel assigned to the HIHV*rNMS, staffing would
                 include a NOAA Sanctuary Manager, an administrative assistant, a research coordinator, an
                 education coordinator, a volunteer coordinator, and one or more interpreter/enforcement positions.
                 Staff will be distributed between the headquarters office in Kihei, Maui, other satellite offices
                 located on other islands, or within other State or Federal agencies. Arrangements may be made
                 between various levels of government agencies and private sector organizations through
                 cooperative agreements or MOUs to provide personnel and/or resources to carry out the duties
                 associated with the coordinator positions. As an example, Sanctuary staff 'Will work closely with
                 NMFS, USCG, and the State of Hawaii, specifically wiih DOH, and DLNR to monitor
                 harassment, discharge and alteration of the' seabed activities in the proposed Sanctuary. The need
                 for additional staffing will be determined during the first two years of Sanctuary operation.

                         The Sanctuary Manager and other field staff for the HIHWNMS manage and operate the
                 site. They report to the Pacific Regional Manager at NOAA-SRD Headquarters in Silver Spring,
                 Maryland. In this capacity, the Manager represents SRD and is the primary spokesperson for the
                 HEHWNMS. The Sanctuary's headquarters is currently located at a NOAA-owned facility in
                 Kihei, Maui. Additional Sanctuary contractors work in Honolulu and kauai. The Sanctuary will
                 continue to assess the need to create other "satellite" offices and information centers on other
                 Hawaiian Islands.

                     2. SanctuwZ@ Advisory Council

                         Under Section 315, (16 U.S.C. ï¿½1445a) of the NMSA, the Secretary of Commerce is
                 authorized to establish sanctuary advisory councils (SAC) to provide assistance to the Secretary
                 regarding the designation and management of national marine sanctuaries'. In order to ensure that
                 local concerns are addressed in the ongoing development and management of the Hawaii
                 Sanctuary, SRD established a 25-member SAC in March 1996 (see Figure V- I and Appendix D).
                 The SAC has broad representation and has been instrumental in advising NOAA and the State on
                 matters pertaining to the continued development of the Sanctuary. The SAC represents the
                 coordination link between the Sanctuary and the many State and Federal management agencies,
                 Native Hawaiians, user groups, researchers, educators, policy makers, and others which serve the
                 function of focusing efforts and attention onthe humpback whale and its habitat. In this capacity,
                 the SAC is -a critical part of the Sanctuary's identity and function because it provides a forum by
                 which Sanctuary management issues can be raised and addressed in an ongoing and relatively
                 informal manner, thereby enhancing the efforts of the Sanctuary in managing and protecting
                 humpback whales and their habitat.

                         The SAC functions in an advisory capacity to the Sanctuary Manager and will be
                 instrumental in helping produce annual operating plans and reports by identifying education,
                 outreach, research, long-term monitoring, resource protection and revenue enhancement priorities.
                 The SAC will also play an instrumental role in identifying marine resources and ecosystems of
                 national significance for possible inclusion in the Sanctuary through a process outlined in Part
                 V(c)(3) of the management plan. The SAC works in concert with the Sanctuary Manager by

                 Page 260                                                                Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                         and Management Plan







            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                    Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
            National Marine Sanctuary
            keeping her or him informed about issues of        concern -throughout the Sanctuary, offering
            recommendations on specific issues, and aiding the Mpager iri achieving the goals of the
            Sanctuary program within the context of Hawaii's marine programs and policies. The SAC
            Charter details specific roles and responsibilities of the SAC (Appendix D).

                    In order to function efficiently in an advisory capacity and incorporatd the different
            concerns from all the main Hawaiian Islands, the SAC may appoint subcommittees or working
            groups that correspond to the main Sanctuary management areas of education, research, resource
            protection, regulations/enforcement, revenue enhancement, and others as necessary. Additional
            subcommittees or working groups may be formed to provide reconunendations to the SAC on the
            identification and assessment of other marine resources and ecosystems of national significance for
            possible inclusion into the Sanctuary.

                    Since its establishment, the SAC has met five times to provide advice and recommendations
            to NOAA on the public comments received on the DEIS/MP and on the continued development and
            management of the Sanctuary. The SAC has also elected a Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary, and
            formed several subcommittees.
                3. Other Federal Aggncies

                    There are numerous federal agencies that have           significant resource management,
            responsibilities in or near the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary will  seek cooperative partnerships with
            these Federal agencies in order to better facilitate and streamline resource management in the
            Hawaiian Islands. The Sanctuary will also develop, as appropriate, MOUs to clarify and
            streamline coordination roles and permit review processes and other cooperative management
            projects. The Sanctuary -will also seek other Federal agency participation to collectively sponsor
            and promote management related research and education projects. In particular, the Sanctuary will
            continue to work closely with NMFS to ensure more coordinated and coriiprehensive management
            of the humpback whale and its habitat. Other Federal agencies with resource management
            responsibilities include: EPA, USCG, COE, National Park Service,'U.S. Fish and Wildlife
            Service, and DOD.

                4. State. ReLdonal. and Coun1y Aggncies

                    Much of Hawaii's coastal waters are included within the boundary of.the Sanctuary. SRD
            recognizes the importance of establishing strong partnerships with the many State and county
            agencies that have resource management responsibilities in the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary will
            work closely within the existing administrative framework of State resource management agencies
            such as: the State of Hawaii's OP; DLNR; DOH; DBEDT; DOT; ORA; KIRC; and the individual
            county planning offices. NOAA will also work closely with the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management
            Program (CZMP) to ensure wise management and protection of coastal resources, and to
            coordinate mutual objectives of the CZMP and the Sanctuary.












            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                       Page 261
            and Management Plan















       QQ



                                                                                                                                                              GO
                                               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale NMS
                                                              Sanctuary Administration

                                                            Sanctuary Manager
                                                                                                                                                              UQ
                                                            0 Oil-site N"I'lilagenient
                                                            0 Oversee oil-site Staff
                                                            9 Oversee and Coordinate with SAC
                                                            o Coordinate k%,ith general PLINiC and
                 >
                                                              governnientagencies
                                                            0 Develop on-site progranis
                           Sanctuary Advisory Council (25)
                                                                                                     SRD Headquarters
                          -Provide Advice and Reconimendations to
                                                                                                     * Baseline Funding
                          Sanctnary Manager and NOAA . .
                              - Interest/User Groups (11)                                            o Program-wide planning
                              - County Representatives (4)                                           9 Technical and program support
                                                                                                     * Federal and International coordination
                              - State Agencies (6)
                              o Federal Agencies (4)






                                                               Mn



                                              t                                                                                                             0
                                                   popo 0


                                                        EO
    QQ                                                        TM    -It 'd
                                                                     "T9


     09
                                                                                                 LRD           eadqUarterS
                                                                                                            P    unding
                                                                                                             m    idep lann   g
                                                                                                             u       p ogr
                                                                                                     S
                                                                                                       Base ne F
                                                                                                     0  Progra _w
                                                                                                     -  e hr cal and  r   am suppo t
                                                                                                           r       I t r  ti
                                                                                                     - TFedcel a and n e na, onal coordination



                               P u
                               R.
                               Otb



                                                                                                                                                              CD







             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Wha le                                    Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
             National Marine Sanctuary

                     The Sanctuary has worked in close partnership with OP and consulted with the 50 member
             SWG and the 25-member SAC, each composed of various Federal, State and county agencies and
             marine user groups to develop the draft and final environmental impact statement and Sanctuary
             management plan. SRD will continue this close partnership and look toward establishing other
             cooperative arrangements with other State and county agencies to ensure a coordinated approach to
             the coastal and ocean resource management responsibilities of all agencies. This cooperation will
             involve the formalization of coopera4ve agreements, MOUs and the deputization. of state
             enforcement officials, as appropriate.

                5. CoMatible Uses of the Sanctum

                     An important element of the         Hawaii Sanctuary's management program is the
             encouragement of public uses of the site that are compatible with the overall objective of long-term
             protection of Sanctuary resources.

             Sanctuary Goal: Section 2306(a)(1) of the HINMSA specifically calls for theSanctuary to:

                     "Facilitate all public and private uses of the Sanctuary (including uses of Hawaiian
                     natives customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, and
                     religious purposes) consistent with the primary objective 'of the protection of the
                     humpback whale and its habitat"

             Sanctuary Objectives: To meet this goal, and to foster compatible uses, the Sanctuary will
             initiate the following activities:

                            Develop educational materials and programs aimed at enhancing public awareness
                            and appreciation for the humpback whale and its winter habitat, and for other
                            Sanctuary resources, and demonstrate the need for their protection;
                            provide relevant information about Sanctuary regulations and use policies;
                            exchange information with pertinent agencies and interested user groups on
                            commercial and recreational activities and opportunities occurring within the
                            Sanctuary;
                            collaborate with public and private organizations in encouraging and promoting
                            compatible uses of the Sanctuary;
                            consult with other agencies on proposals and policies for management of activities
                            which may affect Sanctuary resources;
                            work with the Native Hawaiian Community to identify customary and traditional
                            uses of the marine environment and educate the general public about these uses; and
                            monitor and assess the levels of use to identify and control potential degradation of
                            resources, and to minimize potential user conflicts.

                     Anticipated monitoring and information exchange      programs are discussed below under
             Research (Section III); development of public materials is discussed below under
             Education/Interpre'tation (Section IV).

                     Section 2306 of the HEWSA directs NOAA to develop a Sanctuary Management Plan
             that, among others, "facilitates all public and private uses of the Sanctuary (including uses of
             Hawaiian natives customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence,'cultural, and religious
             purposes) consistent with the primary objective of the protection of humpback whales and their
             habitat." NOAA has not promulgated any regulations that would independently prohibit, restrict or
             regulate fishing, subsistence gathering or any other access to the water or the Sanctuary resources.
             NOAA will work with the Native Hawaiian community to develop joint education and research
             projects that facilities their use of the marine environment and increases' the general public's
             understanding of.their practices and culture.

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                         Page 263
             and Management Plan







                 Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan                                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                               National Marine Sanctuary


                         NOAA will work closely with Native Hawaiian interests'to facilitate Native Hawaiian uses
                 of the marine environment customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, and
                 religious purposes consistent with the primary objective of the protection of humpback wh    "ales and
                 theix habitat, SRD recognizes the ongoing efforts of the Native Hawaiian sovereignty 'movement
                 for self-governance, and will continue discussions with Native Hawaiian and State officials'
                 throughout this process to acknowledge and facilitate Native. Hawaiian uses within the Sanctuary,
                 and, initiate efforts to work cooperatively with Native Hawaiian groups to educate other members
                 of the public about their cultural, traditional and historical relationship to Hawaii's marine
                 environment.


                     6. Five Year Review of Management Plan

                         The NMSA requires NOAA to periodically review sanctuary management plans and make
                 changes as necessary. During the five years following implementation of the final management
                 plan, SRD, in cooperation with the State, will conduct research on humpback whales and their
                 habitat, assess the adequacy of Sanctuary regulations, the adequacy of existing authorities in
                 -protecting the humpback whale and its habitat, and the adequacy of the Federal-State partnership in
                 protecting the whale and its habitat. The SAC will be encouraged to establish a working group on
                 resource protection to review existing authorities and monitor the effectiveness of these authorities
                 in protecting the humpback whale and its habitat.

                         By the time of the five-year review of the Management Plan, SRD should also have
                 completed its process to identify other resources of national significance (e.g., other marine species
                 and ecosystems, cultural or historical resources) for possible inclusion in the Sanctuary. Based on
                 these assessments, SRD may revisit and revise the management plan, including the regulations to
                 include other resources into the Sanctuary. Any proposed change@ to the Designation Document
                 (e.g., new regulations or boundary modification) is required to be executed by the same
                 procedures by which the original was developed, including preparing an environmental impact
                 statement, holding at least one public hearing, and providing for gubernatorial review and non-
                 objection to the changes.       Any proposed substantive (those which are not procedural,
                 administrative, technical, or editorial in nature) amendment to the existing Sanctuary regulations
                 will also require public review, and be subject to review, and non-objection by the Governor. - An
                 outline of the five-year management plan review can be found on the following page.


                     7. Spccial Use Permits

                         NOAA is not proposing to implement special use perrhits in the Hawaii Sanctuary. The
                 HIHWNMS regulations contain no requirements for obtaining independent Sanctuary permits or
                 approvals, including special use permits. Special use permits would only be implemented through
                 changing the HIHWNMS regulations to independently prohibit a certain activity unless authorized
                 under a special-use permit. Such a regulatory change, however, would require notice and
                 cornment to the public, and review and non-objection by the Governor of Hawaii.










                 Page 264                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                   and Management Plan







              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                       Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
              National Marine Sanctuary


                                      Review of the Sanct6iry Management Plan

              Evaluation

              (1) Not more than five years after the final management plan and regulations become effective, and
                  subsequently not more thanevery consecutive five years thereafter, SRD, 'in consultation with
                  the.Governor of Hawaii, shall evaluate the progress made toward implementing the
                  management plan, regulations, and goals for the Sanctuary.

              (2) In evaluating the management plan, regulations, and goals for the Sanctuary, SRD, in
                  consultation with the Governor, shall specifically address the foll'owmig issues:

                  0   Sanctuary resource. protection measures, including Sanctuary regulations and enforcement;
                  0   The effectiveness of the Sanctuary boundary in achieving the purposes of the HINMSA
                      and NMSA, and in meeting ongoing State resource management concerns;
                  0   Sanctuary education,information, and outreach program;
                  *   Sanctuary research and long-term monitoring program;
                  0   Sanctuary coordination and cooperation with other FederaL State, and county agencies;
                  0   Native Hawaiian uses of the Sanctuary;
                  *   Public involvement in Sanctuary management;
                      Positive and negative socio-economic impacts on marine users, including, but not limited to
                      the following industries, groups, and/or organizations: commercial and recreational
                      fishing, shipping and. transportation, ocean recreation, whale watching, tourism, education,
                      research, and conservation; and
                      The effectiveness of the Sanctuary in facilitating all public and private uses of the Sanctuary
                      consistent with the primary objective of the protection of humpback whales and their
                      Sanctuary habitat.

              Results of Evaluation

              (1) Theresults of the evaluation shall be used by SRD, in consultation with the Governor, to
                  determine whether changes to the management plan and/or regulations are necessary, and to
                  revise the management plan. and/or regulations accordingly.
              (2) NOAAISRD shall submit the final revised management plan and regulations for the Sanctuary.
                  to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of the Senate and to the
                  Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives.

              Gubernatorial Review of Modifications to the Designation Document or Existing Regulations

              (1) Any. Proposed change to the Designation Document (e.g.,; new regulations or boundary
                  modification) is required to be executed by the same procedures by which the original was
                  developed, including preparing an environmental impact statement, holding at least one public
                  hearing, and providing for gubernatorial review and non-objection to the changes. Any
                  proposed substantive (those which are not procedural, administrative, technical, or editorial in
                  nature) amendment tp the existing Sanctuary regulations    will also require public review, and be
                  subject to review and non-objection by the Governor.






              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                           Page 265
              and Management Plan







                 Part V: Sanctuary -Management Plan                                    Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                              National Marine Sanctuary

                     8. Resource PrQtection: Roles and Responsibilities

                         a. SRD

                                 Approves priorities for funding for resource protection and monitors and maintains
                                 a record of research activitie@ within the sanctuary;  I
                                 Monitors the effectiveness of interagency agreements for surveillance and
                                 enforcement and negotiates changes where required;
                                 Develops contingency and emergency-response plans and based on -these plans,
                                 negotiates applicable interagency agreements;
                              0  Monitors the effectiveness of existing Sanctuary regulations and promulgates
                                 changes, in conjunction with the State, where necessary;
                              0  Coordinates efforts to protect and manage Sanctuary resources with other Federal,
                                 State, and county agencies, and with public and private organizations; and
                                 Ensures, involvement of commercial and recreational marine interests in Sanctuary
                                 resource protection issues, through their participation on the SAC and by other
                                 appropriate means.

                         b. Sanctuary Manager

                              0  Develops priorities for the allocation of funds annually to support resource
                                 protection efforts, considering the advice of the SAC and relevant groups to ensure
                                 consistency with'the Sanctuary Management Plan;
                              0  Coordinates regularly with commercial and recreational marine users,        primarily
                                 through the SAC, on resource protection issues affecting these users;
                                 Assists, in the conjunction with the designated Sanctuary enforcement officer, the
                                 coordination of surveillance and enforcement activities by providing liaison with the
                                 Federal, State, regional and county agencies; .. -
                                 Reports regularly to the SRD on surveillance and enforcement activities, and
                                 emergencies;
                              0  Provides information for use in training Sanctuary enforcement officials;
                              a  Monitors and evaluates the adequacy of emergency-response plans and procedures
                                 in the Sanctuary;
                              0  Maintains -a record of emergency events (e.g., oil spills) in and 'around the
                                 Sanctuary;
                              0  Evaluates overall progress toward- the resource protection objectives of the'
                                 Sanctuary program and prepares semi-annual and bi-monthly progress            reports
                                 highlighting activities for the SRD; and ,
                              0  Coordinates with existing Federal, State, and county groups such as the Marine and
                                 Coastal Zone Management Advisory Group (MACZMAG) or DLNR groups.















                 -Page 266-
                                                                                    Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan-







            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                    Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
            National Marine Sanctuary

                   c. Sanctuary Advisory Council

                            Advises the Sanctuary Manager on the effectiveness of interagency agreements for
                            surveillance and enforcement;
                            Advises the Sanctuary Manager on the effectiveness of the Sanctuary regulations in
                            providing adequate resource protection;
                            Recommends improved methods of resource protection; and
                            Establishes working groups and/or subconurnittees on such topics as research,
                            education, resource protection, enforcement, or as needed, to provide technical
                            advice and recommendations.

                   d. Federal Agencies

                        ï¿½   NMFS implements the M?VIPA, provisions of the ESA and participates in
                            consultation, as required under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. NMFS
                            works closely with DLNR-Division'of Aquatic Resources, under the Magnuson
                            Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA), on approving and enforcing
                            Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) prepared by WESPAC to ensure protection of
                            fishery resources;
                        ï¿½   USCG holds broad responsibility for enforcing all Federal laws throughout the
                            Sanctuary, including coordination with NUFS on enforcement of Fishery
                            Management Plans. USCG also provides on-scene coordination and Regional
                            Response Center facilities under the National Contingency Plan for the removal of
                            oil and hazardous substances in the event of a spill that, threatens Sanctuary
                            resources;
                        ï¿½   EPA implements regulatory responsibilities regarding sewage outfalls (Clean Water
                            Act, via the NPDES permits); and ocean dumping (Title I of the MPRSA] to protect
                            water quality. EPA has delegated NPDES permitting responsibilities to DOH;
                        ï¿½   COE grants, based on EPA guidelines, permits for disposal of -dredged materials at
                            EPA-designated disposal sites, and monitors the effects of disposal activities. The
                            COE also grants permits (under the Rivers and Harbors Act) for marine
                            construction, excavation or fill activities in any navigable waters of the U.S. 'Me
                            COE may refuse to issue permits on the basis of threats to navigation or potential
                            adverse effects on the environment; and
                        ï¿½   Minerals Management Service leases and permits (under the Outer Continental Shelf
                            Lands Act) marine mining activities for resources other than hydrocarbon
                            resources, subject to safety and environmental regulations.

                    e.  State, Regional, and County Agencies

                            OP provides oversight for individual county planning efforts and for statewide
                            initiatives. OP also oversees the implementation of the Hawaii CZNW by
                            coordinating the planning, policy development, and' implementation activities of
                            other State agencies and county governments; is developing and implementing the
                            ï¿½6217 Coastal Non-Point Source Pollution Control Program; and in certain
                            geographic areas, issues permits for the protection of coastal resources and the
                            management of orderly economic development throughout the coastal zone. In
                            addition, the 1995 Hawaii Legislature gave OP a new responsibility for
                            coordinating and implementing the 1991 Ocean Resources Management Plan.
                            DLNR is responsible for managing living and historic resources (such as fisheries
                            and historic sites), and protected areas such as State parks, Marine Life
                            Conservation Districts, Natural Areas Reserves, and State forests. DLNR has
                            jurisdiction over all state owned lands and submerged lands and has adopted
                            regulations for the protection and use of public trust, lands and. resources in the

            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                       Page 267
            and Management Plan







                Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan                                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                              National Marine Sanctuary

                                coastal zone. DLNR-DOCARE officers are deputized to enforce all state laws and
                                specific Federal laws throughout the sanctuary (e.g., MMPA, ESA, MPRSA);
                                The State Historic Preservatio   -n Office, within DLNR, is the State agency
                                responsible for the preservation of representative and unique archaeological,
                                paleontological, and historical sites in the land andwater areas of the state;
                                DBEDT oversees ocean industry and recreation development and is, in part,
                                responsible for ocean energy resources development and management;
                                DOH:
                                a)  regulates and monitors water quality for all nearshore coastal waters under state
                                    jurisdiction. DOH is also working with CZMP to develop and implement the
                                    statewide Coastal Non-Point Pollution Control Program;
                                b)  is charged with the maintenance and enhancement of the ambient air quality of
                                    the State. DOH has set air quality. standards designed to meet National Ambient
                                    Air Quality Standards; and
                                c)  the Office of Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response provides on-scene
                                    coordination of State clean-up response in the event of an accidental oil spill or
                                    hazardous materials which threaten the State's fish and wildlife resources.
                                'DOT oversees commercial and recreational ports and harbors, and boating activity
                                in Hawaii.
                                The Department of Agriculture (DOA) is responsible for controlling non-indigenous
                                species importation, and implementin                              pollution programs
                                                                      g various non-point source
                                in Hawaii;
                                OHA is responsible for overseeing Native Hawaiian issues and administering
                                programs;
                                KIRC oversees the restoration and management of the Island of Kahoolawe and its
                                waters out to two nautical miles;
                                -OP, DLNR, DOH, DOA, DOT. and the Office of Environmental Quality Control
                                monitor the effectiveness of State regulations within the Sanctuary and consider
                                recommended changes to the State regulations through the State Legislature -and the
                                Governor's Office; and
                                The individual counties are responsible for creating and implementing county wide
                                land use and recreation plans; implementing the CZMP, specifically the Special
                                Management Area permits for development activities; implementing erosion and
                                sedimentation programs; and operating municipal sewage treatment facilities.

                    9. Research: Roles and Responsibilities

                        a. SRD

                            0   Reviews and approves annual SRPs and budgets prepared by the Sanctuary
                                Manager for research activities in each Sanctuary based upon the purposes and
                                goals of the National Research Plan (NRP);
                            0   Sets dates for contracts and procurements 'based on the SRP and the NRP;
                            9   Administers interagency agreements and contracts for research;
                            0   Reviews all interim and final research reports submitted by the Sanctuary Manager
                                and permitted researchers/contractors; and
                            0   SRD and NMFS have developed a MOU to streamline the review and issuance of
                                pennits issued under the MMPA and ESA for activities that affect the Sanctuary.
                                SRD and NMFS use the existing permit process to satisfy requirements for both
                                programs.






                Page 268                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and ManaL-ement Plan







           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                    Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
           National Marine Sanctuary

                   b. Sanctuary Manager or Research Coordinator

                   With assistance from the SAC's Research Working Group and the -Pacific Coast Regional
           Scientific Review Group (established pursuant to the 1994 - MMPA reauthorization)    the Sanctuary
           Manager will:

                           Recommend areas of research to resolve management -issues and prepares Request
                           for Proposals (RFP's);
                           Develop and implement the SRP;
                           Review research documents and progress reports submitted       by researchers and
                           contractors;
                           Prepare assessments of research needs and priorities based on management
                           requirements and research continuity;
                           Provide recommendations to SRD for the annual research component of the overall
                           Sanctuary Budget;
                           Implements the SRP;
                           Coordinates research and monitoring activities in the Sanctuary in cooperation with
                           the SRD and other interested agencies or parties;
                           Coordinates an on-site process for reviewing and evaluating research proposals, and
                           permit requests, considering the views of the SRD and concerned individuals and
                           interest groups;
                           Submits to NMFS suggested recommendations and conditions on permit
                           applications and requests for authorizations under the MMPA or ESA; and
                           Coordinates Sanctuary-sponsored research in the Sanctuary.

                   c.   Sanctuary Advisory Council (Research Working Group)

                        0  Advises the Sanctuary Manager on review of research proposals, interim, and final
                           reports; and
                        0  Advises the Research Coordinator and the Sanctuary Manager on priority research
                           needs.

               10. Education/Interpretation: Roles and Responsibilities

                   a.   SRD

                        0  Reviews and approves the list of annual priorities for education and the annual
                           education budget prepared by the Sanctuary Manager;
                        0  Reviews and approves design proposals* for all educational facilities;
                        *  Reviews all educational/ interpretive materials prepared for the Sanctuary; and
                        0  Evaluates progress toward accomplishing objectives for education/interpretation,
                           and adjusts long- term priorities accordingly.

                   b .  Sanctuary Manager or Education Coordinator

                   With assistance from the SAC's Education Working Group, the Sanctuary Manager will:

                        0  Recommend annually to SRD a list of priorities and an annual budget for education;
                        0  Prepare and circulate as required Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for
                           educational/interpretive projects;
                        0  Supervise the design and production of educationalt interpretive materials and
                           facilities for the Sanctuary;
                        0  Make available training for educational staff assigned to the Sanctuary-,
                        0  Encourage local and regional organizations to participate in San c'tuary education;

           Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                       Page 269
           and Management Plan







              Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan                                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                            National Marine Sanctuary

                          0   Disseminate information about the NMSP and the Sanctuary;
                          0   Oversee the development'of any facilities constructed for the Sanctuary, review site
                              analyses and design specifications, make recommendations as to construction and
                              maintenance contracts, and perform similar tasks;
                          0   Coordinate Sanctuary-sponsored educational/ interpretive activities; and
                          0   Establish quality product standards for in-house and contracted educational
                              products..

                      c.  Sanctuary Advisory Council (Education Working Group)

                          0   Advises the Sanctuary Manager in efforts to raise public awareness'of the Sanctuary,
                              and advises on the development of an informed local constituency by means of
                              brochures, presentations, structured events, articles for publication, and other
                              @ctivities consistent with the management plan; and
                          0   Advises the. Education Coordinator and the Sanctuary Manager on priority
                              education and*outreach needs;

                  11. Site Administration: Roles and Responsibilities

                      a. SRD

                          0   Ensures,that the Sanctuary is operated in a manner consistent        with established
                              National Program policies and with applicable national and international laws, and
                              provides guidance to the Sanctuary Manager and the SAC;
                          0   Identifies, analyzes, and -resolves major Sanctuary management problems and
                              issues that have National Program implications;
                          a   Formulates comprehensive, long-term management plans for the Sanctuary and
                              revises the Management Plan as necessary;
                          0   Directs and assists the Sanctuary Manager in the implementation of the Management
                              Plan;
                          *   'Coordinates Sanctuary management with other Federal and. State agencies and
                              private organizations;
                          0   Evaluates the'effectiveness of Sanctuary management and regulatory measures;
                          0   Prepares a program budget for the Sanctuary based upon recommendations from
                              the Sanctuary Manager,
                          0   Provides funding for overall Sanctuary management and administration; and
                          0   Makes recommendations to the Director of the OCRM as to the actions the agency
                              may need to. take in regards to controversial projects that could impact or injure
                              .Sanctuary resources.

                      b. Sanctuary Manager

                              Coordinates on-site efforts of all parties involved in Sanctuary activities, including
                              State, Federal, and county agencies, and the public;
                              Reviews the management plan periodically and recommends, changes to SRD as
                              needed;
                              Prepaies site budget @for submission to SRD. for approval and funding;
                              Oversees day-to-day operation of the Sanctuary, including administrative functions
                              such as bookkeeping, purchasing, and keeping records of visitor activit  'ies;
                              Supervises Sanctuary staff and other personnel, 'including education, research, and
                              enforcement employees assigned to the Sanctuary;
                          0   Represents the Sanctuary viewpoint on local issues and at public forums; and
                          0   Consults and works within the permit review processes of other agencies to ensure
                              humpback whale and habitat concerns are considered.

              Page 270                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                and Management Plan







             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                    Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan
             National Marine Sanctuary


                     c. Sanctuary Advisor@ Council
                         0  Advises on the specific plans for Sanctuary development;
                         0  Advises on proposals for activities within the Sanctuary;
                         0  Advises on an overall plan for the use, development and maintenance of Sanctuary
                            lands and facilities; and
                         0  Advises the Sanctuary Manager on projects and activities that may impact Sanctuary
                            resources.
                         0  Advises the Sanctuary Manager on actions that should be taken to improve effective
                            management of the resources.

                     d. Federal, State, and County Agencies

                         0 Assists in the preparation and implementation of a comprehensive, long-term
                            management plan for the Sanctuary;
                         0 Assists in the periodic review of the management plan; and
                         -  Appropriate permit issuing agency considers Sanctuary comments and
                            recommendations on projects. that may impact Sanctuary resources.


             F. REVENUE AND RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT

                     Section 2306 (a)(4) of the HINMSA requires that the Sanctuary Management Plan "identify
             alternative sources of funding needed to My implement the plan's provisions and supplement
             appropriations under Sec  *tion 2307 of the Act." Section 311 of the NMSA provides several
             mechanisms for the Sanctuary to utilize alternative voluntary sources of funding to work with other
             government agencies and non-profit organizations to implement the Management Plan's provisions
             [NMSA ï¿½ 1422(a)-(d)]. These include:

                 ï¿½   NOAA may enter into cooperative agreements, financial agreements, grants, contracts, or
                     other agreements with States, county governments, regional agencies, interstate agencies,
                     or other persons to carry out the purposes and policies of the HINMSA and NMSA.
                 ï¿½   NOAA may enter into such agreements with any nonprofit organization authorizing the
                     organization to solicit private donations to carry out the purposes and policies of the
                     HINMSA and NMSA.
                     NOAA may accept donations of funds, property, and, services for use in designating and
                     administering national marine sanctuaries. Donations accepted under this section shall be
                     considered as a gift or bequest to or for the use of the United States.
                     NOAA may acquire by purchase, lease, or exchange, any land, facilities, or other property
                     necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes and policies of this title.

                     Revenue enhancement in terms of Sanctuary management means supplementing baseline
             funding levels for the purpose of conserving and managing Sanctuary resources.              Revenue
             enhancement may include, but is not limited to: the creation of partnerships with government
             and/or private-sector organizations; support though foundations; donations of property or funds;
             product marketing; corporate sponsorships; volunteer user fees; internships; volunteer
             opportunities; and other innovative fundraising initiatives. The Sanctuary recognizes significant
             public opposition to. mandatory userfees and is not proposing mandatory broad-based user fees to
             supplement baseline funding. This is consistent with the recommendations of a "Marine Sanctuary
             User Fee Workshop" held in, Monterey, CA during November, 14-16, 1.994, which reaffirmed
             support for the Sanctuary Program, but called for the immediate abandonment of using mandatory
             user fees to supplement program funding. ' Further, the 1996 reauthorization of the NMSA
             provides a statutory provision against mandatory user fees for any activity within or use of the

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                        Page 271
             and Management Plan






                 Part V: Sanctuary Management Plan                                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                               National Marine Sanctuary

                 Sanctuary. Public involvement will play an essential role in planning and implementing any
                 r6enue enhancement efforts.

                         The NMSP will continue to pursue revenue@ enhancement measures for individual sites and
                 the national program. The NMSP faces the huge challenge of protecting and managing some of the
                 nation's most cherished coastal and marine resources. This effort does not come without costs,
                 and in today's challenging budget.times, the Program must consider every available funding
                 option. NOAA will work with the local community to develop and implement creative measures to
                 supplement the NMSP's base funding levels. NOAA believes that sanctuary users appreciate the
                 practical need for increased funding to better manage and protect Sanctuary resources.

                         Another example of a revenue enhancement measure is the National Marine Sanctuary Logo
                 Pilot Project. In 1992, Congress directed the Sanctuary Program to enhance funding for the
                 designation and management of National Marine Sanctuaries through a pilot prcject consisting of
                 the creation, adoption, and marketing of a logo. Section 2204 of the NMSA directed the Sanctuary
                 Pro-gram. to solicit and designate official sponsors of the Program or of individual sanctuaries.
                 These sponsors would    'be authorized to manufacture, reproduce, or use the logo. A national
                 design and selection process resulted in the official approval of the whale's tail logo pictured
                 below. This logo was published in the Federal Register on March 28, 1995. The Sanctuary
                 Program has Congressional authorization to sell "rights" or uses of the logo and retain the funds to
                 enhance and manage National Marine Sanctuaries. In the 1996 reauthorization of the NMSP, the
                 logo program was made a permanent provision of the NMSA.











                                                     NATIONAL MARINE
                                                         SANCTUARI ES

                         It is anticipated that identifying and using alternative sources of funding will be a
                 continuing activity, to meet and support the stated purposes of the management plan rsee A(2)(a) of
                 the MP, "Purposes of the Management Plan"]. The Sanctuary will work cooperatively with the
                 State of Hawaii,. the SAC, and interested organizations and individuals to identify and establish
                 innovative and creative solutions to enhance funding for Sanctuary programs. The HIHWNMS
                 wiUl seek opportunities to develop cooperative agreements and partnerships with goverriment
                 agencies and the private-sector; establish or work with existing non-profit organizations to help. the
                 Sanctuary carry out the programs and purposes of the Sanctuary; and continue efforts to initiate
                 other forms of revenue enhancement and program support measures. For example, the Hawaii
                 Sanctuary has already developed numerous partnerships with other government and private sector
                 organizations. Such partnerships have included the cooperative public/private venture to develop
                 the "Watching Hawaii's Humpback Whales" brochure; the development of a pocket humpback
                 whale information/approach regulation, guide; cooperatively developed education displays and
                 materials with other organizations and museums; and the acquisition of Federal property in Kihei
                 for the Maui Sanctuary office. Opportunities to creatively enhance baseline revenues and staff
                 resources without mandatory fees are abundant.

                 Page 272                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                   and Management Plan







             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                             Part VI: List of Preparers
             National Marine Sanctuary

                                          PART VI:      UST OF PREPARERS


             Final Environmental Impact Statement and Managgment Plan (FEIS/MP):

             Mr. Brady Phillips: Program Specialist, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD). Mr.
             Phillips was responsible for compilation of the Final EIS/MP, including writing, editing, policy
             development and analysis, and assembling the individual components.     .He also was the primary
             coordinator for the Draft EIS/MP team. He has worked on, the development of the Hawaii
             Sanctuary since February 1993. He also is the SRD headquarters contact for the Fagatele Bay
             NMS in American. Samoa, and has expefience in helping develop an island-wide resource
             management program in Kosrae, Federated States of Micronesia. He has a B.S. in Zoology and
             Environmental Studies from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and a M.S. in Marine
             Resource Management from Oregon State University.

             Mr. Brian Burnett. Consultant, SRD. Mr. Burnett assisted Mr. Phillips in compiling the Final
             EIS/MP, including policy analysis, writing, editing, formatting, and assembling components, as
             well as. coordinating the internal review/clearance process. He has worked on the development of
             the Hawaii Sanctuary since its Congressional -designation in November 1992, though the majority
             of that time was spent working for the Hawaii Office of State Planning (OSP). As part of OSP, he
             was one of the lead State contacts throughout the development of the Draft EIS/MP and the initial
             stages of the Final EIS/MP. His B.A. is a double major. in Political Science and Economics from
             the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

             Ms. Nina Garfleld: Program Specialist, SRD. Ms. Garfield was responsible for reorganizing
             Part I of the Draft EIS/MP for the Final EIS/MP. She also assisted in the writing, editing, and
             final policy analysis of various aspects of the document. She has a B.A. in, Sociology and
             Psychology from Kalamazoo College in Kalamazoo, Michigan, a M.S. in Marine Affairs from the
             University of Rhode Island, and course work in Chemistry and Physics at the University of
             Pittsburgh, and Mariculture at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts.
             Ms. Naomi McIntosh: Consultant, SRD. Ms. McIntosh wrote and updated significant
             portions of Part H, as well as provided guidance on policy issues. She has worked with SRD
             since March 1994. As the Oahu contact, she interacts closely with other agencies, user groups,
             and the public to provide information about the Hawaii Sanctuary and to raise awareness on the
             importance of protecting humpback whales and theirhabitat. She has previously worked at the
             Kewalo Basin Marine Mammal Laboratory and the Naval Ocean Systems Center. She has a B.A.
             in Psychology from the University of Hawaii and a Certificate of Completion.in Environmental
             Studies also from the University of Hawaii.

             Mr. Allen Tom: On-site Program Specialist and liaison. Mr. Tom is responsible for
             coordinating daily activities of the Hawaii Sanctuary including the other Sanctuary contractors on
             Oahu, Kauai and.Maui. Mr. Tom assisted in developing the FEIS/MP by coordinating public
             outreach and awareness efforts, response to public comments, on-site policy development, the
             Sanctuary Advisory Council, and other State and Federal government agencies. He has a B.S. in
             Biology from the University of California, Davis and a M.S,. in Animal Science (Aquacul=e)
             from the University of Hawaii.

             Draft EISIMP.

             Mr. Ben Mieremet: International Affairs Specialist, Policy Coordination Division in the Office
             of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. Mr. Mieremet had co-lead responsibility for the
             preparation of the Draft EIS/MP. He is the principal author of 12 previous EISs, numerous


             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                      Page 273
             and Management Plan







                Part VI: List of Preparers                                           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                             National Marine Sanctuary

                environmental assessments on coastal related issues, and 20 years experience in coastal zone
                management. He hasa B.S. in Conservation and Resource Development from the University of
                Mai-yland, a M.A. in Water Resources M   'anagement from the University of Michigan, and a M.A.
                in International Relations from Salve Regina College in Rhode Island.

                Ms. Janice Sessing: Formerly the Hawaii On-site Program Specialist, SRD. Ms. Sessing
                shai.-ed responsibility for the preparation of the Management Plan (Part V) and obtained input from
                Federal, State, and local agencies, interested public, and Sanctuary user groups used to develop
                management alternatives. Ms. Sessing has represented NOAA at the domestic and international
                level on various marine .and environmental topics. Her B.S. is a double major in Marine Science
                and Biology, with a Chernistry minor from the University of Miami, Florida and a M.S. from the
                University of Hawaii at Manoa.

                Ms. Sherrard Foster: Program Specialist, SRD. Ms. Foster shared responsibility for the
                preparation of the Management Plan (Part V) and for coordinating the intemal. Draft EIS/MP
                review/clearance processes. She holds a B.A. in English, with a minor in Biology, . from
                Lynchburg College, Lynchburg, Virginia. 'Before joining SRD in 1984, she served as Director of
                Marine Issues, Defenders of Wildlife, Inc@, Washington, D.C.

                Mr. David Kennard: Economic Development Planner               with experience as a consultant on
                environmental and economic development issues in the Pacific. Assisted the drafting team through
                the Pacific Basin Development Council to provide much of the socio.-econornic data found in Part


                Dr. Michael Hantnett. Senior Policy Analyst with the Pacific Basin Development Council has
                25 years of policy research, technical assistance, and training experience in the Pacific island
                region. Among his many experiences, he was a member of the planning team that drafted the
                Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan during 1989-90. He provided                 information on
                Hawaii's State authorities described in Part 11.



                                                      AcKNOWLEDGMENTS

                Mahalo Nui Loa to all the numerous persons who contributed their time, patience, and expertise to
                hell) complete various portions of this Final EIS/MP- and of the Draft EIS/MP before it:

                NOAA-SRD (Hawaii): Special thanks go to the Hawaii Sanctuary on-site staff --           Ms.    Carol
                Carey, Ms. Jean Nishida Souza, Ms. Tori Cullins, Ms. Kellese Araki, and all            the, Hawaii
                Sanctuary volunteers in Maui -- for their invaluable input and encouragement. Finally, mahalo to.
                the Hawaii Sanctuary Advisory Council for assisting SRD in developing responses to comments
                received on the Draft EIS/MP.

                NOAA-SRD (Silver Spring): Mr. Jim Lawless, who was instrumental in guiding the project along
                as Acting Division Chief and who served as hearings officer during the public hearings on the
                Draft EIS/MP. Ms. Debra Malek and Ms. Nina Mollet, for extensive policy development and
                editing assignments. - Also, mahalo to everyone at SRD who helped develop various management
                'alternatives for the'site. Many thanks also go out to Ms. Jacqueline Rousseau, Mr. Ralph Lopez,
                Mr. Steve Olson, and Mr. Christopher Evans who initially worked on the development of this
                Sanctuary.
                NOAA-Office of General Counsel: This document has greatly benefited from the continual input
                and advice of Mr. Michael Weiss. Also, the assistance of the rest of NOAA's Office of General
                Counsel (GCOS, GCEL, GCF, GCNR, and GCSW), especially that.of Ms. Margo Jackson and
                .Mr. Roger Eckert, in the preparation of portions of the Management Plan and Implementing

                Page 274                                                          Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                -and Management Plan







             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                                     Part VI: List of Preparers
             National Marine Sanctuary

             Regulations and the review. of both the Draft and the Final EIS/Mp is gratefully acknowledged.

             NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service: Mahalo to Mr. Gene Nitta, Mr. Jim McCallum, Mr.
             John Naughton, Mr. Michael Payne, Ms. Margaret Lorenz, and Ms. Carol Fairfield who have all
             greatly contributed to the development of this Sanctuary.

             ,Hawaii Office of PlanaLn?,; The assistance and policy recommendations of Mr. Richard Poirier
             and Mr. Rick Egged were invaluable and contributed greatly to completion of this' document.
             Many thanks also go to Ms. Ivy Kawakamii'for her diligent assistance with geographic information
             system'work.

             Much of the technical information presented in Part U was prepared in "A Site Characterization
             Study for the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary," March 1994 which
             was developed under contract to SRD. We gratefully acknowledge the scholarly contributions of
             Ms. Kathleen Aki, Dr. Richard Brock, Ms. Jacqueline Miller, Dr. Joseph R. Mobley, Jr., Mr.
             Peter J. Rappa, Mr. David Tarnas, and Ms. Michelle Yuen.

             In addition, Mr. Steven Quarterman, Mr. David Konisky, Ms. Liz Specs, Ms. Karen Brubeck and
             Ms. Liz Perkinson greatly contributed to the completion and editing of the Draft and Final
             EIS/MP.






































             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                Page 275
             and Management Plan







                  Pan: VI: List of Preparers                                                   Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                       National Marine Sanctuary
















                                              TFUS PAGE UVrENTIONALLY LEFT'BLANK'










































                  Page 276
                                                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                           and Management Plan






               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                       Part VII: List of Agencies and Organizations
               National Marine Sanctuary                                                 Receiving Copies of the Final EIS/MP

                   PART NII: LIST OF AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVI-NG
                                               COPIES OF THE FINAL EISIMP


               FEDERAL AGENCIES                                            HAWAII STATE GovERNMENT
                                                                           AGENCIFS
               Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
               Council on Environmental Quality                            Commission on Employment
               Department of Agriculture                                   Department of Agriculture
               Department of Commerce                                      Department of Business, Economic, Development and
                   National Marine Fisheries Service -                     Tourism
                   Office of Enforcement                                   Department of Defense
                   Office of Protected Species                             Department of Education
                   .Southwest Regional Office                              Department of Land and Natural Resources
                   Pacific Area Office                                       - Division of Aquatic Resources
                   National Marine Mammal Laboratory                            -Aquaculture Development Program
               Department of Defense                                         - Division of Conservation and Resources
                 -Adjunct General Office                                        Enforcement
                 - Department of theAir Force                                   -Division of Parks
                 o Department of the Army                                  Department of Health
                 - Department of the Army/Corps of                         Department of Public Safety
                   Engineers                                                 -Marine Patrol
                   Department of the Navy/Marines                          Department of Transportation
                 -Pacific Missile Range Facility - Kauai                   Kahoolawe Island Reserve Commission
               Department of the Interior                                  Office of the Attorney General
                 - Fish and Wildlife Service                               Office of Environmental Quality
                   -Kealia Fishpond NWR                                    Office of the Governor
                    Kilauea Pt. NWR                                        Office of Hawaiian Affairs
                 - National Park Service                                   Office of the Lt. Governor
                   -Haleakala National Park                                Office of Planning
                    Volcanoes National Park                                     Coastal Zone Management Program.
               Department of State,                                        State Public Library - Hawaii
               Department of Transportation                                Universky of Hawaii
                 - U.S. Coast Guard                                                  -Center for Hawaiian Studies
               Environmental Protection Agency                                       *Environmental Center
               -Region 9                                                             -Research Corporation of Hawaii
               -Pacific Regional Office                                              -Hamilton Library Collection
               Federal Emergency Management Agency                                   -Leeward Community College
               Marine Mammal Commission                                              -Kauai Community College
               Western.Pacific Regional Fishery                                      0Maui Community College
               Management Council                                                    -UH Hilo Library
                                                                                     -Marine Options Program
               CONGRESSIONAL,                                                        -Seawords Editor
                                                                                     -School of Public   Health
               Honorable Daniel K. Akaka, U.S. Senate                                -Hawaii- Ag. Research Center
               Honorable Daniel K. Inouye, U.S..Senate                               -Sea. Grant Extension / Communication
               Honorable Neil Abercrombie, U.S. House of                             -Richardson Law School
                 Representatives
               Honorable Patsy T. Mink, U.S. House of                      HAWAII COUNTY GOVERNMENT
                 Representatives                                           AGENCIES
               Honorable Diane Fienstien                                   Mayor's Offices (Kauai, Oahu, Maui.
                                                                           Hawaii)
                                                                           City and County of Honolulu Planning Office


               Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                    Page 277
               and Management Plan







                 Part VII: List of Agencies and Organizations                        Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                 Receiving Copies of the Final EIS/MP                                       National Marine Sanctuary

                        -Wastewater Department                       Moss Landing Marine Labs
                 County of Hawaii P 'lanning Office                  National Association of Conservation Districts
                 County of Kauai Planning Office                     National Association of Counties
                 County of Maui Planning Office                      National Audubon Society
                 Representative Nestor Garcia                        National Federation of Fishermen
                 Representative Ken Hiraki                           -National Fisheries Institute
                 Representative Calvin Kawamoto                      National Oceans Industries Association
                 Represenatative Alex Santiago                       National Parks and Conservation Association
                 Representative David Tamas .                        National Recreation and Park Association
                 Representative Cynthia Theilen                      National Research Council
                 Senator Rossalyn Baker                              National Wildlife Federation
                 Councilmember Duke Bainum                           Natural History Museum - Los Angeles
                 Councilmember Steve Holmes                          Natural Research Council'
                 Councilmember James Arakaki                         Natural Resources Def6nse Council
                 Councilmember Patrick Kawano                        New York Department of Education
                 Councilmember Alice Lee                             Ocean Advocates .
                 Councilmember Wayne Nishiki                         The Oceanic Society
                 Councilmember Sol Kaho'ohalahala                    P & W. Software ,
                 Councilmernber Al'Smith                             'Reef Keeper - Florida
                 Councilmernber Lloyd Can De Car                     The Rhett Company
                                                                     SAI 'C Maritime Center
                 bLi@TIQNAL INTEUEST GROUPS                          San Jose State. University - Department of Geography
                                                                     Save Our Reefs
                 Albright College - Biology                          Save Our Shores
                 Arnerican Cetacean Society                          Scripps Institution
                 American Fisheries Society                          Sunset Magazine
                 American Protection of the Cruelty to Animals       Teledyne Brown Engineering
                 American Oceans Campaign                            United Nations Environmental Programs -
                 Boating Industry Association                        Nairobi
                 Cascadia Research Collective                        University of California - Berkeley
                 Center for Action Endangered Species                University of California - Los Angeles
                 Center for Law and Social Policy                    University of Texas - Marine Mammal
                 Center for Marine Conservation                      Program
                 Center of Whale Research                            Vector Omni - International
                 Cetacean Society                                    The Whale Center
                 Coast Alliance                                      Whales Alive - Australia
                 Cornell University                                  Whale Fund
                 Defenders of Wildlife                               Whale Museum
                 EDAW, Inc.                                          Wilderness Society,
                 Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.                    William Wanket, Inc.
                 Environmental Law Institute                         Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
                 Environmental Policy Center                         World Wildlife Fund - U.S.
                 FEDECAS - Columbia
                 Findhom Foundation                                  LOCAL INTEREST GROUPS
                 Triends of the Earth
                 Great BarTier Reef Marine Park - Library            Aaron's Dive Shop
                 The Greenpeace Foundation                           Activity Owners Association of Hawaii
                 Hatfield Marine Science Center                      Ala Moana Pacific Center
                 Hubbs Sea World Research Institute                  Alexander and Baldwin
                 International Bird Rescue                           American Fisheries Society, Hawaii Chapter
                 International Medcom                                American Hawaii Cruise Lines
                 LEROS                                               Animal Rights Hawaii
                 Marine, Mammal Commission                           Architects' Hawaii, Ltd.


                 Page 278                                                        Final Environmental Impact Statem'
                                                                                                                ent
                                                                                                and Management Plan







              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                  Part VII: List of Agencies and Organizations
              National Marine Sanctuary                                             Receiving Copies of the Final EIS/MP

              Atlantis Submarine - Hawaii                              Honolulu Star Bulletin
              BHP Petroleum Americas (Hawaii), Inc.                    Honolulu Weekly
              Belt Collins, Hawaii                                     Iao School
              Bill's Scuba Shack                                       Kaanapali Beach Resort Assn.
              Bishop Museum                                            Kailua Elementary School
              Carl Smith et. al (inc).                                 Kamehaineha Schools
              Center for Whale'Studies                                 Kaneohe Bay Yacht Club
              CEROS                                                    Kau Landing Paper
              Chaminade University - Biology Dept.                     Kauai Friends of the Environment
              Chevron USA, Inc.                                        Kauai High School
              Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii                            Kauai Times
              Citizens for the Protection of the North                 Kewalo Basin Marine Mammal Lab
              Kohala Coast                                             KGMB,
              Clean Islands Council                                    Kihei Community Assn.
              Club Lanai                                               Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge
              Council of Hawaii Organizations                          KITV Channel 4 News
              Dive Maui                                                Kona Iki Trollers
              Earth Island Institute                                   Kukui'ula Development Corp.
              Earthtrust                                               Lady Ann Cruises
              Elsa Nature Conservancy - Japan                          Lahaina Divers
              Environment Hawaii                                       Lahaina Times
              Environmental Science Designs                            Lahaina Town Action Committee
              Expeditions                                              Lahaina Yacht Club
              Estate of James Campbell                                 Lanaiians for Sensible Growth
              Friends'of the Hana Coast                                Life of the Land
              Friends of the Makalawena                                Living Ocean Adventures
              Friends of Queen's Beach                                 M& M Pacific Inc.
              Friends Of. the Puako Reef                               Maalaea Boat and Fishing Club
              Garden Island Times                                      Matson Navigation
              Garden Island Trollers                                   Maui - Molokai Sea Cruises
              Gemini Charters                                          Maui Chamber of Commerce
              Grove Farms - Kauai;                                     Maui Divers of Hawaii
              Group 70 International                                   Maui Economic Development Board
              Hanalei Cominunity Association                           Maui Radio Group
              Hawaii Audubon Society                                   Maui Trailer Boat Club
              Hawaii Boaters Council                                   Maui Visitors Bureau
              Hawaii Environmental Education Association               Maulana Magazine
              Hawaii Fishermen's Association                           Mauna Kea Divers
              Hawaii Fishing News                                      MaunaLani Sea Ventures
              Hawaii Hochi Ltb.                                        Mid- Pacific Hawaii Fisheries
              Hawaii Hotel Association                                 Mike Severns, Diving
              Hawaii RVIAX                                             Moanalua Garden's Foundation
              Hawaii Maritime Center                                   'Molokai Advertiser - News
              Hawaii Nature Center                                     Na Lani Video Services
              Hawaii Ocean Industry Fund                               Na Pali Adventures
              Hawaii Pacific Uniyersity                                Native Hawaii Ad. Council
              Hawaii Whale Research Fund                               Native Hawaiian Fisherman Assn.
              Hawaii Wildlife Fund                                     The Nature Conservancy
              Hawaii Visitors Bureau                                   Natural Resources Defense Council, Hawaii
              Hawaii's Thousand Friends                                Navitek
              Hawaiian Tug/Young Bros.                                 Ocean Drifters
              Helbert, Haster and Yee                                  Ocean Rafting Maui
              Hinatea Sportfishing                                     Ocean Riders
              Honolulu Advertiser                                      Ocean Sport Waikoloa

              Final Environmental impact Statement                                                              Page 279
              and Management Plan






                  Part VII: List of Agencies and Organizations                                   Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                  Receiving Copies of the Final EIS/MP                                                   National Marine Sanctuary

                  Oceanic Institute
                  Oceanit
                  Ohana 0 Hawaii
                  One Earth Foundation
                  Pacific Islands Institute
                  Pacific Museums Inc.
                  Pacific Whale Foundation
                  PANGALEA
                  Papa Ola Lokahi
                  People Opposed to the Whale Sanctuary
                  Protect Kahoolawe Ohana
                  Rainbow Divers
                  Royal Hawaiian Cruises
                  St. Andrew's Priory
                  Save Our Bays and Beaches
                  Save our Seas
                  Sea Bird Cruises
                  Sea Life Park
                  Scotch Mist Sailing Charters
                  Sierra Club
                  Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
                  Thousand Friends of Kauai
                  Tongg & Tongg
                  TORCH
                  TOS Hawaii. Inc.
                  Trilogy Cruises
                  Ultimate Rafting
                  United Fishing Agency
                  Wa Ula 0 Kai
                  Waikaloa Land Company
                  Waikiki Aquarium
                  West Hawaii Today
                  West Maui Taxpayers Assn.
                  West Maui Watershed Project
                  Wlmles Alive
                  Wilson Okamoto Assn.
                  Windjammer Cruises
                  Yar(la's Specialty Shop
                  Zi-purr Charter

















                  Page 280                                                                    Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                              and Management Plan







                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                                                                   Appendices
                National Marine Sanctuary

                                                         PART V111              APPENDICES


                                                         TABLE          OF      Q2NTENM

                                                                                                                             PA GE

                Appendix A:         Responses to Comments Received on the Draft EIS/MP                     ..................... 283
                                    Public Testimony Matrix          .......................................................    321

                Appendix B:         National Marine Sanctuaries Act, as amended              ................................   331

                Appendix C:         Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act                 ...........................  347
                Appendix D:         SanctuaryAdvisory Council           Charter and members          .........................  351

                Appendix E:         Agreements for Coordinated Management of the Hawaiian
                                    Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary                    ....................... 361

                                      Memorandum of Understanding Between the Sanctuaries and
                                      Reserves Division and the National Marine Fisheries Service
                                      Regarding Permit Review and Consultation               ................................   363

                                      Draft Memorandum of Understanding Between the Sanctuaries
                                      and Reserves Division and the State Departments of Health and
                                      Land and Natural Resources Regarding Permit Review                      .................. 367

                                      Memorahdum of Understanding between NOAA, U.S.
                                      Coast Guard, and DLNR-DOCARE Regarding Deputization
                                      for Enforcement        ..............................................................     373

                Appendix F: List of DOD Military Activities in Hawaii                    ....................................   387.

                Appendix G: Species Profile: Humpback Whale Report #2                        ................    .............. 395

                Appendix H:         Background to the Proposed Hawaii Humpback Whale National
                                    Marine Sanctuary of 1984          ......................................................    423

                Appendix I:         Whale Education Programs in Hawaii               .......................................... 425

                Appendix J:         Bibliography and References           ..................................................    429

                Appendix K:         Designation Document and Implementing Regulations                    .....................  447












                Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                                 Page 281
                and Management Plan






                 Appendices                                                                  Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                     National Marine Sanctuary




























                                            TIES PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFr BLANK


































                 Page 282                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                          and Management Plan







              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                        Appendix A: Responses to Comments
              National Marine Sanctuary

                                                          Appendix A

                                              RESPONSES TO COMMENTS


                      The FEIS/MP provides an analysis of the impacts of the proposed action and its
              alternatives. Public and agency review of the DEIS/M[P helps to ensure the FEIS/MP is responsive
              to public and agency comments.

                      The DEIS/MP was released to the public in September 1995, initiating a 90-day public
              comment period that ended on December 15, 1995. Over twenty-five statewide informational
              meetings were held to assist the public in understanding the preferred alternatives and to answer
              questions and concerns. SPO also held seven formal public hearings throughout the main
              Hawaiian Islands. In total, over 250 written comments and oral testimonies were received by
              NOAA during the comment period. SRD reviewed and responded to all substantive'comments
              which were not statements simply for or against the proposal. That is, those comments requiring
              additional explanation, analysis of data, or those which debated facts or conclusions reached in the
              DEIS/MP.

                      Significant issues and substantive comments were addressed in the response to comments
              section which follows and by making changes to the EIS, as appropriate. Because many
              comments were duplicative in nature, SRD summarized the similar substantive comments by issue
              (i.e., regulations), and then further defined subtopics (i.e.., regulatory alternatives, future
              regulations). This allows the reader interested in a particular issue to easily identify that issue and
              NOAA's response.


                        MI....''b", w1,11"M
                                                   NMI
                                                         Ma.
                                                                                   all
              ro

                      Comment:        All boundary     alternatives  should exempt commercial        harbors from the
              Sanctuary and allow for further expansion of existing harbors. Harbor exemptions should also
              include approaches and off-shore anchorages.
                      Response: The Sanctuary boundary excludes major ports, harbors, and small boat basins
              primarily because they do not constitute humpback whale habitat. Whales tend to avoid such areas
              because of the number and types of activities that occur within such ports, harbors, and small boat
              basins (both in and out of the -water). Such activities include, but are not limited to, vessel
              painting, shore-based boat cleaning, toxic paint releases from moored vessels, and sewage
              disposal. NOAA has determined that the nature and level of these activities are not appropriate for
              inclusion within the Sanctuary. By excluding these areas, NOAA will be able to focus Sanctuary
              management on the long-term protection of other areas that do constitute humpback whale habitat
              and are less heavily impacted by human activity. The list of excluded ports, harbors 'and small boat'
              basins can be found at section 945.2 of these regulations. These final regulations add the Ala Wai
              small boat basin on Oahu to the list of excluded areas. While the Sanctuary regulations do not
              pFohibit the construction 'of new harbors or the expansion of existing harbors conducted in
              compliance with a valid Federal or State permit, plans for such development within the Sanctuary
              will be reviewed by NOAA in order. to offer 'recommendations and comments to ensure. that
              Sanctuary resources are adequately protected. At that time, NOAA will determine whether to
              revi@e the Sanctuary boundary to exclude the new or expanded port, harbor or boat basin.
              Approaches -to harbors and offshore anchorages are not excluded from the Sanctuary boundary
              because these areas are more frequently used by humpback whales and provide an important link
              between the nearshore and deeper water habitats,


              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                               Page 283
              and Management Plan







                 Appendix A: Responses to Comments                                       Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                 National Marine Sanctuary

                 2.      Comment: NOAA should only include those areas on leeward sides of the islands in the
                 Sanctuary boundary since that is where the whales seem to be located.

                         Response:      NOAA disagrees. Humpback whale distribution studies over the last ten
                 yeajrs have shown that humpbacks are commonly found in waters less than 100-fathoms
                 throughout the main Hawaiian Islands (windward and leeward). Though distribution studies have
                 shown that humpbacks can be found in greater numbers in leeward areas, they still use windward
                 ar=s for breeding, calving, and nursing activities. At present, scientists do, not fully understand
                 distribution patterns and habitat preference for humpbacks, though it is accurate to say that
                 humpback whales are distributed throughout the main- Hawaiian Islands, particularly in waters less
                 than 100-fathoms. Given that humpback whales are very dynamic and swim among the different
                 islands, NOAA has determined that the boundary should include windward and leeward sides of
                 the islands.

                 3.      Comment: NOAA should adopt a Sanctuary boundary that includes waters around all the
                 main Hawaiian Islands from the shoreline to the 1000-fathom isobath to better encompass all the
                 whales' habitat.

                         Response: NOAA recognizes that this boundary alternative would include most if not all
                 the humpback whale habitat in the main Hawaiian Islands, but has concluded that this alternative is
                 far too large for effective management under current and foreseeable financial and staff resources.
                 Most of the area in this boundary alternative is located significantly offshore (e.g., up to 40 miles
                 frorn. each main Hawaiian Island). The dispersion of management activities (e.g., research and
                 enforcement). in these areas would strain the program's ability to effectively manage other
                 nearshore areas of the Sanctuary. Since most human and whale activities and interactions occur in
                 relatively shallow waters (generally less than 100-fathoms), NOAA believes the focus of Sanctuary
                 martagement efforts would be better placed in these areas. - This alternative also fails to consider the
                 importance of U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) military use areas in Hawaii that are essential to
                 national security and defense.

                 4.      Comment: NOAA should adopt a zoned boundary; an outer boundary around the 1000-
                 fathom isobath (no regulations -- advisory only) and an inner boundary constituting the
                 Coingressionally-designated boundary.

                         Response: NOAA disagrees. Although this option would incorporate most humpback
                 whale habitat in the Sanctuary, NOAA believes that such a boundary is too large to effectively
                 martage (see previous response). NOAA believes that a 100-fathom- isobath boundary is more
                 manageable since research, education, and other resource protection measures can be focused in
                 those nedrshore areas where whales and human activities are more likely to come into conflict.
                 This core 100-fathom boundary is included as the NOAA preferred boundary alternative, excluding
                 DOD mi,litary use areas that are essential to national security and defense (see response #8).
                 @5.     Comment: The shoreline does not need to constitute the Sanctuary's border since whales
                 don't go that close to shore.

                         Response:, The shoreline was chosen as the Sanctuary's inshore boundary because the
                 purpose of the Sanctuary is to protect the humpback whale and its habitat. Humpback whales use
                 theshallow, nearshore areas (less than 100-fathom isobath) around the main Hawaiian Islands for
                 cerudn. reproductive activities (i.e., calving and nursing). The bathymetry around the Hawaiian
                 Islands is variable, with some adjacent.niiihne'areas dropping off steeply very close to shore and,
                 therefore, whales may be found in these areas. Further, impacts to the nearshore waters of
                 humpback wha    'le habitat could impact waters further offshore as well, where whales are also
                 found. The shoreline is also more easily recognized as a definable, uniform inshore boundary than


                 Page: 284                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                    and Management Plan







               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                      Appendix A: Responses to Comments
               National Marine Sanctuary

               are offshore areas. Finally, a boundary that includes the shoreline also provides more protection
               for stranded whales or whale carcasses that wash up on shore.

               6.      Comment: Define -what makes a boundary, manageable versus non-manageable. The
               Statewide boundary is too large for NOAA to effectively manage.

                       Response:       The National Marine Sanctuary Program has 14 different sites, each
               encompassing unique resources in a defined geographic area. Their sizes range from 0.25 square
               miles to over 5,000 square miles. Manageability must be looked at on a site by site basis taking
               into account area's size and resources, existing management authorities, accessibility to the site,
               types and impacts of human uses, suitability for research, monitoring and enforcement activities,
               and fiscal and staffing resources of the National Marine Sanctuary Program. In selecting a
               sanctuary boundary, NOAA assesses whether the boundary will both facilitate the goals for which
               the sanctuary was designated and, whether its is manageable given resource and practical
               limitations. NOAA has determined that it could successfully supplement and help coordinate
               research, long-term monitoring, education, and enforcement programs within a statewide
               Sanctuary boundary (with certain exceptions) encompassing the waters from the shoreline to the
               100-fathom isobath.

               7.      Comment: NOAA should adopt the Congressionally designated boundary (Maui County
               and part of Kauai).

                       Response:    Although Maui County has historically had and continues to have the highest
               reported concentration of humpback whales, other areas of the State (i.e., Kauai, Oahu, and the
               Big Island) include important whale habitat used for breeding, calving, and nursing activities.
               Many different scientific research studies have concluded that humpback whales are primarily
               distributed within the 100-fathom isobath throughout the main Hawaii Islands, including Kauai,
               Oahu, and the Big Island. NOAA believes that a statewide boundary is necessary to provide
               comprehensive and coordinated management of humpback whales throughout Hawaii, and that the
               -benefits associated with a National Marine Sanctuary, including research and educational efforts,
               and enhanced enforcement of existing laws, should be available to all the islands of the State.

               8.      Comment: The expansion of the Sanctuary beyond Maui County is not justified,
               especially in light of the fact that the military exclusion zones' contain high reported concentrations
               of humpback whales (West Kauai, Oahu), Military areas should not be excluded. from the
               boundary since activities occurring in these areas can impact the whales.

                       Response: In choosing a bo      'undary for a sanctuary, NOAA must take into consideration
               many factors, including a area's size, resources, manageability, and the human uses of the area
               (see earlier response). The Department of Defense (DOD) is a significant ocean user in Hawaii,
               and many of its activities are essential to our nation's security and defense. NOAA has formally
               consulted with DOD on their existing military activities and has concluded that they have sufficient
               resource protection measures within their standard operating procedures to ensure the protection of
               humpback whales and their habitat. DOD activities remain subject to the provisions of the Marine
               Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and other laws and
               regulations relating to water quality and the. To facilitate DOD military uses, NOAA, in
               consultation with the State of Hawaii and DOD, determined that the Hawaii Sanctuary boundary
               should not include certain military use areas in order to support the military's interests and activities
               now as well as into the future, and to maintain our nation's national security interests.






               Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                             Page 2285
               and Management Plan







                Appendix A: Responses to Comments                                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                               National Marine Sanctuary

                9.       Comment: NOAA should expand the boundary of the -Sanctuary to include waters
                surrounding the entire State, including the Northwest Hawaiian Islands (NWHI).
                         Response: NOAA agrees that the boundary of the Sanctuary should beexpanded beyond
                the Congressionally-designated boundary (i.e., Maui County). However, NOAA does not believe
                that the NWHI should be included within the Sanctuary boundary for a variety of reasons. First,
                few humpback whales have been reported around the atolls, islands, banks, and reefs of the
                NWHI. Second, this area is managed as a national wildlife refuge, significantly restricting access
                to the area, even for research purposes. Finally'. the inclusion of these waters, which are remote
                and. difficult to access, could hinder effective resource management efforts in, these areas and
                detract management efforts from oiher parts of the main. Hawaiian Islands.

                10. - Comment: NOAA should expand the boundary of the Sanctuary to include- areas - of
                humpback whale habitat throughout the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.(EEZ).

                         Response: NOAA does not believe that a Sanctuary encompassing all of Hawaii's EEZ is
                necessary or manageable. Most humpback whales can be found within the 100-fathom isobath
                around the main Hawaiian Islands. An EEZ-sized Sanctuary would expand the Sanctuary to areas
                that are very r"eimote @- hundreds of miles from human population centers.              As a result,
                comprehensive management, including additional research, long-term monitoring, and
                enforcement demands would significantly strain financial resources and curtail effective
                management efforts in other areas of the'State where both whales and humans are more likely to
                interact. Regulatory protection offered by the MMPA and.th6 ESA, however, still protects the
                humpback whale throughout Hawaii's EEZ.

                A L      Comment: - NOAA should adopt a'boundary that encompasses areas of highest reported
                concentrations of humpback whales so that the Sanctuary does not include areas where whales are
                not typically present.

                         Response: Although this boundary encompasses a series of discrete areas known to be
                extensively used by humpback whales, it fails to include other important identified areas of the
                main Hawaiian Islands that humpback whales utilize for transit, courting/mating, breeding,
                calving, and resting activities. In addition, this.-boundary does not consider the fact that an
                increasing whale population will eventually require more space to successfully reproduce, calve,
                and nurse, and it does not allow for the adequate comprehensive protection of humpback whales
                and their habitat throughout the Hawaiian range. Finally, this boundary fails to recognize the
                importance of DOD military use areas. and activities that are essential to national security and
                defense.

                12.      Comment: NOAA should adopt as a boundary for the Sanctuary the 100-fathom isobath
                .surrounding all the main Hawaiian Islands including Kaula Rock.

                         Response:      While this boundary accurately reflects the current understanding of
                humpback whale distribution and habitat use in Hawaii, it fails to recognize the significance of
                DOI) military use areas and activities that are essential to national security and defense.
                Furthermore, this boundary is slightly larger in scope -than the NOAA preferred boundary, as it
                includes marine waters surrounding. Niihau a nd Kaula Rock. The inclusion of these waters, which
                are remote and difficult to access, could hinder effective resource management efforts in these areas.
                and detract management efforts from other parts of the main Hawaiian Islands.





                Page 286                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan







             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                   Appendix A: Responses to Comments
             National Marine Sanctuary

             13. - Comment: NOAA should exclude the Big Island from the Sanctuary's boundary because
             there are not as many whales around the island as in other parts of the State, and the. Big Island
             residents do not want the Sanctuary there.

                    Response: NOAA has received oral and written comments both in opposition to. and in
             support of the inclusion of the Big Island within the boundary of the Sanctuary. NOAA believes
             that'the waters around the Big Island constitute important habitat for the humpback whale.
             Research has shown that the northwest portion of the Big Island contains high concentrations of
             whales. The whales are also known to use other areas around the Big Island for reproduction,
             calving, and nursing activities as well. NOAA believes that inclusion of the Big Island will help
             ensure that comprehensive management and protection of humpback whales and their Hawaiian
             habitat will be applied statewide. NOAA does not believe that the inclusion of the Big Island will
             result in significant adverse socio-economic impacts on marine users, and that the benefits
             associated with a national marine sanctuary (including research and educational efforts, and
             enhanced enforcement of existing laws) would be distributed throughout the main Hawaiian
             Islands.

             14.     Comment: NOAA should include the Big Island in the Sanctuary boundary.

                     Response: NOAA agrees and the Big Island has been included in the boundary with the
             exception of harbors, ports and small boat basins (see previous response).

             15.     Comment: All of the boundary alternatives should be justified by whale needs and
             through supportable scientific evidence.

                     Response: In developing the boundary alternatives and selecting the preferred boundary
             alternatives, NOAA used the most current scientific evidence to determine whale locations around
             the main Hawaiian Islands. Since population studies have shown that humpback whales frequent
             the 100-fathorn. isobath region more than other areas of the State, NOAA decided on a statewide
             boundary using that depth contour as an outer limit. Certain areas around the State have not been.
             included, however, based on and because of DOD national security interests (see response         #8).
             Not including such areas should not compromise the purposes of the HU*4MSA




             16.     Comment: There is a discrepancy between the authority of the Kahoolawe Island Reserve
             Commission (KIRC) (shore to two nautical miles) and the Hawaiian Islands National Marine
             Sanctuary Act (HINMSA) language excluding the waters around Kahoolawe (shore to three
             nautical miles). This one mile gap in jurisdiction needs to be corrected.

                     Response: Although there is a one mile gap between the Congressionally designated
             Sanctuary and KIRC's authority in the water surrounding Kahoolawe, in the preferred alternative
             NOAA does not propose to include the one mile area into the Sanctuary boundary at this time. In
             December 1995, the Secretary of Commerce certified that the three mile area was unsuitable for
             inclusion into the Sanctuary. The HINMSA was amended in 1996 to allow the KIRC to request
             inclusion into the Sanctuary the marine waters within three miles from Kahoolawe. If at some
             point in the future such waters are deemed suitable for inclusion, the entire three mile'areA would
             likely be included within the Sanctuary. Special management measures would likely be necessary
             for the area lying within two nautical miles of Kahoolawe to reflect KIRC's manag
                                                                                                 ,ement authority
             and responsibility.




             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                         Page 287
             and Management Plan






                  Appendix A: Responses to Comments                                           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                      National Marine Sanctuary

                  17.      Comment: The waters around Kahoolawe could be added to the Sanctuary without the
                  opportunity for public comment. This would be a violation of the. National Marine Sanctuaries Act
                  (NNISA).
                           Response: The public has had at least two formal opportunities (March 1993 scoping
                  meetings and September-December 1995 public hearings and connnent period on the DEIS/MP) to
                  comment on the inclusion of the waters around Kahoolawe 'in the Sanctuary. In December, 1995,
                  the Secretary of Commerce certified that the waters around Kahoolawe are unsuitable for inclusion
                  in the Sanctuary and, therefore they are not part of the Sanctuary boundary. In 1996, the
                  HINMSA was amended, in part -to provide that should NOAA determine in the future that
                  Kahoolawe waters may be suitable, for inclusion in the Sanctuary,. NOAA will prepare a
                  supplemental environmental impact statement, management plan, and implementing regulations for
                  that inclusion. This process will include the opportunity. for public comment. Further, the
                  Governor would have the opportunity to certify -his or her objection to the inclusion, or any, term of
                  that inclusion, and if this occurs, the inclusion or term will not take effect. NOAA is committed to
                  providing additional opportunities for public input, and will also seek recommendations and advice
                  from ihe Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC).' In addition, NOAA will work closely with the
                  KIRC and the State concerning the inclusion of Kahoolawe waters in the Sanctuary.




                  Existin Reeulations

                  18.,     Comment: Humpback whales are already protected by the MMPA, the ESA, and State
                  regulations. There is no need for additional regulatory protection.

                           Response: In 1992, Congress enacted the HINMSA, recognizing the important role that
                  the Hawaiian Islands play in the preservation and long-term vitality of the endangered.humpback
                  whale. The waters around the Hawaiian Islands constitute essential breeding, calving, and nursing
                  areas for this important national resource, and, are subject to damage and to loss of their ecological
                  integrity from a variety of disturbances.

                  The HINMSA directed NOAA to- develop a comprehensive management plan and implementing
                  regulations for the Sanctuary in consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local government
                  authorities, as well as other interested persons (i.e., marine users and the general public). The
                  purpose of the Sanctuary designation is to promote the comprehensive and coordinated protection
                  of the humpback whale and its habitat, which NOAA has determined can be achieved through
                  research, monitoring, education, and better enforcement of existing regulations.

                  NOAA reviewed the scientific literature concerning potential impacts to humpback whales and the
                  existing Federal and State regulations and programs designed to protect humpback whales and their
                  habitat, and concluded that no additional independent. regulatory prohibitions or restrictions are
                  needed for their protection at this time. NOAA believes that other coordinating and non-regulatory
                  protection measures are needed, however, to ensure the long-term recovery and vitality of
                  humpback whales and their habitat. While direct regulation is certainly one means of providing
                  protection for resources, NOAA believes that education, research, monitoring, coordination, and
                  better enforcement of existing laws are also necessary to ensure comprehensive protection for
                  humpback whales and their habitat.

                  NOAA has found that there are adequate existing regulations in place to provide protection of
                  humpback whales and their habitat in Hawaii at this time. However, NOAA, in consultation with
                  other Federal and State agencies, resource managers and researchers, has determined that

                  7-ge 288                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                           and Management Plan -







             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                    Appendix A: Responses to Comments
             National Marine Sanctuary
             enforcement of existing authorities needs to be supplemented to provide for greater, coordinated
             and comprehensive protection of humpback whales -and their habitat. Supplementation will be
             accomplished by incorporating certain existing restrictions as Sanctuary regulations. Such action
             will enable the Sanctuary to bring the humpback whale perspective to the application of these
             existing authorities, and to allow for enforcement- mechanisms and, when appropriate, civil
             penalties to be brought under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act for -violations of such
             authorities.

             NOAA also recognizes that existing authorities do not provide the necessary resources for agencies
             to develop comprehensive and coordinated education, research, monitoring, and enforcement
             programs to ensure the continued viability of humpback whales and their habitat. Nor do these
             laws provide the degree of public input into managing these resources as does the NMSA. NOAA
             has therefore determined that there is a need to supplement these other non-regulatory. resource
             protection management tools, and that the Hawaii Sanctuary can play an integral role,in facilitating
             dialogue and in coordinating with the other Federal, State, and county agencies, and the general
             public. The Sanctuary Management Plan provides a comprehensive and coordinated regime, that
             complements existing efforts, to protect, manage, and conserve humpback whales and their habitat
             in Hawaiian waters so they may be enjoyed by both present and future generations.

             19.     Comment: How will the Sanctuary provide more protection for the whales given that
             ,they are already protected by existing regulations?

                     Response:       NOAA believes that "protection" encompasses more than regulatory
             measures. Education, research, monitoring, coordination, and enforcement all contribute to
             protecting Sanctuary resources. In response to public and agency comments, NOAA is not issuing
             new, independent Sanctuary prohibitions or restrictions in Hawaii to protect humpback whales and
             their habitat. Instead, NOAA will essentially incorporate existing regulations to make up the
             regulatory portion of the Sanctuary management regime (see previous comment). This will
             increase protection for humpback whales and their habitat in several ways. First, this gives.
             authority for the Hawaii Sanctuary to be a resource management agency that actually "sits at the
             table" and reviews pem-At applications for potential harm to Sanctuary resources. The Hawaii
             Sanctuary has a different and much more focused mission than any of the other agencies in Hawaii
             inasmuch as its primary concern is to ensure that humpback whales and their habitat are not
             adversely impacted. Since the Sanctuary is relying on existing regulations, the Sanctuary will not
             issue independent permits, but will work within the existing perniit structures of agencies to ensure
             that potential impacts to whales are addressed. Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with the
             such agencies will detail how the Sanctuary will coordinate in reviewing permit applications.

             .Second, Sanctuary regulations also provide the necessary authority for the Sanctuary to directly
             work with Federal and State enforcement agencies to coordinate enforcement of permit violations.
             Although there are several different Federal and State enforcement entities, all are facing severe
             financial resource limitations. The Sanctuary can supplement these limited resources and enhance
             education and outreach efforts to ensure that the public is informed about existing regulations.
             Finally, the regulations may provide an added deterrence topotential violators in that the 'Sanctuary
             program has a $100,000 potential maximum civil penalty for persons violating Sanctuary
             regulations: (whale approach and harassment, discharges, and alteration of, the seabed).           All
             Sanctuary fines assessed as a result of Sanctuary enforcement actions will, however, be based on a
             civil penalty schedule developed for the Sanctuary that will be made publicly available.
             Non-regulatory features of the Sanctuary that will provide greater protection for humpback whales
             and their habitat include: the SAC., which can provide a framework for continuous -dialogue
             between the Sanctuary Manager and resource managers, researchers, educators, enforcement
             agencies, marine users, and. the public; research used to address management-related issues and to

             ,Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                         Page 289
             and Management Plan






                 Appendix A: Responses to Comments                                        Hawaiia@ Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                  National Marine Sanctuary

                 answer unknown questions such as how and why wh            ales change their behavior in response to
                 various human disturbances; and proactive efforts to work" with existing organizations and marine
                 user groups to produce and disseminate information about how humans can mmirruze their impacts
                 on humpback whales and their habitat and on the existing laws that protect Sanctuary resources.

                 2 , Q..  Comment: Although Sanctuary program staff have stated -that there win be no "new"
                 Sanctuary regulations, doesn't the fact that -the Sanctuary -is incorporating existing regulations as
                 part of its regulatory structure constitute new regulations? How is this different than the status quo
                 in terms of perrnits, veto authority over projects, and enforcement?

                          Response:      NOAA is essentially incorporating certain existing Federal and State
                 regulations that protect (directly and indirectly) humpback whales and their habitat into the
                 Sanctuary management regime as Sanctuary regulations. However, the Sanctuary regulations do
                 not impose any new restrictions inasmuch as the regulations only impose the substantive
                 restrictions which were already in place before the designation of the Sanctuary. They do not place
                 any additional prohibitions or restrictions on marine users aside from those that already exist. Nor
                 do the Sanctuary regulations provide authority to require and issue Sanctuary permits. The
                 Sanctuary is developing MOUs with appropriate Federal and State agencies to facilitate review by
                 the Sanctuary of other agency permit applications for activities. that could impact Sanctuary
                 resources, and, if necessary,'provide recommendations to the agency considering issuing a permit
                 on ways to prevent, minimize, or mitigate harm to these resources.                   These would be
                 recommendations only, and the permitting agency ultimately determines whether to include the
                 recommendations as part of its permit conditions. The Sanctuary regulations do not provide the
                 authority for NOAA to veto, deny, or approve permits issued or authorized by these other
                 agencies. The only "new" feature of these regulations would be that if an activity is conducted
                 without a required permit, or in violation of the terms and conditions of an existing permit, such
                 action would be a violation of the Sanctuary regulations. The Sanctuary would then coordinate
                 with the appropriate Federal or State agency on any necessary enforcement actions. This regime is
                 consistent with the input NOAA received throughout the public process from Federal and State
                 agencies, resource managers, researchers and others regarding the adequacy of existing regulations
                 as.they,pertain to protection of humpback whales and their habitat in Hawaii.

                 2 1. , Comment: The current humpback whale approach regulations are flawed. The Sanctuary
                 should create a "right of safe passage," or show some "intent to harass" so that as the humpback
                 whale populations continue to increase, and vessel-whale interaction becomes more common,
                 vessel opiemtors will still be allowed to transit an area without fear of 'being cited for a violation of
                 an approach regulation.

                          Response: In 1987, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published an interim
                 rule under the-ESA (52 FR 44912) establishing a 100-yard approach limit for vessels (or people), a
                 300-yard vessel approach limit in cow/calf areas, and a 1000-foot overflight limit to provide better
                 protection for humpback whales and to minimize the effects of increasing vessel traffic on
                 humpback whales. A final rule was -published by NMFS in January 1995 (60 FR 3775) that
                 retained the 100-yard vessel approach limits and 1000-foot overflight limit, but eliminated the 300-
                 yard cow-calf areas.

                 NOAA recognizes a difference between approach and proximity !o humpback whales, and that
                 whales may approach vessels.. The 100-yard approach regulation clearly states that approaching
                 (moving toward) a humpback whale within the prescribed limits is prohibited. A vessel would not
                 ordifiarily violate the regulation by inadvertently being inside the 100-yard limit, or if a humpback
                 whale surfaces or -approaches within of 100 yards of a vessel. NUFS Enforcement agents and the
                 NO  'AA Office of General Counsel (GQ assess alleged violations on'a case by case basis to
                 determine whether an approach has occurred, and whether an enforcement action is warranted.


                 Page 290                                                              Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                      and Management Plan







              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                        Appendix A: Responses to Comments
              National Marine Sanctuary

              The existing approach regulations appear to have successfully achieved protection for the whale
              while avoiding enforcement actions for merely being within 100 yards of a whale.

              The National Manne Sanctuary Program is incorporating the NUFS approach prohibitions into the
              Sanctuary management regime. The Sanctuary program cannot independently make changes to
              regulations promulgated under other authorities (M[MPA, ESA, or any other Federal or State
              regulation). The Sanctuary program however, recognizes the concerns of the boating community
              over the enforcement of these regulations and the potential conflict due to increases in both the
              whale populations and in boating activities in Hawaii. The Hawaii Sanctuary will help coordinate
              and facilitate dialogue between concerned boaters and NUFS (Office of Protected Species and
              Office of Enforcement) and NOAA-GC In addition, the Sanctuary's Management Plan will
              undergo a formal evaluation after five years, including a determination of the effectiveness of the
              Sanctuary regulations at protecting Sanctuary resources, and their impacts on marine users.

              12.      Comment: Tbe Sanctuary should, in cooperation with boat -operators, promote proper
              disposal of sewage from boat heads, encourage compliance with existing laws, and help implement
              existing regulations and programs.

                       Response: NOAA agrees. Water quality is one component of the humpback whale
              habitat that many people want to see improved and maintained. The Sanctuary can use the
              expertise available on the SAC and associated working groups to work with the boating
              community and operators to develop voluntary education programs aimed at achieving proper
              vessel sewage disposal and compliance with existing regulations.                 The Sanctuary is also
              supplementing existing regulations that pertain to discharges or deposits that could affect
              humpback whales or their habitat by making illegal discharges or deposits a Sanctuary violation.

              Future Regulations

              23.      Comment: The Sanctuary has not provided a               guarantee that there will be no new
              Sanctuary regulations in the future.

                       Response: - NOAA cannot make the guarantee              that future regulations will never be
              necessary. It is possible that someday resource managers may identify a specific type of activity
              that could negatively impact Sanctuary resources or create conflicts among other Sanctuary users.
              While other non-regulatory options would be pursued first, regulation is one type of management
              tool that NOAA may choose to consider in order to protect Sanctuary resources or minimize user
              conflict. NOAA could not issue a new regulation, however, without first going through an
              extensive public -review and comment process (see following response). The Governor would also
              have the opportunity to object to any new Sanctuary regulation as it pertains to State waters.
              24.      Comment: Should new regulations be necessary in the future, what is the process?
                       Response: NOAA must first identify and support that there is a need for a new regulation
              (e.g., that a Sanctuary resource is being, or could be negatively affected by some activity or that an
              activity is creating a conflict among Sanctuary users). NOAA would work with other Federal and
              State resource management agencies, the research community and affected user groups to collect all
              relevant and available information and scientific. data that will be used to more clearly defte the
              problem and identify potential solutions. NOAA will also seek advice and recommendations from
              the SAC and other resource management agencies prior to initiating any rulemaking.
              If after coordinating with existing agencies and the SAC a decision is made to propose a new
              regulation, NOAA is required to, at a minimum, follow the procedures of the Administrative
              Procedure Act, requiring that adequate public notice and opportunity for public comment be given
              for new regulations. Further, if NOAA proposed a regulation outside of the scope of regulations

              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                               Page 291
              and Management Plan






                Appendix A: Responses to Comments                                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                              National Marine Sanctuary
                listed in the Sanctuary Designation Document, NOAA would be legally required to go through -the
                designation process, including public review and comment, at least one public hearing, preparation
                of a Supplemental EIS, and gubernatorial review and approval. If the Governor objects, the
                regulation would not take effect in State waters. Finally, if NOAA proposed to substantively
                change an existing regulation, NOAA must provide for public review and comment and, although
                not legally required to do so, gubernatorial review and approval.

                2 S.. Comment: There should be no new regulations unless:
                        i)      the need for a new regulation is clearly demonstrated;
                        ii)     the disturbance results in loss of humpback whale life;
                        iii)    the negative impacts of the activity have been documented and substantiated by
                legitimate research; and
                        iv)     regulations are first approved unanimously by the SAC.

                        Response: NOAA agrees that there should not be any new sanctuary regulations unless
                there. is a demonstrated need. NOAA will work closely with existing agencies, the SAC, the
                scientific community, and marine users to identify and clarify any potential problems before
                promulgating new regulations. NOAA will make all efforts to collect existing relevant scientific
                data or provide resources to fund research if necessary to investigate the nature, scope, and cause
                of such problems.

                NOAA does not agree, however, that it should only regulate an activity if the activity is found to
                kill -a humpback whale. NOAA firmly believes that resource protection should be proactive in
                nature and be responsive to potential problems as they arise - this means acting when the problem
                is identified and confirmed, rather than waiting until after death occurred before taking any action.

                NOAA My intends to seek input from the SAC on the scope of any potential problems as well as
                s6lutions on how to solve those problems (regulatory and non-regulatory). NOAA views this
                SAC input@ as well as those from. other agencies and the public, as extremely unportant in shaping
                Sanctuary policy. NOAA disagrees, however, that it must first seek "unanimous approvar' by the
                SAC before it could ever consider issuing a regulation. The SAC is an advisory body whose role
                is to provide advice and recommendations to the Sanctuary'Manager on policy issues, including
                regulation. Unanimous approval is not necessary and is unrealistic given the broad spectrum of
                interests represented on the SAC.   .NOAA will consider the advice and recommendations of the
                SAC, as well as comments received during the general public comment period on a proposed
                regulation, to evaluate whether to proceed with promulgating a new regulation.

                Mfltat Regulations
                26.     Comment: The Sanctu      ary program should develop a more detailed definition of habitat in
                the regulations to clarify how the Sanctuary will interface with other permitting agencies.
                        Response: NOAA's humpback whale habitat definition for the Sanctuary was developed
                to be consistent with those habitat definitions of the MWA and the ESA. At this time, humpback
                whale habitat is based on known whale distributions and on those activities and behaviors that
                occur in these areas. More scientific research.is needed to investigate those specific chemical,
                physical, and biological components of the marine environment that are truly an important or
                necessary component for humpback whales before a more precise definition can be proposed.
                Tbis is also the primary reason the Sanctuary is relying on, and only supplementing, other.
                authorities that regulate discharges and alteration of seabed activities.
                As     viously noted in an earlier response, the Hawaii Sanctuary is currently developing MOUs
                    pre
                with relevant Federal and State agencies to more clearly define the types of permits'the Sanctuary


                Page. 292                                                           Final En'vironmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan







             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale.                                   Appendix A: Responses to Comments
             National Marine Sanctuary

             would review and specific procedures for Sanctuary review and comment. The draft MOUs are
             included in Appendix E of the FEISM.

             Regmlatory Alternatives

             27.     Comment: New regulations are not needed and NOAA should focus on research and
             education only.

                     Response: NOAA disagrees.          Resource protection is the primary goal of the National
             Marine Sanctuary Program and NOAA, as a co-manager in partnership with other Federal and
             State agencies, must be able to provide adequate protection for those resources. NOAA' has
             determined that a national manne sanctuary must have some minimum level of regulation as part of
             a Sanctuary's management regime, primarily to protect Sanctuary resources. As detailed in earlier
             responses, NOAA explained why additional protection is needed for humpback -whales and their
             habitat, and how essentially iricorporating certain existing regulations into the Sanctuary
                        nt regime adds more protection. By having no direct role or authority to manage
             resources of the Sanctuary, NOAA would not- be able to fulfill the responsibilities imposed by
             Congress in the HH*4MSA to comprehensively manage and protect the Sanctuary and its primary
             resources, the humpback whale and their habitat

             Furthermore, NOAA would be constrained in its ability to expend Sanctuary resources to enhance
             enforcement of these existing regulations if it did not, at a minimum, incorporate certain existing
             restrictions as Sanctuary regulations. Such enhanced enforcement is an integral component of the
             Sanctuary management regime's protective measures, and is consistent with the overall
             recominendations contained in the Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan (ORMP).

             Like research and education, regulation and enforcement are management tools necessary to protect
             Sanctuary resources. Further, additional Sanctuary resources could be wisely spent to enhance
             existing enforcement efforts by NUFS, the State Departmezit of-Health (DOH), or DLNR. Such
                            could be in the form of funding for educational materials about what protective
             regulations currently exist for the humpback whale'and its habitat, for convening workshops for
             ocean users to discuss enforcement activities, or for funding research to detemiine adequacy of
             enforcement actions. Furthermore, the Sanctuary -Program is examining the feasibility of funding
             additional monitoring or enforcement positions within DOH and DLNR.

             28.     Comment: NOAA should support compliance with existing regulations.
                     Response: NOAA agrees, and has identified this alternative as the preferred regulatory
             alternative. NOAA believes this regulatory alternative will best allow the Sanctuary to fulfill its
             responsibilities to protect Sanctuary resources without unnecessarily duplicating existing Federal
             and State agency rules and regulations that provide protection (directly or indirectly) to humpback
             whales or their habitat. This alternative also addresses the concerns raised regarding additional
             Sanctuary regulations and permits. The Sanctuary regulations have no requirements to obtain
             separate Sanctuary permits to conduct otherwise prohibited activities.
             29.     Comment: NOAA should not supplement existing regulations because there is a real
             potential for future and more stringent regulations, and for higher fees, fines, and penalties..
                     Response: NOAA disagrees. The final Sanctuary regulations are limited 'in scope to
             essentially incorporating those existing Federal and State regulations that provide protection to the
             humpback whale and its habitat. It is impossible for NOAA to predict whether new regulations
             will ever be needed or if they will bemore stringent. The procedures for issuing new regulations,
             however, will involve broad public input and gubernatorial review (see response #24).


             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                          Page 293
             and Management Plan






              Appendix A: Responses to Comments                                    Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                          National Marine Sanctuary

              NOAA has never proposed any mandatory user fees for the Sanctuary, so there will be no added
              fees for marine users other than any fees that are already being assessed by other Federal, State,
              and county agencies. Further, in 1996, the BRINBA was amended, in part, to prohibit NOAA
              from instituting any user fee under the BDIMSA or NMSA for any activity within the sanctuary or
              any use of the Sanctuary or its resources.
              To alleviate the public's concern that any violation of a Sanctuary regulation will result in the
              assessment of the maximum $ 100,000 civil penalty, NOAA's Office of General Counsel is
              developing a civil penalty schedule for the Sanctuary, which will be made publicly available. The
              civil penalty schedule will identify the ranges of fines that could be assessed - for violating
              -Sanctuary regulations, taking into account such factors as number of prior violations and the
              -severity or type of violation.

              30.     Comment: NOAA should adopt           comprehensive regulations to protect the humpback
              whale and its habitat. Since the MMPA and ESA are currently being watered down, the Sanctuary
              should have independent regulations to provide supplemental protection.

                      Response: Wbile NOAA agrees that a complete suite of independent Sanctuary
              regulations and permits may provide greater protection for humpback whales, it also recognizes the
              concerns raised by other Federal, State, and county agencies and marine users for duplicative laws
              and permitting processes. Because this Sanctuary protects the humpback whale and it's habitat,
              already protected by other Federal and State authority NOAA has attempted to craft a resource
              protection plan that does not add unnecessary regulation, permits, or time requirements to an
              already complicated and overburdened system.          As - such, NOAA believes that working.
              cooperatively with other agencies will best allow NOAA to achieve its limited resource protection
              goals while minimizing its impact on other agencies and Sanctuary users. If significant changes to
              existing authorities occur, NOAA may re-evaluate the Sanctuary regulations to determine whether
              they should be amended.

              31.     Comment: Any Sanctuary regulatory alternative (alternatives 664,99 "5," and "6") that
              allows the Sanctuary to issue independent permits is good as long as the logistics of permit review
              are maintained and the whales are actually getting adequate attention and protection.
                      Response.- Permits only provide additional protection for resources if the permit review
              procedures are followed, monitored, and evaluated over firne. Throughout this process, NOAA
              repeatedly received comments and information from Federal, State, and county agencies and the
              general public that Hawaii already has too many separate permit requirements and that the real
              problems lie in monitoring and enforcing violations of existing permits and regulations. As the
              majoeity of the Sanctuary lies in State waters and because NOAA is essentially, only incorporating
              existing prohibitions and restrictions as Sanctuary regulations, NOAA is not adding any additional
              Sanctuary permit requirements, but will work within the existing permit review processes to
              ensure: that humpback whales and their habitat-are considered and that adequate monitoring and
              enforcement of these permits occurs.
              32.     Comment: NOAA should adopt strict regulations on marine -users and activities to protect
              humpback whales and their habitat so that it has direct authority to provide more protection for
              humpback whales and a greater ability to prevent those actions that do harm humpback whales or
              their habitat.

                      Response: NOAA disagrees.. This regulatory alternative is not presently justified by the
              available data concerning impacts to humpback whales or their habitat.




              Page 294                                                          Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                              and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                   Appendix A: Responses to Comments
              National Marine Sanctuary
              33.    Comment: National marine sanctuaries should entail ecosystem based management.
              NOAA should issue regulations to protect the ecosystem so that it- can. address the true resource
                           needs in Hawaii.

                     Response: NOAA does not agree that all marine resources should be included in the
              Sanctuary and that comprehensive regulations for ecosystem management be'implemented at this
              time. NOAA is required by the HINMSA to identify other area and ecosystems of national
              significance for possible inclusion in the Sanctuary. NOAA agrees that an ecosystem based
              Sanctuary should be given more consideration, and has detailed a process in Part V(c) of the final
              Management Plan (Sanctuary Resources), that will involve substantial input from the SAC, other
              agencies, and members of the public prior to including additional marine resources or ecosystems.
              This process will clearly identify and clarify what, if any, such resources should be included in the
              Sanctuary and what role the Sanctuary should take in their management and protection.


                                -@N


              34.    Comment:     The Sanctuary will restrict fishing in HawaiL

                     Response:     NOAA disagrees. The proposed                      plan and regulations for the
              Sanctuary did not include the regulation of fishing activities. The final management plan and
              regulations have not changed. Moreover, fishing is not included as an activity listed in the scope
              of activities in the Designation Document as being subject to regulation. Thus, any regulation of
              fishing would constitute a change in the term of the designation, as contained in the Designation
              Document for the Sanctuary, for which the Secretary of Commerce must follow the applicable
              requirements of. section 304 of the NMSA. Such requirements include providing the Western
              Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WESPAQ with the- opportunity to determine if
              fishing -regulations are necessary and if so, to draft such- regulations for the Sanctuary. NOAA
              would also consult with the State and the SAC, as well as the fishing industry to determine an
              appropriate course of action to address concems over impacts to Sanctuary resources from fishing
              activities. Further, NOAA would be required. to solicit public comments, conduct at least one
              public hearing, and prepare a Supplemental EIS. Finally, the Governor of Hawaii would have the
              ability to review and veto the amendment to the Designation Document and new Sanctuary
              regulation before it can take effect *in State waters.

              All fishing activities in Fedeml waters are managed by WESPAC and NUFS, and in State waters
              by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). 'There is little evidence to
              indicate that humpback whales extensively feed while in Hawaiian waters (though opportunistic
              feeding may occur). As such, whales and fishermen do not extensively interact, or at least, at a
              level necessitating the creation of Sanctuary regulations governing fishing activities. While
              fishermen, as well as other marine users, are subject to the existing NMFS regulations prohibiting
              approaches closer than 100@yards, current enforcement data confirms this relatively low level of
              disturbance as fishermen have never been cited for huassing a whale in Hawaii. In fact, most
              fishermen fish in areas that do not have high whale concentrations because of claims that whales
              scare the fish away.

              The Hawaii Sanctuary recognizes the importance of fishing for livelihood and enjoyment in
              Hawaii. Additionally, the Sanctuary recognizes the importance of protecting Native Hawaiian
              fishing and gathering rights and will work to ensure these are not unnecessarily impacted by new
              regulations.





              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                         Page 295
              and Management Plan







                  Appendix A.- Responses to Comments                                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Wbale
                                                                                                  National Marm Sanctuary

                  3 5. Comment: Tbe Florida Keys National N[arine Sanctuary is proposing to have
                  replenishment zones and that will restrict fishing - Hawaii will be nexL

                          Response: Each of the 12 National Marine Sanctuaries protects different
                  resources and requires a different set of               tools to prow those resources, especially if
                  they are developed to complement existing Fi-deral, State, and local agencies. The Florida Keys
                  National NWrine Sanctuary and the Hawaiian Islands Humpbadc Whale National Marine Sanctuary
                  are: very different types of sanctuaries, and as such, have very different               regimeL The
                  Florida Keys Sanctuary protects the entire ecosystem, from seagrass beds to sandy bottoms to
                  coral reefs. - 1-he Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act required NOAA to
                  consider zoning as a  management tool for that sanctuary and, consequently, NOAA is proposing a
                  zoning approach to resource protection, including certain zones that restrict fishing activities.
                  NOAA is not proposing a zoning approach for the Hawaii Sanctuary, nor is it proposing to
                  regulate fishing (see response # 34). Further, for my new regulation, including: zoning
                  restrictions, the Governor of Hawaii will have the ability to review and approve such regulation
                  before it can take effect in State watem




                  36. Comment: Civil penalties* implies an "all or nothing" approach to enforcemenL                    The
                  potential economic consequences of scaring boatm with excessive fines should be 'noted. The
                  firte structure should be expanded to include degrees of violations, both intentional and
                  unintentional. The inadvertent accident of a well-meaning citizert should not be the grounds for a
                  severe penalty. Who will develo the penalty structure? What public review process will the
                  penalty structure go through. The 1100,000 maximum tential fine is scary to ocean users. The
                  Sarictuary needs to clarify what maximum fines are for       4=- types of violations.

                         Response: The civil penalty section of the Hawaii Sanctuary regulations (ï¿½922.186)
                  dwicribes the maximum statutory civil penalty, $100,000, thait can legally be assessed for a
                  violation of the. NMSA, HINMSA, or any regulation or permit issued under those laws. A civil
                  penalty schedule for the Sanctuary with recommended minimum and maximum penalties will be
                  developed by the NOAA's Otfice of General Counsel for Enforcement and Litigation with input
                  from the Offf= of Law Enforcement in consultation with the Sanctuary program. The schedule
                  wiII set forth x range of civil penalties that could be assessed for a violation - of each Sanctuary
                  prohibition, talang into account aggravating and mitigating factors such as prior violations and the
                  seventy of the violation. The civil penalty schedule will be made publicly. available and will be
                  similar to other penalty schedules that are presently available for other sanctuary sites . (e. g. , Key
                  Largo and Looe Key). This schedule should alleviwe concerns over the maxi'muni potential
                  penalty being assessed for minor infmctions of the law.

                  %Wties for re        .    established under the NMSA are created under civil law and therefore
                  dif fer ffirrom   of those established under odw Federal/State jurisdictions, within the Sanctuary
                  (those established nnd criminal law). This will have both positive environmental benefits and
                  overall positive socioeconomic benefits for the SanctuM. The resources of the Sanctuary will
                  receive a greater level of protection by providing civil authority to other agencies through cross-
                  deputization,               of regulations is best fa.cilitated by agencies cross deputizing to enforce
                  civil penalties.

                  Civil authority and coordinated enforcement under the NMSA have positive socioeconomic impacts
                  on society in general in that there are cost savings to the public when agencies can share authorities
                  and combine human and material resources. The Sanctuary regulations provide supplemental civil
                  penalty options. In some cases, civil may be more appropriate than cdminaL In some cases, use


                  Palle 296                                                           Final Environmental Impact S
                                                                                                     and Mmgment Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                      Appendix A: Responses to Comments
              National Marine Sanctuary
              of both civil and criminal may be appropriate. The resources can be better protected when there are
              more options for individuals enforcing the regulations. This, in turn, should lead to greater
              environmental and socio-economic benefits.

              Civil authority lends itself more fively to an educational and interpretive approach to enforcement
              of regulations in National Marine Sanctuaries. Simply the message that something is a Sanctuary
              violation is all that is needed to achieve compliance from the vast majority of Sanctuary users. This
              concept underscore of the most important goals of a Sanctuary enforcement program - to obtain
              through education, voluntary compliance with regulations protecting (directly and indirectly)
              humpback whales and their habitat.

              Many commenters have expressed concern about the discretion of enforcement officers in handling
              violations. Such discretion is applied on a case-by-case basis and, as a result, most violations are
              addressed through written or verbal warnings. Civil penalties are recommended by the NOAA-GC
              enforcement attorney upon completion of an investigation by the enforcement officer and review of
              the case specifics., and will be guided by the Sanctuary civil penalty schedule.

              37.     Comment: The Sanctuary brings the added potential for people to get their vessels seized.
                      Response: In addition to vessel seizure provisions contained within the ESA, the
              MMPA, and other fishery, customs, and boater laws, the NMSA also contains provisions that
              authorize vessel seizure in connection with or as a result of any violation of the NMSA or the
              implementing regulations for the Hawaii Sanctuary. However, it is unli ly that NOAA would
              seize someone's vessel for violating the humpback whale approach and harassment regulations
              unless seizure is necessary because the violation was particularly egregious, or if there was a risk
              the violator intended to leave Hawaiian waters.

              38.     Comment: A greater enforcement presence is not justified in @the Draft EISIMP.

                      Response: NOAA disagrees. Throughout the scoping and public meetings, the issue of
              enforcement was raised repeatedly. Many individuals noted that the existing laws protecting
              humpback whales and their habitat were adequate, but that the enforcement of those laws was
              insufficient. With respect to the notion of enhanced enforcement, many factors relating to marine
              enforcement in Hawaii changed during the development of the Draft EIS/MP. First, faced with a
              fiscal crisis, the State of Hawaii eliminated their Marine Patrol division from within the Departrnent
              of Public Safety. Though 18 of the 43 enforcement personnel positions have been transferred to
              DLNR, there has been a net loss of 25 enforcement personnel throughout the State. In addition,
              the NUFS Office of Enforcement (NMFS-OE) has cut the number of enforcement personnel in
              Hawaii to three officers. This past year, NMFS-OE, faced with budget and staffing shortfalls,
              eliminated their presence on Maui during the whale season. This reduction ftuther hampers
              NUFS's ability to adequately enforce ESA and NIMPA measures. The ability of these existing
              laws to continue to protect the endangered humpback whale and its habitat is greatly compromised
              when enforcement is reduced to such a great extenL NOAA believes that the Sanctuary may
              provide a mechanism to leverage more resources for increasing marine enforcement in Hawaii
              closer to the level that existed prior to the budget cuts at both the State and Federal levels. Further,
              NOAA can provide for coordination among the remaining enforcement entities to more effectively
              and efficiently utilize the limited resources.
              39.     Comment: Since user fees, penalties, and fines collected under the Hawaii Sanctuary are
              credited back to the Sanctuary program, there is more incentive for Sanctuary management to
              enhance revenues through enforcement actions. The general public is afraid of overzealous
              officers out to make money for the Program.



              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                            Page 297
              and Management Plan







                Apix-.ndix A: Responses to Comments                                    Hawaiian Islands Humpback VVIWe
                                                                                               National Marine Sanctuary

                        Response: NOAA does not view civil penalties as a method to enhance appropriations.
                The National Manne Sanctuary Program is developmg new means of revenue enhancement,
                including licensing merchandise,' soliciting donations, and other voluntary methods.               The
                Profprarn's philosophy is that such measures are much more effective than attempting to increase
                program funding through increased enforcement action and penalties. The authority to retain civil
                penalties for use in managmg and improving the Sanctuary ensures that monies obtamed for
                violations of the HINMSA, NMSA, or Sanctuary regulations may be used directly for ftnther
                educational outreach and research efforts, rather than being returned to the U.S. Treasury.
                Further, the Sanctuary Program in Hawaii will not have its'own independent enforcement
                pres-mce. Enforcement of Sanctuary violations wiR be carried out through NMFS-OE, a separate
                entity within NOAA. Consequently, any- perception that NMFS-OE would carry out enforcement
                in order to increase Sanctuary Program fiinding should be minimal.

                40.     Comment: The Sanctuary should be used for research and education only -- not to
                enforce existing regulations.

                        Response: NOAA disagrees. Like research and education, regulation and enforcement
                are management tools necessary to protect Sanctuary resources. Further, additional Sanctuary
                resources could be wisely spent'to enhance existing enforcement efforts by NMFS, the State
                Dep.-utmerit of Health (DOH), or DLNR (see response #38). Such enhancement could be in the
                form. of funding for educational materials about what protective regulations currently exist for the
                humpback whale and its habitat, for converung workshops for ocean users to discuss enforcement
                activities, or for funding research to determine adequacy of enforcement actions. Furthermore, the
                Sanctuary is examining the feasibility of funding additional monitoring or enforcement positions
                within DOH and DLNR.

                41.     Comment: Local boat operators are responsible for self-policing. There is no need for
                addildonal enforcement since there are- few interacbon problems.

                        Response: NOAA recognizes that Hawaii's boat operaitors; are some of the most
                responsible in the nation, if not the world. And, based on the limited number of citations issued by
                NMF`S over the past few years, there appears to be but a few interaction problems between vessels
                and humpback whales in Hawaii's waters. However, that self policing results in fewer violations
                does not necessarily obviate the need for additional enforcement. Moreover, the Sanctuary is also
                responsible for protecting the humpback whale's habitat. As such, additional enforcement of
                habitat regulations will facilitate the dfforts of local State enforcement agencies such as DOH or
                DLNR- Such an increase in enforcement is also called for in the ORMP, which encompasses the
                entire marine ecosystem of the main Hawaiian Islands, and claims that the enforcement of existing
                regulations is one of the greatest resource management needs (see response #100).




                42.     Comment:     Sanctuary should be administered on a year-round basis.
                        Response: NOAA agrees. Although humpback whales are only present in Hawaii's
                waters for about six months each year, their habitat and threats to their habitat need to be addressed
                on a year-round basis. In addition, NOAA believes that long-term habitat monitoring, education,
                outreach, and coordination with other agencies needs to happen on a year-round basis to ensure
                comprehensive resource protection.




                Page 298                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan







            Hawauan Islands Humpback Whale                                    Appendix A: Responses to.Comments
            National Marine Sanctuary

            43.     Comment: If the final Sanctuary boundary includes areas on all islands, then each of the
            islands should have a contact person so that all citizens have equal access to Sanctuary resources
            and management.

                    Response: NOAA's goal is to have Sanctuary liaisons or contacts on all the major islands
            within the Sanctuary's boundary. In addition,, the SAC has representatives from all the counties
            and nearly every island. The SAC will be encouraged to coordinate various user groups and
            interests to ensure that local concerns are discussed and addressed (see responses #53-55).

            44.     Comment: NOAA should have a mixture of Federal and State agencies and private sector
            citizens manage the Sanctuary.

                    Response: NOAA believes that the day-to-day management of a Sanctuary should be
            made by. the on-site Federal Sanctuary Manager and his or her staff. To allow for public and
            agency input into the management of the site, however, NOAA has created the SAC. The SAC
            provides advice and recommendations to the Sanctuary Manager and NOAA on the management of
            the site, and is a mixture of Federal, State, and nongovernmental citizens, representing a number of
            varied and diverse interests in Hawaii. The SAC provides recommendations on various
            management issues, including recommendations on education, research, regulations, enforcement,
            and other funding priorities. Additionally, SAC members) may form working groups with island
            representatives and other members of the public to keep appraised of local issues and concerns
            regarding the Sanctuary. All SAC meetings are open to the public and the public may participate in
            agenda items or ask to have certain issues addressed if approved ahead of tim by the SAC Chair
            and the Sanctuary Manager (see responses #53-55).
            45.     Comment: The State of Hawaii or county governments should manage the Sanctuary.
                    Response: The proposed boundaries of the Hawaii Sanctuary encompass waters of both
            Federal (beyond three nautical miles) and State (shoreline to three nautical miles) jurisdiction. As
            such, it is imperative that the Sanctuary have sufficient management and regulatory jurisdiction
            over all of these waters to ensure that Sanctuary resources are fully protected. The counties or the
            State do not have jurisdiction to manage Federal waters and as such, the Sanctuary is best managed
            through a single Federal agency; NOAA. The Hawaii Sanctuary, however, acknowledges the
            existing Federal and State agencies that have management jurisdiction in or near the Sanctuary, and
            is developing cooperative partnerships and MOUs to clarify the role of each agency vis a vis the
            Sanctuary to enhance coordination (see response #20). In addition, the Sanctuary Manager may
            obtain advice and recommendations from the 25 member SAC on the management of the Sanctuary
            (see responses #53-55).
            46.     Comment: There is fear that the Sanctuary will be managed or at least major decisions
            affecting local sanctuaries will originate from Washington D.C. Local citizens do not have any
            control over these decisions.

                    Response: Each individual National Marine Sanctuary is managed by the on-sitte
            Sanctuary Manager. The on-site Manager and other staff make day-to-day decisions concerning
            planning, managing, implementing, and funding site priorities. The on-site Manager may obtain
            advice and recommendations from the 25 member SAC on management of the site, including
            research, education, regulations, enforcement, and funding priorities. The Hav@aii Sanctuary is
            part of a national program, and certain policy issues are reviewed by the headquarters office to
            ensure consistency among the various sites, when appropriate. The headquarters office also
            reviews policies generated from the sites and provides technical assistance when possible. Certain
            program-wide policies are also developed at headquarters, but with extensive input from the
            individual sanctuary managers. Funding comes from the headquarters office, based on the
            recommendations of the individual site and regional managers.

            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                        Page 299
            and Management P1.an







              Appendix A: Responses to Comments                                          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                National Marine Sanctuary


              47.      Comment:         How will the Sanctuary         accomplish comprehensive protection and
              management of the humpback whales and their habitat.

                       Response: NOAA intends to comprehensively manage and protect humpback whales
              primarily through coordination with other agencies and the public. The Sanctuary is proposing to
              essentally incorporate certain existing regulations that protect humpback whales and their habitat
              into the Sanctuary         9-       Plan. The Sanctuary is working with relevant Federal and State
              agencies to develop MOUs to clarify how the Sanctuary will interface with their permit review
              processes to ensure that humpback whales and their habitat are being adequately considered. In
              addition, the Sanctuary will work closely with the. SAC, and those working groups and
              subcommittees set up under the SAC, to identify concerns and policy issues and to coordinate the
              implementation of the Sanctuary Management Plan. The SAC, and thus the Sanctuary, will evolve
              into being a true public and agency sounding board where issues can be raised and solutions
              discussed in an open, structured forum. This form will become an effective tool to facilitate an
              ongoirig dialogue between the existing resource management agencies and the public, leading to a
              resource Management that is responsive to the public and agency needs.
              48.      Comment: The Hawaii Sanctuary is the only single-species sanctuary in the national
              systern. This is not in accordance with the mission of the program and it sets a bad precedent.
                       Response: While the Hawaii Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary is the only
              National Marine Sanctuary focused solely on a single, biological species, it is not the only single
              resource Sanctuary in the national system. The U.S.S. Monitor National Marine Sanctuary was
              established solely to protect the wreck of the famous Civil Wai Ironclad.

              In addition, the National Marine Sanctuary Program was established to be flexible in its approach
              to ocean anagement. There is no one management approach or standard set of regulations that
              fits all sites. NOAA develops site specific management plans that are based on the uniqueness of
              each sanctuary area, and on the area's existing management entities. The Hawaii Sanctuary clearly
              fits the. resource protection and management mandate and mission of the Program- NOAA does
              not believe that the Hawaii Sanctuary has set a negative precedent for the Program, but that it
              merely represents NOAA's commitment to developing site-specific management plans tailored to
              the needs of the local community and its resources.
              Furthermore, while the Congressional        mandate for the Sanctuary is to focus on the humpback
              whale and its habitat, it also allows for the identification of other resources of national significance
              for -possible inclusion the Sanctuary. This creates the. opportunity for a more comprehensive
              Sanctuary, and NOAA has developed a process in the Part V of the FEISIMP to address this issue.
              49.      Comment: The ocean is an interrelated system. Focusing on one s
                                                                                                    ,pecies is not cost
              efficient or what the State needs. A humpback whale sanctuary -does not address other, more
              important and. pressing marine issues in Hawaii as it takes away attention from these resources.
              Humpback whales are only seasonal visitors to Hawaii and are not representative of Hawaii's
              unique marine ecosystem.
                       Response: NOAA agrees that all chemical, physical, and biological components of the
              marine environment are ultimately interrelated, and that a healthy marine environment is needed for
              all organisms to live and reproduce. The qualities of the marine habitat that are required to support
              the humpback whale are also needed to sustain healthy fish stocks, coral reef ecosystems, and
              human recreation. NOAA believes that the knowledge and research gained from investigating
              components of the humpback whale's habitat will ultimately help other resource managers in their
              efforts to protect and sustain other marine environments. Any resource protection measures that


              Page 300                                                               Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                    and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                    Appendix A:  Responses to Comments
            National Marine Sanctuary

            improve the habitat for the humpback whale will subsequently improve           the habitat for other
            organisms living there as well.

            NOAA fixther believes that a sanctuary that focuses on a particular species and its habitat does not
            divert attention away from other marine issues, but effectively creates, a forum. in which these other
            issues can be addressed. The Sanctuary will ultimately increase local resident and visitor
            awareness of not only humpback whales, but also of Hawaii's unique marine environment. In its
            efforts to ensure protecti?n of the humpback whale and its habitat, the Sanctuary Program will
            work with existing agencies and groups to identify problems and issues that affect the entire marine
            ecosystem. This ecosystern* will benefit from our increased knowledge and research, and better
            coordinated management. For example, the Hawaii Sanctuary Program has co-funded a project
            designed to better address the water quality issues and the algal blooms off of Maui as well as to
            develop educational material designed to teach people about Hawaii's unique marine habitat.
            Additionally, NOAA has included a public process in the Sanctuary Management Plan to identify,
            and possibly include, other resources and ecosystems of national significance in the Sanctuary (see
            response #50).

            50.     Comment: NOAA should include other marine species such as sea turtles, Hawaiian
            monk seals, coral reefs, fish, seabirds, and other endangered species as resources of the
            Sanctuary. NOAA should adopt an ecosystem-based sanctuary to address true resource
            management needs in Hawaii.

                    Response: NOAA has included in the Final Management Plan (Part V) a process for
            identifying, and possibly including in the Sanctuary, other resources and ecosystems of national
            significance. The addition of other resources and ecosystems will require a lengthy public and
            SAC review process. Should this public process identify additional resources and management
            measures to include within the Sanctuary's management purview, the Sanctuary would need to
            develop a Supplemental EIS/MP, and hold additional public hearings. Further, the Governor of
            Hawaii would have the authority to decide whether those resources and - associated management
            measures (e.g., regulations) would be included in State waters of the Sanctuary.
            51.     Comment: Water quality is a major management concern in Hawaii. The Sanctuary
            should protect nearshore and coastal habitats to identify water quality issues and other related
            management problems (coral reef and fish declines). The Sanctuary should approach water quality
            monitoring of non-point source pollution in a comprehensive manner and in cooperation with
            existing Federal, State, county, and community efforts.
                    Response: NOAA agrees. The Sanctuary's Management Plan was developed to provide
            protection for humpback whales wd their habitat. The preferred regulatory alternative provides
            supplemental protection for the whale's habitat and the Sanctuary will review and comment on
            permit applications that may impact water quahty@ In addition, the boundary of the Sanctuary
            extends from the shoreline out to the 100-fathom. isobath and includes most nearshore and coastal
            areas. Coastal waters comprise an important component of the humpback whale's habitat,
            especially newborn calves, and the Sanctuary will work with Federal, State, and county agencies
            and the general public to ensure this habitat can sustain humpback whales and other marine
            resources. The Sanctuary will work with relevant agencies and marine user groups to develop
            and/or supplement education, research, long-term monitoring, and enforcement programs so that
            water quality is maintained or improved. As an example, the Sanctuary has worked with DOH and
            Maui County to co-sponsor a much needed water quality monitoring project for the entire island of
            Maui. This project utilizes volunteer citizens through the county and was a priority for both the
            West Maui Watershed project as well as the State of Hawaii, DOH. (See responses #18-19, #22,
            and #90.)



            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                          Page 301
            and Management Plan






                  Appendix A: Responses to Comments                                          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                     National Marine Sanctuary

                  52.      Comment: Depletion of bottomfish is a more serious problem that humpback whales.
                           Response: NOAA acknowledges that other marine resources in Hawaii are facing
                  depletion or are damaged and need management attention. The Sanctuary will support research and
                  long-term monitoring on the humpback whales' habitat which in turn may be used by other
                  resource anagement agencies. Fisheries management is not, however, a component of the
                  Sanctuary's management At this time, bottomfish depletion is an issue that is better addressed by
                  WESPAC and DLNR.



                                                           "ily; @, 0J s@ 4,
                                                                        UT,      4-19-W-f-m- R-1471,77JEWRIMMMM

                  53.      Comment: NOAA should establish a formal advisory group to help develop the Final
                  Management Plan and to help manage the site once the Final Plan is approved. This group should
                  have real-decision making authority.
                      @ Response: NOAA has established a Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) to. provi'de
                  advice and recommendations to the Sanctuary Manager and NOAA on the continued development
                  and management of the site. In February 1996, NOAA solicited names for membership to the
                  SAC. Through a lengthy process outlined in its charter, the SAC was selected and has been
                  meeting since March 1996 to provide advice to SRD 'on comments received on the Draft EIS/MP.
                  The: SAC has formed subcommittees to focus on issues such as administration, regulations, and
                  the Sanctuary's boundary. The SAC is expected to also form working groups to address research,
                  education, and county-specific concerns. NOAA values this advice and would not deviate from it.
                  without good reason. However, the SAC is an advisory body only'and has no authority to
                  independently operate, or make management decisions. NOAA must ultimately be responsible for
                  management decisions and has final decision-making authonty.
                  94. Comment: NOAA should establish a community-based advisory                          panel within each
                  county.

                           Response: In response to public comments, and to facilitate more               dialogue with the
                  community, representatives from each of Hawaii's four counties sit on the               SAC and will be
                  encouraged to set up county-specific working groups that will meet in each of the four counties.
                  55.      Comment: The SAC should have adequate representation of the different types of ocean
                  users. Include commercial transport industry representative as permanent member of SAC.
                           Response: The Hawaii SAC consists of 25 members, including ten government and 15
                  non-government representatives. NOAA hu limited membership to 25 to ensure the SAC is
                     iiageable and provides meaningful advice. The 15 non-government seats include representatives
                  of the following groups or interests- Honolulu, Kauai, Maui -and Hawaii counties; conservation; -
                  fishing; whale watching; business/commerce; education; tourism; ocean recreation; research; Native
                  Hawaiian; and two citizen-at-large seats. The Sanctuary Program realizes that there are many more
                  agencies and individuals who would like to be a part of the SAC, but believes there is a broad
                  representation of the major interests and Sanctuary users.             Each of the group or interest
                  representatives will be encouraged to dialogue with other members of their community.
                  NOAA has attempted to facilitate dialogue with the commercial transport industry by'replacing the
                  Department of Education seat (which was declined) with a Department of Transportation seat. At
                  this time the 15 non-government seats are already occupied. This does not preclude interested
                  members of the commercial shipping industry, for example, or other members of the public from
                  participating in SAC meetings (all meetings are open to the public) or submitting to the Chair of the

                  Pqre 302                                                               Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                         and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                  Appendix A: Responses to Comments
            National Marine Sanctuary

            SAC or Sanctuary Manager Sanctuary related issues that they would like raised and discussed at
            meetings.

            56.    Comment: Oppose the SAC since it has no real management power and is only a rubber
            stamp body-
                   Response: NOAA views the SAC as a very important component of the Sanctuary.*
            Established pursuant to Section 315 of the NMSA, the SAC is a formal body of the Hawaii
            Sanctuary that is officially authorized to provide advice and recommendations to the Sanctuary
            Manager and NOAA. The SAC functions as a forum that brings together various marine user
            groups and resource management agencies to discuss various local issues concerning humpback
            whales and their habitat. NOAA weighs the SAC recommendations very careMy and considers
            their input crucial to the local on-site Manager and NOAA. Although the SAC normally will
            interact with the on-site Manager, results from all the meetings are relayed to the headquarters
            office to ensures that local concerns are considered at that level as well.

            The Hawaii SAC members take their roles seriously, as evidenced by their level of involvement
            and participation, and their formation of working groups. Community involvement is critical to the
            success of the National Marine Sanctuary Program, which is a program that actively solicits
            community input and recommendations as part of the continuous management process. Sanctuary
            Advisory Councils do not rubber stamp - NOAA policy, and in fact, provide valuable input in
            helping NOAA shape policies before they are finalized and implemented (see response #53).
            Those sanctuaries with established Sanctuary Advisory Councils have greatly benefited from their
            assistance.



                                                                 A 4
                                                                     4

            S7.    Comment: Despite years of research, neither NOAA nor my of the whale researchers
            have been able to tell the public exactly how many humpback whales are in Hawaii.

                   Response: Determining the exact number of humpback whales in Hawaii is a difficult
            task for a number of reasons. First, humpback whales are not static animals: they spend most of
            their time underwater, they continually swim to new locations, they are distributed over the entire
            main Hawaiian Islands making individual identification difficult (and expensive), and there is some
            mixing of the Hawaii sub-population with the Mexico and Japan humpback whale sub-
            populations. Second, there has been relatively little government research monies available to
            conduct the needed statewide survey efforts. Over the years, however, many different private
            research teams have managed to obtain funding to study humpback whales. These teams have
            used a variety of different methods to estimate the whale population, which has made data
            comparison difficult. As a result, researchers can only provide an estimate of the Hawaii
            humpback whale population. In the last five years, there have been several statewide collaborative
            efforts to study the whale population dynami@s. These studies will need to continue indefinitely so
            that researchers and resource managers better understand the population dynamics in Hawaii.

            Although exact figures for Hawaii's humpback whale population are not available, researchers
            have indicated that the number of whales wintering in Hawaii has been increasing over the last ten
            to fifteen years. At present, the estimated population -of humpback whales in Hawaii ranges
            between 1,500 and 3,000. Better estimates as well as different population transecting techniques,
            however, will provide improved understanding of how many whales are coming to Hawaii each
            year. Part of these population studies have and will be funded by the Hawaii Sanctuary.



            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                       Page 303
            and Management Plan







                Appendix A: Responses to Comments                                     Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                              National Marine Sanctuary

                58.     Comment: Scientific evidence suggests that the humpback whale population is
                recovering. If so, why is there a need for a humpback whale,Sanctuary?

                        Response: NUTS, and many researchers, have indicated that the humpback whale
                popigation is showing initial signs of recovery since the 1960s when commercial whaling reduced
                thei- numbers in the central North Pacific. to about 1,000 animals. Recent estimates put the current
                central North Pacific population (those that winter 'in Hawaii) in the range between 1,500 and
                3,OCO whales (see response #57). In order to be considered recovered, NUFS has determined that
                the population will need to reach approximately 9,000 whales before the central North Pacific
                Stock of humpback whales can be. considered for removal from the endangered species list.

                In this regard, there needs to be more research conducted on humpback whale population dynamics
                (population size, distribution, birth, survivorship and mortality ratest- and degree of mixing with
                other populations) before conclusive statements can be made about their actual rate of recovery.
                The California gray whale, also thought to number as few as 1,000 whales after commercial
                whaling, was recently taken off the endangered species list after its population was estimated to be
                about 10,000 animals. Since MWA and ESA protection measures were at a minimum for both
                species, and even more stringent for Hawaii's humpbacks because of NWS approach regulations,
                dier.- is a question as to why the gray whale population was able to increase nearly eight times
                faster than the humpback whale population. This question, and many others, still remaiii to be
                answered. There is no one agency or research group that has all the necessary resources to answer
                such questions or to even help coordinate such efforts. The Sanctuary, however, through its
                research and management working groups, can help provide a forurn and the resources necessary
                for researchers to focus on management related questions. In addition to research, the Sanctuary
                will work with existing agencies and private sector organizations to supplement education and
                enforcement programs, and to increase dialogue between the public and the resource management
                agencies. The Sanctuary provides a coordinating role primarily to protect the humpback whale in
                the long-term.

                Unlike the ESA. recovery of the humpback whale is not the end goal of the Sanctuary. The
                Sanctuary was designated to provide long-term protection of humpback whales and their habitat for
                future generations to enjoy and the Sanctuary will serve its purpose long after the humpback is
                taken off the endangered specie's list.
                .59.    Comment: The research presented in the DEIS/UP is biased and out of date. The
                information does not justify the boundary selections. NOAA should update the sections on
                humpback whales.
                        Response:     NOAA has thoroughly investigated the existing published and unpublished
                research concerning   humpback whales in Hawaii, including the most up-to-date information
                available. When possible, NOAA has referenced and included the results of researchpublished in
                peer reviewed scientific journals. Much of the research conducted in the last few years, however,
                remains unpublished in scientific journals. As a result, NOAA has made numerous efforts to bring
                Hawaii whale researchers and other marine mammal experts and resource managers together to
                discuss the current understanding and status of humpback whales and -their habitat, and to identify
                future research needs. For example, NOAA has used this information as the basis for providing
                boundary alternatives and, in part, to select its preferred, boundary (see responses #8 and # 15). In
                response to public comments and to include the most updated information, NoAA will update and
                restructure the section on humpback whales in the Final EIS/M[P [Part H(B)].





                Page 304                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                        Appendix A: Responses to Comments
              National Marine Sanctuary

              60.     Comment: More research should be conducted before a Sanctuary is designated as there
              are too many unknowns.
                      Response: NOAA disagrees. There stiff are many unanswered questions that researchers
              and resource managers need answered before we can better understand the humpback whale's
              population dynamics and the effects of human activities on humpback whales. These efforts will
              require additional resources and coordination, one of the fundamental purposes of the Sanctuary.
              Resource managers need more Management-related research to help them be responsive to the
              needs of both whales and humans. Hawaii's marine waters constitute one of the world's most
              important humpback whale reproductive habitats and is essential for the recovery and continued
              existence of this -species. Research and long-term monitoring efforts ar%@. crucial elements of a
              comprehensive management program for this species since there is so much to learn. Congress
              has acknowledged the importance of these waters and has designated the Hawaii Sanctuary to
              ensure that research, long-term monitoring, education, and other resource protection programs are
              implemented and coordinated to protect the humpback whale for future generations.
              61.     Comment: There is no clear data as to what constitutes humpback whale habitat.

                      Response: NUFS and the research community have stated in past technical consultations
              that more research is needed to more clearly articulate the chemical, physical, and biological
              parameters that constitute humpback whale habitat in Hawaii. Research has shown that humpback
              whales can be found in certain areas in Hawaii year after year in high concentrations. These areas
              tend to be in waters less.than 100-fathoms deep, though whales, especially single males, can be
              found in deeper waters. Mothers with calves tend be found in shallower waters, often in the
              leeward areas of islands. Substrate -may prove to be important for such activities as singing and
              sound transmission. Researchers have not found much evidence Of whales feeding in Hawaii. All
              of these reports are consistent with other humpback whale wintering areas. The Sanctuary
              acknowledges that there is not conclusive data defining specific parameters, of humpback whale
              habitat in Hawaii, but this will be one of the priority issues the Sanctuary will address through its
              research program. Despite these information gaps, NUFS and the researchers agree that water is a
              necessary component for the whale, and that the marine environment around the main Haw
              waters is needed for breeding, calving, and nursing activities (see response #26).

              62.     Comment: NOAA should determine if fish or other potential food sources are a critical
              component of the humpback whale habitat in Hawaii.

                      Response: Humpback whales have been studied in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans,
              and in the northern and southern hemispheres. In general, the migration of whales is thought to
              represent a seasonal movement between subtropical or tropical breeding grounds and polar or
              subpolar waters, where intensive feeding occurs in the summer. Little evidence of feeding has
              been reported in the lower latitudes of the southern hemisphere, and only occasional feeding (fish
              and zooplankton) has been reported in low latitude areas of the northern hemisphere (Dominican
              Republic and Baja, Mexico). In Hawaii, there has been only a few reports of feeding: One
              researcher documented a vertical lunge (feeding behavior) by a subadult whale off Maw (Salden,
              1989) and other people have reported feeding-like behaviors in the presence of fish. Based on the
              existing research data and after consulting with whale researchers, NOAA does not believe that
              these limited observances of opportunistic feeding in Hawaii necessarily make fish or other
              potential food sources a critical component of the whale's Hawaiian habitat (see responses #26,
              #34, and #6 1).






              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                               Page 305
              and Management Plan






              Appendix A: Responses to Comments                                     Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                           National Marine Sanctuary

              63.     Comment: The Sanctuary should explain how fishing and research activities can impact
              whales.

                      Response: Hump       back whales migrate to the Hawaiian Islands primarily to engage in
              breeding, calving, and nursing activities. Although opportunistic feeding has been observed,
              NMFS and other whale researchers have stated that this is not a common occurrence (see response
              #62). As such, whales are not likely to interfere with fishing gear, including lines, hooks, and
              nets (see response #34). Whale interactions with fishing activities is more of a concern in Alaska,
              where fishermen and whales directly compete for fish resources, and where whales become
              incidentally entangled in gear There have only been a few reports of humpback whales interacting
              with fishing gear or nets in Hawaii.

              Research impacts on whales result primarily from vessel approach and harassment. Often,
              researchers need to get closer to humpback whales than the 100-yard approach limit allows.    ' These
              reseaxchers are required to get a research permit from NWS. In deciding to issue the permit,
              NNU-'S will weigh the benefits associated with a particular research project, in terms of increasing
              our understanding and knowledge of the humpback whales, with those potential impacts resulting
              from harassment or injury to the whale. Some research, may also require the scientists to take skin
              or tissue samples and require more intrusive techniques. NMFS permits contain terms and
              conditions in its perrnits to minimize the potential for harassment or injury.
              64.     Comment: NOAA has not provided a clear analysis of potential threats to the humpback
              whale. How can Sanctuary be justified if the data is inconclusive? There is no significant evidence
              that current human activities are negatively affecting humpback whale movement, breeding, or
              calving activities.

                      Response: NOAA has reviewed the existing scientific literature, and consulted with
              scientific experts concerning potential human. impacts to humpback whales and their habitat. - The
              scientific litwam has shown that humpback whales can be directly impacted by physical
              disturbances (approaches and sound), and indirectly by habitat modifications (pollution, nearshore
              development, disturbing the seabed). There are a number of different human activities diat can
              elicit physical responses (vessel approaches, overflight, acoustic sound) and a number of activities
              that can degrade the whales -aquatic environment (discharges, dredging, construction, non-point
              source pollution). A summary of this information was presented in the DEIS/M?, and has been
              expanded and updated in the FEIS/UP.

              In reviewing the scientific literature, NOAA found that there is a need for additional research to
              determine the degree of impact, if any, of specific human activities on individual whales or their
              population. This is especially true for the more indirect impacts associated with water quality and
              is one of the reasons supporting the designation of a Sanctuary in Hawaii. There are many
              different research and education needs that the Sanctuary will help existing agencies and
              organizations fill. The Sanctuary can also help coordinate activities and become a venue where the
              research community interacts with the resource managers and the general public. National Marine
              Sanctuaries are not necessarily designated because there is an imminent problem or significant
              threat that currently exists in the local ocean community. More often than not, National Marine
              Sanctuaries are created in areas with resources of outstanding national significance to ensure that
              these areas are comprehensively managed and protected for future generations to enjoy. As both
              the population of humpback whales and humans increase in Hawaii, so too will there be a need for
              better coordinated management and planning. It is possible that with advice from the SAC, the
              research community, ahd NMFS that the Hawaii Sanctuary can better identify what factors are
              favorable or are detrimental t6. the humpback whales and how to best manage human uses within
              the Sanctuary.



              Page 3C6                                                          Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                               and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                     Appendix A: Responses to Comments
              National Marine Sanctuary

              65.     Comment: The Sanctuary should add information about the acoustic environment of
              whales and other potential sources of impacts on humpback whales. The Sanctuaiy-sponsored
              research and long-term monitoring programs should focus on potential human-related impacts to
              humpback whales and their habitat, including: whale displacement or disturbance caused by
              sound, human approaches and/or harassment of 'whales, direct collision by marine vessels, and
              pbllutants and pathogens from coastal waste disposal, coastal runoff and development, and causes
              and consequences of a decline or changes in the ocean environment.

                      Response: NOAA has updateA clarified, and expanded the section describing humpback
              whales in Part II(B) of the Final Management Plan. This section includes more information about
              humpback whale distribution, population dynamics, habitat use, the acoustic environment of
              whales, and those known and potential impacts, resulting from human activities, including sound.
              The research and long-term monitoring section of the Management Plan has also been reviewed
              and clarified to be responsive to management needs.

              The Sanctuary will work with other Federal, State, and county agencies and the SAC to help
              develop annual research plans that identifies priorities. The SAC will be encouraged to form a
              research working group that will include members of the existing SAC and other researchers, to
              provide technical assistance and to develop recommendations to NOAA on research priorities and
              Sanctuary-sponsored research priorities.

              NOAA has already undertaken efforts to develop community-based monitoring programs. The
              Hawaii Sanctuary is working with DOH and the West Maui Watershed Program to support a
              volunteer coastal water quality monitoring program for the island of Maui. Currently there are.
              more than 30 beaches that are being monitored. The Maui water quality monitoring project has
              been renewed for a second year, based in part to the funding available from the Hawaii Sanctuary.
              Projects like the water quality monitoring project that provide information on the habitat of the
              humpback whale -will ultimately provide greater understanding of what water quality parameters are
              needed for the humpback whale's survival. NOAA acknowledges that many commenters stated
              that water quality is a major issue facing all ocean users -in Hawaii. To that end, the Sanctuary
              program is committed to working closely and cooperatively with the existing agencies and
              community-based programs to ensure that Hawaii's marine environment remains healthy and can
              support a diverse assemblage of species and human uses.
              66.     Comment: The Sanctuary should play a leadership role in bringing together researchers
              working on humpback whales.

                      Response: NOAA agrees. A fundamental component of the Hawaii Sanctuary is to
              support management-related research and long-term monitoring efforts that increase our collective
              understanding and knowledge of humpback whales, their habitat, and those factors that may
              negatively or positively impact either one. The Sanctuary will not usurp or suppress ongoing
              research in the Sanctuary, but rather will provide a forum to bring these many different researchers
              and resource managers together to discuss humpback whales, knowledge gaps, research priorities,
              funding opportunities, and when possible, to initiate collaborative research efforts. The Sanctuary
              will use the expertise and diverse interests of the SAC and its research working group to foster
              dialogue and coordinate the diverse range of interests. In addition, the Sanctuary will also facilitate
              efforts to bring together researchers and other technical experts to enhance the collaborative
              knowledge foundation. For example, the Sanctuary co-sponsored a workshop with NUFS a "to
              assess research and other needs and opportunities related to humpback whale management in the
              Hawaiian Islands" in April 1995, that brought together over 75 researchers and resource managers.
              The Sanctuary will also strive to develop a worldwide database of humpback whale research data,
              accessible to as many people as possible.


              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                           Page 307
              and Management Plan







              Appendix A: Responses to Comments                                     Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                           National Marine Sanctuary

              67.     Comment: All research and monitoring efforts should be benign, non-intrusive, non-
              invausive and be clearly necessary to protect the overall welfare of humpback whales.

                      Response: NOAA believes that humpback whale research should focus on management-
              related issues and be conducted with minimal impact to the whales. All researchers that intend to
              conduct research with 100-yards of a humpback whale must first obtain a research permit from
              NMFS. . Both NUFS and the Sanctuary Pro@rani will review applications for permits to conduct
              humpback whale research in or near the Sanctuary, and if necessary, provide conditions to alleviate
              or mitigate potential impact to the whales or their habitat (see response *70).

              68.     Comment: What are the means for funding research?

                      Response: Research can be funded in any number of ways. Many researchers'have been
              conducting research for years by creatively "finding" monies from any number of sources (grants,
              government agencies, non-profit foundations, donations, fund-raising, whale watching). This
              source of research money, however, is not stable and varies from year to year. In addition, any
              one source is usually insufficient to conduct the type of ongoing comprehensive statewide surveys
              needed to fiffly understand the humpback whale's population dynamics. Other agencies, such as
              NMY7S, have historically provided limited funding opportunities through Congressional
              appropriations under the MMPA and ESA. These appropriations, however, am not targeted for
              humpback whales in Hawaii, and NMFS distributes its funding for research on other endangered
              species and marine mammal as well. ne Hawaii Sanctuary brings additional Federal monies into
              Hawaii and provides the opportunity to leverage technical support and finances from other funding
              sources that are known to support research efforts in international and national marine protected
              areas.-

              69.     Comment: The Sanctuary needs to ensure that fimds are available to carry out research,
              otherwise. the research plan will be ineffective.
                      Response:, NOAA agrees and is committed to directly allocating a portion of the Hawaii
              Sanctuary budget toward supporting research and long-term monitoring projects in the Sanctuary-
              The amount of funding for research will be related to the annual Congressional appropriation f6r
              the Sanctuary program and the annual site budget. If direct Congressional appropriations are not
              sufficient to implement portions of the Management Plan, the Sanctuary will look toward
              leveraging additional funds from other agencies and foundations, and other voluntary revenue
              enhancement methods. Research and education are two of the major components of the Hawaii
              Sanctuary program and will therefore be priorities for the site. In addition, the SAC and its
              individual working groups will provide recommendations to NOAA for funding Sanctuary
              programs (education, research, and management). The Sanctuary Manager will factor in these
              considerations with the identified Sanctuary's priorities and the annual funding availability.
              70.     Comment: Legitimate scientists need protection from bureaucracies created to protect the
              humpback whale@ There are too many hurdles for researchers to jump through and too many
              measures in research section.

                      Response: Any researcher intending to approach a humpback whale within wo-yards
              must obtain a research permit from NNTS pursuant to the MMPA. The Sanctuary is incorporating
              the NAIFS approach regulations as part of the Sanctuary regulatory regime but will not require
              persons to obtain a separate Sanctuary research permit. The Sanctuary has developed a MOU with
              NAFS for reviewing applications for permits to conduct research within the'Sanctuary. NMFS
              will remain the primary point of contact for researchers. All permit applications will be forwarded
              by NIMIFS to the Sanctuary Program for comments within the public review period. NMFS will
              continue to issue the permit, but with the Sanctuary Program's concerns incorporated. This
              Sanctuary review process will be "transparent" to the permit applicant and will not place additional

              Page 303                                                          Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                               and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                    Appendix A: Responses to Comments
             National Marine Sanctuary

             .burdens or paperwork requirements on the applicant One primary role of the Sanctuary is to
             facilitate and coordinate research, not hinder it.


                                                                  A
                                                                   I A
                                                                                                  11 NEE=
             71.     Comment:     The Sanctuary education programs should focus on school education. There
             is not enough marine education in the schools today.

                     Response: Education is one of the main components of the Hawaii sanctuary. NOAA
             strongly believes that education at all ages is necessary to increase the local community's
             awareness and understanding of marine resources, and the need to sustain the environment for all
             users and persons that enjoy the marine environment. The Sanctuary is committed to working in
             partnership with existing education organizations, and school districts to develop and implement
             needed marine education curricula and programs. The SAC will be encouraged to form an
             education working group. This working group will serve as a sounding board and will help to
             coordinate those efforts that are ongoing and to assist in developing new education programs as
             needed.

             72.     Comment: The        Sanctuary is biased towards humpback whales and =t the other
             resources and those human users who depend on the marine environment.
                     Response: The Hawaii sanctuary was designated by Congress primarily to p;otect
             humpback whales and their habitat, and to educate and interpret the relationship of the humpback
             whale to the Hawaiian Islands marine environment. NOAA was given a clear mandate to promote
             education among users of the Sanctuary and the general public not only about the conservation of
             humpback whales and their habitat,,but also about other marine resources in Hawaii. The
             Sanctuary also recognizes that the Hawaiian Islands have a rich history that continues today for
             human use of the marine environment, including uses of Native Hawaiian's customarily and
             traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, and religious purposes. The Sanctuary will
             include elements within the education section of the Management Plan aimed at increasing the
             general public's knowledge and understanding about the diverse human uses and traditions in
             Hawaii's marine environment.

             73.     Comment: The Sanctuary should include a review process in the development of its
             education program so that it clearly addresses Sanctuary objectives, contains appropriate content,
             and is unbiased.

                     Response: NOAA agrees. The SAC will be encouraged to form an education working
             group that includes those interested agencies, organizations, and individuals working on marine
             education programs. This working group will help provide advice and recommendations to the
             SAC, which will advise the Sanctuary on identifying, selecting, implementing, and funding
             Sanctuary education programs. In addition, the working group and SAC will be used to help the
             Sanctuary develop criteria and program standards for Sanctuary-sponsored education programs.



             74.     Comment: How will future Native Hawaiian sovereignty rights be impacted by the
             Sanctuary?
                     Response: The Hawaii Sanctuary is essentially incorporating certain existing restrictions
             into the Sanctuary Management regime. It is not adding any new restrictions or prohibitions other

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                         Page 309
             and Management Plan






                  Appendix A: Responses to Comments                                           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                      National Marine Sanctuary

                  thaa those already in place, and will not require or issue independent Sanctuary permits or have
                  approval authority over other existing authorities. The Hawaii Sanctuary is committed to
                  recognizing Native Hawaiian uses. One purpose of the HINN4SA is to facilitate uses of Hawaiian
                  =ives customarily and waditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes
                  consistent with the primary objective of the protection of humpback whales and their habitat. Few
                  other Federal laws and programs have language specifically recognizing Native Hawaiian uses.

                  Tlu-. issue of Native Hawaiian Sovereignty rights in Hawaii is still being discussed and debated,
                  and will remainunclear for at least the foreseeable future. NOAA will closely follow the Native
                  Hawaiian Sovereignty movement as it develops and will strive to honor any new rights or
                  privileges granted.

                  The SAC includes a Native Hawaiian representative to ensure that Native Hawaiian concerns and
                  issues, as they pertain to the Sanctuary, are addressed. This representative will be encouraged to
                  facilitate dialogue with other Native Hawaiian sovereignty groups to help the Sanctuary understand
                  and recognize Native Hawaiian uses and rights as they concern the Sanctuary. This dialogue will
                  continue well into the future and it is hoped the Sanctuary can work with the Native Hawaiian
                  community to educate others about the unique aspects of Native Hawaiian culture and uses of the
                  Sanctuary.

                  75.      Comment: All submerged lands are ceded lands, held by the State in trust for Native
                  Hawaiian people. The Federal Government has no jurisdiction over ceded lands. What changes
                  will the Sanctuary impose on submerged/ceded lands?
                           Response:       The establishment of the Sanctuary in no way conveys, or intends to
                  convey, to NOAA any title or ownership of Hawaii's submerged lands. These lands, including
                  those. known as ceded lands, will continue to be held in trust by the State of Hawaii. The
                  Sanctuary will only exist as a co-steward of the Sanctuary resources within the Sanctuary
                  boundary. Should the status of the submerged lands change at some time in the future (i.e., the
                  lands are conveyed to a sovereign Hawaiian nation), the Sanctuary will work with the appropriate
                  entities to redefine its role if necessary.
                  76.      Comment: Why does the DEIS/W. not address Native Hawaiian concerns?
                           Response: The DEISAMP (pages 68-74) described various aspects of Native Hawaiian
                  culture and uses of the marine environment as they relate to the Hawaii Sanctuary. NOAA has
                  expanded and clarified this section in the FEIS/UP (see response #74).
                  77.      Comment:        Native Hawaiians have traditional fishing entitlements that the U. S.
                  Government fails to recognize. Sanctuary should protect Native Hawaiian gathering and fishing
                  rights by helping to restore coastal habitats and fisheries. How will the sanctuary be different from
                  the other parts of the Federal Government? There is no trust and no reason to trust the Federal
                  Government.

                           Response:       The Hawaii      Sanctuary is committed to recognizing traditional Native
                  Hawaiian fishing and gathering uses and is required by the H][NMSA to facilitate all public and
                  private uses of the Sanctuary, including uses of Hawaiian natives customarily and traditionally
                  exercised for subsistence, cultural, and religious purposes, consistent with the primary objective of
                  the protection of humpback whales and their habitat. While the Sanctuary and NOAA do not have
                  legal authority to fOrmally Federally recognize Native Hawaiian groups, few other Federal
                  program@, if any, have language specifically recognizing Native Hawaiian uses.
                  The Sanctuary program will continue to seek new partnerships and opportunities to work with the
                  Native Hawaiian community to facilitate and support educational and research projects that will
                  Page 310                                                                Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                          and Management Plan







            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                    Appendix A: Responses to Comments
            National Marine Sanctuary

            help define and educate others as to the past and present traditional Native Hawaiian subsistence,
            cultural, and religious uses of the marine environment. Hopefully, this information will lead to a
            better understanding and appreciation of the Native Hawaiian culture. The National Marine
            Sanctuary program has experience with traditional Native American and Samoan rights and uses in
            two sanctuaries; Olympic Coast and Fagatele Bay, respectively. Incorporating these traditional
            rights and practices, as well as recognizing those rights identified under Federal law, are identified
            in the management plans of both sites. Additionally, each of the four Federally-recognized Native
            American tribes within the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary has a seat on the Olympic
            Coast Sanctuary Advisory Council. Similarly, the Hawaii SAC has a Native Hawaiian
            representative.




            78.    Comment: Mandatory user fees are inevitable if the Sanctuary is adopted, and will be
            established either by NOAA or by Congress.

                   Response: NOAA acknowledges the near universal public and agency opposition of
            "user fees" to fund and manage individual sanctuaries. NOAA did not propose broad-based
            mandatory user fees in the Draft EISM. Further, in 1996, the HD14MSA was amended, in part,
            to prolubit NOAA from instituting any user fee under the HINMSA or NMSA for any activity
            within the Sanctuary or any use of the Sanctuary or its resources. NOAA has clarified references
            to user fees in the Final Management Plan to eliminate any confusion over this issue.

            79.    Comment: The Sanctuary will collect fees through special-use permits.

                   Response: NOAA has not provided for the issuance of special-use permits in Hawaii.
            NOAA has generally only issued special-use permits in alew sanctuaries to allow an activity to
            occur that would otherwise be prohibited by a specific Sanctuary regulation. The Hawaii
            Sanctuary has not proposed, in either the Draft or Final EISIMP, issuing independent permits,
            including special-use permits.



                              7@ Tt77,-7@"
                                                               3 U
                                                          V       A
                                                              J
                                                              . ....... .. . ... ... ...

            80.    Comment: Who will pay for the administration and implementation of the Management
            Plan?- There is a perception that the Sanctuary would be a Federal "cash cow" bringing money to
            the State. The cost of administering the Sanctuary, and the fiscal restraints of Congress, make it
            unlikely that the program would be able to afford to do much more than administer itself Win the
            State of Hawaii or local users have to pay for the Sanctuary?
                   Response:        The National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) receives annual
            appropriations from Congress. In 1991, the National Marine Sanctuary Program was appropriated
            $5 million. This amount increased to $12 million in 1995 and $11.7 million in 1996 and 1997.
            This Congressional appropriation funds all 12 . National Marine Sanctuaries and part of the
            Program's headquarters office. Sanctuary designation means the Program's annual appropriations
            Will now be allocated to the Sancftiary and will be available for use on Sanctuary-related projects.
            The NMSP is funded entirely through Federal appropriations, and no State fiscal commitments are
            required. Additional funding Opportunities Qften become available through other NOAA funding
            sources and through cost sharing arrangements with other"Federal and State agencies. The NMSP
            may also supplement Congressional appropriations by entering into agreements with any non-
            profit organization to- solicit private donations -toIcarry out the purposes and policies of the
            Sanctuary. This and other means of voluntary revenue enhancement measures are being pursued

            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                         Page 311
            and Management Plan






                Appendix A: Responses to Comments                                     Hawaudan Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                              National Marine Sanctuary

                by -the Sanctuary program nationwide as a way of generating funding for projects which may
                otherwise not have enough Congressional funding to cover. Part V of the FEIS/MP discusses the
                revenue enhancement initiative of the NMSP.

                71be Hawaii Sanctuary's budget is determined each year by the on-site manager, the regional
                manager, and the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD) Chief according to site needs and
                pficrities. Although the site will not be a "cash cow" or have money to immediately implement
                every provision contained in the Final Management Plan, the site's budget will allow the Sanctuary
                Manager to begin implementing priority items.

                81.,    Comment: The Sanctuary is an unfunded mandate.

                        Response: NOAA disagrees. An unfunded mandate is a government program that
                requires a Federal or state agency to carry-out'a function without providing the fiscal resources to
                do so. The National Marine Sanctuary is not an unfunded mandate inasmuch as Congress has
                funded the Program and no monies are required from the State of Hawaii or local users.
                82..    Comment:    I The Sanctuary is an unwarranted increase in government spending. It is
                unwise and irresponsible to spend Federal dollars on a Sanctuary that was neither wanted or
                needed.

                        Response: The National Marine Sanctuary Program receives annual appropriations from
                Congress to Tund the 12 individual sites and the national program. This amount varies from year
                to year, though it has increased over the last five years. The designation of the Hawaii Sanctuary
                has not resulted in an increase in government spending, only that some of the annual
                appropriations are now spent in Hawaii. If the Hawaii Sanctuary was de-designated, this money
                would be re-absorbed. into the NMSP and redistributed among the 11 other sites and the national
                program (see response #8 1).

                Many State and commnity participants feel that the expenditure of Federal monies on Sanctuary-
                sponsored education, research, long-term monitoring, and enforcement programs is an important
                and needed use of Federal funds, especially given. the fiscal crisis of the State government. With
                Sanctuary monies supplementing existing State and county. programs, all agencies are able to
                implement mom projects that are of top priority but currently unfunded.

                83.,    Comment: How much money will go towards administration, research, and education?,
                What is the budget breakdown for the site?

                        Response: Each operating National Marine Sanctuary has a site specific operation
                budget. This budget depends on the size, staffing, resources to be protected, and overall needs of
                the site. The Hawaii Sanctuary has been both in a development and semi-operational phase since it
                was designated in 1992. Since the Sanctuary is not fully operational at this time, it is difficult to
                estumte how much the fully operational site budget would be and how much would go towards
                education, research. admini tration, and other activities. The current level of funding ($372,000 in
                FY'96) may not adequately represent the budget of a fully operational Hawaii Sanctuary as it win
                likely increase somewhat Once the site is operational, the annual operating budget will be a matter
                of public record. In addition, the SAC will help the Sanctuary Manager determine priority items
                and thus focus where NOAA should prioritize its funding.







                Page 312                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                  Appendix A: Responses to.Comments
            National Marine Sanctuary



            84.     Comment: The Sanctuary proposes to incorporate the National Marine Fisheries Service
            humpback whale approach regulations that were amended in 1994. The Sanctuary should analyze
            the socio-economic impacts of these 1994 amendments.

                    Response: The Sanctuary program has no direct jurisdiction over the MNWA or its
            amendments which were signed into law by Congress in. 1994. Congress, in coordination with
            affected agencies, must consider the environmental and socio-economic impacts of new or
            modified laws and regulations prior to their enactment. The Sanctuary program is not required to
            evaluate the socio-economic impacts of the 1994 amendments to the MUPA. However, -NOAA
            has assessed the socio-economic impacts of incorporating the NMFS regulations into the
            Sanctuary's management regime. Based on the assessment, NOAA has determined that there will
            be minimal, if any, negative socio-ec'onomic consequences associated with incorporation of the
            regulations into the Sanctuary's management regime. Part IV of the Final EIS/Up discusses socio-
            economic consequences more in-depth.
            8S.     Comment: 1"he DEIS/MP* does not clearly describe the socio-economic impacts of the
            Sanctuary on the ocean users of Hawaii.

                    Response: NOAA prepared a socio-economic assessment of the Draft EIS/MP in
            compliance with the NMSA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As required
            under these laws, NOAA must describe the socio-economic effects of the implementation of the,
            Sanctuary designation, including any negative impacts produced by management restrictions on
            income-generating activities. NOAA has determined that the Hawaii Sanctuary will not have
            negative socio-economic unpacts. on Hawaii's marine users since the Management Plan is not
            adding any new independent Sanctuary regulations, permits, or approval authority.
            In an effort to maximize protection and minimize impacts on users, NOAA considered socio-
            economic impacts as it made changes to the Final Management Plan. NOAA has clarified and
            provided a more thorough socio-economic assessment of the preferred alternative in Parts M and
            Part IV of the FEISAT.

            86.     Comment: The socio-economic impacts of future regulations has not been clearly
            articulated in Part IV (the socio-economic impacts analysis section) of the DEISAV.
                    Response: NOAA has not assessed the socio-economic impacts for future regulations
            because the need or likelihood of such regulation is speculative. NOAA has determined, based on
            existing information, that no new regulatory prohibitions or restrictions are needed to protect
            humpback whales and their habitat. NOAA cannot say if new regulations will be needed in the
            future, how restrictive they will be, or which user groups will be affected.
            87.     Comment: * Unnecessary Sanctuary regulations and restrictions will have a direct
            negative-effect on the cost of transporting goods between neighbor islands.
                    Response: NOAA disagrees. NOAA is not adding any new independent regulatory
            prohibitions or restrictions to those already in place. Rather, NOAA is essentially incorporating
            certain regulations already-in existence W protect humpback whales and their habitat. For example,
            the I 00-yard humpback whale approach regulations have been in place - and enforced by NMFS
            since 1987. These regulations have not had significant adverse effects on the cost of transporting
            goods between islands, and could only impact the cost of transporting goods if a vessel captain
            was in violation of these regulations



            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                       Page 313
            and Management Plan






                Appendix A: Responses to Comments                                     Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                              National Marine Sanctuary

                88.     Comment: 'The Draft EIS/MP states that the Sanctuary could lead to increased tourism. If
                so, what are the socio-economic impacts of this increased tourism.

                        Response:     Whileit is true that some travelers may view the presence of a Humpback
                Whide Sanctuary as    another reason to visit HawaiL it is doubtful that the Sanctuary, by itself,
                would result in a significant increase,in tourism above and beyond what is already occurring.
                More accurately, the presence of a Sanctuary would likely create a greater awareness among those
                tourists who are already in Hawaii that there are whale watching opportunities and protection
                measures within the Sanctuary. Thus, the Sanctuary may actually enhance the visitor's experience
                of Hawaii. This greater recognition of the resources as well as the potential for advertisement has
                occurred in other sanctuaries (e.g., Monterey Bay, Florida Keys, and Channel Islands). Many of
                the local communities advertise the presence of the Sanctuary as a means of attracting more visitors
                from an increasingly competitive market and educating those visitors about the area's unique
                marine resources and the commitment to protecting these resources. Despite the added "attraction"
                value, however, the designation of these areas as sanctuaries has not resulted in a dramatic increase
                in tourism.

                In Hawaii, NOAA believes that the Sanctuary, working with the local community and marine
                industries,,, will help develop a greater understanding and appreciation of humpback whales, their
                habitat, and those regulations designed to protect them. Thu increased awareness will hopefully
                prevent or minimize harassment and other negative impacts associated with human presence
                (pollution and habitat destruction), while enhancing the beneficial experience of tourists visiting
                Hawaii.

                89.     Comment:       Describe the. potentiak* impacts of the Sanctuary to existing resource
                martagernent programs dealing with water quality issues.
                        Response.:      The Sanctuary is . not issuing independent regulations, permits, or
                authorizations that would curtail or impede the authority of the existing water quality management
                agencies. The Sanctuary is developing MOUs with the relevant water quality agencies (i.e.
                Department of Health) in order to work within their existing permit application review procedures
                to ensure that Sanctuary concerns are addressed. The Sanctuary will not have authority to prevent
                thepermit issuing agency from approving a project and will work with that agency to supplement
                monitoring and enforcement efforts (see response #5 1).
                90.     Comment: NOAA should recognize and protect the existing uses. of ocean users.
                        Response: NOAA agrees. NOAA recognizes the many oce             'an users and industries that
                conidnue to operate in Hawaiian waters and that have incorporated measures to voluntarily protect
                humpback whales in their day-to-day operations. National Marine Sanctuaries are multiple use
                areas and the Hawaii Sanctuary will facilitate public and private uses (including uses by Native
                Hawaiians customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, and religious purposes)
                consistent with the primary objective of protection of humpback whales and their habitat.
                Voluntary compliance with existing regulations is a  primary goal of the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary.
                will make every effort to work with the different marine user communities and involve them in the
                implementation of the                 Plan. The SAC is one mechanism that the Sanctuary has
                established to formally recognize and involve Sanctuary users in advising on the development of
                the Final Management Plan and ongoing implementation and management of the Sanctuary (see
                response #53).
                91.,    Comment: NOAA should exempt all commercial transport activities from Sanctuary
                regulations because of negative economic impacts.


                Page 314                                                           Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                   Appendix A: Responses to Comments
            National Marine Sanctuary
                    Response: NOAA does not agree that commercial transport should be singled out as the
            only industry that should be exempted from the Sanctuary regulations. The Sanctuary regulations
            essentially incorporating certain existing restrictions as Sanctuary regulations and is not adding
            independent Sanctuary regulatory prohibitions or restrictions, permits, or approval requirements
            beyond what is already. Consequently, the Sanctuary will not pose negative socio-economic
            impacts on the commercial transport industry and determined that exemptmg that industry from
            Sanctuary regulations is neither necessary nor consistent with achieving the purposes of the
            HINMSA. The commercial transport industry has never been cited for whale harassment.


            MERNINKEW1

            92.     Comment: There is no need     for the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine
            Sanctuary.
                    Response: NOAA disagrees. NOAA believes that additional resource protection is
            needed to ensure the long-term recovery and continued vitality of humpback whales and their
            Hawaiian habitat, and that this can occur primarily through non-regulatory (research, long-term
            monitoring, education, and coordination) mechanisms. Because of its mandate and its public
            participation component, the National Marine Sanctuary Program is ideally suited to provide these
            functions. Moreover, the 25 member SAC provides a forum for representatives of the many
            different marine users and resource management agencies to discuss management issues
            concerning the Sanctuary. The SAC has formed working groups to discuss research, education,
            enforcement, and the continued development of the Sanctuary. Essentially, the SAC has given
            marine users and resource managers the opportunity to meet, learn, and coordinate with each other
            (see response #53). The National Marine Sanctuary program can also supplement resources and
            provide technical support for research, long-term -monitoring, education, and existing enforcement
            programs (see responses *18-19).
            Even though the MMPA and the ESA offer protection for the humpback whale, the Sanctuary
            program offers a broader range of comprehensive protection and          e       And while the.main
            focus of the ESA is the recovery of an endangered species, the Sanctuary helps in the recovery of
            the humpback whale through the additional protection of humpback whale habitat and will offer
            continued protection through research, education, enforcement, and monitoring long after the
            species' recovery and removal from the endangered species listing, should that occur.

            93.     Comment: It is not clear what the Sanctuary is protecting humpback whales from.

                    Response: The primary purpose of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National
            Marine Sanctuary is to provide comprehensive protection for both humpback whales and their
            habitat. Since NOAA cannot protect whales from natural predators and other natural causes of
            mortality, it will focus its management attention on those potential impacts resulting from human
            activities that are known to presently, or have the potential to adversely impact humpback whales
            and their habitat. After receiving input from other agencies and searching the current body of
            scientific literature, NOAA has determined that the existing regulatory measures are adequate for
            protecting the whales from harmful vessel interactions (see responses #18-19). The Sanctuary will
            'primarily focus its efforts on educating the public on the existing regulations designed to protect
            humpback whales, enhancing the enforcement of these laws, and working cooperatively with other
            agencies and researchers to increase the knowledge and understanding of humpback whales, their
            habitat, and those potential human activities that could adversely impact the whales and their
            habitat.




            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                        Page 315
            and Management Plan







               Appendix A: Responses to Comments                                     Hawaiian Islands Humpback WMe
                                                                                            National Marine Sanctuary

               94.     Comment: The Sanctuary will only add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and is
               duplicative of existing management efforts.

                       Response: NOAA disagrees. Throughout the development of the Hawaii                Sanctuary,
               NOAA was repeatedly informed by agencies and the public that there were enough regulations on
               the books protecting humpback whales and their habitat. NOAA was also told that additional
               effbirts were needed to coordinate existing authorities and to supplement research, monitoring,
               education, and enforcement efforts. The Sanctuary Management Plan, which relies on existing
               regulatory authorities, was designed in response to such public commefits. NOAA made
               significant efforts to eliminate duplicative permitting and approval procedures. Since the Sanctuary
               is relying on existing Federal and State regulations and permits, the Sanctuary is not issuing
               independent permits, but will work within the existing permit review structures of agencies to
               ensure that potential impacts to humpback whales and their habitat are addressed. MOUs with the
               affected agencies will detail how the Sanctuary will coordinate with these agencies, within existing
               timeframes. The impact on the permit applicants and permit granting agencies- will be minimal (see
               response #20).

               The Hawaii Sanctuary will not duplicate existing efforts to protect Hawaii's marine environment,
               but,wiR help coordinate and integrate such efforts, with a particular focus on the humpback whale
               and its habitat. Coordination with existing authorities and the private sector will help reduce
               duplication and focus efforts on.filling management and information needs. The Sanctuary can
               also provide fiscal, personnel, and technical resources to supplement education, research, and
               enforcement efforts that are not available with the existing programs. Finally, the SAC and
               associated working groups will, for the first time, provide a forum for resource managers,
               researcher, educators, Native Hawaiian, and marine users to provide recommendations and advice
               to the Sanctuary Manager regarding management of the Sanctuary..

               95.     Comment: The Draft EIS fails to explore other options in lieu of the -Sanctuary such as
               giving funds to NMFS, the State, or other organizations.

                       Response: Upon passage of the HESMSA which designated the Sanctuary, Congress
               directed NOAA to develop a comprehensive Management Plan and regulations to implement the
               designation and fulfill the purposes of that Act. NOAA assessed the available resources used by
               existing Federal and State humpback whale resource protection programs, and found that the
               .amount does not adequately fund necessary research, education, enforcement, monitoring, and
               coordination programs. In developing the Plan, NOAA considered various options, including a
               no-Sanctuary option, which were not selected as the preferred option. Under the Act, NOAA is
               required to complete and issue a final management plan and regulations for the Sanctuary. De-
               designation of the Sanctuary can only occur if the Governor of Hawaii objects to the management
               plan, regulations, or any term thereof and the Secretary of Commerce subsequently determines to
               de-designate the site, or if Congress repeals the HINMSA.
               The National Marine Sanctuary program is funded through Congressional 'appropriations to
               develop and manage National Marine Sanctuary sites and the national program. The Sanctuary
               program does not have authority, nor the surplus resources, to support efforts in-lieu of having a
               Sanctuary.








               Page.316                                                          Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                   Appendix A: Responses to Comments
             National Marine Sanctuary

             96.     Comment: The State should implement and support community resource management
             programs.

                     Response: While this comment is directed to the State and not to NOAA, NOAA does
             intend to assist the State in efforts to support community resource management programs. The
             Hawaii S 'anctuary'was not designated nor developed to replace these community-based efforts, but
             to become another means of supporting such efforts that am consistent with the Sanctuary's goals
             and objectives. The Sanctuary will' look at the community-based plans and programs as a
             knowledge source and as a resource management partner. Close coordination will be required to
             truly complement efforts, and the Sanctuary has already initiated such efforts to work at the local
             level. On Maui, DOH and Maui County, in partnership with the Sanctuary, developed the Maui
             volunteer water quality monitoring program. The Sanctuary has also worked with local
             conservation groups to develop whale watching brochures, and educational programs concerning
             the coral reef initiative throughout the State. Many of these community and State efforts would not -
             have been accomplished without fiscal support from the National Marine Sanctuary Program.
             While the Sanctuary program is supportive of such State initiatives, however, the program has no
             authority to dictate that the State undertake such measures.

             97.     Comment: The Hawaii ORMP already exists and the Sanctuary detracts resources
             (money and staff) away from implementing that plan.

                     Response: NOAA disagrees. The State of Hawaii initiated a statewide effort to develop
             the ORMP in the late 1980s. This plan was finished in 1991 and is far more comprehensive in
             scope than the Sanctuary Management Plan. However, it has remained a plan and is not being
             fully implemented because of fiscal constraints. - The Hawaii Sanctuary was not intended to replace
             the ORMP, but to complement this statewide community effort. Many elements of the Sanctuary
             Management Plan, including greater agency coordination, community. iriyolvernent, education,
             research, and enforcement are fimdamental resoui-ce management needs identified by the ORMP.
             Through proper coordination with the State (such as through the SAC or the State's Marine and
             Coastal Zone Management Advisory Group), the Sanctuary can be used to help implement portions
             of the ORMP that are consistent with the Sanctuary Management Plan. Part IV of the Final
             EIS/MP identifies several components of the ORMP that are compatible with the Sanctuary. The
             Sanctuary will not compete or take fiscal resources away from ORMP implementation since the,
             ORMP is a State initiative and the Sanctuary is Federally funded. In this regard, the Sanctuary
             Program has already participated in a number of scoping and planning meetings on how to best
             implement the ORMP and how the Sanctuary can co-fund portions that also address the
             Sanctuary's goals and mission.

             98.     Comment: If the Sanctuary is so critical to the recovery of the humpback whale, why
             was it not included in the NMFS Humpback Whale Recovery Plan?

                     Response: The NMFS Humpback Whale Recovery Plan was completed and released to
             the public in 1991 - one-year before the Sanctuary was designated. Although NMFS and SRD are
             both divisions within NOAA, they each have separate responsibilities and congressional mandates.
             SRD has been delegated the authority to administer the National Marine Sanctuary Program,
             including the development of new sites. NUFS does not have authority to designate or manage
             National Marine Sanctuaries, and as such would not normally undertake sanctuary designation as a
             means of protecting marine mammals. NMFS would more likely pursue other alternatives within
             their purview, such as designating critical habitat and/or promulgating regulations under the ESA to
             protect endangered species. Critical habitat was one of the measures identified in the recovery
             plan. NOAA believes that the Sanctuary is a tool which can be used to facilitate the implementation
             of the NMFS Recovery Plan.



             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                        Page 317
             and Management Plan






               Appendix A: Responses to Comments                                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                             National Marine Sanctuary

               99.     Comment: The marine recreation and user community has been educating and self-
               regulating itself for years. Extensive humpback whale research and education efforts have been
               funded by the private sector since the 1970's, and government involvement is not needed. Why
               does the Sanctuary have to step-in and replace these on-going efforts? The Sanctuary does not
               recognize these existing efforts.
                       "Response: NOAA will not replace the efforts of existing. marine rec      .reation, education,
               research, and other groups.' The Sanctuary recognizes and applauds the past and present efforts
               that the local researchers, educators, marine recreation industry, and environmental organizations
               have undertaken to conduct research, educate the public, and self-regulate themselves and their
               constituents. The Sanctuary views these ongoing. and future private efforts as crucial to the
               implementation and success of the Sanctuary Management Plan. The Sanctuary will work with
               these organizations and individuals to develop partnerships, cooperative agreements, and other
               working relationships to ensure that existing and future conservation and research efforts are
               complementary. Public participation through the SAC and other associated working groups
               (education, research, management) will help the Sanctuary and the local community identify, fund,
               and implement priorities in the upcoming years. Such community-based input will lead to better
               coordination, less duplication, and overall better protection for the humpback whale and its habitat-

               10 01 . Comment: The Hawaii Sanctuary will add few benefits to the State.

                       Response: NOAA disagrees. There are numerous benefits associated with a national
               marine sanctuary, including enhanced opportunities for research and long-term monitoring,
               additional marine educational material developrnent@ and'increased support for the enforcement of
               existing laws. NOAA has formed a SAC which gives the public more opportunity and input in the
               management the Sanctuary (see response #53). This enhanced communication and coordination
               will become a powerful tool to bring the public into discussions as they concern the management of
               humpback whales and their habitaL SAC working -groups or sub-committees on education,
               research, regulations, and enforcement, as well as county representation will ensure public input
               from across the State and from a diverse range of marine users.. Additionally, the presence of a
               sanctuary draws attention to the fact that the marine waters of an area are of national significance
               and -worth p1rotecting. This perception can lead to enhanced ecotourism, opportunities previously
               unavailable, as has occurred in other National Marine Sanctuaries. (See response #19 for a more
               detailed discussion as to the added protection benefits to humpback whales and their habitat.).


                                                                     A---
                                                         A,
                                                            4,4,4,


               10 1. Comment: The Sanctuary's Congressional designation circumvented public input and is
               in violation of the intent of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.

                      - Response: NOAA -disagrees. There are two ways by which a National Marine Sanctuary
               can tie designated. The first way a National Marine Sanctuary can be designated is for anyone to
               nominate the site for consideration by NOAA as a Sanctuary. The site is evaluated and, if chosen,
               NOAA prepares a draft and final EIS in accordance with the NMSA and NEPA. The Sanctuary is
               not officially designated until after the close of a review period of forty-five days of continuous
               session of Congress beginning on the date notice of designation is issued. During this time, the
               Governor of a state with waters included in the proposed Sanctuary may object to the Management
               Plan or regulations,'or any term thereof, and that management plan, regulation, or term will not
               take effect in the state waters of that Sanctuary.
               The second way a sanctuary can be designated is by legislation (see response #103), which is
               how, for example, the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale and the Florida Keys National Marine


               Page.318                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                 and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                   Appendix A: Responses to Comments
            National Marine Sanctuary

            Sanctuaries were designated. Once a site is designated, Congress requires NOAA to prepare a
            management plan and pursuant to the NMSA and the NEPA. The Governor of a state with waters
            included in the Sanctuary is provided the opportunity to review and object to the management plan
            and .             regulations or any terms thereof. If a Governor does object, the management
            Plan, regulation, or term will not take effect in State waters of that Sanctuary.
            lberefore, the processes for both the development of and- for the Governor's acceptance and
            approval of the final EIS/MP are the same for both types of designations, the only difference being
            the impetus which begins the process.

            102. Comment: NOAA has avoided public disclosure of information and bypassed NMSA
            procedures in making Sanctuary boundary amendments.

                   Response: The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary was
            designated by Congress, an action which is fully within Congress' purview. In subsequently
            developing the               plan, NOAA has   *not avoided any form of disclosure of information.
            NOAA held a series of statewide scoping meetings in March 1993 to gather public comments to
            assist in development of the management plan and regulations to implement the Congressional
            designation. In the summer of 1993, NOAA and the State jointly convened a Sanctuary Working
            Group (SWG) to offer advice andguidance on, the direction of the Sanctuary and the development
            of the DEIS. All SWG meetings were given public notice through press releases and direct
            mailings to -over 400 individuals and organizations, and were open to the public. (The SWG
            remained in.eftect until the DEIS was published in 1995.) In January 1994, a Discussion Paper
            was published to gather input to direct NOAA in the development of the Sanctuary's management
            regime. A series of statewide public meetings were held to solicit more public input on the paper in
            March 1994. In summer 1994, a Summary of Proposals for Possible Inclusion in the DEIS was
            released to the SWG for their review. In 1995, NOAA published the DEISAMP in which NOAA
            described a preferred boundary alternative that expanded the Congressionally designated boundary.
            NOAA held over 25 statewide public information workshops- to present the document to the public
            and to answer questions regarding its content. SRD also held seven public hearings throughout the
            main Hawaiian Islands to receive comments on the DEIS&W. In total, over 250 written comments
            and oral testimonies were received by NOAA during the 90-day comment period. Finally, in
            March 1996, the 25 member SAC was created by NOAA to provide a more formalized means of
            providing advice and recommendations to the Sanctuary Manager and. NOAA on the continued
            development of the site, including such issues as boundary, regulations and administration - (see
            response #53).

                   NOAA has not bypassed any, and in fact has gone well beyond the minimum required,
            NMSA and other requirements for public input in developing the management plan, including
            making proposed boundary amendments. The Congressional law which designated the Sanctuary
            specifically allows NOAA to amend the boundary as necessary to fulfill the purposes of the Act.
            NOAA's preferred boundary alternative reflects this change.
            10 3. Comment: Why does the Sanctuary continue despite the opposition? Many ocean users
            oppose Sanctuary.

                   Response: While NOAA recognizes that there are certain factions of the general public in
            Hawaii opposed to the Sanctuary, there are also certain factions that are in support. By passing the
            HDWSA, Congress designated the Sanctuary and directed NOAA to develop a comprehensive
            management plan and implementing regulations for the Sanctuary.





            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                        Page 319
            and Management Plan







                Appendix A: Responses to Comments                                  Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                          National Marine Sanctuary




                10-4. Comment: Citizens of Hawaii do not want the Federal government in State waters
                usurping county and State agency jurisdiction. The Sanctuary is unwarranted intrusion in State
                waiters.

                        Response:      The Sanctuary program will not usurp the State's authority (or -any other
                Federal agency's authority) or rights within the Sanctuary boundary. The Sanctuary program will
                work with the State of Hawaii to cooperatively manage and protect humpback whales and their
                habitaL The Sanctuary is not proposing to have independent permit requirements or approval
                authority, but will work cooperatively within the existing permit review framework. NOAA is
                working with DOH, DLNR, and NMFS, to develop MOUs to clarify permit review procedures
                and. interactions with the Sanctuary program. Where the boundary of the Sanctuary lies outside of
                State jurisdiction, existing Federal programs will continue to have jurisdiction.

                TIX, State of -Hawaii initially worked with their Congressional delegation to get the Sanctuary
                designated in 1992. The Governor's Office of Planning (OP) (formally the Office of State
                Planning) has been the lead state agency working in partnership with the National Marine
                Sarictuary program for over 3-1/2 years to ensure that the State's jurisdiction and rights are
                maJ.intained, and not relinquished. OP has gone on record as supporting the Sanctuary designation
                process, and representatives have attended nearly all the public workshops and public meetings
                held since 1992. OP has worked with NOAA to develop the DEIS/MP and the FEIS/MP.




























                Page 320                                                        Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                              and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                      Appendix A: Responses to Comments
             National Marine Sanctuary


























                                   COND4ENTERS ON THE DRAFr ENVIRONUMNTAL
                                    nMPACr STATENENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN


                                                    TESTIMONYMATRDC




























             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                            Page 321
             and Managernent.Plan







    Public Testimony Matrix
    *Numbers correspond to regulatory alternatives and letter refer to boundary alternatives listed in the DEIS/MP


                                                      1(shoo"w"s Rog& daflonma Fish ng Enlorcs-                      Rosewch Education      now     UserFass Funding       Soolo-    Und    Designation Fedem!              C3
                                                                                         Mum                                               HOWSIon                       Economic                        ftrosence,
                                                                                                                                                                              Cis

                                                                        X        X                                                                     X          X         X         X                     X
                                               4                                 X                 X                    X                    X                    X         X         X                     X               IOU
                             Office                                                                                                                                                                                         W
       4- Hawaii Air National Guard                                     X                          X
       -5. Kahoolawe Island Reserve                      X                                                                                   X                                                  X
          Commission                                                                                                                                                                                                        FA
          Office of Hawaiian Affairs                                                                                                         X                                        X
       r
          National Marine Fisheries                                     X                 X        X                    X          X                                                  X
          Service
          State Department of                  X                        X                                                                                                   X
          Transportation
       9- University of Hawaii                 X                        X                          X                                                                                  X
          Environmental Center
       10-- U. S. Department of tEe            X                                                   X                                                                                  X         X           X
          Armt:Corps of Engineers
    --TT- u. 9. Department ol ins Navy         C
          U. S. Environmental                                           X                          X                    X                                                   X         X
          Protection Agency
          Western Pacific Regional                                      X                          X
          Fishery Mgmt. Council



                                               1          2             3        4        5        1          7         a                                         '2                                        Is
                                           soundery W.W. Regulations          Fishing Ent.                                                                                          Need
                                                                                                 =r 1:                                                                                                   Fed"
                                                                                                                     Research  E ucation    Nalk.   I.I.F.. Funding       soclo-            Dome-don
                                                                                                                                                                         Economic                         131soui
                                                                                                                                          Howafto
                                                                                                  scam
                        a of Kauai             D                        X                          X                                                                                  X
                        rties                  X                                                                                                                  X                   X                     X
                        Council of FWW -
                                                                                 X                                                                     X          X                                         X
          Earth Island Institute                                        X        X                 X                                                                                  X
         I Eye of the Whale                    X                        X
          Hanalei Community                    D                    *3/6                           X                                         X
          Association
         LHawail Audubon Society                                        X                          X       X            X          X                                                  X         X
          Haw-Oc;namber of commerce                                     X                                               X                              X          X
            Maritime Committee
          Hawaiian International               X                                                                                                                                     @X
          Billfish Association
          Hui Moana                            X                        3                                               X                                                             X
                 iui Hawaii                                                      X                                                           X         X          X         X         X                     X
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          CA

                 3ierra Club                   X                                                                                                                                      X











                                                                                          7      1        9       10
                                               2           3       4                                                      11       2       13
                                  S.Idery Kahools"                                                                                                Need            Fedwd
                      lad-                                                                                                                                                    z
          011"I      t                                                                        Resewch  Education tied" UssrFsos Funding  SOC10-
                                                           *as Fishing J EnI- 111:@r J
                                                                                                                                        ECOROMIG                   plow
          Mat                                                                  Scope                                                     InIPSCIS
         Marine Mammal Research                                                           x      x                                                                  x
         Program_                                                    I              I          -
         McBoat                        x                   x             x                x                                                        x                x
         Molard Neam"WOCI Ward         x                                        x                                                          x
     115- Molokai Ranch                                    x                    x         x                                                x                        x
     17- Moss Landing Research         B                                        x                x
         Laboratory
         Personal Watercraft           x                   x                                              x                                        x                x
         Industry Association                                                                I
         Sierra Club- Kauai            x                                        x                                 x                        x       x
     20. Sierra Club -Hilo             x                                 x                       x        x                                        x
         Sierra Club - Oahu            D                   3                    x
         Waikoloa Land Company                             x                    x                                                          x       x                x
         Whales Alive                                      x                    x                                                                                   x


                                       1       2                   4                                              10    UWIL.      "ding                   IS       in
                                                                         6                       & h   Ed.$ don  No"
                                   III.W.V KO.W.. "L.0 Fishing                                                                                     Nod
          rM 11*1 r- MI                                                am.                    Ms.                                Fun     Sodo-          Designsdan Fedwal
                                                                                                                                        Econon"
         X-v                                                                   SCOM
                                                                                          7

     I - (Anonymous - Hi                                                                                                                   x       x
     2.  (Unknown R.), Tony                                                                                                                        x
     3-1 (Unknown), Joan                                                                                                                           x
     4- 1 Laureen Elizabeth                                        x                                                                               x       x        x
     5.1 Nano                                                      x                             x        x                                        x
     6- 1 Anafd, Louis                                                                                                                             x
     7-1 Alla. William                 x                   x       x                      x                       x            I   x               x
     0- 1 Aki. Dennis                  x                   x                    x                x                        x                        x                x
     u- I Anderson, Mike                                   x                                                                               x       x       x        x
     10- 1 Anderson, Captain Gary                                                                                                                                   x
         Anderson, Laurie                                                                                                                          X  I
         Bailey, Michael                                                                  x                                                        x                x
         Bal, Vernon                                                     x      x    I                                             x       x               x        x            >
     14- Bautista, Ronald                                                                        x                                                 x
         Berg, Cad                     D                *IV                     x                         x
         Bernard, Hannah                                           x I          x                                                                  x
     17. Bilbo, Pate         .....                                                                                                 x                                x
     'I'- I Block, Richard                                                                                                                         x                x
     19- 1 Bonk-Abramson, Keiko        A                           x            x                x        x       x       x                x       x                x
     zu- Bosma, Rudy                                                     x                                           j-            x
     21- Brindo-Vas, Norman                                        x     x      x                x
         Sierra
  @WaEkq
           i
         Whole























         Butler, Stan                                      x                    x                                                                  x                x













                                                                 3                                             a         9        10
                                       "Idary    "Itoola-   Regulations Fleh4ing Ed.              A                                                                          "-[,:.don   FzW
                                                                                                  Cr
                                                                                                     ." Research     Education  fieft   Uwftw Funding        soolo-   law
                                                                                         4r 1        7 1
                                                                                  a"                                                                       Eronoaft                      ROOM*
                                                                               1                                                                            10113-18
                  David                   A                                    I
                                                                                                                                                                       x
               bell, Brian                x                                       x
               , Susan                                                                                                                                                 x                                 >
         Carlisle, Sandra                                        x                x                                                                           x        x
  -27- Carrillo, Bianca                                                                                                                                                x
                                                                                                                                                                                                          W
     20. Chojohn__                                                                                                                                                     X
     29. Choi, Dick                       x                      x                                                                                                         I _x
     30- Chong, Herman                    x                      x        X.                                                               x                           x
     31. 1 Choun, Sumay                                                                                                                                                x
     32.1 Chuan, Ray                                             x        x                                                                                            x                   x
     33- 1 Coleman, Richard               x                      x                                                                                                     x
     34.1 Collins, Tod                    X                                                x                                                                           x
     35. 1 Coon, Jim                                                                                                                                x         x                            x
     35- 1 Corder, Ron                                                    x                x                                               x                           x
     37-1 Croydon, Guy                                                    x                                                                         x         x                            x
     35-1 Curtis, Henry                                          x        x                                                       x                                    x
     39-1 Davis, Rick                                                     x                                              x                                             x
     40.1 Decosterd, Kutria                                                                                                                                            x
     4T-- Dodg , Susie                                                                                                   x                                             x
         Dods, Walt                                                       x                                   x                                                        x                   x
  -4r Dunn, Corbin                                                                                                                                                     x
     4"r Dumin, Jennifer                                                                                                                                               x
     45- Evans, Chris                                            x        x       x                                      x                                             x
     46.1 Fairbanks, Keon!                     I     x
     47. -Fang,Fanny                                                                                                                                                   x
     48. Fleming, William                                                 x                                              x                          x                  x                   x
         Flores, Amanda                                                                                                                                                x
         Fonoimoana, Kent                                                 x                                                                                            x                   x
         Fonolmoana, Tod                                                  x                                                                                            X
         Forestall, Paul                  x V                    x
     53- 1 Frahme. Cad                                                                                                                                                 x
     04, 1 Funa. Po Ying                                                                                                                                               x
     03. Gaffney. Rick                    I          x ---       x        x       X        X        x         x          x        x        x        x         x        x         x         x
     55- Godinez, Elizabeth                                                                                                                                            x
         Goedecke, Diane                                                                                                                                               x
                S, James                                         x        x                                                                                   x        x                   x
         Grossman, Kim                                                                                                                                                 x
     60.
         Gutierrez, Brennan
                a, Paul .                                                 x                                                                                                                x
         Hart. arol                       x                      x                         x                                               x        x         x                            x
        - al-
         Cam
         Cania







































                                                                                                                                                                       x
                                                                                                                                                                       x
                                                                                                                                                                       X
        I Hawley, Julie                                                                                                                                                x









                                                               a             3          4         5         6          7          8           9          10         11                     is                   IS
                                               ftliftm Kahoolawe Regulations Fishing Enforce-                                  Research   Education    NOw       1.1serFout Funding      soclo-      Head   Designation
                                                                                                 Inent             =C                                                                  EconoWAG
                                                                                                          Scop                                                                          knpacts
                                                                                                                                                                                                     x                       x
                                                                             x                                                                                                                       x
                                                                                                                                  x                                                                  x
            Himscho t, e-bacca                                                          x                                         x           x                                x                     x                       x
            Ho. Nelson                                                                                                x                                  x                                           x                       x           W
            Hofellch. Bob                                                                                                                                                                            x                       x
            Holt. Kate                                                                  x
            Hona, GI nn                                                      x                              x                                 x          x                                           x                       x
            Housh, Jim                                                                                      x                                                       x          x           x                    x            x
            Hudson,Rob                              D                        6                                                                                                 x           x         x          x            x
            Huffman, Steve                                                                                                                                                                           x
            Hylke a, Jim                                                                x                                                     x                                x                                             x
            Inaba, Don                                                                  x                                                                                                            x                       x
            Ishikawa, Ralph                       x           x                                             x                                                                                                   x            x
            Johnson, Chuck                        x                          x          x                                                                           X                                x                       x
            Jordan, Rick                                                                                                                                                                             x                       x
            Juarez, Steve                                                                                                                                           x     I                          x                       x
            Kabul, Craig, V.                      x                                     x                                         x                      x                                                                   x
            Kaing, Earl                                                                                                           x                                                                  x                       x
            Kaleiopu, Ben                                                    x                                                                           x                                 x         x
            Kamakana, Wilma                       x                                                                                           x          x
            Kawamura, Walter                      A                                     x                                                                           x          x                     x          x            x
            Kaufman, Greg                                                                                                                                                      x           x         x          x            x
            Kina. William                                                    x          x                                         x           x                     x          x                                             x
            Koehne, Cindy                                                    x                                                                x                                                      x          x            x
            Krown, Steven                                                    x                                                                      N
            Lai, Virginia                                                                                                                                                                            x
            Le, An                                                                                                                x                                                                  x                       x
            Lee. Wayde                                                                                                                                                                                                                       i
            Lilly, Dr. John C.                                                                                                                                                             x
            Unser, Elizabeth                      x                                                                               x                                                                  x
            Lofstedt, Curtis                                                                                                                                                   x           x                                 x               >
            Luckey, Jim                                                                                                           x           x                                                                              x
            Lui. Susanna                                                                                                                                                                             x
            Luuwai, Kalei                                                    x          X I-                                      x                      x                     x                     X.                      x
            Martin, Lady                                                                                                                      x                                x                     x                       x
            Matsushima, (Mr.)                                                           x                                                                                                            x
            Mawai, KeIii                                                                x                                                     x                                x           x         x
            May, Jan                                                                                                                          x                                                      x
            Mazzuca, Lod                                              I                                                           x                                                                  x                       x
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         z












































                                                                                                                                                         X
                                                                                                            #X













                                                        4      5      9     7.             9      U             12            w
                                                                                                       tl.@"  Funding socio-
                                                      Fishing Enforce-                  Education No"                                  Uon
                                                                   =r =                         theatilan            Econondo
                                                              awnt                   ch
  M    W@alnlr 61181"M "Im I V` I Ft                 I                          I "
                                                                    SCOPS
        _cOmber, Ron                            x                     x    x       x                                                         x
       McSweeney,*Dan          x   I            x       x      x      x            x       x      x             x      x      x              x
    M-1 Medeiros, Frank                                 x                                                x      x             x              x         >
       Meheula, Harold                                  x                                                                     x              x
       Mehl, Helen             x                        x                          x       x             x                                   x
       Mehl, William                                    x             x                                                       x              x
       Meints, Deborah                                                                                                        x
       Merrill, Robert                          x       x             x            x                     x      x      x      x              x
       Mayer, Pamela           x                                                                                              x
       Miles, Glen                                                                                              x      x                               0
                                                                                                                                                       0
      .11 Miratello. Ron                        x                                                        X      X
   11-5A Moore, Dale                                                                                                          x
       Moore, Gordon                            x
       Morita, Naomi                                                                                                          x
    .13- Morris. Kirstin       *D 1             *6                                                                            x
    .10.- Morris, Michelle                              x                          x                                          x
    . .Morris. Nina              D               6             x                   x       x
    21- Mossman, William               x        x
                                                                                                                                     x       x
    22- Moura, Charles                                  x                                                                     x
    -23- Moyers, Michael                        x                                                                      x      x              x
    114-, Murray. R.J.                          x                                                        x      x             x
    2-5- Mustard, William                               x                                                                                    x
    @ffij Myers. Preston                                                                                                                     x
       Nanbu,Jodi                                                     x                                                       x
       Nelson, Dennis          x                x       x                                                       x      x      x      x       x
       Ngo,Joseph                                                                                                             x
       Nguyen, Michelle                                                                                                       x
       Novembre, Tracy                                                                                                        x
       O'Hara, James                            x       x                                                       x      x      x      x       x
       Oberste-Lehn, Deane       D     x        * 5                   6                                     1          x      x
       Oki. George             x                x                                                               X             x      x
       Osodo. Elroy                             x                     x                                  x      x             x      x       x
       Parks, Noreen           x                        x                                                                     x                      z
       Pfeffer, Roger                           x       x                          x                                          x
       Pinney. Jan                              x                                  x       x      x             x             x              x
       Pomrov. Sharon                                   x                                                       x                            x
        on, Vivian                                                                                x                           x
        ooli, Pua                      x                x      x                                                              X              x
         ice, Skip                                                                                                                   X       X
         ed, (Mrs.)                                                                x                                                         x
                                                                                                               EXI







                             . . ...... .. ..                          4       a                                                                                              F@ZW        z
                                                                                                                                                            Had
            r m  In                                                  Fishing Enforce-                 PAsswch Educedon R2.      LkwFm Funding      socia           ftW:01.n
                                      Boundary Kalwalswe Requiddans
                                                                                                                        Mogen                     Ecanommic
                                                                                                                                                   INIP-13
                                                                                     scope
            eed, Richard                                                                                                                    x                x                  x
            eich, Joe                                        x         x                                                  x                                  x                  x
            idinaton, Jillian                                                                                                                        x       x
          Robinson, Jennifer
          Roaers. Georgia                                                                                                                                    x
          Rohrer, Peter                                      x         x                                                                                     x
          Rosehill, Bill                                                               x                x         x                                          x                  x
          Rysdale, Tim                                       * I                                        x         x                                          x
          Saito, Richard                                               x                                          x                                                             x
          Santos, Sal                                        x         x                                                                                                        x
          Schinnerer, John               x                                                                                                                   x
          Shaker. Reza-                                                                                                                                      x
          Shepherd, Shirley                                                                                                                                  x
          Shioji, Cad                                        x         x                                                                                     x                  x
          Smith, Thomas                   E                  x                                                                                       x       x        x
          Sobel, Stacey                                                                                                                                      x
          Spill, Rick                    x                                             x       x        x         x       x                 x                x
        -1 Stehura, Sean                 x                                                                                                           x       x
          Sumang, James                                                                                                                                      x
          Sumida, Larry                                                                                                                                      x
          Sutcliffe. -Claude             x                             x                                x                 x                                  x
          Smith. Linda                                                                                                                                       x
          Svdney, Susanne                                                                                                                                    x
          Tafoya, Nancy                                                                                                                                      x
         I Tanaka, Leonard                                   x                         x                x                                                    x        x         x
          Tang, Laura                                                                                                                                        X
          Tran, Anthony Alan                                                                        I                                                        x
          Tran, John                                                                                                                                         x
          Trask, Michael                                     x         x                                                  x        X        X                x        x         x
          Trask. Mililani                                    x         x           I x                  x                 x        x I      x                x        x         x
          Truong, David                                                                                                                                      x
          Turnmons, Patricia             x                   x         x                                x         X                                                                          >
          War. Curtis                    x         x                                   x                                  x                 x        x                          x
          Uldricks, Jeff                                                                                                                    x        x       x
          Utley, Phillip                                                                                                                                     x
          Van, Wendy                                         x                                                                                       x       x
          Vance, Phillip                                                                                                                                     x
          Vander Hoek, Gene              x                   x                                                                              x        x       x
          Vanderbelt, DeGray                                 x         x                                                                                                        x
          Ventura, Anthony                                   x         x                                                                                     X                  x
                                                                                                                                   X        x                X
          Ventura, Robin                      I          t
    R
          R
     .R
          R
          Ri                                                         AX













                                                                    3         4        5        4        7                   9                    11       9         13
                                                                Sq..j  no FistAng Erd                                      EduCaUM   Ha"      UAWFSM Funding       a.,,.     Hftd      :01.n    FGdwM
                                                                                      M-wt                                               Mon                      Ecanon"
                                                                                              Scope
                      John                  x                                 x                                    x         x     I   x                   x         x                            x
                     Peter                  x                                                                                      I
                    ally                                            x         x                                    x         x     I             x                            x                                  >
     M-1 Warren, Paul                                                                                                                                                         x
        -.1 Watson, Kerry                                                     x                                                                                               x                   x
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 M
           White, Reg                                               x                                                                                      x                  x   I               x
       !..I Whitmire, Paul                                                    x                                                                  x         x
      92-J Williams. Vikki
                                                                                                                                                                              x
      93-:1 Wiltse, Wendy                                                                      x                   x         x I                                     x        x         x         x
         .1 Witten, James                   x                                                  x                   x         x                             x         x        x -                 x
           Wong, Kathy                                                                                                                                                        X
           Wong, Larry                                                                                                                                                        X
           Yanagicla, Jon                                           x                 x                                                                    x                  x                   x

     *Numbers correspond to regulatory alternatives and letter refer to boundary alternatives listed in the DEIS/MP






             Appendix A: Responses to Comments                                           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
             Resolutions                                                                         National Marine Sanctuary




























                                         TFUS PAGE INTENnONALLY LEFr BLANK'




























             Page 329                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                     and Management Plan







                 Appendix A: Responses to Comments                                           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                 Resolutions                                                                         National Marine Sanctuary


























                                            TMS    PAGE HiTETMONALLY LEFr.BLANK




























                 Page 330                                                                Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                         and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                  Appendix B: National Marine Sanctuary Act
              National Marine Sanctuary
                                                       - AppencUm _B

                   THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIEs AcT (NMSA), 16 U.S.C 1431 FI=.
                                                  As amended by Pub. L. 104-283

              (NOTE: The Oceans Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-587, and the National Marine Sanctuaries Preservation Act of 1996,
              Pub. L. 104-283, contain provisions pertaining to national marine sanctuaries.]

              Sec. 301. FINDINGS, PURPOSES, AND POLICIES
              (a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds that-
                      (1) this Nation historically has recognized the importance of protecting special areas of its public domain,
                      but thew efforts have been directed almost exclusively to land areas above the high-water mark;
                      (2) certain arm of the marine environment possess conservation, recreational, ecological, historical,
                      research, educational, or esthetic qualities which give them special national, and in some instances,
                      international, significance;
                      (3) while the need to control the effects of particular activities has led to enactment of resource-specific
                      legislation, these laws cannot in all cases provide a coordinated and comprehensive approach to the
                      conservation and management of special areas of the marine environment;
                      (4) a Federal program which identifies special arm of the marine.enviromnent will contribute positively to
                      marine resources conservation. research, and management; .
                      (5) such a Federal program will also serve to enhance public awareness, understanding, appreciation, and
                      wise use of the marine environment; and
                      (6) protection of these special areas can -contribute to maintaining a natural assemblage of living resources
                      for future generations.

              (b) PURPOSES AND POLICIES.-The purposes and policies of this tide am-
                      (1) to identify and designate as national marine sanctuaries areas of the marine environment which are of
                      special national significance;
                      (2) to provide authority for comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management of these marine
                      areas, and activities affecting them, in a manner which complements existing regulatory authorities;
                      (3) to support, promote, and coordinate scientific research on, and monitoring of, the resources of these
                      marine areas, especially long-term monitoring and research of these areas;
                      (4) to enhance public awareness, understanding, appreciation, and wise use of the marine environment;
                      (5) to facilitate to the extent compatible with the primary objective of resource protection, all public and
                      private uses of the resources of these marine areas not prohibited pursuant to other authorities;
                      (6) to develop and implement coordinated plans for the protection and management of these areas with
                      appropriate Federal agencies, State and local governments, Native American tribes and organizations,
                      international organizations, and other public and private interests concerned with the continuing health and
                      resilience of these marine areas;
                      (7) to create models of, and incentives for, ways to conserve and manage these areas;
                      (8) to cooperate with global programs encouraging conservation of marine resources; and
                      (9) to maintain, restore, and enhance living resources by providing places for species that depend upon these
                      marine areas to survive and propagate,

              Sec. 302. DEFINITIONS
              As used in- this tide, the term-
                      (1) "Draft management plan" means the plan described in section 304(a)(1)(C)(v);
                      (2) "Magnuson Act" means the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et
                      seq.);
                      (3) "marine environment" means those areas of coastal and ocean waters, the Great Lakes and their
                      connecting waters, and submerged lands over which the United States exercises jurisdiction, including the
                      exclusive economic zone, consistent with international law;,
                      (4) "Secretary" means the Secretary of Commerce;


              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                              Page 331
              and Management Plan






                Appendix B: National Marine Sanctuary Act                             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                             National Marine Sanctuary

                       (5) "State" means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
                       the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and any
                       other commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States;
                       (6) "damages" includes-
                               (A) compensation for-
                                               (i)(1) the cost of replacing, restoring, or acquiring the, equivalent of a sanctuary
                                               resource; and Q the value of the lost use of a sanctuary resource pending its
                                               restoration or replacement or the acquisition of an equivalent sanctuary'resource;
                                               or
                                               (ii) the value of a sanctuary resource if the sanctuary resource cannot be restored
                                               or replaced or if the equivalent of such resource cannot be acquired;
                               (B), the cost of damage assessments under section 312(b)(2); and
                               (C) the reasonable cost of monitoring appropriate to the injured, restored, or replaced resources;
                       (7) "response costs" means the costs of actions taken or authorized by the Secretary to minimize destruction
                       or loss of, or injury to, sanctuary resources, or to minimize the imminent risks of such destruction, loss, or
                       injury;
                       (8) "sanctuary resource" means any living or nonliving resource of a national marine sanctuary that
                       contributes to the conservation, recreational, ecological, historical. research, educational, or aesthetic value
                       of the sanctuary;*and
                       (9) "exclusive economic zone" means the exclusive economic zone as defined in the Magnuson Fishery and
                       Conservation Act.


                Sec. 303. SANCTUARY DESIGNATION STANDARDS
                (a) STANDARDS.-The Secretary may designate any discrete area of the marine environment as a national marine
                sanctuary and promulgate reg@lations implementing the designation if the Secretary-
                       (1) determines that the designation will fulfill the purposes and policies of this title; and
                       (2) finds that-
                               (A) the area is of specialnational significance due to its resource or human-use values;
                               (B) existing State and Federal authorities are inadequate or should be supplemen'ted to ensure
                               coordinated and comprehensive conservation and management of the area, including resource
                               protection, scientific research. and public education;
                               (C) designation of the area as a national marine sanctuary will facilitate the objectives in
                               subparagraph (B); and
                               (D) the area is of a size and nature dukt will permit comprehensive and coordinated conservation and
                               management.

                (b) FACTORS AND CONSULTATIONS REQUUtED IN MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND FINDINGS.-
                       (1) Factors.-For purposes of determining if an area of the marine environment meets the standards set forth
                       in subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider-                                      I
                               (A) the area's natural resource and ecological qualities, including its contribution to biological
                               productivity, maintenance of ecosystem structure, maintenance of ecologically or commercially
                               important or threatened species or species assemblages, maintenance of critical habitat of
                               endangered species, and the biogeographic representation of the site;
                               (B) the area's historical, cultural. archaeologicaL or paleontological significance;
                               (C) the present and potential uses of the area that depend on maintenance of the area's resources,
                               including commercial and recreational fishing, subsistence uses other commercial and recreational
                               activities, and research and education;
                               (D) the present and potential activities that may adversely affect the factors identified in
                               subparagraphs (A), (B), (C);
                               (E) the existing State and Federal regulatory and management authorities applicable to the area and
                               the adequacy of those authorities to fulfill the purposes and policies of this title;
                               (F) the manageability of the area, including such factors as its size, its ability to be identified as a
                               discrete ecological unit with definable boundaries, its accessibility, and its suitability for
                               monitoring and enforcement activities;

                Page 332                                                          Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                 and Management Plan






               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                       Appendix B: National Marine Sanctuary Act
               National Marine Sanctuary

                                 (G) the public benefits to be derived from sanctuary status, with emphasis on the benefits of
                                 long-term protection of nationally significant resources, vital habitats, and resources which
                                 generate tourism;
                                 (H) the negative impacts produced by management restrictions on income-generating activities
                                 such as living and nonliving resources development; and
                                 (1) the socioeconomic effects of sanctuary designation.

                        (2) Consultation.-In making determinations and findings, the Secretary shall consult with-
                                 (A) the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives and the
                                 Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate;
                                 (B) the Secretaries of State, Defense, Transportation, and the Interior, the Administrator, and the
                                 heads of other interested Federal agencies;
                                 (C) the responsible officials or relevant agency heads of the appropriate State and local government
                                 entities, including coastal zone management agencies, that will or are likely to be affected by the
                                 establishment of the area as a national marine sanctuary;
                                 (D) the appropriate officials of any Regional Fishery Management Council established by section
                                 302 of the Magnuson Act (16 U.S.C. 1852) that may be affected by the proposed designation; and
                                 (E) other interested persons.

                        (3) Resource Assessment Report.-In making determinations and findings, the Secretary shall draft, as part
                        of the environmental impact statement referred to in section 304(a)(2), a resource assessment report
                        documenting present and potential uses of the area, including commercial and recreational fishing, research
                        and education, minerals and. energy developmem subsistence uses, and other commercial governmental, or
                        recreational uses. The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall draft a resource
                        assessment section for the report regarding any commercial, governmental, or recreational resource uses in
                        the area under consideration "t are subject to the primary jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.
                        The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, and the
                        Administrator, shall draft a resource assessment section for the report including information on any past,
                        present.or proposed future disposal or discharge of materials in the vicinity of the proposed sanctuary.
                        Public disclosure by the Secretary of such information shall be consistent with national security
                        regulations.

               Sec. 304. PROCEDURES FOR DESIGNATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
               (a) SANCTUARY PROPOSAL.-
                        (1) Notice.-In proposing to designate a national marine sanctuary, the Secretary shall-
                                 (A) issue, in the Federal Register, a notice of the proposal, proposed regulations that may be
                                 necessary and reasonable to implement the proposal, and a summary of the draft management plan;
                                 (B) provide notice of the proposal in newspapers of general circulation or electronic media in the
                                 communities that may be affected by the proposal; and
                                 (C) on the same day the notice required by subparagraph (A) is issued, the Secretary shall submit
                                 to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives and the
                                 Committee on Commerce, Science. and Transportation of the Senate documents, including an
                                 executive summary, consisting of-
                                          (i) the terms of the proposed designation;
                                          (ii) the basis of the findings made under section 303(a) with respect to the area;
                                          (iii) an assessment of the considerations under section 303(b)(1);
                                          (iv) proposed mechanisms to coordinate existing regulatory and management authorities
                                          within the area;
                                          (v) the draft management plan detailing the proposed goals and objectives, management
                                          responsibilities, resource studies, interprIetive and educational programs, and enforcement.
                                          including surveillance activities for the area;
                                          (vi) an estimate of the annual cost of the proposed designation, including costs of
                                          personnel. equipment and facilities, enforcement, research, and public education;
                                          (vii) the draft environmental impact statement;

               Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                     Page 333
               and Management Plan






                     Appendix B: National Marine Sanctuary Act.                                             Hawaiian Islands Humpback VVhale
                                                                                                                     National Marine Sanctuary

                                                   (viii) an evaluation of the advantages of cooperative State and Federal management if all
                                                   or part of a proposed marine sanctuary is within the territorial limits of any State or is
                                                   supeiJacent to the subsoil and seabed within the seaward boundary of a State, as that
                                                   boundary is established under the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.); and
                                                   (ix) the proposed regulations referred to in subparagraph (A).
                               (2) Environmental Impact Statement.-71be Secretary shall--
                                        (A) prepare a draft environmental impact statement, as provided by the National Environmental
                                        Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), on the proposal that includes the resource
                                        assessment report required under section 303(b)(3), maps depicting the boundaries of the proposed
                                        designated area. and the existing and potential uses and resources of the =a; and
                                        (B) make copies of the draft environmental impact statement available to the public.
                               (3) Public Hearing.-No sooner than thirty days after issuing a notice under this subsection, the Secretary
                               shall hold at least one public hearing in the coastal area or a*reas that will be most affected by the proposed
                               designation of the area as a national marine sanctuary for the purpose of receiving the views of interested
                               parties.
                               (4)'Terms of Designation.-The terms of designation of a sanctuary shall include the geographic area
                               proposed to be included within the sanctuary, the characteristics of the area that give it conservation,
                               recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational, or esthetic value, and the types of activities that
                               will be subject to regulation by the Secretary to protect those characteristics. The terms of designation may
                               be modified only by the same procedures by which the original designation is made.
                               (5) Fishing Regulation&-The Secretary shall provide the appropriate Regionaf Fishery Management
                               Council with the opportunity to prepare draft regulations for fishing within the Exclusive Economic Zone
                               as the Council may deem necessary to implement the proposed designation. Draft regulations prepared by
                               the Council, or a Council determination that regulations are not necessary pursuant to this"paragraph, shall
                               be accepted and issued as proposed regulations by the Secretary unless the Secretary finds that the Council's
                               action fails to fulfill the purposes'and policies of this tide and the goals and objectives of the proposed
                               designation. In preparing the draft regulations, a Regional Fishery Management Council shall use as
                               guidance the national standards of section 301(a) of the Magnuson Act (16 U.S.C., 1851) to the extent that
                               the standards are consistent and compatible with the goals and objectives of the proposed designation. The
                               Secretary shall prepare the fishing regulations, if the Council declines to make a determination with respect
                               to the need for regulations, makes a determination which is rejected by the Secretary, or fas to prepare the
                               draft regulations. in a timely manner. Any amendments to the fishing regulations. shall be drafted, approved,
                               and issued in the same manner as the original regulations.Ibe Secretary shall also cooperate with other
                               appropriate fishery management authorities with rights or responsibilities within a proposed sanctuary at
                               the earliest practicable stage in drafting any sanctuary fishing regulations.
                               (6) Committee Action.-After receiving the documents under subsection (a)(1)(C), the Committee on
                               Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,
                               and Transportation of the Senate may each hold hearings on the proposed designation and on the matters set
                               forth in the documents. If within the forty-five day period of continuous session of Congress beginning on
                               the date of submission of the documents, either Committee issues a report concerning matters addressed in
                               the documents, the Secretary shall consider this report before publishing a notice to designate the national
                               marine sanctuary.

                     (b) TAKING EFFECr OF DESIGNATION&_
                               (1) Notice.-In designating a national marine sanctuary, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register
                               notice of the designation together with final regulations to implement the designation and any other matters
                               required by law, and submit such notice to the Congress. 'Me Secretary shall advise the public of the
                               availability of the final management plan and the final environmental impact statement with respect to such
                               sanctuary. The Secretary shall issue a notice of designation with respect to a proposed national marine
                               sanctuary site not later than 30 months after the date a notice declaring the site to be an active candidate for
                               sanctuary designation is published in the Federal Register under regulations issued under this Act, or shall
                               publish not later than such date in the Federal Register findings regarding why such notice has not been
                               published. No notice of designation may occur until the expiration of the period for Committee -action under
                               subsection (a)(6). The designation (and any of its terms not disapproved under this subsection) and

                     Page 334                                                                           Final Environmental Impact      Statement
                                                                                                                          and Management Plan






                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                              Appendix B: National Marine Sanctuary Act
                National Marine Sanctuary
                MEEMMMMNPWN@

                          regulations shall take effect and become final after the close of a review period of forty-five days of
                          continuous session of Congress beginning on the day on which such notice is published unless in the case
                          of a natural [sic] marine sanctuary that is located partially or entirely within the seaward boundary of any
                          State, the Governor affected certifies to the Secretary that the designation or any of its terms is
                          unacceptable, in which case the designation or the unacceptable term shall not take effect in the area of the
                          sanctuary lying within the seaward boundary of the State.
                          (2) Withdrawal of Designation.--- If the Secretary considers that actions taken under paragraph (1) will affect
                          the designation of a national marine sanctuary in a manner that the goals and objectives of the sanctuary
                          cannot be fulfilled, the Secretary may withdraw the entire designation. If the Secretary does not withdraw the
                          designation, only those terms of the designation or not certified under paragraph (1) shall take effect.
                          (3) Procedures.- In computing the forty-five-day periods of continuous session of Congress pursuant to
                          subsection (a)(6) and paragraph (1) of this subsection- .
                                    (A) continuity of session is broken only by an adjournment of Congress sine die; and
                                    (B) the days on which either House of Congress is not in session because of an adjournment of
                                    more than three days to a day certain are excluded.

                (c) ACCESS AND VALID RIGHT&-
                          (1) Nothing in this title shall be construed as terminating or granting to the Secretary the right to terminate
                          any valid lease, permit, license, or right of subsistence use or of access that is in. existence on the date of
                          designation of any national marine sanctuary.
                          (2) The exercise of a lease. permit, license, or right is subject to regulation by the Secretary consistent with
                          the purposes for which the sanctuary is designated.

                (d) INTERAGENCY COOPERATION@-
                          (1) Review of Agency Actions.-
                                    (A) In General.-Federal agency actions internal or external to a national marine sanctuary,
                                    including private activities authorized by licenses, leases, or permits, that are- likely to destroy,
                                    cause the loss of, or injure any sanctuary resource are subject to consultation with the Secretary.
                                    (B) Agency Statements Required.- Subject to any regulations the Secretary may establish each
                                    Federal agency proposing an action described in subparagraph (A) shall provide the Secretary with a
                                    written statement describing the action and its potential effects on sanctuary resources at the
                                    earliest practicable time, b'ut in no case later than 45 days before the final approval of the action
                                    unless such Federal agency and the Secretary agree to a different schedule.
                          (2) Secretary's Recommended Alternative&-If the Secretary finds that a Federal agency action is likely to
                          destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource, the Secretary shall (within 45 days of receipt of
                          complete information on the proposed agency action) recommend reasonable and prudent alternatives, which
                          may include conduct of the action elsewhere, which can be taken by the Federal agency in implementing the
                          agency action that will protect sanctuary resources.
                          (3) Response to Recommendations.-The agency head who receives the Secretary's recornmended
                          alternatives under paragraph (2) shall promptly consult with the Secretary on the alternatives. If the agency
                          head decides not.to follow the alternatives, the agency head shall provide the Secretary with a written
                          statement explaining the reasons for that decision.

                (e) REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT PLAN&-Not more than 5 years after the date of designation of any national
                marine sanctuary, and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 5 years, the Secretary shall evaluate the substantive
                progress toward implementing the management plan and goals for the sanctuary, especially the effectiveness of
                site-specific management techniques. and shall revise the management plan and regulations as necessary to fulfill the
                purposes and policies of this tide.
                Sec. 30S. APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS AND INTEiNATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS
                (a) REGULATIONS.-Ibis title and the regulations issued under section 304 shall be applied in accordance with
                generally recognized principles of international law, and in accordance with the treaties, conventions, and other
                agreements to which the United States is a party. No regulation shall apply to or be enforced against a person who is
                not a citizen, national, or resident alien of the United States, unless in accordance with-

                Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                                Page 335
                and Management Plan






                    Appendix B:. National Marine Sanctuary Act                                           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                                  National Marine Sanctuary

                              (1) generally recognized principles of international law;
                              (2) an agreement between the United States and the foreign state of which the person is a citizen; or
                              (3) an agreement between the United States and- the flag state of a foreign vessel, if the person is a
                              crewmember of the vessel.

                    (b) NEGOTIATIONS.-The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary, shall take appropriate action to
                    enter into negotiations with other governments to make necessary arrangements for the protection of any national
                    marine sanctuary and to promote the purposes for which the sanctuary is established.

                    (c) 'NTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.-The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State and other
                    appropriate Federal agencies, shall cooperate with other governments and international organizations in the
                    furtherance of the purposes and policies of this tide and consistent with applicable regional and multilateral
                    arrangements for the protection and management of special marine areas.

                    Sec. 306. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES
                    It is unlawful to-
                              (1) destroy cause the loss of, or injure any sanctuary resource managed under law or regulations for that
                              sanctuary;
                              (2) possess, sell. deliver, carry, transport, or ship by any means any sanctuary resource taken in violation of
                              this section;
                              (3) interfere with the enforcement of this tide; or
                              (4) violate any provision of this tide or any regulation or permit issued pursuant to this title.

                    Sec. 307. ENFORCEMENT
                    (a) IN GENERAL.-Tbe Secretary shall conduct such enforcement activities as are necessary and reasonable to carry
                    out this title.

                    (b)POWERS OF AUTHORIMI) OFFICERS4--Any person who is authorized to enforce this tide may-
                              (1) board. search, inspect, and seize any vessel suspected of being used to violate this tide or any regulation
                    or permit issued under this tide and any equipment, stores, and cargo of such vessel;    n'of thi ti
                              (2) seize wherever found any sanctuary resource taken or retained in violatio         s de or any regulation
                    or permit issued under this tide;
                              (3) seize any evidence of a violation of this tide or of any regulation or permit issued under this title;
                              (4) execute any warrant or other process issued by any court of competent jurisdiction; and
                              (5) exercise any other lawful authority.

                    (c) CrM PENALTEES.-
                              (1) Civil penalty.-Any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who violates this title, or any
                              regulation or permit issued under this tide shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not
                              more than $ 100,000 for each such violation, to be assessed by the Secretary. Each day of a continuing
                              violation shall constitute a separate violation.
                              (2) Notice.-No penalty shall be assessed under this subsection until after the person charged has been
                              given notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
                              (3) In Rem Jurisdiction.-A vessel used in violating this tide or any regulation or permit issued under this
                              title shall be liable in rem for any civil penalty assessed for such violation. Such penalty shall constitute a
                              maritime lien on the vessel and may be recovered in an action in rem in the district court of the United
                              States having jurisdiction over the vessel.
                              (4) Review of Civil Penalty.-Any person against whom a civil penalty is assessed under this subsection
                              may obtain review in the United States district court for the appropriate district by filing a complaint in
                              such court not later than 30 days after the date of such order.
                              (5) Collection of Penalties.-If any person fails to pay an assessment of a civil penalty under this section
                              after it has become a final and unappealable order, or after the appropriate court has entered final judgment in
                              favor of the Secretary, the Secretary shall refer, the matter to the Attorney General, who shall recover the


                    Page 336                                                                         Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                       and Management Plan






                 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                             Appendix B: National Marine Sanctuary Act
                 National Marine Sanctuary

                           amount assessed in any appropriate district court of the United States. In such action, the validity and
                           appropria,'teness of the final order imposing the civil penalty shall not be subject to review.
                           (6) Comprormse or Other Action by'Secretary.-The Secretary may compromise, modify, or remit, with or
                           without conditions, any civil penalty which is or may be imposed under this section.

                 (d) FORFEITURE.-
                           (1) In GeneraL-Any vessel (including the vessel's equipment, stores, and cargo) and other item used, and
                           any sanctuary resource taken or retained, in any manner, in connection with or as a result of any violation
                           of this title or of any regulation or permit issued under this title shall be sub ect to forfeiture to the United
                                                                                                           j
                           States pursuant to a civil proceeding under this subsection. The proceeds from forfeiture actions under this
                           subsection shall constitute a separate. recovery in addition to any amounts recovered as civil penalties under
                           this section or as civil damages under section 312. None of those proceeds shall be subject to set-off.
                           (2) Application of the Customs Laws.-The Secretary may exercise the authority of any United States
                           official granted by any relevant customs law relating to the seizure, forfeiture, condemnation, disposition,
                           remission, and mitigation of property in enforcing this tide.
                           (3) Disposal of Sanctuary Resources.-Any sanctuary resource seized pursuant to this tide may be disposed
                           of pursuant to an order of the appropriate court or, if perishable, in a manner prescribed by regulations
                           promulgated by the Secretary. Any proceeds fi-om the sale of such sanctuary resource shall for all purposes
                           represent the sanctuary resource so disposed of in any subsequent legal proceedings.
                           (4) Presumption.-For the purposes of this section there is a rebuttable presumption that all sanctuary
                           resources found on board a vessel that is used or seized in connection with a violation of this title or of any
                           regulation or permit issued under this tide were taken or retained in violation of this title or of a regulation
                           or permit issued under this tide.

                 .(e) PAYMENT OF STORAGE, CARE, AND OTHER COSTS.-
                           (1) Expenditures.-
                                     (A) Notwithstanding any other law, amounts received by the United States as civil penalties,
                                     forfeitures of property, and costs imposed under paragraph (2) shall be retained by the Secretary in
                                     the manner provided for in section 107(f)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
                                     Compensation and Liability Act of 1980.
                                     (B) Amounts received under this section for forfeitures and costs imposed under paragraph (2) shall
                                     be used to pay the reasonable and necessary costs incurred by the Secretary to provide temporary
                                     storage, care, maintenance, and disposal of any sanctuary resource or other property seized in
                                     connection with a violation of this tide or any regulation or permit issued under this title.
                                     (C) Amounts received under this section as civil penalties and any amounts remaining after the
                                     operation of subparagraph (B) shall be used, in order of priority, to-
                                              (i) manage and improve the national marine sanctuary with respect to which the violation
                                              occurred that resulted in the penalty or forfeiture;
                                              (ii) pay a reward to any person who ftulaishes information leading to an assessment of a
                                              civil penalty, or to a forfeiture of property, for a violation of this tide or any regulation
                                              or permit issued under this title; and
                                              (iii) manage and improve any other national marine sanctuary.
                           (2) Liability for Costs.-Any person assessed a civil penalty for a violation of this title or of any
                           regulation or permit issued under this tide, and any claimant in a forfeiture action brought for such a
                           violation, shall be liable for the reasonable costs incurred by the Secretary in storage, care, and maintenance
                           of any sanctuary resource or other property seized in connection with the violation.

                 (f) SUBPOENAS.-In the case of any hearing under this section which is determined on the record in accordance
                 with the procedures provided for under section 554 of tide 5, United States Code, the Secretary may issue subpoenas
                 for the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of relevant papers, books, and documents, and may
                 administer oaths.


                 (g) USE OF RESOURCES OF STATE AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.-The Secretary shall, whenever
                 appropriate, use by agreement the personnel, services, and facilities of State and other Federal departments, agencies,

                 Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                               Page 337
                 and Management Plan






                 Appendix B: National Marine Sanctuary Act                              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                               National Marine Sanctuary

                 and instrumentalities, on a reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis, to carry out the Secretary's responsibilities under
                 this section.

                 (h) COAST GUARD AUTHORITY NOT LIMITEI).-Nothing in this section shall be considered to limit the
                 authority of the Coast Guard to enforce this or any other Federal law under section 89 of title 14, United States
                 Code.


                 (i) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.-If the Secretary determines that there is an imminent risk of destruction or loss of or
                 injury to a sanctuary resource, or that there has been actual destruction or loss of, or injury to, a sanctuary resource
                 which may give rise to liability under section 312, the Attorney General, upon request of the Secretary, shall seek to
                 obviin such relief as may be necessary to abate such risk or actual destruction, loss, or injury, or to restore or replace
                 the sanctuary resource, or both. The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction in such a case to order
                 such relief as the public interest and the equities of the casemay require.

                 0) AREA OF APPLICATION AND ENFORCEABUM.-The area of application and enforceability of this title
                 includes the territorial sea of the United States, as described in Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27,
                 1988, which is subject to the sovereignty of the United States, and the United States exclusive economic zone,
                 consistent with international law.


                 Sec. 308. SEVERABILITY
                 If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held iivalid, the validity of
                 theremainder of this Act and of the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be
                 affected thereby.

                 Sec. 309. RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND, EDUCATION
                 (a) IN GENERAL.-Tbe Secretary shall conduct research, monitoring, evaluation, and education programs as are
                 necessary and reasonable to carry out the purposes and policies of this tide.

                 (b) PROMOTION AND COORDINATION OF SANCTUARY USE.-The Secretary shall take such action as is
                 necessary and reasonable to promote and coordinate the use of national marine sanctuaries for research, monitoring,
                 and education purposes. Such action may include consulting with Federal agencies, States, local governments,
                 regional agencies. interstate agencies, or other persons to promote use of one or more sanctuaries for research,
                 monitoring, and education, including coordination with the National Estuarine Research Reserve System.

                 Sec. 310. SPECIAL USE PERMITS
                 (a) ISSUANCE OF PERMIT&-The Secretary may issue special use permits which authorize the conduct of
                 specific activities in a national marine sanctuary if the Secretary determines such authorization is necessary-
                        (1) to establish conditions of access to and use of any sanctuary resource; or
                        (2) to promote public use and understanding of a sanctuary resource.

                 (b) PERMIT TERMS.-A permit issued under this section-
                        (1) shall authorize the conduct of an activity only if that activity is compatible with the purposes for which
                        the sanctuary is designated and with protection of sanctuary resources;
                        (2) shall not authorize. the conduct of any activity for a period of more than 5 years unless renewed by the
                        Secretary;
                        (3) shall require the activities carried out under the permit be conducted in a manner that does not destroy,
                        cause the loss of, or injure sanctuary resources; and
                        (4) shall require the permittee to purchase and maintain comprehensive general liability insurance against
                        claims arising out of activities conducted under. the permit and to agree to hold the United States harmless
                        against such claims.

                 (c) FEES.-
                        (1) Assessment and Collection.-The Secretary may assess and collect fees for the conduct of any activity'
                        under a permit issued under this section.

                 Page 338                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                   and Management Plan






                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                            Appendix B: National Marine Sanctuary Act
                National Marine Sanctuary

                         (2) Amount.-The amount of a fee under this subsection shall be equal to the sum of-
                                   (A) costs incurred, or expected to be incurred, by the Secretary in issuing the permit;
                                   (B) costs incurred, or expected to be incurred, by the Secretary hs a direct result of the conduct of
                                   the activity for which the permit is issued, including costs of monitoring the conduct of the
                                   activity; and
                                   (C) an amount which represents the fair market value of the use of the sanctuary resource and a
                                   reasonable, return to the United States Government.
                         (3) Use of Fees.-Arnounts collected. by the Secretary in the form of fees under this section may be used by
                         the Secretary-
                         (A) for issuing and administering permits under this section; and
                         (B) for expenses of designating and managing national marine sanctuaries.

                (d) VIOLATIONS.-Upoa violation of a term or condition o         f a permit issued under this section, the Secretary
                may-
                         (1) suspend or revoke the permit without compensation to the permittee and without liability to the United
                         States;
                         (2) assess a civil penalty in accordance with section 307; or
                         (3) both.

                (e) REPO]kTS.-Each person issued a permit under this section shall submit an annual report to the Secretary not
                later than December 31 of each year which describes activities conducted under that permit and revenues derived from
                such activities during the year.

                (f) FISHING.-Nothing in this section shall be considered to require a person to obtain a permit under this section
                for the conduct of any fishing activities in a national marine sanctuary.

                Sec. 311.. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, DONATIONS, AND ACQUISITIONS
                (a) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, GRANTS AND OTHER AGREENIENTS.-The Secretary may enter into
                cooperative agreements, financial agreements, grants, contracts, or other agreements with States, local -governments,
                regional agencies, interstate agencies, or other persons to carry out the purposes and policies of this iitle.

                (b) AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT DONATIONS.-The Secretary may enter into such agreements with any
                nonprofit organization authorizing the organization to solicit private donations to carry out the purposes and policies
                of this title.


                (c) DONAIIONS.-Tbe Secretary may accept donations of funds, property, and services for use in designating and
                administering national marine sanctuaries under this title. Donations accepted under this section shall be considered
                as a gift or bequest to or for the use of the United States.

                (d) ACQUISITIONS.-Ibe Secretary may acquire by purchase, lease, or exchange, any land, facilities, or other
                property necessary and approphate to carry out the purposes and policies of this title

                ,Sec. 312. DESTRUCTION OR LOSS OF, OR INJURY TO, SANCTUARY RESOURCES
                (a) LIABILITY FOR INTEREST.--@-
                         (1) Liability to United States.-Any person who destroys, causes the loss of, or injures any sanctuary
                         resource is liable to the United States for an amount equal'to the sum of-
                                   (A) the amount of response costs and damages resulting from the destruction, loss, or injury, and
                                   (B) interests on that amount calculated in the manner describedunder. section 1005 of the Oil
                                   Pollution Act of 1990.
                         (2) Liability In Rem.-Any vessel used to destroy, cause the loss Qf, or injure any sanctuary resource shall
                         be liable in rem to the United States for response costs and damages resulting from such destruction, loss,
                         or injury. The amount of that liability shall constitute a maritime lien on the vessel and maybe recovered
                         in an action in rem in the district court of the United States having jurisdiction over the vessel.
                         (3) Defenses,--A person is not liable under this subsection if that person establishes that-
                Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                             Page 339
                and Management Plan






                    Appendix B: National Marine Sanctuary Act                                           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                                 National Marine Sanctuary

                                      (A) the destruction or loss of, or injury to, the sanctuary resource was caused solely by an act of
                                      God, an act of war, or an act or omission of a third party, and the person acted with due care;
                                      (B) the destruction, loss, or injury was caused by an activity authorized by Federal or State law; or
                                      (C) the destruction, loss, or injury was negligible.
                             (4) Limits to Liability@- Nothing in sections 4281-4289 of the Revised Statutes of the United States or
                             section 3 of the Act of February. 13, 1893, shall limit the liability of any person- under this title.

                    (b) RESPONSE ACTIONS AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENT.-
                             (1) Response Actions.-The Secretary May undertake or authorize all necessary actions to prevent or
                             minimize the destruction or loss of, or injury to, sanctuary resources, or to minimize the imminent risk of
                             such destruction, loss, or injury.
                             (2) Damage Assessment.-The Secretary shall assess damages to sanctuary resources in accordance with
                             section 302(6).

                    (c) CIVIL ACTIONS FOR RESPONSE COSTS AND DAMAGES.-The Attorney General, upon request of the
                    Secretary, may commence a civil action in the United States district court for the appropriate district against any
                    person or vessel who may be liable under subsection (a) for response costs and damages. The Secretary, acting as
                    trustee for sanctuary resources for the United States, shall submit a request for such an action to the Attorney General
                    whenever a personmay be liable for such costs or damages.

                    (d) USE OF RECOVERED AMOUNTS.-Response costs and damages recovered by the Secretary under this section
                    shaI11 be retained by the Secretary in the manner provided for in section 107(f)(1) of the Comprehensive
                    Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9607(f)(1)), and used as follows:
                             (1) Response Costs And Damage Assessments.- Twenty percent of amounts recovered under this section,
                             up to a maximum balance of $750,000, shall be used to finance response actions and damage assessments
                             by the Secretary.
                             (2) Restoration, Replacement, Management, And Improvement.-Amounts remaining after the operation of
                             paragraph (1) shall be used. in order of priority-
                                      (A) to restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of the sanctuary resources which were the subject
                                      of the action;
                                      (B) to manage and improve the national marine sanctuary within which are located the sanctuary
                                      resources which were the subject of the action; and
                                      (C) to manage and improve any other national marine sanctuary.
                             (3) Federal-State Coordinatiom-Amounts recovered under this section with respect to sanctuary resources
                             lying within the jurisdiction of a State shall be used under paragraphs (2)(A) and (B) in accordance with the
                             court decree or settlement agreement and an agreement entered into by the Secretary and the Governor of that
                             State.


                    Sec., 313. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
                    There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this tide the following: (1) $12,000,000 for
                    fiscal year 1997; (2) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; and (3) $18,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.

                    Sec., 314. U.S.S.     MONITOR ARTIFACTS AND MATERIALS
                    (a) CON  GRESSIONAL POLICY. - in recognition of the historical significance of the wreck of the United States
                    ship Monitor to coastal North Carolina and to the, area off the coast -of North Carolina known as the Graveyard of the
                    Atlantic, the Congress directs that a suitable display of artifacts and materials from the United States ship Monitor
                    be maintained permanently at an appropriate site in coastal North Carolina. [P.L. 102-587 authorized a grant for the
                    acqtdsition of space in Hatteras Village, NC, for display of artifacts and administration and operations of the Monitor
                    National Marine Sanctuary.]

                       INTERPRETATION AND DISPLAY OF ARTIFACTS.-
                             (1) Submission Of Plan. - The Secretary shall, within six months after the date of the enactment of this
                             section, submit to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives a plan
                             for a suitable display in coastal North Carolina of artifacts and materials of the United States ship Monitor.
                    Page 340                                                                        Final Environmental Impact Statcritent
                                                                                                                     and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                    Appendix B: National Marine Sanctuary Act
              National Marine Sanctuary

                       (2) Contents Of Plan.-Ibe plan submitted under subsection (a) shall, at a minimum, contain-
                               (A) an identification of appropriate sites in coastal North Carolina, either existing or proposed, for
                               display of artifacts and materials of the United States ship Monitor;
                               (B) an identification of suitable artifacts and materials, including artifacts recovered or proposed for
                               recovery, for display in coastal North Carolina,
                               (C) an interpretive plan for the artifacts and materials which focuses on the sinking, discovery, and
                               subsequent management of the wreck of the United States ship Monitor, and
                               (D) a draft cooperative agreement with the State of North Carolina to implement the plan.

              (c) DISCLkH"R -This section shall not affect the following-
                       (1) Responsibilities Of Secretary.-The responsibilities of the, Secretary to provide for the protection,
                       conservation, and display of artifacts and materials from the United States ship Monitor.
                       (2) Authority Of Secretary.-The authority of the Secretary to designate the Mariner's Museum, located at
                       Newport News, Virginia, as the principal museum for coordination of activities referred to in paragraph (1).

              [NOTE: Section 4 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Preservation Act, Pub. L. 104-283, requires the Secretary to
              prepare a plan for the management, stabilization, preservation, and recovery of artifacts and materials of the U.S.S.
              Monitor.]

              Sec. 315. ADVISORY COUNCILS
              .(a) ESTABLISHMENT.-Ibe Secretary may establish one or more advisory councils (in this section referred to as
              an 'Advisory Council) to provide assistance to the Secretary regarding the designation and management of national
              marine sanctuaries. The Advisory Councils shall be exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

              (b) MEMBERSHIP.-Members of the Advisory Councils may be appointed from among-
                       (1) persons employed by Federal or State agencies with expertise in management of natural resources;
                       (2) members of relevant Regional Fishery Management Councils established under section 302 of the
                       Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and
                       (3) representatives of local user groups, conservation and other public interest organizations, scientific
                       organizations. educational organizations, or others interested in the protection and multiple use management
                       of sanctuary resources.

              (c) UNM ON MEMBERSHIP.-For sanctuaries designated after the date of enactment of the National Marine
              Sanctuaries Program Amendments Act of 1992, the membership of Advisory Councils shall be limited to no more
              than 15 members.

              (d) STAFFING AND ASSISTANCE.-Ibe Secretary may make available to an Advisory Council any staff,
              information, administrative services, or assistance the Secretary -determines am reasonably required to enable the
              Advisory Council to carry out its functions.

              (e) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND PROCEDURAL MATrERS.-Tbe following guidelines apply with respect
              to the conduct of business meetings of an Advisory Council:
                       (1) Each meeting shall be open to the public, and interested persons shall be permitted to present oral or
                       written statements on items on the agenda.
                       (2) Emergency meetings may be held at the call of the chairman or presiding officer.
                       (3) Timely notice of each meeting, including the time, place, and agenda of the meeting, shall be published
                       locally and in the Federal Register. except that in the case of a meeting of an Advisory Council established
                       to provide assistance regarding any individual national marine sanctuary the notice is not required to be'
                       published in the Federal Register.
                       (4) Minutes of each meeting shall be kept and 'contain a summary of the attendees and matters discussed.

              Sec. 316. ENHANCING SUPPORT FOR NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES
              (a) AUTHORITY.- The Secretary may establish a program consisting of--


              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                 Page 341
              and Management Plan







                    Appendix B: National Marine Sanctuary Act                                           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                                National Marine Sanctuary

                             (1) the creation, adoption, and publication in the Federal Register by the Secretary of a symbol for the
                             national marine sanctuary program, or for individual national marine sanctuaries;
                             (2) the solicitation of persons to be designated as official sponsors of the national marine sanctuary program
                             or of individual national marine sanctuaries;
                             (3) the designation of persons by the Secretary as official sponsors of the national marine sanctuary program
                             or of individual sanctuaries;
                             (4) the authorization by the Secretary of the usi of any symbol published under paragraph (1) by official
                             sponsors of the national marine sanctuary program or of individual national marine sanctuaries;
                             (5) the creation, marketing, and selling of products to promote the national marine sanctuary program, and
                             entering into exclusive or nonexclusive agreements authorizing entities to create, market or sell on the
                             Secretary's behalf,
                             (6) the solicitation and collection by the Secretary of monetary or in-kind contributions from official
                             sponsors for the manufacture, reproduction or use of the symbols published under paragraph (1);
                             (7) the retention of any monetary or in-kind contributions collected under paragraphs (5) and (6) by the
                             Secretary; and
                             (8) the expenditure and use of any monetary and in-kind contributions, without appro   priation, by the
                             Secretary to designate and manage national marine sanctuaries.

                    Monetary and in-kind contributions raised through the sale, marketing, or use of symbols and products related to an
                    indi vidual national manne sanctuary shall be used to support that sanctuary.

                    (b): CONTRACT AUTHORrrY.- The Secretary may contract with any person for the creation of symbols or the-
                    solicitation of official sponsors under subsection (a).

                    (c) RESTRICITONS.- The Secretary may restrict the use of the symbols published under subsection (a), and the
                    designation of official sponsors of the national marine sanctuary program or of individual national marine sanctuaries
                    to ensure compatibility with the goals of the national marine sanctuary program.

                    (d) PROPERTY OF UNITM STATE&- Any symbol which is adopted by the Secretary and published in the
                    Fedcaial Register under subsection (a) is deemed to be the property of die United States.

                    (e) PROHIBrI7ED ACrIVTnES.- It is unlawful for any person-
                             (1) designated as an official sponsor to influence or seek to influence any decision by the Secretary or any
                             other Federal official related to the designation or 'management of a national marine sanctuary, except to the
                             extent that a person who is not so designated may do so;
                             (2) to represent himself or herself to be an official sponsor absent a designation by the Secretary;
                             (3) to manufacture, reproduce, or use any symbol adopted by the Secretary absent designation as an official
                             sponsor and without payment of a monetary or in-kind contribution to the Secretary; and
                             (4) to violate any regulation promulgated by the Secretary under this section.















                    Page 342                                                                       Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                     and Management Plan






               Hawaiian Isiands Humpback Whale                                     Appendix B: National Marine Sanctuary Act
               National Marine Sanctuary

                                                          Oceans Act, of 1992

               Sections 2202 - 2307 of the Oceans Act of 1992, as amended by Pub. L. 104-283, contain provisions pertaining to
               National Marine Sanctuaries.


               Sec. 2202. STELLWAGEN BANK NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY


               (a) DESIGNATIOM-1he area described in subsection (b) is designated as the Stellwagen Bank National Marine
               Sanctuary (hereafter in this section re&rred to as the "Sanctuary").

               (b) AREA.-The Sanctuary shall consist of all submerged lands and waters, including living and nonliving marine
               resources within those waters, bounded by the area described as Boundary Alternative 3 in the Draft Environmental
               Impact Statement and Management Plan for the Proposed Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, published by
               the Department of Commerce in January 199 1, except that the western boundary shall be modified as follows:
                       (1) The southwestem comer of the Sanctuary shall be located at a point off Provincetown, Massachusetts, at
                       the following coordinates: 42 degrees, 7 minutes, 44.89 seconds (latitude), 70 degrees, 28 minutes, 15.44
                       seconds (longinide).
                       (2) The northwestern comer of the Sanctuary shall be located at a point off Cape Ann, Massachusetts, at the
                       following coordinates: 42 degrees, 37 minutes, 53.52 seconds (latitude), 70 degrees, 35 minutes, 52.38
                       seconds (longitude).

               (c) MANAGEMENT.-The Secretary of Commerce shall issue a management plan for the Sanctuary in-accordance
               with section 304 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1434), as amended by
               this title.


               (d) SAND AND GRAVEL MR41NG ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED.-Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
               exploration for. and mining of. sand and gravel and other minerals in the Sanctuary is prohibited.

               (e) CONSULTATION.-In accordance with the procedures established in section 304(d) of the Marine Protection,
               Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended by this tide, the appropriate Federal agencies shall consult with
               the Secretary on proposed agency actions in the vicinity of the Sanctuary that may affect sanctuary resources.

               M AUTHORIZATIONThere am authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for carrying out the
               purposes of this section $570,000 for fiscal year 1993 and $250,ObO for fiscal year 1994.

               (g) OFRCE@-The Secretary of Commerce shall consider establishing a satellite office for the Stellwagen Bank
               National Marine Sanctuary in Provincetown, Gloucester, or Hull, Massachusetts.

               (NOTE: Section I I of the National Marine Sanctuaries Preservation Act, Pub. L. 104-283, changed the name of
               this sanctuary to the. Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary.]

               Sec. 2203. MONTEREY BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

               (a) ISSUANCE OF DESIGNATION NOTICE.-Notwithstanding section 304(b) of the Marine Protection,
               Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1434(b)), the designation of the Monterey Bay National Marine
               20 Sanctuary (hereafter in this section the "Sanctuary"), as described in the notice of designation submitted. to the
               Congress on September 15, 1992, shall take effect on September 18, 1992.

               (b) OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED.-Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no leasing,
               exploration, development, or production of oil or gas shall be permitted within the Sanctuary as provided by section
               944.5 of the National Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan for the Monterey Bay National Marine
               Sanctuary, published by the Department of Commerce in June 1992.



               Final Enviro*nmental Impact Statement                                                                 Page 343
               and Management Plan






                    Appendix B: National Marine Sanctuary Act                                          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                                National Marine Sanctuary

                    (c),CONSULTATIO14.--Section 304(e) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as
                    amended by this tide, shall apply to the Sanctuary as designated by the Secretary of Commerce.

                    (d) 'VESSEL TRAFFIC@-Within 18 months after the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary of Commerce and
                    the Secretary of Transportation, in consultationwith the State of California and with adequate opportunity for public
                    comment@ shall report to Congres@s on measures for regul  ating vessel traffic in the Sanctuary if it is determined that
                    such measures are necessary to protect sanctuary re@sources.

                    Sec., 2209. FLOREDA KEYS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY,


                    (a) IMPLEMENTATION.-Section 8 of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act (16
                    U.S.C. 1433 note) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

                    (d) IMPLEMENTATIOK-
                             (1) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Governor of the State of Florida
                             shall implement the program required by this section, in cooperation with the Secretary of Commerce.
                             (2)(A) The Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall with the Governor of the
                             State of Florida establish a Steering Committee to set guidance and policy for the development and
                             implementation of such program. Membership shall include m7resentatives of the Environmental
                             Protection Agency, the National Park Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps
                             of Engineers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Florida Department of
                             Community Affairs, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, the South Florida Water
                             Management District. and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority; three individuals in local government in
                             the Florida Keys; and three citizens knowledgeable about such program.
                             (B) The Steering Committee shall, on a biennial basis, issue a report to Congress that-
                                       ,i) summarizes the progress of the program;
                                      (ii) summarizes any modifications to the program and its recommended actions and plans; and
                                      (iii) incorporates, specific recommendations concerrimig the implementation of the program.
                             (C) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Administrator of the National
                             Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall cooperate with the Florida Department of Environmental
                             Regulation to establish a Technical Advisory Committee to advise the Steering Committee and to assist in
                             the design and prioritization of programs for scientific research and monitoring. The Technical Advisory
                             Committee shall be composed of scientists from Federal agencies, State agencies, academic institutions,
                             private non-profit organizations, and knowledgeable citizens.
                             (3)(A) The Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shal      'I appoint a Florida Keys
                             Liaison Officer. The Liaison Officer, who shall be located within the State of Florida, shall have the
                             authority and staff to-
                                      (i) assist and support the implementation of the program required by this section, including
                                      administrative and technical support for the Steering Committee and Technical Advisory
                                      Committee;
                                      (ii) assist and support local, State, and Federal agencies in developing and implementing specific
                                      action plans designed to carry out such program;
                                      (iii) coordinate the actions of the Environmental Protection Agency with other Federal agencies,
                                      including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Park Service, and
                                      State and local authorities, in developing strategies to maintain, protect, and,improve water quality
                                      in the Florida Keys;
                                      (iv) collect and make available to the public publications, and other forms of information that the
                                      Steering Committee determines to be appropriate, related to the water quality in the vicinity of the
                                      Florida Keys; and
                                      (v) provide for public review and comment on the program and implementing actions.
                             (4)(A) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
                             $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1993, $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1994, and $4,000,000 for fiscal -year 1995, for
                             the purpose of carrying out this section.


                    @agv 344                                                                       Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                    and Management Plan






               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                    Appendix B: National Marine Sanctuary Act
               National Marine Sanctuary

                       (B) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce $300,000 for fiscal year 1993,
                       $400,000 for fiscal year 1994, and $500,000 for fiscal year 1995, for the purpose of enabling the National
                       Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out this section.
                       (C) Amounts appropriated under this paragraph shall remam available until expended.
                       M) No more than 15 percent of the amount authorized to be appropriated under subparagraph (A) for any
                       fiscal year may be expended in that fiscal year on admimstrative expenses.

               (b) TECHNICAL AN04DMENT.- Section 8(c) of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act
               (16 U.S.C. 1433 note) is amended by striking "paragraph (10" and inserting in lieu thereof "subsection(a)."


                                     Subtitle C Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Sanctuary

               Sec. 2301.1 SHORT TITLE

               This subtitle may be cited as the "Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act".

               [NOTE: This subtitle was amended by section 7 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Preservation Act, Pub. L.
               104-283. The full text of this Act can be found in Appendix C]
































               Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                  Page 345
               and Management Plan







                 Appendix B: National Marine Sanctuary Act                                 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                   National Marine Sanctuary


















                                             TM PAGE DrIMMONALLY LEFr BLANK.































                 Page: 346                                                             Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                       and Management Plan






                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                         Appendix C: Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act
                National Marine Sanctuary
                                                                  Appendix C

                    HA wmiAN IsuNw HumPBA cK Mum NA 77oNAL Kuum SANcTuAR Y A cT,
                            SuBnTLE C oF PuBuc LAW 102-587, AS AMUNDED By P.L. 104-283.

                Sec. 2301. Short Title.
                This subtitle may be cited as the "Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act".

                Sec. 2302. Findings.
                The Congress finds the following:
                          (1) Many of the diverse marine resources and ecosystems within the Western Pacific region are of national
                          significance and importance.
                          (2) There are at present no ocean areas in the Hawaiian Islands designated as national marine sanctuaries or
                          identified on the Department of Commerce's Site Evaluation List of sites to be investigated as potential
                          candidates for designation as a national marine sanctuary under tide III of die Marine Protection, Research,
                          and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.).
                          (3) The Hawaiian Islands consist of 8 major islands and 124 minor islands, with a total land area of 6,423
                          square miles and a general coastline of 750 miles.
                          (4) The marine environment adjacent to and between the Hawaiian Islands is a diverse and unique subtropical
                          marine ecosystem.
                          (5) The Department of Commerce recentlyconcluded in its Kahoolawe Island National Marine Sanctuary
                          Feasibility Study that there is preliminary evidence of biological, cultural, and historical resources adjacent
                          to Kahoolawe Island to merit further investigation for national marine sanctuary status.
                          (6) The Department of Commerce also concluded in its Kahoolawe Island National Marine Sanctuary
                          Feasibility Study that there are additional marine areas within the Hawaiian archipelago which merit further
                          consideration for national marine sanctuary status and that the national marine sanctuary program could
                          enhance marine resource protection in Hawaii.
                          (7) The Hawaiian stock of the endangered humpback whale, the largest of the three North Pacific stocks,
                          breed and calve within the waters of the main Hawaiian Islands.
                          (8) The marine areas surrounding the main Hawaiian Islands, which are essential breeding, calving, and
                          nursing areas for the endangered humpback whale, are subject to damage and loss of their ecological
                          integrity from a variety of disturbances.
                          (9) The Department of Commerce recently promulgated a humpback whale recovery plan which sets out a
                          series of recommended -goals and actions in order to increase the abundance of the endangered humpback
                          whale.
                          (10) An announcement of certain Hawaiian waters frequented by humpback whales as an active candidate for
                          marine sanctuary designation was published in the Federal Register on March 17, 1982 (47 FR 11544).
                          (11) Ile existing State and Federal regulatory and management programs applicable to the waters of the
                          main Hawaiian Islands are inadequate to provide the kind of comprehensive and coordinated conservation and
                               gement of humpback whales and their habitat that is available under tide III of the Marine Protection,
                          Research. and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.).
                          (12) Authority is needed for comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management of humpback
                          whales and their habitat that will complement existing Federal and State regulatory authorities.
                          (13) There is a need to support, promote, and coordinate scientific research on, and monitoring of, that
                          portion of the marine environment essential to the survival of the humpback whale.
                          (14) Public education, awareness, understanding, appreciation, and wise use of the marine environment are
                          fundamental to the protection and conservation of the humpback whale.
                          (15) The designation, as a national marine sanctuary, of the areas of the marine environment adjacent to the
                          main Hawaiian Islands which are essential to the continued recovery of the humpback whale is necessary for
                          the preservation and protection of this important national marine resource.
                          (16) The marine sanctuary designated for the conservation and management of humpback whales could be
                          expanded to include other marine resources of national significance which are determined to exist within the


                Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                             Page 347
                and Management Plan






                  Appendix C: Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act                 Hawaiian Islands Hump 'back Whale
                                                                                                     National Marine Sanctuary


                          sanctuary.


                  See. 2303. Definitions.
                  In this subtitle, the following definitions apply:
                          (1) 1"m term "adverw impace' means an impact that independently or cumulatively damages, diminishes,
                          degrades, impairs, destroys, or otherwise harnis.
                          (2) The term "Sanctuary" means. the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary
                          designated under section 2305.
                          (3) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Commerce.

                  Sec.. 2304. Policy And Purposes.
                  (a) POLICY.-It is the policy of the United States to protect and preserve humpback whales and their habitat within
                  the Hawaiian Islands marine environment.


                  (b) PURPOSES.-The purposes of this subtitle arc
                          (1) to protect humpback whales and their habitat in the area described in section 2305(b);
                          (2) to educate and interpret for the public the relationship of humpback whales to the Hawaiian Islands
                          marine environment;
                          (3) to manage such human uses of the Sanctuary consistent with this subtitle and tide M of the Marine
                          Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. as amended by-this Act; and
                          (4) to provide for the identification of marine resources and ecosystems of national significance for possible
                          inclusion in the sanctuary designated in section 2305(a).

                  Sec. 230S. Designation Of Sanctuary.
                  (a) DESIGNATION.-Subject to subsection (c), the area described in subsection (b)(1) and any area included under
                  subsection (b)(2) are designated as the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary under tide III
                  of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), as amended by this tide.

                  (b) @UtEA INCLUDED.-
                          (1) Subject to subsections (c) and (d), the area referred to in subsection (a) consists of the submerged lands
                          and waters off the coast of the Hawaiian islands seaward of the upper reaches of the wash of the waves on
                          shore-
                                  (A) to the 100-fathom (183-meter) isobath adjoining the islands of Lanai, Maui, and Molokai,
                                  including Penguin Bank but excluding the area within 3 nautidal miles of the upper r6aches of the
                                  waves on the shore of Kahoolawe Island,
                                  (B) to the deep water area of Pailolo Channel from Cape Halawa, Molokai, to Nakalele Point,
                                  Maui, and southward; and
                                  (C) to the 100-fathom (183-meter) isobath adjoining the Kilauea National Wildlife Refuge on the
                                  island of Kauai.
                          (2) (A) Virithin 6 months after the date of receipt of a request in writing from the Kahoolawe Island Reserve
                          Commission for inclusion widiin the Sanctuary of the area of the marine environment within 3 nautical
                          miles of the mean high tide line of Kahoolawe Island (in this section referred to as the 'Kahoolawe Island
                          waters'), the Secretary shall determine whether those. waters may be suitable for inclusion in the Sanctuary.
                                  (B) If the Secretary deWmines under subparagraph (A) that the Kahoolawe Island waters may be
                          suitable for inclusion within the Sanctuary -
                                          (i) the Secretary shall provide notice of that determination to the Govemor of Hawaii; and
                                          (ii) the Secretary shall prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement,
                                          management plan. and implementing regulations for that inclusion in accordance with
                                          this Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and the National Environmental Policy
                                          Act of 1969.
                          (3) The Secretary shall generally identify and depict the Sanctuary on National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                          Administration charts. Those charts shall be maintained on file and kept available for public examination
                          during regular business hours at the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management of the National
                          Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration. The Secretary shall update the charts to reflect any boundary
                  Page 348                                                               Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                         and Management Plan






               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                       Appendix C: Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act
               National Marine Sanctuary

                        modification under subsection (d), and any additional designation under paragraph (2) of this subsection.

               (c) EFFECT OF OBJECTION BY GOVERNOR.-
                        (1)(A) If, within 45 days after the date of issuance of the comprehensive' management plan and
                        implementing regulations under section 2306, the Governor of Hawaii certifies to the Secretary that the
                        management plan, the implementing regulations, or any term of the plan or regulations is unacceptable, the
                        management plan, regulation, or tem respectively, shall not take effect in the area of the Sanctuary lying
                        within the seaward boundary of the State of Hawaii.
                        (B) If the Secretary considers that an action under subparagraph (A) will affect the Sanctuary in such a
                        manner that the policy or purposes of this title cannot be fulfilled, the Secretary may terminate the
                        designation under subsection (a). At least 30 days before that termination, the Secretary shall submit written
                        .notice of the termination to the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and the
                        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate.
                        (2)(A) If, within 45 days after the Secretary issues the documents required under subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii), the
                        Governor of Hawaii certifies to the Secretary that the inclusion of the Kaboolawe Island waters in the
                        Sanctuary or any term of that inclusion is unacceptable--
                                 (i) the inclusion or the term shall not take effect; and
                                 (ii) subsection (b)(2) shall not apply during the 3-year period beginning on the date of that
                                 certification.
                        (B) If the Secretary considers that an action under subparagraph (A) regarding a term of the inclusion of the
                        Kaboolawe Island waters will affect the inclusion or the administration of the Kaboolawe Island waters as
                        part of the Sanctuary in such a manner that the policy or purposes of this title cannot be fulfilled, the
                        Secretary may terminate that inclusion.

               (d) BOUNDARY MODIFICATIONS.-No later than the date of issuance of the draft environmental impact
               statement for the Sanctuary under section 304(a)(1)(C)(vii) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
               of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1434(a)(1)(C)(vii)), the Secretary, in consultation with the Governor of Hawaii, if appropriate,
               may make modifications to the boundaries of the Sanctuary as necessary to fulfill the purposes of this subtitle. The
               Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the
               Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives a written notification of such
               modifications.


               Sec. 2306. Comprehensive Management Plan.
               (a) PREPARATION OF PLAN.-The Secretary, in consultation with interested persons and appropriate federal, State,
               and local government authorities, shall develop and issue not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this
               tide a comprehensive management plan and implementing regulations to achieve the policy and purposes of this
               subtitle. In developing the plan and regulations, the Secretary shall follow the procedures specified in sections 303 and
               304 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1433 and 1434), as amended by this
               title. Such comprehensive management plan shall-
                        (1) facilitate all public and privatevses of the Sanctuary (including uses of Hawaiian natives customarily and
                        traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, and religious purposes) consistent with the primary objective
                        of the protection of humpback whales and their habitat;
                        (2) set forth the allocation of Federal and State enforcement responsibilities, as jointly agreed by the Secretary
                        and the State of Hawaii;
                        (3) identify research needs and establish a long-term ecological monitoring program with respect to humpback
                        whales and thew habitat;
                        (4) identify alternative sources of funding needed to fidly implement the plan's provisions and supplement
                        appropriations under section 2307 of this Subtitle and section 313 of the Marine Protection, Research, and
                        Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1444);
                        (5) ensure coordination and cooperation between Sanctuary managers and other Federal, State, and local
                        authorities with jurisdiction within or adjacent to the Sanctuary; and
                        (6) promote education among users of the Sanctuary and the general public about conservation of humpback
                        whales, their habitat, and other marine resources.


               Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                         Page 349
               and Management Plan







                 Appendix C: Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                              National Marine Sanctuary

                 (b) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.-Ibe Secretary shall provide for participation by the general public in development of
                 the comprehensive management plan or any amendment thereto.

                 See. 2307. Limitation on User Fees.
                 (a) Limitation: 11e Secretary shall not institute any user fee under this Act or the National Marine Sanctuanes Act
                 for any activity within the Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary or any use of the Sanctuary or its resources.

                 (b) User Fee Defined: In this section, the term 'user fee' does not include-
                         (1) any fee authodzed by section 310 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act;
                         (2) any gift or donation received under section 311 of that Act; and
                         (3) any monetary or in-kind contributions under section 316 of that Act.

                 Sec. 2308. Authorization of Appropriations.
                 For, carrying out this subtitle, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $500,000 for fiscal year 1993 and
                 $300,000 for fiscal year 1994. Of the amounts appropriated under this section for fiscal year 1993-
                         (1) not less than $50,,000 shall be used by the Western Pacific Regional Team to evaluate potential national
                         marine sanctuary sites for inclusion-on the Department of Commerce's Site Evaluation List; and
                         (2) not less than $50,000 shall be used to continue the investigation of biological, cultural, and historical
                         resources adjacent to Kaboolawe Island.


































                 Page 350                                                          Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                           Appendix D: Sanctuary Advisory Council Charter
              National Marine Sanctuary

                                                        Appendix D

                      HAWAIIAN ISLANDS HUMPBACK WHALE NATIONAL MARINE
                                  SANCTUARY ADVISORY COUNCIL CHARTER

                                                      INTRODUCTION- -

              The mission of the National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) is to manage ocean, coastal and
              Great Lakes areas of special national, and sometimes intemational, significance to protect their
              ecological and cultural integrity, for the benefit of current and future generations. As the principal
              steward of coastal and ocean resources, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
              (NOAA) Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD) manages national marine sanctuaries using
              ecologically sound principles of resource conservation; develops and implements stewardship,
              education and research programs that foster public understanding, support, and participation; and
              promotes the ecologically sustainable use of the Nation's natural and cultural marine resources.
              The NMSP provides leadership and acts as a catalyst to link the assets and resources of
              governmental and non-goverrunental organizations to focus people's attention on the need to
              effectively and efficiently manage and protect marine resources.

              The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (the Sanctuary) was
              designated by an Act of Congress (Title II, Subtitle C, Public Law 102-587, Hawaiian Islands
              National Marine Sanctuary Act or Act) to recognize the importance of Hawaii's nearshore waters
              which serve as the winter breeding, calving and nursing habitat essential to the long-term survival
              and recovery of the North Pacific stock of the endangered humpback whale (Megaptera
              novaeangeliae'). The Sanctuary, working in partnership with the State of Hawaii, its govemments
              and citizens, will function to provide the protection needed to ensure that the whales and their
              habitat are safe from harm and harassment 'while continuing to meet the needs of marine users of an
              insular state. The Sanctuary is of national and intemational significance and the NOAA will
              exercise its stewardship role with all affected interests in a manner which ensures the continuing
              needs of the humpback whale and coastal and marine resource users. To this end, it is incumbent
              on NOAA to solicit the valuable input of these many diverse interests through the establishment of
              the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, pursuant to
              Section 315 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), 16 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1445a.

              The Act established the Sanctuary for the following purposes:

              (1)     to protect the North Pacific population of Humpback Whales and their habitat within the
                      Sanctuary;
              (2)     to educate and interpret for the public the relationship of Humpback Whales to the
                      Hawaiian Islands marine environment;
              (3)     to manage human uses of the Sanctuary consistent with the Act and the NMSA, as
                      amended; and
              (4)     to provide for the identification of marine resources and ecosystems of national significance
                      for possible inclusion in the Sanctuary.

              As identified by the Act, the comprehensive management plan for the Sanctuary shall:
              (1)     facilitate all public and private uses of the Sanctuary (including uses of Hawaiian natives
                      customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, and religious purposes)
                      consistent with the primary objective of the protection of humpback whales and their
                      habitat;
              (2)     set forth the allocation of Federal and State enforcement responsibilities, as jointly agreed
                      by the Secretary and the State of Hawaii;

              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                          Page 351
              and Management Plan






                 Appendix D: Sanctuary Advisory Council Charter                       Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                             National Marine Sanctuary

                 (3)    identify research needs and establish a long-term ecological monitoring program with
                    -   respect to humpback whales and their habitat;
                 (4)    identify alternative sources of funding needed to ftilly implement the plan's provisions and
                        supplement appropriations under section 2307 of this subtitle and section 313 of the NMSA
                        (16 U.S.C. ï¿½1444);
                 (5)    ensure. coordination and cooperation between Sanctuary managers and other Federal, State,
                        and local authorities with jurisdiction within or adjacent to the Sanctuary; and
                 (6)    promote education among users of the Sanctuary and the general public about conservation
                        of humpback whales, their habitat, and other marine resources.


                                                       ESTABLISHMENT

                 Under Section 315 of the NMSA, 16 U.S.C.ï¿½ 1445a, the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to
                 esuiblish Sanctuary advisory councils to provide assistance to the Secretary regarding the
                 -designation and management of national marine sanctuaries. The Director of the Office of Ocean
                 and. Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, NOAA, hereby establishes the
                 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council ("Council").


                                                 OBJECTIVES AND DUTIES

                 1 .    The Council, in accordance with the Act, shall provide advice and recommendations to
                        SRD, through the Sanctuary Manager' regarding the management of the Hawaiian Islands
                        Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary ("Sanctuary").
                .2.     The Council shall act solely, as an advisory body. Nothing in this Charter constitutes
                        authority to perform operational or management functions, or to represent or make
                        decisions on behalf of the Sanctuary or NOAA.
                 3.     The Council shall draw on- the expertise of Its members and other sources in order to
                        provide advice and recommendations.
                 4.     The Council may serve as a forum for consultation and deliberation among its members and
                        as a source of advice to the Sanctuary Manager. Such advice shall fairly represent the
                        collective and individual -views of the Council members.



                                                   MEMBERS AND CHAIRS
                 The Council shall consist of no more than twenty-&e (25) voting members who shall be appointed
                 by -the Director, after consultation with the Office of the Governor, from among persons employed
                 byFederal, State or Local government agencies with expertise in management of natural resources,
                 members of the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, representatives of native Hawaiian
                 groups, local user groups, representatives from adjacent counties, conservation and other public
                 interest organizations, scientific and educational organizations, and members of the public
                 interested in the protection and multiple use management of Sanctuary resources. The membership
                 is designed to be balanced in terms of interests represented, geographic representation, and
                 advisory functions the Council will perform.

                 There are two categories of seats for which voting members are appointed:





                  T1.e NOAA on-site liaison will serve in place of the Sanctuary Manager until such a position is created and filled.

                 Page 352                                                          Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan






               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                 Appendix D: Sanctuary Advisory Council Charter
               National Marine Sanctuary

               1. Government (10 members):

               By virtue of the shared functional responsibilities. of Federal and State jurisdictions in the
               implementation of Sanctuary-related management, each of the following government entities shall
               be requested to, designate one individual to serve on the Council. (Of the numerous responsibilities
               encompassed within each entity, the specific functional area of expertise needing representation is
               identified in parenthesis):

                       State of Hawaii (6):        State Planning (marine and coastal coordination and planning);
               Department of Health (water quality management & monitoring); Department of Land and Natural
               Resources (aquatic resources, marine conservation areas, boating, enforcement); Department of
               Business, Economic Development and Tourism (marine recreation, development & tourism);
               Kahoolawe Island Reserve Commission (resource management on and around. Kahoolawe);
               Department of Education (marine education).

                       Federal (4): U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (water quality, dredge disposal & alteration of
               seabed); U.S. Coast Guard (oil spills, enforcement); National Marine Fisheries Service (protected
               species, enforcement); Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council (fisheries
               management).

               2. Non-government (15 members):

               A representative of each of the following interest groups or activities, which are integrally affected
               by the management goals of the Sanctuary, will be selected: County-specific representativeS2                  (4);
               native Hawaiian (1); research (1); education (1); conservation (1); whale watching (1);
               business/commerce (1); ocean recreation (1); fishing (1); tourism (1); citizen-at-large (2).

               NOTE. NOAA recognizes that a of the non-government userlinterest groups are comprised of
               many different individuals and organizations, each representing specific interests. The selected
               representative of each group will be encouraged to make concerted efforts to identify, contact and
               coordinate with all the diverse organz    .zations and individuals comprising the respective group.


                                                    SELECTION PROCEDURES

               The following procedures shall govern the application, nomination and appointment of Council
               voting members.

               (1) Initial Selection:

               (a) Applications: To be considered for one of the 15 non-governmental seats on the                      Council,
               interested individuals must submit a completed application to the Sanctuary Manager indicating
               their particular interest, qualifications, and experience.
               (b) Panel Selection: In seeking to ensure that the af6rementioned user groups and activities have a
               voice on the Council and that a balance in interests and geographic representation is realized, a
               candidate Selection Panel (P@mel) will be formed using the recommendations from members of the
               State-administered Sanctuary Working Group (SWG). To assure balanced representation, two

               2 County-specific representatives: Each of the four counties (Kauai, Honolulu, Maui, and Hawaii) will have a non-
               governmental individual to represent the concerns of that county. This individual will establish a county-specific
               working group and coordinate and consolidate the various views and concerns of the citizens of that particular county
               and present them to the Council. The county groups shall include the County governments and involve the expertise
               of the individual county Coastal Zone Managers.

               Final Environmental impact Statement                                                                    Page 353
               and Management Plan






                 Appendix D: Sanctuary Advisory Council Charter                         Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                National Marine Sanctuary

                 panel members will be SWG government representative's and two will be SWG private-sector
                 representatives. The fifth panel  'member will be the SWG member who receives the next highest
                 number of total votes. In the event that an elected member chooses not to serve on the selection
                 panel, the person with the next highest humber of votes in that category (government or non-
                 government) will be asked to serve. Once selected, panel members may-not substitute other
                 persons in their place.

                 All applications sent to the Sanctuary Manager will be forwarded to the Selection Panel, which will
                 evaluate the applicants and submit to the Sanctuary Manager a list identifying three candidates for
                 each of the 13 non-government special interest and county-specific seats (39 total). All remaining
                 candidates will be considered for the two citizen-at-large seats. SWG members who serve on the
                 Panel are eligible to be considered as one of the three candidates for selection -on the new Council if
                 the,
                    y submit an application and are selected by the Panel. However, that Panel member may not
                 vote on his or her own application.

                 (c).Final Candidate Selection: Final selection of the 13 non-government special interest and county-
                 specific Council members will be made from the candidate Selection Panel list (3 names for each-
                 seat) by the Sanctuary Manager and the Office of State Planning (OSP) with the concurrence of
                 SR.D. The Sanctuary Manager and OSP, with the concurrence with SRI), will also choose the two -
                 citizen-at-large seats from among those two out of three candidates that were not selected for the
                 special interest and county-specific seats, as well as those candidates that applied for citizen-at-
                 large seats. Final approval of all Council members is by the Director of the Office of Ocean and
                 Coastal Resource Management.
                 The non-governmental members will be appointed for a term of two years and may be reappointed.
                 During the initial term, however, SAC membership may change based upon the, final Sanctuary
                 boundary as reflected in the approved Final Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan
                 (FEIS/MP) for the Sanctuary. If necessary, terms of appointment may be changed to provide for
                 balanced (staggered) expiration dates or to better reflect the final boundary as detailed in the
                 FEIS/MP. Vacancy appointments are for the remainder'of the unexpired term of the vacancy.
                 GoVemmental members serve at the discretion of their agency or entity and do not have a term


                 (2) Subsequent Up-ointments:

                 The! candidate Selection Panel will be terminated after the initial round of selections.            For
                 subsequent appointments, public notice shall be provided as to the vacancy of non-goverrunental
                 Council seat(s). Interested candidates will be required to submit written applications stating their
                 particular interest, qualifications, and experience. Guidelines for applying will be supplied at the
                 appropriate time. Applications for all vacant Council seats will be submitted directly to the
                 Sanctuary Manager.

                 Copies of all applications for each seat win be submitted by the Sanctuary Manager to the Council,
                 which will act as the preliminary- reviewing body for screening applications for evaluation. The
                 Council will recorhmend three candidates for each seat (if three are available) and subrrdt the names
                 to the Sanctuary Manager. Any Council member that has a conflict of interest (financial, personal,
                 self nomination,- etc.) shall excuse him/herself from making a selection        'for the vacant seat.
                 Selection from among those recommended by the Council, or from among other applicants, will be
                 made by the Sanctuary Manager, in. close consultation with the Governor's Office, with the
                 concurrence of the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, and final -approval by the Director of the
                 Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management.




                 Page 354                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                    and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                         Appendix D: Sanctuary Advisory Council Charter
             National Marine Sanctuary

             (3) Council Officers:

             The Council shall elect one member to serve as Chair, one member to serve as Vice-Chair, and one
             member to serve as Secretary. Election for all positions is by majority vote o        'f all Council
             members. Members who will not be present at the time of the election may submit their vote in
             writing to the Sanctuary Manager prior to the meeting.

             The term of all officers (Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary) is one 'year. The Chair and Vice-Chair
             may pot serve consecutive terms.

             The Chair shall preside over meetings of the Council and shall, along with the Sanctuary Manager,
             approve the location, times, and agendas of the meetings. The Vice Chair shall act as the* Chair in
             the absence of the Chair. The Secretary shall be responsible for taking the official attendance at
             each SAC meeting; working with Sanctuary staff in taking and distributing minutes of each SAC
             meeting; recording official votes, as necessary; and working with Sanctuary staff to prepare a
             yearly report of the Council's activities to be submitted to the Sanctuary Manager.

             (4) Removal from Council:

             The Director may remove a non-governmental member of the Council if it is found that the member
             has violated one or more terms of this Charter. The Director may consult with the Council prior to
             taking such an action. If a Council member fails to. attend three consecutive meetings, he or she
             will be removed from the Council and the seat opened for nominations for a new representative.

             If a government agency willingly decides to no longer participate as a member of the Council, has
             violated one or more terms of t  'his Charter, fails to attend three consecutive meetings and/or-is
             removed by the Director, the Sanctuary Manager will invite another appropriate agency to replace
             that agency on the Council.


                                           SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES

             1 .     Resource protection: The Council may advise the Sanctuary Manager on the effectiveness
             of interagency agreements, permit review and coordination, and on the* effectiveness of the
             Sanctuary regulations in providing adequate resource protection.

             2.      Research: The Council may advise the Sanctuary Manager on priority            research and
             monitoring needs, proposals, and reports.

             3.      Education: The Council may advise the Sanctuary Manager on enhancing public
             awareness, understanding, and wise use of the marine environment and on the development of an
             informed constituency.

             4.      General Administration: The Council may advise, at the request of the Sanctuary Manager,
             on proposal(s) for activities within the Sanctuary, and on proposals for activities outside of, but
             affecting, the Sanctuary. It may also include advice on planning for the use, development, and
             maintenance of Sanctuary lands and buildings and equipment.
             5.      Program Modifications: The Council's advice will be sought in the process to identify
             other resources of national significance which may be considered for future inclusion in the
             Sanctuary; the review of any new regulations or modification of existing regulations developed
             pursuant thereto or for any other purpose based on new findings or future needs; the review of
             issues relating to boundary changes including the waters off the Island of Kahoolawe; and for
             necessary modifications to the management plan.

             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                       Page 355
             and Management Plan






                  Appendix D: Sanctuary Advisory Council Charter                            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                    National Marine Sanctuary



                                                          ADMINISTRATION

                  1. Members of the Council shall serve without pay except that each member receives travel
                  expenses including per them in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of
                  Title 5. U.S.C., for travel to and from official Council meetings. Travel expenses for government
                  members of the Council may be provided by their own agencies.
                  2. The Sanctuary'Manager may make available such staff, information, administrative services, or
                  assistance as the Sanctuary Manager determines are reasonably required to enable the Council and
                  its subcommittees and working groups to cai-ry out their functions.


                                                               OPERATION

                  L Conduct of Individual Members:

                  (a) No Council member may use or allow the use of,        for other than official purposes, information
                  obtained through or in connection with his or her         Council affiliation that has not been made
                  available to the general public.

                  (b) No, Council member may represent himself             or herself as a Council member to make
                  recommendations, express opinions, or otherwise speak on a matter of the HIHWNMS without
                  Council and Sanctuary Manager approval.

                  (c) Any Council member that has a conflict of interest (financial, personal, professional,         etc.) in
                  an), matter before the Council or its subcommittees or working groups shall recuse himself or
                  herself from any action on that matter including discussion and voting., actions.

                  (d) If any Council member's participation in any matter before the Council or its subcommittees or
                  Working groups creates the appearance of impropriety, that Council member shall recuse himself or
                  herself from any action on that matter including discussion and voting actions.

                  2. Conduct of the Council as a Body:

                  All communications that are intended to speak for the Council as a body must be coordinated with,
                  and approved by, the Chair. All communications must pertain to Sanctuary business.

                  3_.Council Letterhead:

                  The Council shall, with the assistance and approval of the Sanctuary Manager, design and use its
                  own letterhead that contains the following disclairner- "The Council is solely an advisory body.
                  These opinions and findings do not necessarily reflect the position of the Hawaiian Islands
                  Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                  Ad-ministration." All correspondence from the Chair or other members of the Council, or the
                  Council as a body, shall be upon this letterhead.
                  I-Subcommittees and Working Groups:

                  (a) Subcommittees: The Council may establish such subcommittees as necessary to fulfill its
                  duties. Subcommittees will be composed solely of members of the Council and will be recognized
                  as official subunits of the Council. Subcommittees are subject to the requirements of this Charter.
                  (b) Working Groups: Working groups may be established by the Council with the appr             oval of the

                  Page 356                                                               Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                        and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                          Appendix D: Sanctuary Advisory Council Charter
             National Marine Sanctuary

             Sanctuary Manager for general purposes such as research and education, or for specific purposes
             or topics that-need more focused attention that cannot be accomplished by a subcommittee (e.g'.,
             County.-specific representation). Working groups are composed of members of the Council and
             persons outside the Council. Individuals with an interest or expertise in the subject area or issue to
             be focused on by a working group may bea member of the working group. Working groups shall
             be chaired by a member of the Council and will function under the purview of the Council.
             Working groups established by the Council to address short-terni specific issues shall disband
             once the final recommendation on the particular matter is submitted to the Council. Working
             groups shall provide a general report to the Chair of the status of requested recommendations at
             each meeting of the Council. Working groups will provide their recommendations to the Sanctuary
             Manager and staff and the Council only. Any working group member that has a conflict of interest
             (financial, personal, professional, etc.) in any matter before the working group shall rectise himself
             or herself from any action on that matter including discussion and voting actions.

             5. - Altemato: An alternate (from the same government entity) of a government Council member
             may attend a Council meeting on occasion if the Chair of the Council is notified in advance of any
             meeting at which an alternate will represent the Council member, including the name, address,, and
             position of the individual designated. An alternate may not name another alternate. Alternates may
             not be appointed for non-governmental seats.

             6. Role of the Sanctuary Manage : The Sanctuary Manager sits as a non-voting member of the
             Council, approves each meeting,.and approves the agenda as well as potential presentations for
             each meeting. No meetings may be conducted in the absence of the Manager or his/her designee.

             7. -Meetin2s:.'
             (a) Meetings are held at the call of the Chair, with the approval of the Sanctuary Manager:

             (b) Decisions and recommendations made by the Council are advisory only, and shall be made by
             majority vote of those present. A vote may only occur if a quorum of members are present. For
             the purposes of this Council the quorum is considered to be two-thirds, or seventeen, of its
             members. A recorded vote may be, requested by the Chair or the Sanctuary Manager,

             (c) Each meeting shall be open to the public.

             (d) Members of the public shall be permitted the opportunity to present oral or written statements
             pertaining to agenda items.

             (e) Emergency meetings may be held at the call of the Chair, with the approval of the Sanctuary
             Manager.

             (f) Timely notice of each meeting, including the time, place, and agenda of each meeting, shall be
             published in at least one local newspaper of general circulation within the vicinity of the Sanctuary
             and in the Federal Register, and additional notice may be given by such other means as will result
             in appropriate public notice to interested groups.

             (g) The Council shall meet as frequently as necessary, not to exceed once per month, but at least
             once every six months. The Council meeting place shall be chosen to accommodate anticipated
             public attendance and to be reasonably accessible to those interested in attending.

             (h) Minutes of each meeting shall be prepared by Sanctuary staff and retained by the Council
             Secretary and contain a summary of attendees and matters discussed; such minutes shall be
             available to the public.

             W A yearly report shall be prepared by Sanctuary staff in cooperation with the Council Secretary,

             Final Environmental impact Statement                                                          Page 357
             and Management Plan






                 Appendix-1): Sanctuary Advisory Council Charter                        Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                               National Marine Sanctuary

                 sunimarizing issues addressed and actions taken. during the previous year.

                 8. Procedures for Providing Advice: The following procedures shall be used to provide advice:

                 (a) Requests for information, -assistance, or advice from the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division,
                 other NOAA offices, or other agencies shall be -made in writing and will be coordinated through,
                 and approved by, the Sanctuary Manager.

                 (b) The Council acts under the auspices of the Director of the Office of Ocean and Coastal
                 Resource Management. Any matters that the Council would like to raise independently must be
                 approved by the Sanctuary Manager prior to doing so.

                 (c) The Council shall provide advice directly to the Sanctuary Manager via a formal written
                 recommendation. Draft recommendations and verbal discussions will not be considered official
                 advice from the Council, but may be considered as background information.

                 (d) The Council may base their recommendations on a vote of the Council with negative votes and
                 abstentions noted, or on a general consensus reached during discussions, with minority opinions
                 and views noted.

                 (e) Any information or recommendations resulting from discussions in subconunittees or working
                 groups must be presented to and approved by the full Council prior to being submitted to the
                 Sanctuary Manager.


                                                  TERMS OF THE CHARTER

                 1 .     The Council shall operate pursuant to the terms of this Charter:

                 2.      This Charter shall remain in effect for a period of five years from the date of the Director's
                         signature.

                 3.      Six ronths prior to the expiration of this Charter, the need for the Council will be evaluated
                         by the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division to determine whether to renew the Charter.

                 4.      Revisions to the Charter may be made as determined necessary by the Sanctuaries and
                         Reserves Division.





                 Ori'ginal signed by J. Benoit on 215196

                 Jeffrey R. Benoit                                              Date
                 Director
                 Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management





                 Page @58                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                   and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                        Appendix 15: Sanctuary Advisory Council Charter
              National Marine Sanctuary

                   HAWAIIAN ISLANDS HUMPBACK VAiALE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
                                            ADVISORY COUNCIL CHARTER

                                                    AMENDMENT #1

              The following revisions are made to the Charter as signed on February 5, 1996:

              MEMBERS AND CHAIRS (page 3) is revised to read as follows:

                 The Council shall consist of no more than twenty-four (24) voting members and one (1)
                 non-voting member (the National Marine Fisheries Service) who shall be appointed by the,
                 Director, after consultation with the Office of the Governor, from among persons employed
                 by Federal, State, or county government agencies with expertise in management of natural
                 resources, members of the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, representatives
                 of Native Hawaiian groups, local user groups, representatives from adjacent counties, -
                 conservation and other public interest organizations, scientific and educational
                 organizations, and members of the general public interested in the protection and multiple
                 use nianagement of Sanctuary resources. The membership is designed to'be balanced in.
                 terms of interests represented, geographic representation, and advisory functions the
                 Council will perform.
              SELECTION PROCEDURES, (4) Removal from Council (page 6): the first paragrap'h is revised
              to read as follows:

                 The Director may remove a non-governmental member of the Council if it is found that the
                 member has violated one -or more terms of this Charter. The Director may consult with the
                 Council prior to taking such an action. If a Council member. fails to attend three consecutive
                 meetings, he or she will be removed from the Council and the- seat opened for nominations for
                 a new representative. Until such time that the Final Environmental Impact Statement and
                 Management Plan (FEIS/MP) is approved by the Governor of Hawaii and the Secretary of
                 Commerce, the requirement to attend three consecutive meetings will be waived. However,
                 persons should contact the SAC Chair or the Sanctuary Manager at least 24 hours prior to the
                 scheduled meeting for which they are unable to attend.

              OPERATION, 7. Meetin25 (page 10): paragraph (g) is revised to read as follows:

                 (g) Until such time that the FEIS/MP is approved by the Governor of Hawaii and the Secretary
                 of Commerce, the Council shall meet as frequently as deemed necessary by the Sanctuary
                 Manager and the Chair. After the approval of the FEIS/MP the Council shall meet as
                 frequently as necessary, not to exceed once per month, but at least once every six months. The
                 Council meeting place shall be chosen to accommodate anticipated public attendance and to be
                 reasonably accessible to those interested in attending.


              Except as herein amended, modified, or changed, all other terms of the Charter will remain in full
              force and effect.



              Original signed by J. Benoit on 4111196

              Jeffrey R. Benoit                                           Date
              Director
              Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

              Final Environmental impact Statement                                                      Page 359
              and Management Plan






                  Appendix D: Sanctuary Advisory Council Charter                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                             National Marine Sanctuary

                                              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                   National Marine Sanctuary
                                                Advisory Council Membership


                  Mr. Allen Tom                                        Mr. Jim McCallum
                  N0AA-SRD Hawaii Liaison                              National Marine Fisheries Service
                  (non-voting)                                         (non-voting)

                  Itate and Federal Representatives:

                  Mr. Rick Egged                                       Mr. Francis Oishi
                  Director, Office of Planning                         Department of Land and Natural Resources

                  Dr. Craig McDonald                                   Ms. June Harrigan
                  Department of Business,                              Department of Health,
                  &onomic Development and Tourism                      Environmental Planning Office

                  Mr. Marc Hodges                                      Mr. Glenn Soma
                  Ka.hoolawe Island Reserve Commission                 Department of Transportation
                  Mr. William Lennan                                   Lt. Michael Neininger
                  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers                         14th Coast Guard District

                  Mr. Robert Schroeder
                  Western Pacific Regional Fisheries
                  Management Council


                  C41unty/Inte rest ReRresentatives:
                  Ms. Beth Goodoni                                     Ms. Maile Bay
                  Hawaii-County                                        Honolulu County

                  Mr. Claud Sutcliffe                                  Dr. Walter Haas
                  Maui County                                          Kauai County

                  Mr. James Coon                                       Ms. Hannah Bernard
                  Business / Commerce                                  Conservation

                  Ms. Donna Liddicoat                                  Mr. Herman Chong, Jr.
                  Education                                            Fishing

                  Ms. Thelma Kia-Shimaoka                              Mr. Skip Weinstein
                  Native Hawaiian                                      Ocean Recreation

                  Dr. Paul Nachtigall                                  Ms. Jan Pinney
                  Research                                             Tourism

                  Mr. Stan Butler                                      Dr. Louis Herman
                  Whale Watch                                          Citizen-at-large

                  Mr. Greg Kaufman
                  Citizen-at-large


                  Page 360                                                         Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                 and Management Plan






               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                  Appendix E: MOU Between SRD and NMFS
               National Marine Sanctuary                                                           Regarding Permit Review

                                                           Appendix E


                                Agreements for Coordinated Management of the Hawaiian Islands
                                Humpback Whale National Marine -Sanctuary
                                  Memorandum of Understanding Between ffie Sanctuaries and
                                  Reserves Division and the National Marine Fisheries Service
                                  Regarding Permit Review and Consultation       ................................  363

                                  Draft Memorandum of Understanding Between the Sanctuaries
                                  and Reserves Division and the State Departments of Health and
                                  Land and Natural Resources Regarding Permit Review (under
                                  development)   ........................... ........................................  367

                                  Memorandum of Understanding between NOAA, U.S. Coast
                                  Guard, and DLNR-DOCARE Regarding the Deputization for
                                  Enforcement    .................................................................1..373





































               Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                               Page 361
               and Management Plan







                    Appendix E: MOU Between SRD and NMFS                                         Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                    Regarding Permit Review                                                              National Marine Sanctuary





























                                                TMS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFr BLANK





























                    Page 362                                                                 Fina'l Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                             and Management Plan






               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                            Appendix E: MOU Between SRD and NMFS
               National Marine Sanctuary                                                   Regarding Permit Review


                                   MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
                                     THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SER vicE
                                          AND THE NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
                CONCERNING PERMITS AND CONSULTATION FOR Acnvims THATAFFECT THE
                     HA WAIIAN ISLANDS HumPBA cK WHALE NA TIONAL MARINE SANCTUAR Y



               I     INTRODUCTION

               The National Marine Fisheries Service (NUTS) and the National Ocean Service (NOS) have
               significant roles in the protection and management of humpback whale's and their habitat in Hawaii.
               The roles of NMFS and NOS in the processes of designation, implementation, and operation of
               National Marine Sanctuaries are provided foi in the 1992 and 1993 Memoranda of Understanding
               concerning the National Marine Sanctuary Program (1992 and 1993 MOUs) entered into by the
               Assistant Administrators for NMFS and NOS. Inasmuch as NMFS has responsibility for
               protection and -management of the humpback whale under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, of
               1972 (MMPA), as amended, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, and the
               Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD), within the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
               Management (OCRM), administers the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine
               Sanctuary (HIHWNMS or Sanctuary) under the Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act
               (HINMSA) and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), close cooperation and coordination
               are essential in carrying out the respective functions and responsibilities of these two agencies.

               Primary responsibility under these laws with respect to permits and consultations have been
               delegated to or are carried out, by. the Office of Protected Resources (OPR) within NNTS and by
               SRD within NOS;

               In furtherance of the 1992 MOU, this Agreement sets forth specific procedures by which OPR and
               SRD will co6perate and coordinate on the issuance of permits and other authorization, and with
               respect to consultations under the ESA, MMPA, HINMSA, and NMSA, for activities in Hawaii
               that may affect humpback whales or their Sanctuary habitat.

               Pursuant to section 11 of this MOU, OPR will cooperate and,coordinate with SRD concerning the
               issuance of permits and other authorizations under the ESA and MIMPA for activities in Hawaii that
               may affect humpback whales or their Sanctuary habitat. OPR issues permits and authorizations
               underthe ESA and MMPA for activities affecting the humpback whale (e.g., research). The
               Sanctuary regulations do not contain provisions for the issuance of Sanctuary permits or other
               authorizations at this time. SRD will cooperate and coordinate with OPR if permit regulations or
               procedures for other authorizations are developed in the future.

               Pursuant to section III of this MOU, OPR and SRD also will.cooperate and coordinate with respect
               to consultations required under section 304(d) of the NMSA and section 7 of the ESA for Federal
               activities that may affect humpback whales or their Sanctuary habitat.


               11. PERMITS

                      A. "Application for permit" as used in this agreement includes an application for a pern-lit
                          or request for an authorization under the ESA or MMPA, including an application or
                          request for an initial permit or authorization, application or request for a permit or
                          authorization renewal, and an application or request for a significant permit or

               Final, Environmental Impact Statement                                                      Page 363
               and Management Plan







               Appendix E: MOU Between SRD and'NMFS                                     Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
               Regarding Permit Review                                                          National Marine Sanctuary

                            authorization modification. A significant permit or authorization modification would
                            alter the number, the species, or the type of takings that would be authorized and/br for
                            which publication of notice in the Federal Register would be required.

                       B.   Consistent with Section A. 4) of the 1992 MOU, SRD will do the following:

                            I .SRD will review applications for permits under the NIMPA and ESA and provide
                               comments to OPR during the public comment period, including comments
                               concerning proposed permit conditions and other recommendations;

                            2. In instances where issuance of an MMPA or ESA permit may be in conflict with
                               NMSA or HIHWNMS requirements, regulations or policies issued or established
                               under those Acts, SRD will provide early, informal notification to OPR so that
                               recommendations, including recommendations for alternative methods, areas, or
                               other options and for mitigation measures may be considered. If appropriate, OPR
                               will communicate those recommendations to the permit applicant.

                       C. Consistent with Sections B. 4) of the 1992 MOU, OPR will do the following:

                            I .OPR will notify SRD when an application for a permit has been received for
                               proposed activities that may affect humpback whales or their Sanctuary habitat in
                               Hawaii;

                            2. OPR will provide SRD with a copy of each completed application for a permit for
                               activities -that may affect humpback whales or their Sanctuary habitat; OPR will
                               provide this copy to SRD at the same time or before any notice is filed with the
                               Office of the Federal Register concerning the application for a permit;

                            3. OPR will issue, condition, or deny issuance of, as appropriate, permits or
                               authorizations under the ESA or NINTA for activities that may affect humpback
                               whales or their Sanctuary habitat in Hawaii in coordination with SRD comments,
                               including comments concerning proposed conditions and other recommendations;

                            4. OPR will provide to SRD, as appropriate, written responses to comments,
                               proposed conditions and other recommendations which were not incorporated or
                               addressed in permits or authorizations issued under the ESA or NIMPA for activities
                               that may affect humpback whales or their Sanctuary habitat in Hawaii-

                       D. Should HIR'WNMS regulations or procedures for the issuance of Sanctuary permits or
                            other authorizations be developed in the future, this MOU may be modified to include
                            procedures by which SRD will cooperate and coordinate with OPR in the review and
                            issuance of such permits and authorizations.


               III. CONSULTATION

                       A.   Federal agencies are subject to the consultation requirements of section 7 of the ESA,
                            and implementing regulations at 50 C.F.R. Part 402, for Federal actions that may affect
                            humpback whales, and section 304(d) of the NMSA, HIHWNMS regulations at 15
                            C.F.R. ï¿½ 945.8, . for Federal agency actions internal or external to the Sanctuary
                            (including private activities authorized by licenses, leases, or permits) that are likely to
                            destroy, cause the loss of, or injure any Sanctuary resource.. Humpback whales and
                            their Sanctuary habitat are Sanctuary resources.


               Page i454                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                   and Management Plan







                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                               Appendix E: MOU Between SRD and NMFS
                National Marine Sanctuary                                                       Regarding Permit Review

                       B.   While recognizing that the consultation requirements of the two statutes differ, OPR
                            and SRD agree to cooperate and coordinate, to the maximum extent possible, with
                            respect to-the ESA and NMSA consultation procedures for activities pertaining to the
                            humpback whales and their Sanctuary habitat in Hawaii.

                            I . If an agency attempts to initiate consultation under   section 304(d) of the NMSA
                                with respect to proposed dctivities that are likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or
                                injure a humpback whale or its Sanctuary habitat in Hawaii, SRD will notify OPR
                                and enc&urage the agency to initiate section 7 consultation on the proposed activity.
                                SRD will also inform the agency that the NOAA point of contact for such
                                consultations is the NWS Southwest Region, Pacific Area Office.

                            2.  When consultation under section 7 of the ESA is initiated for activities that may
                                affect humpback whales or their Sanctuary habitat in Hawaii, OPR will notify SRD
                                so that SRD may be kept apprised of proposed relevant Federal agency actions.
                                OPR will coordinate with SRD to ensure any Sanctuary concerns are addressed
                                during the section 7 consultation.

                            3.  If OPR or the relevant Federal agency determines that'the proposed-- action may
                                adversely affect humpback whales (directly or indirectly), OPR will forward copies
                                of all information on the proposed action to SRD for review and consultation under
                                section 304(d) of the NMSA. OPR and SRD will coordinate and cooperate
                                throughout the consultation process.

                            4.  Upon completion of coordinated consultation, NOAA will provide the action
                                agency with a coordinated response which satisfies both ESA and NMSA
                                requirements which will include any appropriate recommendation(s), mitigation
                                measure(s) and a biological opinion.

                            5.  The NMFS Southwest Region, Pacific Area Office, will serve as the NOAA contact
                                point for agencies undergoing section 304(d) consultation for activities that are
                                likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a humpback whale or its Sanctuary
                                habitat in Hawaii.


                IV. POINTS OF CONTACT

                Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of this MOU, the Director of OPR and Chief of SRD
                shall identify in writing the points of contact within their respective offices for coordinated pernuit
                reviews and consultations consistent with this agreement.


                V. PERIOD

                This agreement will become effective on the date of the last signature of the approving official of
                either party and will continue in force for ten years.


                VI. MODIFICATION/CANCELLATION PROVISION
                This MOU may be amended at any time by mutual written consent of the parties. This MOU will
                bereviewed periodically, but not less than annually. It may be canceled by either party with 60
                days written notice.


                Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                           Page 365
                and Management Plan







                 Appendix E: MOU Between SRD and NMFS                                        Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                 Regarding Permit Review                                                             National Marine Sanctuary


                 VIL OTHER PROVISIONS

                 Nothing herein is intended to conflict with current SRD or OPR directives or with any Federal or
                 state laws, regulations, policies or directives. If the terms of this agreement am inconsistent with
                 exisidng SRD or OPR directives, then these portions of this agreement which are determined to be
                 inconsistent shall be invalid; but the remaining terms and conditions not affected by the
                 inconsistency shall remain in full force and effect.

                 At the first opportunity for review of the agreement, all necessary changes will be accomplished by
                 either an amendment to this agreement or by entering into a new agreement, whichever is deemed
                 expedient to the interest of both parties.

                 Should disagreement arise on the interpiptatign or implementation of the provisions of this
                 agreement, or amendments and/or revisions thereto, that cannot be resolved at the operating level,
                 the matter shall be forwarded to respective higher officials for appropriate resolution.

                 VIII. APPROVED


                 Original signed by R. Schmitten on 8128195

                 Rolland A. Schinitten                                      Date
                 Assistant Administrator for Fisheries



                 Original signed by W.S. Wilson on 7128195

                 W. Stanley Wilson                                          Date
                 Assistant Administrator for
                 Oce,ul Services and Coastal
                 Zone Management





















                 Page 366                                                                Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                         and Management Plan






               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                        Appendix E: DRAFT MOU Between SRD, DOH,
               National Marine Sanctuary                                          and DLNR Regarding Permit Review
                                                       Appendix E.
                                          MEMORAND         DRAFT
                                                         UM OF UNDERSTANDING
                                                       BETWEEN THE
                            NATIONAL. OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
                            OFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
                                        SANCTUARIES AND RESERVES DIVISION
                                                          AND THE
                                                     STATE OF HAWAII
                                              DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
                                 DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES


               Note to reviewers: This MOU is a working draft and is subject tofurther revision based on review
               by DLNR, DOH, and SRD.


               This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is between the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
               (SRD), within the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), National Oceanic
               and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC), and the Department
               of Health (DOH). and the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) both within the State
               of Hawaii (the State), jointly referred to as "the parties".


               I .    PURPOSE:

                      The purpose of this MOU is to coordinate the efforts of SRD and the State to meet their
               common corrunitment to protecting and managing the endangered humpback whale (Megaptera
               novaengliae) and its habitat within the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine
               Sanctuary (HIHWNMS or        'Sanctuary). The MOU specifically establishes mutually agreeable
               procedures for coordinated review of activities requiring permits from the State for proposed
               activities that may impact humpback whales, or their Sanctuary habitat.


               Ii.    BACKGROUND:

                      The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary was designated on
               November 4, 1992, by the Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act. The Sanctuary
               covers an area of approximately XXX square nautical miles from the highwater mark seaward to
               the 100-fathorn depth contour around portions of the main Hawaiian Islands.

                      The National Marine Sanctuary Program, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal
               and Resource Management's Sanctuaries and Reserves Division of the National Oceanic and
               Atmospheric Administration, seeks to protect, manage, and conserve the ecological, recreational,
               research, educational, historical, and aesthetic resources and qualities of coastal and marine areas
               designated as national marine sanctuaries.

                      The Hawaii State Department of Health (DOH) administers Federal and State pollution
               control laws in Hawaii in partnership with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
               through the authority of State pollutidn control laws as compiled in the, Hawaii Revised Statutes,
               Chapters 339-344, 128D and 128E, and as implemented through current Hawaii Administrative
               Rules. Water pollution control permit programs authorized by the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)


               Final Environmental impact Statement                                                        Page 367
               and Management Plan






                Appendix E: DRAFI'MOU Between SRD, DOH,                               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                and 13LNR Regarding Permit Review                                            National Marine Sanctuary

                include the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program, fully
                delegated to the State by the U.S. EPA, and *the CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification
                Program, conducted jointly with the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' CWA Section
                404 Permit Program for dredging and filling operations and the Rivers and Harbors Act, Section
                10 program. DOH's environmental management programs contain both regulatory and non-
                regulatory components designed to limit discharge of pollutants to State waters from facilities
                (regulated entities), and from diffuse land-based sources (pqlluted runoff control, regulatory and
                non.-regulatory components).

                       The Hawaii' Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) administers State
                conservation district lands, including submerged lands and overlying waters, surface a            'nd
                groundwaters, forestry, wildlife, and aquatic resources, park, historical, and recreational resources
                and activities (boating, hiking, etc.). Conservation district lands include all lands seaward of the
                shoreline to the limits of the State's jurisdiction and are governed by Hawaii Revised Statutes
                (HRS) and Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Chapter 13-5. Pursuant to HAR Chapter 13-5,
                them are "Identified Land Uses" (which includes alteration of seabed activities) that may require
                either no permit, a site plan approval, department permit, or a Board permit mith/without a.
                management plan.

                       An application for either a Board or Department permit for use of Conservation District
                Lands (Conservation District Use Application, or CDUA) would be required if there is a potential
                "land use" as defined by HAR Chapter 13-5. These include such identified land uses such as data
                collection, fishpond restoration, public purposes (e.g. outfalls, telecommunication cables),
                sanctuaries, existing or accessory structures, erosion control, seawalls and shoreline protection,
                artificial reefs, marine construction, mining, and extraction. DLNR also administers and - enforces
                HRS, and HAR governing boating and ocean recreation in State waters.


                III. REFERENCES AND AUTHORITIES:

                       NOAAJOCRM: The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), 16 U.S.C. 1431 et. seq.,
                and the Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act, Subtitle C, Title H of the Oceans Act of
                1992 (P.L. 102-587). The final regulations implementing the HIHWNMS are found at 15 CFR
                Part 945. These regulations, inter alia, describe prohibited or otherwise regulated activities within
                the Sanctuary.

                       DOH: State laws pertaining to discharges to State waters and seabed alterations include:
                Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 342 D, Water Pollution, and Chapter 342E, Nonpoint Source
                Pollution Management and Control; Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapter 11-54, Water Quality
                Standards, and Chapter 11-55, Water Pollution Control.

                       DLNR: State regulations pertaining to alteration of the seabed activities include: Hawaii
                Revised Statutes, Chapterl7l Management and Disposition of Public Lands, Chapter 183C State
                Conservation District, Chapter 190 Marine Life Conservation Program, Chapter 190D Ocean and
                Submerged Lands Leasing, and various Hawaii Administrative Rules under Title 13, Department
                of Land and Natural Resources.










                Page369                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                 and Management Plan






                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                             Appendix E: DRAFT MOU Between SRD, DOH,
                National Marine Sanctuary                                               and DLNR Regarding Permit Review
                IV. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS                            AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE
                PARTIES:

                a. The Parties recognize that NOAA and the State will cooperatively manage and protect the
                North Pacific humpback whale stock and its habitat within State waters ofthe Sanctuary.

                b. The Parties agree that a higher degree of resource -management and protection may be
                necessary than currently exists for the humpback whale and its habitat.

                c. The Parties      agree to cooperatively work together to review proposed permits, plans, and
                projects in a manner that avoids delays in the issuance of permits or implementation of plans and
                projects.

                d. The Parties agree to work cooperatively            to conduct, coordinate, and integrate any        joint
                research and monitoring projects, and permit application review oversight..

                e. The Parties agree to work together to build non-duplicative databases and to allow the other
                access to specific databases, as they pertain to humpback whales and their habitat, for the purposes
                of resource management, research, and education.

                f. ' The Parties agree to          defer emergency spill response and coordination to existing
                arrangements between the State and the Federal government, such as the Oceania Regional
                Response Team.

                g.   The Parties agree to work together. to monitor permittee compliance with the terms and
                conditions of State permits for activities also subject to Sanctuary regulations, and to coordinate the
                .enforcement of violations of Sanctuary regulations and corresponding State regulations or permits,
                consistent with a separate enforcement agreement that will be developed.by NOAA and the State.


                V       SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES:

                a.      SRD and the Hawaii Department of Health:


                1.      SRD shall:

                        (i) provide comments to the Department of Health (DOH) within 30           days of reeeipt of the
                application for any DOH discharge permit [individual National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
                System (NPDES) or other, including general permits and Water Quality Certifications] based upon
                potential impacts to Sanctuary resources and qualities, or impacts on compatible uses of the
                Sanctuary, and impacts on NOAA's management of the Sanctuary; and
                        (ii) provide notice to DOH of, and allow for DOH?s comments and participation on,
                Sanctuary water quality plans, coastal or marine resource management programs, or other similar
                Sanctuary documents or projects affecting State waters within the Sanctuary.

                2.      DOH shall:

                        (i) provide SRD with access to copies of current DOH discharge (NPDES or other) permits
                for all existing discharges into the Sanctuary;
                        (ii) provide SRD with timely notifications of DOH discharge (NPDES or other) permit
                applications, and upon request by SRD, a copy for comment within 15 business days from the date

                Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                              -Page 369
                and Management Plan







                Ap- endix E: DRAFF MOU Between SRD, DOH,                               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                   P
                and DLNR Regarding Permit Review                                               National Marine Sanctuary
                applications are made for new permits, or 'to renew, amend, or extend an existing permit for the
                following types of discharges -- (to befilled in after Sanctuary boundaries have been selected)

                        (iii) consider 0 reasonable recommendations regarding applications for DOH discharge
                permits provided by the Sanctuary on a timely basis, and - notify SRD with reasons for any
                recommendation rejected by DOH; and

                        (iv) provide notice to SRD and allow for SRD's comments and participation regarding
                State water quality plans, coastal or marine resource management programs, or other similar State
                documents or projects affecting the Sanctuary.

                b. SRD and Hawaii Department of Land and                Natural Resources

                1, SRD shall:

                        (i) provide comments to the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) within a
                timeframe that reflects various application processing periods for any permit authorizing alteration
                of seabed activities in the Sanctuary, based upon potential impacts to the humpback whale and its
                habitat, impacts on compatible uses of the Sanctuary, or impacts on NOAA's management-of the
                Sanctuary; and

                        (ii) provide notice to DLNR and allow for DLNR's comments and participation on
                Sanctuary coastal or marine resource management programs, or other similar Sanctuary documents
                or projects affecting the Sanctuary.

                2. DLNR shall:

                        (i) provide SRD with the various State criteria for requiring -permit applications as they
                pertain to alteration of the seabed activities;
                        (ii) allow SRD*access t8 permits on existing alteration of seabed activities in the Sanctuary,
                such as current DLNR Conservation District Use Permits;

                        (ifi) notify SRD of applications made to DLNR for either new permits or proposed
                amendments, renewals, or extensions to existing permits that propose alteration of seabed activity;

                        (iv) consider all reasonable recommendations regarding applications for DLNR alteration of
                the seabed permits provided by the Sanctuary on a timely basis, and notify 'SRD with reasons for
                any recommendation rejected by DLNR; and

                        (v) provide notice to SRD of, and allow for SRD's comments on changes to the State of
                Hawaii's Administrative Rules as they pertain to humpback whales and their habitat, or other
                similar State documents or projects affecting the Sanctuary.











                Page 370                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan






                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                          Appendix E: DRAFr MOU Between SRD, DOH,
                National Marine Sanctuary                                            and DLNR Regarding Permit Review


                V1. SUBSIDIARY AGREEMENTS:

                       Additional working agreements regarding specific cooperative efforts, if needed, shall be
                effected in writing by both agencies as the need arises.


                VIL AMENDMENTS AND REVIEW:

                       This agreement may be amended at any time by the written mutual consent of all the parties.
                It may be subject to reconsideration at such other times as may be required and as agreed to by the
                parties entering into this agreement.


                VIII. OTHER PROVISIONS:

                       Nothing herein is intended to conflict with current NOAA or State directives or applicable
                law. If the terms of this agreement are inconsistent with existing directives or with applicable law
                of either of the parties entering into this agreement, then those portions of this agreement-.which are
                determined to be inconsistent shall be invalid; but the remaining terms and conditions of this
                agreement not affected by any inconsistency shall remain in full force and effect. At the first
                opportunity for review of the agreement, such changes deemed necessary will be accomplished by
                either an amendment to this agreement, or by entering into a new agreement, whichever is deemed
                expedient to the interest of both parties.


                IX. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT:

                       This agreement will become effective upon the signatures of the approving officials of the
                respective parties entering into this agreement, and will remain in effect for five years unless
                terminated by,(l) mutual agreement, or (2) 120 days advance written notice by either party.





















                Final Environmental impact Statement                                                           Page 371
                and Management Plan







                  Appendix E: DRAFT MOU Between SRD, DOH,                                     Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                  and DLNR Regarding Permit Review                                                    National Marine Sanctuary

                  .UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                  NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATTON
                  NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
                  OFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT



                  BY:


                  TITLE:


                  DATE:





                  STATE OF HAWAII
                  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH



                  BY:


                  TrILE:


                  DATE:




                  STATE OF HAWAII
                  DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES'



                  BY:


                  TITLE:

                  DATE:





















                  Page 372                                                                 Final'Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                          and Management Plan







             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Appendix E: Cooperative Agreement Between NMFS, U.S. Coast Guard,
             National Marine Sanctuary                    and DLNR-DOCARE Regarding Law Enforcement Services

                                                      Appendix E


                                         COOPERATIVE ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT
                                                     between the

                              UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                         NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 


                                               and

                         UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
                                   UNITED STATES COAST GUARD


                                              and

                                         STATE OF HAWAII
                             DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                     DIVISION OF CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT


                                              for

                               LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES UNDER THE 

                        MAGNUSON FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT
                                         (16 U.S.C 1801 et seq.) 

                                                 and

                                    ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973
                                        (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

                                                  and

                            MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1972
                                     (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)





              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                     Page 373
              and Management Plan
 





                   Appendik E: Cooperative Agreement Between NMFS, U.S. Coast Guard Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                   and DLNR-DOCARE Regarding Law Enforcement Services                           National Marine Sanctuary


                 This Agreement IS entered into by and between the Secretary of

                 Commerce, the. Commander, Fourteenth Coast Guard District for the
                 United States of America, and the State of'Rawaii, Department of

                 Land and Natural Resources, Division of Conservation and Resources,

                Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as the State).



                WITNESSETH:



                        Whereas, the        Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management

                Act (MFCMA), as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1801                                    establishes a

               regime for managing certain               fisheries in the exclusive economic zone

                (as established by Presidential Proclamation 5030, dated March 10,

                1983) contiguous to the seaward boU*ndary of each coastal state; and



                       Whereas, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA),                            as

               amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et =Z, and the Marine Mammal Protection

               Act of 1972 (MMPA), as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1361 j.Lisq., provide for

               the protection and conservation of endangercd and threat                           -ened species

              and marine mammals; and










                  Page 374                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                    and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Appendix E: Cooperative Agreement Between NMFS, U.S. Coast Guard,
              National Marine Sanctuary                    and DLNR-DOCARE Regarding Law Enforcement Services


                   Whereas, under 16 U.S.C. 1861(a) of the MFCMA, under 16

            U.S.C. 1540(e) of the ESA, under 16 U.S.C. 1377(b) of the MMPA, the

            Secretary of Commerce and Commander, Fourteenth Coast Guard

            District are specifically authorized to enter, into, among other things,

            agreements with State agencies to utilize such personnel, services,

            equipment and other facilities of such State agencies as may be

            necessary to carry out the enforcement responsibilities of the MFCMA,

            ESA, MMPA, and



                  Whereas, the State possesses law enforcement personnel, vessels,

            aircraft, vehicles, and other equipment and capabilities presently

            engaged in enforcing State conservation laws that could be utilized in

            assisting the Secretaries in carrying out the law enforcement

            responsibilities mandated by the Acts listed in this Agreement;



            NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed:



            I.    DEPUTIZATION OF STATE OFFICERS AS FEDERAL

                  ENFORCEMENT AGENTS



                                                          2




             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                     Page 375
             and Management Plan
 





                  Appendix E: Cooperative Agreement Between NMFS, U.S. Coast Guard Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                  and DLNR-DOCARE Regarding Law Enforcement Services                            National Marine Sanctuary


                        A. Those law enforcement officers of the State of Hawaii,

                De- artment of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Conservation

                and Resources B.aforcoment (hereinafter referred to as Officers) are

                hereby are deputized as Federal law enforcement agents and

               authorized to enforce the MFCMA, BSA, MMPA and regulations

               promulgated thereunder. Enforcement shall be compliance with

               directives established by the Secretary of'Commerce and Commander,

               Fourteenth Coast Guard District, and their designees.



                       B. All- Officers, while acting as federal law enforcement agents

               under this Agreement, shall possess the powers                       and authorities set

              forth in the MFCMA, ESA and MMPA but shall                            not be held or

              considered as employees of the United States for the purposes                               of any

              laws administered by the United States Office of Personnel

              Management. Such Officers, while acting as federal law enforcement

              agents, shall not be compensated, salaried or otherwise reim b u r3ed by

              the United States for any services performed or expenses incurred in

             theperformance of such duties except as provided by this Agreement.




                                                                3






                  Page 376                                                          Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                    and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Appendix E: Cooperative Agreement Between NMFS, U.S. Coast Guard,
             National Marine Sanctuary                    and DLNR-DOCARE Regarding Law Eniorcement Services


                   C. Such Officers may be covered under 5 U.S.C. $191-819                         3, Law

            Enforcement Officers not Employed by.the United States, for injuries

            sustained while enforcing Federal laws, provided the injuries occurred

            under one of the circumstances enumerated in Section 8191. The

           Secretary of Labor will provide compensation for covered injuries as

           enumerated in Section 8192. This coverage Is Intended to supplement
           rathe-r   than r  .eplace 'any state or local benefits otfierwise payable.


                   D. All Officers, while ac*ting as Federal law enforcement                      agents,

           shall be considered to be (1) investigative or law enforcement officers

           of the United State; for purposes of the tort claims provisions of

           Chapter 171 of Title 29 of the United States Code,, and (2) officers or

          employees of the Department of Commerce within the meaning of

          Sections     111 and 1114 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



                  E. Officers shall not have the authority to carry out any

          functions or responsibilities of the United States Government except

          as provided in this Agreement.




                                                         4





            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                      Page 377
            and Management Plan






                 Appendii E: Cooperative Agreement Betwe en NMFS, U.S. Coast Guard Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                 and I)LNR-DOCARE Regarding Law Enforcement Services                       National Marine Sanctuary


                        F. Those Officers who for any reason leave                   or are removed from

                service as members of the Division of Conservation and Resources

                Enforcement will be simultaneously divested-of authority conferred

                herein.




                       0. All Officers exercising authority under this Agreement shall
                sut)mit written documen'tafion o           -i*a`n'y-a c-t*io*n-       urs'ua-nt- to this

               Agreement to the. National Marine Fisheries Service Special Agent in

               Charge (SAC) for the Southwest Area, or the SAC's designee. Such

               documents shall include, but not be limited to, case investigation

               reports,, a copy of any written warning or documentation of violation,

               and. any supporting exhibits, affidavits, photographs or other evi.d                       ence

               gathered. In addition, the State shall immediately notify the Special

              Agent in Charge or his/her designated representative of any arrest

              made as a result of any action brought under the Acts listed in this

              Agreement, and shall prepare and submit individual case investigation

              reports to the Special Agent in Charge on a timely basis. The National

              Marine Fisheries Service- will be responsible for providing information












                Page 379                                                        Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                              and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Appendix E: Cooperative Agreement Between NMFS, U.S. Coast Guard,
            National Marine Sanctuary                    and DLNR-DOCARE Regarding Law Enforcement Services

           to the U.S. Coast Guard On the status of cases made under this

           Agreement.



                   H. Any proper       ty, including cargo, fishing gear, vessels, fish or.

           the fair market value thereof, seized under the authorities of the ACtS

           listed In this Agreement shall be delivered to the United States

           Government Official designated by the SAC or other appropriate

           federal authority. If such official, however,               cannot be contacted,

           employees of the. State will be expected to make reasonable

           arrangements for the temporary care, handling, and preservation of

           seized property. Costs to third parties with whom arrangements are

           made under this paragraph shall be Considered as separate items for

           payment by the Secretary of Commerce and will not be the

           responsibility of the State.



                 I. Officers will be made available, upon request by the

           appropriate Federal authority, to appear as witnesses in connection

           with any action brought with which they have an involvemen.t. It is the

           responsibility of the National Marine Fisheries Service to reimburse










             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                      Page 379
             and Management Plan







                 Appendix  E:, Cooperative Agreement Between NMFS, U.S. Coast Guard Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                 and DLNR-DOCARE Regarding Law Enforcement Services                            National Marine Sanctuary

                  the Officers who appear in cases related to this Agreement for travel

                 expenses and per them (at the federal, sfandard rate) for travel

                 inc,urred when appearing as a witness,



                         1. The State shall provide access to its law enforcement

                 telecommunications network to the National Marine Fisheries Service

                 and the U.S. Coast Guard. Costs incurred in acquiring aCC03S to and

                 using the State communications system shall be borne by the National

                Marine Fisheries Service.




                Ii.     POMRS. QE AUJHOR                          OFFICERS JZNDER IIII.I.C.,

                        1161 (b)



                        A. In accordance with 16 U.S.C. 1961(b), Officers are hereby

                delegated the authority described in that section while performing

                duties-in accordance with this Agreement.



                       B. No unilateral law enforcement action by the State with

               respect to foreign or stateless vessels is authorized by this Agreement.



                                                                  7







                 Page 380                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                   and Management Plan






              Hawaiiati Islands Humpback Whale Appendix E: Cooperative Agreement Between NMFS, U.S. Coast Guard,
              National Marine Sanctuary                    and DLNR-DOCARE Regarding Law Enforcement Services


            If, however, foreign vessels are encountered, the State will

            immediately contact the Fourteenth                 Coast Guard District and await

            instructions before. boarding, seizing              any vessel, or making an arrest,



                    C. Any arrest or seizure of domestic Vessels contemplated by the

            State shall be reported as soon as possible to the Special Agent in

            Charge or his/her'designee, who, subject to the availability of

            appropriate personnel, will dispatch NMFS Special Agents to assist the

            Officers, or assist via radio or telephone communications when units
                                                      4
            are not available. National Marine Fisheries Service Agents and Coast

            Guard Boarding Off1c         ers have the authority to mike arrests. and

            seizures aboard a domestic vessel, and this authority is hereby

            delegated to Officers. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the

            United States Coast Guard will advise each o-ther concerning arrests

            and seizures made under this Agreement.



            III. ]VNTTED ETATES !CQAST GUAI&D ASSISTANCE TO THE S-TAJE







                                                           8






              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                      Page 381
              and Management Plan







                  Appendix E: Cooperative'Agreement Between NMFS, U.S. Coast Guard Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                  and DLNR-DOCARE,Regarding Law Enforcement Services                       National Marine Sanctuary

                         A. Pursuant to 14 U.S.C. 141, the United States Coast Guard

                 may, operational considerations permitting, provide assistance to the

                 parties, for the purpose of this agreement.
                 0-


                        B.      Officers may, opera        tions and space permitting, accompan.y

                 any United States Coast Guard vessel or aircraft on law enforcement

                 patrols to aid. in enforcement of the Acts listed in this Agreement.



                        C. If violat!    ons of State fisheries laws and regulations by fishing

                vessels registered under the laws of the State are detected by United

                States Coast Guard law enforcement patrols, the United Sta-tes Coast
                Guard wil     I notify -the State and may provide -back-up assistance

                consistent with the term$ Of this Agreement.



                       D. Subject to approval by the United States Coast Guard,

               personnel will be made available to appear as witnesses in connection

               with any criminal or JiLLMcourt proceedings resulting from any

               fishery enforcement 'action brought under State laws and regulations

               with which they have involvement.



                                                               9







                 Page 382                                                       Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                               and Management Plan






              Hawaiiark Islands Humpback Whale Appendix E: Cooperative Agreement Between NMFS, U.S. Coast Guard,
              National Marine Sanctuary                    and DLNR-DOCARE Regarding Law Enforcement Services


             IV. h[A-119NAL BURT]J&FISHE                  I111ES- SKRVICE ASSTSTANCE MTHR

             STATIE




                     A. TRAINING

                      The National Marine Fisheries Service will provide training for,

             the Officers in the enforcement of the Acts listed in this Agreement

             with the length of training and location to be agreed upon by the State.

             Training expenses, except travel, will be borne by the National. Marine

            Fisheries Service.




                    D. PROPER        TY LOAN


                     The National Marine Fisheries Service will loan the State

            purchased or excess (including. seized) vehicles, vessels, and other

            operational equipment based upon the availability of said equipment.

            All property transferred hereunder will be on the basis of an executed

            Property Loan Agreement and Receipt form.                     Costs incurred for the@

            transportation, care, handling and preservation of said property

           transferred under this par          agraph shall be considered as separate Items

           for payment and will be the responsibility of the. State. If for any


                                                           10





              Final Environmental impact Statement                                                      Page 383
              and Management Plan






                   Appendix E: Cooperative Agreement Between NMFS, U.S. Coast Guard Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                   and DLNR-DOCARE Regarding Law Enforcement Services -                     National Marine Sanctuary

                     reason the property on loan is lost, destroyed, or stolen. by

                     circumstances beyond the control of the State, the State will not be

                     hold responsible for- reimbursement of the cost of said property.





                     V. COMMITMENT Im. ML STAT&



                           The State and the Secretary of Commerce, in-managing the

                    fisheries in their respective jurisdictions, agree to adopt conservation,

                    management and enforcement measures and regulations which are

                    complementary, in accordance with, and to the extent authorized by the

                    Act and Hawaii statutes.



                    Vi. COND1JWALA=TFXMA QLAGREEMENT



                          A. This Agreement shall be effective as of the date it is signed

                   'by-all Parties and shall remain in effect until terminated by any Party,

                   ,giving the other Parties written notice, in which event it shall

                   terminate on the day Immediately following the thirtieth day of such













                  Page 384
                                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                               and Management Plan





              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Appen  dix E: Cooperative Agreement Between NMFS, U.S. Coast Guard,
              National Marine Sanctuary                    and DLNR-DOCARE Regarding Law Enforcement Services

            notice. This Agreement may be amended with th                      e mutual consent of

            the parties In writing.



                   B.. In no event shall this Agreement be interpreted to conflict

            with specific operating policies and procedures promulgated by any of

            the Parties without the express oral or written consent of an

            appropriate official of all of the Parties.



                   C. -This Agreement shall be construed to be consistent with the

            MFCMA, ESA, MMPA and regulations promulgated, thereunder.



                  D. Nothing herein is intended to conflict with current National

            Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Coast Guard,

            or State directives. If the terms of this Agreement are inconsistent

            with existing directives of the agencies entering into this Agreement,

            those portions of this Agreement that are determined to be

            inconsistent shall be invalid, but the remaining terms and conditions

            shall remain ic full force and effect.






                                                          12






            Final Environmental Impact statement
            and Management Plan                                                                      Page 385





                    Appendix E: Cooperative Agreement Between NMFS, U.S. Coast Guard Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                    and DLNR-DOCARE Regarding Law Enforcement Services                    National Marine Sanctuary
                                UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                                  NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
                                            OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT




                    BY:        Morris M. Pallozzi
                                                            	

                    TITLE:     DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT


                    DATE:      AUGUST 27, 1992                                   



                  UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION                                           
                                  COMMANDANT
                            UNITED STATES COAST GUARD




                    BY:        James H. Donahue              
                                                  
                    TITLE:     Acting District Commander                                         

                                         
                    DATE:      September 18, 1992




                                    STATE OF HAWAII
                       DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
              DIVISION OF CONSERVATION AND RESOUCES ENFORCEMENT



                  BY:       
                                    
                  TITLE:     Chairperson, Department of Land and Natural Resources

                                                  
                  DATE:      August 11, 1992



                                                            13

             Page 386                                                   Final Environmental Impact statement
                                                                                         and Management Plan
 






                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                            Appendix F: Military Activities in Hawaii
                National Marine Sanctuary

                                                                  Appendix F

                                              LIST OF MILJTARYAcTrvmEs iN HA wAii

                This compilation of classes of military activities conducted in Hawaiian waters has been divided into "near-shore" and
                .4open ocean" categories. Near-shore operations are those which are. conducted within the 100-fathom isobath
                proposed for inclusion in the sanctuary. Open ocean operations are those additional types of operations which are
                normally (but not always) conducted outside the 100-fathom isobath. These operations have been included because
                they are at times conducted near or inside the 100-fathorn isobath. Theses classes of military activities near Hawaii
                are conducted by all the military services of the United States and, during combined operations, by military units
                from cooperating foreign nations or the State of Hawaii Department of Defense/National Guard.

                I.                  IERATIONS


                     A. Near shore g=ojiQns include, but are not limited to:

                          I . Pierside training and maintenance.
                          2.  Dry-docking operations at Pearl Harbor.
                          3.  Harbor movements by ships, submarines, boats and auxiliary craft.
                          4.  Anchoring
                          5.  Transit operations between harbors and operating areas (OPAREAS).
                          6.  Salvage and towing operations.
                          7.  Anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations involving the use of sonar and expendable
                              bathythermographs. Recoverable torpedoes are sometime used.
                          8.  Amphibious warfare operations including the blasting of amphibious ships'and the movement to the
                              beach of landing craft, landing craft air cushion (LCAC), amphibious assault vehicles (AAV), ship's
                              boats, special United States Marine Corps (USMC) "Boston Whaler" or '?Aiac" type special
                              operations craft, and helicopters. Can involve the landings and take off of Harrier jets from a variety of
                              amphibious ships.
                          9.  Anti-surface warfare operations against ships and small boats
                          10. Special operations training involving swimmers and small boats
                          11. Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) operations and training involving the use of explosives for
                              demolition.
                          12. Mine warfare and mine counter-measure (MCM) operations involving the use of sonar, towed mine
                              sweeping devices, the implantation of drill moored. and bottom mines, and the firing of machine guns
                              and small arms at floating targets.
                          13. Equipment and personnel drops from fixed wing and helicopter aircraft associated with re-supply,
                              insertion, search and rescue and training.

                     B.   Opsn ocean operations nclude, but are not limited to:

                          I.  Transit operations between OPAREAs
                          2.  Engineering, navigation, seamanship, and general warfare-related training exercises.
                          3.  Towing operations.
                          4.  Anti-submarine warfare operations involving the us6 of sonar, expendable bathythermographs , towed
                              arrays and training torpedoes.
                          ,5. Amphibious warfare operations involving the blasting of ships over the horizon launch, recovery, and
                              movements of LCAC and USMC/Seal special operations craft and low-flying helicopter and Harrier jet
                              operations.
                          6.  Anti-surface warfare operations involving high-speed maneuvering, the actual firing of guns and
                              missiles at targets, calibration firing of guns and the launching of self-protective chaff.



                Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                           Page 387
                and Management Plan






                    Appendix F: Military Activities in Hawaii                                           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                                National Marine Sanctuary

                              7.  Anti-air warfare operations involving the actual. firing of guns and missiles at target craft and the
                                  launching of self -protective chaff and flares.
                              8.  Replenishment operations to vessels underway involving the transfer -of both supplies and fuel via wire
                                  and transfer of supplies by low-flying helicopters.
                              9.  Supersonic flight above 5,000 feet and outside 25 miles from land.

                    11. SUBSURFACE OPERATIONS


                         A.   Near-shore opgrations including, but are not limited to:

                              I . Transit operations to and from ports'and OPAREAs.
                              2.  Post maintenance shallow water divers.
                              3.1 Shallow water ASW and anti-ship operations, which include the expenditure of non-recoverable
                                  sonobuoys and smoke markers.
                              4.  Torpedo exercises using retrievable non-explosive torpedoes.
                              5.  Mine warfare training during which submarines traverse through a field of bottom-moored practice
                                  mines, using active sonar to detect and avoid mines.
                              6.  ASW target services for ships and aircraft, which include the expenditure of non-recoverable sonobuoys
                                  and smoke markers an   'd use of sonar and towed arrays.
                              7.  Special operations involving swimmers operating from submerged submarines and supported by small
                                  boats.
                              8.  Mine warfare training which includes the launching of recoverable exercise (inert) mines.

                         B.   01&n ocean opgrations including, but not limited to:

                              I . Transit operations at a variety of depths
                              2.  Deep water dives and surfacing
                              3.  Deep water ASW and anti-submarine/ship warfare operations involving the use of sonar, expendable
                                  bathythermographs, towed arrays, and training torpedoes.

                    M. AIR OPERATIONS


                         A.   Near-shore operations including, but not limited to:

                              I . Landing and takeoffs by helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft and target drones from shore bases
                              2.  Landings, takeoff and training flights at altitudes above 50 feet by helicopter's from ships.
                              3.  Training flights and transfers of personnel and equipment by helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft at
                                  altitudes above 50 feet. Low flying tactical helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft training flights (single
                                  and multi-ship, day, night unaided and Night Vision Goggle (NVG) training) often involve terrain-
                                  following and Nap. Of the Earth (NOE) flight over or near the island and shorelines, as well as, flight in
                                  published FAA transitions below controlled airspace and flight traffic patters over water.
                              4.  Air assaults by helicopters from amphibious ships at altitudes above 50 feet.
                              5.  ASW operations from patrol (P-3) aircraft and helicopters, against actual submarines or mobile target at
                                  altitudes from 50 to 16,000 feet. Inert mines and missiles, non-retrievable sonobuoys and smoke
                                  markers and retrievable torpedoes are discharged into the water, Helicopters may use dipping sonar.
                              6.  Bombing and missile firing exercises by fixed-wing aircraft of attack helicopters using surface target or
                                  Kaula rock.
                              7.  Insertion/extraction of special forces/USMC Force Reconnaissance (RECON) troops from helicopters
                                  and fixed-wing aircraft into the water.

                         B.   Olmn ocean o2grations includi=


                              I - Aircraft carrier air operations.

                    Page 388                                                                        Final Environmental'Impact Statement
                                                                                                                     and Management Plan






                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                            Appendix F: Military Activities in Hawaii
                National Marine Sanctuary

                          2.  Air combat maneuvering.
                          3.  Live missile firings by aircraft versus target drones.
                          4.  Live bombing, gunnery, and missile firings versus surface targets.
                          5.  Low flying tactical helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft flights (single and multi-ship day, night unaided
                              and NVG) transiting between island training areas at altitudes between 200 and 500 feet.
                          6.  Emergency fuel dumping above 5,000 feet.
                          7:  Air to air warfare operations involving the actual firing of guns and missiles at target craft and the
                              launching of self-protective chaff and flares.,
                          8.  Supersonic flight above 5,000 feet and outside 25 miles of land.

                                                        OPERATIONS BY LOCATION


                1. AREAS WITHIN ORIGINAL SANCTUARX BOUNDARIES:


                    A. PENGUIN BANK. Located southeast of Oahu, and southwest of Molokai, in the Kaiwi Channel. This is
                          the areas of primary concern within,the original sanctuary boundaries. Submarines conduct post-overhaul
                          shallow- water dives in the vicinity of Penguin Bank. The area is also used for shallow-water ASW
                          operations.

                          I . All Submarines completing any major repair work are required to conduct initial submerged testing in
                              shallow water. The loss of USS THRESHER on sea trials generated the requirement to conduct initial
                              submerged testing in shallow water to ensure that if the submarine has a casualty during the testing,
                              and sinks to the ocean floor, the crew can be rescued. It is necessary to conduct initial testing close to
                              shipyards facilities in case an unscheduled return to port is required for repairs. Penguin Bank is the
                              only shallow water areas in Hawaiian wateE suitable for these mquired test.

                          2.  Shallow-water ASW exercises involving surface ships and submarine, using low power active sonar
                              transmissions, are conducted in the area to take advantage of the unique characteristics of shallow water.
                              These exercise last from two to five days and result in the use of sonobuoys, smoke - floats, expendable
                              bathythermographs, and submarine-launched exercise (inert)' torpedoes.         This training cannot be
                              conducted in deep water.

                          3.  Submarines conduct mine warfare training at Penguin Bank. These exercises inv'olve the submarines
                              and small craft. The submarines practice implanting inert mine shapes, which are later recovered by
                              small craft. This training cannot be conducted in deep water.

                     B.   K;kHOOLAWF. Operational training no longer conducted on Kaho'olawe. Helicopter operations occur
                          regularly to and from the Navy bases camp for logistic purposes in support of the impending unexplored
                          ordnance clean up. In addition helicopter flights will occur throughout the island for required aeromedical
                          evacuation purposes. Landing craft are occasionally used to introduce or remove. supplies and heavy
                          equipment. Construction a pier is planned. The waters surrounding the island are not suitable for use by
                          the public due to the presence of undetermined amounts of unexplored ordnance.

                     C    MAUI. MOLOKAI AND LANAI, With increased emphasis on littoral warfare, and the need to conduct
                          training in shallow water, the waters adjacent to Maui, Molokai, and Lanai are important training areas for
                          Navy ship home ported in Pearl Harbor. The channel between, Maui, Lanai and Molokai is extensively
                          used for the biennial RIM PAC exercise as an EOD/MCM exercise area as well as for shallow-water ASW.
                          Port visits are frequently conducted in Lahaina, Maui. Salvage ship and diving operations are frequently
                          conducted.


                          1. The areas inside the 100 fathom isobath surrounding Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, and specifically the
                              channel between this island, is used for shallow water ASW operations. These operations include


                Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                           Page 389
                and Management Plan






                    Appendix F: Military Activities in Hawaii                                         Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                               National Marine Sanctuary

                                  using low-power active sonar transmissions, sonobuoys, smoke floats,    expendable bathythermographs,
                                  and exercise, (inert) torpedoes.

                             2.   This channel is also used for MCM training, including the use of        bottom-moored practice (inert)
                                  mines, sonar, towed mine sweeping device and MCM surface ships..

                             3.   The recent installation of the Hawaiian'Area Tracking Sy6teni. (HATS) southeast of Lanai provides an
                                  excellent passive acoustic range for shallow water exercise torpedo firings.           Exercise torpedo
                                  firings(non-explosive) are conducted with HATS range control utilizing a helicopter for range safety.

                             4.   The waters surrounding Molokai are used by the Marines and the U.S. Army: USMC day/night
                                  helicopter operations focus predominantly in the area around Molokai, which is their only effective
                                  local night vision goggle (NVG) training area. These flights take place at altitudes above 50 feet. The
                                  U.S. Army also uses the Molokai training area (day, night unaided and NVG), and conducts flights in
                                  and around the shorelines of Maui and Molokai for low level training and for transit routes between
                                  Oahu and the major Army tactical training area on the island of Hawaii, Pohakuloa Training Area.

                        D. KAUAI, Few operations occur in the small area north'of Kauai originally included in the sanctuary. Air
                             operations sometime occur over this area, and transit operations sometime occur through it.

                    11. ADDITIONAL AREAS PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION:


                        A.   KAUAI. A significant concern over the proposed inclusion of the remaining waters inside the 100- fathom
                             isobaoth surrounding Kauai is the potential impact upon operations at the PMRF, located on- Kauai.
                             Operations below are subdivided by those occurring inside the 100-fathom isobath area proposed for
                             inclusion, and those normally occurring outside it.

                             1. Operations inside the proposed sanctuary boundaries.

                                  a.  Airspace 'Me airspace above the 100-fathom isobath is frequently used. by P-3 aircraft operating
                                      against actual submarines or mobile targets. Operations take place from 50 to 16,000 feet. Inert
                                      nunes and missiles are discharged into the water. Other exercise material discharged includes non-
                                      retrievable smoke markers and sonbuoys, and retrievable torpedoes.            Occasionally, due. to
                                      equipment malfunction, retrievable torpedoes are lost at sea. Target drones are launched from
                                      PMRF through coastal airspace, Helicopter operations are conducted frequently in the near-shore
                                      area.


                                  b.  Surface, Amphibious exercises, involving landing craft, LCAC, and AMTRACs, are regularly
                                      conducted on the beaches at PMRF. Target recovery boasts pass through proposed sanctuary
                                      waters enroute to and from pick-ups. Missile and gun life fningexercises using air, subsurface and
                                      surface targets occur in area R-3 101, a fully instrumented range which extends three nautical miles
                                      seaward from the western cost of Kauai, a portion of which is inside the 100-fathom isoboath.
                                      Area R-31.01 also serves as an aerial target recovery area.

                                  c.  Subsurface. In addition to operations with P-3 aircraft, submarines conduct torpedo exercises using
                                      retrievable torpedoes, and mine warfare training. Submarine traverse through a field of bottom-
                                      moored mines, using active sonar to detect and avoid mines. During the course of these exercises,
                                      submarines discharge non-retrievable bathytheftnographs.

                             2. Operations adjacent to proposed sanctuary boundaries.

                                  a. Airspace:



                    Page 390                                                                      Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                   and Management Plan






                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                             Appendix F: Military Activities in Hawaii
                National Marine Sanctuary

                                   (1) Warning Area W- 186 Special use airspace over open ocean located westward to northeastward
                                       of Kauai, and commencing at the border of R-3101, three nautical miles west of Barking
                                       Sands. Airspace extends from the surface to 9000 feet. W- 186 is used for live missile, bomb,
                                       rocket, gunnery and torpedo exercises.

                                   (2) Warnifig Area W- 188. Special use airspace over open ocean located westward to northeastward
                                       of Kauai, and commencing at the border of R-3101, three nautical miles west of Barking
                                       Sands. The airspace extends from the surface to unlimited altitude and encompasses an
                                       operating area of approximately 42,000 square miles. W-188 is used for missile, rocket,
                                       gunnery, and torpedo exercises in support of fleet training and PMRF activities. The M-2, M-
                                       3, and M-4 portions of W- 188 are a fully instrumented missile firing range with command and
                                       control, surveillance, tracking and telemetry services and data reduction services provided by
                                       and located at PMRF.


                              b.   Surface: The surface of areas W-186 and W-188 encompass 41,000 square nautical miles, and are
                                   subdivided into eight operating areas for surface ships. Air, surface and underwater exercises using
                                   conventional ordnance of all types are conducted.

                              c.   Subsurface:


                                   (1) Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range (BARSTUR):              This range provides 80 square
                                       nautical miles of underwater tracking coverage in M2 of W- 188, commencing seven nautical
                                       miles west of Kauai. The rage extends from the ocean floor to the surface. BARSTUR is
                                       used to evaluate ASW and anti-surface (ASU) warfare exercises and tactics and to track torpedo
                                       fuings and submarines. The underwater and shore-based instrumentation at BARSTUR
                                       provides the capability to conduct ASW and ASU warfare training in an instrumented
                                       environment, which permits evaluation of the effectiveness of the. tactics employed and the
                                       performance of weapons systems.

                                   (2) Barking Sands Underwater Rangcs Expansion (BSURE): This range *is adjacent to BARSTUR
                                       and underlies M-4 in W- 188. The range expands the underwater tracking area to approximately
                                       800 square nautical miles, and extends from the ocean floor to the surface, BSURE is used to
                                       evaluate ASW and ASU exercises and to track torpedo firing and submarines.

                     B. OAHU


                          1. OUcrations in5ide=Msedsanctu= bound-

                              a.   Airfields gcnerally. Low level day/night helicopter operations are conducted in accordance with
                                   published Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) routes/procedures and Honolulu approach control
                                   instructions for the various controlled and uncontrolled military and civilian airfields an the island
                                   of Oahu and the outer islands. FAA transition routing and/or training requires flight in and around
                                   the shorelines of Oahu at or below 500 feet.

                              b.   Pearl Harbor, Operations within and near Pearl Harbor are primarily limited to transit operations,
                                   anchorages, ammunition on/off loads, maintenance, dry-docking, and pierside training,

                              c.   Bellows Air Force Station, USMC and Navy special forces frequently use beaches at Bellow and
                                   adjacent water for amphibious operations. These exercises involve landing craft, LCAC" ""V,
                                   submarines with associated swimmer delivery vehicles and support craft, and small boat landings,
                                   as well as low level overflights by helicopters. The AMTRACs transit Kailua and Waimanalo
                                   Bays enroute to Bellows.


                Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                            Page 391
                and Management Plan






                     Appendix F:    Military Activities in Hawaii                                     Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                               National Marine Sanctuary

                                    d. NAS Barbers-Point. P-3 and other aircraft frequently overfly coastal water at low level oq
                                       approach and takeoff. Helicopters and fixed wing aircraft overfly coastal waters at low level on
                                       approach and takeoff and during helicopter closed traffic operations south of the main runway.

                                    e. -Kaneohe Bay, Helicopters and fixed wing aircraft overfly coastal waters at low level on approach
                                       and take off. Small boats operate in the harbor.

                                    f. Cam2 Smith Training Facili!L Located in Ewa, just east of NAS Barbers point. Company-sized
                                       small boat r;iid exercises are conducted semiannually. These operations involve over the horizon
                                       launchings of small boats, which transit to and land on the beach.

                                    g. Waianae Coast

                                       (1) FORACS RangL Submarines conduct Fleet Operational Readiness Accuracy Check and Site
                                           (FORACS) operations off the Waianae coast to calibrate their sensors. These operations
                                           consist of slowly proceeding in a specified course and measuring sensor bearings to a sound
                                           source of known positions. The sound source is located within the 100-fathom isobath, as is
                                           a portion of the FORACS range.

                                       (2) Qa-Deck Shelter (DDS) Operations, Submarines conduct dry-deck shelter operations in the
                                           leeward waters west of Oahu involving launching/retrieving of swimmers, swimmer delivery
                                           vehicles, and support craft from surfaced and submerged submarines.

                                       (3) Pokai Bay. USMC parachute operations involving water landings are conducted on a quarterly
                                           basis at Pokai Bay, off Makua. These operations include personnel and small boat insertions,
                                           and include the dropping of non-recoverable smoke flares.

                                       (4) Makua Vallei Milit= Reservation. Army helicopter conduct frequent low level flights (200-
                                           500 feet) along the coast enroute from Wheeler AAF (from thd north via Dillingham and
                                           Kaena Point or firom the east via Kolekole Pass and NAVMAG Lualualel) and from NAS
                                           Barbers Point supporting air assault training and fire buckets operations. Makua Valley is
                                           inaccessible by air from the north, east and south due to the proximity of the Waianae
                                           mountains. It affords the only company level live fire training area on Oahu

                                    h. Dillingham Airfield.    Dillingham, the adjacent uncontrolled airspace on/off shore, and the
                                       published military helicopter training route are used extensively for night unaided and NVG
                                       training. Helicopters routinely overfly coastal water at low level during approach, takeoff, closed
                                       traffic operations, and air assault training at the Army training area abutting Dillingham.

                                    i. A.-31 1. Army helicopters frequently conduct day/night low level training flights between Wheeler
                                       AAF and the primary tactical training area on Oahu, alert area'A-3 11. Adverse weather (low
                                       ceilings over the western edge of the Kahuku mountain range) often requires aircraft to divert, low
                                       level (200 to 500 feet) seaward of the North Shore enroute to A-31 1.

                              2.    Opcrations adjacent to pro2gsed sanctu= boundaries: The ocean areas and airspace north and south of
                                    the island of Oahu are divided onto a number of special operating areas in which live conventional
                                    ordnance firings are routinely conducted by surface ships and aircraft. Air tactics training is also
                                    routinely conducted at altitudes above 200 feet.

                         C. KAULA ROCK. An unattended/non instrumented target approximately 52 nautical miles southwest of
                              Kauai. Kaula Rock is an island with an area of .7 by .5 nautical miles upon which inert ordnance may be
                              expended on the first 1000 feet of the southeast tip.      Air to ground training exercises expend inert
                              conventional ordnance and night illumination devices. Oahu-based Army helicopters occasionally conduct

                    Page 392                                                                      Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                   and Management Plan







                     Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                                                    Appendix F: Military Activities in Hawaii
                     National Marine Sanctuary

                                  aerial gunnery training at Kaula Rock (W-187/R-3107). Operations entail open ocean and near-shore, low
                                  level, tactical flight (200-500 feet) enroute, and the expenditure of inert air-to-ground missiles and rockets
                                  on site.


                            D.    HAWAII (ISLAND). Few operations occur inside the 100-fathom isobath surrounding Hawaii. Army and
                                  USMC helicopter operations regularly occur over the island, primarily in support of military exercises at
                                  the Pohkuloa Training Area (PTA) in the center of the island between the volcanoes, and enroute to/from
                                  home bases on Oahu. Navy and Army landing craft frequently on/off load supplies and equipment at
                                  Kawaihae Bay (Kawaihae docks) in support of military training at PTA. Navy ships conduct periodic port
                                  visits at Hilo and Kona.



                                                                                          GLOSSARY


                                                           AAF        ............................ Army airfield
                                                           AAV        ............................ Amphibious assault -vehicles
                                                           AMTRACs          ................... Amphibious-tracked landing vehicles
                                                           ASU        ............................. Anti-surface
                                                           ASW        ............................ And-submarine warfare
                                                           BARSTUR         .................... Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range
                                                           BSURE      ........................ Barking Sands Underwater Range Expansion
                                                           DDS        ............................ Dry deck shelter
                                                           EOD        ............................ Explosive ordnance disposal
                                                           FORACS       ...................... Fleet Operational Readine@s Accuracy Check and Site
                                                           LCAC       .......................... Landing craft, air cushion
                                                           HATS       ......................... Hawaiian area tracking system
                                                           MCM        ........................... Mine counter-measure
                                                           NAS        ............................ Naval air station
                                                           NAVMAG          ..................... Naval Magazine
                                                           NVG        ............................ Night vision goggles
                                                           P-3        .............................. Patrol aircraft
                                                           RECON      ........................ Reconnaissance
                                                           RIMPAC       ....: ................. Rim of the Pacific (Specific multi-national exercise)
                                                           OPAREAs         .................... Operating areas        '
                                                           PMRF       .......................... Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking Sands, Kauai
                                                           USMC       ......................... United States Marine Corps


















                      Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                                                             Page 393
                      and Management Plan







                   Appendix F: Military Activities in Hawaii                                  Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                     National Marine Sanctuary


















                                               TIUS PAGE DELIBERATELY LEFr BLANK







































                  Page 394                                                               Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                         and Management Plan






           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                     Appendix G: Species Profile
           National Marine Sanctuary

                                                  Appendix G




                                                           ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
                                                             RESEARCH PROGRAM



                                                           TECHNICAL REPORT EL-89-10

                                             SPECIES PROFILES: LIFE           HISTORIES AND
                                           ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS OF COASTAL
                                                VERTEBRATES AND INVERTEBRATES
                                                        PACIFIC OCEAN REGION

                                                                  Report 2
                                           HUMPBACK WHALE, MEGAPTERANOVAEANGLIAE

                                                                     by
                                                       Eugene T. Nitta, John J. Naughton
                                                              Southwest Region
                                                       National Marine Fisheries Service
                                                National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -
                                                         Honolulu, Hawaii 96822-2396














                                                               November 1989
                                                            Report 2 of a Series

                                              Approved For Public Release, Distribution Unlimited







                                                Prepared for DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
                                                         US Army Corps of Engineers
                                                         Washington, DC 20314-1000

                                                      Monrtored by Environmental Laboratory
                                               US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
          US ARMY CORPS                    3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg. Mississippi 39180-6199              
          of Engineers












            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                Page 395
            and Management Plan
 







                         Appendix G: Species Profile                                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                     National Marine Sanctuary





                                                   Unclassified
                                                                            REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE                                          
                                                                                                                                                                1a  Report Security Classification   1b  Destinctive Markings 
                   
                         2a Security Classification Authority  3  Distribution of Report                                                                                        Unclassified                        Approved for public release; distribution
                                                                unlimited.
                                                                                                                                         Technical Report 
                         2b  Declassification/DownGrading Schedule
                                                 4 Performing Organization Report Numbers 5 Monitoring Organization Report Numbers                         laboratory
                                                                    Technical Report EL-89-10                                 See revers                      See reverse.
                         6a Name of Performing Organazation  6b Office Sybol  7a Name of Monitoring Organization
                            See Reverse.                      {if applicable}  USAEWES
                                                                               Environmental Laboratory                                                                             6c Address {city,state and zip code}  7b Address {city,state and zip code}
                             See reverse.                         3909 Halls Ferry Road
                                                                  Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199                                         Mitt&. Eugene T.: Naughton. John J.
                          Name of funding/sponsoring    Office symbols   9 Procurement instrument identification number
                          Address {city,state and zip code}               Source of funding numbers                                                                                                                  Washington, DC 20314-1000                     program   project task    work unit                                                               
                                                                        element no.  no.    no.    Accession No. 
                          11 Title   Species Profiles:  Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Vertebrates and
                                                  Invertebrates,  Pacific Ocean Region:  Report 2, Humpback Whale,
                          12 Personal Author{s}   MItta. Eugene T.; Naughton, John J.                                                   techniques chat are enable to detect small changes. so measurable trend. or one or any can-
                           13a Type of report       13b Time Covered        14 Date of Report (year,month,day}  15 Page count
                               Report 2 of a series    from  to             NOvember 1989       29
16 Suplementary Notation
     Available from Nation Technical Information Service, 3285 Fort Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.                                                 
 17       18 Subject Terms Environmental requirements Life cycles Hawaii Humpback whale
 19  Asstract  Commercial overexploitation resulted is the deplation of the NOrth Pacific population
     of humpback whales.  A major component of this population winters in Hawaiian waters, where                                              the low range of voter temperatures in comparison with brooding areas in other parts of the
     reproductive activities occur.  There are no apparent identifiable trends in the status of                                                                                                                                               (Continued
     this population.  This may be due to inconsistent survey affors, the imprecision of survey
     techniques that are unable to detect small changes, no measurable trend, or one or say com-
     bination of these factors.  During the winter breeding season, humpback whales are found
    within the 100-fatham isobath and shallover waters around the main Hawaiian islands.  Cow-
    calf pairs, in particular, demonstrate an affinity for waters of less than 50 fathoms.  If                                                                                                                                  Unclassified
  appears that size, depth, and substrate of shallow bank areas are important elements in the
distribution of humpback whales on their wintering grounds.  The sea-surface temperature in
Hawaiian waters ranges from 23.2 to 24.2 c during the winter breeding season and is at
the low range of water temperatures in cooperison with breeding areas in other parts of the
{continued}
20 Distrubution of abstract            21 Abstract security classification
                                          Unclassified
22a Name of Responsible Individual
22b Telephone (include area code)  22c Office symbol
dd Form 1473 Security classification of this Page
Unclassified



                         Page 396                                                                                           Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                                                    and Management Plan
Final Environmental Impace statement and Management plan






               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                                             Appendix G: Species Profile
               National Marine Sanctuary








                                 Unclassified

                                 6a. & c. Name and address of Performong Organization (continued).


                                 National Marine Fisheries services, NOAA

                                
                                 Southwest Region
                               Honolulu, HI 96822-2396


                                 19. ABSTRACT (Continued).


  world . The major environmental impact facing humpback whales In Hawaiian waters is the
  Loss and modification of shallow seashore habitat to harbor, resort, and other coastal  
development, and the subsequent increase in human activity including vessel traffic, which
may result in disturbances and displacement of humpback whales from preferred habitat.








































 Unclassified                                                                                        Security Classification OF this page












               Final Environmental Impact Statement                           Page 397                                                   Page 397
               and Management Plan






                 Appendix G: Species Profile                                          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                              National Marine Sanctuary





                                                                   PREFACE


                                 This report was published as part of the Environmental Impact Research
                          Program (EIRP), sponsored by Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers
                          (HQUSACE). Partial funding was provided by the US Army Engineer District,
                          Honolulu. Technical Monitors were Dr. John Bushman, Mr. David P. Buelow, and
                          Mr. Dave Mathis of HQUSACE. Dr. Roger T. Saucier, Environmental Laboratory
                          (EL), US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES),.was EIRP Program
                          Manager.
                                This report is designed to provide coastal managers, engineers, and
                          biologists with a brief comprehensive sketch of the biological characteristics
                          and environmental requirements of the humpback whale, megaptera novaem9liae,
                          and to describe how populations of the species in the Hawaiian waters may be
                          expected to react to environmental changes caused by coastal development. The
                          report has sections on taxonomy, life history, ecological role, environmental
                          requirements, growth, exploitation, and management. The'report was prepared.
                          by Messrs. Eugene T. Nitta and John J. Naughton of the Southwest Region,
                          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), under support agreement WESCW88-241.
                                Dr. C. Scott Baker, National_Cancer Institute, Department of Health and
                          Human Services; Dr. James D. Darli    'ng and Ms. Elizabeth Mathews, West Coast
                          Whale Research Foundation, Vancouver, B.C.; Dr. Dale Rice and Ms. Sally
                          Mirroch, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, NMFS;.Dr. Gerald Scott, Miami
                          Laboratory, Southwest Fisheries Center, NMFS; and Mr. Michael T. Lee, US Army
                          Engineer District, Honolulu, provided reviews of the manuscript. Mr. Allan
                          Wolman, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, NMFS, and Dr. Darling provided
                          additional unpublished data.
                               Mr. Edward J. Pullen, Coastal Ecology Group, EL, served as Contract
                          Monitor for this study under the general supervision of Dr. Conrad J. Kirby,
                          Chief, Environmental Resources Division, EL,,and Dr. John Harrison, Chief, EL,
                          WES.
                               COL Larry B. Fulton, EN, was Commander and Director of WES.
                          Dr. Robert W. Whalin was Technical Director.


                               This report should be cited as follows:
                              .Nitta. Eugene T., and Naughton, John J. 1989. *Species Profiles: Life
                               Histories-and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Vertebratbs and.
                               Invertebrates, Pacific Ocean Region; Report 2. Humpback Whale, megapter'a
                               novaeangliae," Technical Report EL-89-10, prepared by National Marine
                               Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
                               Honolulu, HI, for the US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, MS.













                 Page 398                                                          Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                                 Appendix G: Species Profile
              National Marine Sanctuary



                                                              CONVERSION TABLE


                                                          metric to U.S. Customary

                               Multip]                                                            To Obtain
                         millimeters    (mm)                         0.03937                inches
                         centimeters    (cm)                         0.3937                 inches
                         meters (m)                                  3.281                  feet
                         meters (m)                                  0.5468                 fathcms
                         kilometers   (km)                           0.6214                 statute miles
                         kilometers   (km)                           0.5396                 nautical miles

                         square meters (m2)                          10.76                  square feet
                         square kilometers (kM2)                     0.3861                 square miles
                         hectares (ha)                               2.471,                 acres

                         liters (1)                                  0  2642                gallons
                         cubic meters (m3)                           35  31                 cubic feet
                         cubic meters (m3)                           0.0008110              acre-feet
                         milligrims (mg)                             0.00003527             ounces
                         'grams (g)                                  0.03527                ounces
                         kilograms (kg)                              2.205                  pounds.
                         metric tons (t)                         2205.0                     pounds
                         metric tons (t)                             1.102                  short tons

                         kilocalories (kcal)                         3.568                  British thermal units
                         Celsius degrees (OC)                        1.80C)     32          Fahrenheit degrees

                                                         U.S. Custamarv to Metric
                         inches                                      25.40                  millimeters
                         inches                                      2.54                   centimeters
                         feet (ft)                                   0.3048                 meters
                         fathoms                                     1.829                  meters
                         statute miles (mi)                          1.609                  kilometers
                         nautical miles (nmi)                        1.852                  kilometers

                         square feet (ft2)                           0.0929                 square meters
                         square miles (mi2)                          2.590   -              square kilometers
                         acres                                       0.4047                 hectares

                         gallons (gal)                               3.785                  liters
                         cubic feet (W)                              0.02831                cubic meters
                         acre-feet                              1233.0                      cubic meters
                         ounces (oz)                           28350.0                      milligrams
                         ounces (oz)                                 28.35                  grams
                         pounds (lb)                                 0.4536                 kilograms
                         pounds (lb)                                 0.00045                metric tons
                         short tons (ton)                            0.9072                 metric tons
                         irritish thermal, units (Stu)               0.2520                 kilocalories
                         Fahrenheit degrees (OF)                     0.5556  (OF    32)     Celsius degrees



                                                                     iv


               Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                Page 399
               and Management Plan






                  Appendix G: Species Profile                                          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                National Marine Sanctuary












                                                                     CONTENTS

                                                                                                                     Page

                            PREFACE  .........................   ............................................        iii
                            CONVERSION TABLE   .............                                                            IV
                            NOMENCLATURE/TAXONOMY/RANGE     ................................................            I
                            MORPHOLOGY AND IDENTIFICATION AIDS      ..........................................          I
                            REASON FOR INCLUSION IN SERIES     ...............                               ......     3
                            LIFE-HISTORY AND ECOLOGY     ...... *"***:::*******                              **'***     4
                            Reproduction and Recruitment       .....     .....................................          4
                            Mating Behavior     ..........................................................              4
                            Vocalizations    ............................................................               5
                            Natural Mortality      ........................................................             5
                            Ectoparasites and Commensals       .............................................            6
                            Accidental Mortality     ....................................      i.@  ...............     6
                            Feeding    ...................................................................              6
                            EXPLOITATION AND POPULATION SIZE      ............................................          7
                            history of Exploitation      ....................................................           7
                            Current and Initial Stock Size        ...........................................           7
                            DISTRIBUTION  .................................................................             8
                            Migration    .................................................................              9
                            Seaional Habitats and Stock Structure         ......................................        9
                            HABITAT USE ................................................................. .             9
                            ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS   ................................      * .................   11
                            Water Depth    ..............................................................            11
                            Bank Characteristics      .....................................................          12
                               A. Size    .................................................................          12
                               B. Leeward vs Windward      .................................................         12
                               C. Substrate   ......................    i ...................................        13
                            Surface-Temperature    ......................................................            13
                            Surface Salinity    ........                                                        ...  14
                            Surface tu"ents     ...........                   ................................       14
                            Turbidity  ..................................................................            14
                            IMPACTS  ........................  *..... * .....................................        15
                            Coastal Development    .......................................................           15
                            Vessel Traffic   ...........................................................             is

                        .LITERATURE'CITED    ...........................................................             18








                                                                      v



                  Page 400                                                          Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                    and Management Plan






           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                         Appendix G: Species Profile
           National Marine Sanctuary






















                                       Figure    1.     Humpback  whale
                        (Northwest Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service)




                     THE NORTH PACIFI'C HUMPBACK WH-ALE
                                     I N H A W A I I A N       W A T Z R 5


              NOMENCLATURE, TAXONOMY, AND RANGE                shore islands of central Baja Cili-
                                                               fornia to Cabo San Luca's and       the
              Scientific name  ..............   Meqaotera      southern Gulf of California; and off
                 novaeangliae (Borowoski, 1781)                mainland    Mexico from Sonora      , to
              Preferred common name    .......   Humpback      Jalisco, and the Revillagigedo Is-
                 whale (Figure 1)                              lands (Socorro, San Benedicto, and
              Other common names       Humpbacked whale        Claridn).    Distribution over      the
              Class  ...                        Mammalia       summer feeding grounds ranges from
              Order  ...                          Cetacea      the coasts of Honshu, Japan, and
              Suborder                                         southern California north to the
              Family                     Balaenopteridae       Chukchi Sea (for distribution in    the
                                                               Hawaiian Archipelago, see Figure    2),

              Geographic range: Worldwide. In the
                 North Pacific, winters in shallow           MORPHOLOGY AND IDENTIFICATION
                 nearshore waters, of usually         100
                 fathoms or less around the Ryukyu                Humpback whales are medium-sized
                 and Bonin Islands of Japan           and    rorquals, with adult females larger
                 Taiwan in the western North Pacific;        (average@ - 14 m) than males (average a
                 main Hawaiian Islands in the central        13   m). In comparison with          other
                 North Pacific; the coast and off-           balaenopterids such as fin          whales




                                                         I

            Final Environ7ental Impact Statement                                                     Page 401
            and Management Plan

















                                           KA
                              Nllh4j 47


                             Sul                                        ahu


                                                                                   blokal
                                                                         0
                                                        Penguin Bank      La a                  Ma I
                                                                         Kah 21

                                                                                                               Haw




       M






                                  W 16!0"
    QQ
    a                                                                                                      1575*


                                         figure 2.   Distribution of humpback whales In  Ilawaiian waters
                                              ual-





                            KI
























                                                                 (depths In fathoms).





              Hawaiian Islands Hurripback Whale                                           Appendix* G: Species Profile
              National Marine Sanctuary

                    (Balaenopiera physalus) or sei whales            patch along the ventral midline to the
                    (I. borealis), humpback whales are               anus. The undersides of the flippers
                    more    full-bodied    (Leatherwood      and     are always white; the' upper surface
                    Reeves 1983). When viewed from above,            varies from mostly black to white
                    the head is broad, much like that of a           (Leatherwood 'and Reeves 1983).
                    blue whale (I. musculus). The dorsal
                    aspect of the head is distinctive with                The    relatively      short     baleen
                    a number of fleshy knobs or tubercules           plates number from 270 to 400 and are
                    distributed from the tip of the snout            generally blackish with gray fringes.
                    to the blowhole and along the sides of
                    the lower jaws. Each one of these                     The vertebral formula is C7 + T14
                    fleshy knobs- supports at least one              + LIO + Ca21-22 - 52-53. The flippers
                    tactile -hair. In lateral view, the              have four fingers of 1: 2, 11:7, IV:
                    head is surprisingly slim and can                6, V: 3 (Nishiwaki 1965, 1972).
                    resemble an alligator in           profile.
                    Paired blowholes are characteristic of           REASON FOR INCLUSION IN SERIES
                    baleen    whales, and       the    humpback
                    while's    pear-shaped      blow    reaches           The coastal habitat of the hump--
                    heights of 2 m or higher.                        back wha  'le made it one of the most
                                                                     vulnerable species to-modern whaling.
                         The long flippers are character-            Overexploitation      resulted    in     the
                    istic of humpback whales, measuring              worldwide depletion of most stocks of
                    nearly one-third the length of the               humpback whales.      The Infieryfational
                    body; the front edge bears a series of           Whaling Commission (IWQ banned the
                    knobs and is irregularly scalloped.              commercial harvest of humpback whales
                    Ventral grooves, which number from 14            in the North Atlantic in        1955, the
                    to about 22, extend from the chin to             North Pacific in 1965, and      the South-
                    the navel (Leatherwood et al.. 1982).            ern Hemisphere in 1966. In      1976 hump-
                    The dorsal fin is located less than              back whales were listed as      an endan-
                    one-third of the body length from the            gered species under- the        Endangered
                    fluke notch and slightly behind the              Species Conservation Act of     1969. All
                    intersection of the. anus (Nishiwaki             stocks of humpback whalei,rema.in list-
                    1972).    It is relatively smal-1 and            ed as endangered under the 'Endangered
                    ranges from a distinct falcate fin to            Speciei Act of 1973, as amended.
                    a small triangular nubbin. The dorsal
                    fin is often associated with a step or               The wintering grounds of some
                    hump which is accentuated when the               stocks lie within the         territorial
                    animal dives,, from which the animal             waters of non-IWC member countries,
                    derives its common name (Leatherwood             and a few animals are taken annually
                    and Reeves 1983). The width of the               in aboriginal hunts. Humpback whales
                    flukes are one-third the total body              are also increasingly subject to sea-
                    length and are serrated or scalloped             bed mining and oil and gas recovery
                    along the trailing edge.        Coloration       activities, nearshore pollution, ocean
                    of the dorsal aspect of the flukes is            dumping, entanglement in fishing gear,
                    usually dark.      The flukes' ventral           coastal and tourist-related develop-
                    surface ranges from completely black             menf such as marinas, harbors, and
                    to almost totally white, with numerous           resorts, and    veisel-traffic.       These
                    sear patterns and other natural mark-            factors affect competition for and the
                    ings allowing identification of indi-            availability of prey resources, and
                    vidual animals over'time.                        habitat availability. Each activity
                                                                     has the potential for direct distur-
                         Humpback whales are          basically      bance (i.e., harassment) of individual
                    dark gray to black. The ventral sur-             whales or an indirect impact through
                    face is variably white, with a white             damage to habitat or both.



                                                                3


             Final Environmental Impact Statement
             and Management Plan                                                                           Page 403






                 Appendix G: Species Profile                                          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                              National Marine Sanctuary



                           Although - humpback whales          are     1987), but the usual. reproductive
                     -protected from direct exploitation an            cycle appears to be 2 or more years.
                     a large scale, population estimates               Chittleborough (1958) examined Norwe-
                     remain uncertain and low, and recovery            gian. Antarctic whaling records for
                     rates are unknown.       Furthermore,     the     females selectively taken in commer-
                     species' dependence on coastal habi-              cial whaling operations from 1950 to
                     tats for calving, rearing, courtship,             1955. He noted that 8.5% of               the
                     and feeding suggest that recovery may             sexually mature females were            both
                     be negatively affected by the continu-            pregnant and lactating and, thus, must
                     ing. degradation of these habitats.               have.mated shortly after giving birth.
                     Habitat loss and modification can have            The survival rate of calves             from
                     a particularly acute impact in coastal            annual breeders is not known.
                     Wintering    grounds associated         with
                     islands or island groups such                as        In the Northern Hemisphere births
                     Hawaii, whe *re preferred humpback whale          usually occur between- January           and
                     habitat is limited and displacement               April.   Calves are about 4 m to 5 m
                     into suboptimal  *areas may occur due to          long at birth and colored light gray
                     extensive human'activities.                       (Chittleborough 1958; Nishiwaki 1959;
                                                                       Leatherwood and Reeves 1983). The
                                                                       single calf is nursed for 10- to 1I         '
                     LIFE HISTORY AND ECOLOGY                          months and is about 8 to 9 m long at
                                                                       weaning after completing one migration
                     f!evroduction and Recruitment                     to the summer feeding grounds with its
                                                                       mother.
                         Age at sexual maturity       for both
                     male and.female humpback whales has                   Estimates of calving rates for
                     been , estimated      from      5      years      Hawaii range'from 0.29 to 0.58 (calves
                     (Nishiwaki 1959; Chittleborough 1965)             per mature -female per year) on the
                     up to 9 years (Johnson and Wolman                 basis of resighting data and aerial
                     1984).   Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari             survey data (Herman.-and Antinoja 1977;
                     (1987) report a known-age male of 7               Baker, Perry, and Herman,     in press).
                     years actively participating in appar-            B'aker, Perry, and Heman in press) sug-
                     ent courtship behavior' in          Hawaii.       -gest that an overall calving rate of
                     More recently Clapham and Mayo (1987)             0.37 for the Hawaiian population          is
                     report known-age females with calves              most accurate,    with mature females
                     at  4 and 6 years,           respectively,        averaging every 2.7 years the birth of
                     observed in Massachusetts Bay (Gulf of            a calf that survives        'its first 6
                     Maine),   inferring age       at     sexual       months of life and its'- first migra-
                     maturity at 3 and 5 years for these               tion. Forestell (in prep.)-found that
                     individuals. Nishiwaki (1965) report-             of 347 whales sighted between January
                     ed length at sexual maturity             for      and April 1985, 35 (10%) were calves.
                     females at 11.4 - 12.0 m, and 11.1
                     11.4 m for males.                                 Mating Behavio

                        As seasonal breeders, humpback'                   Humpback whale behavior on the
                     whales have reproductive cycles that              Hawaiian wintering grounds strongly
                     are closely tied to their seasonal                s.uggests that both calving and    mating
                     migrations.   Mature females are be-              occur in or near these waters. Analy-
                     lieved to conceive on the breeding                sis -of ovaries and testes from hump-
                     grounds one winter and give birth the             back whales taken in commercial whal-
                     following winter.     Gestation       lasts       ing operations (Chittleborough     1958)
                     about 12 months. A few known females              and estimates of the length of     gesta-
                     have produced a calf in successive                tion indicate that the months            of
                     years on the       Hawaiian      wintering        assembly in Hawaii include the peak of
                     grounds (Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari             the mating period.      Though neither


                                                                  4


                 Page 404                                                          Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                   and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                          Appendix G: Species Profile
            National Marine Sanctuary


                calving nor mating has actually been            Payne and Guinee 1983j. A number of
                observed, cows with very young calves           singers have been identified as males,
                are commonly sighted in shallow, near-          and it has been hypothesized that,
                shore,   protected waters less than .10         among other uses,        these     humpback
                fathoms in depth and often very close           whale songs function as acoustic dis-
                to shore or the outer reef.         Aggres-     plays demonstrating dominance (Darling
                sive and apparent agonistic behavior            1983;    Darling and Morowitz         1986)
                among males presumably for access to            and/or availability (Tyack 1981; Baker
                potentially receptive females,           and    and Herman 1984).       Some males also
                pairing and consort behavior between            remain longer on the breeding grounds
                males and females have been detailed            than other males and females, suggest.
                by Baker, Herman, and Stifel        (1981);     ing that they may be dominant males
                Darling (1983); Tyack and- Whitehead            staying as long as females come into
                (1983); Baker and Herman (1984); and            estrus (Darling 1983).
                Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari (1985).
                Females probably come into           estrus          "Social     sounds"    are    nonsong
                within a 3- to 4- month period while            vocalizations produced on the winter
                wintering in Hawaiian waters (Darling           breeding grounds and are thought to be-
                1983).. Cuts and abrasions are inflic-          associated with agonistic         behavior
                ted by males on each other, with, head          within -large, surface active pods of.
                butts, flipper slaps, peduncle slaps,           humpbacks. These social sounds do not
                breaches, and other aggressive behav-           possess the complex structure of songs
                iors during competition for access to           with their peak energy between 1- t        'o
                females (Baker and Herman 1984; John-           3-kHz and 'the frequency rangq_ ysually
                son and Wolman 1984).                           below 4.7 kHz (Tyack 1983;         Mobley,
                                                                Herman, and Frankel 1986; Silber, in
                     Commonly observed group or unit            press; A. Frankel, 1988, Kewalo Basin
                compositions on the winter grounds              Marine Mammal Laboratory,       University
                include: cow with calf, often escorted          of Hawaii, pers. commun.).
                by a male; lone singers (males); lone
                adults;  pairs of adults       (male-male,          A    third type of        stereotyped
                male-female); and larger.groups (mul-           vocalization, the Ofeeding   call," has
                tiple males and a female). There is a           been recorded during the summer months
                regular interchange of         -individuals     in the vicinity of feeding whales in
                between and among these groups that             southeastern Alaskan waters         (Baker
                occurs over hours or days, except for           1985).   It is described as a *highly
                cow-calf pairs     (Mobley and      Herman      stereotyped   series     of    trumpeting
                1981; Baker and Herman 1984; Mobley             calls, each of approximately 2 sec in
                and Herman 1985; J.D. Darling, 1988,            length, with a frequency range of 440
                West Coast Whale Research Foundation,           to 550 kHz* (Baker 1985; Mobley, Her-
                Vancouver, B.C., pers. commun.)                 man, and Frankel 1986).

                Vocalizations                                   'Natural Mortality

                    On the winter breeding grounds,                 Mizroch     (1985) notes       natural
                humpback whales produce 'songs' which           mortality estimates for North Pacific
                have been described as a series of              humpback whales of 0.05 - 0.08 as
                repeating,  complex sequence of sounds          reported by Ohsumi    (1979) from Doi,
                including whistles, chirps,       squeals,      Nemoto, and Ohsumi    (1967).      Neither
                and grunts organized into phrases or            the method of estimation nor sample
                syllables within a phrase          (Payne,      size was reported.
                Tyack, and Payne 1983). The frequency
                range of these songs is generally                    Large   sharks,    such as      great
                less than4 kHz (Payne and McVay 1971;           whites (Ca@charodon     carcharilsl and
                Thompson, Winn,    and Perkins       1979;      tigers (Galgocerdo cuvieri), and kill-


                                                           5



            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                        Page 405
            and Management Plan





               Appendix G: Species Profile                                         Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                           National Marine Sanctuary



                       er whales (Orcinus orca) are'      probably     tarnacles and in    depressions and folds
                       responsible for a large proportion of           in the skin.         Cookiecutter     sharks
                       the natural mortality of calves and             (Isistius spp.) and lampreys cause
                       old or ailing adults..        Large tiger       some skin and blubber damage which
                       sharks were observed consuming a hump-          probably result in some scarring.
                       back whale.calf near Molokini Island.
                       Whether the sharks killed' the calf             Accidebtal Mortality
                       first or were just feeding on the
                       carcass was not determined (Shallen-                 Humpback whales can become entan-
                       berger 1981). During the Cooperative            gled in -various types of fixed fishing
                       Shark Research and Control          Program     gear, including fish weirs and traps,
                       conducted by the University of Hawaii           lobster trap lines, buoy lines, and
                       around the HaQaiian Islands in 1967-            gill   and trammel nets.      These inci-
                       69, 6% of the tiger sharks caught had           dents have occurred mainly off the
                       large   whale and small          odontocete     northeastern United States and eastern
                       remains in their stomachs           (Tester     Canada, and most injuries and mortali-
                       1969).                                          ties are reported from these areas
                                                                       (Perkins and Beamish 1979; Lien and
                       -    In higher latitudes,          humpback     Aldrich 1982; Lien et al. 1982; Lien
                       whales that frequent the edge of ic'e           et al. 1983; Lien, Walter, and Harvey-;
                       fields are sometimes trapped in the             Clark 1985; T. MacKenzie,1989, North-
                       O'ce. (Lien at al. 1983)..                      east Region, National Marine Fisheries
                                                                       Service, pers. commun.)
                            In late   1987 and early 1988, a
                       large number of mysticete whales died                Another source of injuries and
                       and came ashore in the Cape Cod area.           accidental mortalities are,. collisions
                       A total of 15 humpback whales, 4 minke          with vessels. Since 1986, a near miss
                       whales (Balaeanoptera acutorostraU),            and two col,lisions have been documen-
                       and 2 fin whales (I.     physalus) were         ted in Hawaiian waters      (Siler 1987;
                       included in this episode.     Testing of        Stevens 1988@, Tanji 1988).     Collisions
                       mackerel found in the stomachs of the           are likely to occur with greater fre-
                       animals sampled showed the presence of          quency where high speed vessel        traf-
                       a toxin with effects similar to that            fic is increasing in areas of high
                       of paralytic shellfish poison biotpx-           whale concentrations, such as off the
                       ins.  This is the first      instance in        leeward coast of Maui     and to a lesser
                       which a biotoxin has been implicated            extent off Kailua-Kona on the I.sland
                       in large whale mortality (D.W. Beach,           of Hawaii and the south shore of Oahu.
                       1988,  Northeast     Region,      National
                       Marine   Fisheries ' Service,        pers.      Feeding
                       commun.).
                                                                           Summer   feeding areas occur across,
                       Ectoparasites and Commensals                    the Pacific, from the Aleutian     Islands
                                                                       to the Farallon Islands off        central
                          Although     humpback whales         are     California.    In the Northern      Hemis-
                       ,infested with various ectoparasites            phere the   diet of humpback        whales
                       and commensals, they rarely manifest a          consists of pelagic organisms      of the
                       debilitating reaction. Barnacles are            coastal zone. These include mainly
                       large and conspicuous over certain              krill (euphausiids) along with     school-
                       parts of the body. They tend to con-            ing fishes such as herring,        Clupei-
                       centrate along areas of high turbu-             dae; sand lance, Ammodytes sp.; cape-
                       lence, such as the flukes, the leading          lin, Mall-otus villous; juvenile sal-
                       edge of the dorsal fin and flipper, or          monids, Onchorhynchus spp.; Arctic
                       along the midline of the           ventral      cod, Boreoqdus 11LU; walleye. pol-
                       pleats:  Smaller whale lice (cyamid             lock, Pgllachius virens; and ancho-
                       crustaceans)  are distributed around            vies, Engraulis mordax; rarely cope-


                                                                   6


                Page 406                                                         Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                 and Management Plan







            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                         Appendix G: Species Profile
            National Marine Sanctuary

                 pods,   pteropods and cephalopod mol-          to    1960   in the western        Pacific,
                 lusks   (Wing and Krieger 1983, unpub.         approximately 23,000 humpbacks were
                 manuscr., Auke Bay LaboratoryNational          taken.    Between 1960 and 1965, 'more'
                 Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS, Auke           than 5,000 were killed in commercial
                 Say, AK; Johnson and Wolman 1984;              whaling operations reducing the North
                 Krieger    and Wing 1984).         Humpback    Pacific population to about           11000
                 whales are found to be heavily clumped         (Rice 1978).
                 in their distributions relative to
                 prey abundance     (Johnson and Wolman         Current and Initial Stock Sizes
                 1984).
                                                                     The preexploitation size of the
                      Isolated incidents of apparent            North Pacific population of humpback
                 feeding and observa  'iions of defecation      whal-es prior to 1905 was estimated to
                 by humpback whales have been noted in          be about 15,000 animals (Rice 1978).
                 Hawaii.    Schooling carangids      (opelu,    A recent estimate of the North Pacific
                 Decaptero macirellus and akule, jtj.U          population of 2,100 is based on a mark
                 crumenopthalmus) occur in large aggre-         and recapture estimate derived from
                 gations within Hawaiian waters fre-            individual sightings of animals over a,
                 quented by humpback whales; however,           4 -year period (Darling and Morowitz
                 there have been no confirmed sightings         1986).   Estimates- for the- Hawaiian
                 of humpback whales feeding on these            stock range from 550-790 to- 2,100'
                 potential    prey species.        Humpback     (Rice abd Wolman 1979, unpub. manuscr.
                 whales are not known to regularly feed         submitted to IWC Scientific Committee;
                 in Hawaiian waters      (Glockner-Ferrari      Baker et al.   1986; Darling and-Mero-
                 and Ferrari 1985).                             witz 1986). The wide range of esti-
                                                                mates is likely due to differences in
                      Humpback whales feed at the sur-          analysis of mark and recapture data
                 face down to about 150 m (Dolphin              and survey techniques.       Until more
                 1987).   Feeding techniques have been          data are available, these est.imates
                 described as skimming, lunge feeding,          should be used-with considerable cau-
                 and circular swimming (Jurasz          and     tion (Table 1).
                 Jurasz 1979). Bubble net feeding is
                 an interesting be6avior in which 'a                Minimum counts based on the total
                 submerged. whale releases a stream of          number of unique individuals       identi-
                 buables in patterns ranging from lines         fied over a'specified period of time
                 !-nd partial circles to complete cir-          have also been developed. These range
                 cles with "tails." The animal then             from  521 individuals for one year
                 rises through the concentration of             in 1981, to 922 over 4 years from 1977
                 prey, with its mouth open.         Various     to 1981 (Darling and Morowitz 1986).
                 levels of apparent cooperation during          Perry et al. (1988)     identified 1,140
                 bouts of feeding have also been. ob-           unique individual humpback whales over
                 served, including herding of          prey     a 9-year period (1977-1985) for the
                 (Baker and Herman 1985).                       Central and eastern North Pacific.
                                                                These. counts do not account           for
                                                                mortality or recruitment and should
                 EXPLOITATION AND POPULATION SIZE.              not be considered abundance estimates.

                 Hiltory Of E1210itation                            Estimates     for    the    wintering
                                                                stocks in Mexico and the           western
                     An unknown number of humpback              Pacific are as yet unavailable, though
                 whale's were taken by aboriginal hunt-         numbers have been speculated to be in
                 ers and commercial whalers prior to            the hundreds or less.        During the
                 1900 in the North Pacific. During the          winter and spring of 1986, more than
                 course of modern whaling from 1905 to          100 individual humpbacks were photo-
                 1960 in the eastern Pacific and 1889           graphically    identified    in     waters


                                                            7



            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                      Page 407
            and Management Plan






                 Appendix G: Species.Profile                                               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                    National Marine Sanctuary


                        Table 1. Humpback whale abundance estimates               Hawaii and the North Pacific.



                                                 Count or
                              Melhod             Estimate           Time Erante        Area               Source
                              Photo-I.D.           1140             1977-1985          E.N.   Pacific     Perry et al.
                              Minimum               635             1977-1985          Hawaii             1988
                              Count
                                                    521               1981             Hawaii             Darling and
                                                    922             1977-1981          Hawaii             Morowitz
                                                                                                          1986

                              Modified             1000               1981             Hawaii             Darling and
                              Bernoulli            2100-            1977-1981          Hawaii  and        Morowitz
                              Estimate                                                 E.N. Pacific       1986

                              Petersen             1627             1977-1983'         Hawaii             Baker eft al.
                              Estimate            (ï¿½307)                                                  1986
                              Weighted             1407             1980-1983          Hawaii             Baker and
                              Petersen           (-4294)                                                  Herman 1987
                              Estimate

                              Vessel            530-790             1976-1979          Hawaii             Rice and
                              Survey                                                                      Wolman 1979
                                                                                                          (unpub.)

                              Aerial               900               1985              Hawaii             Forestell
                              Survey             L+150)                                                   (in press)






                   around Isla Socorro        and Isla Isabel            tified individuals. A rough estimate
                   off Mexico, indicating a larger popu-                 of abundance based on available infor-
                   lation than previously believed (Urban                mation indicates a population                eat
                   and Aguayo 1987). In the late winter                  least in the low hundredso for this
                   of 1988, is humpback whales were iden-                area (Darling and Ford 1988).              There
                   tified, including at least 3 with new                 is no current information regarding
                   .calves, In the Bonin Islands south of                abundance of humpback whales from the
                   Japan.      Five humpback 'whales           were      other western North Pacific wintering
                   photographed in 1987, but not seen in                 areas off the Mariana Islands, Ryukyu
                   1988, resulting in,a total of 20 iden-                Islands, and Taiwan'.



                                                                     8








                 Page 408                                                                Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                          and Management Plan






            Hawaiian Islands H'umpback Whale                                       Appendix G: Species Profile
            National Marine Sanctuary


                D ISTRIBUTION                                 McSweeney 1985;     Baker et al. 1986),
                                                              and the Farallon   Islands off Califor.
                Migration                                     nia (Baker et al. 1986) during the
                                                              summer. While humpback whales have
                     In Australia, Dawbi.n (1966) found       been observed in southeastern Alaska
                that humpback whales do not require           in all months of the yearno one indi-
                coastal   conditions for       migration.     vidual his yet been documented to
                Migration routes could not be related         overwinter or stay year-round (Straley,
                consistently to the direction of ocean        in press). Two individuals have also
                currents, the nature of water masses,         been identified wintering in Hawaii
                or bottom topography.                         during- one year and in Mexico in
                                                              another year (Darling and McSweeney
                     Humpback whales begin arriving In        1985; Baker et al..1986). Darling and
                Hawaiian waters as early as      October,     McSweeney (1985) suggest that, because
                though the season is more commonly            of these migratory connections, all
                thought of as beginning in     December.      humpback whales in the eastern North
                Baker et al. (1985) reported   a minimum      Pacific are of the same stock.      Baker
                known   migration time of      79    days     et al. (1986) also propose that     hump-
                between -Alaska and Hawaii     based on       back whales in the eastern and central
                resighting data. A peak in relative           North Pacific are of one stock and
                numbers of whales occurs in February          form several geographically isolated
                (Herman, Forestell, and Antinoja 1980;        feeding'herds.     These authors define
                Forestell, in press). Baker and Herman        the term 'structured stock" as several
                (1981) found that from 1977 to 1979           feeding herds that intermingle          to
                the Island of Hawaii showed the earli-        breed   on one or      more     wintering
                     peak influx of whales,          with     grounds.
                islands to the.northwest showing pro-
                gressively later dates of peak resi-          HABITAT USE
                dency.   Most whales depart by the end
                of April, though a few may           stay         In general,   humpback whale dis-
                through early June (Herman, Forestell,        tribution in Hawaii appears to be
                and Antinoja 1980).                           limited to the 100-fathom (183 m) iso-
                                                              bath and shallower waters. (Figure 2).
                    The average duration of wintering
                in Hawaii for either sex of any age               Surveys,in the late 1970's (Wol-
                class is unknown.       Glockneri-Ferrari     man and Jurasz 1977; Rice and Wolman
                and Ferrari (1985) reported a maximum         1979, unpubl. manuscr. submitted to
                known cow-calf residency interval in          IWC  Scientific Committee;        Herman,
                Hawaii of 56 dkys.       Dawbin (1966)        Forestell, and Antinoja 1980) showed
                found a succession in the migration to        that humpback whales prefer certain
                colder waters by different segments of        areas over others in Hawaii. The area
                the population, with an early depar-          of greatest use was found to be the
                ture of females without calves.        In     four-island area (Maui, Molokai, La-
                Hawaii, females with calves tend to be        nai, Kahoolawe) and Penguin         Bank.
                the  last to leave the wintering              Also heavily utilized were the Island
                grounds (Herman, Forestell, and Anti-         of Niihau and the Island of Hawaii,
                noja 1980).                                   Keahole Point north to Upolu Point
                                                              (Figure 3).- Kauai, Oahu, and the
                Seasonal Habitats and Stock 5tructure         eastern and southwestern waters of the
                                                              Island-of Hawaii received substantial-
                    Individual whales. wintering in.          ly less usage. Kaula Island,         just
                Hawaii have been identified in the            southwest of Niihau appears to mark
                Gulf of Alaska .(Kodiak Island, Prince        the western limit of humpback whale
                Villiam  Sound'. and Yakutat       Bay),      distribution in Hawaii., as few animals
                southeastern  Alaska     (Darling    and      have been reported around the atolls,


                                                         9


            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                    Page 409
            and Management Plan















        Qa





                                                      KAual

                                       NIIh-u



                                     9,861                                            ahu

                                                                                                    lokal



                                                                     Panguln Bank                                Ma I
                                                                                         LBO
                                                                                    Mantsea say
                                                                                       Kah6QqI                        Upolu Pt.
                  C31
                                                                                                          NUOU


                                                                                                 Keahole ft,




                                                                                                   Kailua Bay





                                                                                                                      South P1.


                                            W 100
                                                                                                                             15
     CM 0

        En
                                                Figure 3.    Areas of reported high density     of  humpback whales
                                          r@- rp










                                                                           (depths In fathoms).
        CD





               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                            Appendix G: Species Profile
               National Marine Sanctuary

                   islands,. banks,      and  reefs of       the    gray whale      (Eschrictius      robustus).
                   .northwestern Hawaiian Islands.           Al-    Humpback whales also are affected by
                   though all-island surveys have            not    human activity to a greater degree
                   been undertaken since 1979, indica-              than other balaenopterids.
                   tions are that this general usage
                   pattern has remained fairly consis-              Wate@ Depth
                   tent. 'Fluctuations in relative abun-
                   dance within and'between islands occa-                 The    distribution of        humpback
                   sionally occur.                                  whales during winter is almost exclu-
                                                                    sively over relatively shallow banks.
                         Humpback whales are known     to use       Winn, Edel, and Taruski (1975) found
                   the waters of Hawaii to nurse their              that 99% of the sightings of humpback
                   young.     In addition, calving, court-          whales in the West Indies are found on
                   ship, and mating are thought to occur            banks    between the 10- and 100-fathom
                   in or near Hawaii, though confirmed              (18 and 183 m) line.        Whitehead and
                   sightings of these behaviors have not            Moore (1982) narrow this down further
                   been observed to date.            Aggressive     by stating that humpback whales in the
                   male-male competition for          sexually      West Indies principally winter             in
                   mature females, including cows with              waters between 15 and 60 m deep.
                   calves, is evident throughout             the
                   season in Hawaii (Baker and Herman                     The same affinity for banks oc-
                   1984).    Cows with newborn calves are           curs in humpback whales wintering in
                   commonly found throughout the winter,            Hawaiian waters (Figure 3).           Wolman
                   and general     areas of high usage by           and Jurasz (1977) found that of 373
                   these pairs have been observed.         Her-     whales sighted in Hawaiiair Qaters,
                   man, Forestell, and Antinoja (1980)              only 7 were in deep interisland chan-
                   defined the north coast of Lanai as an           nels or in water deeper than 92 m.        In
                   arsa of high cow-calf density.          Hud-     a subsequent vessel survey, Rice and
                   nall (1978) suggested Maalaea Bay,               Wolman (1979, unpub. manusc@. submit-
                   Maui, as a major nursery.area.        Glock-     ted to   the IWC Scientific Committee)
                   ner-Ferrari and Ferrari (1985) charac-           sighted only 2 out of 411 humpback
                   terized the southwest coast of Maui              whales   in waters deeper than 180 m.
                   from MacGregor Point to Kaanapali as             Tinney   (1988) states that whales in
                   an area of high-calf use.         Forestell      Hawaii   tend to favor water about 25
                   ( in press) found roughly three times            fathoms  (46 m) in depth.
                   as many total calves in the four is-
                   land area as over Penguin Bank during                  Off windward  Oahu,.adult humpback
                   aerial surveys.                                  whales have been    observed on several
                                                                    occasions swimming slowly parallel to
                   ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS                       but just seaward of the 10-fathom
                                                                    (18 m) isobath where a sharp sea bot-
                        Humpback     whales are       strongly      tom   escarpment drops from 16            to
                   migratory, though routes between win       ' -   approximately 15 fathoms (18 to 27 m)
                   ter calving.areas and summer feeding             (J.   Naughton,     Southwest       Region,
                   grounds are not well known.        Humpback      National Marine Fisheries          Service,
                   whales occur very close to shore and             Honolulu, pers.     obs.).    The whales
                   appear to be relativelysedentary once            appear to follow   the depth contour as
                   they arrive at their northern             or     they migrate along the coastline.
                   southern seasonal destination (Lea-
                   therwood et al. 1982).        Because of               Gloikner-Ferrari     and , Ferrari
                   this behavior, they appear to have               (1985) report that of the mothers and
                   specific environmental        requirements       calves they recorded off Maui in 1977
                   more closely associated with            land     and 1979, 80.3% were within the 10-
                   masses than do,any other species of              fathom (18 m) cur    ive..  Glockner and
                   large whales with the exception of the           Venus (1983) found mothers and calves




             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                          Page 411
             and Management Plan





                                                                                   Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
              Appendix G: Species Profile                                                   National Marine Sanctuary



                     resting     in shallow waters often just         erally surrounded by these four is-
                     beyond    the surf line.    In a study      in   lands but also including Penguin Bank.
                     Maalaea Say, Maui, by Muller,        Carini,     They found the greatest concentration
                     and Hudnall    (1980 unpub.        manuscr.,     of whales, with 0.78 whale per square
                     Maui 'Whale   Research Institute),       most    mile,   on -Penguin Bank,      the    largest
                     whales were   observed in water 25 to 73         single bank area in the main        Hawaiian
                     m deep.   The only calves seen were in           Islands.      The second most -important
                     water estimated to be less than 18 m             area was the Island of Hawaii, partic-
                     deep.    High cow-calf densities rela-           ularly the northwest coast where an
                     tive to other age classes of whales at           expanded bank occurs        between    Upolu
                     specific   sites off the west coast of           Point and Keahole Poi.nt.     Other coast-
                     the Island of Hawaii have also been              al  areas surrounding the        Island of
                     noted.    These areas     include waters         Hawaii are bordered by a narrow shelf,
                     shallower than 50 fathoms (91 m)         be-     with the exception of an expanded bank
                     tween Keahole Point and Kiholo Bay,              in Hilo Bay and at Ka Lae             (South
                     and from Keahuolu Point to Kailua Bay            Point). Both these areas have yielded
                     (M. Smultea 1988, Moss Landing Marine            consistently     high    humpback      whale
                     Laboratory, pers. commun.; E. Mathews            counts (Figure 3).
                     and 0. McSweeney. 1988, West Coast
                     Whale Research Foundation, pers. com-                 In American Samoa a small number
                     mun.). Compared with      other     age/sex      of. humpback whales, including cows
                     classes  of the population,      the data        with* calves,    are sighted    each -year
                     indicate.that mothers and calves' pre-           from July through October in the wat-
                     fer shallower waters. Cows with new-             ers surrounding Tutuila Island.          The
                     born calves tend to segregate them-              bank surrounding Tutuila is especially
                     selves from other whales as well as              broad off Cape Taputipu and Leone Bay.
                     from other cows and calves.             This     These areas yield,the most sightings
                     suggests that females with calves need           each year (J.      Naughton,      Southwest
                     substantial areas of shallow water in            Region, National Marine Fisheries Ser-
                     which to swim, rest,' and presumably             vice, Honolulu, pers. obs).
                     nurse (Tinney 1988).
                                                                      B. Leeward versus Windward
                     Bank Charag_teristics
                                                                          From December through March in
                     A. Size                                          Hawaiian waters, northeast trade winds
                                                                      are present about 55% to 65% of the
                         In addition    to water depth, the           time. These northeast trades result in
                     size of the'bank appears to be of                generally consistent wind and wave
                     importance to humpback whales on their           action on windward coasts. Winds from
                     wintering grounds.     Winn,   Edel,    and      the south and occasionally from the
                     Taruski (1975) found that in West                north account for the remainder of the
                     Indies waters, coasts with          narrow       wind and swell patterns (Herman 1979).
                     shelves, generally less than 2 miles
                     wide, do not harbor humpback whales.                 Rice and Wolman (1979, unpubl.
                     In contrast, the broad bank area of              manuscr. submitted to 1WC Scientific
                     Silver and Navidad Banks contains the            Committee)  found far more whales on
                     -greatest concentration of        humpback       the leeward side of the Hawaiian Is-
                     whales in the West Indies.                       lands than on the windward            side.
                                                                      However, when calculated on the basis
                        Similarly, in Hawaii         Rice and         of whales per unit area, there was
                     Wolman (1979,-unpubl. manuscr. submit-           little difference between the          two
                     ted to IWC Scientific Committee) found           sides. They concluded that the-greater
                     by far the greatest number of whales             abundance of whales on the leeward
                     on the    Molokai-Lanai-Maui-Kahoolawe           side appears to be due mainly to its
                     bank, a large shallow bank area gen-             larger areas of shallow water rather


                                                                 12
                Page 412                                                           Final Environmental impact*Statement
                                                                                                  and Management Plan





              Hawaiian 'Islands Humpback Whale                                           Appendix G: Species Profile
              National Marine Sanctuary


              than due to any marked preference by                   Whitehead and Moore (1982)        found
              the whales for calmer waters.               In   the highest humpback whale song densi-
              fact, the Single greatest density of             ties on Silver Bank in areas with
              whales was found on Penguin Bank (0.78           virtually flat bottoms.. Lowest song
              whale per square mile), an exposed               densities occurred where the bottom
              bank area noted for its rough water.             profile was rough, indicating coral
                                                               growth. They concluded that there is
                   Herman, Forestell, and Antinoja             evidence that singers select areas
              (1980) also noted that Penguin Bank is           with smooth bottoms in the West In-
              regularly exposed to strong, gusty               dies, thereby enhancing sound trans-
              trade winds,-but is highly preferred             mission.
              humpback whale habitat.         They found
              that windward areas of some Hawaiian                   No comparative analysis has been
              Islands are not used much by whal,es,            done for substrate preference in the
              but this may reflect the limited ex-             Hawaiian Islands.     However, bank areas
              tent of shallow water available and              with the highest concentration             of*
              not the prevailing wind conditions.              whales    (Penguin Bank,        four-island
              Herman (1979) concluded that there               area) are known for broad expanses of
              seemed to be no consistent relation-             flat, sandy bottom as can be seen from
              ship between wind or swell          patterns     bathymetric charts.
              and habitation by humpback whales.
                                                               Surface Temperature
                    In Australia, sheltered waters of
              the Great Barrier Reef between lat.                   Whitehead and Moore     (1982)    found
              16*-21*S appear to be important breed-           that humpback whales winter id- the
              ing grounds for the East Australian              West Indies in waters'of 240to 28* C.
              humpback whale stock. However, there             They suspect that the warm waters are
              is evidence of humpback whales giving            favorable .    for calving since         the
              birth prior to reaching Great Barrier            calves are born with a thin blubber
              Reef waters     (Paterson and Paterson           layer.    In the Southern Hemisphere
              1984).                                           Dawbin (1966) found that           humpback
                                                               whales winter in water temperatures of
                   In the Bonin Islands, humpback              about 25* C.
              whales including cows with new calves
              were found in the usually rough waters                In the Hawaiian Archipelago, sea-
              surrounding the islands. The islands             surface temperatures show relatively
              are not high enough to create any                small seasonal and year-to-year chang-
              significant lee, which is essentially            es, having a long-term average yearly
              nonexistent (Darling and      Ford 1988).        range of 23.2*to 26.4* C (Seckel and
                                                               Yong 1970). Surface temperatures dur-
              C. Substrate                                     ing the winter in Hawaiian waters
                                                               range between 23.2*and 24.2* C. These
                   Very little work has     been done on       temperatures are slightly cooler than
              substrate characteristics     of the banks       those found in other known humpback
              where humpback whales. are    consistently       whale-winter habitats.
              found during the winter months. It is
              believed that humpback whales feed                    The lack of sightings of humpback
              littlej if at all, during winter (Mat-           whales in the Northwestern Hawaiian
              thews   1937;     Chittleborough       1965;     Islands may be due to low -sea-surface
              Dawbin    1966; Whitehead and         Moore      temperatures in the area. Huge bank
              .1982). Therefore, the importance of             areas occur there (i.e. Necker Island,
              substrate in attracting or supporting            Maro Reef, Gardner Pinnacles, Neva
              prey species does not appear to be a             Shoal around Lisianski Island, French
              consideration.                                   Frigate Shoals) and would seem to have



                                                          13


              Final Environmental impact Statement                                                          Page 413
              and Management Plan






                 Appendix G: Species Profile                                         Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                              National Marine Sanctuary



                      the desired characteristics; yet hump-          from 3.0 to 32.5 cm/sec       (Uchida and
                      back whales are rarely sighted in               Uchiyama 1986).
                      these areas. Confirmed'sightings have
                      been made at Nihoa Island (A. Everson,               Early studies in Hawaii suggested
                      Southwest Fisheries Center,        National     a general movement of humpback whales
                      Marine Fisheries Service. Honolulu,             south    to north through the           main
                      pers. commun. and photos), and mothers          Hawaiian Islands in the winter .(Baker
                      and calves have been sighted at French          and Herman 1981).' Whales were thought
                      Frigate Shoals (K. Kenyon, Seattle,             to enter winter habitat at the Island
                      WA., and J. Naughton, Southwest Re-             of Hawaii and work through the main
                      gion, National Marine Fisheries Ser-            islands, departing later in the season
                      vice, Honolulu, pers. obs).        However,     at Oahu., The net current flow would
                      aerial surveys specifically conducted           support this hypothesis.           However,
                      to locate    humpback whales in         the     Darling and Morowitz (1986) recently
                      northwestern Hawaiian      Islands     have     have shown that a few animals travel
                      found none (Herman, Forestell, and              from Maui to Hawaii (north to south)
                      Antinoja 1980). The slightly. cooler            in one season and sugg    'est that the
                      water in this more northerly segment            majority of the humpback whale popula-
                      of the Hawaiian Archipelago may pre-            tion was present at least through the
                      clude the use of these large banks as           peak season (January - April).         This
                      significant wintering areas by hump-            would indicate some exceptions to the
                      back whales.                                    general trend and that surface cur-
                                                                      rents may not play a major _role in
                      Surface Salinity.                               movement of humpback whales, at least
                                                                      within the Hawaiian Archipelago.
                          In    the Hawaiian       Archipelago,
                      maximum saiinity occurs in November-            Turbidity
                      February when the 350/oo          salinity
                      isopleth has moved south to lat. 17*-               In    considering the        turbidity
                      19*N  (Uchida and Uchiyama          1986).      levels of glacial runoff waters and
                      Therefore, the surface salinity in the          the generally nutrient rich conditions
                      humpback whale wintering. environment           which comprise the humpback whales'
                      in Hawaiian waters is between 350/oo            summer   feeding habitat,        turbidity
                      and 35.2P/oo.     Considering the low           would not appear to have a negative
                      salinity found in much of the humpback          environmental impact o  'n whales in the
                      whales' summer feeding grounds, it is           wintering grounds. However, a number
                      improbable that salinity plays a major          of observations have been made of
                      role in selection of wintering areas.           humpback   whales    avoiding      turbid
                                                                      coastal waters in Hawaii (Glockner-
                      'Surface Currgnts                               Ferrari and Ferrari 1985).         During
                                                                      1980, they reported that- agricultural
                         Most areas of the    Hawaiian Archi-         runoff from heavy winter storms crea-
                      pelago have a net surface current flow          ted a dense mudline in          nearshore
                      to the west.. However, flows are modi-          waters, which the whales seemed''to
                      fied by the shapes of the islands               avoid. It was believed this may be -a
                      causing large eddies to form down-              potentially important impact to the
                      stream. Close to shore, tides have a            humpback whale population in Hawaii
                      major influence on currents.    In many         (Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari      1985).
                      coastal areas of Hawaii, a rotary               Adult  humpback whales       have     been
                      semidiurnal tidal current is present,           observed swimming in clear water par-
                      usually  varying in direction          and      allel'to a meandering band of turbid,
                      speed.  The bank areas of importance            sodiment-laden water from land runoff
                      to humpback whales are         influenced       in the area of Lalau Point, Molokai.
                      mairfly by    tidal    currents.       The      They appeared to avoid swimming into
                      strength of these currents can vary             the turbid water by changing 'direction


                                                                 14


                Page 414                                                         Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                            Appendix G: Species Profile
              National Marine Sanctuary


                    (J.    Naughton,      Southwest      Region,     which cetaceans have shown a definite
                    National Marine Fisheries           Service,     susceptibility      (Dailey 1985;       J.P.
                    Honolulu, pers. obs.). However, it is            Schroeder 1988, Naval Oceans Systems
                    not known whether whales avoid these             Center, Kaneohe, HI, pers. commun.).
                    waters due to turbidity or to chemical           The long-term effects of low concen-
                    pollutants from upland sources.                  trations of compounds such as tribu-
                                                                     tyltin on larger vertebrates such as
                                                                     whales is not known.
                    IMPACTS

                    Coastal OlvelopmInt                              Vessel Traffic

                          Known humpback whale habitat may                In Hawaii, humpback whal'es are
                    be affected by harbor and boat ramp              subject to physical and acoustic dis-
                    construction, nearshore resort devel-@           turbance by large numbers of recrea-
                    opment,    alternative energy        devel-      tional boaters as well as an increas-
                    opment, wastewater discharge and out-            ing number of whale-@watching vessels
                    fall   construction,    permanent vessel         as they engage in water skiing,       para-
                    moorings,    agricultural     runoff,    and     sailing, jet skiing, high speed plea-
                    recreational     water sports.       Water-      sure cruising, and whale watching. At
                    dependent construction activities by             present, commercial shipping and dom-
                    themselves result in highly visible              mercial fishing vessel traffic do not
                    primary impacts such as           blasting,      appear to pose a significant problem
                    dredging, and filling which may result           in Hawaiian waters because o7 -the
                    in displacement, injury, and mortal-             location of their activities,       and/or
                    ity.    However, these adverse impacts           their-routes and behavior.
                    can be reduced or eliminated . through
                    seasonal timing or construction design               The Navy occasionally conducts
                    modifications, and the actual physical           vessel firing exercises off Kahoolawe
                    loss of habitat is small in comparison           Island.   Ouring'a test to determine
                    to the total available.        It is the         in-water source levels of naval        gun.
                    secondary and tertiary impacts associ-           fire and humpback whale vocalizations,
                    ated with the initial habitat modifi-            it was found that ambient noise was
                    cation, such as increased vessel traf-           dominated by humpback whale phonations
                    fic associated with harbors, ramps,              (Friedl and Thompson 1981).
                    moorings and hotels, that may likely
                    have irreversible consequences on the                Normal whale behavior (the ener-
                    distribution and reproductive success            getic and often acrobatic behavior
                    of humpback whales.                              associated with pod formation           and
                                                                     disass'ociation and competitive activi-
                         Water quality degradation result-           ties, such as breaching and peduncle
                    ing from increased sewage effluent,              or fluke slapping), in some instances,
                    surface runoff (agricultural,        indus-      is indistinguishable from reactions to
                    trial, and residential), and the lea-            vessels and makes the-effects of ves-@
                    ching of vessel      hull     anti-fouling       sel traffic in Hawaii difficult to
                    compounds (e.g. tributyltin) may also            evaluate.   Recent studies, however,
                    adversely affect the distribution and            have provided some insight into this
                    physical well-being of humpback whales           problem.   Bauer and Herman         (1986)
                    using   nearshore waters.        Untreated       found humpback whales off Maui to
                    sewage dumped from vessel           holding      significantly alter behaviors in res-
                    tanks and pumped from municipal        out-      ponse to vessels within 1,000 m.        In-
                    falls during periods of overflow, such           creases in dive times and some threat
                    as storms and plant malfunctions, are            behaviors. were observed.       Short-term;
                    sources of many infectious agents,               impacts of reduced fitness resulting
                    viral, bacterial, and mycotic,           to      from  excessive energy        expenditure





              Final Environmental Impact Statement
              and Management Plan                                                                          Page 415





                  Appendix G: Species Profile                                          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                               National Marine Sanctuarv




                       during the nonfeeding season             were          Other recent studies also strong.
                       suggested. They postulated that these             ly indicate that humpback whales may
                       probable short-term impacts are linked            be abandoning coastal habitat because
                       to the potential for long-term nega-              of human activities.        Herman,    Fore-
                       tive effects such as displacement,                stell, and Antincia (1980) noted a
                       reduced     reproductive success,         and     preference of humpback whales             for
                       reduced recruitment.                              subregions removed from areas of dense
                                                                         human habitation or activity.        On the
                              Glockner-Ferrari     and      Ferrari      basis of aerial surveys, they observed
                       (1985, 1987) note a continuing decline            an absence of whales within S- to 6-km
                       in the percentage of cow-calf pairs               of Lahaina, Maui,and suggested that
                       sighted in nearshore waters off west              whales avoided the area because of
                       Maui.    In their early studies, they             human activities, primarily          recre-
                       found 80.3% of the mot   'hers and' calves        ational boat traffic.       Forestell (in
                       observed were within. the 10-fathom               press) also noted a lack of sightings
                       (18 m) isobath. However, this percen-             in the Lahaina area relative to other
                       tage has steadily decreased, with- a              areas off Maui. In addition, he found
                       low in 1983 of 17.2% within the 10-               virtually no whales during           aerial
                       fathom (18 m).isobath. In. 1984 and               surveys within a 5- to 6-km radius
                       1985, the percentages again declined              around the new small boat ramp and
                       to 14.1 and 5.7%, respectively (Glock-            protective breakwater at Keawakapu,
                       ner-Ferrari and Ferrari 1987, Table               Maui. He hypothesizes that whales, in
                       2). They attribute fewer whales being.            fact, may be in these aftaf, but
                       observed in nearshore waters to human             be-cause of increased vessel traffic,'
                       activities, such as direct           inter-       they engage in behaviors that make
                       actions between whales and vessels,               them less obvious, such*as remaining
                       and displacement by high-speed vessel             submerged for longer periods, or that
                       operations.    They also believe that             more noticeable large pods-of, whales
                       habitat is being lost through the                 or cow-calf pairs may          selectively
                       effects of pollution and report a                 avoid the area. Single animals, which
                       decrease in water quality resulting               typically remain underwater for Tonger
                       from agricultural runoff from coastal             periods, may be present in these areas
                       development and sewage output.                    yet be missed by aerial surveys.



                                  Table 2. Percentage of mothers and calves sighted in nearshore
                                   waters off West Maui (from Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari 1987).

                                      Ocean Hours      Mother-Calf       Mother-Calf Sets-        Mother-Calf
                                    of Observation       Sightings Within 0.4 km'of Shore Sightings
                           Year             (No.)           (No.)               (No.)                   N


                           1977             174             39                   25                  64.1
                           1978             ISO             48                   42                  87.5
                           1979             134             47                   37                  78.7
                           1980             291             53'                  15                  28.3
                           1981             228             52                   17                  32.7
                           1982             251             69                   is                  26.1
                           1983             233             63                   11                  17.5
                           1984             283             78                   11                  14.1
                           198t             282             as                     5                 5.7






                  Page 416                                                          Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                     and Management Plan






             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                       Appendix G: Species Profile
             National Marine Sanctuary

                        Tinney (1988) lists and describes       18.   Aircraft overflights
                   activities potentially affecting hump-       19.   Marine construction
                   back whales in coastal waters          of
                   Hawaii. He states that these activi-              The effect of acoustic interfer-
                   ties, occurring often enough,     densely    ence on *singing' and other related
                   enough, or long enough in or near            behaviors and its eventual impact on
                   areas traditionall.y used by humpback        reproductive activities are not well
                   whales may cause them to abandon or          known.  OSingers," however, have been
                   avoid the areas-and possibly result in       observed to stop singing when high
                   increased mortality and/or decreased         speed or very loud vessels transited
                   reproduction.                                nearby (Bauer and Herman 1986).

                        Specific activities (from Tinney            At present, with the exception of
                   1988), not in any particular order of        the potential loss of summer foraging
                   importance, which potentially affect         habitat, the continued loss and degra-
                   humpback whales Include the following:       dation of known preferred winter habi-
                                                                tat in Hawaiian waters, particularly
                   1.   Swimming, snorkeling, and diving        that Of mothers and calves, probably
                   2.   Surfing                                 constitutes one of the major threats to
                   3.   Wind and motorized surfing              the recovery of the Hawaiian popula-
                   4.   Waterskiing                             tion of humpback whales. In order to
                   S.   Kayaking                                better gage    the prospects for and
                   6.   Recreational fishing                    encourage recovery of this endangered
                   7.   Commercial fishing                      species in Hawaii,   habitat require-
                   8.   Sailing                                 ments and reproductive parameterf- fbr
                   9.   Jetskiing                               humpback whales in Hawaiian waters
                   10.  Addictor boating (rental mini-          need to be more. precisely defined.
                         hydroplanes)                           Further, a cost-effective and accurate
                   11.  Parasailing                             means of determining populatJon trends
                   12.  Whale watching                          and a method of assessing the status
                   13.  Scientific research                     of humpba,.k whales in Hawaiian waters
                   14.  Marine transport                        must be developed and initiated so
                   15.  Water taxis ,                           that additional protective measures
                   16.  Surface warship operations              and'recovery actions can be implemen-
                   17.  Submarine operations                    ted should they be required.



















                                                           17



            Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                   Page 417
            and Management Plan



                 Appendix G: Species Profile                                             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                 National Marine Sanctuary





                                                                  LITERATURE CITED

                              Baker, C.S.    1985.     The population         lation structure of humpback whales
                              structure and social organization of            (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the cen-
                              humpback whales  (Megaptera  novae-         tral and eastern North Pacific. Mar.
                              angliae) in the central and eastern             Ecol. Prog. Ser. 31:105-119.
                              North Pacific. Ph.D. Thesis, Univer-
                              sity of Hawaii, Honolulu.                    Baker, C.S.,   L.M. Herman,     and W.S.
                                                                              Stifel.     1981. Agonistic behavior
                              Baker, C.S., and L.M.       Herman.    1981.     in humpback whales: Evidence for
                              Migration and local movements of               male-male competition. Abstr.  in
                              humpback whales through   Hawaiian      Proceedings of the 4th Biennial
                              waters. Can. J. Zool. 59:460-469.               Conference on the Biology of Marine
                                                                              Mammals, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 14-
                              Baker, C.S., and L.M     Herman. 1984.          18, 1981, p. 7.
                              Aggressive behavior between humpback
                              whales    (Megaptera novaeangliae)        Baker, C.S., A. Perry,  and       L.M.
                              wintering in Hawaiian waters. Can.             Herman. In press.        Reproductive
                              J. Zool. 62:1922-1937.                          histories of female humpback whales
                                                                              in the North Pacific. Mar. Ecol.
                              Baker, C.S., and L.M. Herman. 1985.      Prog. Ser.
                              Whales that go to extremes.   Nat.
                              Hist. Mag. 10:52-61.                        Bauer, G.B., and L.M. Herman. 1986.
                                                                              Effects of vessel traffic on the
                              Baker, C.S., and L.M. Herman. 1987.             behavior    of humpback whales in
                              Alternative population estimates of             Hawaii. Contract report to Nat. Mar.
                              humpback-whales (Megaptera novaeang-            Fish.   Ser.,   Southwest Region,
                              liae) in Hawaiian waters. Can. J.               Honolulu, HI. 151 pp.
                              Zool. 65:2818-2821.
                                                                          Chittleborough,   R.G.    1958.       The
                              Baker, C.S., L.M. Herman, A. Perry,             breeding cycle of the female hump-
                              W.S. Lawton, J.M. Straley, and J.H.             back whale, Megaptera nodosa (Bonna-
                              Straley.  1985. Population charac-              terre).   Aust. J. Mar.     and Fresh-
                              teristics and migration of        summer        water Res. 9:1-18.
                              and  late-season humpback         whales
                              (Megaptera novaeangliae) in   South-   Chittleborough, R.G. 1965.           Dynamics
                              eastern Alaska.      Mar. Mam.  Sci.       of two populations of the humpback
                              1(4):304-323.                          whale,    Megaptera  novaeangliae
                                                                              (Borowski). Aust. J. Mar. Freshwa-
                              Baker, C.S., L.M. Herman, A.      Perry,        ter Res. 16:33-128.
                              W.S. Lawton, J.M. Straley, A.A. Wol-
                              man, G.D. Kaufman, H.E. Winn, J.D.
                              Hall, J.M. Reinke, and J. Ostman.           Clapham,  P.J., and C.A. Mayo.    1987.
                              1986. Migratory movement and popu-              The attainment of sexual maturity in


18





                   Page 418                                                Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                 and Management Plan





              Hawaiian Is 'lands Humpback Whale                                           Appendix G: Species Profile
              National Marine Sanctuary


                       two female humpback whales. Mar.                 Cassin's auklets by humpback whales.
                       Mam. Sci. 3(3):279-283.                          Auk. 100:214.
                    Dailey, M.D.     1985. Diseases of mam-           Forestell, P.M.     In @ress- Assessment
                       malia: Cetacea. Pages 805-847 La 0.              and verification of abundance esti-
                       Kinne ed. Diseases If Marine ffAM-               mates, seasonal trends, and popula-
                       mLI1.   Vol - U, 2= Z.        Biologische        tion characteristics of the humpback
                       Anstalt Helgoland, Hamburg, FRG.                 whale in Hawaii.        Marine     Mammal
                                                                        Commission     Contract     Report ' No.
                     Darling,    J.D.    1983.       Migrations,                       43 pp.
                       abundance and behavior of Hawaiian
                       humpback whales, Megaptera novae@             Friedl, W.A., and P.O. Thompson. 1981.
                       angliae (Borowski). Ph.D. Thesis.                Measuring acoustic       noise     around
                       University     of California,        Santa       Kahoolawe Island.       NOSC Tech. Rep.'
                       Cruz.   147 pp.                                  732.    Naval Oceans Systems Center,
                                                                        Hawaii Laboratory, Kailua, Hawaii.
                    Darling, J.D.,      and D.J. McSweeney.             15 pp.
                       198'5.   Observations on the migra-
                       tions  of North Pacific          humpback     Glockner-Ferrari, D.A., and M.J.         Fer-
                       whales  (Megaptera novaeanaliae) Can.            rari. 1985. Individual identifica-
                       J. Zool. 63:308-314.                             tion,   behavior,    reproduction,     and
                                                                        distribution of humpback          whales,
                     Darling,  J.D., and H.    Morowitz.     1986       Mecafterl novaeangliae,      in Hawaii.
                       Census of 'Hawaiian'    humpback whales          Marine Mammal     Commission Contract
                       (Mecantera novaeangliae) by individ       ,      Report No. MMC-83/06. Accession No.
                       ual  identification. Can. J. Zool.               PBSS-200772 NTIS, Springfield, VA.
                       4:105-111.
                                                                     Glockner7Ferrari, D.A., ind M.J. Fer-
                   Darling, J.D., and J.K.B. Ford. 1988.                rari. 1987.    Identification, repro-
                       A study of the.current status of                 duction, and distribution of -hump-
                       humpback whales in Japan. Prelimin-              back whales in Hawaiian waters, 1984
                       ary Rep. World Wildlife Fund Canada/             and 1985. Contract report to Nat].
                       World Wildlife Fund Japan. 10 pp.                Mar. Fish. Serv., Natl. Mar. Mam.
                   Dawbin,     W.H.     1966. The       seasonal        Lab., Seattle, WA. 32 pp.
                       migratory cycle of humpback whales.          Glockner, D.A., and S. Venus.          1983.
                       Pages 14S-170.   jjj K.S. Norris, ed.            Identification, growth rate,          and
                       Whales, Dolphins, Ind         Porpoises,         Behavior of-humpback whale (ftqj2-
                       1977 edition. Univ. Calif. Press,                jjrj novaeangliae) cows and calves
                       Berkeley and Los Angeles.                        in the waters off Maui, Hawaii,
                                                                        1977-79. Pages 223-258 in R. Payne
                   Doi, T., T. Nemot     'o, and S. Ohsumi.             ed. Communication VA Behavior g_f
                       1967.   Memorandum an results          of        Whales. Westview, Boulder, CO.
                       Japanese stock assessment of fin
                       whales in the North Pacific.         Rep.    Herman, L.M.      1979. Humpback whales
                       Int. Whal. Comm. 17:111-115.                     in Hawaiian waters: A Study in his-
                                                                        torical ecology. Pac. Sci. Vol. 33,
                   Dolphin, W.E. 1987. Ventilation and                  No. I
                       dive patterns of humpback whales,
                       Mecaptera movaeangliag, on          their     Herman,    L.M., *and R.C.        Antinoja.
                       Alaskan feeding grounds.       Can. J.           1977.   Humpback     whales     in    the
                       Zool. 65:83-90.                                  Hawaiian breeding waters: Population
                          i                                             and pod characteristics. Sci. Rep.
                  Dolphin, W-.E., and         D.J. McSweeney.           Whales Res. Inst. 29:59-85.
                       1983.    Incidental     ingestion      of


                                                                 19


             Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                          Page 419
             and Management Plan





                Appendix G    Species Profile                                        Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                             National Marine Sanctuary


                          Herman, L.M., P.M. Forestell, and R.C.           for Cold.Ocean Sci., Mem. Univ.-New-
                          Antinoja. 1980. The 1976/77 migra-               foundland. 86 pp.
                          tion of humpback whales into 'Hawai-
                          ian waters: Composite description.            Lien, J.,    D. Jin Hai,     L. Baraff,      J.
                          Marine Mammal Commission Contract                Harvey, and K. Chu.        1982.     Whale
                          Report No. MMC-77/19- Accession No..             entrapments in inshore fishing gear
                          P880-162332, NTIS, Springfield, VA.              during 1982. Preliminary Report to
                                                                           Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Sept.
                          Hudnall, J. 1978.      Report on       the       1983.    NICOS Contribution No. 26.
                          general behavior of humpback whales              Newfoundland Inst. for Cold Ocean
                          near Hawaii, and the need for the                Sci.,    Mem.    Univ.      Newfoundland.
                          creation of a whale park.          Oceans        36 pp.
                          -11(3):8-15.
                                                                        Lien, J., S. Stanforth, L. Fawcett, R.
                          Johnson, J.H., and A.A. Wolman. 1984.            Vaughn,and D. Jin Hai. 1983. Whale
                          The humpback whale, Megaptera novae-             and shark entrapments in inshore
                          anoliae. Mar. Fish. Rev. 46(4):30-               fishing gear during 1983, a prelim-
                          37.                                              inary Report to Fisheries and Oceans
                                                                           Canada, Sept. 23, 1983.      NICOS Con-
                          Jurasz, C.M., and V. Jurasz.        1979.        tribution. No. 43.          Newfoundland
                          Feeding modes of the humpback whale,             Inst. for Cold Ocean Sci., Mem.
                          Megaplera novaeanaliae, in Southeast             Univ. Newfoundland. 36 pp.
                          Alaska. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst.
                          31: 69-83.                                    Lien,   J., H. Walter, and C.        Harvey-
                                                                           Clark.    1985. Whale and shark en-
                          Krieger, K., and B.L. Wing.         1984.        trapments in inshore fishing gear
                          Hydroacoustic surveys and identifi-              during 1985,.a preliminary Report to
                          cation of humpback whale forage in               Fisheries and Oceans Canada,            is
                          Glacier Say, Stephens Passage, and               November 1985. NICOS Contribution
                          Frederick Sound, Southeast Alaska,               No. 110. Newfoundland'Inst. for Cold
                          Summer 1984. NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS              Ocean Sci., Mem.-Univ. Newfoundland.
                          F/NWC/66.. 60 pp.                                18 pp.
                          Le atherwood, S., and R.R.        Reeves.    Ma=ews, L.H.         1937. The       humpback
                          1983.   The Sierri ;jA Handbook                  wha e, Mecaotera nodosa. Discovery
                          Whales and Dolphins, 3ierra Club                 Rep. 17:7-92.
                          Books, San Francisco., CA. 302 pp.
                                                                       Mizrdch, S.A. 1985. On the relation-
                          Leatherwood, S., R.R. Reeves, W.F.               shio between mortality rate           and
                          Perrin,   and W.E.      Evans.      1982.        length in baleen whales. Rep. Int.
                          Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises of               Whal. Comm. 3S:tOS-510.
                          the Eastern North Pacific and Adja-
                          cent Arctic Waters - A Guide to              Mobley, J.R., and L.M. Herman. 1981.
                          Their Identi  'fication.    U.S.     Dep.        Dynamic pod composition among hump-
                          Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS Circ.              back whales in Hawaiian           waters.
                          444,'245 pp.                                     Abstr. in Proceedings of the 4th
                                                                           Biennial Conference on the Biology
                          Lien, J., and D. Aldrich.           1982.        of Marine Mammals, San Francisco,
                          Damage to inshore fishing      gear in           CA, December 14-18, 1981. p. $1.
                          Newfoundland and Labrador by whales                                                 I
                          and sharks during 1981.           CAFSAC     Mobley, J.R., and L.M. Herman. 1985.
                          Marine Mammal Committee Meeting, St.             Transience of social affiliations
                          Johns,  Newfoundland, May         18-19,         among humpback whales        (Mecaptera
                          1082.  CAFSAC WP/82/04. NICOS Con-               noyaeanciliae) . in    the      Hawaiian
                          tfibution No. 6, Newfoundland Inst.              wintering ground.      Can. J. Zool.
                                                                           63:762-772.


                                                                   20


                 Page 420                                                          1--inal Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                   and Management Plan







              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                                    Appendix G: Species Profile
              National Marine Sanctuary

                    Mobley, J.R., L.M. Herman, and A.S.                     Perkins,   J.S., and P.C.           Beamish.
                      Frankel@.        1986.    Sound      playback         1979.     Net entanglements of baleen
                      experiments with humpback whales              in      whales in the inshore fishery of
                      the     Hawaiian wintering 'grounds.                  Newfoundland.        J. Fish. Res.      Board
                      Univ.     Hawaii-Sea       Grant        Quart.        Can. 36:521-528.
                      8(3):1-6.
                                                           I                Perry, A., J.R. Mobley, C.S. Baker,
                   Nishiwaki, M.       1959. Humpback whales                and L.M. Herman.         1988.      Humpback
                      in 'Ryukyuan        waters.     Sci.      Rep.        whales of the central         and eastern
                      Whales Res. Inst., Tokyo. 14:49-87.                   North Pacific. Se    *a Grant-Misc.      Rep.
                                                                            UNHI-SEAGRANT-MR-88-02.         Univ. Ha-
                   Nishiwaki, M. 1965. Whales.Wd Pin-                       waii, Honolulu. 29 pp with photos.
                      nipeds.    Univ. Tokyo Press, Tokyo,
                      Japan. 439 pp.                                        Rice, D.W. 1978; The humpback whale in
                                                                I           the   North Pacific: Distribution,
                   Nishiwaki, M.       1972. General Biology-               exploitation, and numbers.             Pages
                      Megaptera novaeangliae.         Pages 31-33           22-24 in      K.S. Norris and           R.R.
                      in S.M. Ridgway, ed. Mammals g_f'lhl                  Reeves, eds. Report on a workshop on
                      IU-E[iology AjW       Medicine.       Thomas,         problems related to humpback whales
                      Springfield, IL.      812 pp.                         (Megaotera novaeangliae) in Hawaii.
                                                                            Marine Mammal Commisiion Contract
                   Ohsumi, S.     ' 1979.   Interspecies rela-              Rep. No. MMC-77/03.
                      tionships      among some         biological
                      parameters in cetaceans and estima-                   Seckel, G.R., and, M.Y.Y. Yong.        1970.
                      tion of the natural mortality coef-                   Harmonic functions for sea-surface
                      fieient of the minke whale.              Rep.         temperatures and salinities, Koko
                      Int. Whal. Comm. 29,397-406.                          Head, Oahu, 1956-69, and sea-surface
                                                                            temperatures,      Christmas        Island,
                   Paterson, R., and P. Paterson.             '1984.        1954-69. Fish. Bull. 69(l):181-214.
                      A study of the past and present
                      status of humpback whales in east                     Shallenberger, E.W. 1981. The status
                      Australian waters. Biol. Conserv.                     of Hawaiian cetaceans. Marine Mammal
                      29(4):321-343.                                        Commission     Contract       Report     No.
                                                                            MN7AC028. Accession No. P882-109398,
                  Payne, K., P. Tyack, and R.' Payne.                       NTIS, Springfield, VA. 79 pp.
                      .1983.  Progressive changes in the                    Silber, G. In
                      songs of humpback whales (Megaotera                                press.. The relationship
                      novaeangliae): A detailed analysis                    of social vocalizations to surface
                      of two seasons      in Hawaii. Pages 9-               behavior    and aggression in            the
                      57 jjj R. Payne     ed. Communication lad             Hawaiian humpback whale (Megaotera
                      Behavior     gf     Wbales.       Westview,           novaeangliae). Can. J. Zool.
                      Boulder, CO.
                                                                            Siler, B. 1987. Sightseers warned to
                  Payne, R., and          L.N. Guinee.       1983.          keep away from whales.             Honolulu
                      Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeang-                   Star Bulletin. Jan. 15, 1987.
                      JLU) songs as an indicator                 of
                      stocks. Pages 333-358 Jn R. Payne                     Stevens, T. 1988. Whale of a colli-
                      ed. CoMMUnication Md           Behavior gf            sion was first of its kind off Maui.
                      Whales, Westview, Boulder, CO.                        Maui News. Apr. 15, 1988.
                  Payne, R., and S. McVay. 1971. Songs                      Straley, J.M.    In press.      Fall and
                      of humpback whales. Science 173:                      winter   occurrence       of       humpback.
                      583-597.                                              whales, Megaptera novaelngtiae, in




                                                                      21



              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                    Page 421
              and Management Plan






                      Appendix G; Species Profile                                         Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                  National Marine Sanctuary


                      southeastern Alaska.             Rep.    int.       social sounds.      Behav. Ecol. socio-
                      Whal. Comm. Special Issue on Whale                  biol. 13:49-55.
                      Identification.
                                                                       Tyack, P., and H. Whitehead. 1983.
                      Tanji, E. 1988.   Humpback whale colli-             Male competition in large groups of
                      sion disables 24-foot, 2-ton boat..                 wintering humpback whales. Behavior
                      Honolulu Advertiser. April 16, 1988.                83:132-154.

                      Tester, A.L.   1969.   Cooperative shark         Uchida, R-.N., and J.H. Uchiyama,          eds.
                      research and control program,          final        1986.   Fishery Atlas of the Northm
                      report      1967-1969.    Univ.     Hawaii,         western Hawaiian Islands. U.S.          Dep.
                      Honolulu, 47 pp.                                    Commer.,   NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS,         38.
                      Thompson, T.J., H.E.  . Winn, and P.J.              142 pp..
                      Perkins.    1979. Mysticete         sounds.     Urban, J., and A. Aguayo.                 1987.
                      Pages 403-431 in H.E. Winn and B.L.                 Spatial and seasonal distribution of
                      Olla,    eds.      Behavio    2_f , Marine          the humpback whale, Mega2tera novae-
                      Mammall - Current Perspectivel            jn        anoliae,   in the Mexican Pacific.
                      Research.      Vol.      2:     Cetaceans.          Mar. Mam. Sci.. 3(4):333-334.
                      .Plenum, New York and London.
                                                                      Whitehead, H., and M.J. Moore. 1982.
                      Tinney,  R.T.      1988.       Review     of        Distribution and movements of West
                      -information bearing.upon the conser-               Indian humpback whales in winter.
                      vation and protection of humpback                   Can. J. Zool. 60(9):2203-2211.
                      whales in Hawaii. Marine             Mammal
                      Commission     Contract     Report      No.     Winn, H.E., R.K. Edel, and A.G. Taru-
                      1943309689-0. * Accession No.        P888-          ski.  1975.   Population estimate of
                      1195359, NTIS, Sprinï¿½fiel.d, VA.                    the   humpback     whale        (Mecaptera
                                                                          novaeanqlLu) in the - West Indies by
                      Tyack, P. 1981., Interact i ons-'between            visual and acoustic techniques. J.
                      singing Hawaiian humpback whales and                Fish. Res. Board.Can. 32:499-506.
                      conspecifics nearby. Behav. Ecol.
                      Sociobiol. 8:105-116.                          Wolman, A.A., and C.M. Jurasz. 1977.
                                                                          Humpback whales in' Hawaii:         Vessel
                      Tyack, P. 1983. Differential respon-                census,   1976. Mar.        Fish.     Rev.
                      ses of humpback whales, Mecaptera                   39(7):1-5.
                      novaeanaliae, to playback of song or


















                                                                  22



                Page 422                                                              Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                      and Management Plan






               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                    Appendix H: Background to the Proposed Hawaii Humpback
               National Marine Sanctuary                                            Whale National Marine Sanctuary of 1984
                                                           Appendix H

                BACKGROUND To THE PRoposED HA wAii HumPBA                         cK WHALE NATIONAL MARINE
                                                       SANCTUARY OF 1984

                       In the late 1970s some members of the scientific community began to wonder whether
               increasing human activities might be having adverse effects on humpback whales that inhabit
               Hawaiian waters. The Marine Mammal Commission, concerned about possible harassment of the
               whales owing to the frequent interaction of whales with human activities, sponsored a workshop to
               deal with this issue in 1977. In December of that year, James Hudnall, an independent whale
               researcher from California, submitted -a formal proposal to the National Marine Sanctuary Program
               to establish a Hawaiian Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary. This action initiated the
               NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) process in investigating and nominating the
               site.

                       At the same time in a local effort, the then Maui Mayor, Elmer Cravalho, designated
               December to May as "Whale Protection Months" and established a Maui County Whale Reserve in
               the. waters lying landward of the 10-fathom isobath off Maui. Although National Marine Fisheries
               Service (NMFS) sent two national agents to monitor the situation and enforce existing regulations,
               no regulations accompanied the designation of the reserve and no administration or authority was
               established to adrriinister or.support the reserve.

                       In June 1978, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) held two public
               hearings in Hawaii to discuss the need to restrict human activities in principal humpback calving
               and assembly areas. A first step in exercising control of proposed detrimental activities was taken
               in Janu@ay 1979, when NMFS published "Notice of Interpretation for Taking. by Harassment" (FR
               44[33]: 1114). This notice, the first, "Interpretation" of harassment under the. NEMPA and the
               ESA, listed guidelines that defined harassment, designated calving and breeding grounds where
               special guidelines were applicable, and gave NMFS springboard for enforcement and habitat
               protection. At the same time, efforts were made to educate the public through the publication and
               distribution of a pamphlet describing the humpback's behavior and endangered status, together
               with guidelines for approaching whales.

                       By May 1979, Federal marine sanctuary officials from NOAA's office of Ocean and
               Coastal Zone Management (OCZrvD were reviewing Hawaiian whale protection proposals vis a vis
               comments solicited from various agency spokesmen, spepial interest groups, and private citizens.
               On October 31, a nomination for establishing a humpback whale national marine sanctuary in
               Hawaiian waters was included on the List of Recommended Areas (LAR) [44 FR 62552]. In
               December, NOAA convened a panel of experts, resource managers, local, State, and Federal
               officials in Hawaii to discuss the endangered Hawaiian humpback whale population, the need for
               additional research, education, possible regulatory measures, and management for assuring the
               long-term protection of the these whales in their wintering waters.

                  The "Hawaiian Humpback Whale Sanctuary Workshop Committee Report" described three
               management alternatives including: (1) status quo; (2) critical habitat designation as provided by the
               ESA; or (3) marine sanctuary designation under Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and
               Sanctuan'es Act of 1972. Of the three alternatives, the committee concluded that designation of a
               marine sanctuary was the "most certain route to continuing protection of the humpback whale in
               Hawaiian waters." In October 1980, the National Marine Sanctuary Program held public
               information meetings on the islands of Maui and Oahu to present the findings and
               recommendations of the workshop and discuss.the feasibility and desirability of proceeding
               forward with the sanctuary nomination.


               Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                Page 423
               and Management Plaa






                Appendix H: Background to the Proposed Hawaii Humpback              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                Whale National Marine Sanctuary of 1984                                    National Marine Sanctuary


                        In May 1981,,NOAA held discussions with the Hawaii State Department of Planning and
                Economic Development (DPED), Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), Department
                of Transportation (DOT), the Marine Affairs Coordinator's Office, and the Office of the Govemor
                in order to discuss the outcome of the public meetings and draft an issue paper on the Hawaii
                marine sanctuary. On March 17, 1982, NOAA declared the proposed Hawaiian Humpback Whale
                Na:donal Marine Sanctuary an Active Candidate [47 FR 1 .1544]. The "Proposed Hawai'i
                Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary Issue Paper" was released in April followed by a
                series of Hawaii public scoping meetings.

                        Governor George Ariyoshi appointed a neutral 15-mernber advisory group to assist the
                State in its evaluation of the proposal and to provide direct input into the development of the
                Ew-iironmental Impact Statement and Management Plan. In January, 1984, NOAA released the
                Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Management Plan (OCRM 1983) and held public
                heaxings during February. Although the proposed sanctuary met with strong opposition at the
                public hearings, NOAA apparently received enough written support to continue with the
                designation process.

                        In response to NOAA's continuation of the project, special interest groups rallied the
                Governor to withdraw State waters from sanctuary designation. In July 1984, in response to
                NCIAA's request of the State's position regarding development of the Final Environmental Impact
                Statement and Management Plan, Governor Ariyoshi wrote to NOAA that "the state does intend to
                withdraw its waters" from the proposed sanctuary area should the proposal be passed by the U.S.
                Department of Commerce with Presidential approval. The Final Environmental Impact Statement
                and Management Plan were never sent to the Governor, and the Federal Office of Coastal Zone
                Management (OCZM) retained the option to renew the proposal at a later date or the possibility of
                establishing a sanctuary outside statewaters.



























                Page 424,                                                       Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                              and Management Plan







                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                  Appendix 1: Whale Education Programs in Hawaii
                National Marine Sanctuary
                                                                Appendix I

                                            WHALE ED ucA TioN PR oGpAms iN HA wAii


                Bishop Museum Education Program
                1525 Bernice Street
                P.O. Box 19000A
                Honolulu, HI 96817
                Activities: Thar She Blows     Short tour through the Bishop Museum's whaling exhibits and introduction to
                sperm whale skeleton (K-3).


                Earthtrust
                25 Kaneohe Bay Drive
                Kailua, HI 96734
                Activities: Earthtrust provides information on the status of pirate whaling. Efforts include: market analysis of
                whale products using DNA techniques, newsletter, adopt-a-whale and dolphin programs.

                Department of Education
                189 Lunalilio Home Road, 2nd Floor
                Honolulu, HI. 96825-2099
                Activities: Whale education is featured via science curriculum (K-6)

                Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources
                1151 Punchbowl St.
                Room 330
                Honolulu, HI. 96813
                Activities: Fishing education classes, in-school aquatic education and public outreach including community
                presentations, booklets, Pamphlets, posters, videos and television commercials.

                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary
                726 S. Kihei Road        or         300 Ala M.oana Blvd. #5350
                Kihei, HI 96753                     Honolulu, HI 96850

                Activities: Public outreach including community presentations, classroom lectures, and participation in whale-
                related community events.
                Information available: Whale-watch brochure and other information materials.


                Hawaii Whale Research Foundation
                P.O. Box 1269
                Lahaina, HI 96767
                Activities: Research, education, and outreach programs and humpback whales and other marine mammals inhabiting
                the Hawaiian Islands.


                Hawaii Wildlife Fund
                P.O. Box 5361
                Lahaina, HI 96761
                Activities: Whale watch and coral reef naturalist programs. Conduct education programs for schools and the general
                community.







                Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                      Page 425
                and Management Plan






                    Appendix I: Whale Education Programs in Hawaii                                    Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                              National Marine Sanctuarv


                    Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge
                    P.O. Box 87
                    Kilauea, Kauai, HI 96754
                    Activities: The Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge staff, in cooperation with Kilauea Point National History
                    Association, operates,a public information center at the refuge and develops publications on conservation issues
                    which is available to schools and the general public. Publications: Kilauea Point Natural History Association.
                    VW,!ale - What is a Whale? (Hawaii Nature Focus - Nature Studies for Children - No 1.)

                    Lahaina Whaling Museum
                    865 Front Street
                    Lahaina, Hawaii 96761
                    Activities: Offers an array of memorabilia and whaling artifacts such as models of whaling shLips, scrimshaws,
                    ships' logs and harpoons.,

                    National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Area Office
                    2570 Dole St.
                    Honolulu, HI 96822-2396
                    Information available: brochures, posters, scientific papers.


                    Ocean Mammal Institute
                    P.O. Box 14422
                    Reading, PA 19612
                    Activities: Volunteer research internship program affiliated with Albright College, PA.


                    Pacific Whale Foundation
                    101 N. Kihei Rd.
                    Kihei, Maui, HI 96753
                    Activities: The Pacific Whale Foundation is a non-profit research, education, and conservation organization whose
                    puipose is to educate the public about marine animals and the ocean environment from a scientific perspective.
                    Public Programs include, whales and Friends-lecture series, whale day/earth day celebration, whalewatching, adopt-a-
                    whale programs, outreach efforis in a Ocean van and at schools.

                    Sea Life Park Hawaii/ SLP Marine Research and Education
                    MaLkapuu Point
                    Waimanalo, HI 96795
                    Activities: Humpback Whale Awareness Month. Annual conservation program celebrating the humpback whale's
                    annual return to Hawaii with lectures, marine artist youth competition and exhibit, @and daily mini-lectures.
                    Information available: whale brochures, whaling history museum, marine mammal exhibits, and presentations.
                    Educational Department has special classroom activities on humpback whales.
                                      Source: Hawaii Environmental Education Association. 1993. Environmental Education Resource
                                      Guide. Honolulu, Hawaii Environmental Education Association.


                    University of Hawaii
                    School of Ocean Earth Sciences Technology
                    Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology
                    P.O. Box 1346 -
                    Kaneohe, HI 96744
                    Activities: The Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology (HIMB) is a research institute of-the University of Hawaii that
                    fosters research and education in marine biological sciences. HIMB maintains a collection of books, scientific
                    reports and dissertations.

                    Marine Options Program
                    University of Hawaii at Man,oa
                    1000 Pope Road, Marine Sciences Bldg., Rm. 229

                    Page 426                                                                      Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                   and Management Plan






                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                              Appendix I: Whale Education Programs in Hawaii
                National Marine Sanctuary

                Honolulu, HI 96822
                Activities: Student internship opportunities for graduate and undergraduate students.


                Sea Grant Extension Service
                University of Hawaii at Manoa
                1000 Pope Road, MSB 226
                Honolulu, HI 96822
                Activities: The University of Hawaii Sea Grant Extension Service is a public outreach and information/technology
                program that supports research, education, and extension efforts that encourage sound management of the ocean's
                resources.


                Kewalo Basin Marine Mammal Laboratory
                University of Hawaii at Manoa
                Kewalo Basin Marine Mammal Laboratory
                1129 Ala Moana Blvd.
                Honolulu, HI 96814
                Activities: Earthwatch Program provides hands-on experience for persons interested in research on captive dolphins.
                Student internship programs and undergraduate directed studies program.

                Waikiki Aquarium
                Education Department
                2777 Kalakaua Avenue
                Honolulu, HI 96815
                Information available: Educational department handles curriculum activities (K-6), incorporating theentire Hawaiian
                marine ecosystem. Brochures, handout materials, exhibits, and outreach programs are also available.

                Whale Center of the Pacific
                2435 Kaanapali Parkway, #H-16
                Kaanapali, Lahaina, HI 96761
                Activities: Educational outreach, museum exhibits, handouts and environmental workshop, including Whale
                Discovery Day.


                Whales Alive
                P,O. Box 2058
                Kihei, HI. 96753
                Activities: Research, educational outreach, handout materials, and slide images. Sponsors annual research
                conference: In Celebration of Whales.




















                Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                 Page 427
                and Management Plan





                     Appendix I: Whale Education Programs in Hawaii                               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                          National Marine Sanctuary




























                                                 TIUS PAGE HInNTIONALLY LEFr BLANK




































                     Page 428                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                              and Management Plan






                 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                          Appendix J: References and Bibliography
                 National Marine Sanctuary
                                                                Appendix J

                                               REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY



                 Acevedo, A. and M. A. Smultea. 1995. First records of humpback whales including calves at Golfo Dulce and Isla
                          Del Coco, Costa Rica, suggesting geographical overlap of Northern and Southern hemisphere populations.
                          Mar. Mamm. Sci. 11 (4) 554-560.
                 Agegian, C.R., and F.T. Mackenzie. 1989. Calcareous organisms and sediment mineralogy on a mid-depth bank in
                          the Hawaiian Archipelago. Pac. Sci. 43:56-66.
                 Altorm, H. 199 1. Isle Scientists Investigate Dip in Seal Births. Honolulu Star-Bulletin, March 27, 199 1.
                 Anders, G. 1997. Native Hawaiian Fishing Rights in a Regulated Fishery: An Exploratory Analysis. Pacific
                          Islands Development Program, East-West Center, Honolulu.
                 Anonymous. 1987. Recommendations for afive- year scientific investigation of the marine resources and
                          environment of the main Hawaiian Islands. Submitted to Department of Land and Natural Resources, State
                          of Hawaii. Honolulu.
                 Antonius, A. 1985. Coral diseases in the Indo-Pacific: a first record. Mar. Ecol. 6:197-218.
                 Aotani and Associates. 1988. Statewide Ocean Recreation Management Plan Final Report. Report for the Hawaii
                          Department of Transportation, Harbors Division.
                 Apple, R.A., and W.K. Kikuchi. 1975. Ancient Hawaiian Shore Zone Fishponds: An Evaluation of Survivors for
                          Historical Preservation. Office of the State Director National Park Service, Honolulu.
                 Atkins, N., and S.L. Swartz. 1988. Proceedings of the Workshop to Review and Reevaluate Whale Watching
                          Programs and Management Needs, November 14-16, 1988, Monterey, California. Center for Marine
                          Conservation, Washington D.C. and NMFS Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland.
                 Bailey-Brock, J.H., and R.E. Brock. 1993. Aspects of the feeding, reproduction, and sensory biology of the
                          Hawaiian anchialine shrimp, Halocaridina rubra Holthuis (Atyidae). Pac. Sci. 47:338-355.
                 Bailey-Brock, J.H. 1987. Section 3 Part 11. Annelida. Ifi: Reef and Shore Fauna of Hawaii, D.M. Devaney and
                          L.G. Eldredge (eds.), pp. 213- 454. B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publ. 64(2 and 3). Honolulu.
                 Bak, R.P.M. 1978. Lethal and sublethal effects of dredging on coral reefs. Mar. Poll. Bull. 2:14-16.
                 Baker, C.S., and L.M. Herman. 1981. Migration and local movement of humpback whales (Megaptera
                          novaeangliae) through Hawaiian waters. Can. J. Zool. 59:460-469.
                 Baker, C.S., L.M. Herman, B.G. Bays, and W.S. Stifel. 1982. The Impact of Vessel Traffic on the Behavior of,
                          Humpback Whales in Southeast Alaska: 1981 Season. Report to the National Marine Mammal
                          Laboratory, Seattle, Washington.
                 Baker, C.S., L.M. Herman, B.G. Bays, and G.B. Bauer. 1983. The Impact of Vessel Traffic on the Behavior or
                          Humpback 'Whales in Southeast Alaska: 1982 Season. Report to the National Marine Mammal
                          Laboratory, Seattle, Washington.
                 Baker, C.S., and L.M. Herman. 1984. Aggressive behavior between humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae)
                          wintering in Hawaiian waters. Can. J. Zool. 62:1922-1937.
                 Baker, C.S. 1985. 77te Population Structure and Social Organization of Humpback Whales (Megaptera
                          novaeangliae) in the Central and Eastern North Pacific. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
                          Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii.
                 Baker, C.S., L.M. Herman, A. Perry, W.S. Lawton, I.M. Straley, A.A. Wolman, G.D. Kaufman, H.E. Winn, J.D.
                          Hall, J.M. Reinke, and J. Ostman. 1986. Migratory movement and population struciure of humpback
                          whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the central and eastern Pacific. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 31:105-119.
                 Baker, M.L. 1987. Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises of the World. New York: Doubleday.
                 Baker, C.S. and L.M. Herman. 1987. Alternative population estimates of humpback whales (Megaptera
                          novaeangliae) in Hawaiian waters.
                 Baker, C.S., A. Perry, and L.M. Herman. 1987, Repr6ductive histories of female humpback whales Megaptera
                          novaeangliae in the North Pacific. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 41:103-114.
                 Baker, C.S., and L.M. Herman. 1989. Behavioral Responses of Summering Humpback Whales to Vessel Tralffic:
                          Experimental and Opportunistic Observations. Report to National Park Service; NP-NR-TRS-89-01.
                 Baker, C.S., S.R. Palumbi, R.H. Lambertsen, M.T. Weinrich, J. Calambokidis, and S.J. O'Brien. 1990. Influence
                          of seasonal migration of geographic distribution of mitochondrial DNA haplotypes in humpback whales.
                          Nature 344(6263):238-240.




                 Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                     Page 429
                 and Management Plan






                     Appendix J: References and Bibliography                                          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                              National Marine Sanctuary


                     Baker, C. S., D. A. Gilbert, M. T. Weinrich, R. Lambertsen, J. Calambokidis, B. McArdle, G. K. Chambers, and
                              S. J. O'Brien. 1993. Population characteristics of DNA fingerprints in humpback whales (Megaptera
                              novaeangliae). J. of Heredity 84: 281-290.
                     Baker, C. S., R. B. Slade, J. L. Bannister, R. B. Abernethy, M. T. Weinrich, J. Lien, J. Urban-R, P. Corkeron, J.
                              Calambokidis, 0. Vasquez, and S. R. Palumbi. 1994. Hierarchical structure of mitochondrial DNA aene
                              flow among humpback whales, world-wide. Molecular Ecol. 3: 313 -327.
                     B.alazs, G.H., R. Forsyth, and A. Kam. 1987. Preliminary Assessment oj-'Habitat Utilization by Hawaiian Green
                              Turtles in Their Resident Foraging Pastures. National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Fisheries Center
                              -NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-71.
                     B,alazs, G.H. 1978. Terrestrial Critical Habitat for Sea Turtles Under United States Jurisdiction in the Pacific
                              Region. Elepaio. V. 39 No. 4.
                     B,alazs, G.H. 1980. Synopsis of Biological Data on the Green Turtle in the Hawaiian Islands. NOAA Technical
                              Memorandum NMFS-SWFC-7. National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Fisheries Center.
                     Balazs, G.H. 1984. History of Sea Turtles at Polihua Beach, Northern Lanai. National Marine Fisheries Service
                              Southwest Fisheries Center Administrative Report H-84-15.
                     Banner, A.H., and D.M. Binner. Manuscript. Alpheidae. In: Reef and Shore Fauna of Hawaii. Section 5,
                              Arthropoda, D.M. Devaney, and L.(l Eldredge (eds.), B.P. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.
                     Banner, A.H. 1974. Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii: urban pollution and a coral reef ecosystem. Proceedings of the 2nd
                              International Coral Reef Symposium 2:685-702.
                     Beckwith, M., and K. Luomala. 1970. "Coming of the Gods." In Hawaiian Mythology. University of Hawaii
                              Press, Honolulu pp. 1-11.
                     Bauer,G.B. .1986. The Behavior of Humpback Whales in Hawaii and Modificatins of Behavior Induced by Human
                              Interventions. Unpublished doctoral dissertaion, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii.
                     Bauer, G., and L. Herman. 1986. Effect of Vessel Traffic on the Behavior of Humpback Whales in Hawaii. Report
                              to Mantioani Marine Fisheries Service, Honolulu, Hawaii.
                     Beach, D. W. and M. T. Weinrich. 1989. Watching the whales: Is an educational adventure for humans turning out
                              to be another threat for endangered species? Oceanus 32(l): 84-88.
                     Bell, E. 1929. Log of the Chatham. The Honolulu Mercury. V. 1, pp. 55-69, 76-90.
                     Berger, A. 198 1. Hawaiian Birdlife. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
                     Blumentsock, D.I., and S. Price. 1967. Climates of the-States: Hawaii. Government Printing Office,
                              Washington, D.C.
                     Braham, H.W. 1984. The Statuts of endangered whales: an overview. Mar. Fish. Rev. 46(4):2-6.
                     Biriggs, J.C. 1974. Marine Zoogeography. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.
                     Brock, V.E. 1954. A preliminary report on a method of estimating reef fish populations. J. Wildl. @fanage.
                              18:297-308.
                     B@rock, V.E., and T.C. Chamberlain. 1968. A geological and ecological reconnaissance off western Oahu, Hawaii,
                              principally by means of the research'submarine "Asherah." Pac. Sci. 22:373-394.
                     Brock, R.E. 1979. An experimental study on the effects of grazing by parrotfishes and role of refuges in benthic
                              community strucfiire. Mar. Biol. 51:381-388.
                     Brock, R.E. - 1986. An inventory of the nearshore marine communitiesfironting the Kaanapali Airstrip, Maui.
                              Prepared for AECOS, Inc., Kail" Hawaii.
                     Brock, R.E. 1987. Biological reconnaissance of two sites in the Lahaina@ Maui area proposedfor possible marina
                              development. Prepared for AECOS, Inc., Kailua, Hawaii.
                     Brock, R.E., and J.E. Norris. 1987. Biological assessment of sites proposedfor habitat enhancement offshore of
                              Honolulu Harbor, Oahu, Mala Wharf, Maui, and Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. Prepared for AECOS, Inc., Kailua,
                              Hawaii.
                     Brock, R.E. 1988a. Assessment of the resident green sea turtle. population in the vicinity of the Launiupoko State
                              Park, West Maui, Hawaii. Prepared for Sea Engineering, Inc., Makai Research Pier, Waimanalo, Hawaii.
                     Brock, R.E. 1988b. Biological assessment of the Launiupoko, West Maui area for potential marina development.
                              Prepared for AECOS, Inc., Kailuii, Hawaii.
                     Brock, R.E. 1989. Predevelopment reconnaissance of the marine macrobiota and water quality conditions fronting
                              the Lahaina Master Planned project, Lahaina@ Maui. Prepared for PBR Hawaii, Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii.
                     Brock, R.E., and J.E. Norris. 1989. An analysis of the efficacy of four artificial reef designs in tropical waters.
                              Bull. Mar. Sci. 44:934-941.
                     Brock, R.E. 1990a. Biological reconnaissance of the marine resources in the watersftonting West'Beach, Oahu.
                              Final report. Prepared for Of Consultants, Inc., Waimanalo, Hawaii. EAC Rept. No. 90-09'.




                     Page 430                                                                     Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                   and Management Plan






                 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                            Appendix J: References and Biblioggaphy
                 National Marine Sanctuary

                 Brock, R.E. 1990b. Report addendum. Predevelopment water quality conditions fronting the Lahaina Master
                          Planned Project, Lahaina, Mauifollowing heavy rainfall. Prepared for PBR Hawaii, Inc., Honolulu,
                          Hawaii.
                 Brock, R.E. 1992c. A quantitative assessment of the marine communities and water quality along the Kaanapali,
                          Maui coastline for the Puukolii and North Beach developments. Prepared for AMFAC/JMB Hawaii, Inc.,
                          Lahaina, Hawaii. EAC Rept. No. 92-14.
                 .Brock, R.E. 1992d. A quantitative assessment of the marine communities and water quality in an area fi-onting the
                          proposed Hulopoe-Manele Bay Golf Course development. Monitoring program report. Prepared for Lanai
                          Company, Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii. EAC Rept. No.'92-13.
                 Brock R.E. 1992e. An analysis of benthic communities in the zone of mixing for Honolulu and Kahului electrical
                          generation facilities. Prepared for Hawaiian Electric Co., Honolulu, Hawaii. EAC Rept. No. 92-02.
                 Brock, R.E. 1992f. A quantitative assessment of the marine communities and water quality along the Kaanapali,
                          Maui coastline for the Puukolii and North Beach developments. Prepared for Amfac/JMB Hawaii, Inc.,
                          Lahaina, Maui. EAC Rept. No. 92-14.
                 Brock, R.E. 1992a. A quantitative assessment of the marine communities and water quality in an areafronting the
                          proposed Hokukano, development. Prepared for The Anderson Companies, Scottsdale, Arizona. EAC Rept.
                          No. 92-08.
                 Brock, R.E. 1992b. Synopsis of change over a 57-month period of observation on benthic communities adjacent to
                          the 40-inch coldwater pipe, Keahole Point, Hawaii. Prepared for Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii
                          Authority, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. EAC Rept. No. 92- 10.
                 Brock, R.E. 1993a. Third semi-annual monitoring report on the status of the marine fish communities in the
                          watersfronting the Mauna Lani Resort, South Kohala, Hawaii. Prepared for Marine Research Consultants,
                          Honolulu, Hawaii. EAC Rept No. 93-05.
                 Brock, R.E. 1993b. Cooperative environmental monitoring programfor the Natural Energy Laborator         'y- Authorit iN
                          surveyfor anchialine and marinefish resources, May 1993 survey. Prepared for Natural Energ Laborato
                                                                                                                        my            ry
                          of Hawaii Authority, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. EAC Rept. No. 93-06.
                 Brock, R.E. 1993c. Marine communities and water quality in an areafronting the Hulopoe-Manele Bay Golf
                          Course development - June 1993field effort monitoring program report. Prepared for Lanai Company,
                          Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii. EAC Rept. No. 93-07.
                 Brock, R.E. 1993d. A quantitative assessment of marine communities and water quality in an areaftonting the
                          proposed Hulopoe- Manele Bay Golf Course. Prepared for Lanai Company, Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii. EAC
                          Rept. No. 93-02.
                 Brock, R.E. 1993e. An analysis of benthic communities in the zone of mixing for Honolulu and Kahului electrical
                      . generation facilities. Prepared for Hawaiian Electric Co., Honolulu, Hawaii. EAC Rept. No. 93-01.
                 Brodie, P.F. 1975. Cetacean energetics, an overview of intraspecific size variation. Ecology. 56:152-161.
                 Brown, B.E., and L.S. Howard. 1985. Assessing the effects of "stress" on reef corals. Adv. Mar. Biol. 22:1- 63.
                 Brown,E., P. Forestell, and C. Jenner. 1980. Biogeographical. Factors Affection Humpback alves in Hawaii. 8th
                          Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Abstracts.
                 Burnham, K.P., D.R. Anderson, and J.L. Laake. 1980. Estimation of density from line transect sampling of
                          biological populations. Wildl. Monog. 72.
                 Calambokidis, J., G. Stiger, J. Evenson, and K. Flynn. 1996. Interchange and isolation of humpback whales off
                          California and other North Pacific feeding grounds. Mar. Mamm. Sci.9 (1) 76-8 1.
                 Calambokidis, J., J. Straley, S. Mizroch, and S. Cerchio. In Press. An Overview of the movements of humpback
                          whales in the North Pacific and evaluation of stock structure. In: Payne, M. P., B.A. Phillips, E. T. Nitta
                          (Compliers). 1995.. Draft report of the workshop to assess research and other needs and opportunities
                          related to humpback whale management in the Hawaiian Islands, April 26-28, 1995, Kaanapali, Maui,
                          Hawaii. U.S. Dept. Commerce., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR.
                 Chave, K.E., and J.N. Miller. 1977. Baseline Studies and Evaluation of the Physical, Chemical, and Biological
                          Characteristics of Nearshore Dredge Spoil Disposal, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Part A: Baseline Studies,
                          Investigation and Selection of a Suitable Dredge Spoil Site. Final Report. Prepared for the Pacific Division
                          Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Honolulu, Hawaii. Environmental Center, University of Hawaii,
                          Honolulu.
                 Cerchio, S., Gabriele, C. and Frankel, A. -1991. Inter-Island movements of humpback whales in the Hawaiian
                          Islands: Three seasons off Kauai and Hawaii. Paper presented at the 9th Biennial Conference on the Biology'
                          of Marine Mammals, Chicago, IL, December -1991.
                 Cerchio, S. 1993. Photographic Identification of Humpback Whales (Megaptera Novaeangliae) Off Kauai, Hawaii
                          During Winter and Spring, 1993. Draft Report to the ATOC Marine Mammal Program.



                 Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                        Page 431
                 and Management Plan






                    Appendix J: References and Bibliography                                          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                             National Marine Sanctuarv


                    Ce,,rchio, S., 1993. Geographic Variation and Cultural Evolution in Songs of Humpback Whales (Megaptera
                              Novaeangliae) in the Eastern North Pacific. Master of Science Thesis. Moss Landing Marine
                              Laboratory/San Jose State University.
                    Cerchio, S. 1994 (in prep). Estimates of humpback whale (Megaptera Novaeangliae) abundance off Kauai, Hawaii
                              using mark-recapture techniques. Draft Report to NOAA, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division. 40 pp.
                    Ceirchio, S. 1994 (in prep). Population Characteristics of Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaengliae) off the
                              Hawaiian Island of Kauai@ 1991 to 1993, as Inferred from Photographic Identification Data. Draft Report   to
                              NOAA, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division. October 1994! 33 pp.
                    Cerchio, S., C.M. Gabriele, and L.M. Herman. 1994 (in prep). Movements.of humpback whales between Kauai
                              and Hawaii, 1989-1991: Implications on population structure and abundance estimation in the Hawaiian
                              Islands. Draft Report to NOAA, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division.
                    Ce:rchio, S. (In Press). An overview of humpback whale movements within Hawaiian waters. In: Payne, M. P.,
                              B. Phillips, E. T. Nitta (Compliers). 1995. Draft report of the workshop to assess research and other needs
                              and opportunities related to humpback whale management in the Hawaiian Islands, April 26-28, 1995,
                              Kaanapali, Maui, Hawaii. U.S. Dept. Commerce., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR.
                    Chesher, R. 1969. Destruction of Pacific corals by the seastar Acanthaster planci. Science 165:280- 283. -
                    Chittleborough, R.G. 1954. Studies on the ovaries of the humpback whale, Megaptera nodosa, (Bonnaterre). Aust.
                              J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 5:35-63.
                    Chittleborough, R.G. 1955. Aspects of reproduction in the male humpback whale, Megaptera nodosa, (Bonnaterre).
                              Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 6:1-29.
                    Chittleborough, R.G. - 1965. Dynamics of two populations of the humpback whale, Megaptera nodosa (Bonnaterre).
                              Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 16:3.3-128.
                    Clapham, P. J. and C. A. Mayo. 1987. Reproduction and recruitment of individually identified humpback whales,
                              Megaptera novaeangliae, observed in Massachusetts Bay, 1979-1985. Can. J. Zool. 65(12): 2853-2863.
                    Clapham, P.J., and C.A. Mayo. 1988. Reproduction and recruitment of individually identified humpback whales
                              Megaptera novaeangliae, obierved in Massachusetts Bay, 1979-85. Can. J. Zool. 65:2853-2863.
                    Clapham, P. J. and D. K. Matilla. 1990. Humpback whale songs as indicators of migration routes. Mar. Mamm.
                              'Sci. 6: 151-154.
                    ChLpharn, P. J., P. J. Palsboll, D. K. Matilla, and 0. Vasquez. 1992. Composition and dynamics of      humpback
                              whale competitive groups in the West Indies. Behaviour 122(3-4): 182-194.
                    Clapham, P. J., L. S. Baraff, C. A. Carlson, M. A. Christian, D. K. Matilla, C. A. Mayo, M. A. Murphy, and S.
                              Pittman. 1993. Seasonal occurrence and annual return of humpback whales, Megaptera no'vaeangliae, in
                              the southern Gulf of Maine. Can. J. Zool. 71(2): 440-443.
                    Clark, A.M., and F.W.E. Rowe. 1971. Monograph of Shallow- Water Indo- West Pacific Echinodenns. British
                              Museum (Natural History), London.
                    Clark, Athline M. "Ocean Recreation" in Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan, Technical Supplement Hawaii
                              Ocean and Marine Resources Council, January, 1991, pp 16-28
                    Clark, Athline M. "Hawaii's Experience in Managing the Expanding Use of Scenic Coastal Resources."
                              Proceedings of the 1990 Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism, 1990. ,
                    Clark, C.W., W. Ellison, and K. Beeman. 1986. Acoustic tracking of migrating bowhead whales. In: IEEE
                              Oceans '86 Conference Proceedings.
                    Clay, G.S., S. Broder, R. Turner, D. Kitaoka, G. Rhodes, and D. Yamase, 1981. Ocean Leasingfor Hawaii.
                              Aquaculture Development Program, Department of Planning and Economic Development, Honolulu.
                    Cobb, J.N. 1908. Hawaiian Fishery Rights. American Fishery Society Transactions, V. 37. United States Bureau
                              of Fisheries, Washington, D.C.
                    Cobb, J.N. 1902. Commercial Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands. U.S. Fisheries Commission V. 12, p. 383-499.
                    Coles, S.L. 1984. Colonization of Hawaiian reef corals on new and denuded substrata in the vicinity of a Hawaiian
                              power station. Coral Reefs 3:123-130.
                    Conant, S. 1993. Personal Communication with B. Mieremet.
                    Concerned Environmental and Scientific Cominunity Coalition. 1994. Issues of Concern to the Scientific and
                              Environmental Communities Regarding the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary.
                    Connell, J. 1978. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199:1302-13 10.
                    Costa-Pierce, B. 1987. Aquaculture in ancient Hawaii. Bioscience 37(5):320-33 1.
                    Cox, D.C., and L.C. Gordon, Jr. 1970. Estuarine pollution in the State of Hawaii. Vol. 1. Statewide s    .tudy.
                              Tech. Rept. 3 1, Water Resources, Research Center, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.
                    Dailey, M.D. 1985. Diseases of Mammalia: Cetacea. Pages 805-847. In 0. Kinne (Ed.), Diseasesof Marine
                              Mammals. Vol. IV, Part 2. Biologische Anstalt Helgoland, Hamburg, Germany..



                    Page 432                                                                      Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                  and Management Plan







               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                            Appendix J: References and Bibliography
               National Marine Sanctuary

               Darling, J.D., K.M. Gibson, and G.K. Silber. 1983. Observations on the abundance and behavior of humpback
                        whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) off West Maui, Hawaii, 1977-79. in: Communi      .cati.on and Behavior of
                        Whales, R.S. Payne (ed.), pp. 201-222, AAAS Selected Symposia Series, Boulder: Westview Press.
               Darling, J.D. and Juarasz, C.M. 1983 Migratory destinations of North Pacific humpback whales (Megaptera
                        novaeangliae). In Communication and behavior of whales: Edited by R. Payne. AAAS Selected Symposia
                        Series, p. 359-368. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
               Darling, J.D. and D.J. McSweeney. 1984. Observations on the migrations of North Pacific humpback whales
                        (Megaptera novaeangliae).
               Darling, J. D. and H. Morowitz. 1986. Census of "Hawaiian" humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) by
                        individual identification. Can. J. Zool. 64.
               Darling, J.D. 199 1. Humpback whales in Japanese waters: Ogasawara and Okinawa: Fluke identification catalog:
                        1987-90, Tokyo: World Wildlife Fund.
               Dawbin, W. H. 1966. The seasonal migratory cycle of humpback whales. In Whales, dolphins, and porpoises.
                        Edited by K. S. Norris. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. pp. 145-170.
               Dawbin, W.H. 1977. The Seasonal Migratory Cycle of Humpback Whales. In Whales Dolphins and Porpoises. K.S.
                        Norris (ed.), pp. 145-170 Berkeley: University of California Press.
               Des Rochers, K. 1992. The impacts of an oil spill on Hawaii's natural environment: A general overview. In Oil
                        Spills at Sea: Potential Impacts on Hawaii, R.T. Pfund (ed.). University of
               DHM, Inc., 1990. Hawaiian Fishpond Study: Islands of Hawaii, Maui, Lanai, and Kauai. The Hawaii Coastal Zone
                        Management Program, Honolulu.
               Dizon, A. E., C. Lockyer, W. F. Perrin, D. P. DeMaster, and J. Sisson. 1992. Rethinking the stock concept: a
                        phylogeographic approach. Conserv. Biol. 6: 24-36.
               Dodge, R.E., R.C. Aller, and J. Thompson. 1974. Coral growth related to resuspension of bottom sediments.
                        Nature 247:574-577.
               Dodge, R.E., and J.R. Vaisnys. 1977. Coral populations and growth patterns: responses to sedimentation and
                        turbidity associated with dredging. J. Mar. Res. 35:715-730.
               Dohl, T. P. 1982. Marine mammal and seabird study - central and northern California. Annual Progress Report -
                        Year II. Bureau of Land Management - Outer Continental Shelf. United States Department of Interior.
                        Washington, DC. pp. 127-131.
               Dollar, S.J., and R.W. Grigg. 1981. Impact of a kaolin clay spill on a coral reef in Hawaii. Mar. Biol. 65:269- 276.
               Dollar, S.J. 1979. Ecological response to relaxation of sewage stress off Sand Island, Hawaii. University of Hawaii
                        Water Resources Research Center, Tech.,Rept. No. 124. Honolulu, Hawaii.
               Dollar, S.I. 1982. Wave stress and coral community structure in Hawaii. Coral Reefs 1: 71-8 1.
               D'Vincent, C. G., R.M. Nilson, R. E. Hanna. 1985. Vocalization and coordinated feeding behavior of the
                        humpback whale in southeastern Alaska. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. Tokyo 36: 41-47.
               Edmondson, C.H. 1928. Ecology of a Hawaiian coral reef. B.P. Bishop Museum Bull. 45:1-64.
               Ely, C.A. 1942. Shallow-water Asteriodea and Ophiuroidea of Hawaii. B.P. Bishop Museum Bull. 176:1- 63.
               Emerson, N.B. 1893. The Long Voyages of the Ancient Hawaiians. Papers of the Hawaiian Historical Society. no.
                        5.
               Emery, K., and D.C. Cox. 1956. Beachrock in the Hawaiian Islands. Pac. Sci. 10:382-402.
               Emory, K.P. 1969. The Island of Lanai: A Survey of Native Culture. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin. No. 12.
               Emory, K.P., and Y.H. Sinoto. 1965. Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Investigations in Polynesia:
                        Fieldwork in the Society and Tuamotu Islands, French Polynesia, and American Samoa in 1962, 1963,
                        1964. Transactions of the Bernice A Bishop Museum, pp. 99, 102, Honolulu.
               Endean, R. 1976. Destruction and recovery of coral reef communities. In: Biology and Geology of Coral Reefs. O.A.
                        Jones and R. Endean (eds.), pp. 215-255. Biology 2. New York: Academic Press.
               Environmental Impact Study Corp. 1979. Environmental impact statement military use of Kahoolawe Training
                        Area, Hawaiian Archipelago. Prepared for Department of the Navy. Environmental Impact Study
                        Corporation, Honolulu, Hawaii.
               Evans, C. 1992a. Memorandum for J. Rousseau, Re: State of Hawaii Marine Resource Management
                        EvaluationlCritique. March 11, 1992.
               Evans, C. 1992b. Draft Information Paper. Conservation and Resource Management of the Humpback Whale in
                        Hawaiian Waters. Hawaii Liaison Office, Sanctuary and Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal
                        Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
                        December 9, 1992.
               Federal Register. 1987. Endangeredfish and wildlife: Approaching humpback whales in Hawaiian waters. Vol. 52,
                        No. 225, pp. 44,912- 44,915.


               Finai Environmental Impact 7atement                                                                        Page 433
               and Management Plan






                    Appendix J: References and Bibliography                                           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                               National Marine Sanctuary


                    Fellows, D.P. 1966. Zonation and burrowing behavior of the ghost crabs Ocypode ceratophthalmus (Pallas) and
                             Ocypode laevis Dana in Hawaii. M.S. Thesis, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.
                    Forbes, A.0. 1907. Ai Kanaka: A Legend of Molokai. In Hawaiian Folk Tales. Thos G.Thrum, compiler. pp. 186-
                             192, Chicago: A.C. McClurg.
                    Forestell, P.H., L.M. Herman, and G.D. Kaufman. 1985. Aerial Survey of Seasonal,Trends and Population
                             Characteristics of Humpback Whales in the Four-Island Region of Hawaii. Abstract of the Sixth Biennial
                             Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Vancouver, British Columbia, November 22-26.
                    Forestell, P.H. 1989. Assessment and verification of abundance estimates, seasonal trends, and population
                             characteristics of humpback whales in Hawaii. Final Report to the Marine Mammal Commission,
                             Washington, D.C. NTIS Publication PB90-190273.
                    Forestell, P.H., E.K. Brown, L.M. Herman, and R.S. Schick. 1990. Relative Frequency and Distribution of
                             Humpback Whales and Boats Near Maui, Hawaii During the 1990 Winter Season.
                    Forestell, P.H. and EX Brown. 1991. Description of Humpback Whale Use of Maalaea Bay, Maui, Hawaii. Final
                             Report to the U.S. Army Engineer District, Honolulu. Contract No. DACW83-91-P-0601.
                    Forestell, P.H. and EX Brown. 1991. Description of Humpback Whale Use of Maalaea Bay, Maui, Hawaii. Final
                             Report to the U.S. Army Engineer District, Honolulu. Contract No. DACW83-91-P-0601.
                    Forestell, P.H., and J.R. Mobley, Jr. 1991 . Humpback whale aerial survey throughout the major Hawaiian Islands
                             during the 1991 season. Draft Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service, December 1991.
                    Forestell, P.H. and E.K. Brown. 1992. Aerial Survey of Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) Near
                             Kahoolawe, Hawaii: 1992. Draft Final Report for the USDOC/NOAA Marine Sanctuaries Division.
                             Contract 43ABNC201408.
                    Forestell, P.H., and E.K. Brown. 1992. Ceracean abundance and distribution patterns off west Hawaii: Winter 1992.
                             Final report for the West Hawaii Coastal Monitoring Program, Hawaii.
                    Forestell, P.H., E.K. Brown, and R.S. Schick. 1993. Observations of Humpback Whales and Other Cetaceans Off
                         .   -West Hawaii: Year Two (1993). Final Report for the West Hawaii Coastal Monitoring Program.
                    Fon.-stell, P.H. and G.D. Kauftnan. 1993. Resource Managers and Field Researchers: Allies or Adversaries?
                    Forestell, P.H., J.R. Mobley, and R. Grotenfendt. 1996. Aerial Survey of Humpback Whales (Megaptera
                             novaengliae) Near kahoolawe, Hawaii: 1995. Draft Final Report to USDOCINOAA Sanctuaries and
                             Reserves Division. 13 pp.,
                    Fomander, A. 1878. An Account of the Polynesian Race. London: Trubner.
                    Forsyth, N., J.R. Mobley, Jr., and G.B. Bauer. 199 1. Depth pre6rences of 'Hawaiian' humpback whales. Poster
                             presented at the Ninth Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Chicago, December, 199 1.
                    Frankel, A.S., C.W. Clark, L.M. Herman, C.M. Gabriele, M.A. Hoffhines, T.R. Freeman, and B.K. Patterson.
                             1989. Acoustic location and tracking of wintering humpback whales off south Kohala, Hawaii. Eighth
                             Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Abstracts, Pacific Grove, California.
                    Frankel, A.S., C.W. Clark, L.H. Herman, T.R. Freeman, C.M. Gabriele, and M.A. Hoffhines. 1991. The spacing
                             function of humpback whale song. Ninth Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals,
                             Abstracts, Chicago, Illinois.
                    Frankel, A. S., C. W. Clark, L. M. Herman, and C. M. Gabriele. 1995. Spatial distribution, habitat utilization,
                             and social interactions of humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, off Hawaii determined using acoustic
                             and visual techniques. Can. J. Zool. 73: 1134-1146.
                    Gabriele, Christine M. 1992. The Behavior and Residence Characteristics of Reproductive Classes of Humpback
                             Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Hawaiian Islands.
                    Gendron, D. and J. R. Urban. 1993. Evidence of feeding by humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Baja
                             California breeding ground, Mexico. Mar. Mamm,       Sci. 9(l): 76-81.
                    Gilmartin, W.G. 1983. Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus schauinslandi. National Marine
                             Fisheries Service, Honolulu.
                    Gilmartain, W.G. 1994. Personal Communication with B. Mieremet. March 1994. National Marine Fisheries
                             Service, Honolulu, HL
                    Glockner, D.A., and S. Venus. 1983. Determining the sex of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in their
                             natural environment. In: Communication and Behavior of Whales, R.S. Payne (ed.), pp. 447-464, AAAS
                             Selected Symposia Series, Boulder: Westview Press.
                    Glockner, D., and S. Venus. 1983. Identification, growth rate, and behavior of humpback whale, Megaptera
                             novaeangliae, cows and calves in the waters off Maui, Hawaii, 1977-79. In R. Payne (ed.), Commanication
                             and Behavior of Whales. AAAS Symposia Series, Boulder: Westview Press.
                    Glockner-Ferrari, D.A., and M.J. Ferrari. 1984. Reproduction in humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), in
                             Hawaiian waters. In: Reproduction in Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises. W.P. Perrin, G.P. Donovan, and
                             D.P. DeMasters (eds.), pp. 237-242. Report to the International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 6.


                    Page 434                                                                       Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                    and Management Plan






               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                            Appendix J: References and Bibliography
               National Marine Sanctuary

               Glockner-Ferrari, D.A., and M.J. Ferrari. 1985. Individual identification, behavior, reproduction, and distribution of
                        humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae in Hawaii. Marine Mammal Commission Contract Report
                        No. MMC-83106. Accession No. PB85-200772 NTIS, Springfield, VA.
               Glockner-Ferrari, D.A., and M.J. Ferrari. 1987. Identification, Reproduction, and Distribution of Humpback Whales
                        in Hawaiian Waters, 1984-45. Report to the National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, Washington.
               Glockner-Ferrari, D. A. and M. J. Ferrari. 1990. Reproduction in the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in
                        Hawaiian waters, 1975-1988: The life history, reproductive rates and behavior of known individuals
                        identified through surface and underwater photography. Rep. Int. Whale. Comm. (Spec. Issue) 12: 16 1 -
                        169.
               Glynn, P.W. 1985. Corallivore population sizes and feeding effects following El Nino (1982-83) associated coral
                        morality in Panama. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Coral Reef Symposium 4:183-187.
               Gosline, W.A., and V.E. Brock. 1960. Handbook of Hawaiian fishes. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
               Gosline, W.A. 1965. Vertical zonation of inshore fishes in the upper water layers of the Hawaiian Islands. Ecology
                        46:823-831.
               Gosline, W.A. 1955. The inshore fish fauna of Johnston Island, a Central Pacific atoll. Pac. Sci. 9:442-480.
               Green, Marsha L. 1990. The Impact of Parasail Boats on the Hawaiian Humpback Whale (hJUV= ngj=wZE&.
                        Paper Prepared for Marine Mammal Commission Hearings, March 1990.
               Green, Marsha L. and Ronald G. Green. 1990. Short-term impact of Vessel Traffic on the Hawaiian Humpback
                        Whale QjWa= novaeangliae).
               Grigg, R.W., and S.J. Dollar. 1990. Natural and anthropogenic disturbance on coral,reefs. In: Coral Reefs, Z.
                      . Dubinsky (ed.), pp..439-452. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publications B.V.
               Grigg, R.W., and J.E. Maragos. 1974. Recolonization of hermatypic corals on submerged lava flows in Hawaii.
                        Ecology 55:387-395.
               Grigg, R.W. 1982. Darwin Point: a threshold for atoll formation. Coral Reefs 1:29-34.
               Hain, J. H. W., S. L. Ellis, R. D. Kenney, P. J. Clapham, B. K. Gray, M. T. Weinrich, and 1. B. Babb. 1995.
                        Apparent bottom feeding of humpback whales on Stellwagen Bank. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 11(4): 464-479.
               Hanmett, Michael P. "Fisheries " in Hawaii Oceans Management Plan, Technical Supplement Hawaii Ocean and -
                        Marine Resources Council, January, 1991, pp 38-48.
               Harrigan, J. 1993. Personal Communication with B. Nfieremet, B. Phillips and J. Sessing. Department of Health.
                        Honolulu, HI.
               Harrison, C.S. 1985. A Marine Sanctuary in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: An idea whose time has come.
                        Natural Resources Journal 25:317-47.
               Hawaii Audubon Society. 1989. Hawaii's Birds. Fourth Edition. Honolulu: Hawaii Audubon Society.
               Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism (DEBDT). 1990. 77ze State of Hawaii Data
                        Book. A Statistical Abstract. Honolulu.
               Hawaii State Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism. 1992. The State of Hawaii data book
                        1992: A statistical abstract. Honolulu, Hawaii.
               Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism. 1993. Hawaii State Data Book 1992.
                        Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism.
               Hawaii Department of Health (DOH). 1989. Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment Report.
               Hawaii Department of Health (DOH). 1990. Water Quality Management Plan for the City and County of Honolulu.
                        Report prepared by the Dept. of Public Works, City and County of Honolulu and the Hawaii Dept. of
                        Health.
               Hawaii Department of Health (DOH). 1993. Water Quality Management Plan for the County of Hawaii. Report.
                        prepared by the County of Hawaii and the Hawaii Dept. of Health. November 1993.
               Hawaii Department of Health (DOH). 1993. Water Quality Management Plan for the County of Maui. Report
                        prepared by the County of Maui and the Hawaii Dept. of Health. November 1993.
               Hawaii Department of Health (DOH). 1993. Water Quality Management Plan for the County of Kauai. Report
                        prepared by the County of Kauai and the Hawaii Dept. of Health. November 1993.
               Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources (DLNR/DAR). 1989. Statewide
                        Fish Aggregating System: Molokai Midwater Buoy Locations, December 1989.
               Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources (DLNR/DAR). 199 1. Statewide
                        .Fish Aggregating System, Lanaiffidwater Buoy Locations. July 1991.
               Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources (DLNR/DAR). 199 1. Statistics,
                        1991.
               Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources (DLNR/DAR). 1992. Statistics,
                        1992.



               Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                       Page 435
               and Management Plan






                     Appendix J: References and Bibliography                                            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                                National Marine Sanctuary


                     Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources/Division of Aquatic Resources (DLNR/DAR). 1992. Hawaii
                              Fishing Regulations, September.
                     Halwaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources (DLNR/DAR). 1992. Statewide
                              Fish Aggregating System: Island of Kauai. October 1992.
                     Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources (DLNR/DAR). 1992. Statewide
                              Fish Aggregating System: Island of Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Kahoolawd. May 1992.
                     Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR/DAR) , Aquatic Life and Wildlife Advisory Committee.
                              1993. Notesftont the meeting of October 14, 1993 at Kealakehe Elementary School, Kona, Hawaii.
                     Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR/DAR). 1993. "Commercial Marine Live Landed by
                              Month, Area, and Gear: Fiscal Year 1992-93" Division of Aquatic Resources" personal communication
                     Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources,.(DLNRIDAR) Division of Aquatic Resources. 1993. Statistics

                     Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation (DLNRIDOBOR).
                              1992. Vessel Registration Data. December 31, 1992.
                     Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation (DLNR/DOBOR).
                            . 1993a. Small Boat Facilities on the Island of Kauai.
                     Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation (DLNR/DOBOR).
                              1993b. Small Boat Facilities on the Island of Maui.
                     Hwivaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation (DLNR/DOBOR).
                              1993c. Small Boat Facilities on the Island o Molokai and Lanai.
                     Hwwaii Department of Planning and Economic Development and U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals
                              Management Service. 1987. Mining Development Scenariofor Cobalt-Rich Manganese Crusts in the
                              Exclusive Economic Zones of the Hawaiian Archipelago and Johnston Island. January 1987.
                     Hawaii Department of Transportation (DOT) "Port Hawaii: Commercial Harbors System" Harbors Division, 1993
                     Hawaii Department of Transportation (DOT), Harbors Division, Boating Branch. 1993. Statistics,* 1991-92.
                     Hawaii Department of Transportation (DOT), Harbors Division. 199 1. Report of Undocumented Vessel Registration.
                              December 31, 1991.
                     Hxwaii Department of Transportation (DOI), Harbors Division, Boating Branch. 1993. Small Craft Mooring
                          .   Facilities Utilization Report (quarterly) 1991-92.*                                                         I
                     Hawaiian Electric Co., Inc., and B.P. Bishop Museum. 1975. A survey of the marine benthos in the vicinity of the
                              Kahului Generating Station Maui, Hawaii. Prepared for Hawaiian Electric Co.
                     Ha:waii Enviromnental Education Association (HEEA). 1993. Environmental Education Resource Guide. State
                              Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Honolulu. -
                     Ha:waii Ocean and Marine Resources Council (HOMRC). 1991. Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan, Hawaii
                              Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism, Honolulu. 49 pp.
                     Hawaii Ocean and Marine Resources Council (HOMRC). 199 1. Hawaii Ocean Resource; Management Plan,
                              Technical Supplement. Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism, Honolulu. 71
                              PP.
                     Hawaii Office of State Planning. 1990. Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program. 65 pp. Honolulu, HI.
                     Hawaii Office of State Planning. 1996. Hawaii's Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program - Draft
                              Management Plan, Volume 1. June 1996. Honolulu. 357 pp.
                     Hawaii State Constitution, Article XV, Section 1: Boundaries.
                     Hawaiian Sea Turtle Recovery Team. 1992. Interim Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Sea Turtles. Honolulu: National
                              Marine Fisheries Service. Southwest Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report H-92-01.
                     Hawaii State Emergency Response Commission. 1992. Oil and Hazardous Substances Emergency Response Plan.
                              Supplement to State of Hawaii Plan for Emergency Preparedness, Volume 111. 34 pp.
                     Health, County of Maui. Tetra Tech, Inc., Lafayette, California.
                     Helweg, D.A., A.S. Frankel, J.R. Mobley, Jr., and L.M. Herman. 1993. Why humpback whales sing: Current
                              understanding. In: Sensory Abilities of Aquatic Mammals. J.A. Thomas, R.A. Kastelein, and A. Supin
                              (eds.), New York: Plenum Press.
                     Herman, L. and R. Antinoja. 1977. "Humpback whales in the Hawaiian breeding waters: Population and pod
                              characteristics," Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. 29:59-85.
                     Herman, L. P. 1979. Humpback Whales in Hawaiian Waters: a study in historical ecology. Pacific Science 33:1-15.
                     Herman, L., P. Forestell,and R. Antinoja. 1980. The 197&1977 Migration of Humpback Whales into Hawaiian
                              Waters: Composite Description. U.S. Department of Commerce, N.T.I.S. PB 80-162332. -
                     Herman, L.M., P.H. Forestell, and R.C. Antinoja. 1980. rhe 1976177 migration of, humpback whales into
                              Hawaiian waters: Composite description. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C., Report
                              MMC- 77/19.



                     Page 436                                                                       Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                     and Management Plan






                Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                            Appendix J: References and Bibliography
                National Marine Sanctuary

                Herman, L. M. 1979. Humpback whales in Hawaiian waters: A study in historical ecology. Pac. Sci. 33:1-15.
                Herman, L.M., and W.N. Tavolga. 1980. The communication systems of cetaceans. In: Cetacean Behavior.*
                         Mechanisms and Functions, L.M. Herman (ed.), pp. 149-209. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
                Herrington Sound, Bermuda: eutrophication of a confined, phosphorus-limited marine ecosystem. Estuarine Coast.
                         Shelf Sci. 28:347-360.
                Hiruki, L.M., and T.J. Ragen. 1992. A Compilation of Historical Monk Seal, Monachus schauifislandi, Counts.
                         NOAA Technical Memorandum" NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC- 172.
                Hobson, E.S. 1984. The structure of reef fish communities in the Hawaiian archipelago: interim status report. In:
                         Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Resource Investigations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands,
                         Vol. *1. R.W. Grigg, and K.Y. Tanoue (eds.), pp. 101-122, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. Sea Grant
                         Misc. Rept..UNEM-SEAGRANT-MR-84-01.
                Hobson, E.S. 1974. Feeding relationships of teleostean fishes on coral reefs in Kona, Hawaii. Fish. Bull. 72:915-
                         1031.
                Holmes, T. 1993. The Hawaiian Canoe. 2d ed. Editors Limited, Honolulu.
                Hommon, R. 1975. Use and Control of the Hawaiian Inter-Island Channels Polynesian Hawaii: A.D. 1400-1794.
                         Office of the Governor, Honolulu.
                Hopley, D. 1982. The Geomorphology of the Great Barrier Reef. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
                Hudson, A.E. 1932. The Archaeology of East Hawaii. Manuscript in Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
                Inalab, Inc. 1992. 305(b) Water Quality Report for the State of Hawaii. Prepared for the Department of Health. April
                         1992. 66 pp.
                Iversen, R.T.B., T. Dye, and L.M. Paul. 1990. Native Hawaiian Fishing Rights (Phase I - The Northwestern
                         Hawaiian Islands; Phase 2 - Main Hawaiian Islands and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands). Western
                         Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, Honolulu.
                Johannes, R.E. 1975. Pollution and degradation of coral reef communities. In: Tropical Marine Pollution, E.J.
                         Ferguson, and R.E. Johannes (eds.) pp. 13-50. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing.
                Johnson, C.S. 1966. Auditory thresholds of the bottlenosed pqrpoise (Tursiops truncatus, Montague). NOTS
                         Technical Publication 4178.
                Johnson, J. H. and A. A. Wolman. 1984. The humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae. Mar. Fis. Rev. 46(4):
                         30-37.
                Jokiel, P.L., and S.L. Coles. 1974. Effects of heated effluent on hermatypic corals at Kahe Point, Oahu. Pac. Sci.
                         28:1-18.
                Jurasz, C. M. and V. P Jurasz. 1979. Feeding modes of the humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, in
                         southeast Alaska. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. 31: 69-83.
                KRP Information Services. 1993. Water Quality Management Plan for the County of Maui. Prepared for the
                         Hawaiian State Department of Health and County of Maui.
                Kahaulelio, A. D. 1902. Fishing Lore. Nupepa Kuokoa. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Library.
                Kahoolawe Island Conveyance Commission (KICC). 1993. Kaho'olawe Island: Restoring a cultural treasure. Final
                         Report of the Kahoolawe Island Conveyance Commission to the Congress of the United States. 158 pp.
                Kameeleihiwa, L. 1992. Native Land and Foreign Desires: Pehea La E Porto Ai? Betnice P. Bishop Museum Press,
                         Honolulu.
                Kassman, Ken "Aquaculture" in Hawaii Oceans Management Plan, Technical Supplement Hawaii O@ean and Marine
                         Resources Council, January, 1991, pp 84-92
                Katona, S. K. and H. P. Whitehead. 1981. Identifying humpback whales using their natural markings. Polar
                         Record 20: 439-444.
                Katona, S. K. and J. A. Beard. 1990. Population size, migrations, and feeding aggregations of the humpback whale
                         (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the western North Atlantic. Report of the International Whaling Commission
                         (Special Issue 12): 295-305.
                Kaufman, G., M. A. Smultea, and P. Forestell. 1987. Use of lateral body pigmentation patterns for photo Id in
                      , east Australian (Area V) humpback whales. Cetus 7 (1): 5-13.
                Kawaharada, D. (ed.). 1992. Hawaiian Fishing Legends. Kalamaku Press, Honolulu.
                Kay, E.A. 1977. Introduction to the revised edition. In: Reef and Shore Fauna of Hawaii, D.M. Devaney, and L.G.
                         Eldredge (eds.), pp. 4-11. B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 64(l), Honolulu.
                Kay, E.A. 1967. The composition and relationships of marine molluscan fauna of the Hawaiian Islands. Venus
                         25:94-104.
                Kay, E.A. 1979. Hawaiian marine shells. In: Reef and shorejauna of Hawaii., D.M. Devaney, and L.G. Eldredge
                         (eds.), Section 4: Mollusca. Honolulu: B.P. Bishop Museum Press.
                Kellogg, R. 1929. What is know   'n about the migrations of some of the whalebone whales. In: Annual Reports of
                         the Smithsonian Institute for 1928, pp. 467-494.


                Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                       Page 437
                and Management Plan






                     Appendix J: References and Bibliography                                        Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                             National Marine Sanctuary

                     K.-tten, D.R., J. Lien and S.Todd. 1993. Blast Injury in humpback whale cars: Evidence.and implications. Invited
                              paper, 126th meeting, Acoustical Society of America.
                     K@il, J. 1978. Evolution of Sea Fishery Rights and Regulation in Hawaii and Their Implications for Conservation.
                              Preliminary Draft, Honolulu.
                     Kikuchi, W.K. 1976. Prehistoric Hawaiian Fishponds. Science. 193:295-299.
                     Kikuchi, WX 1973. Hawaiian Aquacultural Systems. PhD Dissertation. University of Arizona.
                     Kirch, P.V. 1985. Featherej Gods and Fishhooks. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
                     Kirch, P.V. 1982. The ecology of marine exploitation in prehistoric Hawaii. Hum. Ecol. 10(4):455-476.
                     Knutsen, D., R. Buddemeier, and S.V. Smith. 1972. Coral chronometers: seasonal growth bands in reef corals.
                              Science 177:270-272.
                     Kasaki, R. 1954. Konohiki Fishing Rights. Legislative Reference Bureau, University of Hawaii.
                     Krieger, K. J. and B. L. Wing. 1984. Hydroa@oustic surveys and identification of humpback whale forage in Glacier
                              Bay, Stephens Passage, and Frederick Sound, southeastern Alaska, summer 1983. - NOAA Tech. Memo.
                              NMFS F/NWC-66. U.S. Nad. Mar. Fish. Serv., Auke Bay, AK. 60 p. NTIS PB85-183887.
                     Krieger, K. J. and B. L. Wing. 1986. Hydroacoustic monitoring of prey to determine humpback whale movements.
                              NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWC-98. U.S. Nad. Mar. Fish. Serv., Auke Bay, AK.. 62 p. NTIS
                              PB86-204054.
                     Lal, Padma Narsey and Athline M. Clark "Personal Recreation Boating Industry in Hawaii: Physical Characteristics
                              and Economic Contribution" Sea Grant Marine Economics Report UNEM-SEAGRANT-ME-9 1 -0 1; Ocean
                              Resources Branch, DBEDT Contribution No. 94
                     Lapointe, B.E., and J. O'Donnell. 1989. Nutrient-enhanced growth of Cladophora prolifera in
                     Leatherwood, S. 1975. Some observations of feeding behavior of bottlenosed dolphins (Tursiops tnincatus) in'the
                              northern Gulf of Mexico and Tursiops gilli in Baja, California and Nayant, Mexico. Mar. Fish. Res.
                              37:10-16.
                     Leatherwood, S., D.K. Caldwell, and H.E. Winn. 1976. Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises of the Westem North
                              Atlan-tic. NOAA, Seattle. NOAA Technical Report, NMFS Circ. 396.
                     Leatherwood, S., W.F. Perrin, R.L. Farvie, and J.C. LaGrange. 1973. Observations of Shark Attacking Porpoises
                              (Stenella spp. and Delphinis cf. D. delphis). NUCfIN 908.
                     Leatherwood, S., W.E. Evans, and D.W. Rice. 1972. 7he Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises in the Eastem North
                              Pacific: A Guide to Their Identification in the Water. San Diego: NUC Special Publication.
                     Lewis, J.R. 1964. 7he Ecology of Rocky Shores. London: English Universities Press.
                     Littier, M.M. 1973. The population and community structure of Hawaiian fringing-reef crustose Corallinaceae
                              (Rhodophyta, Cryptonemiales). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. 11: 103-120.
                     UAR Fisheries Research, Inc. "Hawaii Fisheries Plan: 1990-1995" prepared for Division of Aquatic Resources,
                              Department of Land and Natural Resources, 1992
                     Loya, Y. 1976.. Recolonization of Red Sea coral affected by natural catastrophes and man-made perturbations.
                              Ecology 57:278-289.
                     Macdonald, G.A., A.T. Abbott, and F.L. Peterson, 1983. Volcanoes in the Sea, second edition. Honolulu:
                              University of Hawaii Press.
                     MacDonald, C.D. and E.Corbin. 1989. "Issues and Analysis: Managing Ocean Resources for Tourism Development
                              in Hawaii" OCEANS '89 Proceedings, 1989.
                     MacDonald, C.D. and H.E. 1989. Deese "A Comprehensive Analysis and Overview of Hawaii's'Ocean Industries"
                              Coastal Zone '89 Proceedings, 1989.
                     Macdonald, G.A., A.T. Abbott, and F.L. Peterson, 1990., Volcanoes in the Sea: The Geology of Hawaii. Honolulu:
                              University of Hawaii Press.
                     MacDonald, C. D. and M. Markrich.' 1992. "Hawaii's Ocean Recreation Industry: Economic Growth (1981-1995) and
                              Management Considerations" Marine Technology Society '92 Proceedings, 1992.
                     MacDonald, C. D. and Athline M. Clark. 1993. "Hawaii's Ocean Recreation Industry: A Model for Regional
                              Development in China" First International Ocean Recreation Activity and Resort Development
                              Symposium, 1993.
                     MacDonald, C.D. and H.E. Deese. 1994. The Economic Potential of Hawaii's Ocean Industries. In MTS '94
                              Proceedings, Sept. 7-9, 1994. Washington, D.C. pp. 332-329. Marine Technology Society, Washington,
                              D.C.
                     MacDonald, C.C., H.E. Deese, E. Corbin, and A.M. Clark. 1995. New Projections for Hawaii's Ocean Industries: A
                              Stratetic Orientation. In: Ocean's '95 Proceedings, October-9-12, 1995. San Diego, CA. IEEE and Marine'
                              Technology Society, Washington, D.C. 10 pp.




                     Page 438                                                                   Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                                 and Management Plan






                 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale.                                         Appendix J: References and Bibliography
                 National Marine Sanctuary

                 Maciolek, J.A. 1994. Exotic fishes in Hawaii and other islands of Oceania. In: Distribution, Biology and
                          Management of Exotic Fishes., W.R. Courtenay, Jr., and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. (eds.), pp. 131-16 1. Baltimore:
                          Johns Hopkins University Press.
                 Madden, W.D., and C.L. Paulsen. 1977. The Potentialfor Mullet and Milkfish Culture in Hawaiian Fishponds.
                          Oceanic Institute for the State of Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Development.
                 Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J.E. Bird. 1984. Investigations of the Potential Effects of
                          Underwater Noise from Petroleum Industry Activities on Migrating Gray Whale Behavior. Phase 11: January
                          1984 migration. Report by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc. for U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals
                          Management Service. BBN Technical Report No. 5586.
                 Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, P. Tyack, C.W. Clark, and J.E. Bird. 1985. Investigation of the Potential Effects of
                          Underwater Noise from Petroleum Industry Activities on Feeding Humpback Whale Behavior. Final report
                          to U.S. Dept. of the Interior Minerals Management Service (NTIS Publication No. PB86-218385).
                 Malo, D. 1951. Hawaiian Antiquities (Moolelo Hawaii). Trans. Nathaniel B. Emerson. 2d ed. Honolulu: Bernice P.
                          Bishop Museum Press, Honol    'ulu.'
                 Marnala Bay Study Commission. 1993. East Mamala Bay Wastewater Facilities Master Plan. Dec. 1993.
                 Maragos, J.E. 1972. A Study of the Ecology of Hawaiian Reef Corals. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hawaii,
                          Honolulu.
                 Maragos, J.E., G. Baines, and P. Beveridge. 1973. Tropical cyclone Bebe creates a new land formation on Funafuti
                          Atoll. Science 181:1161-1164.
                 Maragos, J.E. 1977. Order Sc 'leractinia stony corals. In: Reef and Shore Fauna of Hawaii., D.M. Devaney, and L.G.
                          Eldredge (eds.), pp. 158-241. B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 64(l). Honolulu.
                 Marine Mammal Commission. 1992. Annual Report to Congress. Washingtion, D.C. 226 pp.
                 Marine Mammal Commission. 1993. Annual Report to Congress. Washington, DC.
                 Marine Mammal Commission. 1994. Annual Report to Congress. Washington, DC.
                 Marine Mammal Commission. 1995. Annual Report to Congress. Washington, DC.
                 Markrich, M. Status reports on the 1990 economic characteristics of ocean recreation in Hawaii. Planning doc@ment
                          for the State of Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism. In preparation.
                 Marsalak, D.S. 198 1 b. Effects of sewage effluents on reef corals. Abstract in Proceedings of the 4th International
                          Coral Reef Symposium 1:213.
                 Marsalak, D.S. 198 Ia. Impact of dredging on a subtropicial reef community, southeast Florida, U.S.A. In:
                          Proceedings of the 4th International Coral Reef Symposium 1: 147-154.
                 Matilla, D. K. and P. J. Clapham. 1989. Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) and other cetace4ns on
                          Virgin Bank and in the northern Leeward Islands, 1985 and 1986. Can. J. Zool. 67(9): 2201-2211.
                 Matilla, D.K., P. J. Clapharn, S. K. Katona, and G. S. Stone. 1989. Humpback whales on Silver Bank, 1984:
                          population composition and habitat use. Can. J. Zool. 67: 281-285.
                 Matsuoka, Jon, Davianna McGregor, Luciano Minerbi. 1994. Governor's Moloka'i Subsistence Task Force
                          Preliminary Report. Report for the Moloka'i Subsistence Task Force and the Department of Business,
                          Economic Development and Tourism.
                 Maui County Sanctuary Task Force. 1994. Issues of Concern to Maui County Related to the Congressionally
                          Mandated Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary.
                 Maybaum, H. L. 1990. Effects of a 3.3 kHz sonar system on humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in
                          Hawaiian waters. Eos 71(2): 92.
                 Maybaurn, H. L. 1993. Responses of humpback whales to sonar sounds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 94 (3, Pt. 2):
                          1848-1849.
                 McDermid, Karla 1. 1990. Maalaea Boat Harbor Algal Survey.
                 Meller, N. 1985. Indigenous Ocean Rights in Hawaii. Honolulu: Sea Grant College Program. UNIHI-SEAGRANT-
                          MP-86-01
                 Menard, H.W. 1964. Marine Geology of the Pacific. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
                 Meyer Resources, Inc. "A report on Resident Fishing in the Hawaiian Islands" developed for National Marine
                          Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Center Administrative Report H-87-8C, 1987
                 Miller, B.J. 1970. Studies on the biology of Indo-Pacific Terebridae. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of New
                          Hampshire.
                 Mobley, J.M. Jr, and L.M. Herman. 1985. Transience of affiliations among humpback whales (Megaptera
                          novaeangliae) on the Hawaiian wintering grounds. Can. J. Zool. 63:762-772.
                 Mobley, J.M., L.M. Herman, and A.S. Frankel. 1988. Responses of wintering humpbaci whales, Megaptera
                          novaeangliae, to playback of recordings of winter and summer vocalizations and of synthetic sounds.
                          Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 23:211-223.



                 Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                      Page 439
                 and Management Plan






                      Appendix J: References and Bibliography                                          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                               National Marine Sanctuary


                      Mobley I.R. Jr., and G.B. Bauer. 1991. Changes in distribution of humpback whales in Hawaiian wintering
                               grounds: 1990 aerial survey results. Paper presented at the Ninth Biennial Conference on the Biology of
                               Marine Mammals, Chicago, December 199 1.
                      Nlobley, J.R. Jr., P.H. Forestell, R. Grotefendt, T. Norris, M. Smultea, and A. Bowles. 1993. Aerial surveys of
                               humpback whales in Hawaiian waters. In: Tenth Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals,
                               Abstracts, Galveston, Texas, November 5-9, 1993.
                      Mobley, J.R. Jr., P.H. Forestell, R. Grotefendt. 1994. Results of 1993 Aerial Surveys in Hawaiian Waters. 1993
                               ATOC Marine Mammal REsearch Program. Report to the Advance Research Projects Agency. 27 pp.
                      Mobley, J. R. Jr., P.H. Forestell, and R. A. Grotefendt. 1996. Preliminary Results of 1993 and 1995 aerial
                               surveys of Hawaiian waters. Draft report to NOAA's Sanctuaries and Reserves Division. 10.pp.
                      Moberly, R. Jr., L.D. Baver, Jr., and A. Morrison. 1965. Source and variation of Hawaiian littoral sand. J.
                               Sediment. Petrol. 35:589-598.
                      Muffler, B. 1993. Personal Communication with B. Mieremet. Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory, Waimanalo.
                               Hawaii.
                      Muller, P.H. 1974. Sediment production and population biology of the benthic foraminifera Amphistegina
                               madagascariensis. Limnol. Ocean. 19:802409.
                      Murakarni, A.T., and B. Freitas. 1987. Native Hawaiian Claims Concerning Ocean Resources. Presented at the
                               Hawaii Ocean Affairs Conference, East- West Center Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation.
                      Myers, R.F. 1989. Micronesian Reef Fishes. Guam: Coral Graphics, Barrigada.
                      National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1990, Biological Opinion of Endangered Species Act Section 7
                               Consultation Requested by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
                      National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991. Status of Pacific Oceanic Living Marine Resources of Interest to the USA
                               for 199 1. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC- 165.
                      National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1991. Final Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale (Me-aptera
                               novaeangliae). Prepared by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for NOAA, National Marine Fisheries
                               Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 105 pp.
                      Naujhton, J.J. 1994. Personal Communication with B. Mieremet and B. Phillips. March 1994. National Marine
                               Fisheries Service, Honolulu, FH.
                      Niemeyer, G., S.A. Cattell, G. Krasnick, D. Crear, R. Brock, and H. Snider. 1976. Marine environmental
                               reconnaissance studyfor proposed Lahaina Small Boat Harbor Maui, Hawaii. Environmental Consultants,
                               Inc., Kaneohe, Hawaii. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu.
                      Nishiwaki, M. 1966. Distribution and migration of the larger cetaceans in the North Pacific as shown by Japanese
                               whaling results. In Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises, K.S. Norris (ed.). Berkeley: University of California
                               Press.
                      Nishiwaki, M. 1959. Humpback whales in Ryukuan waters. Scientific Reports of the Whales Research Institute
                               14:49-86.
                      Nitta, E. T. 1987. The marine mammal stranding network for Hawaii, an overview. In: Marine Mammal Stranding
                               Workshop; J. E. Reynolds III, and Daniel K. Odell (eds.), December @-5, 1987, Miami, Florida NOAA
                               Publication.
                      Ni!M E.T., and J.J. Naughton. 1989. "Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal
                               Vertebrates and Invertebrates Pacific Ocean Region, Report 2, Humpback Whale," Technical Report EL 89-
                               10. Prepared for Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wash. D.C. 22 pp.
                      Nitta, E.T. 1994. Personal Communication with B. Mierernet and B. Phillips. March 1994. National Marine
                               Fisheries Service, Honolulu, HI.
                      NOAA., Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management (NOAA/OCRM). 1983. Proposed Hawaii Humpback
                               Whale National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared
                               by the Sanctuary Programs Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Nationai,Ocean
                               Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and State of Hawaii Department of Planning
                               and Economic Development. 172 pp.
                      NOAA. 1991. Kahoolawe Island National Marine Sanctuary Feasibility Study. Prepared by the Sanctuary Programs
                               Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic
                               and Atmospheric.Administration, and State of Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Development,
                               1991. 42 pp.
                      NOAA., Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management (NOAA/OCRM). 1995. Hawaiian Islands Humpabck
                               Whale National Marine Sanctuary Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan. Prepared
                               by the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National
                               Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and State of Hawaii Department of
                               Planning and Economic Development..264 pp.


                      Page 440                                                                     Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                                    and Management Plan





                 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                          Appendix   J: References and Bibliography
                 National Marine Sanctuary


                 Norris, K.S., and T.P. Dohl. 1980. The structure and function of cetacean schools. In Cetacean Behavior:
                          Mechanisms and Function. L.M. Herman (ed.) pp. 211-262. New York: John. Wiley and Sons.
                 Norris, K.S. and k.R. Reeves. 1978. Report on a Workshop on Problems Related to Humpback Whales (Megaptera
                          novaeangliae) in Hawaii. Prepared for the Marine Mammal Commission.
                 Norris, K.S., B. Wursig, R.S. Wells, M. Wursig, S.M. Brownlee, C. Johnson, and J. Solow. 1985. The Behavior
                          of Hawaiian Spinner Dolphins, Stenella longirostris. Final Report to NMFS. Southwest Fisheries Center,
                          La Jolla, CA.
                 Ostman, J., and A.D. Driscoll. 199 1. Observation of the social organization of Hawaiian spinner dolphins above and
                          below the surface. In: Ninth Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Abstracts. Chicago.
                          Illinois" December 5-9, 199 1.
                 Pacific Missile Range Facility, 1994. Briefing Documents, Kekaha, Hawaii.
                 Pastorek, R.A., and G.R. Bilyard. 1985. Effects of sewage pollution on coral-reef @ommunities. Mar. Ecol. Prog.
                          Ser. 21:175-189.
                 Patzert, W.C. 1970. Eddies in Hawaiian Waters. U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior,
                          Washington, D.C., Bulletin 8.
                 Patzert, W.C., K. Wyrtki, and H.J. Santamore. 1970. Current Measurements in the Central North Pacific Ocean.
                          Hawaii Institute of Geophysics, HIG-70-31, Honolulu, Hawaii.
                 Payne, R.S., and S. McVay. 1971. Songs of humpback whales. Science 173:585-597.
                 Payne, R. 1978. Behavior and vocalizations of humpback whales (Megaptera sp.). In: K. S. Norris and R. R.
                          Reeves (eds.), Report on a workshop on problems related to humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in
                          Hawaii. MMC-77/03. Rep. from Sea Life Inc., Makapuu Pt., HL for U.S. Mar. Mamm. Comm.,
                          Washington, DC. 90 p. NTIS PB-2:90794.
                 Payne, K. and R. S. Payne. 1985. Large-scale changes over 17 years in songs of humpback whales in Bermuda. Z.
                          Tierpsychol. 68: 89-114.
                 Pearson, R. 1981. Recovery and recolonization of coral reefs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 4:105-122.
                 Perry, A., J.R. Mobley, Jr., C.S. Baker, and L.M. Herman. 1988. Humpback Whales of the Central and Eastern
                          North Pacific: A Catalog of Individual Identification Photographs. Sea Grant Miscellaneous Reports,
                          UNIHI-SEAGRANT-MR-88-02.
                 Perry, A., C.S. Baker and L.M. Herman. 1990. Population characteristics of individually identified humpback
                          whales in the central and eastern north Pacific: A Summary and Critique. Reports of the International
                          Whaling Commission, Special Issue 12:307-317.
                 Perry, A., J.R. Mobley, C.S. Baker, and L.M. Herman. 1988. Humpback Whales of the Central and Eastern North
                          Pacific: A Catalog of Individual Identification Photographs. University of Hawaii Sea Grant College
                          Program, UNIM-SEAGRANT-MR-88-02.
                 Pooley, Samuel G. 1993. "Hawaii's Marine Fi;heries: Some History, Long-term Trends, and Recent
                          Developments", Marine Fisheries Review 55(2@).
                 Pukui, M.K. and S.H. Elbert (Eds.). 1986. Hawaiian Dictionary: Hawaiian-English, English-Hawaiian. Revised and
                          Enlarged Edition. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. 572 pp.                                  I
                 Ragen, T.J. 1993. Status of the Hawaiian Monk Seal in 1992. National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest
                          Fisheries Center Administrative Report H-93-05.
                 Ralston, C. 1984. Hawaii 1778-1854: Some aspects of Makaainana response to rapid cultural change. J. Pac. Hist.
                          M:21-40.
                 Randall, I.E. 1987. Introductions of marine fishes to the Hawaiian Islands. Bull. Mar. Sci. 41:490-502.
                 Randall, J.E. 1980. New records of fishes from the Hawaiian Islands. Pac. Sci. 34:211-232. -
                 Reeves, R. R. 1992. Whale responses to anthropogenic sounds: A literature review. Sci. & Res. Ser. 47. New
                          Zealand Dep. Conserv., Wellington. 47 p.
                 Rice, D. W. 1974. Whales and whale research in the east@rn North Pacific. In: Schevill, W. E., (ed.) The Whale
                          Problem: a status report. 'Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press. pp. 170-195.
                 Rice, D.W. 1978. The humpback whale in the north Pacific: Distribution, exploitation, and numbers. In: Report on
                          a Workshop on Problems Pelated to Humpback Whales, Megaptera novaeangliae in Hawaii. K.S. Norris,
                          and R. Reeves (eds.) pp. 29-44. Report to the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C.
                 Rice, D.W., and A.A. Wolman. 1978. Humpback whale census in, Hawaiian waters - February 1977, In: Report on
                          a Workshop on Problems Related to Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hawaii, K.S. Norris,
                          and R.R. Reeves (eds.). Final Report to the Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. NTIS No.
                          PB 180 794.
                 Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, J.P. Hickie, and R.A. Davis. 1983. Effects of offshore petroleum operations on
                          cold water marine mammals: A literature. review. Report prepared by LGL Ecological Research Associates,
                          Inc., Toronto, for the American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.


                 Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                      Page 441
                 and Management Plan






                      Appendix J: References and Bibliography                                             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                                  National Marine Sanctuary


                      Richardson, W.J., M.A. Fraker, B. Wursig, and R.S. Wells.,1985. Behavior of bowhead whales, Balaena
                               mysticetus, summering in the Beaufort Sea: Reactions to industrial activities. Biol. Conserv. 32:195-230.
                      Richardson, W. J., C. R. Greene, Jr., C. 1. Malme, and D. H. Thomson. i995. Marine mammals and noise. San
                               Diego, CA. Academic Press. 576 p.
                      Risk, M.J. 1972. Fish diversity on a coral reef in the Virgin Islands. Atoll Res. Bull. 153:1-6.
                      Robertson, R. 1970. Review of the predators and parasites of stony corals with special reference to symbiotic
                               prosobranch gastropods. Pac. Sci. 24:43.
                      Rogers, C.S. 1983. Sublethal and lethal effects of sediments applied to cornmon Caribbean reef corals in the field.
                               Mar. Poll. Bull. 14:378-382.
                      Rogers, C.S. 1985. Deterioration of Caribbean coral reefs: a monitoring/management program for reefs in Virgin
                               Islands. Fifth Congres Int. Recifs Coralliens, Tahiti 2:330.
                      Russ, G.R., and A.C. Alcala. 1988. A Direct Test of the Effects of Protective Management of a Tropical Marine
                               Preserve. South Pacific Commission, Inshore Fish. Res./BP.29.
                      Sadla, S.B., and P.M. Roedel, eds. 1970. Stock Assessmentfor Tropical Small-Scale Fisheries. International Center
                               for Marine Resource Development. University of Rhode Island, Kingston.
                      Sailden, D. R. 1988. Humpback whale encounter rates offshore of Maui, Hawaii. J. Wildl. Manage. 52(2): 301-
                               304.
                      Sede, P.F. 1977. Maintenance.of high diversity in coral reef fish communities. Am. Nat. 111:337-359.
                      Schmitt, R.C. 1971. New estimates of the pre-censal population of Hawaii. J. Polynesian Soc.-80(2):238-240
                      Schultz, Wendy L. "Energy" in Hawaii Oceans Management Plan, Technical Supplement Hawaii Ocean and Marine
                               Resources Council, January, 1991, pp 93-106
                      Sewell, P.L. 1982. Urban ground water as a possible nutrient source for an estuarine benthic algal bloom. Estuarine
                            . Coast. Shelf Sci. 15:569-576.
                      Shallenberger, E.W. 1978. Activities possibly affecting the welfare of humpback whales. In Norris,K. and R.
                               Reeves, eds. Report on a workshop on problems related to humpback whales (Mggaptera novaeariggliae) in
                               Hawaii. Report to the Marine Mammal Commission, Contract No. MM7acO 18. 90 pp.
                      Sliallenberger, E.W. 1984. The Status of Hawaiian Cetaceans. Final Report to the Marine Mammal. Commission,
                               Washington, D.C. NTIS No. PB82 109398.
                      Shannon, S. 1991. "Marine Minerals" in Hawaii Oceans Management Plan, Technical Supplement Hawaii Ocean
                               and Marine Resources Council, January, 1991, pp 107-117.
                      Sheppard, C. 1980. Coral fauna of Diego Garcia lagoon following harbor construction. Mar. Poll. Bull. 11: 227-
                               230.
                      Shinn, E. 1972. Coral Reef Recov   'ery in Florida and the Persian Gulf. Environmental Conservation Dept., Shell Oil
                               Co., Houston, Texas (cited in Grigg and Dollar 1990).
                      Shomura, R.S. 1987. Hasvaii's M@rine Fishery Resources: Yesterday (1900) and Today (1986).
                      Shomura, R.S., and T.S. Hida. 1965. Stomich contents of a dolphin caught in Hawaiian waters. J. Mammal.
                               46:500-501.
                      Silber, Gregory K. 1986. The relationship of social vo'calizations to surface behavior and aggression in the
                               Hawaiian humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae).
                      Small, R. J. and D. P. Demaster. 1995. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments 1995. U. S. Dep. of
                               Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-57.
                      Smith, M.K. In press. An ecological perspective on inshore fisheries in the main Hawaiian Islands. Mar. Fish.
                               Rev.
                      Smith, M.K. An ecological perspective on inshore fisheries in the main Hawaiian Islands. Mar. Fish. Rev. (In
                               press.)
                      @Smith, S.V., W.J. Kimmerer, E.A. Laws, R.E. Brock, and T.W. W@Ish. 1982. Kaneohe Bay sewage diversion
                               experiment: perspectives on ecosystem responses to nutritional perturbation. Pac. Sci. 35:279-397.
                      Smultea, M. 1989. Habitat Utilization Patterns of Humpback Whales off West Hawaii. Report to the Marine
                               Mammal Commission, Contract No. T6223925-4.
                      Smultea, Mari A. 199f. Habitat Utilization patterns of Humpback Whales (Mega=ra Novaeangliae) Off the Island
                               of Hawaii. Final Report to the U.S. Marine Marrunal Commission.
                      Sinultea, M.A. 1994. Segregation by humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) cows with a calf i n- coastal habitat
                               near the island of Hawaii.
                      @pciety for Marine Marnmalogy. 1993. Movement of a Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) Between Japan
                               and Hawaii. Marine Mammal Science 9(l):84-89.
                      Soule, J.D., D.F. Soule, and H.W. Chaney. 1987. Phyla Entoprocta and Bryozoa (Ectoprocta). In: Reef and Shore
                               Fauna of Hawaii, D.M. Devaney, and L.G. Eldredge (eds.), pp. 83-166, B.P. Bishop Museum Special
                               Publ. 64 (2 and 3). Honolulu.


                      Page 442                                                                       Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                       and Management Plan






                 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                           Appendix J: References and Bibliography
                 National Marine Sanctuary

                 Southwest Fisheries Center, NMFS Honolulu, Laboratory Administrative Rept. H-87-21.
                 Stannard, D.E. 1989. Before the Horror: The Population of Hawaii on the Eve of Western Contact. Honolulu: The
                          Social Science Research Institute, University of Hawaii.
                 State of Hawaii. 1990. Hawaii Administrative Rules, Section 19, Chapter 86, "Ocean Recreation Management Area
                          Rules," (19 HAR 86).
                 Steams, H.T. 1966. Geology of the State of Hawaii. Palo Alto: Pacific Books Publishers.
                 Steams, H.T. 1969. Road Guide to Points of Geologic Interest in the Hawaiian Islands, second edition. Palo Alto:
                          Pacific Books.
                 Steams, H.T. 1969. Geology of the Hawaiian Islands. Hawaii Institute of Geophysics HIG-69-8.
                 Steiger, G. H., J. Calambokidis, R. Sears, K. C. Balcomb, and J. C. Cubbage. 1991. Movement of humpback
                          whales between California and Costa Rica. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 7: 306-310.
                 Stoddart, D.R. 1963. Effects of Hurricane Hattie on the British Honduras reefs and cays, October 30-31, 1961. Atoll
                          Res. Bull. 95:1-142.
                 Stoddart, D.R. 1969. Ecology and morphology of recent coral reefs. Biol. Rev. 44:433-498.
                 Stoddart, D.R. 1965. Re-survey of hurricane effects on the British Honduras reefs and cays. Nature 207:589-592.
                 Summers, C.C. 1964. Hawaiian Fishponds. Bishop Museum Special Publication, No. 52. Hawaii, Honolulu.
                 Surfing Education Association. 1971. The 1971 Statewide Surfing Site Survey, Report for the Hawaii Department
                          of Planning and Economic Development, Vol. 1.
                 Sverdrup, H.U., M.W. Johnson, and R.H. Fleming. 1942. 7he Oceans: Their.Physics, Chemistry, and General
                          Biology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
                 Swingle, W. M., S. G. Barco, and T. D. Pitchford. 1993. Appearance of juvenile humpback whales feeding in the
                          nearshore waters of Virginia. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 9(3): 309-315.
                 Tabata, Raymond S. "Hawaii's Recreational Dive Industry and Use of Nearshore Dive Sites" Sea Grant Marine
                          Economics Report UNIHI-SEAGRANT -ME-92-02; Ocean Resources Branch, DBEDT Contribution No.
                          98. -                                          !' .
                 Tanaka, L. 1994. Personal Communication with B. Mieremet and B.Phillips. March 1994. Kailua-Kona, HI.
                 Tanji, E. 1992. Uninvited Kapalua Guest Won't Leave. Honolulu Advertiser, March 27, 1992.
                 Tanji, E. 1993. Hawaiian Monk Seal Turns Into a Maui Beach Bum. Honolulu Advertiser, February 6, 1993.
                 Tamas, David A. & M. Carolyn Stewart. 1991. "Harbors" and "Waste Management" in Hawaii Oceans Management
                          Plan, Technical Supplement Hawaii Ocean and Marine Resources Council, January, 1991, pp 29-37, and
                          73-83.
                 Taruski, A.G., Olney, C.E., and Winn, H.E. 1975. Chlorinated hydrocarbons in cetacean. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada.
                          32:2205-2209.
                 Tetra Tech, Inc. 1993. Preliminary Assessment of Possible Anthropogenic Nutrient Sources in the Lahaina District
                          of Maui. Prepared for USEPA Region 9, Hawaii State Department of
                 Thrum, T.G. 1907. Hawaiian Folk Tales: A Collection of Native Legends. Chicago: A.C. McClurg and Co.
                 Timbol, A.S. 1972. Trophic Ecology and Macrofauna of Kahana Estuary, Oahu. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
                          Hawaii, Honolulu.
                 Tinker, S. W. 1988. Whales of the world. Honolulu, HI. Bess Press Inc.
                 Tinney, R.T. 1988. Review of Information Bearing Upon the Conservation and Protection of Humpback Whales in
                          Hawaii. Marine Mammal Commission final report. Contract No. MM2209689-0.
                 Titcomb, A 1972. Native Use of Fish in Hawaii. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
                 Tomilin, A.G. 1967. Cetacea. In: Mammals of the USSR and Adjacent Countries, Vol 9. Israel Program for
                          Scientific Translations, Jeruselum.
                 Townsend, R.T. 199 1. Conservation and Protection of Humpback Whales in Hawaii - An Update. Final Report for
                          the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission T-75132495. 58 pp.
                 Tyack, P. 1989. Let's have less public relations and more ecology. Oceans. 32:103-108.
                 Tyack, P., and H. Whitehead. 1983. Male competition in large groups of wintering humpback whales. Behaviour
                          83:132-154.
                 Tyack, P. 198 1. Interactions between singing Hawaiian humpback whales and conspecifics nearby. Behavioral
                          Ecology and Sociobiology 8:105-116.
                 Tyack, P. 1983. Differential response of humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, to playback of song or social
                          sounds. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 13:49-55.
                 Umbgrove, J.H.F. 1930. The end of Sluiter's coral reef at Krakatoa. Leidse Geologische Mededelingen 3:261- 264.
                 University of Hawaii, Department of Geography. 1983. Atlas of Hawaii. 2d ed. University of Hawaii Press,
                          Honolulu.
                 University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program. LTNIHI-SEAGRANT-CR-92-06.



                 Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                       Page 443
                 and Management Plan






                      Appendix J: References and Bibliography                                          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                                National Marine Sanctuary


                      University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program (UHSG). 1985. Humpback Whales in Hawaii: Guidefor the
                               Amateur Whale-Watcher. University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program, UNIHI-SEAGRANT-MB-86-
                               01.
                      University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program. 1994. A Site Characterization Study for the Hawaiian Islands
                               Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary. Prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                               Administration. UNEM-SEAGRAN,T-MR-94-06.120 pp.
                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1983. A Decade of Ecological Studies Following Construction of Honokohau
                               Small Boat Harbor, Kona, Hawaii. U.S. Army Engineer District, Honolulu, Hawaii.
                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Draft Supplemental Environmental Im pact Statement for Maalaea Harbor for
                               Light-Draft Vessels Maui, Hawaii.
                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1994. Letter from Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Elliott to Janice Sessing and Dick
                               Poir,er. U.S. Army Engineer District, HonoluluU.S. Corps of Engineers. 1992. Determination of Federal
                               Consistency: For Navigation Improvements for the Maalaea Small Boat Harbor, Honolulu.
                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1989. Proposed Maintenance Dredging: Public Notice PODCO MD-90, December
                               1, 1989.
                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 199 1. Waterborne Commerce of the U.S. Calendar Year 1989. Part 4
                      U.S. Coast Guard, District 14. 1992. Statistics, 1991.
                      U.S. Coast Guard, District 14. 1993. Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) Honolulu Area Contingency Plan
                               (ACP). Commander, Fourteenth Coast Guard District, Honolulu, HI.
                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Final Environmental Impact Statementfor Hawaii Dredged Material
                               Disposal Sites Designation. Oil and Special Materials Control Division, Marine Protection, Washington,
                               D.C.
                      U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.-50 CRF 17.11 and 17.12.
                      U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Public Use Management Plan. Draft.
                               U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu.
                      U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. 159@1. Status of Pcicific Oceanic Living Marine Resources of Interest to the
                               USA for 199 1. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC- 165.
                      U.S. National Park Service. 1993. Hawaiian and pacific. Islands National Wildlfe Refuge Complex Summary.
                      U.S. National Park Service. 1993. Kauai National Wildlife Refuge Complex Summary.
                      Walsh, G.A. 1963. An Ecological Study of the Heeia Mangrove Swamp. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hawaii,
                               Honolulu.
                      Watkins, W. A. 1986. Whale reactions to human activities in Cape Cod waters. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 2(4): 251-
                               262.
                      Watkins, W. A. and W. E. Schevill. 1979. Aerial observation of feeding behavior in four baleen whales:
                               Eubalaena glacialis, Balaenoptera borealis, Megaptera novaeangliae, and Balaenoptera physalus. J. Mammal
                               60: 155-163.
                      Weinrich, M. T., M. R. Schilling, and C. R. Belt. 1992. Evidence for acquisition of a novel feeding behavior:
                               lobtail feeding in humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae. Animal Behavior 44: 1059-1072.
                      Wentworth, C.K. 1939. Marine bench-forming processes: J1, solution benching. J. Geomorphol. 2:3-25.
                      Wentworth, C.K. 193& Marine bench-forming processes: water-level weathering. J. Geomorphol. 1:6-32.
                      West Hawaii Coastal Monitoring Task Force. 1992. West Hawaii Coastal Monitoring Program: Protocol
                               Guidelines. Available through the West Hawaii Sea Grant Office, Kona, Hawaii.
                      Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC). 1993. 1992 Annual Report on Botromflish and
                               Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Regi  on, Honolulu.
                      Whitehead, H. and M. J. Moore. 1982. Distribution and movements of West Indian humpback whales in winter.
                               Can. J. Zoology 60: 2233-2211.
                      Winn, H.E. 1977. Environmental correlates on the humpback whale on the tropical winter calving grounds. In:
                               Report on a Workshop on Problems Related to Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hawaii.
                               K.S. Norris and R.R. Reeves (eds.).
                      Winn, H.E., and L.K. Winn. 1978. The song of the humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae in the West Indies.
                               Mar. Biol. 47:97-114.
                      Winn, H.E. and N. Reichley. 1985. Humpback whale -- Megaptera novaeangliae. pp. 375 -382, In Ridgway,
                               S.H. and Harrison, R. (eds.) Handbook of marine mammals. Vol 3: The Sirenians and Baleen Whales.
                               London, Academic Press.
                      Witham, E. 1994. Persbnal Communication with B.Mieremet and B.Phillips. National Marine Fisheries Service.
                               March 1994. Honolulu, HL
                      Wolman, A.A., and C.M. Jurasz. 1977. Humpback whales in Hawaii: Vessel census, 1976. Mar. Fish. Rev.
                               39(7):1-5.


                      Page 444                                                                     Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                    and Management Plan






               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                         Appendix J: References and Bibliography
               National Marine Sanctuary


               Wolman, A.A. 1978. Humpback whale. In: Marine Mammals of Eastern North Pacific and Arctic Waters. D. Haley
                        (ed.), Seattle: Pacific Search Press.
               Wursig, B., F. Cipriano, and M. Wursig. 1991. Dolphin movement patterns: Information from radio and theodolite
                        tracking studies. In Dolphin Societies: Discoveries and Puzzles, K. Pryor, and K.S. Norris (eds.), pp.79-
                        112. Berkeley: University of California Press.
               Wyban, C.A. 1993. Report of the Governor's Task Force on Moloka'i Fishpond Restoration. Prepared for the State
                        of Hawaii, Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, Moloka'i Office.
               Wyrtki, K., V. Graefe, and W.M. Patzert. 1969. Current Observations in the Hawaiian Archipelago. University of
                        Hawaii Institute of Geophysics HIG-69-15, Honolulu.
               Wyrtki, K., J.B. Burks, R.C. Latham, and W.M. Patzert. 1967. Oceanographic Observations During 1965-1967 in
                        the Hawaiian Archipelago. Hawaii Institute of Geophysics HIG-67- IS, Honolulu.
               Wyrtki, K. 1970. Flights with Airbome Radiation Thermometers in Hawaiian Waters. Hawaii Institute of
                        Geophysics HIG-70-5, Honolulu.
               Wyrtki, K. 1990. Sea level rise: The facts and the future. Pac. Sci. 44(l):1-16.
               Yablokov, Alexey V. 1994. Validity of whale data. Nature 367:108.
               Yonge, C.M. 193 1. The biology of reef building corals, Scientific Reports of the British Museum (Nat. Hist.),
                        1:353-391.
               Zimmerman, E.C. 1948. Insects of Hawaii. Vol. 1. Introduction. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.






































               Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                   Page 445
               and Management Plan






                   Appendix J: References and Bibliography                                      Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                                                                                                        National Marine Sanctuary

























                                               TFUS PAGE =NTIONALLY LEFIBLANK





































                   Page 446                                                                  Final* Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                             and Management Plan






               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                           Appendix K: Designation Document
               National Marine Sanctuary                                                       and Implementing Regulations

                                                            Appendix K

                             DEsiGNA TION DocUMENT AND.ImPLEmENTiNG REGULA TIONS

                        Section 304(a)(4) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) requires that the tenns
               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 that will be subject to r;gulation @by the Secretary of Commerce to
               protect these characteristics. The terms of designation may be modified only by the procedures
               provided in section 304(a) of the NMSA. Thus, the terms of designation serve as a constitution
               for the Sanctuary. In the case of this Congressionally designated Sanctuary, some terms of
               designation (e.g., boundary) were contained in the Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary
               Act, subject to modification by the Secretary.

               A        Designation Document for the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National
                        Marine Sanctuary

                        On November 4, 1992, President Bush signed into law the Hawaiian Islands National
               Marine Sanctuary Act (HE*4MSA or Act; Subtitle C of the Oceans Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-
               587) which designated the Hawaiian - Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary
               (HIHWNMS or Sanctuary).

                        The purposes of the Sanctuary are to:
                        (1)     protect humpback whales and their Sanctuary habitat;
                        (2)     educate and interpret for the public the relationship of humpback whales to the
                                Hawaiian Islands marine environment;
                        (3)     manage human uses of the Sanctuary consistent with -the designation and Title III of
                                the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, as amended ("MPRSA"; also
                                cited as the "National Marine Sanctuaries Act" or "NMSA"), 16 U.S.C. ï¿½1431 et
                                @Leq.; and
                        (4)     provide for the identification of marine resources and ecosystems of national
                                significance for possible inclusion in the Sanctuary.

               Article 1. Effect of Designation

                        Section 2306 of the HE4MSA requires the Secretary to develop and issue a comprehensive
               management plan and implementing regulations to achieve the policy and purposes of the Act'.
               consistent with the procedures of sections 303 and 304 of the NMSA. Section 304 of the NMSA
               authorizes the issuance of such regulations as are necessary and reasonable to implement the
               designation, including managing and protecting the conservation, recreational, ecological,
               historical, research, educational and aesthetic resources and qualities of the Hawaiian Islands
               Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary. Section 1 of Article IV of this Designation
               Document lists activities subject to regulation which are those activities that may be regulated on the
               effective date of -the regulations, or at some later date in order to implement the Sanctuary
               designation.

               Article II, Description of the Area
                        The HINMSA identified a Sanctuary boundary but authorized the Secretary to modify the
               boundary as necessary to fulfill the purposes of the designation. The Sanctuary boundary was
               modified by the -Secretary to encompass the submerged lands and waters off the coast of the
               Hawaiian Islands extending seaward from the shoreline, cutting across the mouths of rivers and
               streams,


               Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                 Page 447
               and Management Plan






                  Appendix K: Designation Document                                       Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                  and Implementing Regulations                                                  National Marine Sanctuary


                          (1)     to the 100-fathom (183 meter) isobath adjoining the islands of Maui, Molokai and
                                  Lanai, including Penguin Bank, but excluding the area within three nautical miles of
                                  the upper reaches of the wash of the waves on the shore of Kahoolawe Island;
                          (2)     to the deep water area of Pailolo Channel from Cape Halawa, Molokai, to Nakalele
                                  Point, Maui, and southward;
                          (3)     to the 100-fathorn (183 meter) isobath around the island of Hawaii;
                          (4)     to the 100-fithom (183 meter) isobath from Kailiu Point eastward to Makahuena
                                  Point, Kauai; and
                          (5)     to the 100-fathom (183 meter) isobath from Puaena Point eastward to Mahie Point,
                                  and from the Ala Wai Canal eastward to Makapuu Point, Oahu.

                          Excluded from the Sanctuary boundary'are the following commercial ports and small boat
                  harbors:

                          Hawaii (Bitz Island)                           Kauai
                          Hilo Harbor                                    Hanamaulu Bay
                          Honokohau Boat Harbor                          Nawiliwili Harbor
                          Kawaihae Boat Harbor and
                           Small Boat Basin                              Oahu
                          Keauhou Bay                                    Ala Wai Small Boat Basin

                          Maui                                           Molokai
                          Kahului Harbor                                 'Hale o Lono Harbor
                          Lahaina Boat Harbor                            Kaunakakai Harbor
                          Maalaea Boat Harbor


                          Lanai
                          Kaurnalapau Harbor
                          Manele Harbor

                          As specified at sections 2305(b) of the HE*4MSA, on January 1, 1996, the area of the
                  marine environment within 3 nautical miles of the upper reaches of the wash of the waves on the
                  shore of Kahoolawe -Island was to become part of the Sanctuary, unless during the 3 month period
                  immediately preceding January 1, 1996, the Secretary certified in writing to Congress that the area
                  was not suitable for inclusion in the Sanctuary. , The Secretary made such a certification in
                  December 1995. As such, the waters surrounding Kahoolawe are not included in the Sanctuary.
                  The HINMSA was amended in 1996 to allow the Kahoolawe Island Reserve Commission (KIRC)
                  to request inclusion of the marine waters three miles from Kahoolawe in the Sanctuary. Upon
                  receiving a request from the KIRC, should NOAA determine that Kahoolawe waters may be
                  suitable for inclusion in the Sanctuary, NOAA will prepare a supplemental environmental impact
                  statement, management plan, and implementing regulations for that inclusion. This process will
                  include the opportunity for public comment. Further, the Governor would have the opportunity to
                  certify his or her objection to the inclusion, or any term of that inclusion,      if this occurs, the
                  inclusion or term will not take effect.

                  Article III. Characteristics of the AreA That Give It Particular Value

                          The Hawaiian Islands comprise an archipelago which consist of eight major islands and
                  124 minor islands, with a total land area of 6,423 square miles, and a general coastline of 750
                  miles. The central North Pacific stock of endangered humpback whales, the largest of the three
                  North Pacific stocks, estimated to be at approximately 10% of its pre-whaling abundance, uses the
                  waiters around the main Hawaiian Islands for reproductive activities including breeding, calving
                  and nursing. The warm, calm waters around the main Hawaiian Islands provide protective

                  Page 448                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                    and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                          Appendix K: Designation Document
              National Marine Sanctuaiy                                                      and Implementing Regulations

              environments required for such activities. Of the known wintering and summering areas in the
              North Pacific used by humpback whales, the waters around the main Hawaiian Islands maintain
              the largest seasonally-resident population; approximately 2,000 to 3,000 humpback whales use
              these waters. The proximity to shore helps support an active commercial whalewatch industry,
              which is supported annually by millions of visitors who either directly or indirectly enjoy the
              Sanctuary waters.

                      In sections 2302(l) and (4) of the HINMSA, Congressional findings state that "many of
              the diverse marine resources and ecosystems within the Western Pacific region are of national
              significance," and "the marine environment adjacent to and between the Hawaiian Islands is a
              diverse and unique subtropical marine ecosystem." In addition, Congress found that the Sanctuary'
              could be expanded to include other marine resources of national significance. The waters around
              the Hawaiian Islands contain 24 other species of cetaceans, the highly endangered Hawaiian monk
              seal, three species of sea turtles and many other marine species endemic to this environment.
              Coastal Hawaiian waters also support spectacular coral reef ecosystems which provide local people
              with an abundant source of fish and are a popular dive destination for visitors worldwide. These
              waters also contain a number of cultural/historical resources, including those reflecting native
              Hawaiian traditions and uses.

              Article IV. ScZe of Regulations

                      Section 1.     Activities Subject to Regulation. - In order to implement the Sanctuary
              designation, the following activities are subject to regulation to the extent necessary and reasonable
              to ensure the protection and management of the characteristics and - values of the Sanctuary
              described above; primarily the protection and management of humpback whales and their
              Sanctuary habitat. Regulation may include governing the method, location, and times of
              conducting the. activity, and prohibition of the activity, after public notice and an opportunity to
              comment. If a type of activity is not listed it may not be regulated, except on an emergency basis,
              unless Section 1 of Article IV is amended. by the procedures provided in section 304(a) of the
              NMSA. Such activities are:

                      a.       Approaching, or causing another vessel or object to approach, by any means a
                               humpback whale in the Sanctuary;
                      b .      Flying over a humpback whale in the Sanctuary in any type of aircraft except when
                               in any designated flight corridor for takeoff or landing from an airport or runway;
                      c .      Discharging or depositing, from within or fr        'om. beyond the boundary of the
                               Sanctuary, any material or other matter into, or that enters or could enter the
                               Sanctuary, without, or not in compliance with, the terms or conditions of a
                               required, valid Federal or State permit, license, lease or other authorization;
                      d.       Drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of the Sanctuary; or
                               constructing, placing or abandoning any structure, material 6r other matter on the
                               seabed of the Sanctuary without, or not in compliance with, the terms or conditions
                               of a required, valid Federal or State permit, license, lease or other authorization;
                      e.       Taking, removing, moving, catching, collecting, harvesting, feeding, injuring,
                               destroying or causing the loss of, or attempting to take, remove, move, catch,
                               collect, harvest, feed, injure, destroy or cause the loss of any humpback whale or
                               humpback whale habitat;
                      f.       Possessing within the Sanctuary a humpback whale or part thereof regardless of
                               where taken, removed, moved, caught, collected or harvested; and
                      9-       Interfering with, obstructing, delaying or preventing an investigation, search,
                               seizure or disposition of seized property in connection with enforcernem of the
                               HINMSA or NMSA or any regulation or perrnit isstied under the HINMSA or
                               NMSA.


              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                               Page 449
              and Management Plan







                    Appendix K: Designation Document                                            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                    !nd Implementing Regulations                                                        National Marine Sanctuary
                            Section 2. Emergencies. Where necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction of, loss
                    of., or injury to a Sanctuary resource or quality; or minimize the imminent risk of such destruction,
                    loss or injury, any activity, including those not listed in Section 1 of this Article, is subject to
                    immediate temporary regulation, including prohibition. If such a situation arises, the Director of
                    NOAA's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management or his or her designee shall seek to
                    notify and consult to the extent practicable with any relevant Federal- -agency and the Governor of
                    the State of Hawaii.

                    Article V. Effect on Lgases, Permits, Licenses. and Rights

                            Pursuant to section 304(c)(1) of the NMSA, 16 U.S.C. ï¿½j434(c)(I), no valid lease,
                    permit, license, approval or other authorization issued by any Federal, State, or local authority of
                    competent jurisdiction, or any right of subsistence use or access, may be terminated by the
                    Secretary of Commerce, or his or her designee, as a result' of this designation, or as a result of any
                    Sanctuary regulation, if such authorization or right was in existence on the effective date of
                    Sanctuary designation (November 4, 1992).

                    Aiticle VI. Alteration of This Designation

                            The terms of designation, as defined under section 304(a) of the NMSA, may be modified
                    only by the procedures outlined in section 304(a) of the NMSA, including public hearings,
                    consultation with interested Feder4 State, - and county agencies,, review by the appropriate
                    Congressional committees, and review' and non-objection by the Governor of the State of Hawaii,
                    and approval by the Secretary of Commerce, or his or her designee.
                    H-awaiian Islands Hu=back Whale National Marine Sanctuary Boundary Coordinates
                    Appendix A to subpart Q, part 922, 15 CFR sets forth the precise boundary coordinates for the
                    Sanctuary.
























                    Page 450                                                                Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                            and Management Plan







              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                      Appendix K: Designation Document
              National Marine Sanctuary                                                  and Implementing Regulations

              B       Implementing Regulations for the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                      National Marine Sanctuary

              (Organizationally, these regulations are revised from the proposed regulations (proposed Part 945
              of 15 CFR) in furtherance of the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative to, among other
              things, consolidate duplicative regulatory provisions. Consequently, the new regulations for the
              most part will appear in a new subpart Q to 15 CFR Part 922 (15 CFR k2.180 - 922.187) and in
              Appendix A to subpart Q, and are applicable -only to the HIHWNMS. Existing ï¿½ ï¿½ 922.3, 922.4
              and 922.46, subparts A and E of 15 CFR Part 922 are also applicable to the HIHVrNMS
              (provisions of section 922.3 not applicable to the HIHWNMS regulations have been ondtted).
              When the final regulations are published in the Federal Registe they will be revised to include
              amendatory language to the Code of Federal Regulations and to eliminate sections reprinted here
              that presently appear in the Code.of Federal Regulations.]

              Subpart Q, Part 922 (Proposed Part 945)- Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
              National Marine Sanctuary

              Section

              922.180      (Proposed 945. 1)         Purpose.
              922.181      (Proposed 945.2)          Boundary.
              922.3        (Proposed 945.3)          Definitions applicable to all national marine sanctuaries.
              922.182      (Proposed 945.3)          Definitions applicable to the Hawaiian Islands Humpback
                                                     Whale National Marine Sanctuary only.
              922.183      (Proposed 945.4)          Allowed activities.'
              922.184      (Proposed 945.5)          Prohibited activities.
              922.4        (Proposed 945.5(b))       Effect of National Marine Sanctuary Designation
              922.185      (Proposed 945.6)          Emergency regulations.
              922.186      (Proposed 945.7)          Penalties; appeals.
              922.187      (Proposed 945.8)          Interagency cooperation.
              922.46       (Proposed 945.9)          Response costs and damages.

              A"endix A to subpart Q. part 922 - Hawaiian Islands Hu=back Whale National Marine
              Sanctupa Bound= Coordinates

                      Authority: Sections 302,   303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 310, and 312 of the National Marine
              Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1431 _q &q.), and sections 2304, 2305, and 2306 of the
              Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act (HINMSA), Pub. L. 102-587.

              ï¿½ 922.180 Purpose.

                      (a) The purpose of the regulations in this subpart is to implement, the designation of the
              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary by regulating activities affecting
              the resources of the Sanctuary or any of the qualities, values, or purposes for which the Sanctuary
              was designated, in order to protect, preserve, and manage the conservation, ecological,
              recreational, research, educational, historical, cultural, and aesthetic resources and qualities of the
              area. The regulations are intended to supplement and complement existing regulatory authorities;
              to facilitate to.the extent compatible with the primary objective of protecting the humpback whale
              and its habitat, all public and private uses of the Sanctuary, including uses of Hawaiian natives
              customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, and religious purposes, as well as
              education, research, recreation, commercial and military activities; to reduce conflicts between
              compatible uses; to maintain, restore, and enhance the humpback. whale and its habitat; to
              contribute to the maintenance.of natural assemblages of humpback whales for future generations; to
              provide a place for humpback whales'that are dependent on their Hawaiian Islands wintering

              Final Environmental impact Statement                                                           Page 451
              and Management Plan






                    Appendix K: Designation Document                                            Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                    and Implementing Regulations                                                        National Marine Sanctuary

                    habitat for reproductive activities, including breeding, calving, and nursing, and for the long-term
                    survival of their species; and to achieve the other purposes and policies of the HINMSA and
                    N*,WSA.

                            (b) These regulations may be modified to fulfill the Secretary's responsibilities for the
                    Swictuary, including the provision of additional protections for humpback whales and their habitat,
                    if reasonably necessary, and the conservation and management of other marine resources, qualities
                    and ecosystems of the Sanctuary determined to be of national significance. The Secretary shall
                    Consult with the Governor of the State of Hawaii on any modification to the regulations contained
                    in this part. For any modification of the regulations contained in this part that would constitute a
                    change in a term of the designation, as contained in the Designation Document for the Sanctuary,
                    the Secretary shall follow the applicable requirements of section 304(a) of the National Marine
                    SC-'tnctuaries Act.

                    ï¿½ 922.181 Boundary.

                            (a) Except for excluded areas described in paragraph (b) of this section, the Hawaiian
                    Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary consists of-

                            The submerged lands and waters off the coast of the Hawaiian Islands seaward from the
                    shoreline, cutting across the mouths of rivers and streams, --

                            (1)      to the 100-fathom (183 meter) isobath adjoining the islands of Maui, Molokai and
                                     Lanai, including Penguin Bank, but excluding the area within three nautical miles of
                                     the upper reaches of the wash of the waves on      'the shore of Kahoolawe Island;
                            .(2)     to the deep water area of Pailolo Channel from Cape Halawa, Molokai, to Nakalele
                                     Point, Maui, and southward;
                            (3)-     to the 100-fathom (18j meter) isobath around the Island of Hawaii;
                            (4)      to the 100-fathom (183 meter) isobath from Kailiu Point eastward to Makahuena
                                     Point, Kauai; and
                            (5)      to the 100-fathorn (183 meter) isobath from Puaena Point eastward to Mahie Point
                                     and from the Ala Wai Canal eastward to Makapuu Point, Oahu.
                            (b) Excluded from the Sanctuary boundary are the following corrunercial ports and small
                    boat harbors:

                            Hawaii (Big Island)                               Kauai
                            Hilo Harbor                                       Hanamaulu Bay
                            Honokohau Boat Harbor                             Nawiliwili Harbor
                            Kawaihae Boat Harbor and
                             Small Boat Basin                                 Oahu
                            Keauhou Bay                                       Ala Wai Small Boat Basin

                            Maui                                              Molokai
                            Kahului Harbor                                    Hale o Lono Harbor
                            Lahaina Boat Harbor                               Kaunakakai Harbor
                            Maalaea Boat Harbor

                            Lanai
                            Kaumalapau Harbor
                            Manele Harbor

                            The precise boundary of the Sanctuary appears in Appendix A of this subpart.


                    Page 452                                                                Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                            and Management Plan






               Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                       Appendix K: Designation Document
               National Marine Sanctuary                                                   and Implementing Regulations

               ï¿½ 922.3 Definitions applicable to all national marine sanctuaries.

                      Director means, except where otherwise specified, the Director of the Office of Ocean and
               Coastal Resource Management, NOAA, or designee.

                      iujuLe means to change adversely, either in the long or short term, a chemical, biological,
               or physical attribute of, or the viability of. This includes, but is not limited to, to cause the loss of
               or destroy.

                      Person means any private individual, partnership, corporation, or other entity; or any
               officer, employee, agent, department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government or of
               any State, regional, or local unit of government, or of any foreign government.

                      Vessel means a watercraft of any description capable of being used as a means of
               transportation in/on the waters of a sanctuary.

               ï¿½ 922.182         Definitions to the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National
               Marine Sanctuary only.

                      (a) Acts means the Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act (HINMSA; sections
               2301-2307 of Pub. L. 102-587), and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA; also known as
               Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), as amended, 16
               U.S.C. 1431 et 512.).
                      Adverse impact means an impact that independently or cumulatively damages, diminishes,
               degrades, impairs, destroys, or otherwise harms.
                      Alteration of the seabed means drilling into, dredging, or otherwise altering a natural
               physical characteristic of the seabed of the Sanctuary; or constructing, placing, or abandoning any
               structure, material, or other matter on the seabed of the Sanctuary.
                      Hab      means those areas that provide space 'for individual and population growth and
               normal behavior of humpback whales, and include sites used for reproductive activities, including
               breeding, calving and nursing.
                      Military Activities means those military activities conducted by or under the auspices of the
               Department of Defense and any combined military activities carried out by the Department of
               Defense and the military forces of a foreign nation.
                      Sanctu= means the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary.
                      Sanctu= resource means any humpback whale, or the humpback whale's habitat within
               the Sanctuary.     -
                      Shoreline means the upper reaches of the wash of the waves, other than storm or seismic
               waves, at high tide during the season of the year in which the highest wash of the waves occurs,
               usually evidenced by the edge of vegetation growth, or the upper limit of debris left by the wash
               of the waves'.
                      Take or taking a humpback whale means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,
               kill, trap, capture, collect or injure, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. The term
               includes, but is not limited to, any of the following activities: collecting any dead or injured
               humpback whale, or any part thereof, restraining or detaining'any humpback whale, or any part
               thereof, no matter how temporarily; tagging any humpback whale; operating a vessel or aircraft or
               doing any other act that results in the disturbing or molesting of any humpback whale.

               (b) Other terms appearing in the regulations in this subpart are defined at 15 CFR 922.3, and/or in
               the Marine Protection, Research., and Sanctuaries Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et sgq., and
               16 U.S.C. 1431 et @Leq.




               Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                            Page 453
               and Management Plan






                    Appendix K: Designation Document                                           Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                    and Implementing Regulations                                                      National Marine Sanctuary

                    ï¿½ 922.183 Allowed Activities.

                            (a) All activities except those prohibited by ï¿½ 922.184 may be undertaken in the Sanctuary
                    subject to any emergency regulations promulgated pursuant to ï¿½ 922.185, subject to the
                    interagency cooperation provisions of section 304(d) of the NMSA [16 U.S.C. ï¿½1434(d)] and ï¿½
                    922.187 of this subpart, and subject to the liability established by section 312 of the NMSA and ï¿½
                    922.46 of this Part. All activities are also subject to all prohibitions, restrictions, and conditions
                    waidly imposed by any other Federal, State, or county authority of competent jurisdiction.

                            (b) Included as activities allowed under the first sentence of paragraph (a) of this section are
                    all classes of military activities, internal or external to the Sanctuary, that are being or have been
                    conducted before the effective date of these regulations, as identified in the Final Environmental
                    Impact Statement/Management Plan. - Paragraphs (a)(l)-(5) of ï¿½ 922.184 do not apply to these
                    classes of activities, nor are these activities' subject to further consultation under section 304(d) of
                    the NMSA.

                            (c) Military activities proposed after the effective date of these regulations are also included
                    as allowed activities under the first sentence of paragraph (a). Paragraphs (a)(l)-(5) of ï¿½ 922.184
                    apply to these classes of activities unless--.

                                    (1) they are not subject to consultation under section 304(d) of the NMSA and ï¿½
                                    922.187 of this subpart, or
                                    (2) upon consultation under section 304(d) of the NMSA and ï¿½ 922.187 of this
                                    subpart, NOAA's findings and recommendations include a statement that
                                    paragraphs (a)(l)-(5) of ï¿½ 922.184 do not apply to the military activity.
                            (d) If a military activity described in paragraphs (b) or (c)(2) of this sect-ion is modified
                    such.that it is likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a Sanctuary resource in a manner
                    significantly greater than was considered in a previous consultation under section 304(d) of the
                    NMSA and ï¿½ 922.187 ofthis subpart, or if the modified activity is likely to destroy, cause the loss
                    of, or injure any Sanctuary resource not considered in a previous consultation under section 304(d)
                    of the NMSA and ï¿½ 922.187 of this subpart, the modified activity will be treated as a new military
                    activity under paragraph (c) of this section.

                            (e) If a proposed military activity subject to section 304(d) of the NMSA      'and
                    ï¿½ 922.187 of this subpart is necessary to respond to an emergency situation and the Secretary of'
                    Defense determines in writing that failure to undertake the,proposed activity during the period of
                    consultation would impair the national defense, the Secretary of the military department concerned
                    may request the Director that the activity proceed during consultation. If the Director denies such a
                    request, the Secretary of the military department concerned may decide to      Iproceed with the activity.
                    Ea such case, the Secretary of the military department concerned shall provide thd Director with, a
                    written statement describing the effects of the activity on Sanctuary resources once the activity is
                    completed.

                    ï¿½ 922.184. Prohibited activities.

                            (a) The following activities are prohibited and thus unlawful for any person to conduct or,
                    cause to be conducted.

                            (1)     Approaching, or causing a vessel or other object to approach, within the Sanctuary,
                                    by any means, within 100 yards of any humpback whale except as authorized under
                                    the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as amended (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361 et 5Leq.,
                                    and the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et @Leq.;


                    Page 454                                                               Final Environmental impact Statement
                                                                                                           and Management Plan






              Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                      Appendix K: Designation Document
              National Marine Sanctuary                                                  and Implementing Regulations
                      (2)     Operating any aircraft above the Sanctuary within 1,000 feet of any humpback
                              whale except when in any designated flight corridor for takeoff or landing from an
                              airport or runway, or as authorized under the NEAPA and the ESA;
                      (3)     Taking any humpback whale in the Sanctuary except as authorized under the
                              MMPA and the ESA;

                      (4)     Possessing within the Sanctuary (regardless of where taken). any living or dead
                              humpback whale or part thereof taken in violation of the MMPA or the ESA;

                      (5)     Discharging or depositing any material or other matter in the Sanctuary;, altering the
                              seabed of the Sanctuary; or discharging or depositing any material or other matter
                              outside the Sanctuary if the discharge or deposit subsequently enters and injures a
                              humpback whale or humpback whale habitat, provided that:

                              such activity requires a Federal or State pennit, license, lease, or other
                              authorization, and is conducted:

                              0   without such permit, license, lease, or other authorization; oR

                              0   not in compliance with the terms or conditions of such permit, license,
                                  lease, or other authorization.

                      (6)     Interfering with, obstructing, delaying or preventing an investigation, search,
                              seizure or disposition of seized property in connection with enforcement of either of
                              the Acts or any regulations issued under either of the Acts.

                      (b) The prohibitions in paragraphs (a)(l)-(5) of this ï¿½ 922.184 do not apply to activities
              necessary to respond to emergencies threatening life, property or the environment; or to activities
              necessary for valid law enforcement purposes. However, while such activities are not subject to
              paragraphs (a)(I)-(5) of this ï¿½ 922.184, this paragraph (b) does not exempt the activity from the
              underlying prohibition or restriction under other applicable laws and regulations (e.g.- MMPA,
              ESA, and CWA).

              ï¿½ 922.4 Effect of National Marine Sanctuary Designation

                      The designation of a National Marine. Sanctuary, and the regulations implementing it, are
              binding on any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Designation does not
              constitute any claim to territorial jurisdiction on the part of the United States for designated sites
              beyond the U.S. territorial sea, and the regulations implernenting the designation shall be applied in
              accordance with generally recognized principles of international law, and in accordance with
              treaties, conventions, and other agreements to which the United States is a party. No regulation
              shall apply to a person who is not a citizen, national, or resident alien of the United States, unless
              in accordance with:
                      (a) Generally recognized principles of international law;
                      (b) An agreement between the United States and the foreign state of which the person is a
              citizen; or
                      (c) An agreement between the United States and the flag state of the foreign vessel, if the
              person is a crew member of the vessel.

              ï¿½ 922.185 Emergency regulations.

                      Where necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction of, loss of, or injury to a Sanctuary
              resource, or to minimize the imminent risk of such destruction, loss, or injury, any and all

              Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                          Page 455
              and Management Plan






                  Appendix K: Designation Document                                        Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                  and Implementing Regulations                                                   National Marine Sanctuary
                  activities are subject to immediate temporary regulation, including prohibition. Before issuance of
                  such regulations the Director shall consult to the extent practicable with any relevant Federal agency
                  and the Governor of the State of Hawaii.

                  ï¿½ 922.186 Penalties; appeals.

                          (a) Pursuant to section 307 of the NMSA, each violation of either of the Acts, or any
                  regulation in this subpart is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $100,000. Each such
                  violation is subject to forfeiture of property or Sanctuary resources seized in accordance with
                  section 307 of the NMSA. Each day of a continuing violation constitutes a separate violation.

                          (b) Regulations setting forth the procedures governing the administrative proceedings for
                  assessment of civil penalties  for enforcement reasons, issuance and use of written warnings, and
                  release or forfeiture of seized property appear at 15 CFR Part 904.

                          (c) A person subject to an action taken for enforcement reasons for violation of these
                  regulations or either of the Acts may appeal pursuant to the applicable procedures in 15 CFR Part
                  904.

                  ï¿½ 922.187 Interagency Cooperation.

                          Under section 304(d) of the NMSA, federal agency actions internal or external to a national
                  marine sanctuary, including private activities authorized by licenses, leases, or permits, that are
                  likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure any sanctuary resource are subject to consultation with
                  the Director. The federal agency proposing an action shall determine whether the activity is likely
                  to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a Sanctuary resource. To the extent practicable, consultation
                  prc)cedures under section 304(d) of the NMSA may be consolidated with interagency cooperation
                  procedures required by other statutes, such as the ESA. The Director will attempt to provide
                  coordinated review and analysis of all environmental requirements.

                  ï¿½ 922.46 Response costs and damages.
                          Under section 312 of the NMSA, 16, U.S.C. 1443, any person who destroys, causes the
                  loss of, or injures any Sanctuary resource is liable t  'o the United States for response costs and
                  damages (plus interest) resulting from such destruction, loss,, or injury, and any vessel used to
                  destroy, cause the loss of, or'injure any Sanctuary resource is liable in rem to the United States for
                  response costs and damages resulting from such, destruction, loss, or injury.
                                                                                    I
                  Appendix A to subpart Q -- Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine
                  Sanctuary Boundary Coordinates














                  Page 456                                                            Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                     and Management Plan






                 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                                Appendix K: Designation Document
                 National Marine Sanctuary                                                             and Implementing Regulations

                 Appendix 1: Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary
                 Boundary Coordinates

                 Kauai                                                          48.             22,15,6              159,22,34
                 Pointj           Latitude            Longitude                 49.             22,15,6              159,21,54
                                (deg,min,sec)        (deg,min,sec)              50.             22,15,7              159,21,23
                                  22,13,37            159,34,57                 51.             22,14,30             159,20,55
                 2.               22,16,42            159,36,4                  52.             22,14,18             159,20,31
                 3.               22,17,13            159,35,16                 53.             22,14,22             159,19,54
                 4.               22,17,25            159,34,34                 54.             22,13,21             159,18,43
                 5.               22,17,15            159,33,2                  55.             22,12,31             159,17,46
                 6.               22,16,59            159,32,3                  56.             22,12,18             159,17,17
                 7.               22,16,34            159,31,31                 57.             22,11,14             159,17,5
                 8.               22,15,47            159,31,19                 58.             22,10,29             159,16,42
                 9.               22,15,41            159,31,5                  59.             22,@,57              159,16,25
                 10.              22,16,14            159,30,37                 60.             22,9,25              159,15,42
                 11.              22,16,6             159,29,46                 61.             '22,8,34             159,15,39
                 12.              22,15,50            159,29,20                 62.             22,0,15              159,18,48
                 13.              22,15,52            159,28,32                 63.             22,7,4               159,16.37
                 14.              22,15,31            159,27,54                 64.             22,6,17              159,16.31
                 15.              22,15,25            159,27,17                 65.             22,5,51              159,16.13
                 16.              21,52,0             159,22,56                 66.             22,5,4               159,16.47
                 17.              21,59,17            159,18,25                 67.             22,4,18              159.17,32
                 18.              21,58,42            159,18,51                 68.             22,3,32              159,17,28
                 19.              21,58,28            159,18,56                 69.             22,3,15              159,17,23
                 20.              21,58,10            159,18,54                 70.             22,2,56              159,17,33
                 21.              21,58,4             159,18,32                 71.             22,2,48              159,17,48
                 22.              21,57,5             159,18,41                 72.             22,2,33              159,18,4
                 23.              21,56,43            159,19,4                  73.             22,2,16              159,18,24
                 24.              21,56,13            159,19,39                 74.             22,1,57              159,18,46
                 25.              21,55,29            159,20,36                 75.             22,1,51              159,19,11
                 26.              21,54,48            159,21,12                 76.             22,1,26              159,19,24
                 27.              21,54,1             159,21,27                 77.             22,0,59              159,19,8
                 28.              21,53,45            159,21,46                 78.             22,0,49              159,18,54
                 29.              21,53,27            -159,22,14                79.             22,0,0               159,18,47
                 30.              21,53,1             159,22,32                 80.             21,59,40             159,18,27
                 31.              21,52,44            159,22,37
                 32.              21,52,13            159,22,49                 Oahu (North)
                 33.              21,51,45            159,23,18                 Points          Latitude             Longitude
                 34.              21,51,43            159,23,50                                 (deg,min,sec)      (deg,n-dn,sec)
                 35.              21,51,49            159,24,26                 1               21,36,22             158,6,37
                 36.              21,51,53            159,24,48                 2.              21,38,41             158,8,39
                 37.              21,51,51            159,25,12                 3.              21,39,1              158,8,7
                 38.              21,51,42            159,25,41                 4.              21,39,24             158,7,44
                 39.              21,51,15            159,25,58                 5.              21,39,43             158,7,44
                 40.              21,50,57            159,26,15                 6.              21,40,12             158,7,27
                 41.              21,52,17            159,26,48                 7.              21,40,27             158,7,38
                 42.              22,12,53            159,18,4                  8.              21,40,45             158,7,21
                 43.              22,15,26            159,26,20                 9.              21,40,46             158,6,56
                 44.              22,15,11            159,25,52                 10.             21,41,7              158,6,41
                 45.              22,15,18            159,24,50                 11.             21,41,29             158,6,16
                 46.              22,15,22            159,24,10                 12.             21,41,44             158,6,13
                 41.              22,15,21            159,22,53                 13.             21,42,55             158,5,13


                 Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                       Page 457
                 and Management Plan





                            Appendix K: Designation Document                                                                             Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                            and Implementing Regulations                                                                                            National Marine Sanctuary

                            14.                    21,43,54                   158,3,58                           29.                  21,15,52                     157,34,46
                            15.                    21,44,22                   158,3,22                           30.                  21,15,56                     157,35,19
                            16.                    21,45,3-                   158,2,0                            31.                  21,15,20                     157,35,44
                            17.                    21,45,15                   158,1,19                           32.                  21,15,13                     157,36,0
                            18.                    21,45,34                   158,0,20                           33.                  21,15,22                     157,36,57
                            19.                    21,37,14                   157,51,34                          34.                  21,15,33                     157,38,20
                            20.                    21,45,34                   157,59,17                          35.                  21,15,21                     i57,38,51
                            21.                    21,45,34                   157,58,37                          36.                  21,15,20                     157,40,5
                            22.                    21,45,29                   157,57,34                          37.                  21,15,23                     157,40,53
                            23.                    21,44,55                   157,56,18                          38.                  21,14,56                     157,42,6
                            24.                    21,44,33                   157,55,30
                            25,                    21,44,13                   157,54,40
                            26.,                   21 ' 43,33                 157,53,45
                            27,                    21,41,34                   157,53,12
                            28.                                               157,52,38                          Maui
                            29..                   21,37,54                   157,53,3                           Points             Latitude                       Longitude
                            30..                   21,37,48                   157,52,38                                           (deg,min,sec)                  (deg,min.sec)
                            3L                     21,35,47                   157,50,11                       7-                    20,51,18                       157,44.40
                           .32.,                   21,33,48                   157,51,58                          2.                 20,52,9                        157,44,16'.
                            33.                    21,37,50                   157,52,10                          3.                 20,52,37                       157,44,38
                            34.                    21,36,43                   157,50,54                          4.                 20,52,47                       157,45,24
                                                                                                                 5.                 20,53,38                       157,46,3
                            Oahu (South)                                                                         6.                 20,55,27                       157,45,21
                            Points               Latitude                     Longitude                          7.                 20,56,22                       157,45,43
                                                 (deg,min,sec)              (deg,min,sec)                        8.                 20,57,2                        157,45,17
                            1.                   21,15,38                     157,51,1                           9.                 20,57,36                       157,44,31
                            2.                   21,14,18                     157,42,17                          10.                20,59,2                        157,44,19
                            3.                   21,14,9                      157,42,46                          11.                20,59,54                       157,43,33
                            4.                   21,13,27                     157,43,13                          12.                21,1,19                        157,43,14
                            5.                   21,13,31                     157,43,47                          13.                21,1,45                        157,42,11
                            6.                   21,14,44                     157,43,59                          14.                21,2,56                        157,42,2
                            7.                   21,14,47                     157,44,24                          15.                21,3,7                         157,41,32
                            8.                   21,14,35                     157,44,54                          16.                21,3,3                         157,40,43
                            9.                   21,14,34                     157,45,32                          17.                21,4,2                         157,39,39
                            10.                  21,14,11                     157,46,52                          18.                21,4,49                        157,39,57
                            11.                  21,14,14                     157,47,35                          19.                21,5,16                        157,39,30
                            12.                  21,13,55                     157,47,58                          20.                21,5,9                         157,38,21
                            13.                  21,14,0                      157,48,28                          21.                21,5,20                        157,37,59
                            14.                  21,14,29                     157,48,53                          22.                21,5,52                        157,37,54
                            15.                  21,14,40                     157,49,34                          23.                21,6,48                        157,36,30
                            16.                  21,15,0                      157,50,16                          24.                21,7,34                        157,35,24
                            17.                  21,15,25                     157,50,51                          25.                21,8,11                        157,33,41
                            18.                  21,15,50                     157,51-,14                         26.                21,8,56                        157,33,1
                            -19.                 21,17,8                      157,50,54                          27.                20,57,10                       157,33,16
                            20.                  21,18,50                     157,39,6                           28.                20,56,33                       .157,33,42
                            21.                  21,19,53                     157,36,4                           29.                20,55,10                       157,33,45
                            22.                  21,19,34                     157,35,6                           30.                20,53,29                       157,37,14
                            23.                  21,18,55                     157,34,21                          31.                20,51,57                       157,40,53
                            24.                  21,18,47                     157,33,53                          32.                20,51,40                       157,42,12
                            25.                  21,17,52                     157,33,21                          33.                20,50,56                       157,42,54
                            26.                  21,17,36                     157,33,32-                         34.                20,58,18                       157,22,27
                            27.                  21,17,3                      157,33,32                          35.                21,0,19                        157,19,45
                            28.                  21,16,34                     157,34,3                           36.                21,1,25                        157,18,43


                            Page 458                                                                                                Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                                                           and Management Plan






                 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                                    Appendix K: Designation Document
                 National Marine Sanctuary                                                                  and Implementing Regulations'

                 37.            21,1,7                   157,19,36                  91.            20,53,46                157,5,35
                 38.            21,0,44                  157,20,30                  92.            20,54,59                157,5,28
                 39.            21,0,0                   157,19,0                   93,            20,55,29                157,5,31
                 40.            20,59,29                 157,19,28                  94.            20,56,31                1574,8
                 41.            20,59,29                 157,20,57                  95.            20,56,58                157,3,32
                 42.            20,59,55                 157,21,29                  96.            20,57,37                157,2,45
                 43.            21,0,38                  157,21,26                  97.            20,58,22                157,2,7
                 44.            21,0,23                  157,21,57                  98.            20,58,40                157,1,28
                 45.            21,0,16                  157,22,41                  99.            20,59,26                157,1,14
                 46.            21,0,28                  157,23,29                  100.           21,0,24                 157,1,25
                 47.            21,0,26                  157,24,32                  101.           21,1,15                 157,1,30
                 48.            21,0,3                   157,25t23                  102.           21,1,50                 157,1,59
                 49.            20,59,24                 157,25,20                  103.           21,2,20                 157,2,19
                 50.            20,58t53                 157,25,47                  104.           21,3,0                  157,3,4
                 51.            20,58,50                 157,26,21                  105.           2lt3,6                  157,4,51
                 52.            20,58,22                 157,25,22                  106.           21,3,41                 157,6,17
                 53.            20,58,49                 157,23,17                  107.           21,3,9                  157,8,46
                 54.            20,58,43                 157,21,50                  108.           21,3,29                 157,10,22
                 55.            20,58,11                 157,23,46                  109.           21,15,48                157,11,4
                 56.            20,57,56                 157,26,49                  110.           21,15,27                157,9,24
                 57.            20,57,59                 157,28,30                  Ill.           2ltl5,2                 157,8,29
                 58.            20,57,51                 157,29,44                  112.           21,14,23                157,6,12
                 59.            20,57,25                 157,31,42                  113.           2 1,13,56               157,5,10
                 60.            20,56,32                 157,29,51                  114.           21,13,55                157,4,25
                 61.            20,56,1                  157,29t56                  115.           2 1 t 13,47             157,4,1
                 62.            20,55,54                 157,31,46                  116.           21,13,7                 157,3,25
                 63.            21,17,9                  157,17,24                  117.           21,13,38.               157,2,54
                 64.            21,9,41                  157,31,30                  118.           21,13,35                157,1,42
                 65.            21,9,58                  157,30,9                   119.           21,13,1                 157,1,2
                 66.            21,9,58                  1.57,29,39                 120.           21,13, 10               157,0,15
                 67.            21,9,29                  157,28,36                  121.           21,12,43                156,59,54
                 68.            21,9,33                  157,27,5                   122.           21,13,22                156,59,8
                 69.            21,10,2                  15T,23,53                  123.           21,13,46                156,58,25
                 70.            21,10,51                 157,21,43                  124.           21J3,14                 156,57,40
                 71.            21,12,41                 157,19,17                  125.           20,49,18                157,1,5
                 72.            21,14,54                 157,18,44                  126.           20,44,4                 156,48,49
                 73.            21,16,42                 157,18,25                  127.           20,43,18                156,45,48
                 74.            21,17,13                 157,16,13                  128.           20,43,44                156,46,17
                 75.            21,16,35                 157,14,39                  129.           20,43,41                156,47,27
                 76.            21,16,2                  157,13,14                  130.           20,44,42                156,48,49
                 77.            21,3,36                  157,10,57                  131.           20,44,23                156,49,38
                 78.            21,3,41                  157,11,50                  132.           20,44,23                156,51,9
                 79.            21,3,13                  157J2,22                   133.           20,43,37                156,51,54
                 80.            21,2,25                  157,12,51                  134.           20,44,19                156,47,48
                 81.            21,2,7                   157,13,43                  135.           20,43,6                 156,52,31
                 82.            21,1,51                  157,14,11                  136.           20,42,16                156,53,12
                 83.            21,1,59                  157,14,37                  137.           20,42,39                156,54,43
                 84.            21,1,56                  157,15,12                  138.           20942,47                156,56,25
                 85.            21,1,36                  157,16,5                   139.           20,42,54                156,57,39
                 86.            21,1,42                                             140.           20,43,56                156,59,6
                 87.            21,1,16                  157,17,27                  141.           20,45,16                157,0,3
                 88.            21,0,51                  157,18,8                   142.           20,46,37                157,0,48
                 89.            21,0,59                  157,18,35                  143.           20,47,38                157,0,40
                 90.            21,3,21                  157,3,59                   144.           20,50,43                157,2,39

                 Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                               Page 459
                 and Management Plan





                       Appendix K: Designation Document                                                          Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                       and Implementing Regulations                                                                       National Marine Sanctuary

                       14-5.           20,51,53                  157,4,27                    199.            21,0,44                  156,21,34
                       146.            20,52,31                  157,4,58                    200.            21,1,0                   156,18,8
                       14-7.           21,12,49                  156,43,45                   201.            20,33,7                  156,23,38
                       148.            21,11,36                  156,53,20                   202.            20,36,3                  156,10,43
                       149.            21,12,38                  156,56,44                   203.            20,35,46                 156,13,13
                       150.            21,12,1                   156,56,8                    204.            20,35,11                 156,14,55
                       151.            21,12,7                   156,55,3                    205.            20,34,4                  156,16,39
                       152.            21,12,5                   156,54,17                   206.            20,33,28                 156,17,29
                       153.            21,11,36                  156,54,2                    207.            20,33,49                 156,19,24
                       154.            21,12,3                   156,52,56                   208.            20,313,36                156,20,59
                       155.            21,11,48                  156,52,6                    209.            20,33,18                 156.22,7
                       156.            21,12,7                   156,51,38                   210.            20,35,8                  156,27,59
                       157.            .21,11,40                 156,51,34                   211.            20,33,46                 156,26,9
                       158.            21,11,59                  156,50,44                   212.            20,36,27                 156,28,24
                       159.            21,12,30                  156,49,55                   213.            20,36,31                 156,28,57
                       160.            21,12,26                  156,49,26                   214.            20,35,53                 156,28,41
                       161.            21,12,15                  156,48,37                   215.            20,59,43                 156,16,25
                       162.            21,12,22                  156,47,56                   216.            20,58,42                 156,13,53
                       163.            21,11,52                  156,47,27                   217.            20,54,32                 156,9,10
                       164.            21,12,34                  156,46,42                   218.            20,54,2 1                156,8,16
                       165.            21,13,16                  156,45,40                   219.            20,53,8                  156.6.17
                       166.            21,13,32                  156,45,3                    220.            20,51,25                 156,5.7
                       167.            21,13,1                   156,44,26                   221.            20,51,5                  156.4,18
                       168.            21,12,30                  156,43,4                    222.            20,50,35                 156,3,57
                       169.            21,11,56                  156,42,56                   223.            20,49,56                 156,1,50
                       170.            21,12,11                  156,41,58                   224.            20,48,43                 156,0,52
                       171.            21,11,59                  156,41,5                    225.            20,48,4o                 155,59,55
                       172.            21,11,13                  156,39,51                   226.            20,48,1                  155,58,53
                       173.            21,10,31                  156,39,30                   227.            20,37,34                 156,4,45
                       174.            21,8,6                    156,40,32                   228.            20,47,11                 155,58,0
                       175.            21,7,8                    156,40,11                   229.            20,46,22                 155,57,35
                       176.            20,36,4                   156,29,59                   230.            20,45,24                 155,57,23
                       177.            20,38,57                  156,34,30                   231.            20,44,30                 155,57,15
                       178.            20,39,50                  156,35,3:Z                  232.            20,42,58                 155,57,6
                       179.            20,40,33                  156,36,5                    233.            20,41,38                 155,58,20
                       180.            20,41,22                  156,36,34                   234.            20,40,50                 155,59,12
                       181.-           20,42,5                   156,36,54                   235.            20,40,5                  155,59,51
                       182.            20,42,12                  156,38,0                    236.            20,39,35                 156,0,54
                       183.            20,42,51                  156,39,38                   237.            20,38,46                 156,1,46
                       184.            20,43,14                  156,41,1                    238.            20,38,0                  1562,24
                       185.            20,43,33                  156,42,11                   239.            20,37,37                 156:3,23
                       186.            20,44,11                  156,42,31                   240.            20,37,29                 156,5,49
                       187.            20,43,52                  156,43,25                   241.            20,36,39                 1-56,6,50
                       188.            20,41,22                  156,42,31                   242.            20,36,21                 156,7,54
                       189.            20,41,3                   156,43,0                    243.            20,35,59                 156,8,55
                       190.            20,42,12                  156,44,22                   244.            20,53,1                  157,38,48
                       191.            20,43,2                   156,44,43                   245.            .20,54,7                 157,35,43
                       192.            21,0,44                   156,18,53                   246.            20,56,28                 157,32,7
                       193.            21,4,31                   156,37,39                   247.            20,58,27                 157,24,17
                       194.            21,4,31                   156,35,32                   248.            20,58,3                  157,25,19
                       195.            21,3,4                    156,33,57                   249.            21,3,24                  157,7,44
                       196.            21,2,5                    156,31,13                   250.            20,55,55                 157,30,55
                       197.            21,1,4                    156,27,27                   251.            20,50,44                 157,2,9
                       199.            21,1,15                   156,22,39                   252.            21,1,8                   156,24,34


                       Page 460                                                                              Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                               and Management Plan






                    Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                                             Appendix K: Designation Document
                    National Marine Sanctuary                                                                           and Implementing Regulations

                    253.            20,34,31                   156,26,58                     43.                19,18,0                  155,53,47
                    254.            20,58,12                   156,12,43                     44.                19,19,22                 155,53,49
                    255.            20,52,7                    157,40,28                     451                19,22,49                 155,54,43
                    256.            20,54,59                   157,34,4                      46                 19,25,22                 155,55,33
                                                                                             47                 19,26,21                 155,55,39
                                                                                             48*                19,27,14                 155,56,9
                                                                                             49                 19,28,41                 155,56,42
                                                                                             50                 19,29,1                  155,57,14
                    Big Island (Hawaii)                                                      51.                19,29,25                 155,58,9
                    Points            Latitude                 Longitude                     52.                19,30,23                 155,59,3
                                    (deg,min,sec)              (deg,minsec)                  53.                20,15,49                 155,43.33
                    I .               19,A154                  156,0,19                      54.                20,13,22                 155,56,15
                    2.                19,34,42                 156,0,33                      55.                20,7,10                  155,55,14
                    3.                19,35921                 156,0,35                      56.                2099,21                  155,5@,44
                    4.                19,39,49                 156,2,29                      57.                20,12,43                 155,56,28
                    5.                19,43,34                 156,4926                      58.                20,14,41                 155,56,12
                    6.                19,46,7                  156,5,57                      59.                20,15,34                 155.55  ',53
                    7,                19,47,17                 156,6,34                      60.                20,16,21                 155,55,28
                    8.                1994893                  156,6,19                      61.                20,16,47                 155,54,54
                    9.                19,48,42                 156,6,28                      62.                20,17,42                 155,53.56
                    10.               19,51,28                 156,4,33                      63.                20,18,11                 155,52,3
                    11.               19,53,15                 156,2,25                      64.                20918,9                  155,51,28
                    12.               19,55,43                 155,58,13                     65.                20,17,41                 155,49,45
                    B.                19,53,47                 156,1926                      66.                20,16,39                 155,45,47
                    14.               19,54,6                  156,1,1                       67.                20,16,23                 155,44,18
                    15.               19,54,8                  15690,3                       68.                20,14,44                 155,  43,7
                    16.               19955,8                  155,59,14                     69.                20,14,5                  155942,57
                    17.               19,56,11                 155,57,41                     70.                20,13,54                 155,41,55
                    18.               19,56936                 155,57,19                     71.                20,12,57                 155,41,28
                    19.               19,57,19                                               72.                20,12,8                  155,40,58
                    20.               19957,56                 155956,18                     73.                20911,32                 155,39,37
                    21.               19,58,22                 155955,56                     74.                18,51,25                 155,41,26
                    22.               19,58939                 155,55,2                      75.                18,52,3                  155,41945
                    23.               19,58945                 155,54,36                     76.                18,52,36                 155,41,44
                    24                19,58957                 155,54,9                      77.                18,53,23                 155,41,35
                    25                19,59,15                 155953,37                     78.                18,54,14                 155,41,39
                    26                19,59,31                 155,52,58                     79.                18,54,42                 155,41.28
                    27                20,0,20                  155,52,25                     80.                18,55942                 155,41,27
                    28                20,1,4                   155,52,25                     81.                18956926                 155,41,51
                    29                20,1,36                  155,52,4                      82-.               18,56,41                 155,42,16
                    30                20,2924                  155,52,17                     8j.                18,5790                  155,42,41
                    31                2093,14                  155,52,25                     84..               18,57,33                 155,43,15
                    32                20,5,50                  155,54,44                     85.                18,5897                  155,44,2
                    33                19,20,32                 155953,38                     86.                18,58,14                 155944,49
                    34                19,7,28                  .155,55,34                    87.                18,58,36                 155,45,43
                    35                19,9,6                   155,55,49                     88.                18,58,56                 155,46,16
                    36                19,9,52                  155955,42                     89.                18959,32                 155,47,7
                    37                19,10,57                 155,55,16                     90.                1990,38                  155,48,26
                    38                19,12,49                 155,54,28                     91.                19,0,49                  155,49,37
                    39                19,13,29                 155,54,32                     92.                19,1,9                   155,50,36
                    40                19,14,22                 155,54,24                     .93.               19,1,22                  155,51,43
                    41                19,15,2                  155,54,24                     94.                19,2,4                   155,52,58
                    42.               19,16,17                 155,54,1                      95.                19,2939                  155,53,14
                                                                                             96.                19,3940                  155,53945
                    Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                                          Page 46 1,
                    and Management Plan






                           Appendix K: Designation Document                                                                         Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                           !nd Implementing Regulations                                                                                        National Marine Sanctuarv

                           97.                  19,4,52                     155,54,50                        .151.               19,15,55                    155,16,18
                           98.                  19,5,51                     155,55,4                         152.                19,15,29                    155,17,1
                           99.                  18,52,27                    155,40,26                        153.                19,15,42                    155,17,30
                           100.                 18,53,12                    155,39,32                        154.                19,14,37                    155,18,51
                           101.                 19,3,35                     155,32,20                        155.                19,13,55                    155,20,10
                           1012.                19,12,28                    155,21,5                         156.                20,3,22                     155,18,51
                           10:5.                19,11,47                    155,22,47                        157.                20,1,48                     155,15,39
                           1&t.                 19,10,38                    155,25,12                        158.                19,59,17                    155,11,13
                           10.15.               19,9,34                     155,26,18                        159.                19,58,42                    155,10,31
                           1015.                19,9,4                      155,26,31                        160.                19,57,40                    155,0,0
                           197.                 19,8,29                     155,277,44                       161.                19,56,17                    155,7,5.7
                           I 01@.               19,8,3                      155,29,20                        162.                19,55,18                    155,6,35
                           101).                19,7,5                      155,30,35                        163.                19,54,1                     155,5,14
                           111).                19,6,29                     155,31,20                        164.                19,52,12                    155,3,54
                           111.                 19,5,36                     155,32,6                         165.                19,51,0                     155,3,25
                           112.                 19,4,35                     155,32,19                        166.                19,49,52                    155,3,25
                           11:3.                19,2,52                     155,32,48                        167.                19,48,56                    155,3,5
                           114.                 19,1,15                     155,34,29                        168.                19,45,25                    154,58,59
                           11:5.                19,0,24                     155,34,57                        169.                19,48,15                    155,2,14.
                           1115.                18,59,29                    155,35,28                        170.                19,47,49                    155,2,33
                           1 IT                 18,58,17                    155,35,37                        171.                19,47,21                    155,2,7.
                           113.                 19,1,53                     155,33,29                        172.                19,47,6                     155,1,27
                           111).                18,57,6                     155,36,16                        173.                19,46,37                    155,1,0
                           120.                 18,56,15                    155,36,46                        174.                19,46,20                    155,0,39
                           121.                 18,55,15                    155,37,19                        175.                19,46,0                     154,59,28
                           122.                 18,54,31                    155,38,32                        176.                19,44,37                    154,58,34
                           12:3.                20,4,41                     155,.21,53                       177.                19,44,14                    154,58,33
                           124.                 20,10,40                    155,38,43                        178.                19,43,15                    154,58,30
                           125.                 20,10,23                    155,38,3                         179.                19,42,40                    154,58,9
                           126.                 20,9,50                     155,37,34                        180.                19,41,52                    154,58,-12
                           127.                 20,9,53                     155,37,15                        181.                19,41,34                    154,57,43
                           128.                 20,9,23                     155,36,14                        182.                19,41,13                    154,57,17
                           129.                 20,8,46                     155,34,38                        183.                19,40,39                    154,57,24
                           131).                20,8,49                     155,34,0                         184.                19,39,54                    154,57,24
                           13 1.                20,8,13                     155,32,46                        185.                19,39,27                    154,56,58
                           13' 2.               20,8,13                     155,31,23                        186.                19,39,15                    154,56,49
                           133.                 20,7,40                     155,29,41                        187.                19,38,38                    154,56,5@
                           134.                 20,7,6                      155,27,29                        188.                19,38,17                    154,56,58
                           135.                 20,6,45                     155,26,3                         189.                19,37,13                    154,56,10
                           130.                 20,6,9                      155,24,40                        190.                19,33,26                    154,52,7
                           137.                 20,5,29                     155,23,10                        191.                19,35,24                    154,55,6
                           1313.                20,3,59                     155,20,4                         192.                19,34,18                    154,53,24
                           139.                 19,17,53                    155,5,13                         193 '..             19,33,2                     154,50,56
                           141).                19,15,52                    155,8-,36                        194.                19,32,35                    154,49,4
                           141.                 19,14,52                    155,10,31.                       195.                19,3 L49                    154,48,13
                           142.'                19,14,57                    155,11,7                         196.                t9,30:49                   .154,48,4
                           14:3.                19,15,4                     155,11,39                        197.                19,29,42                    154,48,23
                           144.                 19,14,S8                    155,11,50                        198.                19,28,51                    154,48,58
                           145.                 19,15,1                     155,12,18                        199.                19,28,14                    154,49,31
                           1445.                19,15,15                    155,12,55                        200.                19,27,52                    154,49,57
                           147.                 19,15,9                     155,13,28                        201.                19,27,15                    154,50,25
                           1413:                19,15,32                    155,14,10                        202.                19,26,37                    154,51,21
                           149.                 19,15,31                    155,14,55                        203.                19,23,48                    154,55,11
                           151).                19,15,50                    155,15,42                        204.                19,22,57'                   154,56,10

                           Page 462
                                                                                                                               Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                                                                     and Management Plan






                 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                                               Appendix K: Designation Document
                 National Marine Sanctuary                                                           and ImElementing Regulations

                 205.           19,21,23             154,57,50                 Kaumalapau Harbor (Lanai)
                 206.           19,19,34             155,1,22                  1              20,47,12              156,59,41
                                                                               2              20,47,19              156,59,42


                                                                               Manele Harbor (Lanai)
                 Ports and Harbor Exclusions                                   1              20,44,46              156,53,24
                 (points mark outer boundary       of harbor)                  2              20,44,44             -156,53,22

                 Points         Latitude             Longitude                 Hanamaula Bay (Kauai)
                              (deg,min,sec)         (deg,min,sec)              1              21,59,49              159,20,6
                 Ala Wai Harbor (Oahu)                                         2              22,0,3                159,20,8
                 1              21,17,5              157,50,55
                 2              21,17,2              157,50,34                 Nawiliwili Harbor (Kauai)
                                                                               1              21,57,3               159,21,3
                 Hilo BU (Bigy Island)                                         2              21,57,29              159,20,20
                 1              19,44,37             155,5,35
                 2              19,44,44             155,4,40


                 Honokohau Harbor (Biz Island)
                 1              19,40,23             156,1,50
                 2              19,40,11             156,1,56

                 Kawaihae Harbor (Big Island)
                 1              20,2,25              155,50,12
                 2              20,2,36              155,50,7

                 Kcauhou BU (Big jaland)
                 1              19,33,43             155,58,8
                 2              19,34,2              155,58,9


                 Kahului Harbor (Maui)
                 r              20,54,12             156,28,36
                 2              20,54,13             156,28,28

                 Lghaina Harbor (Maui)
                 1              20,52,29             156,40,54
                 2              20,52,29             156,40,53


                 Maalea Harbor (Maui)
                 1              20,47,36             156,30,49
                 2              20,47,42             156,30,44


                 Hale o Lono Harbor (Molgkai)
                 1              21,5,15              157,15,8
                 2              21,5,15              157,15,5


                 Kalinakakai Harbor (Molokai)
                 1              21,5,' 25            157,1,46
                 2              21,5,0               157,2,8
                 3              21,4,49              157,1,51
                 4              21,5,18              157,1,25



                 Final Environmental Impact Statement                                                                      Page 463
                 and Management Plan





                  Appendix K: Designation Document                                         Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
                  and Implementing Regulations                                                    National Marine Sanctuary.






















                                            TIES PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFr BLANK

































                  Page 464                                                              Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                                                                                       and Management Plan
















































                                  3 6668 00004 3465-