[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 11, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-11389]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 11, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part VIII





Department of Commerce





_______________________________________________________________________



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



15 CFR Part 925




Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Regulations; Final Rule
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 925

[901064-0264]
RIN 0648-AC63

 
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Regulations

AGENCY: Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), 
National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).

ACTION: Notice of National Marine Sanctuary Designation; final rule; 
and summary of final Management Plan.

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

SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), by 
the Designation Document contained in this document, and as required by 
section 205(a)(4) of Public Law No. 100-627, designates an 
approximately 2,500 square nautical mile area of coastal and ocean 
waters, and the submerged lands thereunder, off the Olympic Peninsula 
of Washington State, including the waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca 
eastward to Koitlah Point, as the Olympic Coast National Marine 
Sanctuary (Sanctuary). This document publishes the final Management 
Plan detailing the goals and objectives, management responsibilities, 
research activities, interpretive and educational programs, and 
enforcement, including surveillance, activities for the Sanctuary.
    Further, NOAA, by this document, issues final regulations to 
implement the designation by regulating activities affecting the 
Sanctuary consistent with the provisions of the Designation Document. 
The intended effect of these regulations is to protect the 
conservational, recreational, ecological, historical, research, 
educational, and aesthetic resources and qualities of the Sanctuary.

Effective Dates: Pursuant to section 304(b) of the Marine Protection, 
Research, and Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1434(b)), the Governor of the 
State of Washington has 45 days of continuous session of Congress 
beginning on the day on which this notice is published to review the 
designation and regulations before they take effect. After 45 days, the 
designation and regulations automatically become final and take effect. 
However, if the Governor of the State of Washington certifies within 
the 45-day period to the Secretary of Commerce that the designation or 
any of its terms are unacceptable, the designation or the unacceptable 
terms cannot take effect in the area of the Sanctuary lying within the 
seaward boundary of the State. If the Secretary considers that such 
disapproval will affect the designation in a manner that the goals and 
objectives of the Sanctuary cannot be fulfilled, the Secretary may 
withdraw the designation. A document announcing the effective date will 
be published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and 
Management Plan (FEIS/MP) prepared for the designation are available 
upon request from the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Office of 
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1305 East West Highway, Silver 
Spring, MD 20910, (301) 713-3125.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nina Garfield, (301) 713-3141.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 303 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 
Act, as amended (the ``Act'' or ``MPRSA''), 16 U.S.C. 1433), provides 
that the Secretary may designate any discrete area of the marine 
environment as a National Marine Sanctuary if the Secretary determines 
that such designation will fulfill the purposes and policies of the Act 
as set forth in section 301(b) (16 U.S.C. 1431(b)) and finds that:
    (1) The area is of special national significance due to its 
resource or human-use values;
    (2) Existing state and Federal authorities are inadequate or should 
be supplemented to ensure coordinated and comprehensive conservation 
and management of the area, including resource protection, scientific 
research, and public education;
    (3) Designation of the area as a national marine sanctuary will 
facilitate the coordinated and comprehensive conservation and 
management of the area; and
    (4) The area is of a size and nature that will permit comprehensive 
and coordinated conservation and management.
    The authority of the Secretary to designate national marine 
sanctuaries and administer the other provisions of the Act has been 
delegated to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere 
by DOC Organization Order 10-15, section 3.01(z), January 11, 1988. The 
authority to administer the other provisions of the Act has been re-
delegated to the Assistant Administrator of NOAA for Ocean Services and 
Coastal Zone Management by NOAA Circular 83-38, Directive 05-50, 
September 21, 1983, as amended.
    The coastal and ocean waters off the Olympic Coast were recognized 
for their high natural resource and human use values and placed on the 
National Marine Sanctuary Program Site Evaluation List (SEL) in August 
of 1983 (48 FR 35568). In 1988, Congress reauthorized and amended the 
Act and directed the Secretary to designate the Olympic Coast National 
Marine Sanctuary (Pub. L. 100-627, section 205(a)). In report language 
accompanying this legislation, Congress noted that the Olympic Coast 
possesses a unique and nationally significant collection of flora and 
fauna, and that adjacency of the area to the Olympic National Park 
merits the designation of this area as a national marine sanctuary (H. 
Rep. No. 4210, 100th Cong., 1st. Sess., 1988).
    NOAA held four scoping meetings in Washington State April 10-13, 
1989, to solicit public comments on the designation: Aberdeen on April 
10, Port Angeles on April 11, Forks on April 12, and Seattle on April 
13 (45 FR 10398, March 13, 1989).
    On September 20, 1991, NOAA published a proposed Designation 
Document and proposed implementing regulations and announced the 
availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Management 
Plan (DEIS/MP) (56 FR 47836). Public hearings to receive comments on 
the proposed designation, proposed regulations, and DEIS/MP were held 
on November 6th in Port Angeles, November 7th in Seattle, November 12th 
in Olympia, November 13th in Aberdeen, November 14th in Seaview, and 
November 20th in Washington DC. On November 14th, 1991, the period for 
submitting public comments was extended from November 27th, 1991 to 
December 13th, 1991 pursuant to requests from the State of Washington 
and the coastal counties (56 FR 57869). All comments received by NOAA 
in response to the Federal Register notice and at the public hearings 
were considered and, where appropriate, incorporated in the final 
regulations and FEIS/MP. A summary of the comments on the proposed 
regulations and the regulatory elements of the DEIS/MP and NOAA's 
responses to them follow.

II. Comments and Responses

Issue: Boundaries

Boundary Alternative 1
    Comment: NOAA should choose boundary alternative 1 because: (1) it 
contains most of the unique ecological features off the Washington 
Coast; (2) NOAA can offer greater protection to the coastal features 
than the resources further offshore in the event of a spill of 
hazardous materials; and (3) vessel traffic would be least affected, 
thereby ensuring safer seas.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. Boundary alternative 1 contains most of 
the ecological features visible above the sea surface. However, a 
marine sanctuary should encompass a discrete ecological unit with 
definable boundaries (16 U.S.C. 1433 (b)(1)(F)). The marine mammals and 
seabirds that transit the waters off the Olympic Peninsula and colonize 
the offshore rocks and islands forage in the rich waters and benthic 
communities over and on the continental shelf. The shelf is broad off 
the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The seaward extent of the shelf coupled 
with the upwelling produced from the Juan de Fuca Canyon are the 
physical parameters that support the food chain from the plankton to 
the marine mammals and seabirds. The offshore rocks and intertidal 
communities are only one habitat within the marine ecosystem off the 
Olympic Coast. Therefore, the marine sanctuary should encompass the 
ecologically significant offshore waters.
    With respect to NOAA's ability to protect the offshore waters in 
the event of a spill, NOAA agrees that there is little that can be done 
once a spill has occurred. The high seas would most likely render 
response capabilities ineffective. However, NOAA will coordinate with 
the U.S. Coast Guard, the Washington State Office of Marine Safety, and 
the coastal tribes to ensure that there is an adequate response 
capability for the coastal waters, intertidal regions, and beaches 
along the sanctuary including seabird and marine mammal rescue 
capabilities.
    Extension of the Sanctuary boundary to the shelf edge provides a 
buffer area for protecting the coastal resources. NOAA is working with 
the U.S. Coast Guard to develop a proposal for an Area to be Avoided 
(ATBA) from the shoreward boundary to 25 nautical miles offshore of the 
Olympic Peninsula. This ATBA is designed to provide sufficient time to 
respond to a vessel that loses power off the Olympic Peninsula. The 
ATBA is compatible with many of the existing voluntarily adhered to 
traffic patterns along the coast and thus adds only minimal time and 
distance to transits between the Strait of Juan de Fuca and 
destinations to the south.
Boundary Alternative 2
    Comment: NOAA should choose boundary alternative 2 as the preferred 
alternative.
    Response: NOAA disagrees for the same reasons stated in response to 
the previous comment. The seaward extent of boundary alternative 2, 
which approximates the 50 fathom isobath, has no relation to the 
seaward extent of the coastal ecosystem.
Boundary Alternative 3
    Comment: NOAA should choose boundary alternative 3 as the preferred 
alternative.
    Response: Boundary Alternative 3 excludes the Juan de Fuca Canyon, 
which is one of the richest regions of the offshore oceanic ecosystem. 
It also excludes some of the highest concentrations of human uses which 
threaten the health of the marine ecosystem off the Olympic Peninsula.
    Comment: NOAA should not choose boundary alternative 3 as the 
preferred alternative because it will be too restrictive for vessel 
traffic.
    Response: NOAA is proposing no regulations that will unduly 
restrict vessel traffic. (See response to comment on boundary 
alternative 1).
Boundary Alternative 4
    Comment: NOAA should select boundary alternative 4 as the preferred 
alternative because:
    (1) Many of the unique unspoiled ecological resources that might be 
significantly impacted by oil are located in the physically complex 
area north of Pt. Grenville including areas of submarine canyons, 
productive fishing grounds, and coastal features that are critical 
habitat;
    (2) Sanctuary status in the southern portion of the study area 
would conflict with state managed activities such as dredged material 
disposal, while most of the shoreline in the north has little 
commercial activity; and
    (3) NOAA can enlarge the boundary in the future.
    Response: NOAA agrees. One of the most valuable qualities of the 
Olympic Peninsula is that it is undeveloped and relatively pristine. 
NOAA recognizes that the southern portion of the boundary is much more 
developed, especially with respect to the harbor maintenance activities 
in Grays Harbor. Further, the rocky intertidal habitats in the north 
are much more sensitive to pollution from oil and gas compared to the 
sandy beach environments in the southern portion of the study area. In 
the event of a spill of hazardous materials, experts predict that it 
would take years for intertidal communities of rocky intertidal 
environments to become reestablished, whereas it would take an order of 
months for the sandy intertidal communities to recolonize. Lastly, NOAA 
can expand Sanctuary boundary 4 in the future, in accordance with the 
requirements of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act 
(MPRSA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), if deemed necessary.
    Comment: NOAA should not choose boundary alternative 4 because:
    (1) It is not scientifically defensible for it fails to protect the 
important and environmentally delicate estuaries along the southern 
coast;
    (2) It would render ineffective NOAA's resource monitoring and 
sanctuary enforcement mandates; and
    (3) It will be too restrictive for vessel traffic.
    Response: The boundary of a marine sanctuary should approximate the 
most identifiable boundaries of a marine ecosystem. The Site Evaluation 
List (SEL), from which sites are selected for consideration as marine 
sanctuaries, identified the coastal offshore islands as the core of the 
proposed Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (originally identified 
as the Western Washington Outer Coast). With this focus, NOAA has 
determined that the boundaries of the ecosystem are encompassed by 
boundary alternative 4. NOAA recognizes that the coastal estuaries are 
ecologically valuable and that many organisms that exist within, or 
transit through boundary alternative 4, depend on the estuaries. 
However, while the estuaries and outer coast are ecologically linked, 
the productivity of the two environments is a function of very distinct 
environmental processes.
    NOAA believes that protection of the estuaries could be best 
achieved through possible inclusion of these areas in programs 
targeting estuarine management such as, the National Estuarine Research 
Reserve System, the National Estuary Program, or the Coastal Zone 
Management Program.
    NOAA believes that the size of the sanctuary encompassed by 
boundary alternative 4 is manageable with respect to research and 
monitoring initiatives.
    As discussed above, NOAA is working with the U.S. Coast Guard to 
develop a proposal for an ATBA off the northern Olympic Peninsula. It 
is designed to be as compatible with existing customary practices among 
mariners as possible. NOAA is not promulgating vessel traffic 
regulations with designation.
Boundary Alternative 5
    Comment: NOAA should choose boundary alternative 5 because:
    (1) Activities that are, or could occur, in the southern portion of 
the study area can affect the resources in the north;
    (2) The entire study area is ecologically connected;
    (3) The management needs are greatest in the south;
    (4) The sanctuary management regime would complement existing 
management initiatives (Willapa Bay watershed planning processes, 
Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery Planning, State National 
Heritage Plans); and
    (5) Expansion of the Sanctuary boundary in the future will be too 
time-consuming.
    Response: NOAA's preferred boundary alternative is based on an 
ecologically identifiable boundary. The northern and southern portions 
of the study area are distinct with respect to their coastal and 
offshore ecology. NOAA can protect Sanctuary resources from outside 
activities through the prohibition on discharges outside the Sanctuary 
boundary that enter and injure Sanctuary resources. NOAA will be 
involved in planning activities that could potentially threaten 
Sanctuary resources outside its boundary. The boundary can be expanded 
in the future if needed.
    Comment: NOAA should not choose boundary alternative 5 because it 
is not necessary to encompass the entire Washington coastline as a 
marine sanctuary, and it would eliminate any future development of the 
coastal areas.
    Response: NOAA agrees. See response to previous comment.
    Comment: A more detailed analysis of the impacts of sanctuary 
designation must be undertaken before seriously considering boundary 
alternative 5.
    Response: NOAA has undertaken an extensive analysis of the uses and 
ecology of the southern portion of the study area and believes that the 
ecologically sensitive estuarine environments are adequately protected.
Alternative Boundary Suggestions
    Comment: NOAA should establish a series of smaller site-specific 
areas surrounding unique marine resources, such as ocean waters 
immediately adjacent to already protected terrestrial ecosystems such 
as wildlife refuges and the Olympic National Park. This alternative 
would afford sanctuary status to marine resources while maintaining 
provisions for compatible ocean uses.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. Smaller site-specific areas would not 
encompass an ecosystem for the reasons stated above. Further, 
designation of the marine sanctuary would allow for the continuation of 
pre-existing and compatible uses.
    Comment: NOAA's analysis of the resources within the study area 
identified the southern portion as highly important in terms of 
wildlife and fishery values, particularly the areas in and surrounding 
Willapa Bay. NOAA should consider modifying boundary alternative 4 by 
adding a satellite site encompassing the estuarine environment and the 
offshore waters of Willapa Bay.
    Response: NOAA's analysis confirmed that the estuarine areas in the 
southern portion of the study area are significant natural resources 
and that many of the resources utilize the waters off the northern 
coast as well. However, NOAA has determined that the estuarine 
ecosystems are distinct from the higher energy marine environment of 
the northern portion of the study area. In addition, the activities in, 
and adjacent to Grays Harbor are managed pursuant to an existing 
estuarine management plan promulgated pursuant to the Washington State 
Shorelands Management Act. The residents living in the watersheds of 
Willapa Bay are currently preparing an estuarine management plan.
    Comment: NOAA should consider the creation of a north and south 
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary with separate but coordinated 
management regimes.
    Response: The Act requires the designation of one sanctuary on the 
Western Washington Outer Coast with the offshore Islands and coastal 
areas of the northern Olympic Peninsula as the core area of the 
sanctuary. In carrying out this mandate, NOAA examined the seaward, 
northerly, southerly, and easterly extent of the ecosystem that has as 
its core the intertidal communities of the outer coast.
    Comment: The boundary of the Sanctuary should be modified as 
further cetacean information is available.
    Response: NOAA can modify the boundary in the future, in accordance 
with the requirements of the MPRSA, the NEPA and the APA, as more 
information becomes available.
Modification of the Western Boundary
    Comment: The outer boundary of the sanctuary should extend westward 
to a point that minimizes restrictions and needless re-routing of 
vessel traffic and harbor maintenance activities at the opening of 
Grays Harbor. To accomplish this objective, the outer limit of the 
sanctuary should be set at a distance between 2 and 10 miles from 
shore.
    Response: Sanctuary boundaries are not established based on vessel 
traffic routes, particularly because routes are subject to change. NOAA 
will work with existing regulatory agencies to minimize impacts. While 
vessel traffic is in the scope of sanctuary regulations, NOAA is not 
promulgating vessel traffic regulations at this time.
    Comment: The outer boundary should be established at either the 100 
or 500 fathom isobath.
    Response: NOAA has established the boundary at the 100 fathom 
isobath because it is generally recognized to be the seaward extent of 
the continental shelf, the area where photosynthetic activity is 
greatest.
    Comment: Clarify the rationale for establishing the western 
boundary of alternatives 4 and 5.
    Response: See response to previous comment.
Modification of the Shoreline Boundary
    Comment: The shoreline boundary should be established at the lower 
low water mark to preclude interference with carefully crafted beach 
management plans regulating beach traffic, razor clam harvests and 
emergency aircraft landings.
    Response: The shoreline boundary of the Sanctuary is located at the 
higher high water line where adjacent to Federally-owned land 
(including the Olympic National Park and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
refuges) and the lower low line mark when adjacent to State-owned land. 
Thus, the boundary does not interfere with beach management plans. 
Razor clam harvests within the intertidal zone of the Sanctuary will be 
managed by existing authorities such as the Washington State Department 
of Natural Resources, the Quinault Indian Tribe, and the National Park 
Service. Emergency aircraft landings are permissible in the Sanctuary.
    Comment: The shoreline boundary should cut across the mouths of all 
rivers, streams and estuaries because there are sufficient management 
plans in place providing protection of inland environments such as the 
Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program and the Grays Harbor 
Estuary Management Plan.
    Response: The shoreline boundary of the Sanctuary has been modified 
to cut across the mouths of all rivers, streams and estuaries.
    Comment: Clarify why the shoreward boundary distinguishes between 
adjacency to tribal and non-tribal lands.
    Response: The Tribes have jurisdiction to the mean lower low water 
line. Both the Tribes and the State have requested that the Sanctuary 
boundary not overlap with tribal and State lands. Therefore, the 
coastal boundary has been modified so that it is at mean lower low 
water when adjacent to tribal and State owned lands and at mean higher 
high water when adjacent to Federally owned lands.
    Comment: Existing National Park Service standards, regulations, and 
policies must not be diminished as a result of dual designation as a 
National Park and National Marine Sanctuary. The majority of the 
intertidal areas of the Olympic National Park are Federally designated 
Wilderness Area and must be managed accordingly.
    Response: The Sanctuary boundary overlaps with the boundary of the 
Olympic National Park. NOAA will not diminish the standards, 
regulations and policies currently applying to the intertidal areas of 
the Olympic National Park. The existing standards, regulations and 
policies of the intertidal areas will remain. NOAA will enhance the 
protection of these intertidal areas by working with the Coast Guard to 
ensure a safer vessel traffic environment, and the upland users of the 
watershed to monitor and minimize the impacts of non-point source 
pollution. Additionally, NOAA will support research and resource 
monitoring initiatives in the intertidal areas and may seek 
compensation for damages if an accident were to occur that injures 
Sanctuary resources.
Inclusion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca
    Comment: The northeastern boundary of the sanctuary should extend 
further into the Strait of Juan de Fuca to either: (1) The Lyre River; 
(2) the Clallam County Marine Sanctuary at Salt Creek; (3) Low Point; 
(4) Crescent Bay/Agate Beach; or (5) Pillar Point. Omission of the 
Strait of Juan de Fuca from the Sanctuary excludes the head of the Juan 
de Fuca Canyon from the boundary of the Sanctuary, and thus represents 
a boundary not based upon an ecological rationale.
    Response: NOAA has examined the resources of the Strait of Juan de 
Fuca and the FEIS/MP has been revised accordingly. Sections III and IV 
(Alternatives, and Environmental Consequences) examine the benefits and 
consequences of various alternatives in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. 
NOAA believes that the existence of a functional biotic community 
characteristic of the marine environment extends into the Strait of 
Juan de Fuca to Observatory Point. Eastward of Observatory Point, the 
ecosystem is more characteristic of an estuarine environment.
    Despite the ecological arguments that support inclusion of the 
Strait of Juan de Fuca in the Sanctuary boundary, NOAA does not believe 
that the public has had ample opportunity to analyze and comment on the 
proposal to add the Strait. Since the Strait of Juan de Fuca lies 
entirely in state waters, the Strait of Juan de Fuca cannot be included 
without the approval of the Governor of Washington State. However, NOAA 
will pursue expanding the boundary if supported by the State of 
Washington.
    Comment: The boundary of the Sanctuary should be contiguous with 
that of the proposed Northwest Straits Sanctuary. A gap between these 
two proposed sanctuaries would cause confusion for commercial shipping 
and fishing interests and government managing agencies.
    Response: At this time, the future and nature of the proposed 
Northwest Straits National Marine Sanctuary is uncertain and cannot 
serve as a deciding factor in the determination of the eastern boundary 
of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. The boundary of the 
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary must be determined based on 
ecological and human use factors. NOAA can modify the boundary in the 
future if it is deemed appropriate. NOAA will coordinate with existing 
managing agencies to ensure that the Olympic Coast National Marine 
Sanctuary and the proposed Northwest Straits National Marine Sanctuary 
do not unduly disrupt the management of vessel traffic and fishing.
    Comment: The boundary of the Sanctuary should not encompass the 
waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca because closely-monitored vessel 
traffic lanes already exist.
    Response: The MPRSA encourages multiple uses of the Sanctuary as 
long as they are compatible with the resource protection goals of the 
Sanctuary. Clearly, the Coordinated Vessel Traffic System in the Strait 
of Juan de Fuca is in the best interest of the vessel traffic industry 
and the environment. NOAA would not interfere with the vessel traffic 
management regime in the Strait of Juan de Fuca if the Governor of the 
State of Washington supported inclusion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca 
in the Sanctuary boundary.
Northern Boundary
    Comment: The northern boundary of the Sanctuary should be adjacent 
to the international border and include vessel traffic lanes to 
facilitate the establishment of a cooperative international sanctuary 
and coordinated vessel traffic management regime.
    Response: The northern boundary is adjacent to the international 
boundary.
Inclusion of the Estuaries
    Comment: NOAA recognized both the high resource values of the 
estuaries and the high level of point source discharges. By including 
the estuaries in the boundary NOAA would be in a position to work with 
the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) to correct the sources of 
pollution.
    Response: NOAA has been working with the Washington Department of 
Ecology to address pollution problems in the coastal estuaries. The 
Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan was supported by funding provided 
pursuant to the Washington Shorelands Management Act. NOAA agrees that 
the estuaries are extremely valuable environments with high levels of 
point source discharges. However, NOAA believes that the estuaries are 
ecologically distinct from the offshore waters of the Olympic 
Peninsula, which is the core area of the Sanctuary. Inclusion in the 
National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) is a more 
appropriate management framework for NOAA involvement in estuarine 
management.
    Comment: The estuaries should be excluded from the Sanctuary 
boundary because the Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program 
and the Grays Harbor Management Plan offer sufficient protection to the 
estuaries.
    Response: NOAA agrees. The estuaries are excluded from the 
preferred boundary of the Sanctuary.
Consideration of Other National Marine Sanctuaries and National 
Estuarine Research Reserves (NERRS)
    Comment: Some commenters believed that NOAA should designate the 
estuaries as NERR's if they are not included in the boundary of the 
Sanctuary because of their natural resource values. Other commenters 
believed that NERR status is inadequate since it does not include the 
marine environment. Clarification is needed on the specific elements of 
the NERRS:
    (1) The degree of protection that the NERRS would provide to Grays 
Harbor and Willapa Bay;
    (2) The process of designation;
    (3) Timetable for designation;
    (4) Assurances that designation would occur; and
    (5) The degree of protection to the estuaries that would be 
provided in comparison to sanctuary status.
    Response: The terms of designation as a NERR are determined between 
the State and NOAA. The process begins with the nomination of an 
estuary, or portion thereof, to NOAA for inclusion in the NERRS by the 
Governor of the State. The State holds scoping meetings in the region 
nominated for inclusion to solicit public input. The State then 
prepares a draft environmental impact statement and management plan 
(DEIS/MP) where boundary, management, and regulatory alternatives are 
assessed and a preferred alternative is decided upon. The DEIS/MP must 
demonstrate that the key core land and water areas are adequately 
protected by the state. Once the DEIS/MP is completed, public hearings 
are held in the region. After a comment period of one month, the State 
must produce a Final Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan 
(FEIS/MP) incorporating the public comments. Once NOAA approves the 
FEIS/MP the Reserve is officially designated. The entire process 
requires approximately three years. Designation is contingent upon 
available funding.
    Comment: NOAA should encourage sanctuary designations in Northern 
Puget Sound, Hood Canal, Southern Oregon and Northern California.
    Response: NOAA is working with the State of Washington to study the 
feasibility of a sanctuary in Northern Puget Sound. New candidates for 
sanctuary status are selected from NOAA's SEL. Sites in southern Oregon 
and Northern California are presently on the SEL.
Harbor Exclusion/Inclusion
    Comment: How will sanctuary designation influence the disposal of 
dredge material from harbor maintenance and development activities that 
occur in the Port of La Push, the mouth of the Quilleute River, and 
Neah Bay?
    Response: No dredge spoil disposal will be permitted within the 
Sanctuary, except when used in connection with beach nourishment 
projects related to harbor maintenance activities. Harbors are excluded 
from the Sanctuary boundary. Therefore, maintenance and development 
activities can occur, but disposal of dredge material must be either on 
land or outside the boundary of the Sanctuary.
Growth Management
    Comment: The Sanctuary should help to limit population growth.
    Response: The sanctuary program has no control over population 
growth adjacent to the Sanctuary boundary. Rather, the program exists 
to ensure that human uses resulting from growth do not have a negative 
impact on Sanctuary resources.
    Comment: Private land owners should not lose development rights to 
their land, nor should they have the value of their land significantly 
decreased by regulation without due compensation for that loss.
    Response: NOAA is issuing no regulations that will diminish the 
development rights of private property owners.
Opposition to Sanctuary Designation
    Comment: The marine sanctuary should not be designated because: (1) 
It would shut down the fishing industry; (2) existing legislation and 
management regimes offer adequate protection; (3) potential industrial 
interests would be stifled because the sanctuary would over-regulate 
the local economy and its growth; (4) the ecological/aesthetic values 
of Washington's coastline are not permanently threatened; (5) local 
airports in Aberdeen and Ocean Shores would close due to insurance 
problems; and (6) the Olympic National Park has too much control over 
the Olympic Peninsula already.
    Response: The Sanctuary will not shut down the fishing industry. 
Fishing is not within the scope of Sanctuary regulation; the regulation 
of fishing would remain with existing management regimes. Further, the 
Sanctuary will ensure greater protection from risks due to oil, gas and 
mineral development and vessel traffic accidents.
    NOAA disagrees that existing legislation offers adequate protection 
of the offshore resources. The threats from such things as vessel 
traffic, oil and gas development, sand and gravel mining and Navy 
practice bombing of Sea Lion Rock have not been addressed through a 
comprehensive management regime that recognizes the value and fragility 
of the marine ecosystem off the Olympic Peninsula. NOAA does not 
believe that the Sanctuary will over-regulate the local economy since 
the main source of income in the region is from tourism, fishing and 
timber production-none of which will be negatively affected by the 
Sanctuary. Tourism and fishing will likely benefit from Sanctuary 
status due to the increased protection of the marine environment.

Issue: Alteration of/or Construction on the Seabed

    Comment: The regulation pertaining to alteration or construction of 
the seabed may be interpreted as prohibiting such activities as 
geologic research, the placement of current meters, sediment traps and 
similar research equipment, all of which might be necessary if 
environmental studies were to be conducted in the Mineral Management 
Service (MMS) Washington-Oregon planning area. To clarify the intent of 
this prohibition, ``Government sponsored environmental studies'' should 
be added in the second sentence of this section as one of the 
activities for which this prohibition does not apply.
    Response: NOAA supports research within the Sanctuary. However, the 
prohibition on alteration of, or construction on the seabed applies to 
all research activities, including those conducted by governmental 
agencies. All research activities conducted within the Sanctuary that 
violate a Sanctuary regulation must be undertaken pursuant to a 
Sanctuary research permit to ensure that the impacts from the research 
are minimal and temporary.
    Comment: The prohibition on the alteration of, or construction on 
the seabed should not interfere with current or future harbor 
maintenance or fishing activities including: (1) Jetty and groin 
construction; (2) permitted dredging of channels and harbors; (3) the 
use of dredge spoils for underwater berm construction; (4) construction 
and improvement of boat launching and marine facilities adjacent to 
reservations; (5) the retrieval of fishing gear (including crab pots) 
and sunken vessels; (6) bottom trawling and scallop dredging; and (7) 
tribal fin and shellfish operations. NOAA needs to clarify the 
exemption of activities incidental to routine fishing and vessel 
operations. The exemptions for harbor maintenance and fishing 
activities should read: ``attempting to alter the seabed for any 
purpose other than anchoring vessels, normal fishing operations to 
include commercial bottom trawling and crab pot recovery, and routine 
harbor maintenance.''
    Response: Ports and harbors are not included within the boundary of 
the Sanctuary. The boundary of the Sanctuary adjacent to the Port of La 
Push is congruent with the Colreg lines at the mouth of the harbors. 
Further, there is the following exception to the alteration-of-the-
seabed regulation: ``Harbor maintenance in the areas necessarily 
associated with Federal Projects in existence on the effective date of 
Sanctuary designation, including dredging of entrance channels and 
repair, replacement or rehabilitation of breakwaters and jetties.'' The 
noted activities incidental to fishing have been exempted from the 
Sanctuary regulations.
    Comment: NOAA should prohibit all dredging and removal of sand and 
gravel within the Sanctuary boundary.
    Response: NOAA has prohibited all dredging and removal of sand and 
gravel within the Sanctuary boundary except as an incidental result of 
harbor maintenance activities. These activities threaten the integrity 
of the benthic community and the food source of many fish, marine 
mammals and seabirds.
    Comment: NOAA should not subject the exploration and development of 
offshore mineral activities to the same restrictions proposed for the 
exploration and development of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and 
gas.
    Response: All of these activities injure the benthic communities in 
the Sanctuary and NOAA does not believe that there is cause for 
exceptions.
    Comment: Clarify NOAA's policy on establishing artificial reefs 
within the Sanctuary.
    Response: There are no artificial reefs in the Sanctuary as of the 
date of designation. The creation of new artificial reefs would be 
prohibited pursuant to the prohibition on alteration of, or 
construction on, the seabed.
    Comment: NOAA should prohibit the construction of pipelines on the 
sea floor.
    Response: The regulation prohibiting the alteration of, or 
construction on, the seabed would prohibit the construction of 
pipelines on the sea floor.

Issue: Cultural and Historic Resources

    Comment: NOAA should prohibit moving, injuring, or possessing 
historic resources within the Sanctuary.
    Response: NOAA agrees that it is necessary to protect and manage 
historical and cultural resources within the Sanctuary boundary. NOAA 
has included a prohibition on moving, removing, possessing, injuring, 
or attempting to move, remove, or injure these resources, except as 
resulting incidentally from traditional fishing operations. If NOAA 
determines that fishing activities are resulting in injury to Sanctuary 
historic and cultural resources, NOAA may amend the Sanctuary 
regulations to abolish the exemption for these activities.
    Comment: The proposed regulations dealing with cultural resources 
fail to preserve the tribes' ability to control access to, and removal 
of, their cultural heritage. Therefore, NOAA should add a new 
Sec. 925.5(a)(8) prohibiting: ``removal or attempted removal of any 
Indian cultural resource or artifact, or entry onto a significant 
cultural site designated by a tribal governing body with the 
concurrence of the Director, except with the express written consent of 
the governing body of the tribe or tribes to which such resource, 
artifact, or cultural site pertains.'' NOAA should pursue a cooperative 
agreement with the tribes to coordinate management of cultural 
artifacts of tribal significance.
    Response: The MPRSA provides NOAA with the authority to control 
access to cultural artifacts within the Sanctuary thereby helping to 
ensure their preservation. Accordingly, anyone proposing to remove a 
cultural or historic resource must apply for and obtain a sanctuary 
permit from NOAA. NOAA acknowledges the interest of the coastal tribes 
in preserving their cultural heritage and, in particular, those 
cultural artifacts of tribal significance found within the Sanctuary. 
NOAA considers its objective of preserving the historical and cultural 
resources of the Sanctuary to be compatible with the coastal tribes' 
desire to preserve their cultural heritage. Therefore, NOAA has 
modified Sec. 925.9(j) to state: ``The Director or designee shall 
obtain the express written consent of the governing body of an Indian 
tribe prior to issuing a permit, if the proposed activity involves or 
affects resources of cultural or historical significance to the 
tribe.'' NOAA has also added Sec. 925.9(k) which states: ``removal, or 
attempted removal of any Indian cultural resource or artifact may only 
occur with the express written consent of the governing body of the 
tribe or tribes to which such resource or artifact pertains, and 
certification by the Director that such activities occur in a manner 
that minimizes damage to the biological and archeological resources. 
Prior to permitting entry into a significant cultural site designated 
by a tribal governing body, the Director shall acquire the express 
written consent of the governing body of the tribe or tribes to which 
such cultural site pertains.'' NOAA will enter into a cooperative 
agreement with the tribes and the State of Washington that clarifies 
the process by which permits will be granted to conduct research or 
salvage operations on historical and cultural resources of tribal 
significance.
    Comment: Current management of cultural resources is agreed upon 
between the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the tribes. The BIA 
supports the tribes in the management of their cultural resources.
    Response: See response to previous comment.
    Comment: The regulation as proposed in the DEIS/MP is duplicative 
of State law. There already exists state and Federal antiquities acts 
to protect coastal archeological and historical sites that occur on or 
near the median high tide boundary. The State archeologist already 
coordinates archeological matters.
    Response: The MPRSA is not duplicative of existing laws protecting 
historical and cultural resources. The MPRSA is more comprehensive in 
that it provides enforcement authority, including civil penalties, for 
the destruction or injury of historical and cultural resources.
    The Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 gives states the title to 
certain abandoned shipwrecks in state waters. Under the MPRSA, NOAA has 
trustee responsibilities for abandoned shipwrecks and other historical 
and cultural resources within national marine sanctuaries, including 
those located in state waters, for the purpose of protecting them. NOAA 
will coordinate with State agencies to ensure that historical and 
cultural resources within the Sanctuary are protected, and that the 
policies affecting historical and cultural resources in State waters 
are consonant with the policies in the Federal waters of the Sanctuary.

Issue: Discharges

Ocean Dumping
    Comment: NOAA should not prohibit the use of dredged material 
disposal sites off Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay, the Columbia River, or on 
the north jetty and breakwater of the Port of La Push.
    Response: The Sanctuary boundary does not extend south of Copalis 
Beach and excludes ports and harbors. Therefore, the maintenance 
activities at La Push and the use of the dredge disposal sites south of 
the boundary is not prohibited. In addition, the use of dredged spoil 
within the Sanctuary for beach nourishment in connection with harbor 
maintenance activities is exempt from the regulatory prohibition.
    Comment: No ocean dumping should be allowed in proximity to the 
major submarine canyons.
    Response: The regulations prohibit ocean dumping within the 
Sanctuary, and outside the Sanctuary if the material enters and injures 
Sanctuary resources or qualities.
Point Source Discharges
    Comment: Prohibit discharges of toxics, plastic, and municipal 
garbage and sewage into the marine environment.
    Response: The dumping of municipal garbage, toxics and plastics is 
prohibited within the Sanctuary by Sanctuary regulations and by 
regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act to Prevent Pollution from 
Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) and the Marine Plastic Pollution 
Research and Control Act of 1987, which implements Annex V of MARPOL 
73/78 in the U.S. Point source discharges are allowed provided such 
discharge is certified by NOAA in accordance with Sec. 925.10 or 
approved by NOAA in accordance with Sec. 925.11. After expiration of 
current permits, discharges from municipal treatment plants will be 
subject to the review process of Sec. 925.11. At a minimum, secondary 
treatment will be required.
    Comment: Current regulations are adequate. NOAA has not proven that 
the proposed regulations will enhance the recreational or aesthetic 
appeal, and water quality.
    Response: Current regulations do not protect the area from the 
cumulative impacts of various types of discharges, including: (1) Some 
ocean dumping; (2) sewage receiving only primary treatment; and (3) 
non-point source discharges. NOAA's ocean disposal regulation offers 
protection to the offshore environment that does not otherwise exist. 
NOAA will work with existing tribal, State and Federal authorities to 
ensure that the quality of the water and Sanctuary resources are 
maintained.
    Comment: Clarify how discharges from drilling and production rigs 
may be addressed if oil and gas leasing were to occur in the future.
    Response: The regulations prohibit oil and gas exploration, 
development, and production activities within the Sanctuary. NOAA will 
work with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that best 
available technology is implemented on any drilling rigs located 
outside of the Sanctuary to ensure that no discharges enter and injure 
Sanctuary resources and qualities.
    Comment: Depositing or discharging from any location within the 
Sanctuary or from beyond the Sanctuary should be prohibited.
    Response: The mandate of the National Marine Sanctuary Program is 
to facilitate multiple uses that are compatible with resource 
protection. Depositing or discharging most materials within the 
boundary of the Sanctuary, or from beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary 
if such material subsequently enters the Sanctuary and injures 
Sanctuary resources or qualities is prohibited. NOAA will work with 
EPA, the tribes and the State of Washington to maintain water quality. 
NOAA may require special terms and conditions, including (but not 
limited to) improved effluent quality, on EPA permits to ensure 
Sanctuary resources and qualities are protected.
Non-Point Source Discharges
    Comment: NOAA should not require at a minimum secondary treatment 
and sometimes tertiary or more for non-point source pollution. It is 
virtually impossible to subject runoff to these levels of treatment.
    Response: NOAA does not require such treatment for non-point source 
pollution. NOAA will monitor non-point source pollution and work with 
those living and working in the coastal watersheds to minimize runoff 
into the Sanctuary.
    Comment: It should be stated that there is no intent to regulate 
forest practices by Sanctuary administrators. There is no research or 
evidence which would justify the statement made in the proposed DEIS 
that the ``greatest source of non-point discharge is the forest.'' This 
statement needs clarification and tree farmers must be assured that 
they can continue to grow and harvest trees pursuant to Washington's 
Forest Practices Act, one of the most stringent in the country.
    Response: NOAA's Strategic Assessment Branch has analyzed existing 
watershed data from the National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory 
to determine sources of runoff. Summaries of pollution discharges for 
total volumes of nitrogen, lead, and all suspended solids combined 
indicate that with the exception of suspended solids discharged by 
paper mills, the greatest source of sediments discharged into sanctuary 
waters is from natural forest runoff.
    Despite this evidence, NOAA will not be directly regulating upland 
uses. However, NOAA will coordinate with the upland user groups, and 
managing agencies to minimize non-point source impacts on Sanctuary 
resources.
    Comment: The suggestion that excessive erosion from clear cutting 
practices is the source of most non-point source pollution from forests 
supports the need for further study of this common practice and the 
issuance of more stringent controls due to the steep and unstable 
slopes and amount of rainfall.
    Response: NOAA agrees and will conduct monitoring and research 
initiatives in coordination with those living and working in the 
watersheds to minimize the impacts from timbering activities.
Discharges Outside the Sanctuary
    Comment: Clarify to what extent the ``sphere of influence'' of the 
discharge regulation extends, to what degree it may affect coastal 
communities including the tribes, and who determines if injury to a 
Sanctuary resource has occurred. Would a community such as Ocean Shores 
or an Indian tribe face increased water quality regulations or 
enforcement? Further, does the discharge prohibition apply to 
particulates that are discharged into the air from pulp mills and 
subsequently enter the Sanctuary and harm Sanctuary resources and 
qualities.
    NOAA should not impose additional restrictions, beyond the existing 
requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPA), on the 
discharge of effluent and dredge spoils into marine waters. There is no 
evidence that additional restrictions on these activities are required 
to protect water quality in the proposed sanctuary.
    Response: The MPRSA protects Sanctuary resources and qualities 
(including water quality) from the impacts of discharges from within 
and outside the boundary of a Sanctuary whether airborne or waterborne. 
NOAA is responsible for determining injury to Sanctuary resources. 
Discharges pursuant to existing permits may be continued subject to the 
certification requirements of Sec. 925.10. New permits are subject to 
the review process of Sec. 925.11. At a minimum, secondary treatment 
will be required for any treatment plants discharging directly into the 
Sanctuary. With respect to airborne or waterborne discharges outside 
the Sanctuary, NOAA may condition such permits only if it is 
established that the discharges are entering the Sanctuary and injuring 
Sanctuary resources or qualities. NOAA will work closely with all to 
ensure that none is unduly burdened by permitting requirements related 
to discharges. NOAA will coordinate with the State's Air Quality Board 
and Department of Ecology to monitor air and water quality over and in 
the Sanctuary.
Application of Discharge Regulations to Vessel Traffic
    Comment: The application of this regulation should prohibit organic 
and inorganic discharges from fishing vessels and submarines (including 
bilge), aircraft. The prohibition should apply to all naval operations.
    Response: The Sanctuary regulations specify the fishing and vessel 
related activities exempted from the discharge prohibition 
(Sec. 925.5(a)(2)(i)-(iv)). Discharges and deposits from vessels are 
prohibited except for specific discharges intended to provide for 
traditional fishing activities, such as fish wastes resulting from 
traditional fishing operations in the Sanctuary, and for allowed vessel 
operations in the Sanctuary, namely biodegradable effluent incidental 
to vessel use and generated by approved marine sanitation devices, 
water generated by routine vessel operations, and engine exhaust. Such 
discharges are determined to be of minimal threat to the Sanctuary and 
are important for the safe and effective functioning of fishing and 
other vessels. Other discharges from vessel operations are prohibited. 
If in the future NOAA determines that increased protection for 
Sanctuary resources and qualities from these exempted activities is 
warranted, the Sanctuary regulations could be revised.
    Comment: Clarify acceptable and unacceptable discharges from 
fishing vessels.
    Response: See response to previous comment.
Economic Impacts of Discharge Regulations
    Comment: Banning the use of approved dredge disposal sites would 
impose severe economic impacts on marine navigation and commerce, and 
ultimately to the coastal communities.
    Response: The boundary of the Sanctuary does not encompass the 
approved dredge disposal sites off of Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay, and 
the Columbia River. However, no new dredge disposal sites may be 
located within the Sanctuary boundary.
    Comment: NOAA must examine the economic impacts of the discharge 
regulations on existing industries. There are currently 72 identified 
dischargers in the study area. It is unclear if the proposed Sanctuary 
would impact the continued operation of the pulp mill's NPDES permitted 
discharge near Grays Harbor.
    Response: The Sanctuary's boundary does not extend south of Copalis 
Beach. Therefore, the only discharge regulation that would apply to 
dischargers in Grays Harbor would be the prohibition on discharges from 
outside the boundary that subsequently enter and injure Sanctuary 
resources or qualities. NOAA will need to establish that effluents from 
pulp mills are injuring Sanctuary resources or qualities before it 
would impose terms and conditions on the pulp mill's NPDES permit. If 
this situation were to occur, NOAA would work with the discharger, the 
State of Washington, and EPA to minimize the economic impacts of 
reducing the impacts.

Issue: Oil and Gas Development

    Comment: NOAA's failure to offer as an alternative an outright, no 
conditions ban on hydrocarbon development within the Sanctuary is 
contrary to NEPA regulations, 40 CFR 1502.14 which states that the 
alternatives section is the heart of the environmental impact 
statement. NOAA should permanently ban oil and gas exploration, 
development, and production activities.
    Response: Section 2207 of the Oceans Act of 1992 prohibits oil and 
gas exploration, development and production within the Sanctuary. The 
Sanctuary regulations repeat this prohibition.
    Comment: NOAA should designate a buffer zone based on ocean 
currents and local seabed geography to prevent damage from external 
mineral operations.
    Response: NOAA believes that the Sanctuary is large enough to 
buffer the sensitive canyon and coastal ecosystems from negative 
impacts of mineral development. Further, NOAA's authority to regulate 
discharges from outside the Sanctuary boundary that subsequently enter 
and injure Sanctuary resources or qualities provides additional 
protection over mineral activities.
    Comment: NOAA should commit in the FEIS/MP and Record of Decision 
to the preparation of an EIS before lifting the prohibition.
    Response: As previously discussed, the Oceans Act of 1992 prohibits 
oil and gas explorations, development and production within the 
Sanctuary. This prohibition may only be lifted by an Act of Congress.
    Comment: The oil companies should be excluded from voicing an 
opinion regarding the Sanctuary because this privilege should be 
extended only to those who have spent time enjoying the State of 
Washington coastline.
    Response: The Sanctuary program does not and cannot discriminate 
against any individual, agency, or interest group. All individuals have 
the right to voice an opinion.
    Comment: Has NOAA come across any proposal for offshore wind 
generated power?
    Response: NOAA is not aware of any proposal for offshore wind 
generated power.
    Comment: The President's decision to postpone OCS activities off 
the coasts of Washington and Oregon until after the year 2,000 should 
expire at that time unless affirmatively extended.
    Response: Section 2207 of the Oceans Act of 1992 indefinitely bans 
oil and gas exploration, development and production within the boundary 
of the Sanctuary. These prohibitions could only be lifted by an Act of 
Congress.
Contingency Plans
    Comment: The Sanctuary should establish a contingency plan in 
coordination with existing state and Federal contingency plans. Efforts 
should be made to coordinate with the State of Washington Departments 
of Wildlife, Fisheries, Ecology, and Natural Resources and pursue data 
sharing opportunities.
    Response: The FEIS/MP identifies existing oil spill contingency 
plans and efforts in the State of Washington to cover the Strait of 
Juan de Fuca and Outer Coast. NOAA will coordinate closely with the 
existing agencies involved in contingency and emergency response 
planning, particularly the U.S. and Canadian Coast Guard and the State 
of Washington Office of Marine Safety (OMS). However, NOAA agrees that 
the Sanctuary requires its own contingency plan to ensure that 
resources are protected during events that threaten the environment. A 
prototype Sanctuary Contingency Plan is being tested at the Channel 
Islands National Marine Sanctuary. Once implementation experience has 
been gained, the plan will be adapted to other sites, including the 
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. To implement successfully an 
organized emergency response, NOAA will incorporate state and Federal 
legislation as well as local efforts into the Sanctuary Contingency 
Plan.
    Comment: NOAA needs to provide for better oil spill response 
planning.
    Response: NOAA is coordinating with the regional response 
committees of the OMS to ensure that the equipment is available to 
address an emergency that would threaten Sanctuary resources.
    Comment: An Oil Spill Response Center should be sited in close 
proximity to the Sanctuary to address small spills north of Grays 
Harbor where there is currently a lack of oil spill response 
capability.
    Response: NOAA is promoting this idea in its participation on the 
regional response subcommittee whose jurisdiction is the Strait of Juan 
de Fuca and the Outer Coast. However, priority will be placed on the 
stationing of tugs and barges dedicated to emergency response.
    Comment: The tribes should be properly funded to handle resource 
damage assessment as well as other activities where an oil spill could 
impact their subsistence and ceremonial harvest and cultural values.
    Response: The reservations are not within the Sanctuary boundary. 
Therefore, the Sanctuary cannot dedicate funds to the Tribes for the 
purpose of damage assessment pursuant to a spill of hazardous 
materials.
    Comment: NOAA should request that the oil industry's Marine Spill 
Response Corporation station a tractor/tug response vessel at Neah Bay.
    Response: NOAA has made the recommendation to the subcommittee on 
emergency response for the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Outer Coast. 
NOAA is actively participating in formulating the recommendation to the 
State, and will coordinate with the Makah Tribe in their planning 
initiative to expand their marina to plan to accommodate a tug or 
emergency response vessel that is of appropriate size to service the 
Outer Coast and the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
    Comment: NOAA should ensure that drills are conducted for the Clean 
Sound Cooperative with outside evaluation.
    Response: NOAA intends to hire an operations manager immediately 
after designation to address issues related to vessel traffic and 
contingency planning. One of the priorities of this position will be to 
encourage the Coast Guard to focus on the Sanctuary during its 
emergency response drills.
    Comment: NOAA should propose the examination of extending unlimited 
liability for spills to the shipping companies and the original firms 
providing the original source materials involved in the polluting 
activities.
    Response: The MPRSA only provides NOAA with the authority to 
collect $100,000 per day for each violation pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 
1437(c)(1), and damages to Sanctuary natural resources pursuant to 16 
U.S.C. 1443.

Issue: Sealion Rock

    Comment: NOAA should prohibit, or at least condition, the Navy's 
practice bombing activities over Sealion Rock due to the impact on 
seabirds, depositing of metal objects in the Sanctuary, and because the 
military environment does not require such a sensitive area to be used 
for such purposes. At the very least, NOAA should prohibit the practice 
bombing during the breeding season. Section 7 consultations with the 
Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior should not be 
construed as sufficient mitigation because these processes do not 
address impacts to non-endangered species.
    Response: NOAA agrees that the Navy practice bombing of Sealion 
Rock is inconsistent with the goals of the Sanctuary program. Because 
the permit under which the Navy conducted its activities over Sealion 
Rock was rescinded by the Secretary of the Interior in August, 1993, 
NOAA may prohibit outright all bombing activities within the Sanctuary 
and has determined to do so. The regulation adopted by NOAA prohibits 
all practice bombing and provides that no exemption from the 
prohibition will be granted.
    Comment: NOAA does not have the authority to prohibit or condition 
the Navy's activities.
    Response: Because the Navy's authorization from the Secretary of 
Interior was rescinded, NOAA now has the authority to not only 
condition but also prohibit the Navy's practice bombing activities.
    Comment: NOAA should place the Navy's bombing activities within the 
scope of regulation to allow future regulation if necessary. To not 
list military activities is in conflict with the primary goal of 
resource protection.
    Response: NOAA has addressed Navy activities in Sec. 925.5(d) of 
the regulations.
    Comment: NOAA should investigate the history of the Navy's 
activities over Sealion Rock to determine if a grandfather clause is 
warranted.
    Response: The history of the Navy's activities and the permit that 
authorized its activities has been outlined in the FEIS/MP. The Navy's 
authority to conduct practice bombing activities has been rescinded and 
thus consideration of a grandfather clause is irrelevant.
    Comment: Clarify how Navy bombing of Sealion Rock at 200 feet is 
less disruptive than commercial overflights.
    Response: NOAA does not assert that the Navy's low flying 
activities are less disruptive than commercial or non-commercial 
overflights. NOAA's differing regulations in the DEIS/MP applying to 
Navy and non-military overflights resulted from limitations placed on 
NOAA by the MPRSA with respect to terminating pre-existing leases and 
permits.

Issue: Protection of Treaty Rights

    Comment: NOAA's regulations do not formally recognize the Federal 
Government's trust responsibility to the coastal Tribes. The 
regulations contain no provision which formally requires the Director 
to consider and protect tribal interests when ruling on permit 
applications to conduct development activities within the Sanctuary. To 
address this issue, the following modifications to the Sec. 925.8 
should be made:

    The Director * * * may issue a permit * * * to conduct an 
activity otherwise prohibited by Sec. 925.5(a)(2)-(7), if the 
Director finds that the activity will: further research related to 
Sanctuary resources: * * * or promote the welfare of any Indian 
Tribe adjacent to the Sanctuary. In deciding whether to issue a 
permit, the Director shall consider such factors as * * * the 
impacts of the activity on adjacent Indian Tribes. Where the 
issuance or denial of a permit is requested by the governing body of 
an Indian Tribe, the Director shall consider and protect the 
interests of the Tribe to the fullest extent practicable in keeping 
with the purposes of the Sanctuary and his or her fiduciary duties 
to the Tribe * * *

    Response: NOAA agrees that the designation of the Olympic Coast 
National Marine Sanctuary is subject to the Federal government's 
general fiduciary responsibility to the coastal tribes. Accordingly, 
NOAA has modified Sec. 925.9(d) of the regulations to incorporate the 
recommended language.
    Comment: NOAA's regulation prohibiting the taking of marine mammals 
and seabirds conflicts with treaty rights to fish and hunt marine 
mammals in tribal usual and accustomed fishing grounds.
    Response: NOAA recognizes that, given the standard for abrogating 
treaty rights enunciated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Dion, 
476 U.S. 734 (1985), the provisions of the MPRSA do not abrogate the 
coastal Tribes' treaty fishing and hunting rights. However, it is 
unclear whether Congress intended the MMPA and the Endangered Species 
Act (ESA) to abrogate these rights. Recently, the Makah Tribe has 
pursued clarification regarding the applicability of the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act (MMPA) and ESA to its treaty rights to hunt whales and 
seals. The issue is currently being examined by the tribes and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Given the concerns raised by 
the coastal tribes, Sec. 925.5(a)(6) has been revised to read as 
follows:

    Taking any marine mammal, sea turtle, or seabird in or above the 
Sanctuary, except as authorized by the National Marine Fisheries 
Service or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service under the 
authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as amended (MMPA), 16 
U.S.C. 1361 et seq., the Endangered Species Act, as amended, (ESA), 
16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as 
amended, (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq., or pursuant to any treaty 
with an Indian Tribe to which the United States is a party, provided 
that the treaty right is exercised in accordance with the MMPA, ESA, 
and MBTA, to the extent that they apply.

    In addition, Sec. 925.5(a)(8) has been modified similarly. The 
revised language recognizes the coastal Tribe's treaty right to hunt 
whales and seals. However, the regulation also requires that the right 
be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the MMPA, ESA, and 
MBTA. If the MMPA, ESA or MBTA is determined to abrogate or otherwise 
restrict the Tribe's exercise of its right to hunt whales and seals, 
then that determination shall apply to the Tribe's exercise of those 
rights within the boundary of the Sanctuary.
    Comment: The regulations fail to preserve tribal control of their 
cultural heritage. NOAA should amend Sec. 925.5(a)(8) to read as 
follows:

    Removal or attempted removal of any Indian cultural resource or 
artifact, or entry onto a significant cultural site designated by a 
Tribal governing body with the concurrence of the Director, except 
with the express written consent of the governing body of the Tribe 
or Tribes to which such resource, artifact, or cultural site 
pertains.

    Response: The MPRSA provides NOAA with the authority to control 
access to cultural or historical artifacts within the Sanctuary thereby 
helping to ensure their preservation. Accordingly, anyone proposing to 
remove a cultural or historical resource must apply for and obtain a 
Sanctuary permit from NOAA. NOAA also acknowledges the coastal Tribes' 
desire to preserve their cultural heritage and, in particular, those 
cultural artifacts of tribal significance found within the Sanctuary. 
NOAA considers its objective of preserving the historical and cultural 
resources of the Sanctuary to be compatible with the coastal Tribes' 
desire to preserve their cultural heritage. Accordingly, Sec. 925.9(j) 
has been modified and Sec. 925.9(k) has been added to address the 
coastal tribe's concerns.
    Comment: The regulation prohibiting overflights under 1,000 ft. 
except for valid law enforcement purposes conflicts with the treaty 
secured rights to access certain reservation lands such as Tatoosh 
Island and Ozette, which are only accessible by helicopter in the 
winter months, and to conduct aerial timber cruises and engage in 
helicopter logging on portions of the reservation abutting the 
Sanctuary. Therefore the following amendment to Sec. 925.5(7) is 
proposed:

    Flying motorized aircraft at less than 1,000 feet above the 
Sanctuary within one nautical mile of the coastal boundary of the 
Sanctuary and the Flattery Rocks, Quilleute Needles, and Copalis 
National Wildlife Refuges, except for valid law enforcement purposes 
or where authorized by a governing body of an Indian Tribe to 
provide access to reservation lands.

    Response: NOAA acknowledges the Tribes' concerns and does not 
intend to interfere with tribal rights to access reservation lands. 
Also, for the reasons discussed below, the minimum altitude has been 
changed to 2000 ft. In order not to interfere with Tribal access to 
reservation lands, the prohibition on flying has been changed to read:

    Flying motorized aircraft at less than 2,000 feet above the 
Sanctuary within one nautical mile of the Flattery Rocks, Quillayute 
Needles, or Copalis National Wildlife Refuge, and within one 
nautical mile seaward from the coastal boundary of the Sanctuary, 
except as necessary for valid law enforcement purposes, for 
activities related to tribal timber operations conducted on 
reservation lands, or to transport persons or supplies to or from 
reservation lands as authorized by a governing body of an Indian 
Tribe.

    Comment: NOAA should apply the management plan equally to tribal 
and non-tribal governmental entities within the adopted boundary 
equally.
    Response: NOAA is legally bound to recognize treaty secured rights 
and has no intention to interfere with these rights. As such, there 
will be circumstances in which Sanctuary regulations will apply to 
tribal and non-tribal members differently.

Issue: Vessel Traffic

    Comment: Route tankers and barges as far away from near-shore reefs 
and islands as possible. Clarify what types of vessels can transit 
close to shore.
    Response: There exists a Cooperative Vessel Traffic Management 
System (CVTMS) established and jointly managed by the United States and 
Canada. The CVTMS is a mandatory regime and consists of all navigable 
waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and its offshore approaches, 
southern Georgia Strait, the Gulf and San Juan Archipelagos, Rosario 
Strait, Boundary Pass, Haro Strait, and Puget Sound, bounded on the 
west by longitude 147  deg.W. latitude 48  deg.N., and on the northeast 
by a line along 49  deg.N. from Vancouver Island to Semiamoo Bay.
    The rules of the CVTMS are intended to enhance safe and expeditious 
vessel traffic movement, to prevent groundings and collisions, and to 
minimize the risk of property damage and pollution to the marine 
environment. The rules apply to:
    a. Each vessel of 30 meters or more in length; and
    b. Each vessel that is engaged in towing alongside or astern, or in 
pushing ahead, one or more objects, other than fishing gear, where:
    (1) The combined length of the vessel towing, the towing apparatus, 
and the vessel or object towed is 45 meters or more; or
    (2) The vessel or object towed is 20 meters or more in overall 
length.
    Both the Canadian and the United States Coast Guards are studying 
methods to improve the CVTMS in the area. Items being studied include 
replacement of outdated equipment, elimination of gaps in coverage, and 
increasing operator training and assignment length.
    The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) requires the U.S. Coast 
Guard to conduct a national Tanker Free Zone Study. This study is 
nearing completion and will recommend regulations requiring tank 
vessels to remain offshore during coastal transits.
    Further, NOAA has recommended to the U.S. Coast Guard that an 
International Maritime Organization (IMO) approved ATBA be established 
within the proposed Sanctuary boundary. This would request that vessels 
transporting hazardous materials remain at least 25 nautical miles 
offshore while in the vicinity of Sanctuary waters or until making 
their approach to the Strait of Juan de Fuca using the established 
CVTMS traffic separation scheme. Although ATBA's are not compulsory for 
foreign flag vessels, a maritime state may make such an area compulsory 
for domestic vessels transiting the waters under its jurisdiction.
    Comment: Clarify ``commercial vessel'' and distinguish between 
various sizes, uses, and types of vessels.
    Response: ``Commercial vessel'' means any vessel operating in 
return for payment or other type of compensation. Clarification between 
sizes, uses, and types of vessels would require more space than is 
available in this document. Rather than attempt to hold to a general 
definition of ``commercial vessel'', reference will be made to specific 
types of vessels, i.e., tank vessels, bulk carriers, fishing vessels, 
pleasure craft, etc., wherever required.
    Comment: The Sanctuary boundary should be published on navigational 
charts.
    Response: NOAA agrees and will submit the Sanctuary boundary to the 
Nautical Charting Division of the National Ocean Service. The boundary 
will be delineated on the next update of the appropriate navigational 
chart.
    Comment: Spill containment and cleanup measures should be part of 
appropriate mitigation requirements for vessels operating within the 
Sanctuary.
    Response: OPA 90 mandates that tank vessel contingency plans be 
prepared for a worst-case discharge, and that vessel plans be reviewed 
and approved by the U.S. Coast Guard. OPA 90 also stipulates that each 
responsible party for a vessel from which oil is discharged, or which 
poses the substantial threat of a discharge of oil into or upon the 
navigable waters or adjoining shorelines or the exclusive economic 
zone, is liable for the removal costs and damages resulting from such 
an incident.
    Further, Washington State law (title 88 section 46 Revised Code of 
Washington) requires the owner or operator of a tank vessel to prepare 
and submit an oil spill prevention plan prior to the vessel's entry 
into a Washington port. The law also requires that each tank vessel, 
cargo vessel of greater than three hundred or more gross tons, or 
passenger vessel of greater than three hundred or more gross tons have 
a contingency plan for the containment and cleanup of oil spills from 
such vessel into the waters of the State.
    Comment: NOAA should provide a more complete explanation of how 
implementation of each of the regulations would put U.S. shipping 
companies at an economic disadvantage in relation to foreign vessels. 
Precisely what would be the estimated cost in dollars, time, 
inconvenience, and ultimate impact upon U.S. shipping companies.
    Response: NOAA is promulgating no regulations that will adversely 
affect domestic vessels.
    Comment: NOAA should put forth a vessel traffic management plan, 
spearheaded by the U.S. Coast Guard, that addresses research needs, 
vessel traffic monitoring and communication systems, and future 
regulatory alternatives. The management plan should be proactive, and 
establish a timetable for considering new vessel traffic regulations in 
the future.
    Response: NOAA is working with the U.S. Coast Guard, which has the 
primary authority for vessel traffic regulation, to determine the need 
for additional measures to ensure protection of Sanctuary resources and 
qualities. In addition, NOAA will work with the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (COE) and the EPA regarding vessel traffic activities 
resulting from the transport of dredged material through the Sanctuary 
for disposal outside the Sanctuary. These consultations will aim to 
determine which resources are most at risk, which vessel traffic 
practices are most threatening, and which regulations or restrictions 
would be most appropriate to alleviate such risk.
    NOAA agrees that an improved vessel traffic monitoring and 
communication system along the coast is desirable. OPA 90 requires the 
Secretary of Transportation to complete a comprehensive study on the 
impact of installation, expansion, or improvement of vessel traffic 
servicing systems. NOAA will work with the State of Washington's OMS, 
the U.S. Coast Guard, and appropriate public agencies during the 
development of these monitoring studies to determine an appropriate 
system for the Sanctuary and the need for any additional site-specific 
protective measures.
    Vessel traffic monitoring and research and coordination on this 
subject have been incorporated into the Sanctuary management plan.
    Comment: Allow only double-hulled vessels in the Sanctuary.
    Response: OPA 90 establishes double hull requirements for tank 
vessels. Most tank vessels over 5,000 gross tons will be required to 
have double hulls by 2010. Vessels under 5,000 gross tons will be 
required to have a double hull or a double containment system by 2015. 
All newly constructed tankers must have a double hull (or double 
containment system if under 5,000 gross tons), while existing vessels 
are phased out over a period of years.
    As previously stated, the U.S. Coast Guard is completing a study of 
a tanker free zone where tank vessels would be required to remain 
offshore during coastal transits. Further, a proposal to establish an 
ATBA within the Sanctuary boundary has been developed and will be 
submitted to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for approval 
at the earliest possible date which, in accordance with IMO's 
procedures, is June, 1994. Both actions will serve to ensure that 
hazardous material laden vessels will remain an appropriate distance 
offshore.
    Comment: Require vessels to have a pilot aboard.
    Response: Requirements for pilots are set forth in both Federal and 
state regulations. NOAA will monitor and review vessel traffic in the 
Sanctuary and make recommendations to the appropriate regulatory 
agencies, state and Federal, regarding the need for additional pilotage 
requirements. Pilotage is currently compulsory for all vessels except 
those under enrollment or engaged exclusively in the coasting trade on 
the West Coast of the continental United States (including Alaska) and/
or British Columbia. Port Angeles has been designated as the pilotage 
station for all vessels enroute to or from the sea.
    OPA 90 requires the U.S. Coast Guard to designate U.S. waters where 
a second licensed officer must be on the bridge of a coastwise seagoing 
tanker over 1,600 gross tons. Under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, 
the U.S. Coast Guard also is proposing to require a second officer on 
foreign flag tankers over 1,600 gross tons and on U.S. registered 
tankers over 1,600 gross tons.
    Comment: Establish a tonnage limit within three nautical miles of 
shore except for those making a port call.
    Response: All types of vessels and traffic patterns will be 
reviewed by NOAA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the State of Washington OMS 
to determine any appropriate action to be taken. In conducting this 
review, attention will be paid to vessel type, cargo carried, and 
vessel size.
    Comment: Require all vessels to have English speaking bridge 
personnel.
    Response: All vessels required to participate in the Juan de Fuca 
region CVTMS are required to make all reports in English.
    Comment: Curtail traffic during poor weather conditions.
    Response: NOAA will work with the state, U.S. Coast Guard, and 
appropriate public agencies to determine the need for further vessel 
traffic regulations to specifically address vessel traffic during 
adverse weather conditions.
    During conditions of vessel congestion, adverse weather, reduced 
visibility, or other hazardous circumstances in the area of the Juan de 
Fuca Region CVTMS, the Cooperative Vessel Traffic Management Center may 
issue directions to control and supervise traffic. They may also 
specify times when vessels may enter, move within or through, or depart 
from ports, harbors, or other waters of the CVTMS Zone.
    Further, the U.S. Coast Guard's Navigation Rules, International and 
Inland, speak specifically to the conduct of vessels while at sea. Rule 
6 of the International and Inland Steering and Sailing Rules states 
that ``Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that 
she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be 
stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances 
and conditions.''
    Comment: Prohibit engine powered water craft of any type.
    Response: A fundamental objective of the sanctuary program is ``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'' (16 
U.S.C. 1431(b)(5)). NOAA will consider the threats from all types of 
vessels--power driven, sailing, or paddle propelled--as a continuing 
analysis of vessel traffic within the sanctuary boundaries.
    Comment: Manage the off-loading or exchange of cargo or oil.
    Response: No offloading or exchange of oil occurs within the 
boundary of the Sanctuary. This activity generally occurs in ports 
which are located outside of the Sanctuary boundary. Further, this type 
of activity is addressed by both OPA 90 and programs being established 
by the recently created Washington State OMS.
    Comment: Prohibit shipment of reclaimed spent nuclear fuel from 
foreign reactors through the Sanctuary.
    Response: As previously noted, NOAA has recommended to the U.S. 
Coast Guard that an IMO approved ATBA be established within the 
Sanctuary boundary. This would require vessels transporting hazardous 
materials to remain at least 25 nautical miles offshore while in the 
vicinity of Sanctuary waters or until making their approach to the 
Strait of Juan de Fuca using the established CVTMS traffic separation 
scheme.
    NOAA will also work with the State of Washington's OMS and both the 
U.S. and Canadian Coast Guards to be informed of, and alerted to, in a 
timely and regular manner, all hazardous cargo carriers transiting near 
Sanctuary waters. Further, through participation in regular meetings of 
the Washington State Regional Marine Safety Committees and discussions 
with the U. S. Coast Guard, NOAA will ensure that contingency plans 
adequately address such transport issues.
    Comment: Prohibit commercial vessel anchorages within the 
Sanctuary, particularly off Makah Bay, except in emergencies.
    Response: The use of the Makah Bay anchorage by vessels waiting 
either for an available pilot at Port Angeles or instructions from 
their home office, has been examined. Currently, its use as a temporary 
anchorage has been agreed upon by both the U.S. and Canadian Coast 
Guards. This is viewed as a more favorable alternative than having such 
vessels continuously underway within, and off the entrances to, the 
Strait. Vessels at anchor are subject to MARPOL, U.S. Federal law, and 
Sanctuary regulations regarding discharges. The use of this anchorage 
is monitored by Tofino Vessel Traffic Service which can also educate 
such vessels regarding the Sanctuary and its regulations.
    Comment: Clarify NOAA's authority to regulate vessel traffic within 
State of Washington waters.
    Response: Section 303 of the MPRSA gives NOAA the authority to 
promulgate regulations to implement the designation, including 
regulations necessary to achieve resource protection.
    Comment: The State and Federal government have appropriated $75 
million to expand and enhance maritime activity at Grays Harbor through 
waterway dredging and port terminal development programs. If vessel 
traffic is restricted, one branch of the government would be defeating 
the purpose of other parts of the government.
    Response: NOAA has studied vessel traffic along the Washington 
coast. The result of the analysis was the recommendation for the 
previously mentioned ATBA. This proposal, if adopted, would add 
approximately 17 nautical miles on a transit from Grays Harbor to the 
entrance of the Straits of Juan de Fuca and approximately 21 nautical 
miles on a transit from the entrance of the Straits to Grays Harbor. In 
comparison to the costs of cleanup, legal fees, liability, fines, loss 
of cargo, and vessel and environmental damages, the proposals to 
establish the ATBA seem reasonable.
    Comment: Double-hulled proposals are not economically sensible in 
the foreseeable future.
    Response: Congress has mandated (OPA 90) national double hull 
requirements for tank vessels.

Issue: Overflights

    Comment: Establish the boundary for overflights at the beach rather 
than one (1) mile inland.
    Response: The boundary for overflights is at the shoreline and not 
one (1) mile inland.
    Comment: Establish a 2,500 foot minimum flight altitude over the 
sanctuary.
    Response: To be consonant with current regulations regarding 
flights over charted National Park Service Areas, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service Areas, and U.S. Forest Service Areas, NOAA is 
prohibiting the flying of motorized aircraft at less than 2,000 feet 
above the Sanctuary within one nautical mile of the Flattery Rocks, 
Quillayute Needles, or Copalis National Wildlife Refuge, and at less 
than 2,000 feet above the Sanctuary within one nautical mile seaward 
from the coastal boundary of the Sanctuary, except as necessary for 
valid law enforcement purposes, for activities related to tribal timber 
operations conducted on reservation lands, or to transport persons or 
supplies to or from reservation lands as authorized by a governing body 
of an Indian Tribe. NOAA will work with the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) on how best to reflect this limitation on 
aeronautical charts.
    Comment: Permit search and rescue at all times by whatever aircraft 
is needed to accomplish the task.
    Response: The prohibitions set forth in the Sanctuary regulations 
do not apply to activities necessary to respond to emergencies 
threatening life, property, or the environment pursuant to 
Sec. 925.5(c) of the regulations. Thus, in any emergency, search and 
rescue aircraft are allowed to perform whatever tasks are required 
within the Sanctuary boundary.
    Comment: When necessary to bring a research flight into the area 
below the Sanctuary prescribed ceiling, regulations should require the 
plane's engine be kept at or below a reasonable decibel level as heard 
from the ground.
    Response: FAA regulations (14 CFR part 36) codify noise standards 
for aircraft operating within U.S. airspace. Adherence to these 
standards is already required. When research is to be conducted within 
the Sanctuary boundary, aircraft operators will be required to obtain a 
permit and conduct such research in such a manner so as to minimize 
disturbance yet remain within safe aircraft operating parameters.

Issue: Living Resource Extraction

Fishing
    Comment: NOAA should not restrict access to fishing grounds or 
catch-ability. Crab fishing and razor clam digging must be allowed.
    Response: The regulation of fishing is not authorized by the 
Designation Document. NOAA has determined that existing fishery 
management authorities are adequate to address fishery resource issues. 
As with all other fisheries that occur within the Sanctuary, crab 
fishing and razor clam digging remain under the regulatory authority of 
existing Federal, state, tribal and regional fishery authorities. NOAA 
does not view fishing as contrary to the goals of the Sanctuary. The 
sanctuary program is by law mandated ``to facilitate to the extent 
compatible with the primary objective of resource protection, all 
public and private uses of the resources * * * .'' (including fishing) 
(16 U.S.C. 1431(b)(5)).
    Existing fishery management agencies are primarily concerned with 
the regulation and management of fish stocks for a healthy fishery. In 
contrast, the National Marine Sanctuary Program has a different and 
broader mandate under the MPRSA to protect all Sanctuary resources on 
an ecosystem-wide basis. Thus, while fishery agencies may be concerned 
about certain fishing efforts and techniques in relation to fish stock 
abundance and distribution, the Marine Sanctuary Program is also 
concerned about the potential incidental impacts of specific fishery 
techniques on all Sanctuary resources including benthic habitats or 
marine mammals as well as the role the target species plays in the 
health of the ecosystem. In the case of the Olympic Coast, fish 
resources are already extensively managed by existing authorities and 
NOAA does not envision a fishery management role for the Sanctuary 
Program. Accordingly, fishing activities have not been included in the 
list of activities in the Designation Document subject to regulation as 
part of the Sanctuary regime. However, the Sanctuary Program will 
provide research results and recommendations to existing fishery 
management agencies in order to enhance the protection of fishery and 
other resources within the Sanctuary.
    Comment: No additional fisheries management or regulation is needed 
in the Sanctuary. Commercial, recreation, and subsistence fishing can 
be compatible with sanctuary designation, and the existing regulatory 
framework is adequate at this time.
    Response: See response to previous comment. The Designation 
Document places kelp harvesting within the scope of future regulation 
since there is no existing management plan for kelp harvesting.
    Comment: Clarify the language associated with commercial fishing 
practices near sunken vessels, rocks and reefs in the proposed 
sanctuary to insure continuance of historical and customary fishing 
practices. Existing Federal and state regulations adequately protect 
archeological treasures, man-made reefs, and natural rock and reef 
formations. The FEIS should acknowledge and permit prevailing 
practices.
    Response: Commercial fishing vis-a-vis historical resources is an 
exempted activity under the prohibition against disturbance of 
historical resources. However, the exemption is only for incidental 
disturbance and therefore does not allow deliberate disturbance.
    Comment: Fishing should either be regulated, or placed in the scope 
of regulation, because there may be a time in the future when fishing 
needs to be regulated by the Sanctuary.
    Response: NOAA believes that existing authorities are adequate to 
regulate fishing. Should the need arise to regulate fishing as part of 
the Sanctuary management regime, the Designation Document could be 
amended.
    Comment: Proposed regulations should result in the gradual 
reduction of fishing, aquaculture, kelp harvesting and waterfowl 
hunting to insure that no commercial activity threatens the integrity 
of any resources in the proposed Sanctuary. Some commenters believed 
that the Sanctuary should ban all commercial fishing activities except 
Native American fishing activities.
    Response: A blanket reduction of resource-use activities across the 
Sanctuary could not be imposed without credible evidence that each 
resource affected is threatened by a population decrease or stock 
failure. Absent such evidence, the Act requires that existing uses be 
facilitated to the extent compatible with the primary objective of 
resource protection.
    Comment: True refugia should be established where all consumptive 
uses are prohibited for a period of time.
    Response: The determination of whether refugia are established in 
the Sanctuary will be done in coordination with the NMFS, PFMC, 
Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF), the tribes, environmental 
groups, and industry. The Sanctuary Advisory Committee (SAC) will be an 
important forum to address this issue. If, in coordination with other 
governmental agencies, it is determined that establishment of refugia 
is a desirable alternative, NOAA will analyze the alternative through 
the preparation of an environmental impact statement/management plan 
and solicitation of public input pursuant to the NEPA and the APA.
    Comment: Driftnets, trawling, and all dragnet fisheries should be 
banned from the proposed Sanctuary as inconsistent with the regulation 
prohibiting alteration of, or construction on, the seabed.
    Response: The only net gear used in fisheries in the Sanctuary are 
trolling gear (for salmon) and trawling gear (for groundfish). The 
regulatory prohibition on altering the seabed includes an exception for 
incidental disturbance resulting from traditional fishing operations. 
NMFS has conducted a limited study of the impact of trawl gear on the 
benthos and has not identified any resulting systematic destruction. 
However, the regulations could be modified to regulate any activity 
that is shown to cause significant disturbance of the seabed. This 
reflects adherence to the MPRSA's goals of preserving natural and 
human-use qualities of a marine area.
    High-seas driftnets, defined as nets greater than 1.5 miles long, 
have been banned pursuant to United Nations resolution 46/215. While 
gillnets and setnets are currently used in the inland waters of the 
State of Washington, they are not used in Sanctuary waters.
    Comment: NOAA should facilitate the regulation of resource 
extraction within the Sanctuary under a regulatory framework that is 
controlled by a single agency.
    Response: Regulatory authority over resources and resource 
extraction industries is expressly granted by state and Federal 
statute. NOAA does not have the primary regulatory authority over 
resource extraction. NOAA can act to coordinate the various regulators 
and can impose additional regulations, but cannot reassign itself or 
other agencies regulatory authority.
    Comment: NOAA must clarify and acknowledge all tribal treaty 
fishing rights in the FEIS/MP, and the interaction of Sanctuary 
regulations with the right of tribes to fish in their Usual and 
Accustomed fishing areas.
    Response: This issue is clarified in the Designation Document and 
in Part II (under Socio-Demographic profile and Land Use). In addition, 
the coastal tribe's treaty rights are acknowledged in several sections 
of the regulations.
    Comment: The entire study area must be considered as a ``fishing 
area'' since fish migrate along the entire Washington coast.
    Response: NOAA recognizes that fish ``know no boundaries in the 
sea.'' The fishing areas identified in the FEIS/MP only represent known 
locations where certain fishery activity is concentrated. The fishing 
areas displayed in the FEIS/MP are not related to regulatory 
jurisdiction in any way. They are simplified visual aids to complement 
the discussion of resources off the coast of Washington.
Aquaculture
    Comment: Clarify NOAA's intention to regulate, condition, or 
prohibit aquaculture activities throughout the Sanctuary and adjacent 
to Indian reservations.
    Response: The Sanctuary regulations do not directly prohibit 
aquaculture operations within the Sanctuary boundary. However, 
discharge of matter into the Sanctuary, or alteration of or 
construction on the seabed in connection with aquaculture activities 
are prohibited. It is unlikely that permits would be granted for 
aquaculture activities in the Sanctuary that violate these 
prohibitions. This determination is based upon U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (COE) guidance related to permits for fish pen mariculture 
operations, which prohibits fish farms in Federal natural resource 
areas, such as national seashores, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, 
parks or other areas designated for similar purposes (e.g., national 
marine sanctuaries).
    Comment: NOAA should change the proposed regulation governing 
alteration of or construction on the seabed to ``maintenance and 
development of approved aquaculture operations'', and strike ``existing 
prior to the effective date of these regulations.'' Eliminating future 
aquaculture development off the Olympic Coast would preclude 
opportunities for both private shellfish and finfish production and for 
public enhancement. Technology is being developed which would result in 
minimal environmental imbalance, and would afford employment for 
regional communities.
    Response: See response to previous comment.
    Comment: The Sanctuary should not regulate aquaculture activities 
because there are sufficient regulations in place.
    Response: See response to previous comment.
    Comment: The Sanctuary should provide mutually agreed upon 
requirements for aquaculture activities among the oyster growers of 
Willapa Bay.
    Response: The boundary of the Sanctuary does not include Willapa 
Bay.
    Comment: The discussion in the FEIS/MP on the impacts of 
aquaculture needs to be expanded and the proposal to not regulate 
aquaculture in the Sanctuary should be re-assessed. The FEIS/MP needs 
to address the use of drugs in farm-raised fish.
    Response: The discussion of aquaculture within the Sanctuary is 
intended only to evaluate the current status of the industry in the 
study area--it is not intended to measure aggregate impacts. The 
request for expanded discussion of resources does not identify specific 
issues of discussion. A reassessment of aquaculture vis-a-vis the 
Sanctuary reveals that the industry is adequately regulated by existing 
state and Federal requirements. However, any discharges from such 
operations into the Sanctuary would be prohibited. The Sanctuary has no 
jurisdiction over the use of drugs in aquaculture--such determinations 
are under the purview of the Washington State Department of Health 
(WDH) and the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
    Comment: All aquaculture should be banned from within the 
Sanctuary.
    Response: See responses to previous comments regarding aquaculture.
    Comment: Kelp harvesting should be banned or regulated within the 
Sanctuary.
    Response: At present there is no kelp harvesting within the 
Sanctuary. While kelp harvesting was proposed to be included within the 
scope of activities listed in the Designation Document as subject to 
potential regulation under the Sanctuary Program, the final Designation 
Document does not list kelp harvesting. Kelp is only found within the 
state waters of the Sanctuary. Because the Washington Department of 
Natural Resources (DNR) has promulgated regulations for the management 
of kelp which should adequately protect the kelp, NOAA does not believe 
it necessary to list kelp as being subject to potential Sanctuary 
Program regulation. If the state regulations do not adequately protect 
the kelp within the Sanctuary, the Sanctuary Designation Document could 
be amended following the same procedures used to promulgate this 
Designation Document to authorize the regulation of kelp.

Issue: Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles and Seabirds

    Comment: Clarify ``takings''. The prohibition on the taking of 
marine mammals and seabirds within the Sanctuary is redundant with the 
ESA, the MMPA and the MBTA, and what further impact it will have on the 
fishing community.
    Response: ``Taking'' is defined in section 925.3 of the regulations 
to mean: (1) For any marine mammal, sea turtle or seabird listed as 
either endangered or threatened pursuant to the ESA to harass, harm, 
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect or injure, or 
to attempt to engage in any such conduct and, (2) for any other marine 
mammal, sea turtle, or seabird, the term means to harass, hunt, 
capture, kill, collect or injure, or to attempt to engage in any such 
conduct. While marine mammals, seabirds and endangered and threatened 
species are protected under the MMPA, ESA and MBTA, NOAA believes that 
the higher penalties afforded under the MPRSA will provide a stronger 
deterrent.
    The MBTA sets maximum criminal fines at either $500 or $2,000 per 
violation, depending on the violation. The MMPA sets maximum civil 
penalties at $10,000 and maximum criminal fines at $20,000. The ESA 
sets maximum civil penalties at $500, $12,000 or $25,000 per violation, 
depending on the violation; maximum criminal fines are set at $50,000. 
(All three statutes also provide for imprisonment for criminal 
violations.)
    Section 307 of the MPRSA allows NOAA to assess civil penalties as 
high as $100,000 for each violation. In addition, monies collected 
under the MPRSA are available for use by the National Marine Sanctuary 
Program.
    Comment: The MBTA would not allow any taking of migratory birds in 
the sanctuary, thus providing even stronger prohibition than sanctuary 
status can provide.
    Response: See above response. Section 925.5(a)(6) of the Sanctuary 
regulations prohibits the taking of migratory birds within the 
Sanctuary. Including a prohibition on ``taking'' marine birds in the 
Sanctuary regulations allows such violations to be subject to the civil 
penalties authorized by the MPRSA which far exceed those authorized by 
the MBTA.
    Comment: Prohibit all takings of marine mammals and seabirds, 
regardless of military or fishing exemptions.
    Response: Section 925.5(a)(6) of the Sanctuary regulations 
prohibits the taking of marine mammals and seabirds in or above the 
Sanctuary except as authorized by the NMFS or the United States Fish 
and Wildlife Service under the authority of the MMPA, as amended, 16 
U.S.C. 1361 et seq., the ESA, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and 
the MBTA, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq., or pursuant to any treaty 
with an Indian tribe to which the United States is a party, provided 
that the treaty right is exercised in accordance with the MMPA, ESA, 
and MBTA, to the extent that they apply. Exemptions include a limited 
five-year incidental take of marine mammals provided by interim 
regulations promulgated pursuant to the MMPA, which are in effect until 
October, 1993. The ESA also has a limited incidental take exemption. 
See 16 U.S.C. section 1539(a)(2)B(i). NMFS, in conjunction with 
environmental groups and the fishing industry, is developing a 
permanent management regime to be implemented upon expiration of the 
MMPA interim regulations.
    If in the future NOAA determines that the existing regulations 
promulgated under MMPA, ESA, MBTA or any other state or Federal statute 
are not adequate to ensure the coordinated and comprehensive management 
of marine mammals and seabirds, changes to the Sanctuary regulations 
would be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the MPRSA, 
NEPA and APA.
    Comment: Exclude from [takings] prohibition birds considered game.
    Response: The only birds Sec. 925.5(a)(6) prohibits the taking of 
are seabirds--seabirds are not considered game species.
    Comment: Section 925.5(a)(6) of the proposed regulations would 
prohibit the taking of marine mammals or seabirds unless affirmatively 
permitted by regulations promulgated under authority of the ESA, MMPA, 
or MBTA. Because these regulations do not expressly permit any takings 
by treaty Indians, the proposed sanctuary regulations would effectively 
prohibit the Makah Tribe from exercising their treaty rights to take 
marine mammals. The proposed regulations would also hinder the tribe's 
ability to exercise its fishing rights by precluding fisheries which 
result in the incidental taking of marine mammals and seabirds.
    The DEIS/MP offers no conservation justification for imposing 
restrictions on the taking of marine mammals and seabirds which go 
beyond the restrictions imposed by the ESA and MMPA. The DEIS/MP 
concedes that the purpose of the proposed sanctuary regulations is not 
to protect particular species from extinction. According to the DEIS, 
the purpose of these additional prohibitions in the proposed 
regulations is to ``extend protection for sanctuary resources on an 
environmentally holistic basis.'' This goal does not permit 
infringement of treaty rights. Therefore, the regulations should be 
amended by adding ``or in accordance with any treaty to which the 
United States is a party.''
    Response: The regulatory prohibitions do not abrogate or obstruct 
any rights under an existing treaty. The regulations have been changed 
by adding ``or pursuant to any treaty with an Indian tribe to which the 
United States is a party, provided that the treaty right is exercised 
in accordance with the MMPA, ESA and MBTA, to the extent that they 
apply.'' The treaty between the Makah Tribe and the United States 
explicitly assures the ``right of taking fish and of whaling or sealing 
at usual accustomed grounds and stations.'' (Article 4, Treaty of Neah 
Bay, 1855).
    Incidental takes of marine mammals can legally occur under permit 
and exemption provisions of the MMPA. Currently, Washington coastal 
tribes apply for and receive exemption certificates from NMFS for the 
incidental taking of marine mammals during fishing. Fees for this 
exemption are waived for tribes.
    Further, tribes cannot be denied entry into any fishery based on 
the likelihood or occurrence of seabird or marine mammal takings.
    Comment: Change the wording of the regulation to read ``as 
authorized or permitted by NMFS or [the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] 
USFWS under the authority of the MMPA and ESA.'' NMFS suggests that the 
preamble and/or regulations clarify that Sanctuary permits will not be 
required for activities authorized or permitted by NMFS or USFWS under 
MMPA or ESA. Such clarification would relieve many concerns over the 
possibility of overlapping and potentially duplicative permitting 
requirements.
    Response: NOAA has amended the regulation by adding ``as authorized 
by the National Marine Fisheries Service or the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act, as amended, (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., the Endangered Species 
Act, as amended, (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act, as amended, (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq. * * *.'' The 
inclusion of ``as authorized or permitted'' is viewed by NOAA as 
redundant.

Issue: Sanctuary Administration

Regulations/Permits
    Comment: NOAA should use economic incentives rather than 
regulations to ensure that activities do not impact resources.
    Response: NOAA does not have sufficient authority to provide 
economic incentives to ensure that activities do not impact Sanctuary 
resources. Even regulations, which include economic disincentives such 
as monetary penalties, are not sufficient to ensure that any activity 
does not impact resources.
    Comment: Clarify the statement: ``When a conflict with a sanctuary 
regulation related to specific [non-sanctuary] regulations occurs, the 
one more protective of sanctuary resources will prevail.'' NOAA 
regulations should not override those of the local jurisdictions. NOAA 
needs to clarify:
    (1) The application of this policy to fishing;
    (2) Types of conflicts the statement applies to;
    (3) Who determines whether a conflict exists; and
    (4) The process for resolving a conflict.
    Response: NOAA agrees that the statement as written in the DEIS/MP 
is unclear. Accordingly, the statement has been deleted in the FEIS/MP. 
Essentially, the statement meant that if two regulations exist covering 
an activity in the Sanctuary, one promulgated by NOAA under the MPRSA 
authority and the other by another agency under a different statute, 
compliance with the less restrictive regulation will not relieve the 
obligation to comply with the other more restrictive one.
    Comment: NOAA should follow the guidelines of NEPA when proposing 
any change in regulations that are listed in the scope of regulations. 
This is especially applicable to vessel traffic and discharge 
regulations. Also, clarification is needed on the rulemaking and 
amendment processes.
    Response: Listing activities in the scope of regulation reflects 
that the issues and alternatives were addressed in the FEIS/MP, public 
hearings were held, and public comments were solicited regarding the 
activities. If NOAA later proposes the regulation of an activity listed 
in the scope of regulations in the Designation Document but not 
regulated at the time of Sanctuary designation, NOAA will request 
public comments on the proposal. When NOAA plans to amend a rule that 
has been promulgated, an analysis of the issues, affected environment, 
alternatives and consequences will be completed and public comments 
solicited. NOAA will then modify the proposal if necessary and respond 
to public comments when taking the final action.
    Comment: A procedure must be established to disagree with 
management and issue an appeal if permits to conduct research are 
denied.
    Response: Section 925.12 of the Sanctuary regulations set forth the 
procedures for appealing denials of Sanctuary permits. The appeal 
process involves a written statement by the appellant to the Assistant 
Administrator of NOAA. The Assistant Administrator may conduct a 
hearing on the appeal.
    Comment: Clarify the procedure for obtaining permits for low-flying 
aircraft engaged in ongoing species monitoring studies and damage 
assessment studies in response to an incident such as an oil spill. 
Activities authorized by the NMFS and USFWS should not require a 
Sanctuary permit because the requirements for permits would be 
duplicative.
    Response: All flights engaged in monitoring or research activities 
that fly below 2,000 feet are required to obtain a Sanctuary permit, 
or, if the activity is already pursuant to a permit, to have that 
permit certified. Permits are not required for overflights necessary to 
respond to emergencies threatening life, property or the environment.
    Comment: NOAA should not grandfather existing uses if otherwise 
prohibited by sanctuary regulations.
    Response: Section 304(c)(1)(B) of the MPRSA specifies that NOAA may 
not terminate any valid lease, permit, license, or right of subsistence 
use or of access, if the lease, permit, license, or right ``is in 
existence on the date of designation of any national marine sanctuary * 
* *.''
    Comment: Treaty secured rights should not require sanctuary 
certification. Further, NOAA should obligate federal regulators to 
consider and protect tribal interests when issuing permits which may 
affect those interests.
    Response: Treaty secured rights do not require certification by the 
Sanctuary program pursuant to Sec. 925.5(g). NOAA agrees that pursuant 
to its trust responsibility to the tribes, it should consider and 
protect tribal interests when issuing permits. Therefore, Secs. 925.9 
and 925.11 have been modified accordingly. While NOAA as a trustee 
urges all other Federal agencies to consider and protect tribal 
interests, it does not have the legal authority to require other 
Federal agencies to consider and protect tribal interests when issuing 
permits pursuant to other regulatory authorities.
    Comment: The regulations, exemptions and authority to place 
conditions on existing permitted activities are unclear.
    Response: Section 304(c)(2) of the MPRSA provides NOAA with the 
right to regulate the exercise of a lease, permit, license, or right of 
subsistence use or of access existing on the effective date of 
Sanctuary designation.
    Comment: Sanctuary management should be formally coordinated with 
tribal regulatory and law enforcement authorities through cooperative 
agreements.
    Response: Cooperative agreements will be developed as necessary 
between NOAA and the tribes regarding regulatory and law enforcement 
activities.
    Comment: The Sanctuary should offer increased enforcement which 
should be conducted by Sanctuary personnel rather than the U.S. Coast 
Guard. Clarify the enforcement procedures.
    Response: There will be enforcement of Sanctuary regulations 
through cooperative agreements with the U.S. Coast Guard, NMFS, WDF, 
the coastal tribes, USFWS, and the National Park Service (NPS). 
Considering fiscal constraints, level of use, and availability of 
enforcement personnel working in the field already, NOAA has determined 
that it is not a high immediate priority to hire Sanctuary enforcement 
personnel. The Sanctuary must first become fully staffed and 
operational, and a determination must be made whether additional 
enforcement personnel are needed. The enforcement procedures will be 
determined pursuant to the cooperative agreements that are established.
    Comment: The broad scope of the discharge prohibition will require 
a well-coordinated enforcement operation to monitor all discharge and 
disposal activities from sources on land as well as in offshore, 
coastal and inland waters over large areas outside of the Sanctuary 
boundary. It may be impossible to determine the origin of discharges or 
deposits found in the Sanctuary after the dumping activity has 
occurred.
    Response: The prohibition on discharges from outside the boundary 
relates to discharges that enter and injure Sanctuary resources. NOAA 
must establish that discharges not only enter, but injure the resources 
before enforcement actions will be taken. It will, therefore be 
desirable for NOAA to undertake a comprehensive monitoring program by 
which it can determine ecosystem health and use impacts.
    Comment: NOAA should impose unlimited liability for spills extended 
to shipping companies and firms providing original source materials 
involved in polluting activities.
    Response: NOAA is permitted to seek penalties of up to $100,000 per 
day for a violation pursuant to section 307(c)(1) of the MPRSA (16 
U.S.C. 1437(c)(1)), and for natural resource damages pursuant to 
section 312 of the MPRSA (16 U.S.C. 1443).
Transboundary Coordination
    Comment: NOAA should coordinate with other Federal and Canadian 
authorities to regulate vessel traffic, reduce the risk of oil spills, 
and eliminate oil and gas drilling in Canadian waters adjacent to the 
proposed sanctuary. NOAA should encourage an adjacent sanctuary along 
the west coast of Vancouver Island.
    Response: NOAA agrees and is working with the Canadian Coast Guard, 
the U.S. Coast Guard and the Washington OMS to reduce the risk of oil 
spills. The regulation of vessel traffic will currently remain with the 
U.S. and Canadian Coast Guards and the OMS. NOAA will support any 
Canadian initiative to designate a marine protected area in Canadian 
waters on the Pacific Coast.
Beach Management Policies
    Comment: NOAA should grandfather in the existing beach management 
policies including allowable beach driving activities.
    Response: The boundary of the Sanctuary does not encompass beaches 
where beach driving is permitted.
Advisory Committee/Decision Making
    Comment: NOAA and the State of Washington should work together to 
determine the composition of the Sanctuary Advisory Committee (SAC). 
The SAC should include representatives from private landowners, local 
industry, the county and tribes. The SAC should be based at the local 
level to oversee operations and help maintain strong local input.
    Response: NOAA will work with local user and interest groups and 
state and local governments to obtain broad representation on the SAC. 
The law limits the SAC to no more than 15 members.
    Comment: The SAC should have the power to direct the Sanctuary 
manger and set priorities for funding. The SAC decisions should be 
binding. If the decisions are not binding, then the manager should at 
least provide a rationale for any actions taken which are directly 
contrary to the recommendations of the SAC.
    Response: The SAC recommendations to the manager will be 
instrumental in guiding the manager with respect to prioritizing 
actions. If the manager chooses not to pursue the recommendations of 
the SAC, a rationale will be provided to the members of the SAC.
    Comment: One of the first tasks of the SAC should be to review and 
update the State of Washington's coastal zone management program to 
ensure consistency with the Sanctuary management plan. The Sanctuary 
management plan goals and objectives should also be reviewed.
    Response: Prior to designation, the State of Washington will review 
the FEIS/MP as part of its consistency determination as it relates to 
Washington's approved coastal zone management program. The WDOE has 
jurisdiction for the Shoreline Management Act. The SAC will not share 
that jurisdiction, rather, the SAC will be responsible for reviewing 
the Sanctuary management plan goals and objectives. The SAC's first 
priority will be to help determine the five-year Sanctuary operating 
plan establishing priorities for education, research, monitoring, 
facilities siting and administration.
Miscellaneous
    Comment: Firearms should be controlled or banned within the 
Sanctuary.
    Response: Possession and use of firearms is regulated by State law 
for public safety purposes. The primary purpose of Sanctuary 
designation is resource protection.
Management Alternatives/Strategies
    Comment: The administrative models being discussed in the Northwest 
Straits proposal should be considered.
    Response: The administrative model identifying NOAA as the lead 
agency in managing the sanctuary with guidance and assistance from the 
SAC (which will represent State and local interests) will be 
implemented in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. The 
administrative model which involves joint administration between NOAA 
and the State of Washington was not considered for the Olympic Coast 
National Marine Sanctuary because the Sanctuary is predominately in 
Federal waters. One model suggested for the proposed Northwest Straits 
National Marine Sanctuary focuses on joint administration because the 
Sanctuary would be located entirely within State waters. NOAA will work 
closely with the state and counties and other Federal agencies in the 
administration of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.
    Comment: The management plan needs to account for tribal 
sovereignty and jurisdiction with respect to cultural resources, law 
enforcement and research practices. NOAA needs to recognize the need to 
coordinate with each tribal entity in the same manner as with the state 
and its management agencies.
    Response: NOAA acknowledges the importance of tribal sovereignty. 
Nothing in the designation will impact the treaty rights of the coastal 
tribes. NOAA will consult closely with the tribes on any action that 
may potentially impact tribal rights or interests.
    Comment: NOAA should choose management plan alternative 1 which 
proposes to gradually phase in program activities and staffing. Staff 
could be co-located with another Federal agency in Port Angeles, with 
satellite sites in Klaloch or La Push. National concerns with fiscal 
restraint support this choice.
    Some commenters supported management plan alternative 2 which 
proposes to set up the sanctuary headquarters and immediately provide 
full-staffing. Sanctuary headquarters should be located on the coast. 
The former Makah Air Force Station is one possible location.
    Response: NOAA is experiencing the fiscal constraints that all 
Federal programs are experiencing. NOAA proposes to balance the needs 
for resource protection and fiscal restraint by phasing in staffing and 
maximizing cooperative relationships with other agencies and 
jurisdictions working in the area (e.g., NPS, U.S. Coast Guard, the 
tribes, and the USFWS) to implement the management plan. The Sanctuary 
manager will have an office on the Olympic Coast with administrative 
support facilities in Seattle.
    Comment: Implementation of the final management plan must be 
adequately funded in order to prevent pollution and resource damage.
    Response: The level of funding for the first year after Sanctuary 
designation will depend upon the Sanctuary Program's funding which is 
authorized and appropriated by Act of Congress. However, the reality of 
the program's funding situation will require the manager and SAC to 
identify alternative sources of funding for Sanctuary programs.
    Comment: A volunteer program, coordinated by a full-time volunteer 
coordinator, should be established to assist in implementation of the 
management plan.
    Response: NOAA agrees that the establishment of a volunteer program 
can assist in implementation of the management plan. The SAC will be 
influential in determining the priority of hiring a volunteer 
coordinator.
    Comment: The management alternatives should more accurately 
describe NOAA's comprehensive planning as implemented through a 
combination of legal management authority over certain specific 
Sanctuary activities and advisory coordination with other entities 
managing the remaining essential components.
    Response: NOAA agrees. The FEIS/MP outlines the regulations which 
NOAA is promulgating. The FEIS/MP also outlines the role of the SAC, 
whose composition is aimed at enhancing the coordination with other 
entities with management jurisdiction in the Sanctuary.
    Comment: The Sanctuary manager should have a great deal of 
responsibility for setting the Sanctuary budget, as well as assigning 
funds to local governments for assistance in implementing management 
plans.
    Response: The Sanctuary manager will have primary responsibility 
for recommending the Sanctuary budget to headquarters. The Sanctuaries 
and Reserves Division has responsibility for the entire National Marine 
Sanctuary Program budget, and will work with the site manager to 
develop the annual program budget. The manager has the discretion to 
earmark funds to local governments or groups to implement Sanctuary 
programs.
    Comment: Zoning plans should be implemented which accommodate the 
varying resource management needs within the Sanctuary. Some zoning 
examples include allowing for the needs of ports to the south, 
designating areas which would be closed to all consumptive uses on a 
rotating basis, and zoning specific areas within the sanctuary for the 
sole purposes of research, recreational use, commercial use and no use.
    Response: Zoning is not anticipated as part of the FEIS/MP for the 
Sanctuary. If NOAA, in consultation with the SAC, believes that zoning 
would better meet the needs of the program, the management plan and 
regulations can be amended in accordance with the requirements of the 
MPRSA, the NEPA and the APA.
Research/Education Protocol
    Comment: Research results and data should be shared through 
existing databases with Federal and state agencies and tribes. The 
sharing of data should be formalized through cooperative agreements.
    Response: NOAA agrees that research results and data should be 
shared and will pursue appropriate cooperative agreements to ensure 
this coordination.
    Comment: It is unnecessary to severely restrict or eliminate 
activities such as fishing, commercial vessel activity, dredging and 
aircraft operation in order to carry out the Sanctuary goals of 
promoting research and public education.
    Response: The primary goal of sanctuary designation is the 
comprehensive long-term protection of marine resources. Some 
restrictions are necessary to accomplish this goal. Of the above 
activities, only dredging is being eliminated within the Sanctuary 
boundary. Research and education provide additional means to promote 
the goal of marine resource protection.
    Comment: Geophysical exploration should not be prohibited, as the 
information gathered from this research can benefit coastal communities 
and academic institutions.
    Response: NOAA's emphasis on research within the Sanctuary allows 
for research which may involve an otherwise prohibited activity (such 
as alteration of or construction on the seabed) as long as researchers 
obtain a research permit pursuant to Sec. 925.9 of the Sanctuary 
regulations. NOAA will determine the environmental consequences of the 
proposed research, including short and long term effects on marine 
biota (such as noise which may interfere with cetacean communication) 
in deciding whether to issue a permit.
    Comment: The research program should stress applied research such 
as research which can facilitate fisheries management, provide 
information on long-term environmental trends, and provide links 
between the marine systems and the adjacent terrestrial systems. 
Providing research results to decision makers at the various 
governmental levels would be an important link in addressing marine 
resource problems.
    Response: NOAA agrees and has clarified this point in the research 
section of the management plan.
    Comment: Criteria for acceptable research within the Sanctuary 
should be established prior to formal designation of the Sanctuary. The 
criteria should be used in review of research permit applications, and 
an appeal process should be established in the case of research permit 
application denial.
    Response: Research permit applications will be reviewed on a case-
by-case basis and evaluated to determine the potential short and long 
term impacts of the proposed activities. In addition, Sec. 925.12 of 
the regulations sets forth the procedures for appealing to the 
Assistant Administrator the denial of a research permit.
    Comment: NOAA should conduct research into the effects of fishing 
activities on the entire marine system. Fish stocks, species abundance, 
and monitoring information should be presented to the PFMC.
    Response: The National Ocean Service (which includes the 
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division) and the NMFS have entered into a 
Memorandum of Understanding outlining the working relationship between 
the Sanctuary Program and the NMFS. The PFMC will be involved in this 
agreement, through its relationship with the NMFS. Research which 
benefits the overall goal of resource protection is addressed within 
this agreement by highlighting the need for interagency coordination, 
research and monitoring.
    Comment: The benefits of sanctuary designation to the fishing 
community and others should be clearly articulated. Additionally, 
connections between the regulations and resource protection should be 
integrated in the education plan (e.g., establishing warning signs at 
popular access sites to alert boaters and hikers to the effect of 
disturbance of pelagic birds and marine mammals.)
    Response: NOAA agrees and has clarified the education goals in the 
Sanctuary management plan. NOAA has articulated the benefits of the 
Sanctuary program for the fishing community. NOAA will coordinate with 
the USFWS and the NPS to post warning signs around critical marine bird 
and mammal habitat.
    Comment: NOAA should provide for increased education and 
interpretation of the shoreline through a variety of media. Educational 
materials and outreach programs should be developed by pre-existing 
facilities and organizations on the Olympic Peninsula.
    Response: Sanctuary designation will provide for increased 
education and interpretation of the entire Sanctuary ecosystem. 
Education materials and outreach programs will be developed in 
cooperation with existing Federal, tribal, state and local entities.

Issue: Informational Amendments of the DEIS/MP

Biological Amendments
    Comment: The discussion of the neretic and shelf edge environments 
in the DEIS/MP needs to be expanded. The resource assessment must 
stress the biological richness of the area.
    Response: The resource assessment describing the ecosystem of the 
Sanctuary study area has been expanded in the FEIS/MP.
    Comment: Biological resources need to be discussed in terms of 
ecosystem interactions and not single species descriptions.
    Response: NOAA has expanded the discussion to include a description 
of the study area from an ecosystem perspective.
Socioeconomic
    Comment: The FEIS/MP must contain a socioeconomic impact study of 
the regulations on the affected coastal communities and Tribes. Failure 
to consider and mitigate these impacts violates the NEPA and Federal 
Trust responsibility to Indians.
    Response: An economic analysis has been included within the FEIS/
MP. NOAA is not promulgating regulations that will unduly burden the 
tribes. The regulations have provisions that recognize treaty secured 
rights. In addition, NOAA will consult with the Tribes when considering 
permits affecting proposed development activities in the Sanctuary. 
NOAA believes that the regulations do not conflict with the economic 
interests of the Tribes since the regulations offer increased 
protection for those natural resources critical to the tribal economy.
    Comment: The Federal government should investigate the possibility 
of tax breaks to offset economic impacts of the management plan.
    Response: NOAA's actions do not add economic burdens to the area. 
The issue of tax breaks should be addressed to an individual's 
representatives in Congress. NOAA does not have the legislative 
authority to address tax laws.
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement
    Comment: NOAA should submit a supplemental Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement for the following reasons: (1) The DEIS/MP lacks a 
satisfactory examination of the socioeconomic impacts of the 
regulations on the coastal communities; (2) the DEIS/MP contains 
erroneous information related to port activities in Grays Harbor; (3) 
some information is missing, outdated, or inaccurate; (4) inadequate 
definition of the unique environment deserving protection that is 
identified by the SEL.
    Response: NOAA has determined that the matters for which an SEIS 
has been requested can be addressed in the FEIS/MP. The FEIS/MP 
addresses the socioeconomic impacts of regulations that could 
potentially affect the coastal communities in the alternatives and 
consequences section. Further, the vessel traffic section has been 
amended substantially to provide a detailed description of the 
significance of vessel traffic to the coastal communities. 
Additionally, the description of the marine environment under 
consideration has been expanded greatly.
Management
    Comment: NOAA needs to address or recognize a number of current 
local and state regulatory controls in place within the shoreline 
areas.
    Response: NOAA has addressed local and state regulatory controls 
within the shoreline areas. These controls are listed in appendix J.
    The following sets forth the text of the Designation Document for 
the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.

Designation Document for the Olympic Coast National Marine 
Sanctuary

    Under the authority of Title III of the Marine Protection, 
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (the ``Act''), 16 
U.S.C. 1431 et seq., the waters off the Olympic Coast of Washington 
State including the U.S. portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca west of 
Koitlah Point, and the submerged lands thereunder, as described in 
Article II, are hereby designated as the Olympic Coast National Marine 
Sanctuary for the purposes of protecting and managing the conservation, 
ecological, recreational, research, educational, historical and 
aesthetic resources and qualities of the area.

Article I. Effect of Designation

    The Act authorizes the issuance of such final 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 Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. Section 1 of 
Article IV of this Designation Document lists activities that either 
will be regulated on the effective date of designation or may have to 
be regulated at some later date in order to protect Sanctuary resources 
and qualities. Listing does not necessarily mean that a type of 
activity will be regulated; however, if an activity is not listed, it 
may not be regulated, except on an emergency basis, unless section 1 of 
Article IV is amended to include the type of activity by the same 
procedures by which the original designation was made.

Article II. Description of the Sanctuary Area

    The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary boundary encompasses 
approximately 2500 square nautical miles (approximately 8577 sq. 
kilometers) of coastal and ocean waters, and the submerged lands 
thereunder, off the central and northern coast of the State of 
Washington. The Sanctuary boundary extends from Koitlah Point due north 
to the United States/Canada international boundary seaward to the 100 
fathom isobath. The seaward boundary of the Sanctuary approximates the 
100 fathom isobath in a southerly direction from the U.S./Canada 
international boundary to a point due west of the Copalis River, 
cutting across the heads of Nitnat, Juan de Fuca, and Quinault Canyons.
    The shoreward boundary of the Sanctuary is the mean lower low water 
line when adjacent to Indian reservations and State and county lands. 
When adjacent to Federally managed lands, the coastal boundary extends 
to the mean higher high water line. The coastal boundary cuts across 
the mouths of all rivers and streams. The precise boundary of the 
Sanctuary is set forth in Appendix A of this Designation Document.

Article III. Characteristics of the Sanctuary Area That Give It 
Particular Value

    The Sanctuary is a highly productive, nearly pristine ocean and 
coastal environment that is important to the continued survival of 
several ecologically and commercially important species of fish, 
seabirds, and marine mammals. Its rugged and undeveloped coastline 
makes the region one of the more dramatic natural wonders of the 
coastal United States, paralleling the majestic splendor of such 
terrestrial counterparts as Yosemite National Park and the Grand 
Tetons. The region's high biological productivity is fueled by seasonal 
enhanced upwelling along the edge of the continental shelf, especially 
at submarine canyons, during periods of high solar radiation.
    The diversity of habitats that make up the Sanctuary support a 
great variety of biological communities. This unusually large range of 
habitat types include: Offshore islands and rocks; some of the most 
diverse kelp beds in the world; intertidal pools; erosional features 
such as rocky headlands, seastacks, and arches; interspersed exposed 
beaches and protected bays; submarine canyons and ridges; the 
continental shelf, including a broad shallow plateau extending from the 
mouth of the Juan de Fuca canyon; and continental slope environments. 
The numerous seastacks and rocky outcrops along the Sanctuary 
shoreline, coupled with a large tidal range and wave splash zone, 
support some of the most diverse and complex intertidal zones in the 
United States.
    The Sanctuary provides an essential habitat for a wide variety of 
marine mammals and birds, and is of particular interest due to the 
presence of endangered and threatened species that live or migrate 
through the region. Twenty seven species of marine mammals are reported 
to breed, rest within, or migrate offshore of the Olympic Peninsula. Of 
particular interest is the migration route of the endangered California 
gray whale, the threatened northern sea lion, the occasional presence 
of the endangered right, fin, sei, blue, humpback, and sperm whales, 
and the reintroduced resident population of sea otters.
    In addition, the seabird colonies of Washington's outer coast are 
among the largest in the continental United States and include a number 
of species listed as endangered or threatened including the short-
tailed albatross, peregrine falcon, brown pelican, Aleutian Canada 
goose, marbled murrelet, and one of the largest populations of bald 
eagles in the continental United States.
    The high biological productivity of the coastal and offshore waters 
in the Sanctuary support valuable fisheries that contribute 
significantly to the State and tribal economies. The commercially 
important species of fish include five species of salmon, groundfish, 
and shellfish.
    In addition to the Sanctuary's value with respect to its biological 
resources, the region encompasses significant historical resources 
including Indian village sites, ancient canoe runs, petroglyphs, Indian 
artifacts, and numerous shipwrecks.
    The diversity and richness of marine resources suggests that the 
marine sanctuary designations will provide exceptional opportunities 
for scientific research in the areas of species interactions, 
population dynamics, physiological ecology, linkages between 
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and marine anthropology. The 
scientific research encouraged by the Sanctuary management plan will, 
in turn, help support an intensive public education and awareness 
program that will address the diverse, complex, and sensitive 
ecosystems in Washington's coastal and oceanic environments.

Article IV. Scope of Regulations

Section 1. Activities Subject to Regulation
    The following activities are subject to regulation, including 
prohibition, to the extent necessary and reasonable to ensure the 
protection and management of the conservation, ecological, 
recreational, research, educational, historical and aesthetic resources 
and qualities of the area:
    a. Exploring for, developing, or producing oil, gas or minerals 
(e.g., clay, stone, sand, metalliferous ores, gravel, non-metalliferous 
ores or any other solid material or other solid matter of commercial 
value) within the Sanctuary;
    b. Discharging or depositing from within the boundary of the 
Sanctuary, any material or other matter;
    c. Discharging or depositing, from beyond the boundary of the 
Sanctuary, any material or other matter;
    d. 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, a marine mammal, sea turtle, seabird, historical 
resource or other Sanctuary resource;
    e. 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;
    f. Possessing within the Sanctuary a Sanctuary resource or any 
other resource, regardless of where taken, removed, moved, caught, 
collected or harvested, that, if it had been found within the 
Sanctuary, would be a Sanctuary resource;
    g. Flying a motorized aircraft above the Sanctuary;
    h. Operating a vessel (i.e., watercraft of any description in the 
Sanctuary;
    i. Interfacing with, obstructing, delaying or preventing an 
investigation, search, seizure or disposition of seized property in 
connection with enforcement of the Act or any regulation or permit 
issued under the Act.
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 and all activities, 
including those not listed in Section 1 of this Article, are subject to 
immediate temporary regulation, including prohibition.

Article V. Effect on Leases, Permits, Licenses, and Rights

    Pursuant to section 304(c)(1) of the Act, 16 U.S.C. 1434(c)(1), no 
valid lease, permit, license, or other authorization issued by any 
Federal, State, or local authority of competent jurisdiction, or any 
right of subsistence use of access, may be terminated by the Secretary 
of Commerce or designee as a result of this designation. The Secretary 
of Commerce or designee, however, may regulate the exercise (including, 
but not limited to, the imposition of terms and conditions) of such 
authorization or right consistent with the purposes for which the 
Sanctuary is designated.
    In no event may the Secretary or designee issue a permit 
authorizing, or otherwise approve: (1) Exploration for, development or 
production of oil, gas or minerals within the Sanctuary; (2) the 
discharge of primary treated sewage (except for regulation, pursuant to 
section 304(c)(2) of the Act, of the exercise of valid authorizations 
in existence on the effective date of Sanctuary designation and issued 
by other authorities of competent jurisdiction); (3) the disposal of 
dredged material within the Sanctuary other than in connection with 
beach nourishment projects related to harbor maintenance activities; or 
(4) bombing activities within the Sanctuary. Any purported 
authorizations issued by other authorities after the effective date of 
Sanctuary designation for any of these activities within the Sanctuary 
shall be invalid.

Article VI. Alteration of This Designation

    The terms of designation, as defined under Section 304(a) of the 
Act, may be modified only by the same procedures by which the original 
designation is made, including public hearings consultation with 
interested Federal, State, and local agencies, review by the 
appropriate Congressional committees and the Governor of the State of 
Washington, and approval by the Secretary of Commerce or designee.

      Appendix A.--Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Boundary     
                              Coordinates.                              
                 [Based on North American Datum of 1983]                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            2500 square nautical miles  
                 Point                   -------------------------------
                                             Latitude        Longitude  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................  47 deg.07'45''  124 deg.11'02'
                                                                       '
2.......................................  47 deg.07'45''  124 deg.58'12'
                                                                       '
3.......................................  47 deg.35'50''  125 deg.00'00'
                                                                       '
4.......................................  47 deg.40'05''  125 deg.04'44'
                                                                       '
5.......................................  47 deg.50'01''  125 deg.05'42'
                                                                       '
6.......................................  47 deg.57'13''  125 deg.29'13'
                                                                       '
7.......................................  48 deg.07'33''  125 deg.38'20'
                                                                       '
8.......................................  48 deg.14'46''  125 deg.40'59'
                                                                       '
9.......................................  48 deg.20'12''  125 deg.22'59'
                                                                       '
10......................................  48 deg.27'49''  125 deg.06'04'
                                                                       '
11......................................  48 deg.29'59''  124 deg.59'13'
                                                                       '
12......................................  48 deg.30'19''  124 deg.50'42'
                                                                       '
13......................................  48 deg.29'38''  124 deg.43'41'
                                                                       '
14......................................  48 deg.27'50''  124 deg.38'13'
                                                                       '
15......................................  48 deg.23'17''  124 deg.38'13'
                                                                      ' 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Final Management Plan

    The FEIS/MP for the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary sets 
forth the Sanctuary's location and provides details on the most 
important resources and uses of the Sanctuary. The FEIS/MP describes 
the resources and uses of the Sanctuary. The FEIS/MP describes the 
resource protection, research, education and interpretive programs, and 
establishes goals and objectives to be accomplished by each program. 
The FEIS/MP includes a detailed discussion, by program area, of agency 
roles and responsibilities.
    The goals and objectives for the Sanctuary are:

Resource Protection

    The highest priority management goal is to protect the marine 
environment, resources and qualities of the Sanctuary. The specific 
objectives of protection efforts are to:
    (1) Coordinate policies and procedures among agencies sharing 
responsibility for protection and management of resources;
    (2) Encourage participation by interested agencies and 
organizations in the development of procedures to address specific 
management concerns (e.g., monitoring and emergency-response programs);
    (3) Develop an effective and coordinated program for the 
enforcement of Sanctuary regulations;
    (4) Enforce Sanctuary regulations in addition to other regulations 
already in place;
    (5) Promote public awareness of, and voluntary compliance with, 
Sanctuary regulations and objectives, through an educational/
interpretive program stressing resource sensitivity and wise use;
    (6) Ensure that the water quality of the coastal and ocean waters 
off the Olympic Peninsula is maintained at a level consonant with 
Sanctuary designation;
    (7) Establish mechanisms for coordination among all the agencies 
participating in Sanctuary management;
    (8) Ensure that the appropriate management agencies incorporate 
research results and scientific data into effective resource protection 
strategies; and
    (9) Reduce threats to Sanctuary resources and qualities.

Research Program

    Effective management of the Sanctuary requires the implementation 
of a Sanctuary research program. The purpose of Sanctuary research 
activities is to improve understanding of the marine environment off 
the Olympic peninsula, its resources and qualities, and to resolve 
specific management problems, some of which may involve resources 
common to both the marine and upland freshwater environments. Research 
results will be used in interpretive programs for visitors, for those 
living on the Peninsula, and working adjacent to or in the Sanctuary, 
others interested in the Sanctuary, as well as for protection and 
management of resources and qualities.
    Specific objectives of the research program are to:
    (1) Establish a framework and procedures for administering research 
to ensure that research projects are responsive to management concerns 
and that results contribute to improve management of the Sanctuary;
    (2) Incorporate research results into the interpretive/education 
program in a format useful for the general public;
    (3) Focus and coordinate data collection efforts on the physical, 
chemical, geological and biological oceanography of the Sanctuary;
    (4) Encourage studies that integrate research from the variety of 
coastal habitats with nearshore and open ocean processes;
    (5) Initiate a monitoring program to assess environmental changes 
as they occur due to natural and human processes;
    (6) Identify the range of effects on the environment that would 
result from predicted changes in human activity or natural phenomena; 
and
    (7) Encourage information exchange among all the organizations and 
agencies undertaking management-related research in the Sanctuary to 
promote more informed management.

Education Program

    The goal for the education program is to improve public awareness 
and understanding of the significance of the Sanctuary resources and 
qualities to foster a heightened sense of stewardship for Sanctuary 
resources and qualities.
    The management objectives designed to meet this goal are to:
    (1) Provide the public with information on the Sanctuary and its 
goals and objectives, with an emphasis on the need to use Sanctuary 
resources and qualities wisely to ensure their long-term viability;
    (2) Broaden support for the Sanctuary management by offering 
programs suited to visitors with a range of diverse interests;
    (3) Foster public involvement by encouraging feedback on the 
effectiveness of education programs, collaboration with Sanctuary 
management staff in extension and outreach programs, and participation 
in other volunteer programs; and
    (4) Collaborate with other organizations to provide educational 
services complementary to the Sanctuary program.

Visitor Use

    The Sanctuary goal for visitor management is to facilitate, to the 
extent compatible with the primary objective of resource protection, 
public and private uses of the resources of the Sanctuary not 
prohibited pursuant to other authorities.
    Specific management objectives are to:
    (1) Provide relevant information about Sanctuary regulations, use 
policies and standards;
    (2) Collaborate with public and private organizations in promoting 
compatible uses of the Sanctuary;
    (3) Encourage the public who use the Sanctuary to respect sensitive 
Sanctuary resources and qualities; and
    (4) Monitor and assess the levels of use to identify and control 
potential degradation of resources and qualities and minimize potential 
user conflicts.
    The Sanctuary headquarters will be located in Port Angeles, WA with 
an initial satellite office near Forks, WA.

IV. Summary of Regulations

    The regulations set forth the boundary of the Sanctuary; prohibit a 
relatively narrow range of activities; set forth procedures for 
applying for national marine sanctuary permits to conduct prohibited 
activities; set forth certification procedures for existing leases, 
licenses, permits, other authorizations or rights authorizing the 
conduct of a prohibited activity; set forth notification and review 
procedures for applications for licenses, permits, or other 
authorizations to conduct a prohibited activity; set forth the maximum 
per-day penalties for violating Sanctuary regulations; and set forth 
procedures for administrative appeals.
    The regulations are codified in part 925 of title 15, Code of 
Federal Regulations.
    Section 925.1 sets forth as the purpose of the regulations to 
implement the designation of the Olympic Coast National Marine 
Sanctuary by regulating activities affecting the Sanctuary consistent 
with the terms of that designation in order to protect and manage the 
conservation, ecological, recreational, research, educational, 
historical and aesthetic resources and qualities of the area.
    Section 925.2 and Appendix A following Sec. 925.12 set forth the 
boundary of the Sanctuary.
    Section 925.3 defines various terms used in the regulations. Other 
terms appearing in the regulations are defined at 15 CFR 922.2 and/or 
in the MPRSA.
    Section 925.4 allows all activities except those prohibited by 
Sec. 925.5 to be undertaken subject to the requirements of any 
emergency regulation promulgated pursuant to Sec. 925.6, subject to all 
prohibitions, restrictions and conditions validly imposed by any other 
authority of competent jurisdiction, and subject to the liability 
established by Section 312 of the Act.
    Section 925.5 prohibits a variety of activities and thus makes it 
unlawful for any person to conduct them or cause them to be conducted. 
However, any of the prohibited activities except for:
    (1) The exploration for, development or production of oil, gas or 
minerals in the Sanctuary;
    (2) The discharge of primary-treated sewage within the Sanctuary 
(except pursuant to certification under Sec. 925.10, of a valid 
authorization in existence on the effective date of Sanctuary 
designation and issued by other authorities of competent jurisdiction);
    (3) The disposal of dredged material within the Sanctuary other 
than in connection with beach nourishment projects related to harbor 
maintenance activities; and
    (4) Bombing activities within the Sanctuary could be conducted 
lawfully if:
    (1) The activity is necessary to respond to an emergency 
threatening life, property, or the environment (not applicable to the 
prohibitions against takings and interference with law enforcement); 
necessary for valid law enforcement purposes; authorized by a National 
Marine Sanctuary permit issued under Sec. 925.9 (not applicable to the 
prohibition against interference with law enforcement); or authorized 
by a Special Use Permit issued under Section 310 of the Act (not 
applicable to the prohibition against interference with law 
enforcement);
    (2) With regard to Department of Defense activities: (A) the 
activity is an existing military activity including hull integrity 
tests and other deep water tests; live firing of guns, missiles, 
torpedoes, and chaff; activities associated with the Quinault Range 
including the in-water testing of non-explosive torpedoes; and anti-
submarine warfare operations, or (B) the activity is a new activity and 
exempted by the Director of the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource 
Management or designee after consultation between the Director or 
designee and the Department of Defense. The regulations require that 
the Department of Defense carry out its activities in a manner that 
avoids to the maximum extent practicable any adverse impact on 
Sanctuary resources and qualities and that it, in the event of 
threatened or actual destruction of, loss of, or injury to a Sanctuary 
resource or quality resulting from an untoward incident, including but 
not limited to spills and groundings, caused by it, promptly coordinate 
with the Director or designee for the purpose of taking appropriate 
actions to respond to and mitigate the harm and, if possible, restore 
or replace the Sanctuary resource or quality. The final regulation 
regarding Department of Defense activities differs from the proposed 
regulation principally by prohibiting all bombing activities within the 
Sanctuary;
    (3) The activity is authorized by a certification by the Director 
of the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management or designee 
under Sec. 924.10 of a valid lease, permit, license or other 
authorization issued by any Federal, State or local authority of 
competent jurisdiction and in existence on (or conducted pursuant to 
any valid right of subsistence use or access in existence on) the 
effective date of this designation, subject to complying with any terms 
and conditions imposed by the Director or designee as he or she deems 
necessary to achieve the purposes for which the Sanctuary was 
designated, except that treaty rights of a Federally recognized Indian 
tribe may be exercised by the tribe without certification by the 
Director or designee;
    (4) The activity is authorized by a valid lease, permit, license, 
or other authorization issued by any Federal, State or local authority 
of competent jurisdiction after the effective date of Sanctuary 
designation, provided that the Director of the Office of Ocean and 
Coastal Resource Management or designee was notified of the application 
in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 925.11, the applicant 
complies with the requirements of Sec. 925.11, the Director or designee 
notifies the applicant and authorizing agency that he or she does not 
object to issuance of the authorization, and the applicant complies 
with any terms and conditions the Director or designee deems necessary 
to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities.
    The first activity prohibited is exploring for, developing or 
producing oil, gas or minerals within the Sanctuary. With regard to oil 
and gas, this regulation implements the requirements of Section 2207 of 
the Oceans Act of 1992 which prohibits ``oil or gas leasing or pre-
leasing activity [from being] conducted within the area designated as 
the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary * * *.'' The resources and 
qualities of the coastal and offshore waters of the Olympic Peninsula, 
particularly the sea birds and pinnipeds that use the haul-out sites, 
kelp forests and rocks along the Olympic Coast, and the high water 
quality of the area, are especially vulnerable to oil and gas 
activities in the area. A prohibition on oil and gas exploration, 
development and production activities within the Sanctuary boundary 
partially protects Sanctuary resources and qualities from oil and gas 
activities. Only partial protection will be provided due to the 
remaining threat from oil and gas from vessel traffic transiting 
through and near the Sanctuary, particularly oil tankers not operating 
in accordance with the voluntary agreement of the Western States 
Petroleum Association to remain 50 nautical miles from shore. A 
prohibition on mineral activities within the Sanctuary is consistent 
with the prohibition on alteration of or construction on the seabed as 
discussed below. ``Mineral'' is defined to mean clay, stone, sand, 
gravel, metalliferous ore, nonmetalliferous ore, or any other solid 
material or other solid matter of commercial value. The prohibition on 
oil, gas and mineral activities additionally will prevent the negative 
effects of physical and possible chemical disturbances associated with 
extraction activities, e.g., destruction of benthic biota; resuspension 
of fine sediments; interference with filtering, feeding and respiratory 
functions of marine organisms; loss of food sources and habitats; and 
lowered photosynthesis and oxygen levels.
    The second activity prohibited is depositing or discharging from 
within the boundary of the Sanctuary any material or other matter 
except:
    (1) Fish, fish parts, chumming materials or bait used in or 
resulting from traditional fishing operations in the Sanctuary;
    (2) Biodegradable effluent incidental to vessel use and generated 
by marine sanitation devices approved in accordance with Section 312 of 
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (FWPCA), 33 U.S.C. 
1322 et seq.;
    (3) Water generated by routine vessel operations (e.g., cooling 
water, deck wash down and graywater as defined by Section 312 of the 
FWPCA) excluding oily-wastes from bilge pumping;
    (4) Engine exhaust; and
    (5) Dredge spoil in connection with beach nourishment projects 
related to harbor maintenance activities.
    This prohibition is necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and 
qualities from the effects of pollutants deposited or discharged into 
the Sanctuary.
    After expiration of current permits, discharges from municipal 
treatment plants will be subject to the review process of Sec. 925.11. 
At a minimum, secondary treatment will be required. Depending on the 
risk to Sanctuary resources and qualities, greater treatment may be 
required. The intent of this prohibition is to protect Sanctuary 
resources and qualities from the effects of land and sea originating 
pollutants.
    The third activity prohibited is depositing or discharging, from 
beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary, any material or other matter that 
subsequently enters the Sanctuary and injures a Sanctuary resource or 
quality, except for the five exclusions discussed above for the second 
prohibited activity.
    The fourth activity prohibited is moving, removing or injuring or 
attempting to move, remove or injure a Sanctuary historical resource. 
Historical resources in the marine environment are fragile, finite and 
non-renewable. This prohibition is designed to protect these resources 
so that they may be researched and information about their contents and 
type made available for the benefit of the public. This prohibition 
does not apply to moving, removing or injury resulting incidentally 
from traditional fishing operations.
    Historical resources located within the Sanctuary that are of 
significance to an Indian tribe(s) (e.g., submerged Indian villages) 
will be managed so as to protect other Sanctuary resources and the 
interests of the governing body of an Indian tribe(s) in such 
historical resources. If an Indian tribe determines that a historical 
resource of tribal significance may be researched, excavated or 
salvaged, the Sanctuary manager may issue a Sanctuary permit if the 
criteria for issuance have been met (See Sec. 925.9). Removal or 
attempted removal of any Indian cultural resource or artifact may only 
occur with the express written consent of the governing body of the 
tribe or tribes to which such resource or artifact pertains.
    The fifth activity prohibited is 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 if any of the above results 
incidentally from: (1) Anchoring vessels; (2) traditional fishing 
operations; (3) installation of navigation aids; (4) harbor maintenance 
in the areas necessarily associated with Federal Projects in existence 
on the effective date of Sanctuary designation, including dredging of 
entrance channels and harbors, and repair, replacement or 
rehabilitation of breakwaters and jetties; (5) construction, repair, 
replacement, enhancement or rehabilitation of boat launches, docks or 
piers and associated breakwaters and jetties; or (6) beach nourishment 
projects related to harbor maintenance activities. Federal projects are 
any water resources development projects conducted by the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers or operating under a permit or authorization issued 
by the Corps of Engineers and authorized by Federal law.
    The intent of this prohibition is to protect the resources and 
qualities of the Sanctuary from the harmful effects of activities such 
as, but not limited to, archaeological excavations, drilling into the 
seabed, strip mining, laying of pipelines and outfalls, and offshore 
commercial development, which may disrupt and/or destroy sensitive 
marine benthic habitats, such as kelp beds, invertebrate populations, 
fish habitats and estuaries.
    The sixth activity prohibited is taking marine mammals, sea turtles 
or seabirds in or above the Sanctuary, except as authorized by NMFS or 
USFWS under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as 
amended, (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., the Endangered Species Act, as 
amended, (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and the Migratory Bird Treaty 
Act, as amended, (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq., or pursuant to a treaty 
with an Indian tribe to which the United States is a party, provided 
that the treaty right is exercised in accordance with the MMPA, ESA and 
MBTA, to the extent that they apply. The term ``taking'' includes all 
forms of harassment. The MMPA, ESA and MBTA prohibit the taking of 
species protected under those acts. The prohibition overlaps with the 
MMPA, ESA and MBTA but also extends protection for Sanctuary resources 
on an environmentally holistic basis and provides a greater deterrent 
with civil penalties of up to $100,000 per taking. The prohibition 
covers all marine mammals, sea turtles and seabirds in or above the 
Sanctuary. The prohibition recognizes existing treaty rights to hunt 
marine mammals, sea turtles and seabirds to the extent that the treaty 
rights have not been abrogated by provisions of the MMPA, ESA or MBTA.
    The seventh activity prohibited is flying motorized aircraft at 
less than 2,000 feet (610m) both above the Sanctuary within one 
nautical mile of the Flattery Rocks, Quillayute Needles or Copalis 
National Wildlife Refuge, or within one nautical mile seaward of the 
coastal boundary of the Sanctuary, except as necessary for valid law 
enforcement purposes, for activities related to tribal timber 
operations conducted on reservation lands, or to transport persons or 
supplies to or from reservation lands as authorized by a governing body 
of an Indian tribe. This prohibition is designed to limit potential 
noise impacts, particularly those that might startle hauled-out seals 
and sea lions, and colonial seabirds along the shoreline margins of the 
Sanctuary.
    Both the eighth and ninth prohibitions serve to facilitate 
enforcement actions for violations of Sanctuary regulations. The eighth 
prohibition is the possession within the Sanctuary of any historical 
resource or marine mammal, sea turtle or seabird, regardless of where 
the resource was taken, except in compliance with the MMPA, ESA and 
MBTA and the ninth prohibition is interfering with, obstructing, 
delaying or preventing investigations, searches, seizures or 
disposition of seized property in connection with enforcement of the 
Act or any regulation or permit issued under the Act.
    Section 925.6 authorizes the regulation, including prohibition, on 
a temporary basis of any activity 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.
    Section 925.7 sets for the maximum statutory civil penalty for 
violating a regulation--$100,000. Each day of a continuing violation 
constitutes a separate violation. Section 925.8 repeats the provision 
in section 312 of the Act that any person who destroys, causes the loss 
of, or injures any sanctuary resource is liable to the United States 
for response costs and damages 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. The purpose of these sections is to draw the public's attention 
to the liability for violating a Sanctuary regulation or the Act.
    Regulations setting forth the procedures governing administrative 
proceedings for assessment of civil penalties, permit sanctions and 
denials for enforcement reasons, issuance and use of written warnings, 
and release or forfeiture of seized property appear in 15 CFR part 904.
    Section 925.9 sets forth the procedures for applying for a National 
Marine Sanctuary permit to conduct a prohibited activity and the 
criteria governing the issuance, denial, amendment, suspension and 
revocation of such permits. A permit may be granted by the Director of 
the Office for Ocean and Coastal Resource Management or designee if he 
or she finds that the activity will not substantially injure Sanctuary 
resources and qualities and will: Further research related to Sanctuary 
resources; further the educational, natural or historical resource 
value of the Sanctuary; further salvage or recovery operations in or 
near the Sanctuary in connection with a recent air or marine casualty; 
assist in the management of the Sanctuary; further salvage or recovery 
operations in connection with an abandoned shipwreck in the Sanctuary 
title to which is held by the State of Washington; or promote the 
welfare of any Indian tribe. In deciding whether to issue a permit, the 
Director or designee may consider such factors as the professional 
qualifications and financial ability of the applicant as related to the 
proposed activity, the duration of the activity and the duration of its 
effects, the appropriateness of the methods and procedures proposed by 
the applicant for the conduct of the activity, the extent to which the 
conduct of the activity may diminish or enhance Sanctuary resources and 
qualities, the cumulative effects of the activity, the end value of the 
activity, and the impacts of the activity on adjacent Indian tribes. In 
addition, the Director or designee is authorized to consider any other 
factors she or he deems appropriate.
    Section 925.10 sets forth procedures for requesting certification 
of leases, licenses, permits, other authorizations, or rights in 
existence on the date of Sanctuary designation authorizing the conduct 
of an activity prohibited under paragraphs (a)(2)-(8) of Sec. 925.5. 
Pursuant to paragraph (f) of Sec. 925.5, the prohibitions in paragraphs 
(a)(2)-(8) of Sec. 925.5 do not apply to any activity authorized by a 
valid lease, permit, license, or other authorization in existence on 
the effective date of Sanctuary designation and issued by any Federal, 
State or local authority of competent jurisdiction, or by any valid 
right of subsistence use or access in existence on the effective date 
of Sanctuary designation, provided that the holder of such 
authorization or right complies with the requirements of Sec. 925.10 
(e.g., notifies the Director or designee of the existence of, requests 
certification of, and provides requested information regarding such 
authorization or right) and complies with any terms and conditions on 
the exercise of such authorization or right imposed as a condition of 
certification by the Director or designee as she or he deems necessary 
to achieve the purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated.
    Section 925.10 allows the holder 90 days from the effective date of 
Sanctuary designation to request certification. The holder is allowed 
to conduct the activity without being in violation of the prohibitions 
in paragraphs (a)(2)-(8) of Sec. 925.5 with regard to which the holder 
is requesting certification pending final agency action on his or her 
certification request, provided the holder has complied with all 
requirements of Sec. 925.10.
    Section 925.10 also allows the Director or designee to request 
additional information from the holder and to seek the views of other 
persons.
    As a condition of certification, the Director or designee will 
impose such terms and conditions on the exercise of such lease, permit, 
license, other authorization or right as she or he deems necessary to 
achieve the purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated. This is 
consistent with the Secretary's authority under section 304(c)(2) of 
the Act. The holder may appeal any action conditioning, amending, 
suspending or revoking any certification in accordance with the 
procedures set forth in Sec. 925.12.
    Any amendment, renewal or extension not in existence as of the date 
of Sanctuary designation of a lease, permit, license, other 
authorization or right is subject to the provisions of Sec. 925.11.
    Section 925.11 states that consistent with paragraph (g) of 
Sec. 925.5, the prohibitions of paragraphs (a)(2)-(8) of Sec. 925.5 do 
not apply to any activity authorized by any valid lease, permit, 
license, or other authorization issued after the effective date of 
Sanctuary designation by any Federal, State or local authority of 
competent jurisdiction, provided that the applicant notifies the 
Director or designee of the application for such authorization within 
15 days of the date of filing of the application or of the effective 
date of Sanctuary designation, whichever is later, that the applicant 
is in compliance with the other provisions of Sec. 925.11, that the 
Director or designee notifies the applicant and authorizing agency that 
he or she does not object to issuance of the authorization, and that 
the applicant complies with any terms and conditions the Director or 
designee deems necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities. 
Where the applicant is the governing body of an Indian tribe, the 
Director shall consider and protect the interests of the tribe to the 
fullest extent practicable in keeping with the purposes of the 
Sanctuary and the U.S. trust responsibility to the affected tribes.
    Section 925.11 allows the Director or designee to request 
additional information from the applicant and to seek the views of 
other persons.
    An application for an amendment to, an extension of, or a renewal 
of an authorization is also subject to the provisions of Sec. 925.11.
    The applicant may appeal any objection by, or terms or conditions 
imposed by, the Director or designee to the Assistant Administrator or 
designee in accordance with the procedures set forth in Sec. 925.12.
    Section 925.12 sets forth the procedures for appealing to the 
Assistant Administrator or designee actions of the Director or designee 
with respect to:
    (1) The granting, conditioning, amendment, denial, suspension or 
revocation of a National Marine Sanctuary permit under Sec. 925.9 or a 
Special Use permit under Section 310 of the Act;
    (2) The granting, denial, conditioning, amendment, suspension or 
revocation of a certification under Sec. 925.10; or
    (3) The objection to issuance or the imposition of terms and 
conditions under Sec. 925.11.
    Prior to conditioning the exercise of existing leases, permits, 
licenses, other authorizations or rights or conditioning or objecting 
to proposed authorizations, NOAA intends to consult with relevant 
issuing agencies as well as owners, holders or applicants.
    NOAA's policy is to encourage best available management practices 
to minimize non-point source pollution entering the Sanctuary and, for 
municipal sewage discharge, to require, at a minimum, secondary 
treatment and sometimes tertiary treatment or more, depending on 
predicted effects on Sanctuary resources and qualities.
    Section 925.13 has been added which requires the Director to 
consult with state, local and tribal governments regarding areas of 
mutual concern, including Sanctuary programs, permitting activities, 
development and threats to Sanctuary resources. This section also 
requires the Director to enter into memorandums of understanding with 
such governments when requested regarding such consultations.

V. Miscellaneous Rulemaking Requirements

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The regulations in this notice allow all activities to be conducted 
in the Sanctuary other than a relatively narrow range of prohibited 
activities. The procedures in these regulations for applying for 
National Marine Sanctuary permits to conduct prohibited activities, for 
requesting certifications for pre-existing leases, licenses, permits, 
other authorizations or rights authorizing the conduct of a prohibited 
activity and for notifying NOAA of applications for leases, licenses, 
permits, approvals or other authorizations to conduct a prohibited 
activity will all act to lessen any adverse economic effect on small 
entities. The regulations, in total, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and when 
they were proposed the General Counsel of the Department of Commerce so 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration. As a result, neither an initial nor final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis was prepared.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule contains collection of information requirements subject 
to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 96-511). 
The collection of information requirements contained in the rule have 
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 
section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act and have been approved 
under OMB Control No. 0648-0141. Comments from the public on the 
collection of information requirements contained in this rule are 
invited and should be addressed to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork 
Reduction Project (06480141) Washington, DC 20503 (Attn: Desk Officer 
for NOAA) and to Richard A. Roberts, room 724, 6010 Executive 
Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852.

Executive Order 12612

    A Federalism Assessment (FA) was prepared for the proposed 
designation, draft management plan and proposed implementing 
regulations. The FA concluded that all were fully consistent with the 
principles, criteria and requirements set forth in sections 2 through 5 
of Executive Order 12612, Federalism Considerations in Policy 
Formulation and Implementation (52 FR 41685, Oct. 26, 1987). Copies of 
the FA are available upon request to the Office of Ocean and Coastal 
Resource Management at the address listed above.

National Environmental Policy Act

    In accordance with Section 304(a)(2) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 
1434(a)(2)) and the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act 
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370(a)), a DEIS/MP was prepared for the 
designation and proposed regulations. As required by Section 304(a)(2) 
of the Act, the DEIS/MP included the resource assessment report 
required by section 303(b)(3) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1433(b)(3)), maps 
depicting the boundary of the area proposed to be designated, and the 
existing and potential uses and resources of the area. Copies of the 
DEIS/MP were made available for public review on September 20, 1991, 
with comments due on December 13, 1991. Public hearings were held in 
Port Angeles, Seattle, Olympia, Aberdeen, Seaview and Washington, DC 
from November 7 to 20, 1991. All comments were reviewed and, where 
appropriate, incorporated into the FEIS/MP and these regulations. 
Copies of the FEIS/MP are available upon request (see address section).

Executive Order 12630

    This rule does not have takings implications within the meaning of 
Executive Order 12630 sufficient to require preparation of a Takings 
Implications Assessment under that order. It would not appear to have 
an effect on private property sufficiently severe as effectively to 
deny economically viable use of any distinct legally potential property 
interest to its owner or to have the effect of, or result in, a 
permanent or temporary physical occupation, invasion or deprivation. 
While the prohibition on the exploration, development and production of 
oil, gas and minerals from the Sanctuary might have a takings 
implication if it abrogated an existing lease for OCS tracts within the 
Sanctuary or an approval of an exploration or development and 
production plan, no OCS leases have been sold for tracts within the 
Sanctuary and no exploration or production and development plans have 
been filed or approved.

Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429
Marine Sanctuary Program

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 925

    Administrative practice and procedure, Coastal zone, Education, 
Environmental protection, Marine resources, Natural resources, 
Penalties, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Research.

    Dated: May 5, 1994.
W. Stanley Wilson,
Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management.

    Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, 15 CFR chapter IX is 
amended as follows:

    Part 925 is added to subchapter B to read as follows:

PART 925--OLYMPIC COAST NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

Sec.
925.1  Purpose.
925.2  Boundary.
925.3  Definitions.
925.4  Allowed activities.
925.5  Prohibited activities.
925.6  Emergency regulations.
925.7  Penalties for violations or regulations.
925.8  Response costs and damages.
925.9  National Marine Sanctuary permits--application procedures and 
issuance criteria.
925.10  Certification of pre-existing leases, licenses, permits, 
approvals, other authorizations or rights to conduct a prohibited 
activity.
925.11  Notification and review of applications for leases, 
licenses, permits, approvals or other authorizations to conduct a 
prohibited activity.
925.12  Appeals of administrative action.
925.13  Consultations with the state, affected Indian tribes and 
other affected local authorities.

Appendix A to Part 925--Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary 
Boundary Coordinates

    Authority: Sections 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 310 and 312 of 
Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 
1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.).


Sec. 925.1  Purpose.

    The purpose of the regulations in this Part is to implement the 
designation of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary by 
regulating activities affecting the Sanctuary consistent with the terms 
of that designation in order to protect and manage the conservation, 
ecological, recreational, research, educational, historical and 
aesthetic resources and qualities of the area.


Sec. 925.2  Boundary.

    (a) The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary consists of an area 
of approximately 2500 square nautical miles (approximately 8577 sq. 
kilometers) of coastal and ocean waters, and the submerged lands 
thereunder, off the central and northern coast of the State of 
Washington.
    (b) The Sanctuary boundary extends from Koitlah Point due north to 
the United States/Canada international boundary. The Sanctuary boundary 
then follows the U.S./Canada international boundary seaward to the 100 
fathom isobath. The seaward boundary of the Sanctuary approximates the 
100 fathom isobath in a southerly direction from the U.S./Canada 
international boundary to a point due west of the mouth of the Copalis 
River cutting across the heads of Nitnat, Juan de Fuca and Quinault 
Canyons. The coastal boundary of the Sanctuary is the mean higher high 
water line when adjacent to Federally managed lands cutting across the 
mouths of all rivers and streams, except where adjacent to Indian 
reservations, state and county owned lands; in such case, the coastal 
boundary is the mean lower low water line. La Push harbor is excluded 
from the Sanctuary boundary shoreward of the International Collision at 
Sea regulation (Colreg.) demarcation lines. The precise boundary of the 
Sanctuary is set forth in appendix A to this part.


Sec. 925.3  Definitions.

    (a) The following terms are defined for the purposes of this part:
    Act means Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and 
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.).
    Administrator or Under Secretary means the Administrator of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Under Secretary of 
Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.
    Assistant Administrator means the Assistant Administrator for Ocean 
Services and Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration.
    Director means the Director of the Office of Ocean and Coastal 
Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    Effective date of Sanctuary designation means the date the 
regulations implementing the designation of the Sanctuary (the 
regulations in this part) become effective.
    Federal project means any water resources development project 
conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or operating under a 
permit or authorization issued by the Corps of Engineers and authorized 
by Federal law.
    Historical resource means any resource possessing historical, 
cultural, archaeological or paleontological significance, including 
sites, structures, districts and objects significantly associated with 
or representative of earlier people, cultures and human activities and 
events. Historical resources include historical properties as defined 
in the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations, as amended.
    Indian reservation means a tract of land set aside by the Federal 
Government for use by a Federally recognized American Indian tribe and 
includes, but is not limited to, the Makah, Quileute, Hoh and Quinault 
Reservations.
    Indian tribe means any American Indian tribe, band, group, or 
community recognized by the Secretary of the Interior.
    Injure means to change adversely, either in the short or long term, 
a chemical, biological or physical attribute of, or the viability of, 
and includes, but is not limited to, to cause the loss of or to 
destroy.
    Mineral means clay, stone, sand, gravel, metalliferous ore, non-
metalliferous ore, or any other solid material or other solid matter of 
commercial value.
    Person means any private individual, partnership, corporation or 
other entity; or any officer, employee, agent, department, agency or 
instrumentality of the Federal Government, of any State or local unit 
of government, or of any foreign government.
    Sanctuary means the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.
    Sanctuary quality means any particular and essential characteristic 
of the Sanctuary, including, but not limited to, water, sediment and 
air quality.
    Sanctuary resource means any living or non-living resource of the 
Sanctuary that contributes to its conservation, recreational, 
ecological, historical, research, educational or aesthetic value, 
including, but not limited to, the substratum of the waters off the 
Olympic Peninsula, bottom formations, marine plants and algae, 
invertebrates, plankton, fish, birds, turtles, marine mammals and 
historical resources.
    Take or taking means: (1) For any marine mammal, sea turtle or 
seabird listed as either endangered or threatened pursuant to the 
Endangered Species Act, the term means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect or injure, or to attempt to 
engage in any such conduct;
    (2) For any other marine mammal, sea turtle or seabird, to harass, 
hunt, capture, kill, collect or injure, or to attempt to engage in any 
such conduct.
    (3) For the purpose of both paragraphs (l) and (2) of this 
definition, the term includes, but is not limited to, collecting any 
dead or injured marine mammal, sea turtle or seabird, or any part 
thereof; restraining or detaining any marine mammal, sea turtle or 
seabird, or any part thereof, no matter how temporarily; tagging any 
sea turtle, marine mammal or seabird; operating a vessel or aircraft or 
doing any other act that results in the disturbing or molesting of any 
marine mammal, sea turtle or seabird.
    Traditional fishing means fishing using a commercial or 
recreational fishing method that has been used in the Sanctuary before 
the effective date of Sanctuary designation, including the retrieval of 
fishing gear.
    Treaty means a formal agreement between the United States 
Government and an Indian tribe.
    Vessel means a watercraft of any description capable of being used 
as a means of transportation in/on the waters of the Sanctuary.
    (b) Other terms appearing in the regulations in this part are 
defined at 15 CFR 922.2 and/or in the Marine Protection, Research, and 
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. and 16 
U.S.C. 1431 et seq.


Sec. 925.4  Allowed activities.

    All activities except those prohibited by Sec. 925.5 may be 
undertaken subject to any emergency regulations promulgated pursuant to 
Sec. 925.6, subject to all prohibitions, restrictions, and conditions 
validly imposed by any other authority of competent jurisdiction, and 
subject to the liability established by section 312 of the Act (see 
Sec. 925.8).


Sec. 925.5  Prohibited activities.

    (a) Except as specified in paragraphs (c) through (h) of this 
Sec. 925.5, the following activities are prohibited and thus unlawful 
for any person to conduct or cause to be conducted:
    (1) Exploring for, developing or producing oil, gas or minerals 
within the Sanctuary.
    (2) Discharging or depositing, from within the boundary of the 
Sanctuary, any material or other matter except:
    (i) Fish, fish parts, chumming materials or bait used in or 
resulting from traditional fishing operations in the Sanctuary;
    (ii) Biodegradable effluent incidental to vessel use and generated 
by marine sanitation devices approved in accordance with Section 312 of 
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, (FWPCA) 33 U.S.C. 
1322 et seq.;
    (iii) Water generated by routine vessel operations (e.g., cooling 
water, deck wash down and graywater as defined by Section 312 of the 
FWPCA) excluding oily wastes from bilge pumping;
    (iv) Engine exhaust; or
    (v) dredge spoil in connection with beach nourishment projects 
related to harbor maintenance activities.
    (3) Discharging or depositing, from beyond the boundary of the 
Sanctuary, any material or other matter, except those listed in 
paragraphs (a)(2) (i) through (v) of this Sec. 925.5, that subsequently 
enters the Sanctuary and injures a Sanctuary resource or quality.
    (4) Moving, removing or injuring, or attempting to move, remove or 
injure, a Sanctuary historical resource. This prohibition does not 
apply to moving, removing or injury resulting incidentally from 
traditional fishing operations.
    (5) 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 as an 
incidental result of:
    (i) Anchoring vessels;
    (ii) Traditional fishing operations;
    (iii) Installation of navigation aids;
    (iv) Harbor maintenance in the areas necessarily associated with 
Federal projects in existence on the effective date of Sanctuary 
designation, including dredging of entrance channels and repair, 
replacement or rehabilitation of breakwaters and jetties;
    (v) Construction, repair, replacement or rehabilitation of boat 
launches, docks or piers, and associated breakwaters and jetties; or
    (vi) Beach nourishment projects related to harbor maintenance 
activities.
    (6) Taking any marine mammal, sea turtle or seabird in or above the 
Sanctuary, except as authorized by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as 
amended, (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., the Endangered Species Act, as 
amended, (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and the Migratory Bird Treaty 
Act, as amended, (MBTA), 703 et seq., or pursuant to any treaty with an 
Indian tribe to which the United States is a party, provided that the 
treaty right is exercised in accordance with the MMPA, ESA and MBTA, to 
the extent that they apply.
    (7) Flying motorized aircraft at less than 2,000 feet both above 
the Sanctuary within one nautical mile of the Flattery Rocks, 
Quillayute Needles, or Copalis National Wildlife Refuge, or within one 
nautical mile seaward from the coastal boundary of the Sanctuary, 
except for activities related to tribal timber operations conducted on 
reservation lands, or to transport persons or supplies to or from 
reservation lands as authorized by a governing body of an Indian tribe.
    (8) Possessing within the Sanctuary (regardless of where taken, 
moved or removed from) any historical resource, or any marine mammal, 
sea turtle, or seabird taken in violation of the MMPA, ESA or MBTA, to 
the extent that they apply.
    (9) Interfering with, obstructing, delaying or preventing an 
investigation, search, seizure or disposition of seized property in 
connection with enforcement of the Act or any regulation or permit 
issued under the Act.
    (b) The regulations in this part apply to foreign persons and 
foreign vessels in accordance with generally recognized principles of 
international law, and in accordance with treaties, conventions and 
other international agreements to which the United States is a party.
    (c) The prohibitions in paragraphs (a) (2) through (5), (7) and (8) 
of this Sec. 925.5 do not apply to activities necessary to respond to 
emergencies threatening life, property or the environment.
    (d) The prohibitions in paragraphs (a) (2) through (5), (7) and (8) 
of this Sec. 925.5 do not apply to activities necessary for valid law 
enforcement purposes.
    (e)(1) All Department of Defense military activities shall be 
carried out in a manner that avoids to the maximum extent practicable 
any adverse impacts on Sanctuary resources and qualities. Except as 
provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this Sec. 925.5, the prohibitions in 
paragraphs (a) (2) through (8) of this Sec. 925.5 do not apply to the 
following military activities performed by the Department of Defense in 
W-237A, W237-B, and Military Operating Areas Olympic A and B in the 
Sanctuary:
    (i) Hull integrity tests and other deep water tests;
    (ii) Live firing of guns, missiles, torpedoes, and chaff;
    (iii) Activities associated with the Quinault Range including the 
in-water testing of non-explosive torpedoes; and
    (iv) Anti-submarine warfare operations.

New activities may be exempted from the prohibitions in paragraphs 
(a)(2) through (8) of this Sec. 945.5 by the Director or designee after 
consultation between the Director or designee and the Department of 
Defense. If it is determined that an activity may be carried out, such 
activity shall be carried out in a manner that avoids to the maximum 
extent practicable any adverse impact on Sanctuary resources and 
qualities. Civil engineering and other civil works projects conducted 
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are excluded from the scope of this 
paragraph (e)(1).
    (2) The Department of Defense is prohibited from conducting bombing 
activities within the Sanctuary.
    (3) In the event of threatened or actual destruction of, loss of, 
or injury to a Sanctuary resource or quality resulting from an untoward 
incident, including but not limited to spills and groundings caused by 
the Department of Defense, the Department of Defense shall promptly 
coordinate with the Director or designee for the purpose of taking 
appropriate actions to respond to and mitigate the harm and, if 
possible, restore or replace the Sanctuary resource or quality.
    (f) The prohibitions in paragraphs (a) (2) through (8) of this 
section do not apply to any activity executed in accordance with the 
scope, purpose, terms and conditions of a National Marine Sanctuary 
permit issued pursuant to Sec. 925.9 or a Special Use permit issued 
pursuant to Section 310 of the Act.
    (g)(1) The prohibitions in paragraphs (a) (2) through (8) of this 
Sec. 925.5 do not apply to any activity authorized by a valid lease, 
permit, license, approval or other authorization in existence on the 
effective date of Sanctuary designation and issued by any Federal, 
State or local authority of competent jurisdiction, or by any valid 
right of subsistence use or access in existence on the effective date 
of Sanctuary designation, provided that the holder of such 
authorization or right complies with Sec. 925.10 and with any terms and 
conditions on the exercise of such lease, permit, license, other 
authorization or right imposed by the Director or designee as a 
condition of certification as he or she deems necessary to achieve the 
purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated.
    (2) Members of a federally recognized Indian tribe may exercise 
aboriginal and treaty-secured rights, subject to the requirements of 
other applicable law, without regard to the requirements of this Part. 
The Director may consult with the governing body of a Tribe regarding 
ways the Tribe may exercise such rights consistent with the purposes of 
the Sanctuary.
    (h) The prohibitions in paragraphs (a) (2) through (8) of 
Sec. 925.5 do not apply to any activity authorized by any lease, 
permit, license, or other authorization issued after the effective date 
of Sanctuary designation and issued by any Federal, State or local 
authority of competent jurisdiction, provided that the applicant 
complies with Sec. 925.11, the Director or designee notifies the 
applicant and authorizing agency that he or she does not object to 
issuance of the authorization, and the applicant complies with any 
terms and conditions the Director or designee deems necessary to 
protect Sanctuary resources and qualities. Amendments, renewals and 
extensions of authorizations in existence on the effective date of 
designation constitute authorizations issued after the effective date.
    (i) Notwithstanding paragraphs (f) and (h) of this Sec. 925.5, in 
no event may the Director or designee issue a National Marine Sanctuary 
permit under Sec. 925.9 or a Special Use permit under section 310 of 
the Act authorizing, or otherwise approve: The exploration for, 
development or production of oil, gas or minerals within the Sanctuary; 
the discharge of primary-treated sewage within the Sanctuary (except by 
certification, pursuant to Sec. 925.10, of valid authorizations in 
existence on the effective date of Sanctuary designation and issued by 
other authorities of competent jurisdiction); the disposal of dredged 
material within the Sanctuary other than in connection with beach 
nourishment projects related to harbor maintenance activities; or 
bombing activities within the Sanctuary. Any purported authorizations 
issued by other authorities after the effective date of Sanctuary 
designation for any of these activities within the Sanctuary shall be 
invalid.


Sec. 925.6  Emergency regulations.

    Where necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction of, loss of, 
or injury to a Sanctuary resource or quality, or minimize the imminent 
risk of such destruction, loss or injury, any and all activities are 
subject to immediate temporary regulation, including prohibition.


Sec. 925.7  Penalties for violations of regulations.

    (a) Each violation of the Act, any regulation in this Part, or any 
permit issued pursuant thereto, is subject to a civil penalty of not 
more than $100,000. Each day of a continuing violation constitutes a 
separate violation.
    (b) Regulations setting forth the procedures governing 
administrative proceedings for assessment of civil penalties, permit 
sanctions and denials for enforcement reasons, issuance and use of 
written warnings, and release or forfeiture of seized property appear 
in 15 CFR part 904.


Sec. 925.8  Response costs and damages.

    Under section 312 of the Act, any person who destroys, causes the 
loss of, or injures any Sanctuary resource is liable to the United 
States for response costs and damages 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.


Sec. 925.9  National Marine Sanctuary permits--application procedures 
and issuance criteria.

    (a) A person may conduct an activity prohibited by paragraphs (a) 
(2) through (8) of Sec. 925.5 if conducted in accordance with the 
scope, purpose, terms and conditions of a permit issued under this 
Sec. 925.9.
    (b) Applications for such permits should be addressed to the 
Director of the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management; Attn: 
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource 
Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, 1305 East-West Highway, Building 4, Silver Spring, MD 
20910. An application must include a detailed description of the 
proposed activity including a timetable for completion of the activity 
and the equipment, personnel and methodology to be employed. The 
qualifications and experience of all personnel must be set forth in the 
application. The application must set forth the potential effects of 
the activity on Sanctuary resources and qualities. Copies of all other 
required licenses, permits, approvals or other authorizations must be 
attached.
    (c) Upon receipt of an application, the Director or designee may 
request such additional information from the applicant as he or she 
deems necessary to act on the application and may seek the views of any 
persons.
    (d) The Director or designee, at his or her discretion, may issue a 
permit, subject to such terms and conditions as he or she deems 
appropriate, to conduct an activity prohibited by paragraphs (a) (2) 
through (8) of Sec. 925.5, if the Director or designee finds that the 
activity will not substantially injure Sanctuary resources and 
qualities and will: further research related to Sanctuary resources and 
qualities; further the educational, natural or historical resource 
value of the Sanctuary; further salvage or recovery operations in or 
near the Sanctuary in connection with a recent air or marine casualty; 
assist in managing the Sanctuary; further salvage or recovery 
operations in connection with an abandoned shipwreck in the Sanctuary 
title to which is held by the State of Washington; or promote the 
welfare of any Indian tribe adjacent to the Sanctuary. In deciding 
whether to issue a permit, the Director or designee may consider such 
factors as: the professional qualifications and financial ability of 
the applicant as related to the proposed activity; the duration of the 
activity and the duration of its effects; the appropriateness of the 
methods and procedures proposed by the applicant for the conduct of the 
activity; the extent to which the conduct of the activity may diminish 
or enhance Sanctuary resources and qualities; the cumulative effects of 
the activity; the end value of the activity; and the impacts of the 
activity on adjacent Indian tribes. Where the issuance or denial of a 
permit is requested by the governing body of an Indian tribe, the 
Director shall consider and protect the interests of the tribe to the 
fullest extent practicable in keeping with the purposes of the 
Sanctuary and his or her fiduciary duties to the tribe. The Director or 
designee may also deny a permit application pursuant to this 
Sec. 925.9, in whole or in part, if it is determined that the permittee 
or applicant has acted in violation of the terms or conditions of a 
permit or of these regulations. (Procedures governing permit denials 
for enforcement reasons are set forth in subpart D of 15 CFR part 904). 
In addition, the Director or designee may consider such other factors 
as he or she deems appropriate.
    (e) A permit issued pursuant to this Sec. 925.9 is nontransferable.
    (f) The Director or designee may amend, suspend or revoke a permit 
issued pursuant to this section for good cause. Any such action shall 
be communicated in writing to the permittee or applicant by certified 
mail and shall set forth the reason(s) for the action taken. Procedures 
governing permit sanctions for enforcement reasons are set forth in 
subpart D of 15 CFR part 904.
    (g) It shall be a condition of any permit issued that the permit or 
a copy thereof be displayed on board all vessels or aircraft used in 
the conduct of the activity.
    (h) The Director or designee may, inter alia, make it a condition 
of any permit issued that any data or information obtained under the 
permit be made available to the public.
    (i) The Director or designee may, inter alia, make it a condition 
of any permit issued that a NOAA official be allowed to observe any 
activity conducted under the permit and/or that the permit holder 
submit one or more reports on the status, progress or results of any 
activity authorized by the permit.
    (j) The Director or designee shall obtain the express written 
consent of the governing body of an Indian tribe prior to issuing a 
permit, if the proposed activity involves or affects resources of 
cultural or historical significance to the tribe.
    (k) Removal, or attempted removal of any Indian cultural resource 
or artifact may only occur with the express written consent of the 
governing body of the tribe or tribes to which such resource or 
artifact pertains, and certification by the Director that such 
activities occur in a manner that minimizes damage to the biological 
and archeological resources. Prior to permitting entry onto a 
significant cultural site designated by a tribal governing body, the 
Director shall acquire the express written consent of the governing 
body of the tribe or tribes to which such cultural site pertains.
    (l) The applicant for or holder of a National Marine Sanctuary 
permit may appeal the denial, conditioning, amendment, suspension or 
revocation of the permit in accordance with the procedures set forth in 
Sec. 925.12.


Sec. 925.10  Certification of pre-existing leases, licenses, permits, 
approvals, other authorizations--or rights to conduct a prohibited 
activity.

    (a) The prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) (2) through (8) of 
Sec. 925.5 do not apply to any activity authorized by a valid lease, 
permit, license, approval or other authorization in existence on the 
effective date of Sanctuary designation and issued by any Federal, 
State or local authority of competent jurisdiction, or by any valid 
right of subsistence use or access in existence on the effective date 
of Sanctuary designation, provided that:
    (1) The holder of such authorization or right notifies the Director 
or designee, in writing, within 90 days of the effective date of 
Sanctuary designation, of the existence of such authorization or right 
and requests certification of such authorization or right;
    (2) The holder complies with the other provisions of this 
Sec. 925.10; and
    (3) The holder complies with any terms and conditions on the 
exercise of such authorization or right imposed as a condition of 
certification by the Director or designee to achieve the purposes for 
which the Sanctuary was designated.
    (b) The holder of a valid lease, permit, license, or other 
authorization in existence on the effective date of sanctuary 
designation and issued by any Federal, State or local authority of 
competent jurisdiction, or of any valid right of subsistence use or 
access in existence on the effective date of Sanctuary designation, 
authorizing an activity prohibited by paragraphs (a) (2) through (8) of 
Sec. 925.5 may conduct the activity without being in violation of 
Sec. 925.5, pending final agency action on his or her certification 
request, provided the holder is in compliance with this Sec. 925.10.
    (c) Any holder of a valid lease, permit, license, or other 
authorization in existence on the effective date of Sanctuary 
designation and issued by any Federal, State or local authority of 
competent jurisdiction, or any holder of a valid right of subsistence 
use or access in existence on the effective date of Sanctuary 
designation, may request the Director or designee to issue a finding as 
to whether the activity for which the authorization has been issued, or 
the right given, is prohibited by (a) (l) through (8) of Sec. 925.5.
    (d) Requests for findings or certifications should be addressed to 
the Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management; Attn: 
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource 
Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, 1305 East-West Highway, Building 4, Silver Spring, MD 
20910. A copy of the lease, permit, license, or other authorization 
must accompany the request.
    (e) The Director or designee may request additional information 
from the certification requester as he or she deems necessary to 
condition appropriately the exercise of the certified authorization or 
right to achieve the purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated. 
The information requested must be received by the Director or designee 
within 45 days of the postmark date of the request. The Director or 
designee may seek the views of any persons on the certification 
request.
    (f) The Director or designee may amend any certification made under 
this Sec. 925.10 whenever additional information becomes available 
justifying such an amendment.
    (g) The Director or designee shall communicate any decision on a 
certification request or any action taken with respect to any 
certification made under this Sec. 925.10, in writing, to both the 
holder of the certified lease, permit, license, approval, other 
authorization or right, and the issuing agency, and shall set forth the 
reason(s) for the decision or action taken.
    (h) Any time limit prescribed in or established under this 
Sec. 925.10 may be extended by the Director or designee for good cause.
    (i) The holder may appeal any action conditioning, amending, 
suspending or revoking any certification in accordance with the 
procedures set forth in Sec. 925.12.
    (j) Any amendment, renewal or extension not in existence on the 
effective date of Sanctuary designation of permit, license, approval, 
other authorization or right is subject to the provisions of 
Sec. 925.11.


Sec. 925.11  Notification and review of applications for leases, 
licenses, permits, or other authorizations to conduct a prohibited 
activity.

    (a) The prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) (2) through (8) of 
Sec. 925.5 do not apply to any activity authorized by any valid lease, 
permit, license, or other authorization issued after the effective date 
of Sanctuary designation by any Federal, State or local authority of 
competent jurisdiction, provided that:
    (1) The applicant notifies the Director or designee, in writing, of 
the application for such authorization (and of any application for an 
amendment, renewal or extension of such authorization) within fifteen 
(15) days of the date of application or of the effective date of 
Sanctuary designation, whichever is later;
    (2) The applicant complies with the other provisions of this 
Sec. 925.11;
    (3) The Director or designee notifies the applicant and authorizing 
agency that he or she does not object to issuance of the authorization 
(or amendment, renewal or extension); and
    (4) The applicant complies with any terms and conditions the 
Director or designee deems necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and 
qualities.
    (b) Any potential applicant for a lease, permit, license or other 
authorization from any Federal, State or local authority (or for an 
amendment, renewal or extension of such authorization) may request the 
Director or designee to issue a finding as to whether the activity for 
which an application is intended to be made is prohibited by paragraphs 
(a) (2) through (8) of Sec. 925.5.
    (c) Notifications of filings of applications and requests for 
findings should be addressed to the Director, Office of Ocean and 
Coastal Resource Management; ATTN: Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, 
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean 
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1305 East 
West Highway, Building 4, Silver Spring, MD 20910. A copy of the 
application must accompany the notification.
    (d) The Director or designee may request additional information 
from the applicant as he or she deems necessary to determine whether to 
object to issuance of such lease, license, permit, or other 
authorization (or to issuance of an amendment, extension or renewal of 
such authorization), or what terms and conditions are necessary to 
protect Sanctuary resources and qualities. The information requested 
must be received by the Director or designee within 45 days of the 
postmark date of the request. The Director or designee may seek the 
views of any persons on the application.
    (e) The Director or designee shall notify, in writing, the agency 
to which application has been made of his or her review of the 
application and possible objection to issuance. After review of the 
application and information received with respect thereto, the Director 
or designee shall notify both the agency and applicant, in writing, 
whether he or she has an objection to issuance and what terms and 
conditions he or she deems necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and 
qualities. The Director or designee shall state the reason(s) for any 
objection or the reason(s) that any terms and conditions are deemed 
necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities. Where the 
applicant is the governing body of an Indian tribe, the Director shall 
consider and protect the interests of the tribe to the fullest extent 
practicable in keeping with the purposes of the Sanctuary and the 
United States' trust responsibility to the affected tribes.
    (f) The Director or designee may amend the terms and conditions 
deemed necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities whenever 
additional information becomes available justifying such an amendment.
    (g) Any time limit prescribed in or established under this section 
may be extended by the Director or designee for good cause.
    (h) The applicant may appeal any objection by, or terms or 
conditions imposed by, the Director or designee to the Assistant 
Administrator or designee in accordance with the procedures set forth 
in Sec. 925.12.


Sec. 925.12  Appeals of administrative action.

    (a) Except for permit actions taken for enforcement reasons (see 
subpart D of 15 CFR part 904 for applicable procedures), an applicant 
for, or a holder of, a Sec. 925.9 National Marine Sanctuary permit, an 
applicant for, or a holder of, a section 310 of the Act Special Use 
permit, a Sec. 925.10 certification requester or a Sec. 925.11 
applicant (hereinafter appellant) may appeal to the Assistant 
Administrator or designee:
    (1) The grant, denial, conditioning, amendment, suspension or 
revocation by the Director or designee of a National Marine Sanctuary 
or Special Use permit;
    (2) The conditioning, amendment, suspension or revocation of a 
certification under Sec. 925.10; or
    (3) The objection to issuance or the imposition of terms and 
conditions under Sec. 925.11.
    (b) An appeal under paragraph (a) of this Sec. 925.12 must be in 
writing, state the action(s) by the Director or designee appealed and 
the reason(s) for the appeal, and be received within 30 days of receipt 
of notice of the action by the Director or designee. Appeals should be 
addressed to the Assistant Administrator, Office of Ocean and Coastal 
Resource Management, ATTN: Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Office of 
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1305 East-West Highway, 
Building 4, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
    (c) While the appeal is pending, appellants requesting 
certification pursuant to Sec. 925.10 who are in compliance with such 
section may continue to conduct their activities without being in 
violation of the prohibitions in paragraphs (a) (2) through (8) of 
Sec. 925.5 with regard to which they are requesting certification. All 
other appellants may not conduct their activities without being subject 
to the prohibitions in paragraphs (a) (1) through (9) of Sec. 925.5.
    (d) The Assistant Administrator or designee may request the 
appellant to submit such information as the Assistant Administrator or 
designee deems necessary in order for him or her to decide the appeal. 
The information requested must be received by the Assistant 
Administrator or designee within 45 days of the postmark date of the 
request. The Assistant Administrator may seek the views of any other 
persons. The Assistant Administrator or designee may hold an informal 
hearing on the appeal. If the Assistant Administrator or designee 
determines that an informal hearing should be held, the Assistant 
Administrator or designee may designate an officer before whom the 
hearing shall be held. The hearing officer shall give notice in the 
Federal Register of the time, place and subject matter of the hearing. 
The appellant and the Director or designee may appear personally or by 
counsel at the hearing and submit such material and present such 
arguments as deemed appropriate by the hearing officer. Within 60 days 
after the record for the hearing closes, the hearing officer shall 
recommend a decision in writing to the Assistant Administrator or 
designee.
    (e) The Assistant Administrator or designee shall decide the appeal 
using the same regulatory criteria as for the initial decision and 
shall base the appeal decision on the record before the Director or 
designee and any information submitted regarding the appeal, and, if a 
hearing has been held, on the record before the hearing officer and the 
hearing officer's recommended decision. The Assistant Administrator or 
designee shall notify the appellant of the final decision and the 
reason(s) therefore in writing. The Assistant Administrator or 
designee's decision shall constitute final agency action for the 
purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act.
    (f) Any time limit prescribed in or established under this 
Sec. 925.12 other than the 30-day limit for filing an appeal may be 
extended by the Assistant Administrator, designee or hearing officer 
for good cause.


Sec. 925.13  Consultation with the state, affected Indian tribes and 
other affected local authorities.

    The Director shall regularly consult with the State of Washington, 
the governing bodies of tribes with reservations adjacent to the 
Sanctuary, and adjacent county governments regarding areas of mutual 
concern, including Sanctuary programs, permitting, activities, 
development, and threats to Sanctuary resources. The Director shall, 
when requested by such governments, enter into a memorandum of 
understanding regarding such consultations.

Appendix A to Part 925--Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Boundary
                               Coordinates                              
                [Based on North American Datum of 1983]                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            2500 square nautical miles  
                  Point                  -------------------------------
                                             Latitude       Longitude   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................  47 deg.07'45''  124 deg.11'02'
                                                                       '
2.......................................  47 deg.07'45''  124 deg.58'12'
                                                                       '
3.......................................  47 deg.35'05''  125 deg.00'00'
                                                                       '
4.......................................  47 deg.40'05''  125 deg.04'44'
                                                                       '
5.......................................  47 deg.50'01''  125 deg.05'42'
                                                                       '
6.......................................  47 deg.57'13''  125 deg.29'13'
                                                                       '
7.......................................  48 deg.07'33''  125 deg.38'20'
                                                                       '
8.......................................  48 deg.14'46''  125 deg.40'59'
                                                                       '
9.......................................  48 deg.20'12''  125 deg.22'59'
                                                                       '
10......................................  48 deg.27'49''  125 deg.06'04'
                                                                       '
11......................................  48 deg.29'59''  124 deg.59'13'
                                                                       '
12......................................  48 deg.30'19''  124 deg.50'42'
                                                                       '
13......................................  48 deg.29'38''  124 deg.43'41'
                                                                       '
14......................................  48 deg.27'50''  124 deg.38'13'
                                                                       '
15......................................  48 deg.23'17''  124 deg.38'13'
                                                                      ' 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 94-11389 Filed 5-10-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P