[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 75 (Thursday, April 17, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20869-20870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-7916]
[[Page 20869]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
15 CFR Part 922
50 CFR Part 660
RIN 0648-AT18
Establishment of Marine Reserves and a Marine Conservation Area
Within the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary
AGENCY: National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP), National Ocean
Service (NOS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce
(DOC).
ACTION: Response to Comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NOAA published a final rule on May 24, 2007 (72 FR 29208) that
established marine reserves and a marine conservation area in the
Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary). At that time,
NOAA decided to defer action on establishing federal marine zones in
state waters of the Sanctuary, pending the California Fish and Game
Commission closing the gaps between the federal marine zones and the
state marine zones. This notice closes the record on NOAA's decision
with regard to state waters of the Sanctuary and responds to comments
NOAA received on that issue.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Hastings, (805) 884-1472; e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In August 2006, NOAA published proposed regulations to consider the
establishment of marine reserves and marine conservation areas in the
Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary). At that time,
NOAA also released the related draft environmental impact statement
(DEIS) for public review and comment. Between August and October of
2006, NOAA received public comment and held two hearings on the
proposed rule and DEIS. Over 30,000 individuals submitted written
comments and/or presented oral testimony on NOAA's proposal. The
majority of these individuals supported the establishment of NOAA's
Alternative 1A or Alternative 2. Alternatives 1A and 2 would have
established marine zones in both federal and state waters with federal
regulations overlaying the entire zone network (i.e., from the outer
boundary of the federal waters zones to the mean high water line of the
Channel Islands). NOAA's preferred alternative was Alternative 1A.
During the public comment period, the State of California submitted
comments on NOAA's proposal. In its October 2006 letter to NOAA, the
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) stated it could only
support Alternative 1C as described in the DEIS. Under Alternative 1C,
NOAA would establish marine reserves and a marine conservation area
(and their associated regulations) only in the federal waters of the
Sanctuary. In subsequent consultations with state representatives and
in a letter from the Secretary of Resources dated January 2, 2007, the
California Resources Agency also stated that it could only support
Alternative 1C at that time. As indicated in the DEIS, Alternative 1C
left small gaps in protection between the offshore extent of some of
the state waters marine zones established by the State of California in
2003 and the federal waters marine zones proposed by NOAA in
Alternative 1C.
On March 16, 2007, the California Coastal Commission (Coastal
Commission) held a public meeting on NOAA's consistency determination
with California's Coastal Zone Management Plan under section 307 of the
Coastal Zone Management Act (see http://www.coastal.ca.gov/meetings/mtg-mrn7-3.html). At that meeting, the Coastal Commission passed a
motion as follows: ``In the event NOAA elects not to implement
Alternative 1A, NOAA will implement Alternative 1C, with the following
additional provisions: Until such time as the Resources Agency and the
Fish and Game Commission designate the areas in between the existing
State-designated MPAs and the 3 mile limit (i.e., the ``gaps'' between
the existing state MPAs and the federal MPAs depicted in Alternative 1c
[and shown on Exhibit 9]), or the Fish and Game Commission/DFG and NOAA
enter into an interagency agreement that establishes MPA protection for
these ``gap'' areas, NOAA will expand Alternative 1C to include in its
MPA designation these ``gaps'' between the outer boundaries of the
existing state MPAs and the state-federal waters boundary (3nm from
shore).'' At this meeting, the CDFG representative stated that the
California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) could close these gaps in
protection using state laws by August 2007.
Based on the record as of May of 2007, NOAA then determined there
was sufficient rationale to justify establishing marine zones in the
federal waters of the Sanctuary but decided to defer action on
establishing federal marine zones in state waters of the Sanctuary,
until the State had had an opportunity to close those gaps in
protection. As such, NOAA published a final rule on May 24, 2007 (72 FR
29208) that established marine zones in the federal waters and asked
for public input on the issue of establishing federal marine zones in
the state waters of the Sanctuary. That regulation became effective on
July 29, 2007.
On October 12, 2007 the FGC closed the gaps between the federal
marine zones and the state marine zones in a manner consistent with the
Coastal Commission's resolution and the CDFG representative's
statement.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Closing the gaps would also be consistent with the public
record supporting the 2002 decision of the California Fish and Game
Commission to establish marine zones in the Sanctuary.
Therefore, NOAA has, at this time, decided not to extend
sanctuary regulations into the state waters of the Sanctuary because
there is no regulatory gap in protection between state and federal
marine zones. NOAA and the State will continue to work
collaboratively on the administration of the entire marine zone
network, including monitoring, education and enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of Comments and Responses
Comment 1: The federal government should provide full Sanctuary
jurisdiction and oversight for any marine reserves that are located
within the CINMS.
Response: On October 12, 2007, the State of California issued
regulations that extend the offshore boundaries of the marine zones in
state waters to the inshore boundaries of the marine zones in federal
waters (established by NOAA in May of 2007). Those regulations went
into effect on December 17, 2007, thus providing protection to the area
within the marine zones from shore to the inshore boundary of the
federal marine zones established by NOAA in May of 2007.
Because there is no regulatory gap in protection between state and
federal marine zones, NOAA has decided not to extend sanctuary marine
zone regulations into the state waters of the Sanctuary at this time.
NOAA and the State will continue to work collaboratively on the
administration of the entire marine zone network, including monitoring,
education and enforcement.
Comment 2: Alternative 1A, rather than Alternative 1C, best meets
the Sanctuary's goals of ensuring the long-term protection of Sanctuary
resources, and protecting, restoring and maintaining functional and
intact
[[Page 20870]]
portions of habitats, populations and ecological processes in the
Sanctuary.
Response: NOAA's analysis identified that the differences among the
three sub alternatives (Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C) are distinguished
by management considerations, not ecological and socioeconomic impacts.
As such, because the State of California closed the state water gaps
associated with Alternative 1C, the net ecological benefits and
socioeconomic impacts between Alternatives 1A (NOAA's original
preferred alternative) and 1C (the State of California's recommended
alternative) are the same. NOAA has determined, therefore, that
Alternative 1C accomplishes the goals of the zoning network.
Comment 3: The FGC process to undertake a regulatory process to
fill the gaps adds additional work and cost to an already overburdened
agency.
Response: Only the FGC can determine if it has the resources to
undertake a regulatory process. NOAA notes that the FGC concluded the
regulatory process to fill the gaps on October 12, 2007 and the state
regulations went into effect on December 17, 2007.
Comment 4: Overlaid federal regulations applicable network-wide
would provide greater enforcement tools for both state and federal
resource managers, including the authority to seek injunctive relief in
cases where it is determined that there is injury, or imminent risk of
injury, to a Sanctuary resource, as well as the assurance that
penalties collected as a result of marine zone violations in the CINMS
will be used directly to further the protection of CINMS resources. The
State would lack these additional enforcement capabilities.
Response: In section 5.1 of the final environmental impact
statement, NOAA detailed the administrative benefits of overlaying
state waters with federal marine zone regulations, including enhancing
enforcement and prosecution, as noted by the commenter. However, at
this time, the State opposes NOAA issuance of sanctuary marine zone
regulations in state waters of the Sanctuary. NOAA and the State have
in the past worked collaboratively on the administration of the
network, including enforcement, and will continue to do so in the
future. If, for example, in the future the State determines that its
enforcement capabilities could be further enhanced with complementary
federal regulations in state waters, NOAA would consider a regulatory
action to provide for overlaying federal marine zone regulations in
state waters.
Comment 5: Alternative 1C creates confusion among Sanctuary users
and the public, which could result in unintentional non-compliance with
the existing marine zones. This also leaves the resources present in or
traversing through the gaps unprotected, thereby fragmenting and
decreasing the effectiveness of the existing state and soon-to-be
finalized federal MPAs.
Response: The FGC concluded the regulatory process to fill the gaps
on October 12, 2007 and the regulations went into effect December 17,
2007. NOAA is unaware of violations or non-compliance due to confusion
during the time period from July 2007 to December 2007 when there were
gaps between the state and federal marine zones.
Comment 6: Alternative 1A would align with the State's Marine
Managed Areas Improvement Act (AB 1600), which directs the State to
consolidate and simplify the range of MPAs within California.
Response: The terminology and definitions written into the Code of
Federal Regulations were drafted to be as consistent as practicable
with the State terms and definitions from the Marine Managed Areas
Improvement Act. In addition, the combined state and federal marine
zoning network remains consistent with the original geographic scope
envisioned by the State and supported by NOAA in the Final
Environmental Document adopted by the State in October 2002.
Comment 7: Alternative 1C will result in a fragmented, inefficient
and piece-meal approach to the enforcement, monitoring, management, and
public education efforts surrounding the Sanctuary MPAs. Implementation
of Alternative 1A, on the other hand, would draw on the management and
regulatory strengths of both federal and state agencies and thereby
ensure that the implementation and protection of the MPA network is
carried out in the most efficient, complementary and cohesive fashion.
Response: NOAA and the State strongly support a close,
collaborative working relationship to implement the Sanctuary zoning
network and to ensure that management of the network (e.g.,
enforcement, education and outreach, and monitoring) is implemented in
a collaborative, efficient, and effective manner.
Comment 8: If the FGC were to alter state regulations governing
state MPAs at some point in the future, the integrity of the entire
network would be threatened.
Response: NOAA will work closely with the FGC on any future changes
to the network. If the State were to alter its regulations in a manner
that, in NOAA's judgment, compromises the integrity of the network,
NOAA will consider taking further action under the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act to maintain the network's integrity.
Comment 9: If the State fails to close gaps by fall 2007, NOAA
should expeditiously finalize regulations that will close the gaps by
extending federal protections under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act
into state waters to meet the boundaries of the state MPAs created in
2003.
Response: The FGC closed the gaps on October 12, 2007. The
regulations became effective on December 17, 2007.
Dated: April 9, 2008.
Daniel J. Basta,
Director, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries.
[FR Doc. E8-7916 Filed 4-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-NK-M