[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 129 (Monday, July 6, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40143-40153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14225]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
15 CFR Part 922
[Docket No. 200617-0162]
RIN 0648-BI01
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Regulations
AGENCY: Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean
Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce (DOC).
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal of notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement; notice of availability of a draft
management plan and draft environmental assessment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40144]]
SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is
proposing revised regulations, a revised management plan, and a draft
environmental assessment for Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
(MBNMS or sanctuary). The proposed rule includes four modifications to
existing MBNMS regulations, the modification of an appendix to the
MBNMS regulations that describes sanctuary zone boundaries, and the
addition of one new definition to the MBNMS regulations. A draft
environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared for this proposed
action. NOAA is soliciting public comments on the proposed rule, draft
revised management plan, and draft EA.
DATES: NOAA will consider all comments received by September 4, 2020.
NOAA will hold a virtual public meeting at the following date and time:
Thursday, July 23, 2020, 6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m. PT. In addition, NOAA will
accept public comments on this proposed rule during the Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuary virtual advisory council meeting on Friday,
August 21, 2020 at 12:30 p.m. PT and at the Greater Farallones National
Marine Sanctuary virtual advisory council meeting on Monday, August 24,
2020 at 11:00 a.m. PT.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the proposed rule, the draft
management plan, and/or the draft EA, identified by NOAA-NOS-2020-0094,
by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NOS-2020-0094, click the
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or
attach your comments.
Mail: Written comments may also be mailed to: Paul Michel,
Superintendent, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, 99 Pacific
Street, Suite 455A, Monterey, California 93940.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NOAA. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change. All personally identifiable
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily
by the sender will be publicly accessible. NOAA will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
To participate in the virtual public meetings, online registration
is requested in advance via the following links. When joining the
session, if possible, select the option to use your computer's audio.
If you cannot use computer audio it is possible to select the phone
audio option upon joining the event. In GoToWebinar, The phone number
and audio PIN will show up in the audio pane when you select phone
audio.
(1) Virtual Public Hearing--Thursday, July 23, 2020, 6:00 p.m.-8:00
p.m. PT
Registration: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/398908723113760523.
(2) Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary virtual advisory council
meeting--Friday, August 21, 2020 at 12:30 p.m. PT
Registration: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/3876637613490216459.
(3) Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary virtual advisory
council meeting--Monday, August 24, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. PT
This meeting will be held on Google Meet. Link: https://meet.google.com/tyr-enfp-cet. To participate by phone only, dial: 1
(641) 821-2321, PIN: 135 736 466#
If you would like to comment during the virtual public meetings,
please sign up in advance by selecting ``yes'' during the online
registration. The order of comments will be based on your date and time
of registration. If you will be participating by phone, send an email
to [email protected] to add your name to the speaker list. Please
note, no public comments will be audio or video recorded. If you would
like to provide public comment anonymously during the virtual public
hearing, email your comment to [email protected] or type your comment
into the question box and ask for it to be read anonymously during the
assigned time.
For more details on the virtual public meetings, visit https://montereybay.noaa.gov/.
Copies of the proposed rule, draft management plan and draft EA can
be downloaded or viewed on the internet at www.regulations.gov (search
for docket #NOAA-NOS-2020-0094) or at https://montereybay.noaa.gov/intro/mp/2015review/welcome.html.
Important Note for All Participants: No portion of the virtual
public meetings, including any public comments, will be audio or video
recorded. All public comments received, including any associated names,
will be captured and included in the written meeting minutes, will be
public, and will be maintained by NOAA as part of its administrative
record. All public comments received will be publicly available at
www.regulations.gov under docket #NOAA-NOS-2020-0094.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Michel, Monterey Bay National
Marine Sanctuary Superintendent, at [email protected] or 831-647-
4201.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Introduction
NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) serves as the
trustee for a network of underwater parks encompassing more than
600,000 square miles of marine and Great Lakes waters from Washington
state to the Florida Keys, and from Lake Huron to American Samoa. The
network includes a system of 14 national marine sanctuaries and
Papah[amacr]naumoku[amacr]kea and Rose Atoll marine national monuments.
B. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
NOAA established MBNMS in 1992 for the purposes of protecting and
managing the conservation, ecological, recreational, research,
educational, historical, and aesthetic resources and qualities of the
area, including the submarine Monterey Canyon and, subsequently,
Davidson Seamount. MBNMS is located offshore of California's central
coast, encompassing a shoreline length of approximately 276 statute
miles (240 nmi) between Rocky Point (Marin County) and Cambria (San
Luis Obispo County). With the inclusion of the Davidson Seamount
Management Zone (DSMZ) in 2008, the sanctuary spans approximately 6,094
square statute miles (4,602 square nautical miles) of ocean and coastal
waters, and the submerged lands thereunder, extending an average
distance of 30 statute miles (26 nmi) from shore. Supporting some of
the world's most diverse and productive marine ecosystems, it is home
to numerous mammals, seabirds, fishes, invertebrates, sea turtles and
plants.
C. Need for Action
The primary purpose of the proposed action is to fulfill section
304(e) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16
[[Page 40145]]
U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) (NMSA). Section 304(e), 16 U.S.C 1434(e), requires
periodic review of sanctuary management plans to ensure that site-
specific management techniques and strategies: (1) Effectively address
changing environmental conditions and threats to protected resources
and qualities of the sanctuaries; and (2) fulfill the purposes and
policies of the NMSA. Accordingly, ONMS conducted a review of the
management plan and regulations for MBNMS that has resulted in a
proposed new management plan for the sanctuary, and proposed changes to
sanctuary regulations.
The management plan review process includes, among other things, an
assessment of existing sanctuary regulations to determine if any
regulatory changes are needed to support management plan objectives.
NOAA is proposing to make four modifications to existing MBNMS
regulations, to modify Appendix E to the MBNMS regulations, and to add
one new definition to the MBNMS regulations. These changes will support
more efficient and effective program management and enhanced
stewardship of the sanctuary's natural resources. The need for each
individual regulatory action is described in greater detail in section
II (Summary of the Proposed Changes to MBNMS Regulations) below.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), on
August 27, 2015, NOAA published a notice of intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in order to identify and analyze
potential impacts associated with a review of the 2008 management plan
for MBNMS (80 FR 51973). Preliminary analysis of this revised
management plan and the proposed regulatory changes indicates no
significant impacts are expected. Accordingly, NOAA determined the
preparation of an EIS would not be necessary, and instead prepared an
EA, which is available for public review. NOAA is therefore withdrawing
the portion of the Federal Register Notice published on August 27,
2015, that provided notice of intent to prepare an EIS.
NOAA has conducted an analysis of the revised management plan and
the regulatory changes in compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its
implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508). As required by the
Council on Environmental Quality, NEPA, and NEPA's implementing
regulations, all reasonable alternatives to the proposed Federal action
that meet the purpose and need for the action are considered in the EA.
These alternatives include no action and a range of reasonable
alternatives for managing MBNMS according to the objectives of the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act.
D. Process
The process for this action is composed of four major stages: (1)
Information collection and characterization via development and
issuance of a sanctuary condition report that describes the status and
trends of driving forces and pressures on the ecosystem and natural and
archaeological resource conditions in MBNMS, and public scoping to
further identify issues associated with revising the management plan
(scoping was completed on October 30, 2015); (2) preparation and
release of a proposed rule, draft revised management plan, and draft EA
in accordance with NEPA; (3) public review and comment on the proposed
rule, draft management plan, and draft EA; and (4) preparation and
release of a final management plan and final EA, and any final
amendments to the MBNMS regulations, if appropriate. With the
publication of this proposed rule, NOAA completes the second phase of
this process and enters the third phase.
Together with this proposed rule, NOAA is releasing the draft
management plan and draft EA. The draft management plan describes
proposed strategies and action plans for future conservation and
management of the sanctuary, and the draft EA contains more detailed
information on the considerations of this proposal, including an
assessment of alternatives, analysis of potential environmental
impacts, and references. The draft management plan and draft EA can be
found through the website listed in the ADDRESSES section above.
II. Summary of the Proposed Changes to MBNMS Regulations
A. Beneficial Use of Clean and Suitable Dredged Material
NOAA proposes to add a new definition for ``beneficial use of
dredged material'' at 15 CFR 922.131 and to amend 15 CFR 922.132(f) to
clarify that beneficial use of clean and suitable dredged material for
habitat restoration purposes within MBNMS is not disposal of dredged
material as described at 15 CFR 922.132(a)(2)(i)(F) and 15 CFR
922.132(f).
This action would amend 15 CFR 922.131 by adding a definition for
``beneficial use of dredged material.'' The new definition would
clarify that the existing prohibition against permitting the disposal
of dredged material in MBNMS does not apply to habitat restoration
projects using clean dredged material, because such beneficial use of
dredged material would not be considered ``disposal.'' In addition,
this definition would apply only to dredged material removed from any
of the four public harbors immediately adjacent to the sanctuary
(Pillar Point, Santa Cruz, Moss Landing, or Monterey). This action
would also amend 15 CFR 922.132(f) to clarify that the disposal of
dredged material does not include the beneficial use of dredged
material. Together, these regulatory changes would clarify that the
language in the terms of designation and MBNMS regulations that
prohibit permitting the disposal of dredged material within the
sanctuary other than at sites authorized by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency prior to the effective date of designation (Article V
of the MBNMS Terms of Designation, 73 FR 70477, 70494 (Nov. 20, 2008):
15 CFR 922.132(f)), do not preclude NOAA from authorizing the
beneficial use of clean dredged material within sanctuary boundaries
when suitable for habitat restoration purposes.
In the current MBNMS Management Plan (November 2008 \1\), NOAA
stated, ``If investigations indicate that employment of additional
beach nourishment sites using clean dredged harbor material would be
possible and appropriate, MBNMS may examine whether revision of MBNMS
regulations and Designation Document may be warranted; or if a
beneficial program might occur via MBNMS permit or authorization in
concert with other agencies.'' (Management Plan at 96.) For the reasons
explained below, NOAA anticipates that employment of additional habitat
restoration sites using clean dredged material would be possible and
appropriate, and that beneficial use projects may occur through MBNMS
permits or authorizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Final Management Plan, available at https://montereybay.noaa.gov/intro/mp/welcome.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, there are several examples in which NOAA has accommodated
requests for beneficial use of sediment for beach nourishment in
locations adjacent to the sanctuary where the bathymetry and topography
allow space for sediment placement above the MHW line. Beach
replenishment projects currently occur at Del Monte beach in Monterey
and Twin Lakes beach in Santa Cruz. The City of Monterey has an MBNMS
authorization for the annual placement of clean dredged material from
Monterey Harbor at two onshore
[[Page 40146]]
locations (approved by EPA) above MHW adjacent to Del Monte Beach. The
authorization specifically allows for the decant water from the slurry
material to return into the waters of MBNMS. Clean material deposited
at these two locations is eventually moved via natural wave action to
points within the lower tidal range (i.e., below MHW and thus into
MBNMS) and along the beach laterally, effectively maintaining or
creating improved coastal habitat and recreational resources within the
sanctuary. Both habitat restoration projects at Santa Cruz and Monterey
have proven successful in maintaining the integrity of high public use
beaches that would otherwise suffer from accelerated erosion due to
human interruptions of natural sediment transport patterns in the area.
Placement of clean dredged material on these beaches has helped
stabilize beach profiles at these sites.
NOAA anticipates that the employment of additional habitat
restoration sites--namely, the placement of clean dredged material
below the MHW line (in the sanctuary) for habitat restoration
purposes--would be possible and appropriate. One example would be the
potential placement of clean sand (dredged from Pillar Point Harbor)
onto an eroded beach (Surfer's Beach) immediately adjacent to the
harbor along the sanctuary's shoreward boundary. Due to the
interruption of natural sand transport patterns by shoreline
infrastructure (e.g., the harbor breakwaters), the beach has eroded to
such a degree that ocean waters now extend to the toe of the riprap
armoring that safeguards Highway 1 (located along the shoreline from
the base of the east Pillar Point Harbor breakwater to the ocean
terminus of Coronado Street). Surfer's Beach is now submerged at MHW,
and only a fraction of the former beach appears at the lowest tide
levels.
Absent clarification in past and current MBNMS regulations that
disposal of dredged material is a fundamentally different activity than
beneficial use of dredged material for shoreline restoration, NOAA has
not authorized discharges of clean dredged material directly into the
sanctuary, pursuant to managerial discretionary authority under 15 CFR
922.48, 922.49, and 922.133. Though NOAA has previously provided
information to Pillar Point Harbor about how to implement beach
nourishment projects similar to those described above for Santa Cruz
and Monterey Harbors, no such project has been pursued by the harbor
district. To date, only periodic shoreline armoring has been installed
to arrest erosion. But armoring is neither a sustainable long-term
solution nor a beach restoration activity. Longer-term, softscape
alternatives to armoring are desired to protect the beach and restore
beach habitat.
The beneficial use of clean dredged material for habitat
restoration purposes would provide an additional effective and
sustainable option to address sites in MBNMS where shoreline habitat
and resources are increasingly impacted by erosion due to shoreline
structures, coastal armoring, sea level rise, and documented, increased
storm activity.
The beneficial use of dredged material at sites within the
sanctuary, such as Surfer's Beach, would require: A sanctuary permit or
authorization; additional rigorous testing and screening of the
material to ensure that the material is both clean and suitable for
habitat restoration; additional review of the proposed project under
NEPA and other applicable statutes; and permitting, as applicable, by
other federal, state and local regulatory authorities with jurisdiction
over the proposed beneficial use project. Furthermore, a proposed
project involving use of dredged material would only be eligible for
approval by NOAA if the project demonstrated a sanctuary habitat
restoration purpose under the proposed new definition of beneficial use
of dredged material at 15 CFR 922.131, and if the project otherwise met
the permit or authorization procedures and review criteria described in
15 CFR 922.48, 922.49, and 922.133. The permit and environmental
reviews of the proposed beneficial use project would continue to
prevent the disposal of unsuitable and unclean material into the
sanctuary that could adversely affect sanctuary resources.
Clean dredged materials from harbors immediately adjacent to the
sanctuary would be considered an eligible source of material for
restoring (or partially restoring) habitats degraded by interruption of
local sediment transport cells by harbor infrastructure (e.g., jetties,
seawalls and piers). Since dredged materials from distant harbors would
not be indigenous to local sediment transport cells, NOAA would not
approve the use of such materials for habitat restoration purposes. The
limitations on use of dredged material would not restrict or limit
NOAA's existing authority to permit the use of non-dredged materials
for beneficial habitat restoration projects within MBNMS.
This proposed action, which would clarify the ability of NOAA to
authorize beneficial use of clean and suitable dredged material
originating from any of the four adjacent public harbors for habitat
restoration purposes within the sanctuary, would be consistent with the
regulatory framework for dredge, fill, and disposal projects as
outlined by the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Ocean
Dumping Act (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and applicable U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations. The
existing regulatory framework differentiates between the disposal
(i.e., discarding) of dredged material and its beneficial use (i.e.,
purposeful application). For example, the ``disposal into ocean
waters'' of dredged material is regulated under provisions of the Ocean
Dumping Act, whereas discharge of dredged material for fill, including
beach restoration, is regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. 33 CFR 336.0. Moreover, any proposed beneficial use of dredged
material project in MBNMS would be subject to applicable permit and
regulatory reviews of other federal, state and local authorities with
jurisdiction over the proposed project.
Finally, pursuing this proposed action would also be consistent
with current state and federal coastal management practices that favor
softscape approaches to restoring and protecting beaches and shorelines
over hardscape methods (e.g., riprap, groins and seawalls). The USACE
Engineering and Design Manual on Dredging and Dredged Material (July
2015) \2\ states, ``Interest in using dredged material as a manageable,
beneficial resource, as an alternative to conventional placement
practices, has increased.'' The USACE/USEPA Beneficial Use Planning
Manual \3\ states, ``the promotion of beneficial uses continues to
require a shift from the common perspective of dredged material as a
waste product to one in which this material is viewed as a valuable
resource that can provide multiple benefits to society.'' The planning
manual further notes that in general, ``clean, coarse-grained sediments
(sands) are suitable for a wide variety of beneficial uses.'' Finally,
the USACE/USEPA Manual on The Role of the Federal Standard in the
Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Material \4\ indicates,
[[Page 40147]]
``a beneficial use option may be selected for a project even if it is
not the Federal Standard for that project.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EM 1110-2-5025 at page 5-1 (July 31, 2015), available at
http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerManuals/EM_1110-2-5025.pdf.
\3\ Identifying, Planning, and Financing Beneficial Use Projects
Using Dredged Material at 9 (October 2007, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/identifying_planning_and_financing_beneficial_use_projects.pdf.
\4\ EPA842-B-07-002 (October 2007) at 3, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/role_of_the_federal_standard_in_the_beneficial_use_of_dredged_material.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all of the above reasons, NOAA anticipates that the placement
of clean locally-dredged material in the sanctuary for habitat
restoration purposes would be appropriate and consistent with the
existing regulatory framework for dredge, fill, and disposal projects.
Accordingly, NOAA proposes this regulatory change to clarify the
ability of NOAA to authorize the beneficial use of clean and suitable
dredged material for habitat restoration purposes within MBNMS, because
such proposed use would not be ``disposal of dredged material'' within
the meaning of the MBNMS terms of designation and regulations.
B. Modification of Seasonal/Conditional Requirement for Motorized
Personal Watercraft Access to MPWC Zone 5 (Mavericks)
With this proposed rule, NOAA would amend MBNMS regulations to
reduce the sea state condition required for motorized personal
watercraft (MPWC) access to the Mavericks seasonal-conditional MPWC
zone at Half Moon Bay. NOAA would change the current High Surf Warning
(HSW) requirement to a less stringent High Surf Advisory (HSA)
requirement. The seasonal-conditional MPWC zone was created in 2009
primarily to allow MPWC to support big-wave surfing at Mavericks during
winter months when wildlife activity is significantly reduced in this
area. Currently, MPWC can freely access the Mavericks seasonal-
conditional zone only when HSW conditions (predicted breaking waves at
the shoreline of 20 feet or greater) are in effect, as announced by the
National Weather Service for San Mateo County during the months of
December, January, and February. However, due to unique bathymetric
features at Mavericks, waves can exceed 20 feet well before HSW
conditions are announced county-wide. Allowing MPWC access to Mavericks
during HSA conditions (predicted breaking waves at the shoreline of 15
feet or greater) would allow MPWC presence at the break 3-5 more days
per year to provide safety assistance to surfers operating in a highly
energized surf zone.
Surfers have developed new techniques for paddling onto larger and
larger waves, so paddle surfers now routinely surf extremely large
waves at Mavericks during winter HSA conditions when MPWC access to the
zone is currently prohibited. In February 2017, an MBNMS Advisory
Council subcommittee recommended lowering the current conditional
threshold for MPWC access to Mavericks from a HSW to a HSA during the
months of December, January, and February to allow expanded use of MPWC
for safety assistance to surfers recreating in extreme sea conditions.
The MBNMS Advisory Council voted unanimously to support the
subcommittee recommendation on February 17, 2017. NOAA agrees with the
Advisory Council recommendations and believes it would benefit public
safety, while posing no significant added threat of disturbance to
protected wildlife in the area due to minimal wildlife activity there
during winter extreme high-surf events.
C. Exempted Department of Defense Activities Within Davidson Seamount
Management Zone
With this proposed rule, NOAA would amend MBNMS regulations by
modifying 15 CFR 922.132(c)(1) to correct an error. The current
regulatory text at 15 CFR 922.132(c)(1) states, in part, that a list of
exempted Department of Defense (DOD) activities at the Davidson
Seamount Management Zone (DSMZ) is published in the 2008 MBNMS
Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). However,
due to an administrative error, the list of exempted activities
(identified in a December 18, 2006, letter to NOAA from the U.S. Air
Force 30th Space Wing and subsequently affirmed by NOAA), was never
included in the 2008 FEIS. The MBNMS Superintendent confirmed in a
January 5, 2009, letter to the U.S. Air Force 30th Space Wing that NOAA
acknowledged the list of exempted activities as valid from the
effective date of inclusion of the DSMZ within MBNMS (March 9, 2009)
and that NOAA would correct the administrative record and regulations
to properly document the exempted DOD activities within the DSMZ.
Accordingly, NOAA proposes to modify 15 CFR 922.132(c)(1) by replacing
``2008 Final Environmental Impact Statement'' with ``2020 Final
Environmental Assessment for the MBNMS Management Plan Review.''
An appendix in the 2020 draft EA serves as the published list of
exempted DOD activities within the DSMZ referenced and confirmed by the
January 5, 2009, letter to the U.S. Air Force 30th Space Wing from the
MBNMS Superintendent. NOAA herein affirms that the exemptions requested
by the Air Force in 2006 and confirmed by NOAA in 2009 have been valid
since the effective date of the DSMZ's addition to MBNMS (March 9,
2009).
D. Reconfiguration of Year-Round MPWC Zone Boundaries
With this proposed rule, NOAA would amend MBNMS regulations to
modify boundaries of four year-round MPWC riding zones in a manner that
maintains NOAA's original intent to provide recreational opportunities
for MPWC within the sanctuary, while safeguarding sensitive sanctuary
resources and habitats from unique threats of disturbance by these
watercraft.
Specifically, the proposed modifications would reduce the number of
deployed boundary buoys and associated navigational hazards, aesthetic
impacts, and mooring failures that create public safety issues, marine
debris, seafloor impacts, and excessive maintenance effort. The zones
were established in 1992 to provide recreational use areas for MPWC
while safeguarding marine wildlife and habitats from the unique
capability of MPWC to sharply maneuver at high speeds in the ocean
environment and freely access remote and sensitive marine habitat
areas, unlike any other type of motorized vessel (57 FR 43310).
The four MPWC riding zones were established near each of the four
harbors in the sanctuary where MPWC operators typically launch. The
boundaries were delineated without any consideration of practical
matters such as buoy station integrity or sustainability. For example,
buoys deployed off rocky points have experienced repeated mooring
failures due to heavy wave diffraction/reflection, abrasive and mobile
rocky substrate affecting mooring tackle, and lack of soft sediments
for secure anchor set. Buoys deployed in deep water have repeatedly
failed due to suspected interactions with vessels and commercial
fishing gear. Mooring failures cause deposition of chain and anchors on
the seafloor and pose a hazard to mariners and the public from drifting
buoys. Even when buoys hold station, they could present navigation
obstacles. Reducing the number of boundary buoys by utilizing more
existing marks and geographical features (e.g., United States Coast
Guard navigation buoys and landmarks) can markedly reduce navigational
hazards and mooring failures that create public safety issues, marine
debris, seafloor impacts, and excessive maintenance effort.
Anecdotal observations of MPWC zone use over time by harbor
officials, marine enforcement officers, ocean
[[Page 40148]]
users, sanctuary staff, and volunteers indicate that the zones are
rarely used by MPWC operators. Therefore, reconfiguring the zones will
have minimal impact to a small number of users.
Reconfiguring zones to be smaller and closer to shore would provide
improved MPWC access and operator safety, and would also aid zone
monitoring, enforcement, and planned systematic surveys of zone use
described in the new MBNMS management plan. Relocation of marker buoys
to shallower mooring depths would improve station-keeping, inspection,
and maintenance of boundary buoy moorings. Reconfiguration of zones
would achieve a 40% reduction in the overall number of deployed MPWC
boundary buoys from 15 to 9. It would eliminate six existing buoy
mooring stations entirely; replace four existing mooring stations with
four new shallower mooring stations; and leave five previous mooring
stations unchanged. This would result in the permanent removal of
anchors and chain from the seafloor at 10 sites and installation of
anchors and chain at four new sites--a 40% net reduction in the number
of MPWC boundary buoy mooring sites. As previously stated, the four new
mooring stations would be in shallower water and deliberately sited in
mud/sand substrate to avoid rocky reef habitat--a purposeful reduction
of negative environmental impacts. Zone reconfigurations would result
in a 59% reduction of total areal coverage of the four year-round
zones, resulting in an equal reduction of surface area subject to
direct MPWC interactions with specially protected marine wildlife, such
as migratory birds, whales, dolphins, porpoise, turtles, sea lions, and
sea otters.
The reconfigured MPWC zones would still provide considerable area
adjacent to all four harbors for general use of MPWC, fulfilling the
original goal for the zones when established in 1992. The four
reconfigured year-round access zones would offer 0.96 square miles (614
acres) of riding area south of Pillar Point Harbor, 2.63 square miles
(1,683 acres) off Santa Cruz Harbor, 2.29 square miles (1,466 acres)
off Moss Landing Harbor, and 3.10 square miles (1,984 acres) off
Monterey Harbor. Maps depicting proposed MPWC zone boundary changes can
be found in the draft EA.
The proposed zone reconfigurations would shorten the length of the
MPWC access corridors to the Santa Cruz and Monterey zones by 66% and
23% respectively, allowing MPWC operators easier and quicker access to
both riding areas. The shorter access corridors would reduce the period
of restricted maneuverability for transiting MPWC and thus lower the
potential for negative interaction with marine traffic and wildlife as
MPWC approach/depart harbor entrances. Planned rotation of the access
corridor at Monterey away from the predominant marine traffic pattern
to/from the harbor will also reduce the potential for negative
interaction with other vessels there. The reconfigured zone boundaries
at Santa Cruz would shift that zone closer to shore, improving safety
for MPWC operators should they need emergency assistance. A shortened
access corridor and zone shift closer to shore at Santa Cruz have been
requested by MPWC users in the past.
Each existing MPWC zone would remain at its current general
geographical location, with the following changes:
1. Modify the year-round Half Moon Bay MPWC zone by using existing
Coast Guard red bell buoy ``2'' and existing Coast Guard green gong
buoy ``1S'' as boundary points instead of current MBNMS buoys PP2 and
PP3; this would enable permanent removal of two buoys from the ocean.
By re-shaping the current zone from a parallelogram to a concave
pentagon, the zone's general position south of Pillar Point Harbor
would be maintained, the zone area would increase by 9% (from .87 sq mi
to .96 sq mi), and two buoys would be permanently removed from the
waterway, reducing navigational obstructions, risk of mooring failure,
and buoy and tackle loss.
2. Modify the year-round Santa Cruz MPWC zone by using existing
Coast Guard red/white whistle buoy ``SC'' as a boundary point, instead
of current MBNMS buoy SC7; this would enable permanent removal of one
MBNMS buoy from this zone. By re-shaping the current zone from a
rectangle to a parallelogram, the zone position would rotate 45[deg]
clockwise to the NE, and the zone area would be reduced by 59% (from
6.36 sq mi to 2.63 sq mi). One MBNMS buoy would be permanently removed
from the waterway, one buoy would remain on station, and two buoys
would be redeployed to shallower depths. The redistributed buoys would
be positioned within better visible range of one another, in softer
seafloor sediments, and away from rocky points, thus reducing
navigational obstructions, risk of mooring failure, and buoy and tackle
loss.
The reconfigured zone boundaries at Santa Cruz would shift the zone
closer to shore, providing MPWC operators easier and quicker access to
the riding area and improved safety, should an MPWC operator need
emergency assistance. The transit route to the zone from the entrance
of the Santa Cruz Small Craft Harbor would be reduced from 1.35 miles
to 0.5 miles, providing a 66% shorter route and transit time for MPWC
operators. As noted above, these specific zone modifications have been
requested by MPWC users in the past. Since the prescribed 100-yard wide
MPWC transit corridor for accessing the zone from the small craft
harbor would be shorter, MPWC would be in the transit corridor for less
time, resulting in a shorter period of restricted maneuverability and
lowered potential for negative interaction with marine traffic and
wildlife when approaching/departing the harbor entrance.
3. Modify the year-round Moss Landing MPWC zone by eliminating
current MBNMS buoys ML4 and ML5; this would enable permanent removal of
two buoys from the ocean. By re-shaping the current zone from an
irregular hexagon to a trapezoid, the eastern portion of the zone would
remain in its current position, the zone area would be reduced by 72%
(from 8.10 sq mi to 2.29 sq mi), and two MBNMS buoys would be
permanently removed from the waterway, reducing navigational
obstructions, risk of deep-water mooring failures, and buoy and tackle
loss.
4. Modify the year-round Monterey MPWC zone by using existing Coast
Guard red bell buoy ``4'' as a boundary point instead of MBNMS buoy
MY3; this would enable permanent removal of one MBNMS buoy from this
zone. By re-shaping the current zone from a trapezoid to a
parallelogram, the zone position would rotate 90[deg] clockwise to the
NE, and the zone area would be reduced by 51% (from 6.36 sq mi to 3.10
sq mi). One MBNMS buoy would be permanently removed from the waterway,
one buoy would remain on station, and two buoys would be redeployed to
shallower depths. The redistributed buoys would be positioned within
better visible range of one another, in softer seafloor sediments, and
away from rocky points and popular commercial squid fishing grounds,
thus reducing navigational obstructions, risk of deep-water mooring
failure, risk of disruption to commercial fisheries, and buoy and
tackle loss.
The length of the prescribed zone transit route from Monterey
Harbor would decrease from 1.00 mile to 0.77 mile, reducing the length
of the transit corridor by 23% and facilitating more immediate access
to and from the harbor by MPWC operators and reduced risk of wildlife
disturbance. In addition, the
[[Page 40149]]
transit corridor would be rotated 52 degrees further east from the
harbor entrance, away from the predominant marine traffic pattern to/
from the harbor.
In summary, revising locations of MPWC zone boundaries represents
essential adaptive management practice as envisioned in the National
Marine Sanctuaries Act and the required management plan review process.
The adjustments maintain 9 square miles (5,760 acres) of the sanctuary
for operating MPWC off all four harbors in areas with decreased
likelihood of wildlife disturbance, which were goals for the original
creation of the zones in 1992. Observations by NOAA staff, volunteers,
and partner agencies indicate these areas are not highly used.
Nevertheless, coupled with the increased operating days at the
Mavericks MPWC zone proposed in this draft rule, NOAA's original intent
to facilitate MPWC recreational opportunities will be maintained.
The reconfigured boundaries will also improve access to the MPWC
zones by shifting them closer to shore and harbor launch points.
Reducing the number of necessary MPWC boundary buoys also reduces
impacts to benthic habitats, risk of wildlife entanglements, and risk
of maritime collisions. Relocating buoys will make them more resistant
to storm damage and buoy anchor/chain failure, thereby reducing risks
to mariners from drifting buoys and marine debris from unnecessary
deposition of chain and anchors on the seafloor. Utilizing mooring
locations over soft seafloor sediments can reduce scarring and damage
to hard-substrate benthic habitat and organisms from mooring chain.
Maps depicting the proposed MPWC zone boundary changes can be found in
the draft EA.
III. Classification
A. National Environmental Policy Act
NOAA has prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) to evaluate
the potential impacts on the human environment of this proposed
rulemaking (the preferred regulatory action analyzed in the draft EA),
as well as several alternative actions. No significant impacts to
resources and the human environment are expected to result from this
proposed action, and accordingly, under NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
a draft EA is the appropriate document to analyze the potential impacts
of this action. Following the close of the public comment period and
the satisfaction of consultation requirements under applicable natural
and cultural resource statutes (described below), NOAA will finalize
its NEPA analysis and findings and prepare a final NEPA document.
Copies of the draft EA are available at the address and website listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule.
B. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
C. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This proposed rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
NOAA has concluded this regulatory action does not have federalism
implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism
assessment under Executive Order 13132.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended and codified at 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to the notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 553) or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
The analysis below seeks to fulfill the requirements of Executive
Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Small Business
Administration has established thresholds on the designation of
businesses as ``small entities.'' A finfish fishing business is
considered a small business if it has annual receipts of less than
$20.5 million. Scenic and Sightseeing and Recreational industries are
considered small businesses if they have annual receipts not in excess
of $7.5 million. According to these limits, each of the businesses
potentially affected by this proposed rule would most likely be small
businesses. However, as further discussed below, these regulations will
not have a significant economic impact on the affected small entities,
and the Chief Counsel for Regulation for the Department of Commerce has
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration that this rule will not have significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, NOAA is not required
to prepare and has not prepared an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis.
Methodology. The analysis here is based on limited quantitative
information on how much each activity occurs within MBNMS.
Consequently, the result is more qualitative than quantitative.
Scales Used for Assessing Impacts. For assessing levels of impacts
within an alternative, NOAA used three levels: ``negligible,''
``moderate'' and ``high,'' in addition to ``no impacts.'' For levels of
impacts within the proposed alternatives being analyzed, negligible
means very low benefits, costs, or net benefits (less than 1% change
anticipated following the proposed regulatory change). Moderate impacts
would be more than 1% but less than or equal to 10% change, and high
impacts would be more than 10% change. Negligible and moderate impacts
identified in this assessment would not constitute significant economic
impacts. NOAA analyzed the impacts on small entities of the four
regulatory changes proposed as part of the management plan review
process for MBNMS. Small entity user groups include commercial fishing
operation, recreation-tourism related businesses, and land use and
development businesses.
Proposed Action
(1) Add a new definition for the phrase ``beneficial use of dredged
material'' at 15 CFR 922.131, and clarify that the existing prohibition
on the disposal of dredged material in MBNMS does not apply to habitat
restoration projects using clean dredged material.
Clarifying the authorized uses of clean dredged material from local
harbors for habitat restoration in the sanctuary may create additional
opportunities for entities such as state and local agencies to propose
beneficial use of such dredged materials, which, in turn, may trickle
down to opportunities for businesses. The costs would be negligible to
non-existent because the regulatory clarification of authorized uses of
clean dredged material may facilitate appropriate entities to propose
these authorized uses. There may be negligible to moderate benefits to
shoreline restoration businesses and negligible to moderate benefits to
businesses that clean dredge material due to the additional business
opportunities facilitated by this regulatory clarification. There may
be negligible to moderate benefits to shoreline recreation businesses
such as surf shops, since at least the possible use of clean dredged
material at Pillar Point could help improve a prominent surf spot and
increase general beach use.
[[Page 40150]]
(2) Allow MPWC access to MPWC Zone 5 (Mavericks surf break) during
High Surf Advisory conditions rather than High Surf Warning conditions.
With this proposed rule, NOAA would amend MBNMS regulations to
increase access to an MPWC zone by reducing the sea state condition
required for motorized personal watercraft (MPWC) access to the
Mavericks seasonal-condition zone (Zone 5). NOAA would change the
current High Surf Warning (HSW) requirement to a less stringent High
Surf Advisory (HSA) requirement. Allowing MPWC access to Mavericks
during HSA conditions (predicted breaking waves at the shoreline of 15
feet or greater) would allow MPWC presence at the break 3-5 more days
per year to provide safety assistance to surfers operating in a highly
energized surf zone.
Additional days of MPWC access may result in increased recreational
opportunities. This means that businesses that rent MPWC or offer MPWC
tours may have additional days when they could rent equipment or offer
tours. However, the sea state conditions tend to favor experienced MPWC
users (who likely own their MPWC) rather than casual, recreational MPWC
users who would be more likely to rent or participate in a tour with an
operator. The costs are expected to be non-existent, and the benefits
would be negligible.
(3) Rectify an oversight in the 2009 MBNMS rulemaking regarding
Exempted Department of Defense activities in the Davidson Seamount
Management Zone (DSMZ).
NOAA's proposal to modify 15 CFR 922.132(c)(1) by replacing ``2008
Final Environmental Impact Statement'' with ``2020 Final Environmental
Assessment for Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan
Review'' would publish the list of exempted DOD activities in the
Davidson Seamount Management Zone that were originally intended for
inclusion in the 2008 Final Environmental Impact Statement. There is no
expected impact as a result of addressing the oversight from 2008. The
changes are superficial in nature and do not result in changes to
activities that are or are not prohibited.
(4) Reconfigure motorized personal watercraft (MPWC) zone
boundaries.
The regulations allowing the use of MPWC in the zones would not
change, but the shape and size of the zones would be altered.
The table below shows the size of the current and reconfigured
year-round zones where MPWC are allowed. One zone would increase in
size; three zones would decrease in size. The overall size of the year-
round zones would decrease by 59%. The size of the Mavericks seasonal-
conditional zone would remain unchanged. Observations showed little
MPWC use in the areas selected; therefore, NOAA expects a minimal
impact on the use of the zones by MPWC. MPWC rental businesses may
experience a negligible impact, as MPWC operation would still be
allowed in the areas, just in smaller zones. The reduced number of
deployed buoys and reduced risk of drifting buoys that have parted from
their moorings would produce negligible benefits to boaters (such as
commercial fishers) and other water users by reducing risk of
collision/allision.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current size Proposed size
Zone (sq. mi) (sq. mi)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pillar Point............................ 0.87 0.96
Santa Cruz.............................. 6.36 2.63
Moss Landing............................ 8.10 2.29
Monterey................................ 6.36 3.10
-------------------------------
Total............................... 21.69 8.98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The table below summarizes the findings for each proposed
regulatory action described above and includes a column for passive
use. ``Nonuse'' or ``passive use'' economic values encompass what
economists refer to as option value, existence value and other nonuse
values. All nonuse economic values are based on the fact that people
are willing to pay some dollar amount for a good or service they
currently do not use or consume directly. In the case of an ecological
reserve, they are not current visitors (users), but derive some benefit
from the knowledge that the reserve exists in a certain state and are
willing to pay some dollar amount to ensure that the resources are
maintained and/or improved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dredge and Commercial Recreational water
Regulation \1\ restoration fishermen Scuba diving based \2\ Passive use \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Adding a new definition for Negligible to No Impact........... No Impact........... Negligible to No Impact.
the phrase ``beneficial use of Moderate Benefits. Moderate Benefits.
dredged material'' and amending
existing sanctuary regulations to
clarify the authorized use of
clean dredged material for
habitat restoration.
(2) Allowing MPWC access to MPWC No Impact............ No Impact........... No Impact........... Negligible Benefits. No Impact.
Zone 5 (Mavericks surf break)
during High Surf Advisories.
(3) Correcting an oversight in the No Impact............ No Impact........... No Impact........... No Impact........... No Impact.
2009 revised MBNMS management
plan rulemaking.
(4) Modifying the boundaries of No Impact............ Negligible Benefits. No Impact........... Negligible Cost..... No Impact.
four existing year-round
motorized personal watercraft
(MPWC) zones.
All Regulations................... Negligible to No Impact........... No Impact........... Negligible Benefits. No Impact.
Moderate Benefits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For levels of impacts within the proposed alternatives being analyzed, negligible means very low benefits, costs, or net benefits (less than 1%
change). Moderate impacts would be more than 1% but less than or equal to 10%, and high impacts would be more than 10%. No impact means no costs or
benefits are expected.
\2\ Recreational water based includes businesses that may provide equipment or rent items for recreational water use, such as boats or jet skis that
would be used for recreation on the water that does not include fishing or diving.
\3\ Passive use may create additional economic value and benefits as people spend time and money to learn about the resources through the purchase of
materials such as books, brochures, etc.
[[Page 40151]]
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not create any new information collection
requirement, nor does it revise the information collection requirement
that was approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Control
Number 0648-0141) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. (PRA). Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no
person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
G. National Historic Preservation Act
In fulfilling its responsibility under the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.) and NEPA, NOAA
intends to determine whether the proposed rule is the type of activity
that could affect historic properties. If so, NOAA intends to identify
consulting parties; identify historic properties and assess the effects
of the undertaking on such properties; assess potential adverse
effects; and resolve adverse effects. If applicable, NOAA will initiate
formal consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer/Tribal
Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council of Historic
Preservation, and other consulting parties as appropriate; involve the
public in accordance with NOAA's NEPA procedures; and develop in
consultation with identified consulting parties alternatives and
proposed measures that might avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse
effects on historic properties as appropriate and describe them in the
environmental assessment. NOAA will complete applicable NHPA
requirements before finalizing its NEPA analysis. Individuals or
organizations who wish to participate as a consulting party should
notify NOAA.
H. Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531, et seq.), provides for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants. Federal agencies have
an affirmative mandate to conserve ESA-listed species. Section 7(a)(2)
of the ESA requires federal agencies, in consultation with the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of an ESA-listed
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat. NOAA's ONMS intends to begin informal
consultation under the ESA with NOAA's Office of Protected Resources
(OPR) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service upon publication of this
proposed rule and complete consultation prior to the publication of the
final rule or finalization of the NEPA analysis. NOAA's consultation
will focus on any potential adverse effects of this action on
threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.
I. Marine Mammal Protection Act
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et
seq.), as amended, prohibits the ``take'' \5\ of marine mammals in U.S.
waters. Section 101(a)(5)(A-D) of the MMPA provides a mechanism for
allowing, upon request, the ``incidental,'' but not intentional, taking
of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than commercial fishing or directed research
on marine mammals) within a specified geographic region. ONMS intends
to request technical assistance from NMFS upon publication of this
proposed rule on ONMS's preliminary assessment that this action is not
likely to result in take of marine mammals. If NMFS recommends that
ONMS seek an Incidental Harassment Authorization or Letter of
Authorization, then ONMS will submit an application for any incidental
taking of small numbers of marine mammals that ONMS and NMFS conclude
could occur as a result of this proposed rulemaking. NOAA's request for
technical assistance will focus on the effects of this action on marine
mammals. NOAA will complete any MMPA requirements before finalizing its
NEPA analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The MMPA defines take as: ``to harass, hunt, capture, or
kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture or kill any marine
mammal.'' 16 U.S.C. 1362. Harassment means any act of pursuit,
torment, or annoyance which, (1) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A
Harassment); or (2) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing,
nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B Harassment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Coastal Zone Management Act
The principal objectives of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
are to encourage and assist states in developing coastal management
programs, to coordinate State activities, and to preserve, protect,
develop and, where possible, restore or enhance the resources of the
nation's coastal zone. Section 307(c) of the CZMA requires federal
activity affecting the land or water uses or natural resources of a
state's coastal zone to be consistent with that state's approved
coastal management program to the maximum extent practicable. NOAA will
provide a copy of this proposed rule, the draft EA, and a consistency
determination to the California Coastal Commission (Commission) upon
publication. NOAA will wait for concurrence from the Commission prior
to publication of the final rule.
IV. Request for Comments
NOAA requests comments on this proposed rule, the draft management
plan, and the draft EA. The comment period will remain open until
September 4, 2020.
List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 922
Administrative practice and procedure, Coastal zone, Fishing gear,
Marine resources, Natural resources, Penalties, Recreation and
recreation areas, Wildlife.
Nicole R. LeBoeuf,
Acting Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
For the reasons set forth above, NOAA proposes amending part 922,
title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 922--NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY PROGRAM REGULATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 922 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.
Subpart M--Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
0
2. Amend Sec. 922.131 by adding the definition for ``Beneficial use of
dredged material'' to read as follows:
Sec. 922.131 Definitions.
* * * * *
Beneficial use of dredged material means the use of dredged
material removed from any of the four public harbors immediately
adjacent to the shoreward boundary of the sanctuary (Pillar Point,
Santa Cruz, Moss Landing, and Monterey) that has been determined by the
Director to be clean (as defined by this section) and suitable (as
consistent with regulatory agency reviews and approvals applicable to
the proposed beneficial use) as a resource for habitat restoration
purposes only.
[[Page 40152]]
Beneficial use of dredged material is not disposal of dredged material.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 922.132 by:
0
A. Revising paragraphs (a)(7) and (c)(1).
0
B. Amending paragraph (f) by adding a new sentence before the last
sentence in the paragraph.
The revisions and addition read as follows
Sec. 922.132 Prohibited or otherwise regulated activities.
(a) * * *
(7) Operating motorized personal watercraft within the Sanctuary
except within the four designated zones and access routes within the
Sanctuary described in appendix E to this subpart. Zone Five (at Pillar
Point) exists only when a High Surf Advisory has been issued by the
National Weather Service and is in effect for San Mateo County, and
only during December, January, and February.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) All Department of Defense activities must be carried out in a
manner that avoids to the maximum extent practicable any adverse
impacts on Sanctuary resources and qualities. The prohibitions in
paragraphs (a)(2) through (12) of this section do not apply to existing
military activities carried out by the Department of Defense, as
specifically identified in the Final Environmental Impact Statement and
Management Plan for the Proposed Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
(NOAA, 1992). For purposes of the Davidson Seamount Management Zone,
these activities are listed in the 2020 Final Environmental Assessment
for Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan Review. New
activities may be exempted from the prohibitions in paragraphs (a)(2)
through (12) of this section by the Director after consultation between
the Director and the Department of Defense.
* * * * *
(f) * * * For the purposes of this Subpart, the disposal of dredged
material does not include the beneficial use of dredged material as
defined by 15 CFR 922.131. * * *
0
6. Amend Appendix E to Subpart M of Part 922 to read as follows:
Appendix E to Subpart M of Part 922--Motorized Personal Watercraft
Zones and Access Routes Within the Sanctuary
The four zones and access routes are:
(1) The 0.96 mi\2\ area off Pillar Point Harbor from harbor launch
ramps, through the harbor entrance to the northern boundary of Zone
One:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point ID No. Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (flashing white 5-second breakwater entrance 37.49402 -122.48471
light and horn at the seaward end of the
outer west breakwater--mounted on 50-ft high
white cylindrical structure).................
2 (triangular red dayboard with a red 37.49534 -122.48568
reflective border and flashing red 6-second
light at the seaward end of the outer east
breakwater--mounted on 30-ft high skeleton
tower).......................................
3 (bend in middle of outer east breakwater, 37.49707 -122.47941
660 yards west of the harbor entrance).......
4 (Southeast Reef--southern end green gong 37.46469 -122.46971
buoy ``1S'' with flashing green 6-second
light).......................................
5 (red entrance buoy ``2'' with flashing red 4- 37.47284 -122.48411
second light)................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The 2.63 mi\2\ area off of Santa Cruz Small Craft Harbor from
harbor launch ramps, through the harbor entrance, and then along a 100-
yard wide access route southwest along a bearing of approximately
196[deg] true (180[deg] magnetic) toward the red and white whistle buoy
at 36.93899 N, 122.009612 W, until crossing between the two yellow can
buoys marking, respectively, the northeast and northwest corners of the
zone. Zone Two is bounded by:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point ID No. Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (red/white striped whistle buoy ``SC'' with 36.93899 -122.00961
flashing white Morse code ``A'' light).......
2 (yellow can buoy)........................... 36.95500 -122.00967
3 (yellow can buoy)........................... 36.94167 -121.96667
4 (yellow can buoy)........................... 36.92564 -121.96668
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) The 2.29 mi\2\ area off of Moss Landing Harbor from harbor
launch ramps, through harbor entrance, and then along a 100-yard wide
access route southwest along a bearing of approximately 230[deg] true
(215[deg] magnetic) to the red and white bell buoy at 36.79893 N,
121.80157 W. Zone Three is bounded by:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point ID No. Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (red/white striped bell buoy ``MLA'' with 36.79893 -121.80157
flashing white Morse code ``A'' light).......
2 (yellow can buoy)........................... 36.77833 -121.81667
3 (yellow can buoy)........................... 36.83333 -121.82167
4 (yellow can buoy)........................... 36.81500 -121.80333
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) The 3.10 mi\2\ area off of Monterey Harbor from harbor launch
ramps to a point midway between the seaward end of the U.S. Coast Guard
Pier and the seaward end of Wharf 2, and then along a 100-yard wide
access route northeast along a bearing of approximately 67[deg] true
(52[deg] magnetic) to the yellow can buoy marking the southeast corner
of the zone. Zone Four is bounded by:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point ID No. Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (yellow can buoy)........................... 36.61146 -121.87696
2 (red bell buoy ``4'' with flashing red 4- 36.62459 -121.89594
second light)................................
[[Page 40153]]
3 (yellow can buoy)........................... 36.65168 -121.87416
4 (yellow can buoy)........................... 36.63833 -121.85500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) The .13 mi\2\ area near Pillar Point from the Pillar Point
Harbor entrance along a 100-yard wide access route southeast along a
bearing of approximately 174[deg] true (159[deg] magnetic) to the green
bell buoy (identified as ``Buoy 3'') at 37.48154 N, 122.48156 W and
then along a 100-yard wide access route northwest along a bearing of
approximately 284[deg] true (269[deg] magnetic) to the green gong buoy
(identified as ``Buoy 1'') at 37.48625 N, 122.50603 W, the southwest
boundary of Zone Five. Zone Five exists only when a High Surf Advisory
has been issued by the National Weather Service and is in effect for
San Mateo County and only during December, January, and February. Zone
Five is bounded by:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point ID No. Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (green gong buoy ``1'' with flashing green 37.48625 -122.50603
2.5-second light)............................
2 (intersection of sight lines due north of 37.49305 -122.50603
green gong buoy ``1'' and due west of Sail
Rock)........................................
3 (Sail Rock)................................. 37.49305 -122.50105
4 (intersection of sight lines due east of 37.48625 -122.50105
green gong buoy ``1'' and due south of Sail
Rock)........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2020-14225 Filed 7-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P