[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 217 (Monday, November 15, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62901-62914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24646]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 922

[Docket No. 211103-0224]
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: Final rule and notification of availability of a final 
management plan and final environmental assessment.

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

SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
issues final regulations, a final management plan, and a final 
environmental assessment (EA) for Monterey Bay National Marine 
Sanctuary (MBNMS or sanctuary). The final rule includes modifications 
to three provisions of the 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

[[Page 62902]]

final EA and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) have been 
prepared for this action.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 15, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To obtain a copy of the final management plan, environmental 
assessment, and FONSI, contact the Management Plan Review Coordinator 
at Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Address: 99 Pacific Street, 
Building 455A, Monterey, CA 93940; phone number (831) 647-4201; or via 
email at [email protected]. Copies can also be downloaded 
from the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary website at https://montereybay.noaa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Wooninck, Monterey Bay National 
Marine Sanctuary Acting 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 15 national marine sanctuaries and two 
marine national monuments.

B. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

    NOAA established Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary 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. The sanctuary is located 
offshore of California's central coast, encompassing a shoreline length 
of approximately 276 miles 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 now spans 
approximately 6,094 square miles (4,602 square nautical miles (nmi\2\)) 
of ocean and coastal waters, and the submerged lands thereunder, 
extending an average distance of 30 miles (26 nautical miles (nmi)) 
from shore. Supporting some of the world's most diverse and productive 
marine ecosystems, the sanctuary is home to numerous mammals, seabirds, 
fishes, invertebrates, sea turtles and plants.

C. Need for Action

    The primary purpose of the action is to fulfill section 304(e) of 
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 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 effectively address changing environmental 
conditions and threats to protected resources and qualities of the 
sanctuaries, and that they fulfill the purposes and policies of the 
NMSA. The management plan review process also includes an assessment of 
existing sanctuary regulations to determine if any regulatory changes 
are needed to support management plan objectives.
    Accordingly, ONMS conducted a review of the MBNMS management plan 
and regulations, which resulted in the development of a new management 
plan for the sanctuary and changes to the sanctuary's regulations.
    With this final rule, NOAA modifies three provisions of the MBNMS 
regulations, modifies appendix E to the MBNMS regulations, and adds one 
new definition to the MBNMS regulations. These changes support more 
efficient and effective program management and enhanced stewardship of 
the sanctuary's natural resources. The need for each regulatory action 
is described in greater detail in Section III below.

D. Process

    The process for this action included 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, as well as 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 (85 FR 40143, July 6, 2020), draft revised 
management plan, and draft EA in accordance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); (3) public review and comment on the 
proposed rule, draft management plan, and draft EA; and (4) preparation 
and release of a final rule, final management plan, final EA, and 
FONSI. With the publication of this final rule, NOAA completes the 
fourth phase of the process. All written comments NOAA received are 
available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NOAA-NOS-2020-0094. 
NOAA's responses to public comments are included in Appendix A of the 
final EA, and the comments pertaining to this rulemaking are included 
in Section IV of this document.
    Together with this final rule, NOAA is releasing the final 
management plan, as well as a final EA and FONSI. The management plan 
describes strategies and action plans for conservation and management 
of the sanctuary. The EA contains more detailed information on the 
considerations of the final management plan and regulatory amendments, 
including an assessment of alternatives, analysis of environmental 
impacts, and references. The management plan, EA, and FONSI can be 
found on the website listed in the ADDRESSES section above.

II. Changes From Proposed to Final Regulations

    After considering the public comments received between July 6 and 
September 4, 2020, and engaging in interagency consultations and 
internal deliberations, NOAA revised the proposed beneficial use 
definition in 15 CFR 922.131 to modify the standard applicable to 
dredged material eligible for beneficial use in the sanctuary and to 
clarify that beneficial use includes habitat protection and restoration 
purposes (changes described in detail below). NOAA made corresponding 
changes to the final EA and management plan. Additionally, NOAA made 
technical changes to the descriptions and coordinates of the Motorized 
Personal Watercraft (MPWC) Zones and access routes within the sanctuary 
in appendix E to subpart M of part 922. All other regulatory 
modifications NOAA outlined in the proposed rule remain the same in the 
final rule.
    In the proposed rule, NOAA proposed a definition of ``beneficial 
use of dredged material'' to mean 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 15 CFR 922.131) and suitable (as consistent with 
regulatory agency reviews and approvals applicable to the proposed 
beneficial use) as a resource for habitat restoration purposes only. 
NOAA also proposed the clarification that the beneficial use of dredged 
material is not disposal of dredged material. With this final rule, 
NOAA finalizes the definition of ``beneficial use of dredged material'' 
to mean the use of dredged material

[[Page 62903]]

removed from any of the four public harbors adjacent to the sanctuary 
(Pillar Point, Santa Cruz, Moss Landing, and Monterey) that has been 
determined by the Director to be suitable as a resource for habitat 
protection or restoration purposes only. NOAA also finalizes the 
clarification that the beneficial use of dredged material is not 
disposal of dredged material.
    NOAA made changes to the definition in response to two primary 
concerns raised during the public comment period. First, several 
commenters expressed concern that the prescribed use of dredged 
material for habitat restoration was too restrictive and precluded the 
use of such material for more proactive shoreline protection projects, 
such as: Protecting habitat for wildlife; softscape erosion control 
alternatives; shoreline stabilization; and adaptive management to 
address impacts from sea level rise. NOAA acknowledges that the term 
``restoration'' alone does not adequately encompass proactive measures 
to protect habitat that may prevent the need for restoration by helping 
to prevent future habitat degradation. For example, placing sediment on 
an eroding beach can help protect it from further erosion, and it can 
contribute to the coastal sediment transport system, which provides 
sediment to other nearby coastal beaches. Nourishing beaches also helps 
protect coastal dunes, which provide habitat for threatened and 
endangered species, such as western snowy plovers. NOAA also recognizes 
that there may be ancillary benefits from these projects, such as the 
protection of coastal infrastructure. The purpose of the beneficial use 
regulatory provisions is to protect and restore sanctuary habitats, 
such as beaches, through the beneficial use of dredged material. 
Therefore, NOAA replaces the term ``restoration'' with ``protection or 
restoration'' to allow the beneficial use of suitable dredged material 
removed from any of the four local harbors to cover protecting and 
restoring MBNMS habitats.
    Second, commenters expressed concern that the standard NOAA 
proposed in the definition of ``beneficial use of dredged material'' 
for sediment to be ``clean'' would be a prohibitively strict threshold 
because, based on other definitions in the MBNMS regulations, it would 
mean that the sediment used for habitat protection or restoration 
projects could contain no detectable levels of any of the substances 
listed pursuant to section 42 U.S.C. 9601(14) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) at 40 
CFR 302.4.\1\ Commenters were concerned that if this standard were 
applied, it would be more restrictive than those used by other Federal 
agencies that utilize dredged materials for similar projects, such as 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA). Commenters also expressed concern that it 
would be very difficult to find sediment that could meet the proposed 
standard, which would effectively prevent the placement of any dredged 
sediment and make implementation of the regulation impracticable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 15 CFR 922.131 (MBNMS regulation defining ``clean'' as 
``not containing detectable levels of harmful matter'' and defining 
``harmful matter'' as any substance, or combination of substances, 
that because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, 
or infectious characteristics may pose a present or potential threat 
to Sanctuary resources or qualities, including but not limited to: 
Fishing nets, fishing line, hooks, fuel, oil, and those contaminants 
(regardless of quantity) listed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9601(14) of 
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act at 40 CFR 302.4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing public comments, conferring with other agencies, 
and conducting internal deliberations, NOAA determined that the 
proposed use of ``clean'' as a standard created challenges, given that 
word's meaning elsewhere in MBNMS definitions. Upon consideration, NOAA 
concurs with the concerns outlined above that were raised during the 
public comment period. Moreover, NOAA has determined that the purpose 
of protection of sanctuary resources and qualities can be maintained 
via a revised sediment standard and through the implementation of 
permit and/or authorization review criteria. Therefore, with this final 
rule, NOAA revises the standard so that the ONMS Director must 
determine that the dredged material is ``suitable'' as a resource for 
habitat protection or restoration purposes only.
    NOAA also removed the parenthetical language in the proposed rule 
following ``suitable'' (i.e., ``as consistent with the regulatory 
agency reviews and approvals applicable to the proposed beneficial 
use'') to clarify that the ONMS Director's ``suitable'' determination 
is not limited to only considering regulatory agency reviews and 
approvals, although these reviews and approvals will continue to be 
required. The revised standard fulfills the same purposes and policies 
of the originally proposed ``clean'' and ``suitable'' standard by 
ensuring that dredged sediment for proposed habitat protection or 
restoration projects is subject to rigorous evaluation and furthers the 
statutory and regulatory purpose of protection of sanctuary resources. 
The beneficial use of dredged material within MBNMS for habitat 
protection or restoration purposes still has to meet NOAA's own 
permitting and/or authorization criteria and undergo environmental 
review, as well as other rigorous testing and screening criteria 
established by other Federal and state regulatory agencies, as 
applicable.
    Additionally, NOAA has made technical changes to the descriptions 
of the harbors in the definition of ``beneficial use of dredged 
material,'' as well as to the descriptions and coordinates of the 
Motorized Personal Watercraft (MPWC) Zones and access routes within the 
sanctuary in appendix E to subpart M of part 922. These technical 
changes include: Revising the phrase ``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)'' to 
``removed from any of the four public harbors adjacent to the sanctuary 
(Pillar Point, Santa Cruz, Moss Landing, and Monterey)''; adding the 
missing phrase ``[Coordinates listed in this appendix are unprojected 
(Geographic) and based on the North American Datum of 1983]'' to the 
beginning of appendix E to clarify which projection NOAA uses to 
calculate the zone coordinates; adding the last point coordinates to 
each of the five zones to complete the polygon, along with descriptive 
text explaining how to draw the polygons from point to point; and 
correcting the magnetic bearings listed for each zone to make them more 
accurate. These technical changes in the final rule do not result in 
differences in the list of eligible harbor sources or locations of the 
polygons from the proposed rule.
    NOAA determined that the changes made from proposed to final rule 
did not result in any changes in the conclusions of the final EA with 
regard to the significance of the impacts.

III. Summary of Final Regulations

A. Beneficial Use of Suitable Dredged Material

    The MBNMS terms of designation and regulations prohibit permitting 
the disposal of dredged material within the sanctuary other than at 
sites authorized by the EPA prior to the effective date of 
designation.\2\ NOAA is adding a new definition for ``beneficial use of 
dredged material'' to 15 CFR 922.131 and amending 15 CFR 922.132(f) to 
clarify

[[Page 62904]]

that ``beneficial use'' of dredged material as defined in 15 CFR 
922.131 is not ``disposal'' of dredged material as described at 15 CFR 
922.132(a)(2)(i)(F) and 15 CFR 922.132(f). Together, these regulatory 
changes clarify that the MBNMS terms of designation and regulations do 
not preclude NOAA from approving the beneficial use of dredged material 
within sanctuary boundaries that has been removed from any of the four 
public harbors adjacent to the sanctuary and that has been determined 
by the Director to be suitable for habitat protection or restoration 
purposes. In this section, NOAA discusses the requirements to approve 
beneficial use projects; provides additional historical context for 
this regulatory clarification in light of the original terms of 
designation and management approaches; summarizes additional options 
for sediment placement for habitat protection and restoration purposes 
that are currently available and remain unchanged by this rulemaking; 
and provides a brief overview of the regulatory context of dredge, 
fill, and disposal projects that helped inform this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Article V of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary 
Terms of Designation, 73 FR 70488 (Nov. 20, 2008); 15 CFR 
922.132(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Review and Permitting of Beneficial Use Projects
    This section provides additional context on the review criteria and 
other requirements that must be met for beneficial use projects to be 
approved.
    Any project that proposes the beneficial use of dredged material 
would require a NOAA sanctuary permit and/or authorization, as well as 
appropriate review under NEPA, the Clean Water Act, and other 
applicable statutes. The ONMS Director has broad authority in applying 
permit review criteria to ensure the proposed project is conducted in a 
manner that is compatible with the primary objective of protecting 
sanctuary resources and qualities; to consider other permit review 
factors deemed appropriate; and to include any permit terms or 
conditions deemed appropriate.\3\ The ONMS Director also has broad 
authority in applying authorization reviews of any valid lease, permit, 
license, or approval to include any terms or conditions deemed 
reasonably necessary to protect sanctuary resources and qualities.\4\ 
The Director would also assess the suitability of the sediment using 
water quality and sediment quality criteria that are established and 
updated by the sanctuary to ensure that it matches the physical 
properties of native sediments at any planned receiving site (e.g., 
grain size, sediment type) and meets sanctuary water quality 
objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 CFR 922.133.
    \4\ 15 CFR 922.49(a)(4) and 922.132(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed project involving the use of dredged material would only 
be eligible for approval by NOAA if the project demonstrates a 
sanctuary habitat protection or restoration purpose under the new 
definition of ``beneficial use of dredged material'' at 15 CFR 922.131. 
For the purposes of the ``beneficial use of dredged material'' 
definition in this final rule, ``habitat restoration'' means placing 
sediment for the purpose of re-establishing natural habitats that have 
been negatively impacted by erosion processes, including but not 
limited to wetlands, sandy beaches, and coastal dune habitats. For the 
purposes of the ``beneficial use of dredged material'' definition in 
this final rule, ``habitat protection'' means placing sediment at sites 
in the sanctuary to protect against habitat degradation and reduce the 
need for future habitat restoration. As an example of how habitat 
protection may proactively reduce the need for future habitat 
restoration, a well-designed project could help minimize coastal 
erosion by providing a buffer of protection during seasonally dynamic 
storm cycles that could otherwise remove or replace large volumes of 
sand. Furthermore, when a coastal beach habitat is restored or 
protected, the adjacent upland resources such as shoreline 
infrastructure may also be protected.
    In addition to a sanctuary permit and/or authorization and an 
appropriate environmental review, the beneficial use of dredged 
material at sites within the sanctuary may also require review and 
permitting by other Federal and State regulatory authorities with 
jurisdiction over the proposed beneficial use project.
2. Sources of Sediment Eligible for Use in Beneficial Use Projects
    This section explains the historical context of the prohibition in 
the MBNMS terms of designation and regulations on permitting disposal 
of harbor dredged materials. This section also explains the sources of 
sediment that are eligible for use in permitted beneficial use projects 
in the sanctuary: Suitable sediment from local harbors immediately 
adjacent to the sanctuary; suitable sediment from upland and onshore 
sources; and suitable sediment from non-harbor offshore sources within 
the sanctuary.
a. Historical Context of the MBNMS Terms of Designation and Regulations
    A key provision of the terms of designation and regulations 
governing MBNMS stipulates that in no event may sanctuary managers 
permit, authorize, or approve the disposal of dredged material within 
the sanctuary other than at federally approved dredge disposal sites 
established prior to sanctuary designation.\5\ Absent clarification in 
MBNMS regulations that ``disposal of dredged material'' is a different 
activity than ``beneficial use of dredged material'' for habitat 
protection or restoration, NOAA has not authorized discharges of 
harbor-dredged material directly into the sanctuary under its 
discretionary authority described at 15 CFR 922.48, 922.49, 922.132(e), 
and 922.133 other than at pre-approved disposal sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Article V of the MBNMS Terms of Designation, 73 FR 70488 
(Nov. 20, 2008); 15 CFR 922.132(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, in the last MBNMS Management Plan (November 2008), NOAA 
stated, ``[i]f 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.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Final Management Plan, pg. 96. available at: https://montereybay.noaa.gov/intro/mp/welcome.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NOAA has determined that the protection and restoration purposes of 
local harbor-driven beach nourishment projects--projects that have, to 
date, largely relied on onshore placement of suitable material--can be 
further promoted by allowing placement of suitable dredged material 
directly into the sanctuary below the mean high water (MHW) line for 
habitat protection or restoration purposes. One example site that could 
benefit from placement of sediment below MHW line, subject to a project 
proposal and applicable permit and environmental review criteria, is 
the potential placement of suitable dredged material from Pillar Point 
Harbor into the shallow subtidal zone of the sanctuary at El Granada/
Surfer's Beach (discussed in more detail below). The beneficial use of 
suitable dredged material for habitat protection or restoration 
purposes in the sanctuary would provide an additional effective and 
sustainable option to address sites in the sanctuary where shoreline 
habitat and resources have been heavily impacted by erosion or no 
longer exist due to the presence of shoreline structures, coastal 
armoring, sea level rise, and increased storm activity.
    For the reasons explained here and throughout this final rule, NOAA 
has

[[Page 62905]]

determined that employment of additional habitat protection or 
restoration projects using suitable dredged material from any of the 
four adjacent harbors would be possible and appropriate. Accordingly, 
this final rule clarifies that beneficial use projects may occur 
through MBNMS permits and/or authorizations if all applicable criteria 
are met.
b. Sediment From Local Harbors Immediately Adjacent to the Sanctuary
    The four harbors immediately adjacent to the sanctuary, and no 
other harbors, are considered eligible sources of material for 
protecting or restoring habitats for several reasons.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The boundaries of these harbor jurisdictions are described 
in 15 CFR 922.130(a) and 15 CFR part 922, subpart M, appendix A. See 
15 CFR 922.130(a). Maps of these harbor jurisdictions with harbor 
exclusion coordinates noted are located here: https://nmsmontereybay.blob.core.windows.net/montereybay-prod/media/materials/maps/harbor1_lg.jpg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the four harbors and the sanctuary are in the same local 
sediment transport cell, which means that the sediments that settle in 
the four harbor channels generally come from the same sources as those 
that settle in the sanctuary. Second, if the four harbors adjacent to 
the sanctuary did not exist, sand and other sediment would not settle 
in the harbors and would thus remain in the coastal transport cell. 
Therefore, the regulatory clarifications regarding the permitted use of 
suitable dredged material from the four named harbors for beneficial 
use projects achieve the intent of helping restore the normal transport 
of sediment along the coast within the sanctuary.
    Third, the original terms of designation and regulations for MBNMS 
regarding dredge disposal contemplated the need to accommodate dredging 
from the four local harbors via disposal of such dredged material at 
authorized, offshore disposal sites, but they never envisioned the 
sanctuary as a site to absorb dredge materials from harbors distant to 
the sanctuary. In fact, NOAA's final EIS for the 1992 MBNMS designation 
discussed how designating the new sanctuary would prevent the creation 
of new disposal sites within MBNMS's boundaries for dredged material 
extracted from the harbors within San Francisco Bay, due to the 
sanctuary's regulatory prohibition on designation and use of any new 
ocean dredged material disposal sites within the sanctuary.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Final Environmental 
Impact Statement and Management Plan Vol 1. 1992. Pgs. IV-31 to IV-
35. available at: https://montereybay.noaa.gov/intro/mp/archive/original_eis/partIV_sI.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the clarification in this final rule that disposal of 
dredged material does not include the beneficial use of dredged 
material is meant to only address material dredged from any of the four 
harbors immediately adjacent to MBNMS. For these reasons, the new 
definition for ``beneficial use of dredged material'' applies to 
material removed from these four local harbors and not to material 
removed from other harbors.
c. Upland and Onshore Sediment Sources
    As explained above, the original prohibition on the disposal of 
dredged material in the MBNMS terms of designation and regulations 
addressed a concern with disposal of harbor-dredged material.\9\ 
Onshore or upland sources of sediment, provided they are not sourced 
from dredging a harbor other than the four adjacent to MBNMS, are 
treated differently because they are not harbor-dredged material. NOAA 
received public comments on the proposed rule that expressed confusion 
as to the effect of the rulemaking on NOAA's ability to permit 
placement of upland material for beneficial use projects. This 
rulemaking does not change NOAA's current authority and long-standing 
approach with respect to permitting placement of upland or onshore 
sediments within the sanctuary. The placement of suitable material 
within the sanctuary that originates from onshore sources (e.g., 
sediment from coastal bluffs/dunes, coastal lagoon sediment traps, 
coastal highway construction projects, river maintenance) for habitat 
protection or restoration projects may continue to be allowed through 
appropriate permits and/or authorizations and environmental review. 
NOAA has issued permits in the past for placement of these types of 
materials within the sanctuary, such as south of A[ntilde]o Nuevo and 
along the Big Sur coast from coastal highway maintenance and repair 
projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See also Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Final 
Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan Vol 1. 1992, pg. 
II-79, for additional discussion of dredging and dredge disposal 
activities in the context of harbor activities. Available at: 
https://montereybay.noaa.gov/intro/mp/archive/original_eis/partII_sIII.html#d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Offshore Sediment Sources Within the Sanctuary
    NOAA also received public comments that expressed confusion about 
whether beneficial use projects in the sanctuary may rely upon sediment 
from offshore sources. Similar to proposed beneficial use projects 
using upland material, NOAA may permit the placement of suitable 
sediment from offshore sources within the sanctuary for habitat 
protection and restoration purposes, as long as the sediment is not 
dredged from a harbor other than one of the four local harbors 
referenced above. This rulemaking does not alter NOAA's ability to 
permit such projects and does not preclude a potential permit applicant 
from requesting to source and dredge material from within MBNMS (e.g., 
an offshore sand cell) and deposit it nearshore for habitat protection 
or restoration.
    Review of such a proposed project currently, and after this 
rulemaking, would need to evaluate the environmental impacts of the 
removal of the offshore material and the impacts of its deposit 
elsewhere in the sanctuary. In order to approve such a project, NOAA 
would need to make the necessary findings within the MBNMS permit or 
authorization review criteria and other applicable regulations. Review 
and approval by other agencies may also be required.
3. Other Sediment Placement Options
    This section provides a brief summary of two available options for 
sediment placement for beneficial use purposes in which the sediment is 
placed outside, rather than within, the sanctuary.
a. Onshore Sediment Placement Shoreward of the Sanctuary's Mean High 
Water Boundary
    Placement of sediment above the mean high water (MHW) line (i.e., 
outside the MBNMS shoreward boundary) immediately adjacent to the 
sanctuary would not constitute prohibited disposal of dredged material 
within the sanctuary. To date, NOAA has accommodated requests for such 
placement of dredged sediment above the MHW line from three of the four 
adjacent harbors for beach nourishment purposes.
    Several examples of such projects are as follows. In 2007, NOAA 
concurred with other agencies to allow Moss Landing Harbor to place 
suitable beach nourishment material from harbor dredging on the beach 
above MHW immediately south of the harbor breakwater, in an area not 
within the sanctuary. Further, 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 dredged material from Monterey Harbor onto two EPA-
approved locations above MHW at Del Monte Beach. The material meets 
USACE, EPA, and California Regional Water Quality Control Board water 
and

[[Page 62906]]

sediment quality standards and consists primarily of an acceptable 
grain size that is compatible with the receiving beach. Sediment 
deposited at these two beach locations in Monterey is eventually washed 
by natural wave action into lower tidal areas (i.e., below MHW and thus 
inside the sanctuary) and laterally along the shoreline, effectively 
maintaining or creating improved coastal habitat and recreational 
resources within the sanctuary. A similar but larger on-shore beach 
restoration protocol has been established at Twin Lakes Beach in Santa 
Cruz for suitable sediment dredged from the entrance channel to Santa 
Cruz Harbor.
    Based upon the past successful use of suitable dredged material for 
beach nourishment at Santa Cruz, Moss Landing, and Monterey, in 2015 
NOAA wrote to Pillar Point Harbor to convey how onshore placement of 
its suitable dredge material would not constitute discharge within the 
bounds of the sanctuary and could allow the harbor district to 
implement a beach nourishment project it had long sought for El 
Granada/Surfer's Beach next to that harbor. Due to the interruption of 
natural sand transport patterns, the beach has eroded to such a degree 
that ocean waters now extend to the toe of the riprap armoring that 
safeguards Highway 1. El Granada/Surfer's Beach is now often submerged 
at MHW, and a fraction of the former beach appears only at the lowest 
tide levels. An on-shore beach restoration project could restore the 
natural coastal beach habitat, as well as provide recreational benefits 
to beach goers and protect the highway infrastructure. Pillar Point 
Harbor has received grant funds and continues to study such an on-shore 
beach restoration project.
    The habitat restoration projects described here 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 dredged material on these beaches has helped protect 
coastal beaches and dunes, stabilize their geologic profiles, and 
protect these habitats for wildlife. Although NOAA has determined that 
the protection and restoration purposes of local harbor-driven beach 
nourishment projects can be further promoted by allowing placement of 
suitable harbor-dredged material directly into the sanctuary, the 
option of a project using onshore placement of suitable material 
remains available.
b. Sediment Placement in Areas Outside the Sanctuary
    This rulemaking does not affect the current prohibitions on 
deposition in the sanctuary of any material dredged from harbors other 
than the four adjacent to the sanctuary, such as the complex of harbors 
in San Francisco Bay or the San Francisco main ship channel, except for 
use of federally-approved disposal sites SF-12 and SF-14 off Moss 
Landing. Nonetheless, Federal and State agencies and harbor managers 
could discharge suitable material from these sources for beach 
nourishment offshore of or onshore the approximately 12 miles of 
coastal habitat and beaches off San Francisco, Daly City, and Pacifica 
that is outside of the boundaries of Monterey Bay National Marine 
Sanctuary, subject to other applicable review and permitting 
requirements. Such a beach nourishment project along this stretch of 
coast would be closer to the dredged source, which would both increase 
project feasibility and restore the material to the closest location 
within the littoral coastal transport cell. A beach nourishment project 
in this area would not be governed by sanctuary regulations unless 
there was a potential for that material to enter and injure sanctuary 
resources.
4. Statutory and Regulatory Context of Dredge, Fill, and Disposal 
Projects
    This action, which clarifies NOAA's authority to approve the use of 
dredged material from the four adjacent public harbor jurisdictions 
that has been determined by the Director to be suitable as a resource 
for habitat protection or restoration purposes within the sanctuary, is 
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 USACE 
and EPA regulations. The existing regulatory framework differentiates 
between the disposal, or discarding, of dredged material and the 
beneficial use of dredged material, which refers to the purposeful 
application of material. 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 nourishment, is regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water 
Act.\10\ In addition to the ONMS Director's approval, any proposed 
beneficial use of dredged material project in MBNMS would be subject to 
applicable permit and regulatory reviews of other Federal and State 
authorities with jurisdiction over the proposed project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 33 CFR 336.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, this action is also 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).\11\ The USACE Engineering and 
Design Manual on Dredging and Dredged Material (July 2015) states, 
``Interest in using dredged material as a manageable, beneficial 
resource, as an alternative to conventional placement practices, has 
increased.'' \12\ The USACE/EPA Beneficial Use Planning Manual 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.'' \13\ The planning manual further notes 
that in general, ``clean, coarse-grained sediments (sands) are suitable 
for a wide variety of beneficial uses.'' \14\ Finally, the USACE/EPA 
Manual on The Role of the Federal Standard in the Beneficial Reuse of 
Dredged Material indicates, ``a beneficial use option may be selected 
for a project even if it is not the Federal Standard for that 
project.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See California Coastal Commission's Sea Level Rise Policy 
Guidance, available at: https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/slr/guidance/2018/0_Full_2018AdoptedSLRGuidanceUpdate.pdf.
    \12\ EM 1110-2-5025 at page 5-1 (July 31, 2015), available at: 
https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/portals/76/publications/engineermanuals/em_1110-2-5025.pdf.
    \13\ Identifying, Planning, and Financing Beneficial Use 
Projects Using Dredged Material at 11 (October 2007, available at: 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/identifying_planning_and_financing_beneficial_use_projects.pdf.
    \14\ The USACE/EPA Beneficial Use Planning Manual was not 
applying NOAA's proposed definition of ``clean'' referring to 
CERCLA. Rather, the Planning Manual considered suitability factors 
under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, and data on 
grain size, levels of contamination, salinity, water content, 
organic content, acidity, levels of nutrients, and engineering 
properties. Id. at 10-11.
    \15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NOAA has determined the placement in the sanctuary of local dredged 
material (removed from any of the four public harbors adjacent to the 
sanctuary) that has been determined by the Director to be suitable for 
habitat protection or restoration purposes is appropriate and 
consistent with the

[[Page 62907]]

existing regulatory framework for dredge, fill, and disposal projects.
5. Conclusion
    For the reasons explained here, NOAA is adopting this regulatory 
change to clarify NOAA's authority to approve the beneficial use of 
suitable dredged material for habitat protection or restoration 
purposes within MBNMS. Such use would not constitute ``disposal of 
dredged material'' within the meaning of the MBNMS terms of designation 
and regulations. This regulatory change does not pose additional 
regulatory burdens to the public, but rather, increases the 
availability of projects that may be permitted to help address coastal 
erosion and beach nourishment in the sanctuary.

B. Modification of Seasonal/Conditional Requirement for Motorized 
Personal Watercraft (MPWC) Access to MPWC Zone 5 at Mavericks

    Consistent with the text that appeared in the proposed rule, NOAA 
amends MBNMS regulations to reduce the sea state condition required for 
MPWC access to MPWC zone 5 at Mavericks, offshore of Half Moon Bay. 
NOAA is changing the current high surf warning (HSW) requirement to a 
less stringent high surf advisory (HSA) requirement. The MPWC zone 5 
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 may access zone 5 
at Mavericks 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) allows MPWC presence at the break three to five 
additional days per year to provide safety assistance to surfers 
operating in a highly energized surf zone.
    Surfers have developed new techniques for accessing larger waves, 
enabling surfers to 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 condition 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 
MBNMS Advisory Council recommendation and believes it would benefit 
public safety, while posing no significant added threat of disturbance 
to protected wildlife due to minimal wildlife activity in the area 
during extreme high-surf conditions in winter months.

C. Reconfiguration of Year-Round MPWC Zone Boundaries

    Consistent with the text that appeared in the proposed rule, NOAA 
amends the MBNMS regulations to modify boundaries of four, year-round 
MPWC 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. NOAA is not modifying the 
boundaries of the seasonal/conditional zone 5 at Mavericks.
    Specifically, these modifications 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 efforts. The zones were 
established in 1992 to provide recreational use areas for MPWC while 
safeguarding marine wildlife and habitats. MPWC have the unique 
capability 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, September 18, 1992).
    The four MPWC zones were established near each of the four harbors 
in the sanctuary where MPWC operators typically launch. The boundaries 
were delineated without consideration of practical matters such as the 
integrity or sustainability of buoy stations. 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 a lack of soft sediments into 
which an anchor may be securely 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. As stated above, reducing the number of boundary 
buoys by utilizing existing marks and geographical features (e.g., 
United States Coast Guard (USCG) navigation buoys and landmarks) can 
markedly reduce navigational hazards and mooring failures that create 
public safety issues, marine debris, seafloor impacts, and excessive 
maintenance efforts.
    Anecdotal observations of MPWC zone use over time by harbor 
officials, marine enforcement officers, ocean users, sanctuary staff, 
and volunteers indicate that the zones are rarely used by MPWC 
operators. Therefore, reconfiguring the zones will minimally impact a 
small number of users.
    Relocation of marker buoys to shallower mooring depths will improve 
station-keeping, inspection, and maintenance of buoy moorings. 
Reconfiguring the four zones reduces the overall number of deployed 
MPWC boundary buoys from fifteen to nine, which is a 40% net reduction 
in the number of MPWC boundary buoy mooring sites; eliminates six 
existing buoy mooring stations entirely; replaces four existing mooring 
stations with four new shallower mooring stations; and leaves five 
previous mooring stations unchanged. These modifications will result in 
the permanent removal of anchors and chain from the seafloor at ten 
sites and the installation of anchors and chain at four new sites. As 
previously stated, the four new mooring stations will 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 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 still provide considerable area 
adjacent to all four harbors for general use of MPWC, fulfilling the 
original goal for the zones when MBNMS was established in 1992. The 
four reconfigured year-round access zones offer 0.96 square miles (0.72 
nmi\2\) of riding area south of Pillar Point Harbor, 2.63 square miles 
(1.99 nmi\2\) off Santa Cruz Harbor, 2.29 square miles (1.73 nmi\2\) 
off Moss Landing Harbor,

[[Page 62908]]

and 3.10 square miles (2.34 nmi\2\) off Monterey Harbor. Maps depicting 
MPWC zone boundary changes can be found in the final EA.
    Reconfiguring the four zones to be smaller and closer to shore 
provides improved MPWC access and operator safety, and also aids zone 
monitoring, enforcement, and planned systematic surveys of zone use 
described in the new MBNMS management plan. The zone reconfigurations 
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 zones. The shorter access 
corridors lower the potential for negative interactions with marine 
traffic and wildlife as MPWC transit to or from harbors. Rotation of 
the access corridor at the Monterey zone, away from the predominant 
marine traffic pattern at the harbor entrance, also reduces the 
potential for negative interaction with other vessels there. The 
reconfigured zone boundaries at Santa Cruz shift that zone closer to 
shore, which provides MPWC operators easier and faster access to the 
riding area, as well as improved safety should an MPWC operator need 
emergency assistance. In the past, MPWC users requested that the access 
corridor be shortened and the zone at Santa Cruz be shifted closer to 
shore.
    The five existing MPWC zones remain at their current general 
geographical location. Consistent with the proposed rule, NOAA is 
making the following changes to the four year-round MPWC zones:
    1. Modify the year-round MPWC zone at Half Moon Bay by using 
existing USCG red bell buoy 2 and existing USCG green gong buoy 1S as 
boundary points instead of current MBNMS buoys PP2 and PP3. By re-
shaping the current zone from a parallelogram to a concave pentagon, 
the zone's general position south of Pillar Point Harbor is maintained, 
increasing the zone area by 10% (from 0.87 sq mi (0.66 nmi\2\) to 0.96 
sq mi (0.73 nmi\2\)). Permanent removal of the two MBNMS buoys at this 
zone reduces navigational obstructions, risk of mooring failure, and 
buoy and tackle loss.
    2. Modify the year-round MPWC zone at Santa Cruz by using existing 
USCG red/white whistle buoy SC as a boundary point, instead of the 
current MBNMS buoy SC7. By re-shaping the current zone from a rectangle 
to a parallelogram, the zone position rotates 45[deg] clockwise to the 
NE, reducing the zone area by 59% (from 6.36 sq mi (4.80 nmi\2\) to 
2.63 sq mi (1.98 nmi\2\)). The transit route to the zone from the 
entrance of the Santa Cruz Small Craft Harbor is reduced from 1.35 
miles (1.17 nmi) to 0.5 miles (0.43 nmi). One MBNMS buoy will be 
permanently removed from the waterway, one buoy will remain on station, 
and two buoys will be redeployed to shallower depths. The redistributed 
buoys will 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.
    3. Modify the year-round MPWC zone at Moss Landing by eliminating 
current MBNMS buoys ML4 and ML5. By re-shaping the current zone from an 
irregular hexagon to a trapezoid, the eastern portion of the zone 
remains in its current position; the zone area is reduced by 72% (from 
8.10 sq mi (6.12 nmi\2\) to 2.29 sq mi (1.73 nmi\2\)). Permanent 
removal of two MBNMS buoys at this zone reduces navigational 
obstructions, risk of deep-water mooring failures, and buoy and tackle 
loss.
    4. Modify the year-round MPWC zone at Monterey by using existing 
USCG red bell buoy 4 as a boundary point instead of MBNMS buoy MY3. By 
re-shaping the current zone from a trapezoid to a parallelogram, the 
zone position rotates 90[deg] clockwise to the NE, and the zone area is 
reduced by 51% (from 6.36 sq mi (4.8 nmi\2\) to 3.10 sq mi (2.34 
nmi\2\)). One MBNMS buoy will be permanently removed from the waterway, 
one buoy remains on station, and two buoys will be redeployed to 
shallower depths. The redistributed buoys will be positioned within 
better visible range of one another, in softer seafloor sediments, and 
away from rocky points and popular commercial squid fishing grounds, 
which reduces 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 decreases from 1.00 mile (0.87nm) to 0.77 miles (0.67 nm). In 
addition, the transit corridor rotates 52 degrees farther east from the 
harbor entrance, away from the predominant marine traffic pattern to 
and from the harbor.
    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 and 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 
chains.
    In summary, revising locations of MPWC zone boundaries represents 
essential adaptive management as envisioned in the NMSA and the 
required management plan review process. The adjustments maintain 9 
square miles (7.82 nmi\2\) 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. Coupled with the increased operating days at the seasonal/
conditional MPWC zone at Mavericks, NOAA's original intent to 
facilitate MPWC recreational opportunities is maintained. Maps 
depicting the proposed MPWC zone boundary changes can be found in the 
final EA.

D. Exempted Department of Defense Activities Within Davidson Seamount 
Management Zone

    Consistent with the text that appeared in the proposed rule, NOAA 
amends 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 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that accompanied the 
2008 MBNMS Management Plan. However, due to an administrative error, 
the list of exempted activities was not included in the 2008 FEIS. A 
December 18, 2006, letter from the U.S. Air Force (USAF) 30th Space 
Wing identified a list of USAF activities at the DSMZ that existed at 
the time of the DSMZ designation that are subject to DOD exemption. The 
MBNMS Superintendent confirmed in a January 5, 2009, letter to the USAF 
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 amends 15 CFR 922.132(c)(1) by replacing 
``2008 Final Environmental Impact Statement'' with ``2021 Final 
Environmental Assessment for the MBNMS Management Plan Review'' and has 
added an appendix to the 2021 final EA to serve as the published list 
of exempted DOD activities within the DSMZ. NOAA herein affirms that 
the exemptions requested by the USAF in 2006 and

[[Page 62909]]

confirmed by NOAA in 2009 have been valid since the effective date of 
the DSMZ's addition to MBNMS (March 9, 2009).

IV. Response to Comments

    NOAA received 159 comments on the proposed rule, draft management 
plan, and draft environmental assessment (EA) during the July 6 through 
September 4, 2020, public review period. NOAA hosted three virtual 
public meetings with 117 total participants. NOAA received written 
comments from members of the public submitted at www.regulations.gov, 
written comments from MBNMS's Research Activity Panel, and oral and 
written comments provided during virtual public meetings and two 
sanctuary advisory council meetings. Due to the volume of comments 
received, the section below summarizes and addresses those comments 
related to the proposed rulemaking. Please refer to Appendix A in the 
final EA (https://montereybay.noaa.gov/intro/mp/welcome.html) to see 
summaries of and responses to all substantive issues raised in all 
comments for the proposed rule, draft management plan, and draft EA.
    All substantive issues raised in relation to the proposed 
rulemaking are summarized and addressed in this section. NOAA 
summarized the comments according to the content of the statement or 
question put forward in written statements or oral testimony regarding 
the proposed action and alternatives. Technical or editorial comments 
on any of the draft documents are incorporated in the final rule, final 
management plan, and final EA, and are not described in further detail 
here.

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Regulation

    1. Comment: NOAA should support the regulation clarifying the 
language in the terms of designation and MBNMS regulations prohibiting 
permitting the disposal of dredged material within the sanctuary (other 
than at sites authorized by the U.S. EPA prior to the effective date of 
designation) which does not preclude NOAA from authorizing the 
beneficial use of clean dredged material within sanctuary boundaries 
when suitable for habitat restoration purposes.
    Response: NOAA agrees and is moving forward with the beneficial use 
regulation with some clarifications and modifications.

``Clean'' Definition

    2. Comment: NOAA should clarify its definition of ``clean'' 
material and clarify the standards used to assess material appropriate 
for beneficial use projects.
    Response: In this final rule, NOAA acknowledges that the proposed 
use of ``clean'' as a standard for beneficial use projects created 
challenges given how that word is defined elsewhere in MBNMS 
regulations (see 15 CFR 922.131). NOAA has determined that the purpose 
of protection of sanctuary resources and qualities could be maintained 
via a revised sediment standard and implementation of permit and/or 
authorization review criteria. NOAA has therefore removed ``clean'' 
from the sanctuary definition of ``beneficial use of dredged 
material.'' Instead, the ONMS Director must determine that the dredged 
material is ``suitable'' as a resource for habitat protection or 
restoration purposes. Please see Section II. ``Changes from Proposed to 
Final Regulations'' for further information about the change from the 
proposed rule to the final rule, as well as a description of the 
standard for `suitable'.

Beneficial Use Standards

    3. Comment: NOAA should use EPA's standards for determining 
suitability of dredged material for placement within MBNMS for 
beneficial use.
    Response: NOAA will apply ONMS review criteria for permits and/or 
authorizations. In addition to an ONMS permit or authorization, a 
project would also be reviewed and permitted, as appropriate, by other 
Federal and State regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over the 
proposed beneficial use project, such as the EPA, as applicable. Please 
see Section III A. 1. ``Review and permitting of beneficial use 
projects'' for more information on how NOAA will evaluate beneficial 
use projects proposed to be conducted within sanctuary boundaries.

Limited Sources of Dredged Material

    4. Comment: NOAA received comments that the proposed beneficial use 
definition unnecessarily limits the origin of dredged material that can 
be considered for beneficial use to the four harbors adjacent to the 
sanctuary.
    Response: NOAA provides several reasons in Section III. A. 2. b., 
``Sediment from local harbors immediately adjacent to the sanctuary,'' 
why the four harbors immediately adjacent to the sanctuary, and no 
other harbors, are considered eligible sources of material for 
protecting or restoring habitats. First, the four harbors and the 
sanctuary are in the same local sediment transport cell, which means 
that the sediments that settle in the four harbor channels generally 
come from the same sources as those that settle in the sanctuary. 
Second, if the four harbors adjacent to the sanctuary did not exist, 
sand and other sediment would not settle in the harbors and would thus 
remain in the coastal transport cell. Therefore, the regulatory 
clarifications regarding the permitted use of suitable dredged material 
from the four named harbors for beneficial use projects achieve the 
intent of helping restore the normal transport of sediment along the 
coast within the sanctuary. Third, NOAA describes historical reasons 
why the original designation of MBNMS did not envision the sanctuary as 
a site to absorb dredge materials from harbors distant to MBNMS.
    In addition to the four harbors, NOAA describes several other 
sources of material that could be approved for beneficial use projects 
within the sanctuary. Please see Section III. 2. ``Sources of Sediment 
eligible for use in beneficial use projects'' for more information on 
other eligible sources of material.

Habitat Protection and Restoration

    5. Comment: NOAA received comments that the proposed rule restricts 
the use of dredged material to ``habitat restoration,'' which could 
preclude using the dredge material to protect infrastructure threatened 
by coastal erosion, sea level rise, and coastal storms.
    Response: In response to these comments, NOAA has modified the 
definition of the ``beneficial use of dredged material'' to clarify 
that beneficial use of dredged material includes habitat protection and 
habitat restoration purposes. As explained in Section II. ``Changes 
from Proposed to Final Regulation'' and Section III. A. 1. ``Review and 
Permitting of Beneficial Use Projects'', proactive ``protection'' of 
natural habitats serves a beneficial purpose and, by helping to prevent 
future degradation of habitat, may preclude or reduce the need for 
habitat restoration. An ancillary benefit from restoring and protecting 
beach habitat could include coastal infrastructure protection.
    6. Comment: NOAA should describe habitat restoration purposes to 
meet the criteria for beneficial use.
    Response: NOAA includes managing sediment for the purpose of 
habitat restoration in the two Coastal Regional Sediment Management 
Plans (CRSMP) that pertain to MBNMS. For example, the CRSMP for the 
Santa Cruz Littoral Cell mentions that sediment management projects 
could provide several direct benefits to the region

[[Page 62910]]

including ``mitigating shoreline erosion and coastal storm damage; 
allowing for biological habitat restoration and protection; increasing 
natural sediment supply to the coast; and providing public safety, 
access and recreational benefits through beach restoration.'' \16\ 
Further, implementation of the two CRSMPs are included in the Coastal 
Erosion and Sediment Management Action Plan, Strategy CESM-1. NOAA also 
provides additional information in Section III. A. 1. ``Review and 
Permitting of Beneficial Use Projects'' regarding the meaning of 
``habitat restoration'' for purposes of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan for the Santa 
Cruz Littoral Cell, Pillar Point to Moss Landing. September 2015. 
Pg. 217. Available at: https://montereybay.noaa.gov/resourcepro/resmanissues/crsmp-sc.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authorizations

    7. Comment: NOAA should clarify the process for ONMS to issue 
authorizations to USACE for permits to allow disposal of dredged 
material in the sanctuary by Santa Cruz Port District (SCPD).
    Response: Within MBNMS, NOAA ONMS authorizes permits issued for 
disposal of dredged material at approved disposal sites. An 
authorization or permit is necessary for this prohibited activity to be 
conducted within the sanctuary (15 CFR 922.48, 922.49, 922.132, and 
922.133). NOAA may authorize the USACE dredge disposal permit issued to 
SCPD and/or the California Coastal Commission (CCC) Coastal Development 
Permit (CDP) based on NOAA's authorization review process, including in 
this instance, consideration of alignment of regulated activities and 
mitigations to protect sanctuary resources. In summary, NOAA will 
continue to work closely with EPA, USACE, CCC, and other State and 
Federal resource agencies when assessing dredge disposal activities, 
and may authorize valid permits, leases, licenses, approvals or other 
authorizations (15 CFR 922.132(e)) pertaining to dredge disposal in 
approved dredge disposal sites (15 CFR 922.132(a)(2)(i)(F)).

Impact on Current Harbor Dredge Authorization and Permitting Processes

    8. Comment: NOAA received comments asking if NOAA's regulatory 
action regarding beneficial use of dredged material will affect how 
ONMS authorizes current harbor dredge disposal activities.
    Response: NOAA has issued sanctuary authorizations to Santa Cruz, 
Moss Landing, and Monterey harbors for depositing harbor dredge at 
approved disposal sites in the past. NOAA's regulatory action regarding 
beneficial use of dredged material will not alter the sanctuary 
authorization or permitting process for depositing harbor dredge 
material at the approved disposal sites (15 CFR 922.132(a)(2)(i)(F)). 
If any of the four harbors identified in the ``beneficial use'' 
definition (the three listed here or Pillar Point) propose a project 
for which the material dredged from their harbor would be used for 
beneficial use to protect or restore habitat, NOAA would follow the 
process steps outlined in this rule.

Beach Nourishment

    9. Comment: NOAA should reserve the right to alter the timing and 
frequency of beach nourishment treatments should data and analysis 
indicate negative ecological impacts from excessive sediment loading or 
seasonal conflicts with reproductive cycles of flora and fauna.
    Response: NOAA concurs. In accordance with 15 CFR 922.49(a)(4) and 
15 CFR 922.132(e), authorization applicants must comply with any terms 
and conditions the issuing NOAA official deems reasonably necessary to 
protect sanctuary resources and qualities. This may include terms and 
conditions pertaining to the timing and frequency of dredged material 
placement.
    10. Comment: NOAA should consider authorizing use of contaminated 
dredge materials for beneficial use if pre-treated to reduce toxicity 
levels.
    Response: NOAA believes it is important for MBNMS to only rely upon 
dredged material that has been deemed suitable by the ONMS Director for 
habitat protection or restoration projects. As explained in Section 
III. A. 1. ``Review and Permitting of Beneficial Use Projects'', the 
determination of suitability includes consideration of compatibility 
standards for water and physical quality of any sediment placed within 
the sanctuary to ensure protection of native habitats and ecology. If 
dredged material can be successfully pre-treated to reduce toxicity to 
suitable levels, it may be considered for beneficial use projects.
    11. Comment: NOAA should consider negative effects of beach 
nourishment, such as introduction of invasive species and interruption 
of important temporal ecological processes at receiving sites.
    Response: NOAA concurs and has implemented regulations that 
prohibit the introduction of introduced species to the ecosystem of the 
sanctuary (15 CFR 922.131 and 922.132(a)(12)). Ecological impacts to 
receiving sites will be assessed through project-specific environmental 
reviews, including assessments of the source sediment to ensure the 
absence of introduced species. Further, NOAA will consult with 
appropriate resource management agencies for any proposed beach 
nourishment project in the sanctuary using beneficial use of dredge 
material.

Artificial Reefs, Islands, and Other Purposes

    12. Comment: NOAA should authorize use of dredged material for 
artificial reefs, islands, and other purposes beyond habitat 
restoration.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. Using dredged material to develop 
artificial reefs and islands within MBNMS is beyond the scope of this 
action and the intent of the original sanctuary designation. NOAA is 
implementing this action to protect and restore natural habitats and 
ecological communities and processes within sanctuaries as much as 
possible--not to create artificial habitats and communities for 
interests or development purposes that may be incompatible with the 
sanctuary's primary mandate of resource protection. Furthermore, the 
State is the lead authority for artificial reefs in California state 
waters and does not have a process in place for permitting artificial 
reefs at this time.
    13. Comment: NOAA should use crushed glass for clean fill material 
for artificial reefs.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. There are strict prohibitions regarding 
ocean dumping and discharges into the sanctuary and this suggestion 
runs counter to these prohibitions. See, as well, the response to the 
above comment regarding artificial reefs.

List of Department of Defense Exempted Activities

    14. Comment: NOAA should rectify the omission of the list of 
exempted Department of Defense Activities at the Davidson Seamount 
Management Zone in the 2008 FEIS.
    Response: NOAA is including an appendix in the 2021 final EA to 
serve as the published list of exempted DOD activities within the DSMZ, 
which is referenced and confirmed by the January 5, 2009, letter to the 
U.S. Air Force 30th Space Wing from the MBNMS Superintendent.

Cruise Ships and Discharges

    15. Comment: NOAA should ban cruise ships in the sanctuary as well 
as any discharges of fuel and waste from them.

[[Page 62911]]

    Response: The NMSA facilitates multiple uses within sanctuaries, 
including commercial and recreational uses, compatible with the primary 
objective of resource protection. NOAA believes the current MBNMS 
regulations prohibiting discharges from within or into MBNMS of any 
material or other matter from a cruise ship (e.g., fuel and waste), 
except clean vessel engine cooling water, clean vessel generator 
cooling water, vessel engine or generator exhaust, clean bilge water, 
or anchor wash (15 CFR 922.132(a)(2)(ii)), are adequate at this time to 
protect sanctuary resources while also allowing use of the resources 
from a cruise ship. If data become available in the future that show 
that these regulations are not adequate, NOAA can amend regulations 
affecting cruise ships in the future.

Opposition to MPWCs, Closure of Pillar Point Zone

    16. Comment: NOAA received a variety of comments regarding MPWCs, 
including recommendations to prohibit MPWC operation throughout MBNMS; 
close the year-round MPWC operating zone at Pillar Point due to low use 
by MPWC; prohibit MPWC operations in nearshore areas; and implement 
NOAA's planned assessment of MPWC zone use.
    Response: NOAA is not closing any of the five existing zones where 
MPWC are allowed to operate within the sanctuary. However, Strategy RP-
15 in the final management plan includes assessing MPWC use levels and 
impacts within the MPWC zones, as well as an evaluation of the 
relevance of the zones in meeting their originally intended purposes. 
The MPWC zones were originally sited seaward of nearshore resources 
such as kelp forests and rocky reefs to minimize negative impacts to 
coastal wildlife and habitats. Thus, MPWC are already excluded from 
nearshore areas of the sanctuary, except as permitted by NOAA or 
approved for public safety agency training and search and rescue 
operations.

Sanctuary Ecologically Significant Areas (SESAs)

    17. Comment: NOAA should not make Sanctuary Ecologically 
Significant Areas (SESAs) into regulated marine protected areas.
    Response: NOAA is not planning to implement additional regulated 
zones in the sanctuary. SESAs are areas that encompass remarkable, 
representative, and/or sensitive marine habitats, communities and 
ecological processes. SESAs are focal areas for facilitating research 
with partners in order to better understand natural and human-caused 
variation, as well as resource protection.

V. Classification

A. National Environmental Policy Act

    In accordance with 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). NOAA's 
analysis of the draft management plan and proposed regulatory changes 
indicated no significant impacts are expected. Accordingly, NOAA 
determined the preparation of an EIS would not be necessary, and 
instead prepared a draft EA, which was made available for public review 
on July 6, 2020 (85 FR 40143). In that notice, NOAA also withdrew the 
portion of the Federal Register Notice published on August 27, 2015, 
that provided notice of intent to prepare an EIS.
    In the draft EA, NOAA evaluated the potential impacts on the human 
environment of the proposed action and alternatives in compliance with 
NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and its implementing 
regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508). NOAA prepared the EA and 
FONSI for this action using the 1978 Council on Environmental Quality 
(CEQ) regulations because this environmental review began before 
September 14, 2020, which was the effective date of the amendments to 
the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (85 FR 43304, July 16, 2020). The 
draft EA considered all reasonable alternatives to the proposed Federal 
action that met the purpose and need for the action. These alternatives 
included a no action alternative and a range of reasonable alternatives 
for managing MBNMS according to the objectives of the NMSA.
    The draft EA found that no significant impacts to resources and the 
human environment are expected to result from this proposed action. 
Following public comment on the proposed rule and draft EA and 
consultation under applicable natural and cultural resource statutes 
(described below), NOAA prepared a final EA and FONSI.
    In preparing the final EA, NOAA evaluated and considered all public 
and agency comments received on the draft EA and notice of proposed 
rulemaking, which resulted in changes to the proposed regulations and 
draft management plan. NOAA determined that these changes to the 
regulations and draft management plan did not result in any changes to 
the determinations of the draft EA with regard to the significance of 
the impacts. Therefore, NOAA prepared a FONSI that concluded that 
implementing Alternative C (i.e., adopt a new management plan and 
modify MBNMS regulations) would not have a significant impact on the 
quality of the human environment. Copies of the final EA and FONSI are 
available at the website listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final 
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 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.

D. 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.
    Under section 605(b) of the RFA, if the head of an agency (or his 
or her designee) certifies that a rule will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the agency is not 
required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. Pursuant to 
section 605(b), the Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of 
Commerce, submitted a memorandum to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, 
Small Business Administration, certifying that the original proposed 
rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The rationale for that certification was set forth in 
the preamble of the proposed rule (85 FR 40143, July 6, 2020).
    None of the changes NOAA has made to the regulations from the 
proposed rule to the final rule alter the determination that this rule 
will not have a significant impact on small businesses. The impact 
levels assessed in the original analysis remain valid (see table 
summarizing impact levels, 85 FR 40143, 40150). NOAA also did not 
receive any comments on the certification or conclusions. Therefore, 
the determination that this rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities

[[Page 62912]]

remains unchanged. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis 
was not required and none was prepared.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final 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.

F. 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 
identified historic properties and assessed the potential effects of 
the undertaking (implementation of the revised regulations and adoption 
of the new management plan) on such properties. NOAA determined that 
this undertaking would result in no adverse effects to historic 
properties because it is a planning and administrative effort not 
likely to have physically direct or indirect effects to historic 
properties. NOAA notified the California State Historic Preservation 
Officer of this determination upon publication of the proposed rule and 
draft management plan. The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed 
NOAA's determination and notified NOAA by letter on January 15, 2021, 
that they have no comments for this action. NOAA has no further 
obligations under NHPA Section 106 at this time. If specific projects 
do arise out of management plan implementation, NOAA will conduct 
Section 106 consultation at that time, as needed.

G. 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 completed informal 
consultation under Section 7 of the ESA with NOAA's Office of Protected 
Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for potential impacts 
of this action on ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat. 
The consulting agencies concurred with NOAA ONMS's determination that 
the action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, listed 
species and/or designated critical habitat. Additional details and 
correspondence related to informal consultation under ESA are included 
in the Final EA.

H. Marine Mammal Protection Act

    The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 
seq.), as amended, prohibits the ``take'' \17\ 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 
determined that the action would not cause the take of any marine 
mammal protected under the MMPA and therefore potential impacts to 
marine mammals did not rise to a level that required consultation under 
MMPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Coastal Zone Management Act

    The principal objectives of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 
16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq., 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. 16 U.S.C. 1456(c). In July 2020, NOAA initiated Federal 
consistency review with the California Coastal Commission. The 
California Coastal Commission provided comments to NOAA on the proposed 
rule. On August 12, 2021, NOAA provided the California Coastal 
Commission with a revised description of the proposed action and a 
summary of changes made in response to public comment and 
consultations. On September 2, 2021, the California Coastal Commission 
issued a letter of concurrence to NOAA.

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,
Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration.

    For the reasons set forth above, NOAA is 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'' in alphabetical order 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 adjacent to the 
sanctuary (Pillar Point, Santa Cruz, Moss Landing, and Monterey) that 
has been determined by the Director to be suitable as a resource for 
habitat protection or restoration purposes only. 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. In paragraph (f), adding a sentence before the last sentence in the 
paragraph.
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

[[Page 62913]]

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 2021 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 Sec.  922.131. * * *

0
4. Revise appendix E to subpart M to read as follows:

Appendix E to Subpart M of Part 922--Motorized Personal Watercraft 
Zones and Access Routes Within the Sanctuary

[Coordinates listed in this appendix are unprojected (Geographic) 
and based on the North American Datum of 1983]

    The five 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. The boundary for Zone 1 begins at Point 1 in the 
coordinate table listed below and continues to each subsequent point 
in numerical order ending at Point 6.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Point ID No.                Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (flashing white 5-second    37.49402              -122.48471
 breakwater entrance light
 and horn at the seaward end
 of the outer west
 breakwater--mounted on 50-
 ft high white cylindrical
 structure).
2 (triangular red dayboard    37.49534              -122.48568
 with a red 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    37.49707              -122.47941
 east breakwater, 660 yards
 west of the harbor
 entrance).
4 (Southeast Reef--southern   37.46469              -122.46971
 end green gong buoy ``1S''
 with flashing green 6-
 second light).
5 (red entrance buoy ``2''    37.47284              -122.48411
 with flashing red 4-second
 light).
6 (flashing white 5-second    37.49402              -122.48471
 breakwater entrance light
 and horn at the seaward end
 of the outer west
 breakwater--mounted on 50-
 ft high white cylindrical
 structure).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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 to the south-southwest along a 
bearing of approximately 196[deg] true (183[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. The boundary for Zone 2 
begins at Point 1 in the coordinate table listed below and continues 
to each subsequent point in numerical order ending at Point 5.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Point ID No.                Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (red/white striped whistle  36.93899              -122.00961
 buoy ``SC'' with 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
5 (red/white striped whistle  36.93899              -122.00961
 buoy ``SC'' with flashing
 white Morse code ``A''
 light).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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 (217[deg] magnetic) to the red and white bell buoy at 
36.79893 N, 121.80157 W. The boundary for Zone 3 begins at Point 1 
in the coordinate table listed below and continues to each 
subsequent point in numerical order ending at Point 5.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Point ID No.                Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (red/white striped bell     36.79893              -121.80157
 buoy ``MLA'' with 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
5 (red/white striped bell     36.79893              -121.80157
 buoy ``MLA'' with flashing
 white Morse code ``A''
 light).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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 to the northeast along a bearing of 
approximately 67[deg] true (54[deg] magnetic) to the yellow can buoy 
marking the southeast corner of the zone. The boundary for Zone 4 
begins at Point 1 in the coordinate table listed below and continues 
to each subsequent point in numerical order ending at Point 6.

[[Page 62914]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Point ID No.                Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (yellow can buoy).........  36.61146              -121.87696
2 (red bell buoy ``4'' with   36.62459              -121.89594
 flashing red 4-second
 light).
3 (yellow can buoy).........  36.65168              -121.87416
4 (yellow can buoy).........  36.63833              -121.85500
6 (yellow can buoy).........  36.61146              -121.87696
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) The 0.13 mi\2\ area near Pillar Point from the Pillar Point 
Harbor entrance along a 100-yard wide access route to the south 
along a bearing of approximately 174[deg] true (161[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 (271[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. The boundary for Zone 5 
begins at Point 1 in the coordinate table listed below and continues 
to each subsequent point in numerical order ending at Point 5.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Point ID No.                Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (green gong buoy ``1''      37.48625              -122.50603
 with flashing green 2.5-
 second light).
2 (intersection of sight      37.49305              -122.50603
 lines due north of green
 gong buoy ``1'' and due
 west of Sail Rock).
3 (Sail Rock)...............  37.49305              -122.50105
4 (intersection of sight      37.48625              -122.50105
 lines due east of green
 gong buoy ``1'' and due
 south of Sail Rock).
5 (green gong buoy ``1''      37.48625              -122.50603
 with flashing green 2.5-
 second light).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-24646 Filed 11-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P