[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 19, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69608-69613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-27143]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Final Framework for the National System of Marine Protected Areas
of the United States and Response to Comments
AGENCY: NOAA, Department of Commerce (DOC).
ACTION: Notice of availability of the final Framework for the National
System of Marine Protected Areas of the United States and response to
comments on Revised Draft Framework.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NOAA and the Department of the Interior (DOI) jointly propose
the Framework for the National System of Marine Protected Areas of the
United States (Framework), as required by Executive Order 13158 on
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). This Framework provides overarching
guidance for collaborative efforts among federal, state, commonwealth,
territorial, tribal and local governments and stakeholders to develop
an effective National System of MPAs (national system) from existing
sites, build coordination and collaborative efforts, and identify
ecosystem-based gaps in the protection of significant natural and
cultural resources for possible future action by the nation's MPA
authorities. The document further provides the guiding principles, key
definitions, goals, and objectives for the National System, based on
the breadth of input received from MPA stakeholders and governmental
partners around the nation over the past several years, and two public
comment periods.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please direct all questions and
requests for additional information concerning the Framework to: Lauren
Wenzel, NOAA, at 301-713-3100, ext. 136 or via e-mail at
[email protected]. An electronic copy of the Framework is
available for download at http://www.mpa.gov/.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on MPA Framework
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
National Marine Protected Areas Center (MPA Center), in cooperation
with the Department of the Interior (DOI), has developed a Framework
for the National System of Marine Protected Areas of the United States
(Framework) to meet requirements under Executive Order 13158 on Marine
Protected Areas (Order). The purpose of this notice is to notify the
public of the availability of this document and respond to public
comments on the Revised Draft Framework for Developing a National
System of Marine Protected Areas. NOAA and DOI have undertaken two
public comment periods on previous drafts of this document to solicit
input and comments from governments and stakeholders in order to ensure
that the final document represents the diversity of the nation's
interests in the marine environment and marine protected areas (MPAs).
NOAA and DOI recognize the principal role that state, commonwealth,
territorial (hereafter referred to as ``state'') and tribal
governments, along with federal agencies, must have in developing and
implementing the national system. Roughly 80% of the nation's existing
MPAs are under the jurisdiction of non-federal agencies. The
significance of these government-to-government relationships and the
marine resources managed by states and tribes necessitates this
national, rather than federal, approach to building the National
System. In developing this Framework, NOAA and the DOT have made and
will continue to expand efforts to understand and incorporate, as
appropriate, the recommendations of government partners concerning a
structure and function for the National System that builds partnerships
with and supports the efforts and voluntary participation of state,
tribal, and local governments.
Increasing impacts on the world's oceans, caused by development,
overfishing, and natural events, are straining the health of our
coastal and marine ecosystems. Some of these impacts to the marine and
Great Lakes environment have resulted in declining fish populations;
degradation of coral reefs, seagrass beds, and other vital habitats;
threats to rare or endangered species; and loss of artifacts and
resources that are part of our nation's historic and cultural heritage.
The effects of these mounting losses are
[[Page 69609]]
being directly felt in the social and economic fabric of our nation's
communities. MPAs offer a promising ocean and coastal management tool
to mitigate or buffer these impacts. It is important to clarify that
the term ``MPA,'' as used here, is not synonymous with or limited to
``no-take areas'' or ``marine reserves.'' Instead, the term ``MPA''
denotes an array of levels of protection, from areas that allow
multiple use activities to those that prohibit take and/or access. When
used effectively and in conjunction with other management tools, MPAs
can help to ensure healthy Great Lakes and oceans by contributing to
the overall protection of critical marine habitats and resources. In
this way, effective MPAs can offer social and economic opportunities
for current and future generations, such as tourism, biotechnology,
fishing, education, and scientific research.
Since 2001, the MPA Center and its federal, state, and tribal
partners have been collecting information on the vast array of the
nation's MPAs to serve as the foundation for building the National
System. This inventory has resulted in the identification of over 1,700
place-based sites established by hundreds of federal and state
authorities. A number of these existing sites are further managed as
systems by their respective agencies or programs. The types of sites
found range from multiple-use areas to no-take reserves. The vast
majority of these areas allow multiple uses, and less than one percent
of the total area under management in the United States (U.S.) is no-
take. This inventory also has revealed a dramatic increase in the use
of MPAs over the past several decades. Most MPAs in the U.S. have been
established since 1970, and most allow recreational and commercial
uses. With this expanded use of MPAs has come many new and enhanced
protections to natural and cultural resources. A preliminary analysis
of U.S. place-based conservation efforts reveals important trends in
how these areas, including MPAs, are being used to conserve some of the
nation's most significant marine resources. The emerging results
illustrate that while there are many such areas currently in U.S.
waters, these diverse sites vary widely in mandate, jurisdiction,
purpose, size, and level of protection.
Moreover, this initial analysis illustrates how the growing
recognition of MPAs as essential conservation tools has resulted in a
multitude of new MPA programs and authorities at all levels of
government, often times for a sole purpose or objective. While there
are good examples of where MPA efforts are coordinated locally across
programs and levels of government, there is no larger framework for
collaborating MPA efforts across ecosystems and nationally to meet
common goals. This complex governance structure leads to public
confusion, and, in many cases, conservation efforts that are not as
effective as they could be with better coordination. The results of
this initial analysis have further reinforced the need for a national
system and provided much of the baseline information to begin building
it.
In recognition of the key role MPAs can play and their growing use,
the U.S. is developing an effective national system to support the
effective stewardship, lasting protection, restoration, and sustainable
use of the nation's significant natural and cultural marine resources.
The MPA Center is charged by the Order to carry out these requirements
in cooperation with DOI. Neither the Order nor the national system
establishes any new legal authorities to designate or manage MPAs, nor
do they alter any existing state, federal, or tribal laws or programs.
The MPA Center has developed this Framework based on information
from the initial analysis of information about existing place-based
conservation efforts, along with comments from hundreds of individuals
at over sixty meetings, initial tribal consultations, and
recommendations from federal, non-governmental and state advisory
groups. As a result, the proposed collaborative development of an
effective National System outlined in this document provides a
structure for an assemblage of MPA sites, systems, and networks
established and managed by federal, state, tribal, and local
governments to collectively work together at the regional and national
levels to achieve common objectives for conserving the nation's vital
natural and cultural resources.
By establishing an effective structure for working together, the
National System will help to increase the efficient protection of
important marine resources; contribute to the nation's overall social
and economic health; support government agency cooperation and
integration; and improve the public's access to scientific information
and decision-making about the nation's marine resources. The efforts of
the national system are also intended to benefit participating state,
tribal, federal, and local government partners through collaborative
efforts to identify shared priorities for improving MPA effectiveness
and develop partnerships to provide assistance in meeting those needs.
Further, it provides a foundation for cooperation with other countries
to conserve resources of common concern.
II. Comments and Responses
In March 2008, NOAA and DOI (agencies) published the Revised Draft
Framework for Developing the National System of MPAs (Revised Draft
Framework) for public comment. By the end of the two-month comment
period, 34 individual submissions had been received from a variety of
government agencies, non-governmental organizations, industry and
conservation interests, advisory groups and the public. In addition,
NOAA and DOI solicited advice from the MPA Federal Advisory Committee
(MPA FAC).
Given the breadth, multi-faceted nature, and complexity of comments
and recommendations received, related comments have been grouped below
into categories to simplify the development of responses. For each of
the comment categories listed below, a summary of comments is provided,
and a corresponding response provides an explanation and rationale
about changes that were or were not made in the final Framework for the
National System of Marine Protected Areas of the United States of
America (Framework).
Comment Category 1: General Comments on Revised Draft Framework
Content
Comment Category 2: Goals and Objectives of the National System
Comment Category 3: Design and Implementation Principles
Comment Category 4: Definitions and Entry Criteria
Comment Category 5: Public Involvement
Comment Category 6: Gap Analysis Process
Comment Category 7: Risk Assessment
Comment Category 8: Role of Regional Fishery Management Councils
Comment Category 9: Monitoring and Evaluation
Comment Category 10: Federal Agency Responsibility to Avoid Harm
Comment Category 11: Steering Committee Composition and Role
Comment Category 12: Benefits of the National System
Comment Category 13: Tribal
Comment Category 14: Funding
Comment Category 15: Level of Detail
Comment Category 16: Draft Environmental Assessment
Comments and Responses
Comment Category 1: General Comments on Revised Draft Framework Content
Summary: A range of comments were received on the overall content
of the Revised Draft Framework. A number of these recommended the
Framework recognize the need to balance multiple uses and interests in
the marine environment, and that the document
[[Page 69610]]
acknowledge the broader management context in which the national system
will operate. Related comments asked that the document emphasize the
language of the Executive Order (EO), stating that the national system
supports, and does not interfere with, existing agencies' exercise of
independent authorities. Other general comments noted a need for more
fully-protected marine reserves and high seas protection, and
recommended that the national system be limited to these highly
protected areas. One comment noted that the EO does not provide
authority to implement a national system, only to develop it.
Response: The agencies agree that acknowledgement of the broader
management context is appropriate, and also have added language from
the EO noting that the national system supports, and does not interfere
with, existing agencies' exercise of independent authorities to further
clarify the overall purpose of the national system. The Executive
Summary has also been updated to reflect these comments.
Regarding the comment promoting the establishment of more fully-
protected marine reserves and high seas protection, the EO does not
establish any new legal authorities to designate or manage MPAs, nor
does it alter any existing federal, state, local, or tribal MPA laws or
programs. In addition, the national system is intended to be inclusive
of MPAs across the spectrum of levels of protection, from multiple use
to no-take, recognizing that existing MPAs across this spectrum offer
different values to the national system that can help meet its goals
and objectives. Finally, the processes in the Framework for identifying
conservation gaps in the national system and supporting regional MPA
planning are designed to ensure opportunities for public input on the
purpose and level of protection of any future MPAs that may be needed
to achieve a comprehensive, representative national system.
Regarding the comment that the EO does not provide the authority to
implement a national system, only to develop it, the agencies contend
that the EO envisioned both the development and implementation of a
national system (see Sections 1(b) and 4(a) of the EO).
Comment Category 2: Goals and Objectives of the National System
Summary: There were several diverse comments about the goals and
objectives of the national system. A few comments noted that
recreational fishing and boating is part of U.S. cultural heritage and
should be noted as such. One comment suggested that the priority
conservation objectives (PCOs) are unachievable, while another comment
suggested that the standards for protection in the PCOs are too low,
and that rather than ``conserving and managing,'' the PCOs should be
expanded to include the goals of eliminating, reducing, restoring and
protecting the integrity of marine ecosystems. A final comment
suggested that the word `management' should be included in the
objectives as it is in the goals.
Response: The Framework defines a cultural resource as a tangible
entity that is valued by or significantly representative of a culture,
or that contains significant information about a culture. This
definition is based on the National Register of Historic Places with
additional input from the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory
Committee. Based on these sources, recreational fishing and boating
constitute uses of marine resources, not goals. The Framework
recognizes the importance of appropriate access and compatible uses,
and identifies these within the national system Design and
Implementation Principles
The agencies agree that the national system goals and objectives
are ambitious and broad in scope. The purpose of the Framework is to
provide a foundation for the national system, and to set out long term,
national level goals and objectives that provide a focus for common
conservation efforts across numerous and varied MPA authorities.
One of the priority conservation objectives addresses restoration
as well as conservation, but does not specify eliminating or reducing
uses or impacts, as these actions fall under the authority of managing
entities. Review of the PCOs and the priorities among them will be part
of an adaptive management process. The agencies perceive 'management'
to be part of the conservation goals and objectives, and have clarified
the Framework to reflect this.
Comment Category 3: Design and Implementation Principles
Summary: A variety of comments were received on the design and
implementation principles within the Framework, including comments on
the need to incorporate a precautionary approach, to use local
knowledge and the best scientific information available, and to provide
for public review and comment. Two comments suggested that the
definition of `precautionary design' be modified to include language
from the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(MSA). Others noted that the use of the precautionary approach can lead
to decisions that are not based on sound science. Finally, some
comments sought to better define and apply adaptive management.
Commenters noted that adaptive management should include an assessment
of the problem and the modification of management approaches (as
appropriate) when new information is obtained. One specific example
cited the lifting of restrictions on fishing as the condition of
resources improves.
Response: The agencies believe that a precautionary approach and
the use of the best available science are addressed in the Design and
Implementation Principles. These principles have been adapted from
recommendations of the MPA FAC and the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) report, ``Establishing networks of marine
protected areas: A guide for developing national and regional capacity
for building MPA networks'' (WCPA/IUCN, 2007). The agencies believe
that these broad guidelines are best suited to the wide range of
federal, state and other governmental authorities envisioned as part of
the national system, rather than adapting guidelines from one
authority, such as the MSA. Finally, the agencies agree that adaptive
management should include an assessment of the problem and potential
solutions. However, actions to modify management approaches, such as
lifting restrictions on fishing based on monitoring and evaluation of
management effectiveness, will depend on the goals of an individual MPA
and its managing program.
Comment Category 4: Definitions and Entry Criteria
Summary: A number of comments noted the need to better define
important terms within the Framework, including a concise definition of
the national system, among others. In addition, it was suggested that
the term ``lasting'' for sustainable production be defined as a period
of at least 10 years.
Comments on the eligibility criteria included the following: (1)
Screening to determine whether sites meet the management plan criteria
should precede PCO analysis; (2) a management plan should have clearly
stated objectives and a commitment of resources for monitoring and
enforcement; (3) MPAs should be screened for the specific benefits they
will contribute to the national system; and (4) the qualification
criteria for entry should be strict to ensure the national system is
composed of sites
[[Page 69611]]
protecting rare, critical or unique habitats. One comment also
questioned the use of verbal community agreements in a management plan.
Response: The agencies agree that the Framework could benefit from
better definition of important terms. The Final Framework includes
revised definitions of important terms, including a definition of the
national system. For sustainable production MPAs, the agencies note
that the time period required to provide for lasting protection will
vary according to the resource an individual MPA was established to
protect. Therefore, ``lasting'' is to be defined as the duration of
protection necessary to achieve the mandated long-term sustainable
production objectives for which the site was established.
The agencies agree that the management plan criteria should precede
the PCO analysis. This change is reflected in the Final Framework. The
agencies believe that requiring an MPA management plan to include a
commitment of resources for monitoring and evaluation as an entry
criterion for the national system is unnecessarily restrictive and
would require extensive data collection that would delay the
establishment of the national system. It is also not clear what level
of resources would then be considered sufficient to meet this
criterion. The agencies disagree that the specific benefits an
individual MPA will contribute to the national system should be added
as an entry criterion. Rather, the agencies see information on a site's
benefits as contributing to the evaluation of the national system.
Regarding establishing stricter qualification criteria, the agencies
believe that this has been addressed by developing the PCOs.
The agencies have included verbal agreements as meeting the
management plan criteria in order to acknowledge the continuing oral
tradition of many tribes and Pacific Island cultures.
Comment Category 5: Public Involvement
Summary: Some commenters noted the importance of involving the
public, including local communities and user groups (e.g., fishermen
and fishing groups, among others), in developing and implementing the
national system. Several comments noted the importance of public
involvement during the nomination process, with some suggesting public
hearings during this period, and others maintaining that this would be
burdensome and duplicative of other requirements. One comment also
proposed that non-governmental organizations should be permitted to
make nominations to the national system. A final comment asked that the
Framework clarify that nominations should originate in the region.
Response: The agencies agree that public involvement is critical,
but do not agree that fishermen should be singled out for specific
mention when discussing public involvement. The agencies have added
language to the Framework to note that the MPA Center will work with
the managing entities to ensure adequate public involvement, including
public meetings as appropriate. The agencies disagree that non-
governmental organizations should be permitted to nominate sites to the
national system, since the managing entity has the authority for
management decision-making about its sites. Stakeholders who are
interested in the nomination of certain MPAs should contact and work
with the managing entity or entities. The Framework clearly states that
nominations originate with the managing entity of the site with the MPA
Center providing technical assistance.
Comment Category 6: Gap Analysis Process
Summary: Several comments were received on the gap analysis
process, including: (1) The focus of gap analysis should not be gaps in
the priority conservation objectives, but gaps under a regulatory
agency's purview; (2) it should be concurrent with nomination processes
for existing MPAs; (3) it should consider social as well as biological
goals; (4) it should include a sound scientific basis for an MPA's
boundaries; (5) it should be conducted at the regional level with the
participation of managers; (6) it should take into account other
existing management measures; and (7) national system reporting should
include reporting on actions taken to address gaps.
Response: The purpose of the national system is to span all levels
of government and types of authorities, not to conduct gap analysis at
the individual MPA program level, which is the responsibility of those
individual MPA programs. Regarding the timing of the gap analysis
process, the agencies received several comments to the initial Draft
Framework stating that the national system lacked focus and priorities.
Thus, the agencies have set priorities in the Final Framework, first
working on a limited set of near-term objectives. As funding,
technology, and resources permit, the agencies will then focus on mid-
term and long-term objectives. The regional gap analysis process will
overlap with the national system nomination process for existing sites,
but is more resource intensive and will take longer to complete. The
Framework envisions that gap analyses will be updated periodically as
resources permit.
The regional gap analyses will focus on gaps in addressing the
priority conservation objectives, which relate to biological or
cultural resource goals. However, human uses and impacts on the marine
environment also will be considered during the gap analysis process.
The agencies agree that a gap analysis should be conducted at the
regional level with participation of existing managers and with
consideration of other efforts, and that reporting should include
updates on actions taken to address conservation gaps. Language has
been added to the Framework to clarify these points.
Comment Category 7: Risk Assessment
Summary: Several comments noted the need for an objective
assessment of risks, costs and benefits of the national system.
Response: Risk analysis has a wide range of meanings as a tool for
business, engineering, and public policy, and it is not clear what the
commenters envision in calling for such an assessment as part of a non-
regulatory initiative. The agencies maintain that risk, cost and
benefit assessments are not called for in the EO as part of national
system development, and that such detailed analyses are not necessary
at the broad programmatic scale of the Framework.
Comment Category 8: Role of Regional Fishery Management Councils
(Councils)
Summary: Several commenters asked that the Framework clarify the
role of Councils in identifying, nominating, altering and withdrawing
national system MPAs.
Response: The agencies have added language to the Framework to
further explain the role of the Councils. The Councils will be a key
partner to NOAA in nominating fishery sites to the national system.
Through a transparent process, NOAA would consult with its Council
partners and fully consider the views and interests of the Councils
prior to nominating a site to the national system. These NOAA-Council
consultations would take place at the regional-level during key stages
of the nominating process, and NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service
would make final decisions on nominations.
The agencies also have added language to the Framework to clarify
[[Page 69612]]
that participation in the national system does not constrain the
management entity, including the Councils, from changing its management
of the MPA within its own authorities and required processes.
Comment Category 9: Monitoring and Evaluation
Summary: Many comments noted the importance of quantifiable
performance measures in evaluating the national system, and some
suggested that a review of how each MPA contributes to the national
system should be included as a measure of success. Other comments
suggested that the language of Section 4(a) of the EO should be
reflected in the text, which calls on the MPA Center to provide
guidance on ``practical, science-based criteria and protocols for
monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of MPAs.'' Some comments
sought further clarification on how the national system will be
evaluated. One comment recommended that the agencies develop multi-
tiered criteria for sites in the national system that reflect the
degree to which individual MPAs contribute to the overall effectiveness
of the system.
Response: The agencies agree that quantifiable performance measures
to evaluate the national system are critical. The Framework describes
the process the MPA Center will follow to develop such measures,
including seeking advice from the MPA Federal Advisory Committee.
Section 4(a) of the EO calls upon the agencies to ``coordinate and
share information, tools, and strategies'' on a variety of issues,
including ``practical, science-based criteria and protocols for
monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of MPAs.'' This activity is
part of the MPA Center's goal to foster MPA stewardship by providing
training and technical assistance to individual MPAs, but is not a
requirement of the national system. The purpose of the national system
is not to evaluate individual sites, which remains the responsibility
of the managing entity(ies), but rather the system as a whole.
Regarding the recommendation to develop multi-tiered criteria to
assess the contribution of individual MPAs to the national system, the
agencies agree that the type of information suggested (such as level of
protection) would be helpful in identifying the needs of, and
priorities for, the national system. However, the agencies do not
believe that a formal tiered structure will add to the efficacy of the
system.
Comment Category 10: Federal Agency Responsibility to Avoid Harm
Summary: Several comments requested additional details clarifying
the scope of the avoid harm provision, including how and by whom it
will be applied. Related comments were received requesting a standard
definition of avoid harm for all federal agencies, and an augmented
oversight role for the MPA Center.
Response: The agencies believe the current level of detail
describing the avoid harm provision is appropriate, but have included
an example of how it is intended to be applied. As described in the
Framework, each federal agency is responsible for complying with and
reporting annually on its compliance with the EO's Section 5 avoid harm
directives: ``each federal agency that is required to take actions
under this order shall prepare and make public annually a concise
description of actions taken by it in the previous year to implement
the order, including a description of written comments by any person or
organization stating that the agency has not complied with this order
and a response to such comments by the agency.'' The agencies disagree
that a single definition of avoid harm and other key terms used to
describe the requirements under Section 5 is needed. An agency's
requirements under Section 5, in any instance, is dependent on the
agency's interpretation, consistent with any required compliance with
the legal framework for the resources protected by the MPA and any
other applicable natural or cultural resource review or protection
authorities or procedures. The MPA Center's role is to make these
reports available to the public on the http://www.MPA.gov Web site,
facilitate a federal agency coordination mechanism through the Federal
Interagency MPA Working Group, and upon request by federal agencies,
facilitate technical or other assistance.
Comment Category 11: Steering Committee Composition and Role
Summary: Several comments requested clarification about the role of
the Steering Committee, especially with respect to the Regional Fishery
Management Councils, the MPA Federal Advisory Committee, and the
public.
Response: The agencies agree that additional clarification is
needed to explain the role of the Steering Committee in providing
operational guidance from MPA management agencies. To do so, the
Steering Committee has been renamed the Management Committee. The
agencies have clarified in the Framework the Management Committee's
role with respect to the MPA Federal Advisory Committee (MPA FAC) and
added two members of the MPA FAC as ex officio members of the
Management Committee. Fishery Management Councils were already listed
as members of the Management Committee. The public and nongovernmental
organizations will not be members of the Management Committee, but
their views will be represented through the MPA FAC which consists of
non-federal voting members.
Comment Category 12: Benefits of the National System
Summary: Several comments provided editorial suggestions to note
additional benefits of the national system, including greater
regulatory certainty for ocean industry and opportunities for
recreational fishing. Other comments requested changes to: emphasize
the role of science in MPA design; clarify that ecological connectivity
exists independent of MPAs; discuss the benefits of a ``bottom up''
regional structure; and note the responsibilities and benefits to MPA
sites and programs of joining the national system.
Response: The agencies agree with the suggestions for additional
benefits of the national system, and incorporated these ideas into the
Framework. Additionally, the Framework now clarifies language relating
to ecological connectivity. The agencies believe that the role of
science in developing and implementing the national system, and the
benefits of the regional structure of the system were addressed with
existing language.
Comment Category 13: Tribal Comments
Summary: One comment was received noting the importance of
appropriately engaging tribal governments in the national system
development process.
Response: The agencies agree that federally recognized tribes must
be engaged on a government to government basis, but believe that the
Framework already addresses this issue. The level of detail requested
in this comment will be more appropriately addressed in subsequent
documents and actions.
Comment Category 14: Funding
Summary: Many comments asked for an estimation of the costs of
implementing the national system, including funding levels needed to
implement regional processes as well as best estimates of costs
associated with a state's involvement in the national system. A few
comments asked that the Framework better address incentives for
[[Page 69613]]
participation and the need for increased funds to encourage state
participation. One comment suggested the Framework be accompanied by a
robust request for additional resources.
Response: The agencies agree that a detailed estimation of the
costs of implementing the national system is necessary, but should not
be part of the Framework, which is a broad policy document. An
estimation of costs will be developed as part of a National System
Action Plan. The agencies agree that incentives for participation are
critical to the success of the national system, and have added language
to note this need. Resources for implementation of the MPA Executive
Order are sought through agencies' federal appropriations processes.
Comment Category 15: Level of Detail
Summary: Several comments requested that the Framework include
information on particular steps in the national system implementation
process, such as gap analysis and evaluation, and the funding
requirements of the system.
Response: The agencies believe that this level of detail is outside
the scope of the Framework as a broad programmatic document outlining
the goals, objectives, functions and processes of the national system.
The MPA Center plans to develop a National System Action Plan that will
address many of these issues in more detail, and will be made available
to the public. Subsequent information on later stages of the national
system, such as gap analysis and evaluation, will be made public
through the MPA Center's Web site (www.mpa.gov) and national and
regional outreach efforts.
Comment Category 16: Draft Environmental Assessment
Summary: One commenter raised several issues about the draft
environmental assessment. These comments included: (1) The ``no
action'' alternative is misspecified; (2) a reasonable range of
alternatives was not analyzed; and (3) it does not adequately describe
the affected environment, environmental consequences and cumulative
effects.
Response: The agencies disagree and believe that the EA accurately
describes the ``no action'' alternative, assesses a reasonable range of
alternatives, and adequately addresses the affected environment,
environmental consequences and cumulative effects at a programmatic
level. The Framework itself will not have a significant effect
(positive or negative) on the environment as it serves to establish
administrative, managerial, and coordination roles. Any future
discretionary federal action that might have an effect on the human
environment would require National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
compliance either tiered from this EA or completed independently by the
designating program since the MPA Center does not have the authority to
create new MPAs or modify the regulatory authority of existing MPAs.
The ``no action'' alternative would have the ``MPA Executive Order
* * * stand alone without any further detail of the process necessary
for developing the national system.'' This alternative describes ``no
action'' as it relates to a national system Framework, not all
activities that might be conducted by the MPA Center.
The reason for the simplified range of alternatives in the EA is
that any alternative other than those described would simply be a
different managerial strategy to achieve the goals of the EO. As such,
because the agencies are bound by the EO to achieve certain goals and
operating procedures, any impact analysis of the various organizational
permutations would show no difference between additional potential
alternatives and the preferred.
The agencies believe that the level of detail in this EA is
appropriate for the programmatic, broad planning scale of the national
system Framework. More detailed analyses on the affected environment,
environmental consequences, and cumulative effects would be provided as
needed in any tiered or independent NEPA processes required for future
discretionary federal actions associated with the national system, such
as the creation of new MPAs.
Classification
Regulatory Planning and Review
This action is not a regulatory action subject to E.O. 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993).
Energy Effects
NOAA and DOl have determined that this action will have no effect
on energy supply, distribution, or use and is therefore not a
``significant energy action'' as defined by Executive Order 13211 (66
FR 28355, May 18, 2001). No Statement of Energy Effects is required and
therefore none has been prepared.
Government to Government Relationship With Tribes
E.O. 13175--Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments--outlines the responsibilities of the Federal Government
regarding its policies with tribal implications, i.e., regulations,
legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy
statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000). Pursuant to E.O. 13175, tribal governments were consulted in
the development of this Framework, and NOAA and DOI will continue to
consult with tribal governments as the national system is developed.
Administrative Procedure Act
Pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), prior notice and an
opportunity for public comment are not required to be given, as this
document concerns agency procedure or practice. Nevertheless, NOAA and
DOI wanted the benefit of the public's comment and therefore provided
for two opportunities for public comment.
Dated: November 7, 2008.
William Corso,
Deputy Assistant Adminstrator, Ocean Services and Coastal Zone
Management.
[FR Doc. E8-27143 Filed 11-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P