[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 77 (Thursday, April 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18551-18557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9335]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
List of National System Marine Protected Areas
AGENCY: NOAA, Department of Commerce (DOC).
ACTION: Notice of availability of the List of National System Marine
Protected Areas (MPAs) and response to comments on nominations of
existing MPAs to the national system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NOAA and the Department of the Interior (DOI) invited federal,
state, commonwealth, and territorial MPA programs with potentially
eligible existing MPAs to nominate their sites to the national system
of MPAs (national system). A total of 225 nominations were received.
Following a 30-day public review period, 26 public comments were
received by the National Marine Protected Areas Center and forwarded to
the relevant managing agencies. After review of the public comments,
managing agencies were asked to make a final determination of sites to
nominate to the national system. All the nominations were confirmed by
the managing agencies. Finding them to be eligible for the national
system, the National Marine Protected Areas Center has accepted the
nominations for 225 sites and placed them on the List of National
System MPAs.
The national system and the nomination process are described in the
Framework for the National System of Marine Protected Areas of the
United States of America (Framework), developed in response to
Executive Order 13158 on Marine Protected Areas. The final Framework
was published on
[[Page 18552]]
November 19, 2008, and provides guidance for collaborative efforts
among Federal, State, commonwealth, territorial, tribal and local
governments and stakeholders to develop an effective and well
coordinated national system that includes existing MPAs meeting
national system criteria as well as new sites that may be established
by managing agencies to fill key conservation gaps in important ocean
areas.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren Wenzel, NOAA, at 301-713-3100,
ext. 136 or via e-mail at [email protected]. A more detailed
electronic copy of the List of National System MPAs is available for
download at http://www.mpa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background on National System
The national system of MPAs includes member MPA sites, networks and
systems established and managed by Federal, State, Territorial, Tribal
and/or local governments that collectively enhance conservation of the
nation's natural and cultural marine heritage and represent its diverse
ecosystems and resources. Although participating sites continue to be
managed independently, national system MPAs also work together at the
regional and national levels to achieve common objectives for
conserving the nation's important natural and cultural resources, with
emphasis on achieving the priority conservation objectives of the
Framework. MPAs include sites with a wide range of protection, from
multiple use areas to no take reserves where all extractive uses are
prohibited. The term MPA refers only to the marine portion of a site
(below the mean high tide mark) that may include both terrestrial and
marine components.
Benefits of joining the national system, which are expected to
increase over time as the system matures, include a facilitated means
to work with other MPAs in the MPA's region, and nationally on issues
of common conservation concern; fostering greater public and
international recognition of MPAs and the resources they protect;
priority in the receipt of available technical and other support for
cross-cutting needs; and the opportunity to influence Federal and
regional ocean conservation and management initiatives (such as
integrated ocean observing systems, systematic monitoring and
evaluation, targeted outreach to key user groups, and helping to
identify and address MPA research needs). In addition, the national
system provides a forum for coordinated regional planning about place-
based conservation priorities that does not otherwise exist.
Joining the national system does not restrict or require changes
affecting the designation process or management of member MPAs. It does
not bring State, Territorial, Tribal or local sites under Federal
authority. It does not establish new regulatory authority or revise
existing regulatory authority. The national system is a mechanism to
foster greater collaboration among participating MPA sites and programs
in order to enhance stewardship in the waters of the United States.
Nomination Process
The Framework describes two major focal areas for building the
national system of MPAs--a nomination process to allow existing MPAs
that meet the entry criteria to become part of the system and a
collaborative regional gap analysis process to identify areas of
significance for natural or cultural resources that may merit
additional protection through existing Federal, State, commonwealth,
territorial, tribal or local MPA authorities. The initial nomination
process for the national system began on November 25, 2008, when the
National Marine Protected Areas Center (MPA Center) sent a letter to
federal, state, commonwealth, and territorial MPA programs inviting
them to submit nominations of eligible MPAs to the national system. The
initial deadline for nominations was January 31, 2009; this was
extended to February 13, 2009. A public comment period was held from
March 6, 2009 through April 6, 2009.
There are three entry criteria for existing MPAs to join the
national system, plus a fourth for cultural heritage. Sites that meet
all pertinent criteria are eligible for the national system.
1. Meets the definition of an MPA as defined in the Framework.
2. Has a management plan (can be site-specific or part of a broader
programmatic management plan; must have goals and objectives and call
for monitoring or evaluation of those goals and objectives).
3. Contributes to at least one priority conservation objective as
listed in the Framework.
4. Cultural heritage MPAs must also conform to criteria for the
National Register for Historic Places.
Additional sites not currently meeting the management plan criterion
can be evaluated for eligibility to be nominated to the system on a
case-by-case basis based on their ability to fill gaps in the national
system coverage of the priority conservation objectives and design
principles described in the Framework.
The MPA Center used existing information in the MPA Inventory to
determine which MPAs meet the first and second criteria. The inventory
is online at http://www.mpa.gov/helpful_resources/inventory.html, and
potentially eligible sites are posted online at http://mpa.gov/pdf/national-system/allsitesumsheet120408.pdf. As part of the nomination
process, the managing entity for each potentially eligible site is
asked to provide information on the third and fourth criteria.
List of National System MPAs
The following MPAs have been nominated by their managing programs
to join the national system of MPAs. A list providing more detail for
each site is available at http://www.mpa.gov.
Federal Marine Protected Areas
Marine National Monument
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (Hawaii)
National Marine Sanctuaries
Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (California)
Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary (California)
Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary (American Samoa)
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (Florida)
Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (Texas)
Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary (Georgia)
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (Massachusetts)
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (California)
Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (Hawaii)
Monitor National Marine Sanctuary (North Carolina)
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (California)
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (Washington)
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary (Michigan)
National Parks
Assateague Island National Seashore (Virginia, Maryland)
Biscayne National Park (Florida)
Channel Islands National Park (California)
Dry Tortugas National Park (Florida)
Everglades National Park (Florida)
Glacier Bay National Park (Alaska)
Isle Royale National Park (Minnesota, Michigan)
Point Reyes National Park (California)
[[Page 18553]]
Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument (US Virgin Islands)
Virgin Islands National Park (US Virgin Islands)
National Wildlife Refuges
ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge (South Carolina)
Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (Alaska)
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (North Carolina)
Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge (Texas)
Aransas National Wildlife Refuge (Texas)
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Alaska)
Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Virginia)
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge (Hawaii)
Bandon Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (Oregon)
Big Boggy National Wildlife Refuge (Texas)
Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (Louisiana)
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge (Maryland)
Block Island National Wildlife Refuge (Rhode Island)
Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge (Delaware)
Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge (Alabama)
Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge (Texas)
Breton National Wildlife Refuge (Louisiana)
Cape May National Wildlife Refuge (New Jersey)
Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge (South Carolina)
Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge (North Carolina)
Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge (Virginia, Maryland)
Conscience Point National Wildlife Refuge (New York)
Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Cross Island National Wildlife Refuge (Maine)
Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Currituck National Wildlife Refuge (North Carolina)
Delta National Wildlife Refuge (Louisiana)
Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (California)
Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge (Washington)
Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge (Maryland)
Eastern Shore of Virginia National Wildlife Refuge (Virginia)
Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (New Jersey)
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge (Virginia)
Fisherman Island National Wildlife Refuge (Virginia)
Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Mississippi, Alabama)
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge (Washington)
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge (New Hampshire)
Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Guam National Wildlife Refuge (Guam)
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge (Pacific Islands)
Huron National Wildlife Refuge (Michigan)
Island Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge (Pacific Islands)
John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge (Rhode Island)
Johnston Island National Wildlife Refuge (Pacific Islands, Hawaii)
Key West National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge (Pacific Islands)
Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge (Washington, Oregon)
Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge (Virginia, North Carolina)
Marin Islands National Wildlife Refuge (California)
Martin National Wildlife Refuge (Maryland)
Mashpee National Wildlife Refuge (Massachusetts)
Matlacha Pass National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge (Hawaii)
Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge (Massachusetts)
National Key Deer Refuge (Florida)
Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Oregon)
Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge (Rhode Island)
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (Washington)
Nomans Land Island National Wildlife Refuge (Massachusetts)
Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Virginia)
Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge (New York)
Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge (Pacific Islands)
Parker River National Wildlife Refuge (Massachusetts)
Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge (North Carolina)
Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Pine Island National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Pinellas National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Plum Tree Island National Wildlife Refuge (Virginia)
Pond Island National Wildlife Refuge (Maine)
Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge (Delaware)
Protection Island National Wildlife Refuge (Washington)
Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge (Maine)
Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge (Pacific Islands)
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge (Louisiana)
Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge (Rhode Island)
San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge (Texas)
San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge (California)
Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge (New York)
Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge (Louisiana)
Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Oregon)
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge (Connecticut)
Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (New Jersey)
Susquehanna National Wildlife Refuge (Maryland)
Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge (North Carolina)
Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (California)
Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge (New York)
Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge (Florida)
Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge (South Carolina)
Wallops Island National Wildlife Refuge (Virginia)
Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge (New York)
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (Washington)
Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (Alaska)
Federal/State Partnership Marine Protected Areas
National Estuarine Research Reserves
Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve (Florida)
[[Page 18554]]
Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve (New Jersey)
Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (Florida)
Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (Massachusetts)
State Marine Protected Areas
American Samoa
Aua
California
Ano Nuevo Area of Special Biological Significance
Ano Nuevo State Marine Conservation Area
Asilomar State Marine Reserve
Big Creek State Marine Conservation Area
Big Creek State Marine Reserve
Bird Rock Area of Special Biological Significance
Bodega Area of Special Biological Significance
Cambria State Marine Conservation Area
Carmel Bay Area of Special Biological Significance
Carmel Bay State Marine Conservation Area
Carmel Pinnacles State Marine Reserve
Del Mar Area of Special Biological Significance
Double Point Area of Special Biological Significance
Duxbury Reef Area of Special Biological Significance
Edward F. Ricketts State Marine Conservation Area
Elkhorn Slough State Marine Conservation Area
Elkhorn Slough State Marine Reserve
Farallon Islands Area of Special Biological Significance
Farnsworth Bank Area of Special Biological Significance
Gerstle Cove Area of Special Biological Significance
Greyhound Rock State Marine Conservation Area
Heisler Park Area of Special Biological Significance
Irvine Coast Area of Special Biological Significance
James V. Fitzgerald Area of Special Biological Significance
Jughandle Cove Area of Special Biological Significance
Julia Pfeiffer Burns Area of Special Biological Significance
King Range Area of Special Biological Significance
La Jolla Area of Special Biological Significance
Laguna Point to Latiga Point Area of Special Biological Significance
Lovers Point State Marine Reserve
Moro Cojo Slough State Marine Reserve
Morro Bay State Marine Recreational Management Area
Morro Bay State Marine Reserve
Natural Bridges State Marine Reserve
Northwest Santa Catalina Area of Special Biological Significance
Pacific Grove Area of Special Biological Significance
Pacific Grove Marine Gardens State Marine Conservation Area
Piedras Blancas State Marine Conservation Area
Piedras Blancas State Marine Reserve
Point Buchon State Marine Conservation Area
Point Buchon State Marine Reserve
Point Lobos Area of Special Biological Significance
Point Lobos State Marine Conservation Area
Point Lobos State Marine Reserve
Point Reyes Headlands Area of Special Biological Significance
Point Sur State Marine Conservation Area
Point Sur State Marine Reserve
Portuguese Ledge State Marine Conservation Area
Redwoods National Park Area of Special Biological Significance
Robert E. Badham Area of Special Biological Significance
Salmon Creek Coast Area of Special Biological Significance
San Clemente Area of Special Biological Significance
San Diego Scripps Area of Special Biological Significance
San Nicolas Island & Begg Rock Area of Special Biological Significance
Santa Barbara & Anacapa Island Area of Special Biological Significance
Santa Rosa & Santa Cruz Island Area of Special Biological Significance
Saunders Reef Area of Special Biological Significance
Soquel Canyon State Marine Reserve
Southeast Santa Catalina Area of Special Biological Significance
Trinidad Head Area of Special Biological Significance
Vandenberg State Marine Reserve
Western Santa Catalina Area of Special Biological Significance
White Rock (Cambria) State Marine Conservation Area
Florida
See National Estuarine Research Reserves, above.
Hawaii
Ahihi Kina'u Natural Area Reserve
Hanauma Bay Marine Life Conservation District, Oahu
Kaho'olawe Island Reserve
Kealakekua Bay Marine Life Conservation District
Molokini Shoal Marine Life Conservation District
Pupukea Marine Life Conservation District, Oahu
West Hawaii Regional Fisheries Management Area
Maryland
U-1105 Black Panther Historic Shipwreck Preserve
Massachusetts
See National Estuarine Research Reserves, above
New Jersey
See National Estuarine Research Reserves, above
Virginia
Bethel Beach Natural Area Preserve
Blue Crab Sanctuary
Dameron Marsh Natural Area Preserve
False Cape State Park
Hughlett Point Natural Area Preserve
Kiptopeke State Park
Savage Neck Dunes Natural Area Preserve
Washington
Admiralty Head Preserve
Argyle Lagoon San Juan Islands Marine Preserve
Blake Island Underwater Park
Brackett's Landing Shoreline Sanctuary Conservation Area
Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve
Cypress Island Aquatic Reserve
Deception Pass Underwater Park
False Bay San Juan Islands Marine Preserve
Fidalgo Bay Aquatic Reserve
Friday Harbor San Juan Islands Marine Preserve
Haro Strait Special Management Fishery Area
Maury Island Aquatic Reserve
San Juan Channel & Upright Channel Special Management Fishery Area
Orchard Rocks Conservation Area
Shaw Island San Juan Islands Marine Preserve
South Puget Sound Wildfire Area
Sund Rock Conservation Area
Yellow and Low Islands San Juan Islands Marine Preserve
Zelia Schultz/Protection Island Marine Preserve
Response to Public Comments
On March 6, 2009, NOAA and DOI (agencies) published the Nomination
of Existing Marine Protected Areas to the National System of Marine
Protected Areas for public comment. By the end of the 30-day comment
period, 26 individual submissions had been received from a variety of
government agencies, non-governmental organizations, industry and
conservation interests, advisory groups
[[Page 18555]]
and the public. Given the breadth and multi-faceted nature 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 Official List of
National System Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for this first round of
nominated sites.
Comment Category 1: Purpose and Scope of National System
Comment Category 2: Agency Review Process
Comment Category 3: Public Review Process
Comment Category 4: Support for Nomination of Specific Sites to
National System
Comment Category 5: Questioning Eligibility of Specific Sites for
the National System
Comment Category 6: Concerns about Potential Restrictions on Use
Comment Category 7: Information Available to Assess Nominations
Comment Category 8: Information Quality Act
Comment Category 9: Gap Analysis
Comments and Responses
Comment Category 1: Purpose and Scope of National System
Summary
A few comments called for more clarity about the purpose and vision
of the National System of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), although there
were different perspectives about what this vision should include. One
respondent thought that the agencies should create more specific
minimum criteria for the national system, while another contended that
the nomination process should mirror the creation of new sites under
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. Some respondents had comments on
entry criteria for nominations to the National System of MPAs, or on
plans for implementation of the federal responsibility to avoid harm to
the resources protected by a national system MPA. One respondent
recommended that the name of the ``National System of MPAs'' be revised
and called the ``National Network of MPAs'' stating that ``a National
Network is opinion-based; a National System is science-based.''
Response
The purpose and scope of the national system, and plans for its
implementation, were developed with extensive stakeholder engagement
over a four year period from 2004 through 2008. During this period, the
Framework for the National System of Marine Protected Areas of the
United States (Framework) was developed. Three separate public comment
periods on the document were held and announced in the Federal
Register. In addition, the National Marine Protected Areas Center (MPA
Center) held numerous meetings with stakeholders to obtain input on the
Framework, and worked closely with the Marine Protected Areas Federal
Advisory Committee (MPA FAC) in open meetings on key concepts that were
incorporated into the document. The Framework document was finalized in
November 2008; no public comments were received on the Federal Register
notice announcing its release. Issues raised by respondents focused on
the content of the Framework are not considered germane to this public
comment notice.
Regarding the recommendation that the nomination process should
mirror the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), the agencies contend
that the NMSA should not be the model for nominations to the national
system for the following reasons: (1) The national system is charged
with working to coordinate diverse MPAs across all levels of
governments. These sites and programs have diverse authorities, and it
is inappropriate to impose the requirements of one federal MPA program
(e.g. the NMSA) on other federal, state, and territorial MPA programs,
which have their own legal authorities, processes and purposes; (2) The
procedural elements for the NMSA are focused on the designation of new
MPAs, while the nomination process for national system of MPAs is
focused on the admission of existing MPAs into the national system for
the purposes of enhanced coordination, recognition and stewardship and
(3) The NMSA's extensive procedural requirements for sanctuary
designation (including public involvement and interagency consultation)
are not warranted for inclusion of a site in the national system of
MPAs since that action has no regulatory impact or potential to
restrict human uses of that site.
The agencies disagree with the recommendation that the National
System of MPAs be renamed the ``National Network of MPAs.'' Section
4(e) of Executive Order 13158 calls for the development of a National
System of MPAs. In addition, the terms ``system'' and ``network'' as
used in the Framework are clearly defined in Section VI. Glossary of
Key Terms of the final Framework. These definitions were developed in
consultation with the MPA Federal Advisory Committee to ensure clarity
of usage and consistency with current scientific thinking.
Comment Category 2: Agency Review Process
Summary
Two respondents called for nominations to the national system to
undergo special review by particular management agencies. One called
for all nominations in a given region to be reviewed and approved by
regional Fishery Management Councils. Another respondent called for all
sites in Alaska to be reviewed and approved by the Alaska Board of
Fisheries.
Response
The current process for nominations to the national system provides
for nominations to be made by the MPA's managing agency and for a
public review process of the MPAs proposed for nomination. The agencies
believe that while it is appropriate for other agencies or bodies in a
region to comment on such proposed nominations as part of the public
process, it is inappropriate for these other agencies or bodies to have
the authority to approve or disapprove nominations made by the agency
legally responsible for the management of an MPA.
Comment Category 3: Public Review Process
Summary
Two respondents noted that the 30-day public comment period was not
sufficient to review information for 225 nominated sites, and requested
that the public comment period be extended. One respondent recommended
that all nominated sites be reviewed by the Marine Protected Areas
Federal Advisory Committee.
Response
The agencies have concluded that this extension is not necessary
because the public has had ample opportunity to address many of the
issues raised through the multi-year public process to develop the
Framework, which included three separate Federal Register public
comment periods. The agencies followed the Framework's process and
provided an opportunity for the public to comment on issues related
specifically to nominations to the national system. The agencies do not
believe that an extended comment period would substantively change the
comments received. Moreover, because the national system of MPAs is a
non-regulatory program that will not change the management or
regulations of member sites, there is no risk of harm to the public
resulting from declining this extension. Regarding the
[[Page 18556]]
recommendation that the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory
Committee should review the nominations, the Committee was actively
involved in developing and recommending the entry criteria for the
national system. However, the role of the Committee is to provide
advice to the Departments of Commerce and the Interior, not to engage
in governmental decision-making regarding operational details of the
national system.
Comment Category 4: Support for Nomination of Specific Sites to
National System
Summary
A number of comments supported the nomination of specific sites to
the national system, noting the significant ecological and cultural
value of the areas, and adding that the participation of these sites in
the national system will lead to a strengthening of their conservation
efforts, as well as enhancing the national system. One comment sought
better integration among NOAA Fisheries and National Marine
Sanctuaries, and further sought opportunities to leverage funds and
establish partnerships.
Response
Comments that support the nominations of sites to the national
system were forwarded to the appropriate managing agencies. Regarding
the call for enhanced integration, the agencies believe that the
national system will result in enhanced collaboration and coordination
of all MPA managing agencies, including NOAA Fisheries and National
Marine Sanctuaries.
Comment Category 5: Questioning Eligibility of Specific Sites for the
National System
Summary
Several comments questioned the eligibility of specific sites for
inclusion in the national system. Eligibility concerns included whether
sites met the definitions of `marine' and `MPA,' as well as concerns
over a specific site's management plan. In particular, several
respondents noted that the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve (WA) did not
meet the national system entry criteria to have a management plan
because its management plan is still in draft.
Response
According to the Framework for the National System of Marine
Protected Areas of the United States of America (Framework), a site is
eligible for inclusion in the national system if the site: (1) Meets
the definition of an MPA as defined in the Framework; (2) has a
management plan (can be site-specific or part of a broader programmatic
management plan); (3) contributes to at least one priority conservation
objective as listed in the Framework; and (4) cultural heritage
resources must also conform to criteria for the National Register of
Historic Places.
It is important to note that only the `marine' portion of a site
will be eligible for inclusion in the national system. According to the
Framework, to be marine, a site ``must be: (a) Ocean or coastal waters
(note: coastal waters may include intertidal areas, bays or estuaries);
(b) an area of the Great Lakes or their connecting waters; (c) an area
of submerged lands under ocean or coastal waters or the Great Lakes or
their connecting waters; or (d) a combination of the above. The term
``intertidal'' is understood to mean the shore zone between the mean
low water and mean high water marks. An MPA may be a marine component
part of a larger site that includes uplands. However, the terrestrial
portion is not considered an MPA. For mapping purposes, an MPA may show
an associated terrestrial protected area.''
Recognizing the often lengthy process in finalizing a management
plan, which in some cases can take years to complete, the agencies
determined that an established site may submit a draft management plan
in order to meet this eligibility criterion.
Comment Category 6: Concerns About Potential Restrictions on Use
Summary
Several comments addressed the concern that the inclusion of a site
in the national system will limit access to an area, and in particular
will restrict recreational fishing or boating, sportfishing, commercial
fishing, aquaculture operations, or coastal industry.
Response
The national system has no authority under Executive Order 13158 to
either change the management or regulatory authority of existing MPAs
or create new MPAs. MPAs will continue to be established, managed and
revised under each site's existing federal, state, territorial, tribal
or local authorities and their associated legal processes. The
inclusion of an MPA into the national system in no way ``federalizes''
any state or local areas included within the system. The Executive
Order states that the national system is ``intended to support, not
interfere with, agencies' independent exercise of their own existing
authorities.''
Comment Category 7: Information Available to Assess Nominations
Summary
Several respondents contended that the information available on the
nominated sites was not sufficient for the public to assess whether the
entry criteria had been met. Respondents noted that additional
information was needed to ensure the transparency of the review
process. For example, one respondent wanted to view information that
indicated how, not merely whether, sites met the nomination criteria.
Response
The agencies posted information on the nominated sites on the
public Web site, http://www.mpa.gov in a downloadable PDF format.
Information provided in this format included: site name, management
agency, level of protection, permanence, constancy, protection focus,
fishing restrictions and management plan type. In addition, information
on the primary conservation objective(s) addressed by each site, and
the regulatory or management tools used to address the primary
conservation objective(s) was provided. One week after the Federal
Register notice appeared, based on a request from the public, the
location of all federal sites sorted by the state in which it is
located was added to the downloadable file to improve ease of utility.
Users were also able to download GIS data for nominated sites as part
of the MPA Inventory posted on www.mpa.gov. Information regarding the
MPA Center's assessment of eligibility was available to the public
through the Web site. For example, the Web site provided information on
the type of management plan for each site, as well as the evidence the
management program for each site provided to indicate how it met the
primary conservation objective(s) of the national system.
The MPA Center recognizes the need to expand the data available on
http://www.mpa.gov and to make it more accessible and usable to the
public, and is in process of developing and improving Web-based
applications to address this need.
Comment Category 8: Information Quality Act
Summary
One respondent expressed concern that because of general
disclaimers on the http://www.mpa.gov Web site (at: http://mpa.gov/
helpful--resources/
[[Page 18557]]
disclaimers--pr.html), the data contained therein regarding the Marine
Protected Areas Inventory does not comply with the Information Quality
Act (IQA). The respondent states that in light of the disclaimer
language, the public ``has no reason to believe that any of these data
are accurate, reliable, and complete or they have any utility.'' If
true, dissemination of such information would violate NOAA's
Information Quality (IQ) guidelines, published pursuant to the IQA. In
support of this assertion, the respondent cites NOAA's IQA guidelines
as follows: ``Information quality is composed of three elements:
utility, integrity and objectivity. Quality will be ensured and
established at levels appropriate to the nature and timeliness of the
information to be disseminated. NOAA will conduct a pre-dissemination
review of information it disseminates to verify quality. Information
quality is an integral part of the pre-dissemination review * * * .''
Response
NOAA's MPA Inventory information is reliable and complies with the
NOAA IQ guidelines standards for utility, integrity, and objectivity.
The content of the initial Marine Managed Area (MMA) Inventory and its
successor Marine Protected Areas Inventory (MPA Inventory) were
developed and designed in cooperation with federal, state and
territorial agencies and were the subject of public comment under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. The definition of ``MPA'' was the subject of
Federal Register comment processes as part of the inventory development
process, and three additional times as part of the development and
publication of the Framework for the National System of Marine
Protected Areas of the United States of America. Data were collected
directly from primary sources, and from the Federal, State, or
territorial agency programs that designate and manage MPAs. Once
initial data were collected, inventory information for each site was
sent by the MPA Center to the pertinent MPA management agency for
verification prior to posting on the www.mpa.gov Web site as part of
the quality assurance/quality control process.
In addition, on November 20, 2008 the MPA Center Director sent a
letter to MPA program managers providing each with a set of potential
nominee sites from the pertinent program. The MPA program managers
reviewed and verified the accuracy of the information provided. As a
result of these review processes, the agencies believe NOAA's MPA
inventory and related information disseminated through the MPA Center
Web site meet the applicable NOAA IQ standards.
Regarding the disclaimer language posted on the MPA Center Web site
(at: http://mpa.gov/helpful_resources/disclaimers_pr.html), the
agency has taken the respondent's comments into consideration and will
replace the existing disclaimer with more appropriate language
regarding limitations on the use of the data contained on the MPA
Center Web site.
Comment Category 9: Gap Analysis
Summary
Two respondents noted the importance of the gap analysis described
in the Framework document, and urged that the agencies move forward
with the gap analysis to identify areas meeting the conservation
objectives of the national system in need of additional protection.
Response
The regional gap analysis process described in the Framework will
complement the nominations of existing sites to the National System of
MPAs by providing information on areas in need of additional protection
to MPA management agencies. NOAA and DOI are currently in the design
phase of the gap analysis process; information on the process will
continue to be posted on http://www.mpa.gov.
Dated: April 17, 2009.
John H. Dunnigan,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-9335 Filed 4-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P