[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29317-29321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12452]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Response to Comments on the Second Round of Nominated Sites to
the National System of MPAs
AGENCY: NOAA, Department of Commerce (DOC).
ACTION: Notice of updates to 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). This was the second round of nominations,
following the nomination of 225 sites in the initial round of
nominations, completed in April 2009. For the second round, a total of
32 nominations were received. Following a 45-day public review period,
114 public comments were received by the National Marine Protected
Areas Center (MPA 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 MPA
Center has accepted the nominations for 29 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 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 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 is made up of member MPA sites,
networks and systems established and managed by federal, state,
commonwealth, 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.
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.
The act of joining the national system does not create new MPAs, or
create new restrictions for the existing MPAs that become members. In
fact, a site must have existing protections of natural and/or cultural
resources in place in order to be eligible to join the national system,
as well as meet other criteria described in the Framework. However,
joining the national system does not establish new regulatory authority
or change existing regulations in any way, nor does it require changes
affecting the designation process or management of member MPAs. Nor
does it bring state, territorial, tribal or local sites under federal
authority.
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 sites in the MPA's region, and nationally on issues
of common conservation concern; fostering greater public and
international recognition of U.S. 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 Coastal
and Marine Spatial Planning, 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.
[[Page 29318]]
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 second round of
nominations for the national system began on August 6, 2009, when the
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 deadline for nominations was
November 20, 2009. A public comment period was held from December 23,
2009 through February 22, 2010.
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 (see below).
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.
Updates to List of National System MPAs
The following MPAs have been nominated by their managing programs
to join the national system of MPAs. Two nominated MPAs, Acadia
National Park and Apostle Islands National Lakeshore have requested
additional time to consult with stakeholders and tribal governments and
are not included in this round of nominations. An additional MPA, the
Queen Anne's Revenge Shipwreck site, has withdrawn from the nomination
process. The complete List of National System MPAs, which now includes
254 members, is available at http://www.mpa.gov.
Federal Marine Protected Areas
National Parks
Buck Island Reef National Monument
Cabrillo National Monument
Canaveral National Seashore
Cape Cod National Seashore
Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Cape Lookout National Seashore
Fire Island National Seashore
Gateway National Recreation Area
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore
Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve
Kalaupapa National Historical Park
Kaloko-Honokahau National Historical Park
National Park of American Samoa
Olympic National Park
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
Salt River Bay National Historical Park and Ecological Preserve
San Juan Islands National Historical Park
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore
National Wildlife Refuges
Blackbeard Island National Wildlife Refuge
Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge
Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge
Pickney Island National Wildlife Refuge
Tybee National Wildlife Refuge
Wassaw National Wildlife Refuge
Wolf National Wildlife Refuge
Partnership Marine Protected Areas
Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (Puerto Rico)
State Marine Protected Areas
Virgin Islands
East End Marine Park
Washington
San Juan County/Cypress Island Marine Biological Preserve
Response to Public Comments
On January 7, 2010, NOAA and DOI (agencies) published the
Nomination of Existing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) to the National
System of Marine Protected Areas for public comment, for the nomination
of 32 existing MPAs. By the end of the 45-day comment period, 114
individual submissions had been received from a variety of state and
tribal government agencies, non-governmental organizations, industry
and conservation interests, advisory groups 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 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 second round of nominated sites.
Comment Category 1: Purpose and Scope of National System
Comment Category 2: Concerns with Restrictions on Use, Access and
Associated Economic and Cultural Impacts
Comment Category 3: Concerns about Designating an Area as an MPA
Comment Category 4: Benefits of Joining the National System
Comment Category 5: Support for Nomination of Specific Sites to
National System
Comment Category 6: Nominating Additional Sites
Comment Category 7: Questioning Eligibility of Specific Sites for the
National System, the Definition of ``Marine'' and the Mean High Tide
Mark
Comment Category 8: Gap Analysis
Comment Category 9: Stakeholder Engagement
Comment Category 10: Tribal Issues
Comments and Responses
Comment Category 1: Purpose and Scope of National System
A few comments called for more clarity about the purpose and vision
of the national system. One respondent asked if the national system of
MPAs could assist in specific local coastal issues (e.g., coastal
erosion).
Response:
The purpose of the national system is to support the effective
stewardship, conservation, restoration, sustainable use, and public
understanding and appreciation of the nation's significant natural and
cultural marine resources. The national system works across all levels
of government to address problems that extend beyond the boundaries of
a single MPA. Decisions
[[Page 29319]]
about national system priorities consider the interests of and
implications for all who use, benefit from, and care about our marine
environment.
While the national system is concerned with local coastal and ocean
issues, due to the national scope of the system and limited resources,
the national system does not focus on issues particular to one site but
rather focuses on strengthening and coordinating MPAs and MPA programs.
The purpose and scope of the national system, and plans for its
implementation were developed with extensive stakeholder engagement
from 2004 through 2008. During this period, the Framework for the
National System of Marine Protected Areas of the United States of
America (Framework) was developed. Three separate public comment
periods on the document were held and announced in the Federal Register
and through other means. 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 final
Framework document was published in November 2008.
Comment Category 2: Concerns with Restrictions on Use, Access, and
Associated Economic and Cultural Impacts
Summary:
Most comments expressed concerns that the inclusion of a site in
the national system will limit access to an area, and in particular
will impose additional restrictions on recreational fishing or boating,
commercial fishing or coastal industry. Several other comments
expressed concern that the inclusion of a site in the national system
would adversely affect the economic or cultural well being of local
communities.
Response:
As noted above, the purpose of the national system is to coordinate
MPA agencies to support the conservation and management of marine
resources. It is not intended to, nor does it have the authority to,
impose new restrictions on access or use. Under Executive Order 13158,
``this national system framework and the work of the MPA Center is
intended to support, not interfere with, agencies' independent exercise
of their own existing authorities.''
MPAs will continue to be established, managed, regulated and
revised under each site's existing federal, state, commonwealth,
territorial, tribal or local authorities and their associated legal
processes. Decisions about restrictions on access and use of an MPA
will continue to be made by its managing agency in accordance with the
authority under which the MPA was created and the goals and objectives
of the MPA. Two hundred and twenty five existing MPAs, approximately
half federal and half state sites, joined the National System in early
2009 and none have revised their regulations as a result of this
action.
The inclusion of an MPA into the national system in no way
``federalizes'' any state or local areas included within the system.
Further, the inclusion of a site in the national system of MPAs will
have no adverse impact on the economic or cultural aspects of a
specific locale. However, it does serve to highlight the importance of
that site's natural and cultural resources which contribute greatly to
state and local cultural heritage and economic values. By contributing
to the priority conservation objectives in the Framework, each site
receives recognition for sustaining the natural and cultural resources
on which local communities and the nation depend for recreational
opportunities, their livelihood and their cultural heritage.
Several comments cited data from the MPA Inventory on restrictions
on commercial and/or recreational fishing, believing these to be newly
proposed regulations as part of the nomination process to the national
system. This is not the case. The MPA Inventory summarizes existing
characteristics of U.S. MPAs, including existing regulations on
fishing, public access, and other uses or activities. This information
in the Inventory does not indicate that additional restrictions are
being proposed for any site nominated to the national system.
Comment Category 3: Concerns about Designating an Area as an MPA
Summary:
Many comments were concerned that inclusion in the national system
of MPAs would designate a particular site as an MPA.
Response:
A site must already meet the definition of an MPA as defined by the
Framework for the National System of Marine Protected Areas of the
United States of America in order to be nominated to the national
system. Many commenters appeared to assume that the term ``MPA'' refers
to a fully protected marine reserve or highly restricted site. In fact,
an MPA is defined by Executive Order 13158 as ``Any area of the marine
environment that has been reserved by federal, state, territorial,
tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for
part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein.'' Most MPAs
in the United States allow multiple uses such as recreational and
commercial fishing. Inclusion in the national system does not change
how the site's resources are managed or uses are regulated, including
regulation of fishing.
Comment Category 4: Benefits of Joining the National System
Summary:
Several comments noted that while inclusion of a site does not
impose additional restrictions, they saw no benefit to joining the
national system either.
Response:
The national system provides benefits to the nation, to
participating MPAs, and to ocean stakeholders. Benefits to joining the
national system include, among others:
Enhancing stewardship through better coordination on
regional and national scales, improved public awareness, and enhanced
site management capacity;
Building partnerships for MPAs to work together toward
common conservation objectives;
Increasing support for marine conservation through the
recognition provided by the national system;
Priority access to resources available for capacity
building and stewardship improvements;
Protecting representative ecosystems and resources from
all the nation's ecosystem and habitat types; and
Providing a transparent process for future MPA planning
that is science-based and includes a commitment to balanced stakeholder
involvement.
These benefits will enhance conservation and values of resources in
MPAs over time as implementation of the national system moves forward.
Comment Category 5: Support for Nomination of Specific Sites to
National System
Summary:
Several comments supported the nomination of specific sites to the
national system. They noted the significant ecological and cultural
value of the areas, and added 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.
Response:
These comments support the goals of Executive Order 13158, which
directs NOAA, DOI and other federal agencies
[[Page 29320]]
to sustain the ecological, cultural and economic values of the nation's
ocean and Great Lakes resources, by establishing the national system.
Managing agencies are responsible for nominating their individual
sites. Comments that support the nominations of sites to the national
system were forwarded to the appropriate managing agencies.
Comment Category 6: Nominating Additional Sites
Summary:
One comment recommended additional National Parks to be included in
the third round of nominations to the national system of MPAs.
Response:
Sites must be nominated by the site's managing agency. This comment
was forwarded to the National Park Service for their consideration in
subsequent nomination phases.
Comment Category 7: Questioning Eligibility of Specific Sites for
the National System, the Definition of ``Marine'' and the Mean High
Tide Mark
Summary:
Several comments questioned the eligibility of sites for inclusion
in the national system. Some eligibility concerns included whether or
not sites met the definition of ``marine'' and whether a site should be
included in the national system if the area's boundary extends only to
the mean low water mark. One comment noted the importance of
terrestrial habitats to marine species, such as turtles and wading
birds, and asked that the definition of ``marine'' be revised to more
adequately protect these species.
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) meets additional criteria
for cultural heritage MPAs (conforming to criteria for the National
Register for Historic Places).
Only the ``marine'' portion of a site is eligible for inclusion in
the national system. According to the Framework, to be marine, a site
``must be: (a) Ocean or coastal waters (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.''
NOAA and DOI recognize the critical importance of areas above the
high tide mark to marine species, resources, and ecosystem processes.
Examples of such areas include turtle nesting beaches and seabird
rookeries. The agencies have requested the Marine Protected Areas
Federal Advisory Committee to develop recommendations about how to
address this issue during their 2010-2011 sessions.
All sites nominated to the national system have geographic
information system (GIS) boundaries available to the public through the
MPA Inventory on the http://www.mpa.gov Web site. In addition, the MPA
Center has recently developed an interactive MPA mapping tool on the
above Web site to make MPA boundary information easily viewable by the
general public without GIS expertise.
Comment Category 8: Gap Analysis
Summary:
One comment noted support for the planned MPA gap analysis process
to identify marine areas in need of greater protection.
Response:
The regional gap analysis process described in the Framework will
identify areas in the marine environment that contribute to the
priority conservation objectives of the national system, including
resources currently represented in marine protected areas. This process
will complement the nominations of existing sites to the National
System of MPAs by providing information on resources currently under
management by MPA management agencies, as well as areas that may be in
need of additional protection. NOAA and DOI are currently developing
plans for the gap analysis process that will also support emerging
information needs for Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning activities.
Comment Category 9: Stakeholder Engagement
Summary:
Some comments were concerned that the stakeholder process did not
provide enough information and time to allow for informed response to
nominations.
Response:
NOAA and DOI are committed to stakeholder engagement as an
essential component of the national system. The MPA Center continues to
work with and solicit input from federal, state, commonwealth,
territorial, tribal, and local government partners, Fishery Management
Councils, Advisory Committees, stakeholder groups, and the general
public about their perspectives on the national system. The Center has
limited resources that cannot support extensive stakeholder
consultation at the local and regional levels, but is working with its
partners and the managing agencies to reach out to local communities to
address questions and uncertainties they may have related to the
national system. The majority of comments opposed to the proposed
nominations relate to concerns about potential restrictions on fishing
or prohibitions on access to marine areas, and possible impacts from
such restrictions. The MPA Center will continue to clarify for the
public and local communities that nomination to the national system
does not impose additional restrictions or propose additional
regulatory authority to restrict uses of marine resources.
The national system nomination process is transparent. All
nominated sites were published in the Federal Register, and the general
public was invited to provide public comment on all sites nominated for
inclusion in the national system in a 45-day public comment period. In
addition, the MPA Center used the mpa.gov web site, newsletters,
listserves, and other communication mechanisms to ensure the widest
possible outreach to the public. The MPA Center then forwarded all
public comment to the MPA managing entity. Because no comment asked for
an extension of the comment period, we believe the 45-day comment
period provided adequate time to gather more information.
Comment Category 10: Tribal Issues
Summary: Two comments focused on the need to ensure that the
inclusion of MPAs in the national system does not infringe upon Tribal
treaty rights. One comment noted that the Tribe supported the
nomination of a local MPA with the recognition that the Tribe will
continue to rely upon its usual and accustomed areas within the MPA for
economic and subsistence activities. Another comment requested a formal
government to government consultation on the nomination of the Apostle
Islands National Lakeshore. This nomination is not included in the
current round in order to provide additional time for the requested
tribal consultation.
Response:
Executive Order 13158 states that ``This order does not diminish,
affect, or abrogate Indian treaty rights or United States trust
responsibilities to Indian
[[Page 29321]]
tribes.'' NOAA and DOI are committed to consultations with tribes as
part of the national system development process.
Addendum: From ``Framework for the National System of Marine Protected
Areas of the United States'' National System Goals and Priority
Conservation Objectives
Goal 1: For Natural Heritage Marine Resources--Advance
comprehensive conservation and management of the nation's biological
communities, habitats, ecosystems, and processes and the ecological
services, uses, and values they provide to present and future
generations through ecosystem-based MPA approaches.
Priority Conservation Objectives for Goal 1--Conserve and
manage:
Key reproduction areas and nursery grounds
Key biogenic habitats
Areas of high species and/or habitat diversity
Ecologically important geological features and
enduring/recurring oceanographic features
Critical habitat of threatened and endangered species
Unique or rare species, habitats and associated
communities
Key areas for migratory species
Linked areas important to life histories
Key areas that provide compatible opportunities for
education and research
Goal 2: For Cultural Heritage Marine Resources--Advance
comprehensive conservation and management of cultural resources that
reflect the nation's maritime history and traditional cultural
connections to the sea, as well as the uses and values they provide
to present and future generations through ecosystem-based MPA
approaches.
Priority Conservation Objectives for Goal 2--Conserve and
manage:
Key cultural and historic resources listed on the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
Key cultural and historic resources determined eligible
for the NRHP or listed on a State Register
Key cultural sites that are paramount to a culture's
identity and/or survival
Key cultural and historic sites that may be threatened
Key cultural and historic sites that can be utilized
for heritage tourism
Key cultural and historic sites that are
underrepresented
Goal 3: For Sustainable Production Marine Resources--Advance
comprehensive conservation and management of the nation's renewable
living resources and their habitats (including, but not limited to,
spawning, mating, and nursery grounds and areas established to
minimize bycatch of species) and the social, cultural, and economic
values and services they provide to present and future generations
through ecosystem-based MPA approaches.
Priority Conservation Objectives for Goal 3--Conserve and
manage:
Key reproduction areas, including larval sources and
nursery grounds
Key areas that sustain or restore high-priority fishing
grounds
Key areas for maintaining natural age/sex structure of
important harvestable species
Key foraging grounds
Key areas that mitigate the impacts of bycatch
Key areas that provide compatible opportunities for
education and research
Dated: May 17, 2010.
Donna Wieting,
Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management.
[FR Doc. 2010-12452 Filed 5-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P