46942 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations
Centralia, IL, Centralia Muni, RNAV (GPS) Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinental Madison, WI, Dane County Regional-Truax RWY 36, Orig Arpt/Houston, GPS RWY 15L, Orig-B, Field, NDB RWY 36, Amdt 29 Minneapolis, MN, Minneapolis-St Paul Intl CANCELLED Madison, WI, Dane County Regional-Truax (Wold-Chamberlain), NDB RWY 4, Amdt Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinential Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig 20A Arpt/Houston, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15L, Orig Madison, WI, Dane County Regional-Truax Minneapolis, MN, Minneapolis-St Paul Intl Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinental Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig (Wold-Chamberlain), RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Arpt/Houston, GPS RWY 27, Amdt 1, Madison, WI, Dane County Regional-Truax Orig CANCELLED Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Orig–A Hazen, ND, Mercer County Regional, RNAV Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinental Madison, WI, Dane County Regional-Truax (GPS) RWY 14, Orig Arpt/Houston, GPS RWY 33R, Orig, Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig Hazen, ND, Mercer County Regional, RNAV CANCELLED Madison, WI, Dane County Regional-Truax (GPS) RWY 32, Orig Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinental Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig Hazen, ND, Mercer County Regional, GPS Arpt/Houston, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig Oshkosh, WI, Wittman Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Orig, CANCELLED Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinental RWY 36, Orig Hazen, ND, Mercer County Regional, GPS Arpt/Houston, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33R, Note: The FAA published the following RWY 32, Orig, CANCELLED Orig Gordon, NE, Gordon Muni, RNAV (GPS) Houston, TX, Houston-Southwest, NDB RWY procedures in Docket No. 30264, Amdt. No. RWY 22, Orig 9, Amdt 5 2065 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Gordon, NE, Gordon Muni, GPS RWY 22, Houston, TX, Houston-Southwest, NDB RWY Administration Regulations (Federal Register Orig, CANCELLED 27, Amdt 4 Vol. 66, No. 164, Page 44301–44302, dated North Platte, NE, North Platte Regional Lee Houston, TX, Houston-Southwest, RNAV Thursday, August 23, 2001) under Section Bird Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Orig (GPS) RWY 9, Orig 97.23 & 97.33 effective October 4, 2001 is Newark, NJ, Newark Intl, VOR RWY 11, Houston, TX, Houston-Southwest, RNAV hereby amended as follows: Amdt 2 (GPS) RWY 27, Orig Change the effective on the following Newark, NJ, Newark Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY Houston, TX, Houston-Southwest, VOR/DME procedures to November 1, 2001: 11, Orig RNAV RWY 9, Amdt 2 Burbank, CA, Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena, Newark, NJ, Newark Intl, GPS RWY 11, Orig, Houston, TX, Houston-Southwest, VOR/DME VOR RWY 8, Amdt 10C CANCELLED RNAV RWY 27, Amdt 3 Burbank, CA Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena, Boise City, OK, Boise City, RNAV (GPS) RWY Houston, TX, Houston-Southwest, GPS RWY RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Orig 4, Orig 27, Orig, CANCELLED [FR Doc. 01–22658 Filed 9–7–01; 8:45 am] Boise City, OK, Boise City, GPS RWY 4, Orig, Houston, TX, Houston-Southwest, GPS RWY CANCELLED 9, Orig, CANCELLED BILLING CODE 4910–13–M Butler, PA, Butler County/K W Scholter Houston, TX, Sugar Land Muni/Hull Field, Field, ILS RWY 8, Amdt 6 VOR/DME–A, Amdt 1 Collegeville, PA, Perkiomen Valley, VOR OR Houston, TX, Sugar Land Muni/Hull Field, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE GPS RWY 9, Amdt 4 NDB RWY 17, Amdt 9 Galeton, PA, Cherry Springs, VOR–A, Amdt Houston, TX, Sugar Land Muni/Hull Field, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 6, CANCELLED RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig Administration Galeton, PA, Cherry Springs, VOR/DME–A, Houston, TX, Sugar Land Muni/Hull Field, Orig RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig Lancaster, PA, Lancaster, RNAV (GPS) RWY Houston, TX, Weiser Airpark, RNAV (GPS)– 15 CFR Part 922 8, Orig E, Orig [Docket No. 970626156–1021–04] Angleton/Lake Jackson, TX, Brazoria County, Houston, TX, William P. Hobby, VOR/DME NDB RWY 17, Amdt 3 RWY 22, Amdt 24A, CANCELLED RIN 0648–AK01 Angleton/Lake Jackson, TX, Brazoria County, La Porte, TX, La Poret Muni, VOR–A, Orig RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1 La Porte, TX, La Porte Muni, VOR OR GPS– Regulation of the Operation of Angleton/Lake Jackson, TX, Brazoria County, A, Amdt 12, CANCELLED Motorized Personal Watercraft in the RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1 La Porte, TX, La Porte Muni, NDB RWY 30, Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Conroe, TX, Montgomery County, ILS RWY Amdt 2, Sanctuary 14, Amdt 2 La Porte, TX, La Porte Muni, RNAV (GPS) Conroe, TX, Montgomery County, NDB RWY RWY 30, Orig AGENCY: Office of National Marine 14, Amdt 2 Charlotte Amalie, VI, Cyril E King, ILS RWY Sanctuaries, National Ocean Service Conroe, TX, Montgomery County, RNAV 10, Amdt 1 (NOS), National Oceanic and (GPS) RWY 32, Orig Madison, WI, Dane County Regional-Truax Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Conroe, TX, Montgomery County, VOR/DME Field, VOR RWY 13, Orig RNAV RWY 32, Amdt 1B, CANCELLED Madison, WI, Dane County Regional-Truax Department of Commerce. Conroe, TX, Montomery County, GPS RWY Field, VOR RWY 18, Orig ACTION: Final rule; notice of availability 32, Orig-C, CANCELLED Madison, WI, Dane County Regional-Truax of environmental assessment. Hondo, TX, Hondo Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY Field, VOR RWY 36, Orig 17L, Orig Madison, WI, Dane County Regional-Truax SUMMARY: NOAA amends the Hondo, TX, Hondo Muni, GPS RWY 17L, Field, VOR OR TACAN OR GPS RWY 13, regulations governing activities in the Amdt 1, CANCELLED Amdt 23B, CANCELLED Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Houston, TX, Clover Field, VOR–A, Amdt 1 Madison, WI, Dane County Regional-Truax Sanctuary (GFNMS or Sanctuary) to Houston, TX, Clover Field, GPS RWY 32L, Field, VOR OR TACAN OR GPS RWY 18, prohibit the operation of motorized Orig, CANCELLED Amdt 20B, CANCELLED Houston, TX, Clover Field, RNAV (GPS) Madison, WI, Dane County Regional-Truax personal watercraft (MPWC) within the RWY 32L, Orig Field, VOR OR TACAN OR GPS RWY 31, boundaries of the GFNMS. This Houston, TX, David Wayne Hooks Memorial, Amdt 24C, CANCELLED regulation is necessary to protect RNAV (GPS) RWY 17R, Orig Madison, WI, Dane County Regional-Truax sensitive biological resources, to Houston, TX, David Wayne Hooks Memorial, Field, VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 13, minimize user conflict, and to protect RNAV (GPS) RWY 35L, Orig Orig the ecological, aesthetic, and Houston, TX, Ellington Field, RNAV (GPS) Madison, WI, Dane County Regional-Truax recreational qualities of the Sanctuary. RWY 4, Orig Field, VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 18, NOAA also announces the availability Houston, TX, Ellington Field, GPS RWY 4, Orig Orig-A, CANCELLED Madison, WI, Dane County Regional-Truax of an Environmental Assessment (EA) Houston, TX, Ellington Field, GPS RWY 22, Field, VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 31, on the rule. Orig, CANCELLED Orig DATES: Effective October 10, 2001.
VerDate 11
ADDRESSES: Copies of the use of motorized personal watercraft in engine, and exhaust venting to water as Environmental Assessment are available the Sanctuary, including periods of high opposed to air) and their operational upon request from the Gulf of the incidence of use; (6) studies or technical impacts (operated at faster speeds, Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, articles concerning the impacts of operated closer to shore, make quicker Fort Mason, Building 201, San motorized personal watercraft on turns, stay in a limited area, tend to Francisco, CA 94123 (415) 561–6622. marine resources and other users; (7) operate in groups, and have more FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed first person or documented accounts of unpredictable movements); (5) MPWC Ueber at (415) 561–6622. impacts of motorized personal have been operated in such a manner as SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: watercraft on marine resources and to create a safety hazard to other other users; and (8) any other resource users in the vicinity; (6) MPWC I. Background information or other comments that may may interfere with marine commercial In recognition of the national be pertinent to this issue. NOAA users; (7) MPWC have disturbed natural significance of the unique marine received 160 public comments in quiet and aesthetic appreciation; (8) environment of the Gulf of the response to the notice of inquiry and MPWC have interfered with other Farrallones, California, the GFNMS was two signature petitions during the marine recreational uses; (9) MPWC designated in January 1981. The comment period. One hundred fifty- have impacted coastal and marine GFNMS regulations at 15 CFR part 922, three (96%) supported banning the habitats; (10) MPWC have disturbed Subpart H prohibit a relatively narrow operation of MPWC within the GFNMS. waterfowl and seabirds; (11) MPWC range of activities to protect Sanctuary Two signature petitions were also have disturbed marine mammals; (12) resources and qualities. On April 18, received; one, with 276 signatures, MPWC may disturb fish; (13) other 1996, the Environmental Action supported the ban; the second, with 41 jurisdictions have had problems with Committee (EAC) of West Marin, signatures, opposed the ban. Forty-four MPWC and have proposed and California, petitioned the GFNMS to ban people spoke at a public meeting held implemented various means of to gather information during the attempting to solve the problems; (14) the use of MPWC in the Sanctuary. comment period, all but one of who the Sanctuary has sensitive areas that Operation of MPWC is currently not supported the petition to ban MPWC were deemed worthy of protection by regulated under GFNMS regulations. operation. Half of the speakers at the the designation of a National Marine The EAC identified a number of public meeting had previously Sanctuary, including five State concerns regarding the use of MPWC submitted written comments. designated Areas of Special Biological within the Sanctuary. In its petition, the Responses to and investigation of the Significance and four semi-enclosed EAC asserted that: MPWC are specific questions in the August, 1997 estuarine areas; and (15) MPWC present completely incompatible with the notice revealed that: (1) The number of a present and potential threat to existence of a marine sanctuary; pose a MPWC currently being operated in resources and users of the GFNMS. danger to the biological resources of the Sanctuary waters is believed to be 20 by Based on this information, the NMSP sanctuary, such as marine mammals, the proprietors of Lawson’s Landing, the published a proposed rule to prohibit wildfowl, kelp beds, anadromous fish, primary MPWC launch site in Sanctuary operation of MPWC from the mean high and other marine life; create noise, waters, and these users make less than tide line seaward to 1000 yards. The water and air pollution; and threaten 200 launches per year; (2) the use of proposed rule was designed to protect mariculture and other commerce MPWC in Sanctuary waters is believed Sanctuary resources and minimizing throughout the Sanctuary. The EAC also to be increasing; (3) there are two user conflict in the nearshore areas. stated that MPWC create a hazard for established MPWC launch sites in the NOAA received 53 public comments on other Sanctuary users, including Sanctuary, at Bodega Harbor and the proposed rule. Fifty-one swimmers, sailboats, windsurfers, open- Lawson’s Landing; (4) the areas in the commentors (96%) supported a full ban water rowing shells and kayaks. NOAA Sanctuary where MPWC are operated on MPWC within the GFNMS and 2 also received 195 letters from members are in the vicinity of the mouth of (4%) opposed the proposed regulations. of the public in response to media Tomales Bay and the area outside On June 2, 1999, a public hearing to publicity about the petition. Sixty-four Bodega Harbor-over 95% of MPWC accept comments on the proposed rule percent opposed regulation of MPWC; operation that occurs in the Sanctuary was held in Point Reyes, California. Five 33% supported the EAC’s requested occurs in these areas; (5) April through people spoke at the public hearing. ban; one percent expressed no clear November appear to be the times of Three people spoke in favor of a opinion. highest use of MPWC in Sanctuary complete ban on MPWC within the To supplement existing information waters; (6, 7, and 8) numerous studies, GFNMS and two people spoke out on the use and impacts of MPWC, technical articles, and personal against the proposed 1000-yard NOAA published a Notice of Inquiry/ documentation such as photos, letters restriction. Comments received on the Request for Information in the Federal and logs of the impacts of MPWC on April 23 rule and NOAA’s responses Register on August 21, 1997, initiating marine resources and other users were were included in the preamble to the a 45-day comment period that ended received and collected. proposed rule that was published in the October 6, 1997. NOAA requested The following were identified during Federal Register on May 22, 2000. information on the following: (1) The NOAA’s review of this issue: (1) Water- After considering the comments in number of motorized personal based recreational activity is increasing response to the proposed rule, watercraft being operated in the in the United States; (2) water-based reviewing new and recent MPWC Sanctuary; (2) possible future trends in recreational activity has impacted regulations for agencies with contiguous such numbers; (3) the customary coastal habitats, seabirds, marine or overlapping boundaries, and launching areas for motorized personal mammals and fish; (3) operation of reviewing recent biological information, watercraft in or near the Sanctuary; (4) MPWC is a relatively new and NOAA concluded that a total the areas of use of motorized personal increasingly popular water sport; (4) prohibition on the operation of MPWC watercraft activity in the Sanctuary, MPWC, are different from other types of would be necessary to adequately including areas of concentrated use; (5) motorized watercraft in their structure protect Sanctuary resources. On May 22, the periods (e.g., time of year, day) of (smaller size, shallower draft, two-stroke 2000, NOAA published a notice of
VerDate 11
withdrawal of the April 23, 1999 area of the Sanctuary provides in Alaska. In recent years, more proposed rule, a new proposed rule for important habitat for federally individual gray whales are remaining in the total prohibition of MPWC within endangered blue, humpback, fin, sei and the Gulf of the Farallones throughout the Sanctuary, and a notice of sperm whales, and provides habitat for the year to feed instead of proceeding to availability of Draft Environmental up to 50% of all the ashy storm petrels the feeding grounds in Alaska. Assessment (DEA). Comments on the in the world and 90% of all the common The protected bays and coastal proposed rule and the DEA were murres in their southern range. Harbor wetlands of the Sanctuary, such as accepted until June 21, 2000. In porpoise, Steller sea lions, Pacific white Bodega Bay, Tomales Bay, Drakes Bay, addition, a public hearing was held on sided dolphins, Dall’s porpoise, Bolinas Lagoon, Estero Americano and June 12, 2000. NOAA received 65 California sea lions, common murres, Estero de San Antonio, include comments on the proposed rule. Fifty Cassin’s auklets, rhinoceros auklets, intertidal mudflats, sand flats, salt commentors (77%) supported a full ban three species of cormorants, two species marshes, submerged rocky terraces, and and 15 (23%) were opposed to the full of grebes, tufted puffins, pigeon shallow subtidal areas. These areas ban. The comments and NOAA’s guillemots, marbled murrelets, black support large populations of benthic responses to them are provided below. footed albatross, storm petrels, fauna and concentrations of burrowing The waters of the Sanctuary are home shearwaters, fulmars and many species organisms and organisms living on to a rich diversity of organisms and of seabirds and marine mammals that marine plants. Submerged eelgrass provide critical habitat for seabirds, are less abundant also depend on the (Zostera marina) beds are prevalent in marine mammals, fishes, invertebrates, offshore areas of the Sanctuary to the northern portion of Tomales Bay sea turtles and marine flora. The provide food and shelter. and provide crucial feeding habitat for biological importance and uniqueness of The Gulf of the Farallones is a more than 50 resident, breeding, and Sanctuary waters have been migratory bird species. These eelgrass internationally recognized by the destination feeding area for protected beds are also important for many marine incorporation of Sanctuary waters into white sharks (Klimley and Ainley, 1996) invertebrates and for the developing egg the United Nations’ Man in the and endangered blue and humpback masses of herring and other fishes. It is Biosphere system as part of the Golden whales (Kieckhefer, 1992). The sharks estimated that approximately 30 million Gate Biosphere Reserve, and the aggregate in coastal areas and near the herring spawn annually on the eelgrass designation of Bolinas Lagoon as a Farallon islands from spring through fall beds of Tomales Bay (Fox, 1997). The RAMSAR (Convention for Wetlands of to feed on an abundance of seals and sea shallow protected bays and estuaries International Significance) site. lions. The whales travel from Mexico to Because of its unique geology and feed on the concentrations of krill and within the Sanctuary, such as Tomales geography, the biological diversity forage fish found in the Sanctuary. From Bay, Drakes Bay, Bolinas Lagoon, and found within the GFNMS rivals any spring through late summer, krill swarm the esteros, are important habitat for location along the Pacific coast. Fueled in the surface layers of the Gulf (Smith anadromous fish, several species of by the strongest coastal upwelling in and Adams, 1988). It is during these surfperches, sharks, rays and flatfish. North America (Bakun, 1973), abundant daytime surface swarms that krill are Over 150 species of fish are found in the biological resources thrive in the most vulnerable to predators. Sanctuary including the federally productive waters of the Gulf’s broad, Endangered whales, seabirds and endangered winter-run Chinook salmon shallow continental shelf. A counter- salmon feed heavily on krill when krill and the federally threatened coho clockwise eddy that swirls south of are concentrated in these surface salmon, spring run Chinook salmon, Point Reyes in the Gulf of the Farallones aggregations. Ten percent of California’s steelhead trout and tidewater goby. concentrates the products of upwelling threatened coho salmon population feed Among the hundreds of bird species (Wing et al., 1995) and acts like an in the outer Sanctuary during the ocean that reside in or migrate through the incubator for small developing animals. phase of their life history before Sanctuary, many are endangered, These in turn are food for organisms returning to spawn in Lagaunitas Creek threatened or of special concern. These higher on the food web. The result is a and its tributaries. Recently listed include the following species which are marine system that supports some of the populations of chinook salmon also feed found in the Sanctuary and on the most active commercial fisheries on the in the Gulf of the Farallones as adults Farallon Islands (Key: FE=Federally west coast, provides food and habitat to before returning to the Sacramento River listed as endangered; FT=Federally support the largest concentration of drainage to complete their life cycle. listed as threatened; SE=listed in the breeding seabirds in the continental Gray whales pass through the Sanctuary State of California as endangered; United States and supports roughly 20% twice a year on their migration route ST=listed in the State of California as of the breeding population of between winter calving grounds in threatened; CSC=California species of California’s harbor seals. The offshore Mexico and summertime feeding areas concern):
Swimmers [ducks and duck-like]: Aleutian Canada Goose ...... Branta canadensis leucopareia ...... FT Barrow’s Goldeneye ...... Bucephala islandica ...... CSC Common Loon ...... Gavia immer ...... CSC Double-crested Cormorant ...... Palacrocorax auritus ...... CSC Harlequin Duck ...... Histrionicus histrionicus ...... CSC Marbled Murrelet ...... Brachyramphus marmoratus ...... FT/SE Aerialists [gulls and gull-like]: American White Pelican ...... Pelecanus erythorhynchos ...... CSC Ashy Storm Petrel ...... Oceanodroma homochroa ...... CSC California Brown Pelican ...... Pelecanus occidentalis californicus ...... FE/SE California Gull ...... Larus californicus ...... CSC California Least Tern ...... Sterna antillarum browni ...... FE/SE Elegant Tern ...... Sterna elegant ...... CSC Short-tailed Albatross ...... Diomedea albatrus ...... FE
VerDate 11
Long-legged waders [herons, cranes, etc.]: California Black Rail ...... Laterallus jamaicensis corurniculus ...... ST Smaller waders [plovers, sandpipers, etc.]: Long-billed Curlew ...... Numenius americanus ...... CSC Western Snowy Plover (coastal) ...... Charadrius alexandrinus niv...... FT/CSC Birds of prey [hawks, eagles, owls]: Bald Eagle check status ...... Haliaeetus leucocephalus ...... FT Ferruginous Hawk ...... Buteo regalis ...... CSC Osprey ...... Pandion haliaetus ...... CSC Prairie Falcon ...... Falco mexicanus ...... CSC Peregrine Falcon ...... Falco peregrinus ...... FE Passerine birds [perching]: Saltmarsh common yellowthroat ...... Geothlypis trichas sinuosa ...... CSC
There are at least twelve critical migratory, and seven are considered through the Sanctuary twice a year on marine bird nesting areas along the resident species. Many of these marine their migration route between winter shoreline of the Sanctuary. More than mammals occur in large concentrations calving grounds in Mexico and twelve species of marine birds breed and are dependent on the productive summertime feeding areas in Alaska. In within the Sanctuary and the nesting and secluded habitat of the Sanctuary’s recent years, individuals have remained population on the Farallon Islands is the waters and adjacent coastal areas for in the Gulf of the Farallones to feed largest concentration of breeding marine breeding, pupping, hauling-out, feeding, instead of proceeding to the feeding birds in the continental United States. and resting during migration. Three grounds in Alaska. Since 1999, gray During nesting and rearing of young, areas in the Sanctuary have been whales have been feeding in Bodega Bay these sea birds are especially dependent identified as critical feeding areas for and cow-calf pairs have been entering on the Sanctuary waters for food. the threatened Steller sea lion, coastal embayments in unprecedented Thirty-three species of marine including the nearshore areas around numbers. Some individuals have mammals have been observed in the Point Reyes, the northern half of acclimated to conditions in the Sanctuary including six species of Tomales Bay and areas adjacent to the pinnipeds, one mustelid and twenty-six Farallon Islands. Sanctuary and are now year-round species of cetaceans. About 20% of the Humpback and blue whales migrate to residents. Four species of endangered state’s breeding population of harbor offshore areas of the Sanctuary each sea turtles are also known to reside in seals live within the boundaries of the summer to feed. Fin, sei and sperm or migrate through Sanctuary waters. A Sanctuary, and northern fur seals are whales also frequent this area when listing of all threatened and endangered starting to recolonize historic pupping prey are abundant. Harbor seals, marine mammals and sea turtles follows sites within the Sanctuary for the first elephant seals, California sea lions, (Key: FE=Federally listed as time since 1820. Of the twenty-six Dall’s porpoise, harbor porpoise and endangered; FT=Federally listed as species of cetaceans that occur in gray whales are common residents in threatened; ST=listed in the State of Sanctuary waters, nineteen are Sanctuary waters. Gray whales pass California as threatened).
Pinnipeds: Guadelupe fur seal ...... Arctocephalus townsendi ...... FT/ST Steller (Northern) sea lion ...... Eumetopias jubatus ...... FT Mustelids: Southern sea otter ...... Enhydra lutris nereis ...... FT Cetaceans: Blue whale ...... Balaenoptera musculus ...... FE Humpback whale ...... Magaptera noveangliae ...... FE Sei whale ...... Balaenoptera robustus ...... FE Sperm whale ...... Physeter macrocphalus ...... FE Fin whale ...... Balaenoptera physalus ...... FE Sea Turtles: Green turtle ...... Chelonia mydas ...... FE Leatherback turtle ...... Dermochelys coriacea ...... FE Loggerhead turtle ...... Caretta caretta ...... FE Olive (Pacific) ridley ...... Lepidochelys olivacea ...... FE
Several populations of marine populations to return to their natural the Sanctuary waters fishing for salmon mammals are starting to recover from levels. and albacore. Rockfish and urchin boats near extinction after years of human The offshore waters of the Sanctuary fish the high spots and reefs closer to exploitation. As populations begin to also provide entrance and egress for shore. On the softer sediment of the rebound, individuals are expanding the commercial shipping traffic using ports continental shelf, crab fishermen lay out populations’ distributions back to in San Francisco Bay. Tankers and their lines of crab pots each one historic ranges. In many instances, such container ships traverse the Sanctuary identified with a buoy at the surface. All as the sea otters, gray whales, northern in three offshore shipping lanes that of these activities have gear in the water fur seals and elephant seals, animals are direct traffic from different directions in that is independent from or is attached using areas that have not been utilized and out of San Francisco Bay. These but extends some distance from the for decades. It is critical for the offshore waters also support an active boat. The gear is not readily apparent to sport and commercial fishery. Small the casual observer. Fishermen are Sanctuary to provide habitat that was skiffs and larger commercial vessels generally aware of how gear types are historically available and allow these troll at constant speeds or drift through deployed and operated. In cases where
VerDate 11
the potential for conflict arises, most MPWC are powered by a jet-propelled 1989). In addition, MPWC have been boats operating offshore have navigation system that typically involves a two- observed flushing wading birds and equipment and radios to communicate stroke engine with an exhaust expulsion nesting osprey from their habitats, with each other. Commercial whale system that vents into the water. The contributing to abnormally high watching and seabird operations two-stroke engines found on the vast numbers of abandoned osprey nests on regularly use the offshore area of the majority of MPWC in the United States certain islands in the Florida Keys (U.S. Sanctuary for wildlife viewing discharge more of their fuel (ranging Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992). The opportunities. In 1999, 3500 people from 10% to more than 50% of the number of active osprey nests in the visited the Sanctuary on one unburned fuel/oil mixture, depending lower Florida Keys ‘‘backcountry’’ commercial company’s whale watching on manufacturing conditions and dropped from five to zero between 1986 trips (Mary Jane Schramm, Oceanic operating variables) than four-stroke and 1990. Biologists believe this was Society, pers. comm. 10 April 2000). engines (Tahoe Research Group, 1997). due to MPWC flushing parents from the The nearshore waters of the Sanctuary These emissions pose a serious threat to nests (Cuthbert and Suman, 1995). are the areas most heavily used for the environment, as two-stroke engines Research suggests that declines in recreation. Areas such as Tomales Bay introduce more volatile organic nesting birds in some states occurred and Dillon Beach in Bodega Bay are compounds (by as much as a factor of simultaneously with MPWC operation. used for fishing, sailing, canoeing, 10) into the water than four-stroke Numerous shoreline roost sites exist rowing, kayaking and swimming. These engines (Juttner et al., 1995; Tjarnlund within the Sanctuary and research has activities are often conducted very close et al., 1995). These emissions can have shown that human disturbance at bird to shore and may be dependent on calm significant adverse impacts in many roost sites can force birds to completely waters. Other activities conducted in the areas of the Sanctuary, particularly abandon an area. Published evidence nearshore area of the Sanctuary that shallow nearshore coastal areas, strongly suggests that estuarine birds could be affected by MPWC include estuaries, and open ocean surface may be seriously affected by even diving, windsurfing, surfing and waters. occasional disturbance during key parts bodyboarding. of their feeding cycle, and when flushed Several Federal resource agencies Research indicates that MPWC can from feeding areas, such as eelgrass have recognized MPWC as a unique increase turbidity and may redistribute beds, will usually abandon the area type of recreational vessel that is benthic invertebrates, and these impacts until the next tidal cycle (Kelly, 1997). relatively recent in origin (U.S. Fish and may be prolonged as a result of repeated Seabirds such as common murres and Wildlife Service, 1992; NOAA, 1992; use by multiple machines in a limited sooty shearwaters often form large U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1998c). MPWC are area. Research has shown that MPWC aggregations on the surface of the ocean. designed to be operated at high speeds, can foul water with their discharge, and closer to shore, and to make quicker increase local erosion rates by launching Feeding aggregations of sooty turns than other types of motorized and beaching repeatedly in the same shearwaters can often number in the vessels. MPWC have a disproportional locations (Snow, 1989). Research in the thousands and cover significant offshore thrust capability and horsepower to Everglades National Park indicated that areas. These feeding flocks are vessel length and/or weight, in some fishing success dropped to zero when ephemeral in nature and their cases four times that of conventional fishing occurred in the same waters movement is dictated by the availability vessels (U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1998c). used by MPWC, and scientists in the of their prey. These seabirds are Research indicates that impacts Pacific Northwest have been concerned especially susceptible during these associated with MPWC tend to be about the effects of MPWC on spawning critical periods and disturbance could locally concentrated, producing effects salmon (Snow, 1989; Sutherland and have negative impacts on them. that are more geographically limited yet Ogle, 1975). Research in Florida There is a general conclusion that potentially more severe than motorboat indicates that MPWC cause wildlife to marine mammals are more disturbed by use, due to repeated disruptions and an flush at greater distances, with more watercraft such as MPWC, which run accumulation of impacts in a shorter complex behavioral responses than faster, on varying courses, or often period of time (Snow, 1989). MPWC are observed in disturbances caused by change direction and speed, than they generally of smaller size, with a automobiles, all-terrain vehicles, foot are by boats running parallel to shore shallower draft (4 to 9 inches), and approach, or motorboats. This was with no abrupt course or major speed lower horsepower (around 75, as partially attributed by the scientists to changes. Researchers note that MPWC compared to up to 250 for large pleasure the typical operation of MPWC, where may be disruptive to marine mammals craft) than most other kinds of they accelerate and decelerate because they change speed and motorized watercraft (Ballestero, 1990; repeatedly and unpredictably, and direction frequently, are unpredictable, Snow, 1989). The smaller size and travel at fast speeds directly toward and may transit the same area shallower draft of MPWC means they shore, while motorboats generally slow repeatedly in a short period of time. In are more maneuverable, operable closer down as they approach shore (Rodgers, addition, because MPWC lack low- to shore and in shallower waters than 1997). Scientific research also indicates frequency long distance sounds other types of motorized watercraft. that even at slower speeds, MPWC were underwater, they do not signal surfacing This maneuverability greatly increases a significantly stronger source of mammals or birds of approaching the potential for MPWC to disturb disturbance to birds than were danger until they are very close to them fragile nearshore habitats and motorboats. Levels of disturbance were (Gentry, 1996; Osborne, 1996). Possible organisms. Although wakes of MPWC further increased when MPWC were disturbance effects of MPWC on marine may be smaller than wakes of used at high speeds or outside of mammals could include shifts in conventional motorboats, they can be established boating channels (Burger, activity patterns and site abandonment more damaging (e.g., flooding of coastal 1998). Research notes that declining by harbor seals and Steller sea lions; site bird nests; erosion of shoreline) because nesting success of grebes, coots, and abandonment by harbor porpoise; MPWC are often operated faster, closer moorhens in the Imperial National injuries from collisions; and avoidance to shore and repeatedly in the same area Wildlife Refuge were due to the noise by whales (Gentry, 1996; Richardson et (Snow, 1989). and physical intrusion of MPWC (Snow, al., 1995).
VerDate 11
The offshore area of the Sanctuary is these whales be allowed to forage swimmers, kayakers, canoeists, and a destination feeding ground for without repeated disturbance. other boaters and users of the Sanctuary. endangered blue and humpback whales. Endangered blue whales were also MPWC have been involved in numerous Fin, sei, and sperm whales also frequent observed feeding two miles off of the accidents, and thus pose a hazard to offshore areas to forage. The recent Point Reyes headlands during July of other vessels and water users. Although MPWC bans implemented by PRNS and 1999. This is unusually close to shore MPWC make up approximately 11% of GGNRA limit the nearshore areas of the for these animals, whose numbers in the vessels registered in the country (U.S. Sanctuary where MPWC can be area comprise a major concentration for Dept. of Interior, 1998c), Coast Guard operated and increase the likelihood the world, and who normally forage statistics show that in 1996 MPWC were that MPWC will be used in the farther offshore. This unpredictable blue involved in 36% of all watercraft Sanctuary’s offshore area. The traffic whale feeding activity demonstrates the accidents (U.S. Coast Guard, 1999). In route from the launch site in Bodega importance of protecting all of the addition, numerous commentors noted Harbor through Bodega Bay to and from Sanctuary’s waters. As marine mammal that the operation of MPWC diminishes this offshore area would put MPWC in populations begin to recover from years the aesthetic qualities of many coastal offshore feeding areas for federally of harvesting pressure, it is difficult to and ocean areas, and may interfere with listed seabirds, marine mammals, and predict what areas of the Sanctuary will other economic uses, such as tourism. salmon. It would also cross the be utilized. Humpback whales regularly II. Summary of Comments and migration corridor for gray whales and feed in areas outside NOAA’s Responses put MPWC in close proximity to gray previously proposed 1000 yard buffer whale feeding areas in Bodega Bay. Gray (Kiekhefer, 1992). During summer and Comment 1: MPWC operation should whales pass through the Sanctuary fall more than 100 humpback whales be prohibited throughout the entire twice a year on their migration route can be observed moving around the Gulf Sanctuary. between winter calving grounds in of the Farallones following Response: NOAA agrees. After Mexico and summertime feeding areas concentrations of herring, sardines, or consideration of all comments, the latest in Alaska. krill that are their favorite prey. biological information on impacts of In 1995, some gray whales began Humpbacks use bubble nets and other MPWC in offshore areas, regulations feeding in the Gulf of the Farallones in behavioral adaptations during feeding to promulgated by other resource agencies lieu of completing their yearly migration drive their prey to the surface where with adjacent or overlapping to Alaskan feeding grounds and some of they are trapped by the air-sea interface jurisdiction, and conflicts with other these animals are beginning to reside in and captured. Sanctuary users, NOAA has concluded the Gulf year-round. Since 1999, gray Federally listed Southern sea otter that a Sanctuary-wide prohibition on whales have been feeding in Bodega Bay populations are also recovering from the operation of MPWC is necessary and in unprecedented numbers. Some near extinction and recolonizing areas the best way to protect the Sanctuary’s individuals have acclimated to within their historic range. Sitings of sea resources. conditions in the Sanctuary and are now otters in the GFNMS have increased Comment 2: MPWC operation should year round residents. In early summer, from two individuals in 1992 to 20 not be prohibited throughout the entire gray whales begin foraging in Bodega animals in 1998 (Dr. Sarah Allen, Point Sanctuary. Bay with the most recent feeding Reyes National Seashore, pers. comm. Response: NOAA disagrees. See activity documented in early April, July, 1999). Prior to the designation of response to Comment 1. 2000 (Dr. Sarah Allen, Point Reyes the Monterey Bay National Marine Comment 3: MPWC should be National Seashore, pers. comm. April Sanctuary, an otter in that area was regulated by a seasonal ban because the 11, 2000). struck and killed by an MPWC. (NOAA presence of whales in the Sanctuary is Historically, there were four launch 1990, Volume 1). Operation of MPWC in seasonal. sites used by MPWC to access Sanctuary GFNMS could put these animals at risk Response: NOAA disagrees. A waters: Lawson’s Landing at Dillon in an area that appears to be providing seasonal ban will not provide adequate Beach, Millerton Point Park, Inverness, habitat and an opportunity for the year-round protection to whales in the and Bodega Harbor. Millerton Point species’ survival. GFNMS. NOAA believes that a seasonal Park and Inverness are now closed to In Sanctuary waters beyond three ban will not give adequate protection to launching MPWC as a result of the nautical miles are found 11 federally Gray whales because Gray whales have prohibition against MPWC operation in endangered and 7 threatened species of been observed in the Sanctuary every PRNS and GGNRA. Lawson’s Landing is birds, fish, turtles, and marine month of the year since 1995. Prior to in Marin County and was closed to mammals, and 50% of all the ashy that, Gray whales were commonly seen MPWC by the 1999 County ordinance storm petrels in the world and 90% of from March 1–December 1 and often but can be used at the present time all the common murres in their southern seen in February. As indicated in the because of the tentative ruling by the range. These waters are a destination final EA, researchers have indicated that Marin Superior Court on September 13, feeding area for concentrations of MPWC may disrupt marine mammals 2000, described above. Currently, the endangered blue and humpback whales, because MPWC change speed and only remaining egress into the feeding summer resident fin, sei and direction frequently, are unpredictable, Sanctuary is from Lawson’s Landing sperm whales, endangered winter run and may transit the same area and from Bodega Harbor in Sonoma chinook and coho salmon. repeatedly in a short period of time. County. Use by MPWC of an egress MPWC have significant potential to Although MPWC lack low-frequency corridor from Bodega Harbor in Sonoma interfere with a large number of other long distance sounds underwater this County would put MPWC in the same Sanctuary users. Numerous respondents does not mean that marine mammals are vicinity as the feeding whales. Gray to the Notice of Inquiry/Request for not adversely impacted by MPWC noise. whales have not been observed in Information and the April 23, 1999, Whether the noise is heard at close Bodega Bay when MPWC are using the proposed rule and the subsequent range or farther away, it still will disturb area. With site affinity not firmly revised proposed rule on May 22, 2000, marine mammals which may cause established for gray whales starting to noted that MPWC were interfering with, shifts in activity patterns, site feed in Bodega Bay, it’s important that and often jeopardizing the well-being of, abandonment, or avoidance. Since
VerDate 11
marine mammals are limited to close site abandonment by harbor seals and Sanctuary resources as that of MPWC, range detection of MPWC noise and Steller sea lions; site abandonment by therefore NOAA is not proposing a total activity there is a greater chance of harbor porpoise; injuries from ban of their use in Sanctuary waters. collision. collisions; and avoidance by whales Comment 8: MPWC cause In addition, whales are not the only (Gentry, 1996; Richardson et al., 1995). ‘‘unacceptable’’ noise levels, that wildlife that inhabit the Sanctuary that Comment 5: MPWC disturb the disturb marine wildlife (marine are disturbed and negatively impacted tranquility of the Sanctuary. mammals, seabirds) as well as human by the use of MPWC. A seasonal closure Response: NOAA agrees. The use of visitors to the Sanctuary. may only offer protection to one or two MPWC can conflict with other users of Response: NOAA agrees. In general, specific species, but not to the other 33- the Sanctuary who use it solely for unless modified by the operator (i.e., marine mammals or the hundreds of aesthetic purposes. removal or alteration of the muffler), bird and fish species found throughout Comment 6: MPWC cause MPWC do not appear to be any louder the Sanctuary on a year-around basis. ‘‘unacceptable’’ pollution as a result of in the air than similarly powered Although the concentration of certain their two-stroke engines. conventional motorized watercraft species does occur on a seasonal basis, Response: NOAA agrees. MPWC are (MPWC and conventional watercraft the seasonal overlay among species is powered by a jet-propelled system that both registered between 74 and 84 continuous throughout the year and a typically involves a two-stroke engine decibels in tests conducted in 1990) seasonal prohibition would not provide with an exhaust expulsion system that (Woolley, 1996) and appear to be quieter full protection. vents directly into the water. The two- underwater (Gentry, 1996). MPWC may A seasonal ban will also not stroke engines found on the vast be perceived as being louder than other adequately address the other concerns majority of MPWC in the United States boats because they can travel faster, related to MPWC use in the Sanctuary discharge more of their fuel (ranging closer to shore, often travel in groups, such as noise, conflicts with other from 10% to more than 50% of the tend to frequently accelerate and Sanctuary users, turbidity, and water unburned fuel/oil mixture, depending decelerate, and ‘‘wake-jump.’’ These quality concerns related to 2-stroke on manufacturing conditions and characteristics create uneven, persistent engines. A more detailed explanation of operating variables) than four-stroke noise apparently more bothersome to these concerns is found in response to engines found on many conventional people and potentially to wildlife. In comment numbers 7, 8, and 6. recreational boats (Tahoe Research addition, research indicates that the Comment 4: MPWC threaten and Group, 1997). These emissions pose a constancy of speed figures into noise disturb wildlife in the Sanctuary. serious threat to the environment, as generation, as most people adjust to a Response: NOAA agrees. Research in two-stroke engines introduce more constant drone and cease to be Florida indicates that MPWC cause volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (by disturbed by it, even at elevated levels, wildlife to flush at greater distances, as much as a factor of 10) into the water but the changes in loudness and pitch with more complex behavioral than four-stroke engines (Juttner et al., of MPWC are more disturbing to people responses than observed in disturbances 1995; Tjarnlund et al., 1995). These than other watercraft (Wagner, 1994). In caused by automobiles, all-terrain emissions can have significant adverse addition, many MPWC operators alter or vehicles, foot approach, or motorboats. impacts in many areas of the Sanctuary, remove the mufflers to enhance craft This was partially attributed by the particularly shallow nearshore coastal performance, thus increasing the noise scientists to the typical operation of areas and estuaries. generated by their craft. MPWC, where they accelerate and Comment 7: NOAA proposes to ban Comment 9: MPWC operation decelerate repeatedly and MPWC because their two-stroke engines presents a user conflict with other unpredictably, and travel at fast speeds release pollutants into the water even Sanctuary users and poses a threat to directly toward shore, while motor boats though other recreational vessels with anyone engaging in other recreational generally slow down as they approach two-stoke engines are free to operate activities. shore (Rodgers, 1997). Scientific throughout the Sanctuary. Response: NOAA agrees. The research also indicates that even at Response: NOAA disagrees. NOAA Sanctuary encourages multiple uses of slower speeds, MPWC were a acknowledges that motorized watercraft its waters that are compatible with significantly stronger source of with two-stroke engines other than resource protection. When used as disturbance to birds than were motor MPWC are not restricted in the designed and in the current manner, boats. Levels of disturbance were further Sanctuary but, as indicated in response MPWC have significant potential to increased when MPWC were used at to comment 6, there are negative water interfere with a large number of other high speeds or outside of established quality impacts associated with Sanctuary users. Numerous respondents boating channels (Burger, 1998). MPWC’s engine exhaust and subsequent to the proposed rule noted that MPWC There is a general conclusion that discharge of VOCs into the water were interfering with, and often marine mammals are more disturbed by column. However, the proposed ban on jeopardizing the well-being of, watercraft such as MPWC, which run MPWC two-stroke engines is not the swimmers, kayakers, canoeists, and faster, on varying courses, or often sole reason why NOAA proposes a other recreational boaters and users of change direction and speed, than they complete ban of MPWC throughout the the Sanctuary. MPWC have been are by boats running parallel to shore Sanctuary. There are several factors involved in numerous accidents, and with no abrupt course or major speed NOAA has taken into consideration thus pose a hazard to other water users. change. In addition, because MPWC while proposing this ban of MPWC that Although MPWC make up lack low-frequency long distance cumulatively, indicate that a total ban is approximately 11% of vessels registered sounds underwater, they do not signal necessary including wildlife in the country (U.S. Dept. of Interior, surfacing mammals or birds of disturbance, user conflicts, and safety 1998c), Coast Guard statistics show that approaching danger until they are very concerns (as detailed in the responses to in 1996, 36% of all watercraft involved close to them (Gentry, 1996; Osborne, comments 4, 8, 9, and 17). Other in accidents were MPWC (U.S. Coast 1996). Documented disturbance effects watercraft that are propelled by two- Guard, 1999). While this accident data of MPWC on marine mammals could stroke engines do not have the same is not site specific to the Sanctuary, it include shifts in activity patterns and level of cumulative adverse impacts to does demonstrate that the potential for
VerDate 11
accidents does exist and that MPWC indicate channels and closed areas (5 necessary. NOAA has not received have a higher ratio of accidents than buoys per nautical mile to mark 80 comments or complaints on these types other motorized watercraft. nautical miles). of cumulative disturbances caused by Additional comments received noted Comment 11: NOAA denied other vessel types. that the operation of MPWC in commentors due process because public Comment 14: NOAA failed to address nearshore areas diminishes the aesthetic comment meetings were in remote the current regulations in the Hawaiian qualities of many beach and recreational locations and electronic comments were Islands Humpback Whale and Florida areas, and may interfere with other not accepted. Keys National Marine Sanctuaries. economic uses of the areas based upon Response: NOAA disagrees. As part of Response: NOAA disagrees. NOAA these aesthetic qualities. this process, NOAA held one public believes that an accurate comparison Comment 10: A partial ban on MPWC scoping meeting and two public between the Gulf of the Farallones and use would be impossible to enforce. hearings. All of the meetings were held the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Response: NOAA agrees. A partial ban at the Bear Valley Visitor Center of the and Florida Keys National Marine at 100 yards, 1000 yards, or event three Point Reyes National Seashore. This is Sanctuaries cannot be made because nautical miles would be difficult to a central location for the GFNMS and none of these three Sanctuaries have enforce. In a tentative ruling issued one visited by over 1,300,000 people similar climates, hydrodynamics, September 13, 2000, the Superior Court annually. It is well known and easy to boundary and shoreline delineation, or in Marin County rejected the County’s find. In addition, maps to the Center species composition. ordinance prohibiting MPWC operation were provided upon request. A private The Hawaiian Islands Humpback was rejected by the Marin for being meeting with the industry Whale National Marine Sanctuary vague, in part because of the difficulty representatives was also held. Over protects a single species and it is not in knowing where MPWC could be three months of time was provided for required to address the complexity of operated in the County’s jurisdiction out written comments in this and the the species composition at GFNMS, to three-miles. Before the Marin County previous proposed rule. which has 33 marine mammal, 400 bird, ban, there was difficulty enforcing the NOAA believes that it has provided and hundreds of fish species. The Point Reyes National Seashore’s one sufficient opportunities for members of Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary quarter mile restriction. the public to comment on this issue and (FKNMS) does have a current restriction Despite local rider’s attempt at self- has fulfilled all public notice on MPWC use within 100 yards of policing and their efforts to create no requirements. NOAA is not required to residential shoreline to a no-wake speed ride zones, violations were chronic and accept electronic comments and does (including other motorized vessels). regulations were hard to enforce. A total not yet have a formal policy on this However, in October 1999, the FKNMS prohibition will provide a clear and issue. Sanctuary Advisory Council decided simple enforcement rule within the Comment 12: NOAA’s conclusions are that these strategies had been ineffective GFNMS, will avoid confusion and will based on inaccurate and outdated and voted to advise the Sanctuary avoid the cost of installation and information. managers to consider new regulations maintenance of a delineation system. Response: NOAA has considered the that could result in additional Delineation of MPWC zones with most current information available in its restrictions to MPWC in Florida. buoys is in place at the Monterey Bay deliberations regarding the regulation of NOAA believes regulations for each National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) MPWC in the Sanctuary. Much of the National Marine Sanctuary must be and it is needed for enforcement information is from 1997 and 1998 data. considered on a case-by-case basis, because MPWC lack standard The sources are reliable, well-known taking into account the unique features navigational equipment and chart and respected in their fields, and have of each location, including living storage. MBNMS’s regulation delineates knowledge and experience in the Gulf of resources, physical characteristics, and four near harbor areas and bouys are in Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. use. place to mark the boundary. The Florida Please refer to source citations located Comment 15: NOAA has changed the Keys National Marine Sanctuary in the Bibliography of the regulations as a result of pressure from (FKNMS) does not have a specific Environmental Assessment. MPWC opponents. MPWC regulation, however there are a Comment 13: Prohibiting MPWC Response: NOAA disagrees. NOAA number of small areas that are closed to operation without prohibiting operation has considered all information carefully motorized vessels. These areas are of other motorized craft is unfair and in an unbiased manner based on the delineated by spar buoys or 30 inch discrimination. information found in the scientific buoys every 400 to 600 feet. The annual Response: NOAA disagrees. No other literature, public documents, and cost of maintenance and placement of vessel type has demonstrated so many comments by MPWC users and each buoy is $250–$500 respectively wide and varied detrimental aspects as nonusers alike. Based upon new and (Upper Keys Manager, Lt.Cdr. David MPWC. These aspects include: noise recent regulations for areas with Savage, pers.com. October 3, 2000). disturbance to wildlife and humans; contiguous and overlapping boundaries, These buoys are placed in shallow (1– discharge of VOC pollution and water the latest biological information on 2 fathoms maximum 12 feet) water. quality impacts; physical disturbance to impacts of MPWC in offshore areas, as Because of weather and sea conditions, marine mammal, bird, and fish from well as conflicts with other Sanctuary the GFNMS would require a 48 inch or frequent and erratic movement and fast users, NOAA has determined that a larger buoys placed at a depth of 15–41 speeds; and interference with other Sanctuary-wide prohibition on the fathoms (90–246 feet) at a cost of $2,000 Sanctuary users (swimmers, kayakers, operation of MPWC is necessary and the to $5,000 each. These larger buoys are canoeists, other boaters, sailors, hikers, best way to adequately protect the needed because of ground tackle beach goers, whale and bird watchers, Sanctuary’s resources. NOAA’s initial requirements for sea conditions. In and people looking for a wilderness proposal of a 1,000 yard buffer would addition, if the GFNMS were to place experience and aesthetic appreciation). have only protected 5% of the buoys 1,200 feet apart (double the width These impacts are supported by Sanctuary from the impacts of MPWC of the FKNMS placement), a minimum scientific information data and provide operation, leaving the remaining 95% of of 4,000 buoys would be required to justification as to why a ban is the Sanctuary at risk. The complete ban
VerDate 11
of MPWC in GFNMS will ensure full Response: NOAA is not prohibiting accidents nationally has little relevance protection to marine resource that could MPWC use solely because of user given the absence of any reported otherwise be affected. conflicts. As explained in response to MPWC accidents in the GFNMS. The May 22, 2000, Federal Register comments 4, 6, and 18, other concerns Response: NOAA disagrees. MPWC notice for GFNMS withdrawal and associated with the use of MPWC in the have been involved in numerous notice of proposed rule, specifically Sanctuary support NOAA’s conclusion accidents, and thus pose a hazard to states that the action was taken in that operation of MPWC should be other water users. Although MPWC response to the petition from the prohibited throughout the Sanctuary. make up approximately 11 percent of Environmental Action Committee of While MPWC do interfere with vessels registered in the country (U.S. West Marin and to comments received nearshore uses such as swimming, Dept. of Interior, 1998c), Coast Guard in response to a proposed rule that canoeing, and kayaking and cause statistics show that in 1996, 36 percent NOAA published on April 23, 1999. adverse impacts to nearshore wildlife of all watercraft involved in accidents Additional information on effects of and habitats, the impacts that MPWC were MPWC (U.S. Coast Guard, 1999). MPWC to wildlife in GFNMS has been can have on wildlife and water quality While this accident data is not site gathered since the original proposed ban in offshore areas is also part of the basis specific to the Sanctuary, it does of 1,000 yards from shore. As outlined for this action. demonstrate that the potential for in the May 22, 2000 notice, observations Comment 18: NOAA’s own data from accidents does exist and that MPWC in July 1999 indicate that blue whales the National Marine Fisheries Service have a higher ratio of accidents than which had previously only been seen indicate that MPWC operation does not other motorized watercraft. offshore at depths of 100 fathoms or pose a risk to marine mammals. Comment 20: NOAA is unconvincing more, were observed closer to shore at Response: NOAA disagrees. The data in its attempt to suggest that the recent 40 to 50 fathoms and one sighting at 20 cited from the Southwest Region of the efforts by Marin County to ban MPWC fathoms. These offshore observations of National Marine Fisheries Service is use within three miles of shore Gray whales and other species such as based only on animals that have washed necessitate a ban by NOAA throughout blue whales, guadalupe fur seals, and ashore in a dead or dying state and do the Sanctuary. No-wake zones could be humpback whales, all indicate that if not address negative impacts aside from established. Response: As explained in the the ban were restricted to 1,000 yards mortality. Morbidity is not the only measure of effects on a marine mammal. response to comment 10, the Marin the potential for impacts at these It is detrimental to marine mammals, County prohibition was recently offshore distances would not be many of which are endangered or overturned in a tentative ruling by the decreased. threatened, to alter their behavior (their Marin Superior Court. The County is not Other reasons as to why NOAA has feeding activities and subsequently their enforcing the ordinance at this time. proposed a complete ban are delineation survivability) in a significant manner. A Whether the County’s ordinance is and enforcement. As discussed in comment in support of the prohibition implemented or not, NOAA is required response to comment 10, NOAA’s initial indicated that in one area Gray whales to protect the marine resources in the proposed ban of 1,000 yards from shore are seen frequently in proximity of other GFNMS. NOAA believes that a total ban would be difficult and costly to enforce vessels and human activity but are throughout the Sanctuary is necessary to in terms of personnel and buoy never seen when MPWCs are present. A ensure marine resource protection. installation and maintenance. comment opposed to the prohibition No-wake zones would only provide Comment 16: NOAA has failed to indicated that MPWCs have been protection in limited areas but would be consider alternatives to a total ban of operated in the same area and whales very expensive because they would MPWC in the Sanctuary. have never been observed. Both require marker buoys. Sanctuary Response: NOAA disagrees. NOAA statements support the contention that resources outside of these zones would considered all alternatives described in Gray whales alter their behavior to still be at risk from the effects of MPWC the Environmental Assessment, which avoid MPWCs. Altering animal behavior operation. includes a description of the alternative, is contrary to the goals and objectives of Comment 21: NOAA continues to a discussion of its environmental and the Sanctuary. advance factual inaccuracies, socioeconomic impacts, and an analysis As indicated in the EA, researchers unfounded assertions, illogical of the alternative. The alternatives have reported that MPWC may be conclusions to support the prohibition. found in the Environmental Assessment disruptive to marine mammals because NOAA references studies regarding include: no action; creation of zones for MPWC change speed and direction disturbance of waterfowl and seabirds the operation of MPWC; banning frequently, are unpredictable, and may as a reason to ban MPWC use operation of MPWC from the nearshore transit the same area repeatedly in a throughout the entire Sanctuary even area of the Sanctuary; prohibition of short period of time. It is true that though these sources recommend operation of MPWC in the entire MPWC lack low-frequency long distance creation of a ‘‘buffer zone.’’ NOAA’s Sanctuary; and regulation of all sounds underwater. However, this does assertion that MPWC may be perceived recreational vessel traffic in the not mean that marine mammals are not as being louder than other boats Sanctuary. NOAA believes that it has adversely impacted by the MPWC noise. provides no potential basis for a ban developed its regulations fairly and Whether the noise is heard at close extending throughout the entire without bias based upon scientific range or farther away, it still will disturb Sanctuary. literature, public documents, and marine mammals which may cause Response: NOAA disagrees. NOAA’s comments from MPWC users, nonusers, shifts in activity patterns, site decision to prohibit MPWC was local citizens, and the MPWC industry. abandonment, or avoidance. Since carefully considered and is scientifically Comment 17: NOAA cannot rationally marine mammals are limited to close defensible. Specifically, NOAA has prohibit operation of MPWC use range detection of MPWC noise and referenced numerous studies related to throughout GFNMS on the basis of activity there is a greater chance of MPWC impacts to all types of wildlife potential conflicts with recreational collision. (marine mammals, birds, and users concentrated in ‘‘nearshore Comment 19: NOAA’s reference to pinnepeds) found within the waters.’’ Coast Guard statistics regarding boating Sanctuary’s boundaries, not just
VerDate 11
waterfowl and seabirds. While studies Regulatory Flexibility Act which is designed to be operated by a on waterfowl and seabird recommend The Chief Counsel for Regulation of person sitting, standing, or kneeling on the creation of a buffer to reconcile the the Department of Commerce certified the vessel, rather than the conventional impacts of MPWC, buffer zones will not to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the manner of sitting or standing inside the sufficiently address the other concerns Small Business Administration when vessel. related to MPWC use throughout the this rule was proposed that if it was 3. Section 922.82 is amended by sanctuary such as water pollution, user adopted as proposed it would not have adding new paragraph (a)(7) as follows: conflicts, and other wildlife and human a significant economic impact on a disturbance outside of the zones. § 922.82 Prohibited or otherwise regulated substantial number of small entities. No activities. Comment 22: MPWC use in the comments were received on the (a) * * * Sanctuary is decreasing. economic impact of the proposed rule (7) Operation of motorized personal Response: NOAA disagrees. With the on small entities and, therefore, the watercraft, except for the operation of closure of other areas within and around basis for the certification has not motorized personal watercraft for the Sanctuary, such as GGNRA and changed. PRNS, it is unlikely that use in the Accordingly, a Regulatory Flexibility emergency search and rescue mission or Sanctuary will decrease. NOAA is not Analysis was not prepared. law enforcement operations (other than aware of any data indicating that MPWC routine training activities) carried out by Paperwork Reduction Act use is decreasing in GFNMS, other than National Park Service, U.S. Coast Guard, statements from MPWC users and use This rule would not impose an Fire or Police Departments or other trends nationally, which are information collection requirement Federal, State or local jurisdictions. documented in the United States Coast subject to review and approval by OMB * * * * * Guard report (1999). under the Paperwork Reduction Act of [FR Doc. 01–22637 Filed 9–7–01; 8:45 am] Comment 23: NOAA’s proposed 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3500 et seq. BILLING CODE 3510–08–P regulation is arbitrary because it would National Environmental Policy Act prohibit MPWC operation because of their speed. NOAA has concluded that this DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND regulatory action does not constitute a Response: NOAA disagrees. As stated HUMAN SERVICES major federal action significantly in earlier responses, MPWCs have not affecting the quality of the human been proposed to be banned in the Food and Drug Administration environment. Therefore, an Sanctuary because of any single reason environmental impact statement is not such as speed. Speed is one of many 21 CFR Parts 872, 878, 880, 882, 884, required. A draft environmental aspects of MPWCs, including water and 892 assessment has been prepared. It is quality effects, noise disturbance to available for comment from the address [Docket No. 01N–0073] humans and wildlife, and user conflicts, listed at the beginning of this notice. that NOAA considered. Medical Devices; Exemption From List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 922 Premarket Notification Requirements; III. Summary of Regulations Class I Devices Administrative practice and The regulations for the GFNMS are procedure, Coastal zone, Education, AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, amended as follows: Environmental protection, Marine HHS. The addition to 15 CFR 922.82(a) resources, Penalties, Recreation and ACTION: prohibits operation of MPWC in the Final rule; technical recreation areas, Reporting and amendment. Sanctuary. The prohibition includes an recordkeeping requirements, Research. exception for the use of MPWC for SUMMARY: In the Federal Register of July Alan Neuschatz, emergency search and rescue and law 25, 2001 (66 FR 38786), the Food and enforcement (other than training Chief Financial Officer/Chief Administrative Drug Administration (FDA) amended its activities) by Federal, State and local Officer, Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management. medical device classification regulations jurisdictions. for class I devices to specifically add a The addition to 15 CFR 922.81 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth reference to the general limitations on provides a definition of ‘‘motorized above, 15 CFR Part 922, Subpart H, is exemptions from premarket notification personal watercraft.’’ ‘‘Motorized amended as follows: requirements from each generic device personal watercraft’’ will be defined as PART 922, NATIONAL MARINE classified as exempt in each section. As ‘‘a vessel which uses an inboard motor SANCTUARY PROGRAM published, an exemption from the powering a water jet pump as its REGULATIONS premarket notification requirements and primary source of motive power and a reference to the general limitations which is designed to be operated by a 1. The authority citation for Part 922 language was inadvertently added to 12 person sitting, standing, or kneeling on continues to read as follows: device classifications that should not the vessel, rather than the conventional Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. include the reference. These devices are manner of sitting or standing inside the not exempt from the requirements of vessel’’. 2. Section 922.81 is amended by premarket notification. This document adding the following definition, in the corrects those errors. IV. Miscellaneous Rulemaking appropriate alphabetical order. Requirements DATES: This rule is effective September § 922.81 Definitions. 10, 2001. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Impact * * * * * Motorized personal watercraft means Heather S. Rosecrans, Center for Devices This rule has been determined to be a vessel which uses an inboard motor and Radiological Health (HFZ–404), not significant for purposes of Executive powering a water jet pump as its 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD Order 12866. primary source of motive power and 20850, 301–594–1190.
VerDate 11