Coastal Coordination Program

Transcription

1 Coastal Coordination Program June 30, 2014 Ms. Maria Brown Sanctuary Superintendent Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary 991 Marine Drive, The Presidio San Francisco, CA Re: Comments of the Coastal Coordination Program of The Ocean Foundation on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and the Proposed Draft Rulemaking on the Proposed Expansion of the Cordell Bank and Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuaries, at 15 CFR Part 922 [Docket No ] RIN 0648 BD18. Dear Ms. Brown: These comments are being submitted on behalf of the Coastal Coordination Program of The Ocean Foundation in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and the Proposed Draft Rulemaking on the Proposed Expansion of the Cordell Bank and Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuaries, hereinafter referenced as the Boundary Expansion. Links appearing in these comments are hereby incorporated by reference. The pending expansion of our popular Cordell Bank and Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuaries northward to Alder Creek near Pt. Arena to provide permanent protection from coastal offshore drilling has been thirty-five years in the making and has involved the public at a level of commitment unprecedented in the history of conservation policy in California. The current process of extending coastal protection to more of the Sonoma County and Mendocino County shorelines and the adjoining ocean environment derives from the fact that there s no other practical method to secure permanent protection from offshore drilling for our region s federal waters except through the designation of a National Marine Sanctuary by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

2 For these reasons, and to protect the ecosystem resources and values of one of the planet s most important ocean upwelling systems, we are supportive of the proposed Boundary Expansion to Alder Creek in Mendocino County. General Comments: From among the alternative Options delineated in the DEIS, we support the adoption of a modified version of Proposed Option 3.4, as identified on page 3-34 of the DEIS: Application of Existing Sanctuary Regulations, which would expand boundaries, keep the existing regulations much as they have long been used within present Sanctuaries while applying them to the new Expansion area, and enact a permanent prohibition on oil and gas and mineral leasing and development, but with the following explicit adaptations in the new areas to be protected: 1) An outright prohibition on all pipelines should be applied throughout the Boundary Expansion, as well as enacted for existing Cordell Bank and Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary waters. 2) All versions of the proposed Motorized Personal Watercraft zones (MPWC) contained in the DEIS should be discarded as posing inappropriate liability and wildlife disturbance issues that are incompatible with Sanctuary resources and values. These MPWC zones, apparently developed by NOAA in a closed process that did not inform or involve the Sanctuary Councils or include representative coastal residents and absent the knowledge base that could have been provided by recognized local wildlife experts, have been formally opposed by the Gulf of the Farallones Sanctuary Advisory Council: 3) The shoreward boundaries proposed in the prior congressional legislation leading to the Boundary Expansion, replacing the previously-planned application of Sanctuary jurisdiction into the estuaries at the mouth of the Gualala River, the Garcia River, and the Russian River, should be reinstated in order to preserve the critical foodsource and nursery habitats within these estuarine environments that rely on the healthy lens and mixing zone of brackish and fresh water inflow. Restoring the long-anticipated proposal for estuarine protections within the Expansion region should not present a procedural problem since the estuaries have been part of the Study Area and obviously represent critical habitat and provide an important part of the base of the food chain for many Sanctuary species within the Expansion region. 4) We continue to support inclusion of the full extent of the Mendocino County coastline within the proposed expansion of the Cordell Bank and Gulf of the

3 Farallones National Marine Sanctuaries. In the event that the entire Mendocino Coast cannot be included in the present boundary expansion at this time, then the entirety of the Mendocino Coast should be protected within a future National Marine Sanctuary designation at the earliest possible opportunity through the new candidate site list procedures announced by NOAA on June 10, ) We oppose the implementation of the Authorization Authority in the Draft Proposed Rule, since any need for a new Authorization Authority has not been justified by NOAA, is not needed, and it s implementation would disregard all local input on this Proposed Rule. 6) We support the implementation of all of the proposed Special Wildlife Protection Zones (SWPZ s) since these new configurations will make it easier for the public and for enforcement authorities to identify their boundaries and the proposed SWPZ s will also clarify important additional buffer zones around our most sensitive wildlife concentrations. 7) Low-overflights of any conventional aircraft, ultra-light aircraft, or drones near SWPZ s should be prohibited as proposed in the Boundary Expansion documents. 8) Existing fireworks displays should be grandfathered-in to the Expansion area through the use of Certification and, where appropriate, by the application of Special Use Permits as utilized in the existing Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. Going forward, any additional new proposals should be considered by applying appropriate biological and other criteria as has been done elsewhere. 9) We support the proposed discharge zone for clean graywater, as defined in the documents and in relevant Clean Water Act provisions, within the new Expansion area. The enter and injure provisions of the present Sanctuary waters should be implemented in the Boundary Expansion to address oil spills entering site waters. 10) We support the application of the parts of the Proposed Rule precluding interference with enforcement actions in the Sanctuary. 11) The prohibition on oil, gas, and mineral leasing should be further clarified to also specifically preclude leasing, exploration, or development of methane hydrates, a related form of frozen subsea natural gas soon approaching commercialization, as well.

4 The Need to Protect the Estuaries as an Integral Part of Sanctuary Resources: The Woolsey legislation deliberately included the estuaries at the rivermouths as part of the Boundary Expansion, but NOAA has arbitrarily removed the estuaries from their version of the Expansion without explanation, and instead now proposes truncated shoreward boundaries that would arbitrarily transect across each rivermouth at the beach. The estuaries at the Garcia, Gualala, and Russian Rivers each play an important interactive role in the life cycle of salmonids, as well as providing nursery, habitat, and foodsource areas for a wide range of other Sanctuary species, particularly marine mammals. By contrast, the existing Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS) extends to the mean high tide mark at adjoining estuaries, with the exception of Drakes Estero, which was placed under National Park Service jurisdiction at the time of the creation of the GFNMS and the Pt. Reyes National Seashore. The GFNMS, does, however, extend inland to the mean high tide mark at Tomales Bay and within the Estero Americano and Estero de San Antonio to mean high tide. The Russian River estuary has faced numerous environmental threats in the past, including a proposal to dredge and remove all of Penny Island from the middle of the estuary as part of a gravel mining scheme, creating an artificial embayment as the centerpiece of an extensive planned coastal condominium development that would have been called Jenner Bay. A number of large-scale and imaginative engineering efforts to reconfigure the jetty at the mouth of the Russian River over the course of the past few decades have altered natural conditions there with steel, concrete and riprap rock applications, but none of these projects have been successful at achieving their stated goals. The Russian River estuary is also subject to erosion and streambed degradation that originates in surrounding watersheds, particularly in the Willow Creek watershed, due to past destructive logging practices there. The conveyance of municipal treated wastewater from various treatment plants to the ocean via the Russian River has, in past years, resulted in multiple sewage spills and resulting legal actions. The impact of instream dams has also contributed to necessary enforcement actions, including a Section 7 Consultation involving the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the National Marine Fisheries Service, see: 08.pdf The Russian River Estuary should be part of the proposed Sanctuary Expansion. The Gualala River estuary, once known for it s world-class fishery resources in the early part of the 1900 s, during 2002 became the focal point of a protracted legal and political confrontation over a plan to export fresh water from this estuary by filling giant plastic bladders about a mile inland from the ocean and towing them by sea for eventual sale to water users in San Diego, see:

5 The Gualala River watershed has also experienced destructive logging practices over the decades, and the resulting gravel bedload in the river and estuary presents restoration challenges, but an organized restoration effort is underway and could be expected to compliment Sanctuary management of this estuary. Likewise, the Garcia River estuary reaches inland to Hathaway Creek and has been subject to State Water Resources Control Board oversight, and an action plan for restoration has been prepared to respond to silt loading and other issues, see: pdf Steelhead and coho salmon utilize the Garcia River for spawning and rearing, however populations have plummeted in the last decade. The Garcia River is listed under Clean Water Act section 303(d) for excessive sedimentation and elevated temperatures. The Action Plan for the Garcia River Watershed Sediment TMDL (Garcia TMDL Action Plan) was adopted into the Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region on January 3, Each of these estuaries offers compatible resource management and restoration opportunities to the process of Boundary Expansion of the Sanctuaries, with biological dependency of Sanctuary species evident in each of these locations. Accommodation of Municipal Fireworks Displays: Relative to the conduct of fireworks within the new Expansion Boundaries, it should be noted that the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) can issue, and has issued, Special Use Permits (SUP) to allow specific activities in a sanctuary if ONMS determines the approval is necessary (1) to establish conditions of access to and use of any sanctuary resource, or (2), to promote public use and understanding of a sanctuary resource. Activities that are necessary to establish conditions of access to and use of sanctuary resources may include concessionaire-type activities (entities operating within the boundaries of a sanctuary designed to make a profit) and other commercial and public activities that require access to the sanctuary to achieve a desired goal. To qualify for a SUP, an activity must be among those listed as eligible (recently updated and described in Federal Register notice 78 FR 25957, dated May 3, 2013), which includes fireworks as a possible activity. As one example, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary has issued SUP permitting for the conduct of fireworks displays. Fireworks can also be accommodated through the process of Certification. If a fireworks display within the proposed expansion area has occurred as a pre-existing activity prior to effective date of boundary expansion (whether requiring another agency permit or not), then ONMS could elect to certify this existing use. The Certification language that would apply, as written in the aforementioned proposed rule for the

6 expansion, is the following: Certification of other permits. A permit, license, or other authorization allowing activities prohibited by sanctuary regulations, occurring prior to the effective date of sanctuary expansion and within the sanctuary expansion area, must be certified by the Director as consistent with the purpose of the Sanctuary and having no significant effect on Sanctuary resources. Such certification may impose terms and conditions as deemed appropriate to ensure consistency. In considering whether to make the certifications called for in this section, the Director may seek and consider the views of any other person or entity, within or outside the Federal government, and may hold a public hearing as deemed appropriate. Any request for certification called for in this section must be received by the Director within 60 days of the effective date of sanctuary expansion. The Director may amend, suspend, or revoke any certification made under this section whenever continued operation would violate any terms or conditions of the certification. Any such action shall be forwarded in writing to both the holder of the certified permit, license, or other authorization and the issuing agency and shall set forth reason(s) for the action taken. Regulatory Considerations for Certifications: ONMS can only issue a certification for an activity that pre-dates the effective date of boundary expansion and when a request for certification is submitted to the sanctuary within 60 days of that date. So any new future proposed fireworks displays could not be certified, but could be provided with a permit. ONMS permit criteria do not apply to certifications. ONMS cannot charge a fee for issuing a certification. The Director can impose terms and conditions in a certification as deemed appropriate to ensure the activity is consistent with the purpose of the Sanctuary and having no significant effect on Sanctuary resources. The Director can also amend, suspend, or revoke a certification. Inconsistency of the Proposed Authorization Authority with the Legislative History of the Proposed Expansion Area: The draft regulations for a proposed new Authorization Authority have been causing substantial public controversy since they were proposed, and concern about this broadened discretionary power has recently been expressed by formal resolution on behalf of the Gulf of the Farallones Sanctuary Advisory Council on May 1, 2014, see: The Cordell Bank Sanctuary Advisory Council has adopted a similar position, at:

7 During the four public hearings held in May and June of 2014 on the DEIS and Proposed Rulemaking, not one person spoke in support of the Authorization Authority, and a strong majority spoke in opposition to this proposed regulatory change, see: There has been no legislative history established in either the U.S. House of Representatives-passed bill, nor in the Senate legislation as marked up, for changing the regulatory scenario for management of the Gulf of the Farallones or Cordell Bank Sanctuaries or the Expansion area. Congressional Boundary Expansion legislation called for the designation of the protection for the new waters to occur first, then, if needed, the subsequent implementation of an open public process that would last not more than 24-months during which any alteration of Sanctuary management could be considered. The established Joint Management Plan Review process, previously used in each Sanctuary to consider any necessary changes in management, offers an already-existing, open public process for such consideration. The relevant legislative language excerpted from the Woolsey bill states: (a) INTERIM PLAN. The Secretary shall complete an interim supplemental management plan for the Sanctuaries by not later than 24 months after the date of enactment of this Act, that focuses on management in the areas added to the Sanctuaries under this Act. The Secretary shall ensure that the supplemental plan does not weaken existing resource protections. 17 (b) REVISED PLANS. The Secretary shall issue a revised comprehensive management plan for the Sanctuaries during the first management review initiated after the date of the enactment of this Act under section 304(e) National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C (e)) for the Sanctuaries, and issue such final regulations as may be necessary. Experience with the processes leading up to the designation of other National Marine Sanctuaries in California and elsewhere, and during the initial period of new protection for other new Sanctuary sites, has shown that customary users of the marine environment in the affected region, even when supportive of the overarching goals of Sanctuary designation, often seek reliable reassurance that their historic uses will continue unimpeded. For this reason, the Woolsey legislation that led to the current NOAA Boundary Expansion proceedings carefully included a period of not more than 24-months during which an inclusive process involving relevant stakeholders would allow for the vetting of the potential need for any new regulatory procedures. The longproven Joint Management Plan Review process conducted by the appropriate Sanctuary Advisory Councils and their subsidiary working groups has been successfully applied in the past, and is a routine and well-established part of the manner in which the existing Sanctuaries are managed, and this same methodology should be used to continue the

8 process of effective adaptive management, if and when regulatory adjustments are needed. The regulations that have governed the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary have worked successfully since Any changes in regulations should be rare and take place only after full justification for need, after careful study by those with local expertise, always be subject to open consultation with local and regional elected officials, consistently be based on sound peer-reviewed science, and be applied with full involvement by the relevant congressional representation for the region. Context of the Necessary Offshore Drilling Protections: NOAA s National Marine Sanctuary System, acting at the direction of the Obama Administration, now stands near the successful conclusion of a long and persistent bipartisan effort that began in the late 1970 s when then-president Jimmy Carter and Interior Secretary Cecil Andrus first announced a controversial plan to begin offshore oil and gas drilling in our coastal waters off of Bodega Head, Sea Ranch, and Point Arena in a prior hydrocarbon leasing proposal called Lease Sale 53, followed by a similar offshore drilling plan pursued by Ronald Reagan s Interior Secretary, James G. Watt, after which a bipartisan consensus in Congress maintained an annual offshore drilling moratorium as part of the Interior Appropriations bill each and every year for twentyseven consecutive years. During the Administration of President George H.W. Bush, the White House also maintained an even stronger additional layer of temporary protection for our waters, called the Presidential Leasing Deferrals, but these were later rescinded by his son, George W. Bush, as he left office in The emerging politics of a changing Congress then allowed the 27-year annual offshore leasing Moratorium to expire without an up-ordown Appropriations Committee vote in The current situation now leaves the entire California coast outside of our present National Marine Sanctuaries open for offshore drilling at the sole discretion of whoever occupies the White House at any given time. As recently as June 26, 2014, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that, if also passed by the U.S. Senate and ultimately enacted, would essentially force the opening of portions of the California coast to offshore drilling. Recognizing that irreplaceable national treasures and our coastal-dependent regional economic base would constantly be in jeopardy if ocean drilling were allowed in such a fragile area, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey and her colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives, along with Senator Barbara Boxer, and with help from Senator Dianne Feinstein, worked for eight years to pass a bill that would expand California s present National Marine Sanctuaries further northward to encompass the unique ocean upwelling center that provides the foodsource for our existing Sanctuary waters. In

9 2008, Representative Woolsey s Sanctuary Expansion bill passed with no objections in the House, but the Senate did not take it up. In December of 2012, President Obama and his senior Administration officials made an agreement with Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey and key leadership of the California Congressional delegation that had three parts: (1) To begin a National Marine Sanctuary Expansion process based on the boundaries of the Woolsey bill. (2) The process would take no more than eighteen months, the time needed to secure public review for the necessary documents. (3) The Expansion would include the long-elusive permanent prohibition on offshore oil and gas leasing and drilling. The broad support for this proposed new Boundary Expansion by key stakeholders has long been predicated on the popularity and effectiveness of the existing regulations of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, in existence since At no time during the well-attended public hearings on Scoping, held throughout the region during 2012, were there any requests from the public, nor from elected officials, to modify the regulations for the new Boundary Expansion area to add any kind of new Authorization Authority that would affect the new waters. Nonetheless, accompanying the 2014 public release of the DEIS and the Proposed Rulemaking, the public was asked to provide comments on an unanticipated Authorization Authority that had not previously been disclosed to, nor vetted by, either the Gulf of the Farallones or Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Councils nor with congressional or regional elected officials or other stakeholders. Among the range of concerns that have been expressed during the local deliberations on the proposed Authorization Authority is the eventual likelihood that future projects being proposed by agencies other than NOAA could come before a future Sanctuary Superintendent after being subjected only to a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and/or, to an abbreviated Environmental Assessment (EA). In such cases, the acting Sanctuary Superintendent would then lack the benefit of a full and open public National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process under which to fully evaluate the impacts of the proposed project. The susceptibility of a local Sanctuary Superintendent to political or special-interest pressures, when facing future decisions about proposed projects that would otherwise not be allowed under Sanctuary regulations, is also a valid concern. These and related concerns about the proposed Authorization Authority have now been formally expressed and duly entered into the record by affected local governments, the Governor of California, interested Members of Congress, representatives of the commercial fishing industry, the National Park Service, and both the Cordell Bank and Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Councils. As a result of the legislative intent and the legislative history, in addition to the clearly unsupportive response during the public comment period by the public at large, as well as by strong concerns formally expressed by the relevant Sanctuary Advisory Councils,

10 elected officials at all levels, the Governor of California, and the National Park Service, we oppose adoption of the proposed Authorizing Authority. The Long-Term Risks in the Event that Arena Cove is Inappropriately Excluded from the Sanctuary: It should be noted that any proposed removal of specific waters from the Boundary Expansion, such as any carve-out of a larger area of Arena Cove, should be evaluated by NOAA and the public in a larger and longer-term context than the perceived concerns about possible future interference with historic and customary uses by local stakeholders in response to something that has not happened in harbors in Sanctuaries elsewhere. Any decision about boundary adjustments at Arena Cove should also be weighed in the larger context of multiple factors that can reasonably be expected to place Arena Cove itself at a higher level of risk from future offshore oil and gas infrastructure than surrounding waters or coastline. Arena Cove, if not included in the Sanctuary now while the opportunity readily presents itself, will virtually inevitably someday find itself in jeopardy from future oil and gas pipelines, pipeline landfalls, or other hydrocarbon infrastructure that will result when any future offshore oil and gas development immediately north of the present Boundary Expansion limit at Alder Creek brings offshore drilling to those portions of the Mendocino Coast not protected by a National Marine Sanctuary. About ten percent of the Pt. Arena basin offshore geologic structure would be protected by the proposed Sanctuary boundary extending up to Alder Creek, with the remaining ninety percent of this basin outside of the Sanctuary, as noted on pages and of the DEIS. The unique setting of Arena Cove presents an obvious opportunistic target for future oil and gas infrastructure if not protected within Sanctuary Boundaries at this time, and this type of inappropriate industrialization of Arena Cove would compromise not only Sanctuary resources and values, but also place commercial and recreational fisheries uses in jeopardy throughout a wider region than the immediate vicinity of Arena Cove itself. Petroleum loading terminals and onshore oil and gas facilities would hopefully find themselves subject to a separate onshore facilities ordinance enacted during the 1980 s by the County of Mendocino. This local ordinance, while well-founded, cannot be guaranteed to reliably survive future oil industry legal challenges analogous to the same industry s present efforts to overturn similar local efforts to confront and regulate the practice of hydraulic fracturing throughout the country. Onshore facilities associated with offshore oil development, by their very nature, are prone to causing marine and terrestrial oil spills, are a known source of degradation of regional air quality, and have been known to induce inherent conflicts with commercial and recreational fishing. The continued interest of the petroleum industry in pursuing hydrocarbon leasing, exploration, and development throughout the Point Arena Basin geologic structure was clearly evident during oil industry testimony presented at both the Pt. Arena and Gualala

11 public hearings held by NOAA during June of Given that no documented case of undue interference with existing harbor activities by any other National Marine Sanctuary has been in evidence, providing Sanctuary protection for as much of Arena Cove as practical is the prudent step to take in the public interest. Any decision to omit any portion of Arena Cove from Sanctuary Expansion protections at the time of site designation should be considered essentially permanent, so it is important to reach a balanced and reasoned decision in the Record of Decision (ROD). For these reasons, we support the proposed placement of the shoreward Sanctuary boundary adjacent to the Arena Cove Pier, as shown in the Arena Cove Harbor Detail delineated in the map titled Figure in the DEIS for the prospective boundaries adjacent to, but excluding, the Arena Cove Pier. Although not likely to be needed, a Working Group of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council that is inclusive of local stakeholders could be convened if desired by local interests, to cooperatively develop a workable mooring plan for Arena Cove that fully serves existing and future users. Opposition to Motorized Personal Watercraft Provisions: The draft proposed Boundary Expansion documents have unexpectedly hypothesized a series of Motorized Personal Watercraft (MPWC) zones which extend along a significant portion of the shoreward extent of the Expansion region. These extensive proposed MPWC zones, in most instances, lie among a myriad of offshore rocks, seastacks, and rocky farallones that are part of the original California Coastal Rocks National Monument, now known as the California Coastal National Monument, in addition to overlying extensive wash rocks and submerged reefs. These proposed MPWC zones are often in close proximity to key marine mammal haulouts, amidst sensitive seabird nesting rocks, and some of these proposed MPWC zones and entry points also adjoin the habitat of the Snowy plover (including at sites near Manchester State Beach) and thus also have the potential to unduly interfere with other terrestrial and intertidal habitat of sensitive seabird species on land. These proposed MPWC zones lie directly in the path of the nearshore migration of Gray whales when accompanied by their calves. In addition, the proposed MPWC zones inappropriately overlap with State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife s Marine Life Protection Act marine protected areas (MPA s) and are in obvious conflict with the purpose and management goals of the MPA s in question. It is of concern that closed meetings leading to these zones were apparently convened by Sanctuary site personnel and were limited to exclusively include only special interests seeking to open these zones to MPWC activity. No public notice was provided of such meetings as required by NEPA, and no commensurate notice was provided to accommodate the participation of the relevant Sanctuary Advisory Council(s). Another flawed assumption in the DEIS that is related to the proposed MPWC zones is that these zones would be publicly accessible from boat ramps located on either County of Sonoma, County of Mendocino, or State of California properties,

12 but the DEIS provides no consideration of the chain of liability incurred from such proposed MPWC launch points in the event of injuries or fatalities resulting from public use of these launch locations to access any of the referenced high-surf recreational activities. Sensitive wildlife moves throughout the Expansion area, and in fact this wildlife provides a primary rationale for the expanded Sanctuary boundaries being undertaken at this time. Marine mammals in the water can be very difficult to spot, and seabirds roosting or nesting on rocks can be sensitive to noise disturbance at unanticipated distances. It is a contradiction in terms for the DEIS to assert that prospective users of the proposed MPWC zones, however well-intended, will reliably be able to avoid sensitive wildlife. Suggestions for shoreline buffers ignore the fact that not all sensitive wildlife is found nearshore or in shoreline habitats. Similarly sensitive wildlife, often at particularly vulnerable life-stages, is also inevitably found on and around the offshore rocks, and can be observed migrating and feeding virtually anywhere in the subject coastal waters. The shoreline ecotone is one, but not the only, sensitive wildlife habitat, and although it represents the most significant opportunity for visitors to experience the Sanctuary, educational opportunities that enable visitors to benignly observe offshore wildlife have grown up in other coastal Sanctuaries, and are likely to do so here as well. While some newer 4-cycle MPWC engines may present somewhat lower noise levels, these vehicles still represent an easily-abused high speed watercraft capable of inflicting great harm within short timeframes. Advertisers of MPWC craft commonly tout the thrill potential of high-speed MPWC operation. All of the proposed MPWC zones, as delineated in the DEIS, should be discarded, and the existing regulations prohibiting MPWC use in the existing Sanctuary waters of the Gulf of the Farallones should be carried over to the Expansion area until such time that an open and transparent Working Group process of the relevant Sanctuary Advisory Council(s), duly advised by site staff, credentialed wildlife experts, and qualified academics can attempt to come up with concrete ways to resolve the outstanding public agency liability, wildlife disturbance, and other space-use conflicts presented by the present flawed iteration of proposed MPWC zones. Related materials can be found at: Research.aspx

13 waters/article_88f30cae-3c8b-11e bb2963f4.html Support for Special Wildlife Protection Zones : As noted, we support the implementation of all of the proposed Special Wildlife Protection Zones (SWPZ s). Prior State of California Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS s) were delineated prior to the advent of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology and therefore often utilized the curvilinear boundaries commonly applied in the past. Stateof-the-art mapping techniques, circa 2014, call for rectangular boundaries with straight lines, which produce boundaries that are more easily identified by the public and also ease the task of enforcement authorities. The SWPZ s as proposed also add important additional buffer zones around some of the region s most sensitive wildlife concentrations. Additional SWPZ s may also deserve consideration going forward. Public Education Opportunities to Serve Local Communities and Visitors: The Boundary Expansion provides a compelling opportunity for public education and outreach by the Sanctuaries, which will thereby enrich each visitor s interpretive experiences and in turn contribute indirectly to the local economy. We encourage the Sanctuary to produce relevant outreach materials online and in print, to highlight the features, ecosystems, and wildlife within the Boundary Expansion area. As the new Sanctuary matures, local visitor centers in relevant locations should be considered, such as the popular education centers that are presently presented by Sanctuaries at other locations. Nomenclature Appropriate to the Full Ecosystem Being Protected: We would respectfully suggest that NOAA consider the granting of new ecosystembased site names for the resulting expanded Sanctuary waters, since this action will lead to the addition of more of the Bodega Canyon to the Cordell Bank Sanctuary as well as encompassing a broader range of benthic habitats. Boundary Expansion will also result in the stunning addition of a significant portion of one of the planet s most important ocean upwelling systems and an even broader biogeographic representation to the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.

14 The Need to Move Forward Expeditiously with the Designation: If it is deemed necessary by the agency to carry out a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) process for any reason, this should be done concurrently with the completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and not allowed to delay the Record of Decision (ROD) on the Boundary Expansion itself. In conclusion, we fully support the underlying premise of the Proposed Boundary Expansion as a method to secure permanent protection from offshore oil, gas, and mineral leasing for one of America s crown jewels of the ocean environment, and we request that it be expeditiously implemented. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and the Proposed Draft Rulemaking on the Proposed Expansion of the Cordell Bank and Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuaries on behalf of the Coastal Coordination Program of The Ocean Foundation. Sincerely, Richard Charter Senior Fellow Coastal Coordination Program The Ocean Foundation 1990 M Street, NW, Suite 250 Washington, DC