Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations General Support and Opposition of Proposed Sanctuary Expansion
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

1. Comment: NOAA received comments that supported the proposed expansion of the sanctuary and encouraged NOAA to proceed with the expansion process. Comments also supported the Revised Preferred Alternative NOAAs Final Preferred Alternative.
Response: Comment accepted. NOAA
has considered these comments in carrying the Revised Preferred Alternative forward to the Final Environmental Impact Statement FEIS
and final rule as NOAAs Final Preferred Alternative.
2. Comment: NOAA received comments that opposed the overall sanctuary expansion process citing reasons including: 1 Existing protections for sensitive resources; 2
concern of restricting use/access to the public; 3 safety, budget, and management limitations; and 4
socioeconomic consequences to certain industries.
Response: NOAA determined the proposed action responds to the need to provide additional protection and management of sensitive underwater features and marine habitats associated with continental shelf-edge reefs and banks in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. The current jurisdictional regime divides authority among several governmental entities that regulate offshore energy exploration Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management BOEM, fishing Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council GMFMC, and water quality Environmental Protection Agency EPA. NOAA has determined the current jurisdictional regime does not provide comprehensive and effective management for the full range of activities that impact the sensitive reefs and banks in the region. Chapter 2 of the FEIS and Part I, Section 2 of the preamble to the final rule describe the purpose and need for this proposed expansion. Extending the sanctuary boundary to new reefs and banks in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico promotes ecological conservation and biodiversity, expands sanctuary management efforts in the region, and helps to balance multiple uses.
Boundaries 3. Comment: NOAA received comments that generally supported expansion, but opposed the boundaries in the Revised Preferred Alternative NOAAs Final Preferred Alternative.
These comments indicated that the proposed boundaries of the Revised
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:33 Jan 17, 2021

Jkt 253001

Preferred Alternative were too small or would exclude some topographic highs and reduce migratory corridors, or that NOAA should select a larger boundary alternative. Additionally, comments noted the removal of buffer zones entirely in the Revised Preferred Alternative and that very small areas were created at some banks e.g., Elvers, McGrail, which results in fragmented connectivity and diminished ecological and species function. Comments also stated NOAAs Preferred Alternative in the DEIS Alternative 3 excluded 39
nationally significant areas and 9
nationally significant shipwrecks.
Response: NOAA developed the Final Preferred Alternative in response to public comments and recommendations from the Sanctuary Advisory Council.
NOAAs Final Preferred Alternative was based on boundary configurations developed by the Advisory Councils Boundary Expansion Working Group and the Advisory Councils 2018
recommendation. It was also based on research conducted by the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, consultation with other Federal and state agencies, strong public support and comment during public meetings preceding this proposal, and extensive input from oil and gas, and fishing interests. The Final Preferred Alternative further follows the National Marine Sanctuaries Acts goal of facilitating, to the extent compatible with the primary objective of resource protection, all public and private uses of the resources.
NOAA modified DEIS Alternative 3 to develop the Final Preferred Alternative under which the boundaries were drawn more tightly around the shallowest portions of the geological features identified in Alternative 3. The new boundaries closely follow the BOEM No Activity Zones, which have prohibitions on oil and gas exploration and development, but allow other bottom-disturbing activities that can cause severe negative impacts to the benthic areas. NOAAs Final Preferred Alternative expands the sanctuary by approximately 104 square miles, to include additional important and sensitive marine habitat areas outside the current sanctuary boundary, which will offer additional protection not provided by BOEMs current regulations. NOAA has determined the Final Preferred Alternative minimizes the impact to offshore energy exploration and production while providing substantial protection to sensitive marine habitats of national significance and meeting the expansion objectives as identified in the 2012
FGBNMS management plan and 2016

PO 00000

Frm 00065

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

4941

DEIS. Refer also to FEIS Chapter 3, Section 3.2 for additional details on the development of NOAAs proposed action.
NOAA submits there were more environmentally preferable alternatives assessed in the DEIS; however, ONMS
has identified the Final Preferred Alternative as one that, based on strong input from the public and the Sanctuary Advisory Council, provides a significant environmental benefit, can be managed with current FGBNMS operational capacity, and minimizes negative impact to industry activities.
NOAA has determined the Final Preferred Alternative remains within the range of alternatives and impacts analyzed in the 2016 DEIS. Also refer to NOAAs Supplemental Information Report and FEIS Chapter 3, Section 3.2
for additional details on the development of the Final Preferred Alternative.
4. Comment: NOAA received comments requesting additional areas and banks to be considered in the proposed expansion process, including:
Coffee Lump, 32 Fathom, Claypile, Applebaum, 29 Fathom, Fishnet, Phleger, Sweet, and Jakkula Banks, Florida Middle Grounds, Madison/
Swanson, and Alabama Pinnacles, north central Gulf of Mexico, Ewing Bank whale shark aggregation, Bryant Bank, more of Bright Bank complex, and the Deep Water Horizon Deepwater Horizon rig/well area.
Response: NOAA rejects the requests to add these additional banks and areas for two primary reasons, 1 there was insufficient data to characterize these areas as nationally significant, or 2
they were too far from the existing sanctuary. NOAA considered including 32 Fathom Bank, Applebaum Bank, Coffee Lump Bank, Fishnet Bank, Phleger Bank, Sweet Bank, Diaphus Bank, and Sackett Bank but determined either insufficient data were available to adequately characterize the sites or available data does not indicate sufficiently unique, diverse, productive, or otherwise nationally significant biological communities or geologic features.
Sites in biogeographic regions other than the north central Gulf of Mexico were also eliminated from further consideration; areas to both the east and west of the area roughly defined by the 87th and 95th west meridians reflect geologic/sedimentary and hydrologic/
oceanographic settings, as well as biological communities, that are distinctly different from those of the north central Gulf of Mexico and are faced with distinctly different threats or other conservation issues. Features
E:FRFM19JAR1.SGM

19JAR1