Quiero saber acerca de...

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations result in more red tape and permitting.
Response: NOAAs proposal to designate a national marine sanctuary recognizes the states sovereignty over its waters and submerged lands and does not change state ownership of public bottomlands; that is, no federal ownership of Wisconsin public lands is created by the sanctuary designation.
Likewise, NOAAs proposal to designate a national marine sanctuary would not change existing riparian rights of the property owners of Wisconsin, nor would it change state law regarding public access to the area in which shoreline property owners have exclusive access. NOAA proposed the OHWM in the draft designation because it would be consistent with the states regulatory boundary. Furthermore, after considering public comments about using the OHWM as the western/
shoreline sanctuary boundary, NOAA is now proposing adopting the low water datum LWD as that boundary. NOAA
is doing so because the LWD is more lakeward than the OHWM, and would move the sanctuary boundary lower down the beach than the OHWM, thereby removing much of the beach from NOAA jurisdiction and related riparian rights concerns.
Notably, the LWD is set at an elevation of 577.5 feet. The lowest recorded water level on Lake Michigan is 576.02 feet. This effectively places the sanctuary boundary nearly at the alltime low water level mark for Lake Michigan. Since riparian owners have exclusive use of the beach between the OHWM and the waters edge, using the LWD effectively places the sanctuary boundary at the most lakeward extent of this area as practicable. See Section 3.3.2 in the final environmental impact statement for a detailed discussion of the difference between OHWM and LWD.
NOAA realizes that proposing using the LWD rather than the OHWM differs from its original proposal in that it leaves a portion of the shoreline the area between the OHWM and LWD
outside of sanctuary management; any cultural resources found in this area would not benefit from sanctuary resource protection. NOAA and the State of Wisconsin are not currently aware of shipwrecks in the sanctuary that come up to the OWHM, but depending on lake levels, it is possible that shipwrecks or parts of shipwrecks that are currently buried can become unburied. The Wisconsin Historical Society has determined that several undiscovered shipwrecks may lie in the surf zone. If a cultural resource was discovered between the OHWM and the
VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:58 Jun 22, 2021

Jkt 253001

LWD that resource would still be under state jurisdiction because all land from the OHWM lakeward are state bottomlands.
6. Comment: Certain industry stakeholders commented that NOAA
should use the low water datum as the shoreward boundary of the sanctuary to ensure that the current beneficial practice of beach nourishment using dredged materials is continued.
Response: NOAA agrees and proposes that the LWD should be used as the sanctuarys landward boundary. In addition, NOAA recognizes in the FEIS
several activities important to commercial shipping, including beach nourishment, and has not proposed regulations specifically prohibiting use of dredge spoil within the sanctuary.
Beach nourishment using dredge spoil is already regulated by the USACE and the State of Wisconsin. NOAA, through its co-management arrangement with the state and relationship with USACE, intends to coordinate a response if a particular renourishment project has the potential to injure known or suspected cultural resources within the sanctuary.
7. Comment: NOAA received comments from industry stakeholders stating that certain areas important to commercial shipping should be excluded from the sanctuary. NOAA
also received suggested clarifying language to be included in the FEIS on the topic of dredging, and questions about the impact of the designation on dredging.
Response: To ensure compatible use with commercial shipping and other activities such as dredging for commercial ship traffic, NOAA in the DEIS excluded the ports, harbors, and marinas of Two Rivers, Manitowoc, Sheboygan, and Port Washington from the sanctuary boundary. In the FEIS, NOAA has also excluded federally authorized areas channels from the sanctuary.
NOAA also included in Section 3.4.3.3 of the FEIS additional language, as suggested by the USACE, that specifies the types of activities important to commercial shipping.
Specifically, . . . routine operations and maintenance activities such as dredging, dredge material placement nearshore/beach nourishment, and breakwater maintenance. Although NOAA would not regulate these activities per se, the sanctuary prohibition on injuring a sanctuary resource would ensure that these activities would not negatively impact underwater cultural resources.
8. Comment: NOAA received several comments noting that the waters edge
PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

32743

should be used as the sanctuarys western/shoreline boundary.
Response: NOAA did not consider using the waters edge for a boundary, because it would create a dynamic moving sanctuary boundary where cultural resources were variously within or beyond the sanctuary boundary, depending on lake levels at a given time. NOAA proposes using the LWD as the sanctuarys western/shoreline boundary. See Comment 5 for more information.
9. Comment: NOAA received several comments stating that the sanctuarys western/shoreline boundary should be consistent with state law.
Response: As indicated in the DEIS, NOAA selected the OHWM as the landward boundary as its preferred alternative because it was consistent with the states jurisdiction for managing underwater cultural resources. However, as indicated above in response to Comment 5, NOAA
proposes to use the LWD as the sanctuarys landward boundary.
Addressing the publics concern about riparian interests outweighs the benefit of an identical shoreline boundary.
10. Comment: NOAA received several comments asking how the establishment of the sanctuary would impact the findings of the Wisconsin Supreme Court case regarding property owner rights Doemel v. Jantz, 1923.
Response: Sanctuary designation would not change the interpretation or application of the Wisconsin Supreme Court case Doemel v. Jantz, 1923.
11. Comment: NOAA received a few comments urging use of a different boundary, because no shipwrecks come up to the OHWM.
Response: Refer to Comment 5 above.
This comment is addressed by NOAA
use of the LWD as the sanctuarys western/shoreline boundary.
12. Comment: NOAA received many comments supporting Boundary Alternative B 1,260 square miles, includes additional waters off Kewaunee County, which was larger than NOAAs preferred alternative in the DEIS.
Response: NOAAs preferred boundary alternative includes one shipwreck in Kewaunee County schooner America, but does not include additional waters off Kewaunee County. America is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, supporting its inclusion in the sanctuary and the aim of protecting nationally significant resources.
13. Comment: NOAA received one comment stating that Kewaunee County should not be included because a diverse group of stakeholders has not
E:FRFM23JNR1.SGM

23JNR1