Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

4942

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
eliminated from further consideration based on this distinction include Big Dunn Bar, Small Dunn Bar, Blackfish Ridge, Mysterious Bank, the South Texas Banks Dream Bank, Southern Bank, Hospital Bank, North Hospital Bank, Aransas Bank, Baker Bank, and South Baker Bank, Madison-Swanson, the Florida Middle Grounds, and Pulley Ridge. Bryant Bank and more areas of the Bright Bank Complex were primarily excluded from the Final Preferred Alternative because of concerns raised from the oil and gas industry.
Although these additional areas were rejected for consideration in the current FEIS, FGBNMS will consider extending sanctuary protection and management to these additional biogeographic regions and habitat types during the next management plan review.
For more information on how the Final Preferred Alternative was developed and selected, refer to FEIS
Chapter 1, Sections 1.5 and Chapter 3, Sections 3.1 and 3.2.
5. Comment: NOAA received a comment that requested the agency identify areas to redraw boundaries to reduce impact on fishing i.e., northern boundary of MacNeil, northern boundary of Sonnier, and northeast boundary of Bouma.
Response: NOAA considered this request, and following the DEIS, slightly reduced the boundaries at these banks to more closely align with BOEM
designated NAZs. The decrease in proposed expansion area in the Final Preferred Alternative was partly in response to requests, such as this, to reduce impacts to historical fishing activities. Moreover, ONMS has completed consultation with the GMFMC pursuant to NMSA section 304a5 regarding the boundaries and fishing regulations in the Final Preferred Alternative, and GMFMC concurred with this action. See Appendix G of the FEIS for more details on the 304a5
consultation.
6. Comment: NOAA received a comment that requested coordinates for all proposed alternatives be included.
Response: NOAA disagrees. NOAA
provided the coordinates of NOAAs Final Preferred Alternative in Appendix H of the FEIS. Additionally, the coordinates of NOAAs Final Preferred Alternative are included as appendix A
to the final rule which will be codified in 15 CFR part 922, subpart L. NOAA
does not believe inclusion of coordinates for all other alternatives is necessary. However, maps of all alternatives can be reviewed in FEIS
Chapter 3 and Appendix D.
7. Comment: NOAA received comments requesting an explanation of
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:33 Jan 17, 2021

Jkt 253001

how the FGBNMS Advisory Councils recommendations were incorporated throughout the expansion process.
Response: The Sanctuary Advisory Council was involved in developing DEIS Alternative 2, reviewing DEIS
Alternative 3, and providing recommendations to modify the alternative. Ultimately, NOAAs Final Preferred Alternative was largely developed by recommendations proposed by the Sanctuary Advisory Council. Refer to FEIS Chapter 1, Section 1.5, which provides background information on development of the DEIS
alternatives and the process by which NOAA modified DEIS Alternative 3 to develop the Final Preferred Alternative, including information of the Sanctuary Advisory Councils involvement. See response to comment 3 pertaining to the Revised Preferred Alternative.
8. Comment: NOAA received comments that requested a buffer around reefs to enhance connectivity, compliance, and enforcement, as well as to keep out any structure that may act as a vector for invasive species spread.
Response: Buffers were considered during the FGBNMS Advisory Councils Boundary Expansion Working Group meetings and were rejected due to potential impacts to the oil and gas and fisheries industries. The 2018 Sanctuary Advisory Council recommendation for sanctuary expansion did not include buffers. Refer to FEIS Chapter 1, Section 1.5 for details regarding development of the Final Preferred Alternative and associated interagency consultations and coordination.
9. Comment: NOAA received comments suggesting the boundaries proposed in the Revised Preferred Alternative NOAAs Final Preferred Alternative were too complicated for enforcement purposes, stating that simpler boundaries make enforcement easier, which results in better compliance of user groups.
Response: Along with input for NOAAs Office of Law Enforcement OLE, ONMS considered this concern and determined the expansion boundaries are enforceable as proposed in NOAAs Final Preferred Alternative.
The boundaries achieve a polygonal configuration, which is recommended by the OLE, and closely follow the existing BOEM designated NAZ
boundaries. This polygonal approach uses fewer vertices, simplifying the NAZ boundaries and allowing for heightened enforceability and user compliance.
ONMS believes that vessels visiting the sanctuary are likely to be equipped with onboard mapping technology e.g., Global Positioning System that would
PO 00000

Frm 00066

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

inform operators of their vessels position relative to the expanded sanctuary boundary. In light of the technological capabilities of onboard positioning systems, ONMS decided to continue with the boundary configuration of the Final Preferred Alternative, confident that user compliance and agency enforcement can be achieved.
Please refer to FEIS Chapter 3, Section 3.2 for more details regarding development of the Final Preferred Alternative boundaries.
10. Comment: NOAA received comments related to the influence of the oil and gas industry on the boundary configurations of the proposed expansion of banks and reefs, including a claim that the FGBNMS Advisory Councils Boundary Expansion Working Group was biased towards the oil and gas industry.
Response: The BEWG included Advisory Council members representing multiple stakeholder groups including the oil and gas industry, commercial and recreational fishing industries, recreational diving, science, and conservation. The BEWG presented its revised FGBNMS expansion boundaries recommendation to the full FGBNMS
Advisory Council, representing all user groups, on May 9, 2018, and the recommendation was accepted by the Advisory Council and subsequently by ONMS as proposed. Refer to responses to comments 3 and 7 and FEIS
Chapter 3, Section 3.2, which details the Sanctuary Advisory Councils BEWG
process for developing the Revised Preferred Alternative.
Purpose and Need for Proposed Expansion/Regulations 11. Comment: NOAA received comments suggesting that the purpose and/or need for the proposed expansion was not warranted, citing several reasons including: 1 Need for protection was not demonstrated; 2
expansion would offer no benefit of protection; 3 government overreach;
4 majority of sites are already protected from oil and gas development by the existing BOEMs No Activity Zones; and 5 proposed expansion areas are not nationally significant or unique.
Response: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act NEPA, NOAA has established a strong purpose and need to expand FGBNMS See FEIS
Chapter 2. Through the management plan review and scoping process, NOAA
identified several gaps in management of reefs and banks near the current sanctuary where habitats were experiencing damage from anchoring
E:FRFM19JAR1.SGM

19JAR1