Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations NEPA Process 38. Comment: NOAA received comments regarding the NEPA process.
Commenters requested NOAA conduct a new NEPA analysis because of: 1 The difference in methodologies used to configure the Final Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3 in the DEIS; and 2
new circumstances and/or information available e.g., fishing exemptions, removal of buffer zones.
Response: NOAA evaluated the changes made from the 2016 original preferred alternative Alternative 3 to the Final Preferred Alternative presented in the NPRM and this FEIS.
The Final Preferred Alternative revised Alternative 3 boundaries to be more tightly drawn near the shallowest portions of the geological features of interest, largely in response to existing fishing activity and oil and gas activity see response to comment 3. The new polygons included all of the same reefs and banks, excluding Bryant Bank, which is not included in the Final Preferred Alternative. Ultimately, NOAA determined that the changes reflected in the Final Preferred Alternative were not substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns 40
CFR 1502.9c1i. NOAA further determined the comments received on the 2016 DEIS did not constitute significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts 40 CFR
1502.9c1ii. As such, NOAA
concluded that preparing a supplemental environmental impact statement or new NEPA analysis is neither required nor necessary under NEPA. NOAA has documented the agencys rationale for revising the Final Preferred Alternative see Chapter 3, Section 3.2 and provided updated information on the affected environment in FEIS Chapter 5, Section 5.3, and related Record of Decision. Please refer to NOAAs Supplemental Information Report that was provided with the release of the NPRM for further information.
39. Comment: NOAA received a comment that requested that the Protected Species analysis in Section 5.3.2.7 of the DEIS be public and open for review/comment.
Response: ONMS conducted an ESA
Section 7 consultation with NMFS in conjunction with the development of both the DEIS and NPRM. In the DEIS, ONMS included a list of protected species which may be affected by the proposed action, and the DEIS was subsequently submitted for public
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:33 Jan 17, 2021

Jkt 253001

comment. Additional species were included in the NPRM consultation. See FEIS Chapter 4, Section 4.3.4 for additional information on protected species with an updated list of protected species and Appendix G for a summary of how ONMS satisfied ESA
consultation requirements including ONMSs ESA consultation correspondence.
40. Comment: NOAA received a comment stating that the Notices to Lessees are not simply guidance because they contain requirements for oil and gas.
Response: NOAA disagrees. Please refer to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Notice to Lessees 2009G39,10 which provides and consolidates guidance for oil and gas.
National Marine Sanctuaries Act 41. Comment: NOAA received comments that suggested the expansion of sanctuaries must be conducted through an act of Congress, otherwise it violates Congressional intent found in the NMSA.
Response: NOAA disagrees. NOAA
can administratively designate and expand sanctuaries pursuant to Section 303 of the NMSA 16 U.S.C. 1433, using procedures set forth in section 304
16 U.S.C. 1434. It is also possible for Congress to legislatively designate a sanctuary; Stetson Bank Pub. L. 104
283 in the current FGBNMS serves as an example of a legislatively designated sanctuary.
42. Comment: NOAA received comments stating the NPRM did not comply with the NMSA and the FGBNMS 2012 management plan to prioritize conservation of surrounding reefs and banks.
Response: The proposed action responds to the need to provide additional protection of sensitive underwater features and marine habitats associated with continental shelf-edge reefs and banks in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. NOAA adds 14
additional reefs and banks, for a total of 17 features to be protected, expanding the sanctuary by approximately three times its current spatial extent. In addition to prioritizing the conservation of nationally significant biological features, the NMSA section 301 16
U.S.C. 1431 directs NOAA to facilitate, to the extent compatible with the primary objective of resource protection, all public and private uses of the resources of these marine areas not 10 https www.bsee.gov/notices-to-lessees-ntl/
notices-to-lessees/ntl-2009-g39-biologicallysensitive-underwater-features.

PO 00000

Frm 00071

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

4947

prohibited pursuant to other authorities.
Thus, compliant with the NMSA, NOAA believes the current expansion in this FEIS and final rule, as proposed in the NPRM, maximizes conservation and user group interests to allow for greater protection of these areas.
Oil & Gas Exploration and Development 43. Comment: NOAA received comments from the oil and gas industry in response to the 2016 DEIS
alternatives regarding recognition and inclusion of existing oil and gas leases.
Commenters expressed concern that sanctuary expansion could be more costly or difficult for oil and gas production, new leases would be precluded, and the loss of oil and gas exploration may lead to reliance on foreign oil. Industry representatives noted their reliance on the 2007
Sanctuary Advisory Council recommendation for expansion Alternative 2 to inform their investment in resources for the industrys development and growth, or their decision to relinquish certain lease blocks. Industry representatives requested oil and gas access, leasing, produced water discharge requirements, and seismic acquisition should remain as is, with no additional regulations.
Response: To address concerns from the oil and gas industry, the FGBNMS
Sanctuary Advisory Councils BEWG
underwent an extensive process to evaluate how protecting biologically significant areas may impact the oil and gas industry. They proposed modifying DEIS Alternative 3 to develop the Revised Preferred Alternative see comment 3. This process also involved input from the Sanctuary Advisory Council, the GMFMC, and coordination within NOAA. The new boundaries closely follow BOEMs NAZs, encompassing the shallowest portions of the banks, which are already protected from oil and gas exploration and development. Furthermore, ONMS
consulted with BOEM pursuant to E.O.
13795Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy and determined that expanding the sanctuary would not have a significant economic impact on oil and gas exploration and development. BOEMs analysis is summarized in the NPRM
and in FEIS Chapter 5, Section 5.3.9.5.
44. Comment: NOAA received a comment requesting an analysis of the inclusion of four oil and gas platforms within the expansion areas for advantages and disadvantages, especially in the context of Sanctuary Expansion Action Plan Objective 6C.
Response: NOAAs Final Preferred Alternative does not include any
E:FRFM19JAR1.SGM

19JAR1