Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 36. Comment: NOAA received comments asking whether the sanctuary would create any additional restrictions or regulatory requirements related to dredging, pier structure maintenance, or extension of pier structures, and if local entities would require NOAA
permission to install a new water intake line into Lake Michigan or to continue grooming beaches, including areas below the OHWM. A related comment requested that all necessary maintenance activities regarding Lake Michigan water intakes should be allowed to proceed uninhibited within the sanctuary boundaries.
Response: WSCNMS regulations are narrowly focused on protecting underwater cultural resources. If an activity does not injure these sanctuary resources, it is not restricted or prohibited, and does not require a sanctuary permit. Dredging, pier construction and maintenance, and other construction activities are not expressly prohibited activities under the proposed regulations. However, should these types of activities violate the sanctuary prohibition on moving, removing, recovering, altering, destroying, possessing, or otherwise injuring a resource, they would be prohibited.
Activities mentioned in this comment are already regulated by state and other federal entities. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires the State of Wisconsin to identify known and potential historic resources that may be impacted by dredging and other activities that affect the lakebed. NOAA, through its comanagement arrangement with the state and through the consultation requirement for federal agencies under the NMSA Section 304d, would coordinate its response, including potential permitting and Section 106
consultation, when historic/cultural resources may be impacted.
As for grooming beaches, NOAA
proposes to adopt a boundary of the LWD, which will effectively exclude beaches from the boundaries of the sanctuary.
37. Comment: NOAA received a comment requesting that it refrain from depicting the national marine sanctuary on Federal Aviation Administrations aeronautical charts to avoid confusion and misinterpretation of the area by general aviation pilots.
Response: NOAA is not proposing including overflight restrictions as part of the sanctuary prohibitions, and not proposing that the sanctuary be depicted on aeronautical charts.
38. Comment: NOAA received one comment that the proposed sanctuary
VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:58 Jun 22, 2021

Jkt 253001

overlaps the boundaries of a restricted area R6903 used by the Volk Field Combat Readiness Training Center. In the unlikely event that the Wisconsin Air National Guard or users of R6903
would need to conduct some sort of unconventional and/or kinetic operation in R6903, close coordination with NOAA and the Federal Aviation Administration would be a necessity.
Response: NOAA agrees and will coordinate with the Air National Guard to ensure compatible use of the sanctuary.
39. Comment: NOAA received a comment asking if the sanctuary would impact municipal lakebed grants.
Response: No. The sanctuary proposal recognizes the states sovereignty over its waters and submerged lands, including any state lakebed leases.
Public Review Process, State Legislature Involvement, State Role/Authority 40. Comment: NOAA received a comment stating that it did not provide enough time for the public to comment and did not provide the public with enough information about the proposed sanctuary. NOAA also received one comment asking NOAA to hold a public session to help the public understand the sanctuary proposal.
Response: NOAA held an 81-day public comment period, which exceeds the comment period generally recommended under Executive Order 12866 and the 45-day required comment period for a DEIS under NEPA, to allow the public time to review the proposal and provide comments. NOAA also held four public meetings to discuss the proposal and gather public comments.
These meetings were held in four cities along the coastal area to ensure public access. NOAA also published a Federal Register notice and a website http
sanctuaries.noaa.gov/wisconsin/ with the proposed sanctuary information for the public, meeting NMSA notification requirements. Additionally, NOAA
issued a press release and received coverage in the local, regional, and national press. NOAA staff presented at city council meetings in Two Rivers, Sheboygan, Port Washington, and Mequon, and at county council meetings in Sheboygan and Ozaukee counties. A timeline of the sanctuary designation process can be found in the FAQ section at https
sanctuaries.noaa.gov/wisconsin/.
41. Comment: NOAA received several comments asking how the state government is involved in the sanctuary designation and how a sanctuary designation can be done without the state legislatures involvement.

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

32747

Response: Throughout the sanctuary designation process, NOAA worked closely with the Wisconsin Historical Society, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Wisconsin Department of Tourism, Wisconsin Public Service Commission, and the Wisconsin Public Lands Commission. Should NOAA and the Wisconsin governor ultimately concur on the designation, both NOAA and the state would co-manage WSCNMS.
Furthermore, in national marine sanctuaries that include state waters, the NMSA provides the governor of the state with the opportunity to certify to the Secretary of Commerce that the designation or any of its terms is unacceptable i.e., objects, in which case the designation or the unacceptable term shall not take effect.
42. Comment: Many commenters suggested that a federal government program or involvement in Wisconsin is an intrusion into sovereign state waters.
Designation of the sanctuary will result in the loss of state control of Lake Michigan, and a takeover of both management and regulation of the Wisconsin waters by the federal government.
Response: Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast National Marine Sanctuary will not change the ownership or control of state lands or waters; that is, no loss of state sovereignty will occur as a result of designation of a national marine sanctuary. The states jurisdiction and rights will be maintained and NOAA
will not intrude upon or change existing state or local authorities. All existing state laws, regulations, and authorities will remain in effect. The state will maintain ownership of the shipwrecks within the sanctuary.
43. Comment: NOAA received several comments stating that while the proposal highlights co-management with the State of Wisconsin, the governor only gains power through Section 922.214, Emergency Regulations. NOAA should consider allowing the governor to hold form of a veto, or check and balanced action, or at least part of the leasing or licenses action.
Response: The co-management of the sanctuary provides a number of opportunities for the State of Wisconsin, either through the governor or by state agencies, to participate in the management of the sanctuary. For sanctuaries in state waters, pursuant to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act 304b1, whenever a sanctuary is proposed to be designated, or the terms of designation changed, the governor
E:FRFM23JNR1.SGM

23JNR1