Final environmental impact statement and management plan for the proposed Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Flower Garden Final Environmental
Banks Impact Statement/
National Management
Marine Plan
Sanctuary

U.S Department of Commerce @kOSST OF cq,@,
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration

Sanctuaries & Reserves
Division

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED
FLOWER GARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE
SANCTUARY

July 1991

U S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON SC 29405-2413

Prepared By;

U.S. Department of Commerce
National oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
National Ocean Service
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management
1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 714
Washington, D.C. 20235

Designation: Final Environmental Impact Statement/Management
Plan

Title: Final Environmental Impact Statement and
Management Plan for the Proposed Flower Garden
Banks National Marine Sanctuary

Abstract: The National oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration proposes to designate as a National
marine Sanctuary the Flower Garden Banks, located
due south of the Texas-Louisiana border at the
edge of the continental shelf. The East Flower
Garden Bank is approximately 120 nautical miles
south southwest of Cameron, Louisiana, and the
West Bank is 110 nautical miles southeast of
Galveston, Texas.

The proposed Sanctuary encompasses 41.70 square
nautical miles of ocean waters and submerged
lands: 19.20 square nautical miles at the East
Bank and 22.50 square nautical miles at the West
Flower Garden Bank. The Flower Garden Banks are
two of over thirty major outer continental shelf
geological features located in the northwest Gulf
of Mexico. They are isolated from other reef
systems by over 300 nautical miles and exist under
hydrographic conditions generally considered
marginal for tropical reef formations.

The designation of the Flower Garden Banks as a
National Marine Sanctuary would provide an
integrated program of resource protection,
research, and interpretation to assist in the
long-term management and protection of its
resources.

Fourteen Sanctuary regulations are proposed. They
govern: anchoring or otherwise mooring within the
Sanctuary; discharging or depositing, from within
the boundaries of the Sanctuary, any material or
other matter;-discharging or depositing, from
beyond the boundaries of the Sanctuary, any
material or other matter that then enters the
Sanctuary and injures Sanctuary resources or
qualities; drilling into, dredging or otherwise
altering the seabed of the Sanctuary; or
constructing, placing or abandoning any structure,
material or other matter on the seabed of the
Sanctuary; exploring for, developing or producing
oil, gas or minerals in the no-activity zones of
the Sanctuary; taking, removing, catching,
collecting, harvesting, feeding or injuring, or
attempting to take, remove, catch, collect,
harvest, feed or injure, a Sanctuary resource;

possessing within the Sanctuary a Sanctuary
resource or any other resource, regardless of
where taken, removed, caught, collected or
harvested, that, if it had been found within the
Sanctuary, would be a Sanctuary resource;
possessing or using within the Sanctuary, except
possessing while passing without interruption
through it,.any.fishing gear, device, equipment or
means except conventional hook and line gear;
possessing or using explosives or releasing
electrical charges within the Sanctuary.

Three major regulatory/boundary options were
identified: the Preferred Alternative (41.70
square nautical miles), Boundary Alternative 2,
which would establish a smaller sanctuary, and .
Boundary Alternative 3, which would consist of a
larger boundary defined by a core and buffer.area.
The status quo alternative would continue
management of the area through existing activities
and controls. It should be noted, however, that
Congress has mandated that this sanctuary be
designated.

The preferred alternative promotes resource
protection by bolstering the existing regulatory
and enforcement regime, establishing an integrated
research program focused on management-related
issues facing the sanctuary, and promoting an
interpretivd program to strengthen public
understanding of the importance of the coral-reef
habitats and the need for long-term comprehensive
framework to protect them.

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Ocean Service
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Contact: Edward Lindelof, Branch Chief
Gulf and Caribbean Region
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Oceanic Service / NOAA '
1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 714
Washington, D.C. 20235
(202) 673-5122

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE PROPOSED
FLOWER GARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

NOTE TO READER ............................................. viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................... ......... x

PART I: INTRODUCTION ..................................... 2

A. Authority for Designation ........... ........... 2

B. Goals of the National Marine Sanctuary Program ....... 3

C. Terms of the Designation ............................ 3

D. Status of the National Marine sanctuary Program ...... 3

E. History of the Proposal ....... ..................... 5

F. Purpose and Need for Action ........... o ............. 7

G. The,Plan for Managing the Sanctuary ........ o ........ 8

PART II: SANCTUARY MANAGEMENT PLAN ...................... 9

.Section I: A Management Plan for the Proposed Flower
Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary ...... 10

A. Introduction ...................... o ........... 10

B. Sanctuary Goals and objectives ...................... 10

1. Resource Protection ....... ................... 11

2. Research ................................ o ...... 11

3. Interpretation ........... o...... ......... 12

Section II.- The Sanctuary'Setting ........................... 14

A. The Regional Context ................................. 14

1., Sanctuary Location and@Proposed Boundaries 14

@2. Regional Access ..................................... 14

B. Sanctuary Resources .................. ............ ... 17

1. Geology .............. ..................... .17

2. Environmental conditions ....................... 19

3. Benthic communities ...... oa-.@ .............. I ...... 23

4. Other Species Associated With,Benthos ............. 32

5. Historical/Cultural Resources ..................... 33

C. Human Activities ........I....... ................. ..... 33

1. Oil and Gas Activities .............................. 34

2. Commercial Fishing .............................. 34

3. Recreation ................. ............... 40

4. Commercial-Shipping ............. ............... 42

5. Anchoring by Large Vessels .................... .42

6. Research and Education .......................... 43

7. Ocean Incineration .............................. 47

8. Military Activity ................ 47

Section III:. Action Plan .......................... ......... 48

A. overall Management and Development ................... 48

B. Resource Protection ................... .......... I .... 49

1. General Context for Management ................... 49

2. Designation Document and Sanctuary Regulations.... '49

3. Contingency Plans for Major Emergencies ........... 50

4. Encouraging Compatible Use of the.Sanctuary ....... 51

5. Surveillance and Enforcement .......... ....... 51

C. Research ............................ a ................. 52

1. General.Context for Management .................... 52

2. Framework for Research ... ................. 53

3. Selection and Administration ofResearch Projects. 55

4. Information Exchange1.;..*!*.*.O* ................ .... 56

D. Education ................. o..o .............o ....... .... 56

1. General Context.for Management ........ o..... @@-O. 56

2. Interpretation Opportunities:and Programs ..... 57

Section IV: Administration ............. o....... --ooo. 59

Ao Administrative Framework ... oo ... -oo .... ooo---o 59

Bo Resource Protection: Roles and Responsibilities...... 60
C. Research: Roles and Responsibi ' lities 61

D. Interpretation: Roles and Responsibilities........... 62

E. General Administration: Roles and Responsibilities ... 62

F. Staffing Levels ......... o-.ooooo ..... ......... o 63

G. Visitor Center.Facilities, ....... ......... 0 0.. 63

PART III: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE.-oo- .... o-oo ...... oo
...... 64

Section I: The Status Quo Alternative .... o ... 0.0 ........ 6 5

iii

Section II: Designation of a National Marine Sanctuary ... 68

A. Regulatory/Boundary Alternatives ...................... 68

1. Regulatory/Boundary Alternative 1 .... 68

2. Regulatory/Boundary Alternative 2 ....... ........ 73

3. Regulatory/Boundary Alternative 3 ................ 74

B. Management Alternatives ... o..o ................ o ....... 76

1. Management Alternative 1 ...... ......... 76
2. Management Alternative 2 ......................... 76

PART IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................... 77

Section I: Environmental Consequences of Alternatives .... 78
A. Sanctuary Designation - The Preferred Alternative ..... 78

1. Resource Protection Regime ....................... 78

2. Research and Interpretation ...................... 85

3. Boundary Alternatives ........................... 85

4. Management Alternatives .......................... 86

B. The Status Quo Alternative ........................... 86

Section II: Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects... 90

Section III: Relationship Between the Short-Term Uses of
the Environment and the Maintenance and
Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ....... 90

PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS ................................. 92

PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS
RECEIVING COPIES ...................... .......... 94

PART VII: REFERENCES ........ ......... .... 99

PART VIII: APPENDICES ................................... 110

1. Designation Document and Proposed Regulations ..... 111
2. Legislative Authority for Ekisting Management,
Jurisdiction .............. ........................ 133

3. Abbreviations ....................................... 143

4. Comments.and Responses ........................... 145

LIST-OF FIGURES

Figure Title FAge

1 National'Marin'e Sanctuary System'
Context ................... ....................... 4

3 Regional Context .. ............................. 15

4 Flower Garden Banks Bathymetry ............ o .... 16

5 Sediment Facies ......... __ ..... o ........... 18

6 Current Patterns, Northwestern Gulf of
Mexico ... ................................ 20

7 Comparison of Environmental Conditions at
Selected Banks ...... o...... - .. ......... 22

8 Conspicuous Biota, East Flower Garden
Bank ... o .......o...................... o ... 24

9 Biotic Zonation, East Flower Garden
Bank .... ........................ o ......... 25

10 Biotic Zonation, West Flower Garden
Bank .......... o........ o ........... o ...... 26

11 Brine Seep, East Flower Garden Bank ...... o ....... 31

12 Leasing Blocks, East Flower Garden Bank .......... 38

13 Leasing Blocks, West Flower Garden Bank... ....... 39

14 Boundary Alternatives ..... .................. o 69

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Pacte

1 Flower Garden Corals-and Calcareous Algae ........... 29

2 Leasing status of Flower Garden Bank Tracts ........ 35

3 Recent Incidents of Anchoring at the Flower Garden
Banks ................. ............................ 44

vii

Note to Reader:

A. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):

This document is a final management plan as well as a final
environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed Flower
Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. Some of the section
headings, and their order, are different from those frequently
found in other environmental impact statements. To assist NEPA
reviewers, the following table has been developed. Under the
heading 11NEPA Requirement" are listed those topics normally
discussed in an EIS. The corresponding sections of this document
and the page numbers are provided in the other two columns.

NEPA Reauirements Management Plan/EIS
Page

Purpose and Need for Action ............. Part I, F ............... 7

Alternatives

Preferred Alterative .................. Part III, Section II ... 68

other Alternatives ......... .......... Part IV ............... 77

Affected Environment .................... Part II, Section II .... 14

Environmental Consequences

A. General and Specific Impacts ...... Part IV, Section I ..... 78

B. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental
................ ; ................. Part IV, Section II .... 90

C. Relationship between Short-term
Uses of the Environment and the
Maintenance and Enhancement of
Long-term Productivity ........... Part IV, Section III... 90

D. Possible Conflicts between
the Proposed Action and the
objectives of Federal, State
Regional and Local Land Use
Plans, Policies and Contacts
for the Area Concerned ........... Part II, Section III ... 90

viii

List of Preparers ....................... Part V ................. 92

'List of Agencies, Organizations, and I I
Persons Receiving Copies of the FEIS .... Part I................ 94

B. Endangered Species Act (ESA):

Pursuant to � 7 of the ESA, the US Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Marine Fisheries Service were consulted in the
performance of a biological assessment of possible impacts on
threatened or endangered species that might result from the
designation of a national marine sanctuary at the Flower Garden
Banks. The consultation confirmed that only one such species,
the loggerhead turtle, a threatened species (cited Part II,
Section II), had been identified at the Flower Garden Banks.

C. Resource Assessment:

The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
requires a resource assessment report documenting present and
potential uses of the proposed sanctuary area, including uses
subject to the primary jurisdiction of the Department of the
Interior. This requirement has been met in consultation with the
Department of the Interior. The assessment report is contained
in Part II, Section II.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The East and West Flower Garden Banks are located due south
of the Texas-Louisiana border at the edge of the continental
shelf. I 'n accordance-with Title IIIof the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act, as amended, 16.U.S.C..�� 1431 et,
sea., this final Environmental Impact Statement and Management
Plan proposes 'the establishment of a,national marine-sanctuary to
facilitate the long-term management and protection of the
resources of the Flower Garden Banks_

Part I of this report reviews the authority for-sanctuary
designation., the goals of the National Marine.Sanctuary Program,
the development of this proposal, and the purpose of designating
a national marine sanctuary at the Flower Garden Banks.

..Part II, Section I, outlines sanctuary management goals and
objectives in resource protection, research, interpretation and
visitor use. Part II, Section II describes the environment and
living resources of the proposed sanctuary and the human
activities occurring in the,vicinity. Most of the information in
Part II about the environment and resources,research'activities
and the effects of anchoring on the coral reefs was prepared by
Dr. Thomas Bright, Texas A&M University..

Two areas, centered on East and West Flower Garden Bank, are
recommended for inclusion in the sanctuary. These areas,
totaling 41.7 square nautical miles (143.02 square kilometers),
provide habitats for a distinctiveassortment of living marine
resources. The Flower Garden.Banks are capped bythe
northernmost living coral reefs,on the U.-S.@continental shelf,
and the East-Bank.is the location of the only known oceanic
brine-seep community in continental shelf waters of the Gulf of
Mexico. The principal human activities in the vicinity of the
Flower Garden Banks are oil and gas exploration and development,
commercial fishing, recreational pursuits,. ship transiting, and
research. Generally, these activities have small impact on
Flower..,Garden resources, but anchoring by large vessels at the
Banks has resulted in extensive-damage to the coral at a number
of points.

The plan for managing the proposed sanctuary is provided in
Part II, Section III. This plan contains guidelines to ensure
that all management actions undertaken.in the first five years-
after designation are directed toward resolving important issues.
as a.means of meeting.sanctuary objectives. management actions
are considered in three program,categories: resource protection,
research, and interpretation. Resource protection will involve
cooperation,with other agencies in formulating management
policies and procedures, including the enforcement of
regulations. Research will include monitoring and-predictive

studies to provide information needed in resolving management
issues. Interpretation programs will be directed to improving
public awareness of the sanctuary's resources and the need to
protect them.

..The following activities may be regulated by NOAA under the
terms of designation:

a. Anchoring or otherwise mooring within the Sanctuary;

b. Discharging or depositing,- from within the boundaries
of the Sanctuary, any material or other matter;

@c.. Discharging or depositing, from beyond the boundaries
of the Sanctuary, any material or other matter;

d. Drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the
seabed of the Sanctuary; or constructing, placing or
abandoning any structure, material or other matter on
the seabed of the Sanctuary;

e. Exploring for, developing or producing oil, gas or
minerals within the Sanctuary;

f. Taking, removing, catching, collecting, harvesting,
feeding or injuring, or attempting to take, remove,
catch, collect, harvest, or feed or injure, a Sanctuary
resource;

9- Possessing within the Sanctuary a-Sanctuary resource or
any other resource, regardless of where taken, removed,
caught, collected or harvested, that, if it had been
found within the Sanctuary, would be'a Sanctuary
resource.

h. Possessing or using within the S anctuary, any fishing
gear, device, equipment or means.

i. I Possessing or using explosives or releasing electrical
charges within the Sanctuary.

The proposed sanctuary regulations are contained in Appendix 1.

The.administrative framework for managing the proposed
sanctuary (Part II, Section IV) recognizes the need for
cooperation and coordination among all participants in sanctuary
management and delineates the roles of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Sanctuaries and Reserves Division,
the U.S. Coast Guard, Minerals-management Service of the
Department of the Interior, and the Department of State in
resource protection, research, interpretation, and general
administration.

NOAA considered a number of alternatives in developing the
proposal to designate a national marine sanctuary at the Flower
Garden Banks. These alternatives, described in Part III, were
considered in terms of achieving optimum protection for the
ecosystem, improving scientific knowledge of the area, and
promoting public understanding of the value of Flower Garden Bank
resources. The alternative of sanctuary designation was selected
as preferable to no action (further, sanctuary designation is
mandated by Congress), and preferred boundary, management, and
regulatory alternatives were selected. The environmental
consequences of the alternatives are described in Part IV.

The emergence of new issues or other unforeseeable factors
may affect specific aspects of sanctuary management as described
in this plan. The plan may therefore be adjusted to changing
circumstances in light of the experience gained in actual
management. However, the overall goals, management objectives
and general guidelines governing the plan's development will
continue to be relevant.

xii

PART 1: INTRODUCTION

PART I: INTRODUCTION

A. Authority for Desianation

Title II I of the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA), 16 U.S.C. 1431 et sea., as
amended, authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate as
national marine sanctuaries discrete areas of the marine
environment of special national significance due.to their
conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research,
educational, or esthetic value in order to promote comprehensive
conservation and management of the'areas. National marine
sanctuaries may be designated in those areas of coastal and ocean
waters, the Great Lakes and their connecting waters, and
submerged lands over which the United States exercises
jurisdiction, consistent with international law. National marine
sanctuaries are built around the existence of distinctive natural
and cultural/historical resources whose protection.and beneficial
use requires comprehensive planning and management. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) manages the Program
through the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD) in the.Office
of ocean and Coastal Resource.Management.

B. Goals of the National Marine Sanctuary Progra

Consistent with the mission of developing a system of
national marine sanctuaries for the purpose of serving the long-
term benefit and enjoyment of the public, the foll,owing,goals
were established for the Program:

1. Enhance resource protection through comprehensive and
coordinated conservation and management tailored to the
specific resources that complements existing regulatory
authorities;

2. Support, promote and coordinate scientific research on, and
monitoring of, the site-specific marine resources to improve
management decisionmaking in national marine sanctuaries;

3. Enhance pub'lic awareness, understanding'. and wise use of the
marine environment through public interpretive and
recreational programs; and

4. Facilitate, to the extent compatible with the primary goal
of resource protection, multiple use of these marine areas
not prohibited pursuant to other authorities.

C. Terms of Designation

. Section 304(a)(4), 16 U.S.C. 1434(a)(4), of the MPRSA
provides that as a condition of establishing a national marine
sanctuary, the Secretary of Commerce must set forth the terms of
the Designation. The" terms must include: (a) the geographic area
included within the Sanctuary; (b) the characteristics of the
area that give.it conservation, recreational, ecological,
historical, research, educational or esthetic value; and (c) the
types of activities that will be subject to regulation in order
to protect those characteristics. The terms of the designation
may"be modified only by the same procedures through which the
original designation was made.

D. Status of the National Marine Sanctuary Program

Eight national marine sanctuaries have been established
since the Program's inception in 1972 (Figure 1):

0 The Monitor National Marine Sanctuary serves to
protect the wreck of the Civil War ironclad, U.S.S.'
MONITOR. It was designated in January 1975 and is
an area one mile in diameter 16 miles southeast
of Cape Hatteras, North Caroiina.

0 The Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary, designated
in December 1975, provides protection and management of
a 100 square-nautical-mile, coral-reef area south of
Miami, Florida.

0 The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary,
designated in September 1980, consists of an area of
approximately 1,252 square nautical miles off the 'coast
of California adjacent to the northern Channel Islands
and Santa Barbara Island. The Sanctuary ensures that
valuable habitats for marine mammals, including
extensive' pinniped assemblages and seabirds, are
protected.

0 The Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary, designated
in January 1981, consists of a submerged section of the
Florida reef southwest of Big Pine Key. The site, five
square nautical miles in size, includes a beautiful
"spur and groove" coral formation supporting a diverse
marine community and a wide variety of human uses.

0 The Gray's Reef National marine sanctuary,
designated in January 1981, is a submerged live bottom
area located on the South Atlantic continental shelf
due east of Sapelo Island, Georgia. The Sanctuary,
which encompasses about 17 square nautical miles,

Designated National Marine Sanctuaries

Cordell
Bank
Gulf of 40
the Farallones

Channel 40 MONITOR
Islands

dF
Gray's Reef

own#&
Fagatele ey Largo
Bay, AS Looe Key, Florida Kcys.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Figure

protects a highly productive and unusual habitat for
a wide variety of species including corals, tropical
fish, and sea turtles.

0 The Point Reyes-Farallon Island National Marine
Sanctuary, designated in January 1981, is a 948 square
nautical mile area off the California coast north of
San Francisco. It provides a habitat for a diverse
array of marine mammals and birds as well:as.pelagic
fish, plants, and benthic biota.

0 The Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary in
American Samoa was designated in' July 1986. The 163-
acre bay contains deepwater.. coral-terrace formations
that are unique to the high islands of the tropical
Pacific. It serves as habitat for a diverse array of
marine flora and fauna lncluding@the endangered
hawksbill turtle and the threatened green sea turtle.

0 The Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary,
designated in May 1989, protects 397 square nautical
miles of "submerged mountaintop'.' supporting a large
array of marine species. The Sanctuary,is-located
northwest of San Francisco, California.

The ninth national marine.'sandtuary designated by the
Congressl'in November 1990 is the Florida Keys National Marine,
Sanctuary (FKNMS) through the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary and Protection Act.. The Act designates 2,600 square
nautical miles of coastal waters 'off the Florida Keys as the
FKNMS. The FKNMS will provide.for protection of seagrass
meadows, mangrove islands, and extensive living coral reefs upon
development of the comprehensive management 'plan-and regulations.

E. History of the Proposal

On April 13, 1979, NOAA published proposed regulations (44
FR 22081) and a draft environm6ntal.impact stateme,nt.(DEIS) on
the proposed designation of the East,and West Flower Garden Banks
as a national marine sanctuary. To bring the sanctuary proposal
into line with newly revised Na 'tional Marine-Sanctuary Program
regulations, NOAA placed the Flower Garden Banks on the List of,
Recommended Areas (IRA) on October 31, 1979 (44 FR 62552).

As a result of public comments on the DEIS and consultation
with cooperating.agencies (the Department of the Interior, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Energy)j,.
NOAA revised the original proposed regulations and reproposed
them on June 30, 1980 (45 FR 33530) in accordance with Counci on:
Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1501.6). Previou
restrictions on hydrocarbon operations were revised to conform@

with the lease stipulationsimposed by the Minerals Management
Service in the Department of,the Interior. Following public
comments on the reproposed regulations, further action on the
project was suspended in late 1980. A final environmental impact
statement (FEIS) was not prepared.

On April 26, 1982 (47 FR 17845), NOAA announced its decision
to remove the site from the LRA and to withdraw the DEIS. One of
the major reasons forthis action was that a Coral Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) for the Gulf of Mexico was about to be
implemented. It was expected that the FMP would regulate vessel
anchoring on the Banks, the:one remaining unresolved issue
identified in the DEIS and by.public comment. However, the final
regulations implementing the FMP (49 FR 29607 (1984, as amended))
do not include any 11no anchoring" provisions for vessels on the
Banks. Within the' Habitat Areas of Particular Concern'(HAPC's)
at the East and West Flower Garden Banks (the area of each Bank
shallower than the 50 fathom (300 foot) isobath), the regulations
provide only the following restrictions: (1) fishing for coral is
prohibited except as authorized by scientific and educational
permit; (2) fishing with bottom longlines, traps, pots, and
bottom trawls..is prohibited; and (3) the use of toxic chemicals
to take fishor other marine organisms is prohibited except as.
authorized by scientific or educational permit (See 50 CFR
Part 638). The continted,lack of a ban on anchoring led to
renewed interest in ensuring the site's protection by designating
it as a national marine sanctuary.

Meanwhile, NOAA had again revised the regulations for the
National Marine Sanc'tuary Program (15 CFR Part 922), replacing
the'LRA with the Site Evaluation List (SEL) and requiring the
identification of sites for placement on the SEL by regional
resource evaluation teams. The Flower Garden Banks was
recommended for placement on the SEL on August 4, 1983 (48 FR
35568) following an evaluation by the Gulf of Mexico Regional
Resource Evaluation Team. The membership of this team consisted
of Dr. Thomas Bright, Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M
University,. College Station, Texas; Dr. William McIntire, Center
for Wetland.Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana; Dr. David'Gettleson, Continental Shelf Associates,
Tequesta, Florida,; and Dr. James Ray, Shell Oil, Houston, Texas.,

Before listing a site on the SEL as an active candidate for
nat'iohai marine sanctuary status, NOA'A seeks preliminary
consultation in the Federal Register and local media in the
region of the site. NOAA published a notice initiating
preliminary consultation in the Federal Register on May 4, 1984,
(49 FR 119094). A press release was sent to-the relevant media at
the same time. Based on the comments received and the evaluation
of the site in accordance with the criteria spec 'ified in � 922.30
of the regulations for the National Marine Sanctuary Program,
NOAA named the East and West Flower Garden Banks as an Active

Candidate for further consideration as a na Itional marine.
sanctuary on August 2, 1984 (49 FR 30988 (1984)).

On June 24, 19861 NOAA sponsored a public scoping meeting at
the Texas A&M Mitchell Campus, Galveston, Texas to solicit public
comment on the scope and significance.of issues involved in
designating a Flower Garden Banks national marine sapc'tuary.
Those attending the meeting were asked to comment on readily
identifiable issues, to suggest additional issues for
examination, and to provide information useful in.evaluating the
site's potential as a national marine sanctuary. the
response was generally favorable to proceeding with the
evaluation. On February 24, 1989, the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement/Management Plan (DEIS/MP) was published.: Public
hearings to receive comments on the DEIS/MP were held in Houston,
Texas on March 30, 1989.

F. Purpose and Need for Designation

The Flower Garden Banks sustain the northernmost living,
coral reefs on the U. S. continental shelf. The complex* and
biologically productive reef communities,that cap'the Banks offer
a combination of aesthetic appeal and recreational and research:
opportunity matched in few other ocean areas. These'reef
communities are in delicate ecological balance because of the
fragile nature of coral and the fact that the Banks lie on the
extreme northern edge of the zone in which extensive.reef
development can occur. In addition to their coral reefs, the
Banks harbor the only known oceanic brine seep-in continental
shelf waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Because of these features,
the Flower Gardens are particularly valuable as resources for
scientific research.

While the Flower Garden'Banks have thus far been able to
withstand man-induced pressures, such success can not
realistically'be expected in the future'withotit deliberate
protection. The primary threat tothe-Flower Gardens results
from vessel operations in the area. Shipping fairwayspass .ing
near the tanks are used by oil tankers' and other commercial
vessels. A number of these vessels anchor at the Flower Gardens
causing significant damage,to reef communities. Discharges,from
the vessels could also pose a threat to Flowe 'r Garden 'resources.
oil and gas resources are now being developed within a.few miles
of the Flower Gardens, and asignificant increase in such,
development operations is expected in the near future. These
activities are regulated, however. Other activities in'the area
of the Banks, such as commercial fishing, recreational pursuits,
and scientific research ' pose.relatively little threat to the
-resources of the Flower Garden Banks.

The existing regulatory regime does not adequately protect
Flower Garden resources from the increasing pressure of human
activities. The Minerals Management Service (MMS), for example,
currently provides considerable protection to the Flower Garden
Banks communities from damage due to oil and gas development and
prohibits anchoring on the coral reefs by vessels involved in
development operations, but the MMS does not have the authority
to prohibit anchoring on the coral reefs by other vessels.
Further, MMS's stipulations apply merely on a lease by lease
basis.

Under the Fishery Management Plan for Coral and Coral Reefs,
published in 1982, the Flower Garden Banks was established as a
habitat area of particular concern. The plan called for a
prohibition on anchoring at the Flower Gardens by large ships
but, as noted above (see section E), the implementing regulations
did not include this prohibition-.

In addition to a lack of control over anchoring under the
present regime, there is no comprehensive program for the long-
term assessment and management of the Flower Garden Banks
resources. The designation of the Flower Gardens Banks as a
national marine sanctuary would provide the means for filling
such deficiencies to provide additional protection where needed.

The management program planned for the proposed Sanctuary
would: 1) include regulations to prevent damage to Sanctuary
resource's, e.g., damage to coral reefs caused by vessel
anchoring, 2) provide the long-term planning and management
needed to protect Flower Garden Banks habitats and ecosystems,
and 3) establish a resource assessment program to monitor the
health of Flower Garden Banks communities and provide information
needed for management decisions and interpretation programs.

G. The Plan for Managing the Sanctuary

The remainder of this report consists of a final management
plan and final environmental impact statement for the proposed
Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. The plan provides
information on the resources and uses of the proposed Sanctuary,
as well as Sanctuary goals and objectives. It describes programs
(Resource Protection, Research, and Interpretation) for
implementing the goals and objectives, proposes actions for
resolving immediate management concerns, and formulates
guidelines for continued long-term management.

PART II: SANCTUARY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Section I,: A Management Plan for the Proposed Flower Garden
Banks National Marine Sanctuary,

A. Introduction

National marine sanctuaries are established in areas of the
marine environment selected for their conservation, recreational,
ecological, historical, research, educational, or esthetic
resources,and.qualities. Regulationsimplementing the National
Marine Sanctuary Program (15 CFR 922) require that a management
plan be-prepared for all proposed sanctuaries. In general,
management plans focus on Sanctuary goals and objectives,
management responsibilities, research and interpretation
programs,.and policies. to.guide plan implementation after.
Sanctuary designation.

The administrative framework established by a management
plan takes into account the cooperation and coordination needed
to ensure effective management. However, the Sanctuaries and
Reserves Division (SRD), National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), has overall responsibility for management
of the site...

Variable funding for staff and program development over the
next five-years may affect specific aspects of Sanctuary
management as described in 'this plan. Modifications to the scope
and scale of the programs may therefore have to be made because
of unforeseeable changes in the level of funding. The goals and
objectiv.es.of this plan will, however, remain unchanged.

B. Sanctuary Goals and Objectives

Sanctuary goals and objectives provide the framework for
developing the management strategies. The goals and objectives
direct Sanctuary activities towards the dual purposes of public
use and resource conservation and are consistent with the intent
of the National Marine.sanctuary Program.

-the management strategies planned,for the proposed Flower
Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary are directed to the goals
and objectives outlined.below. It should be noted that, although
the,Sanctuary goals.are listed discretely, they are actually
overlapping. For instance, research and interpretation efforts.
contribute to' resource"protection and to enhancing public use of
the Sanctuary.

1. Resource Protection

The highest priority management goal is to protect the
marine environment, resources and qualities of the Flower Garden
Banks National Marine Sanctuary. The specific objectives of the
,resource protection program are to:

0 Coordinate policies and procedures among the agencies
sharing responsibility for protection and management of
resources;

0 Encourage participation by interested;agencies and
organizations in the development of procedures to
address specific management concerns (e.g., monitoring
and emergency-response programs);

0 Develop an effective and coordinated program for the
enforcement of Sanctuary regulations;

0 Enforce Sanctuary regulation's in addition to other
regulations already in place;

0 Promote public awareness ofj and voluntary u set
compliance with, Sanctuary regulations and objectives,
through an education/interpretive program stressing resource
sensitivity and wise use;

0 Reduce threats to Sanctuary resources raised-by major
emergencies through contingency and emergency-response
planning;

0 Establish memoranda of agreement and other mechanism-for
coordination among all the agencies participating in
Sanctuary management; and

0 Reduce threats to Sanctuary resources

2. Research

Substantial, site-specific research has been conducted'at
the Flower Garden Banks, particularly 'over the past 15 years.
This work is discussed in section II.C. Sanctuary research will
build upon this foundation to improve understanding of the kower
Garden Banks' environment and resources and to resolve specific'
management problems. Research results will be used in
interpretation programs for visitors and others intere'sted-in the
Sanctuary, as well as for resource protection. The specific
objectives of the research program are to:

0 Establish a framework and procedures for administering
research projects to ensure that they are responsive to
management concerns and that research results contribute to
improved management of the Sanctuary;

0 Gather necessary baseline data on the physical,
chemical and biological oceanography of the Sanctuary;

0 Monitor and assess environmental'changes as they'
occur;

0 Identify the range of effects on the environment
that would result from predicted changes in human
activity;

0 Incorporate research results into the interpretation
program in a format useful for the general public; and

0 'Encourage information exchange among all the
organizations and agencies undertaking management-rdlated
research in the Sanctuary to promote more informed
management.

3. Interpretation

The interpretation program is directed to improving public
awareness and understanding of the significance of the Sanctuary
and the need to protect its resources. The specific objectives
of the interpretation program are to:

0 Provide the public with information on the Sanctuary, its
goals and objectives, with an emphasis on the need to use
these resources wisely to ensure their long-term viability;

0 Broaden support for the Sanctuary and Sanctuary
management by offering programs suited to visitors with
a range of diverse interests;

0 Provide for public involvement by encouraging
feedback on the effectiveness of the interpretation
program; and

0 Collaborate with other organizations to provide
interpretation services, including extension and outreach
programs and other volunteer projects, that explain the
purposes of the Sanctuary and the National Program.

4. Visitor Use

The Sanctuary goal for visitor management is to encourage
commercial and recreational use of the Sanctuary compatible with
resource protection. Specific objectives of this management
effort are to:

0 Encourage the public to respect sensitive Sanctuary
resources and qualities;

0 Provide relevant information about Sanctuary
regulations and use policies;

0 Collaborate with public and private organizations in
promoting compatible use of the Sanctuary by exchanging
information concerning its commercial and recreational
potential; and

0 Monitor and assess the levels of Sanctuary use to
identify and control potential degradation of resources
and minimize potential user conflicts.

Section II: The Sanctuary Setting

The most important factors to be considered in developing a
management plan for the proposed Flower Garden Banks National
Marine Sanctuary are its location; its physical characteristics,
environmental conditions, and biological resources; its uses; and
the roles of the agencies with management responsibilities in the
area. These factors will be summarized below to provide the
background needed for understanding the plan.

A. The Regional Context

The East and West Flower Garden Banks are two of more than
thirty major outer-continental shelf structures in the
northwestern Gulf of Mexico. The depth of the continental shelf
increases gradually from shore outward to the Flower Garden
Banks. Water depths surrounding the Banks are 330 to 395 ft (100
to 120 m). The East and West Bank are separated by'8 nautical
miles (15 km) of open water 330 to 360 ft (10.0 to 110 m) deep.
Seaward of the Banks, the slope descends more steeply, and depths
in excess of 2,300 ft (700 m) occur less than 22 nautical miles
(40 km) to the south (Figure 2).

1. Sanctuary Location and Proposed Boundaries

The Flower Garden Banks are located due south of the Texas-
Louisiana border at the edge of the continental shelf. The East
Flower Garden Bank is approximately 120 nautical miles'(220 km)
south southwest of Cameron, Louisiana, and the West Bank is 110
nautical miles (203 km) southeast of Galveston, Texas (Figure 3).
The midpoints of the East and West Banks, respectively, are
27*55107.4411 north latitude, 93036108.4911 west longitude and
27'52114.2111 north latitude, 93*48154.7911 west longitude.

The boundaries of the proposed Sanctuary encompass an area
of 41.70 square nautical miles (143.02 square km): 19.20 square
nautical miles (65.85 square km) at the East Bank and 22.50
square nautical miles (77.17 square km) at the.West Bank.

2. Regional Access

Because of their distance from shore, the Flower Garden
Banks are generally accessible only to vessels having adequate
range and overnight facilities. Sport divers and sport fishermen
visit the Banks occasionally, operating out of ports in Louisiana
and Texas. Commercial fishermen from as far away as Florida also
visit the Banks to catch snappers and groupers. The presence of
increasing numbers of oil and gas platforms in the vicinity has

1:4-1 4w GF -1L c@p rx -cx'.l c), 1-1 -tc

oil NO as* 84* 93, 112. 91.

LOUISIANA 4", 1-

3w -
TEXAs..,
somms fur

AUX&ISIArd Ar
...........% A
we&# ...................
w - 140aw"m may

.........................
...... ...... .......... .........
............%
Agdodke - - - - - -
to --@ S
6060 1.1"Of J,
.. ........ Is - a -
6 fa-101
I f','jw- fuelm Soap&
0"11 will
11110116001
"SillowlAWAM
Sall Diapir Area

60 25 0
I-am
flatIct Carbonate Sholl Kilt
$..., 10,

fill He as" 946 930 820

Figure 2

990 960 940

LOUISI A N A

30*

Cabo""

retopmt

#to mm
Pon VC-i

280-- 1,julpcr rardeto flunk
0
C@V" Owhu lVest Mower Gantem Itank

-SHE
I----------

WUP SIFE
U N ITED
STATES ----------

266

MEXICO
PROPOSEM lti'AST AND Wl-eST IP
GARDEN BANKS MARINE SAN
SITE' LOCATION

980 960 940 920 900

Figure 3

made the Banks convenient to offshore service vessels, which
often anchor for recreational fishing. These vessels are usually
between 90 and 180 ft (27 and 55 m) in length.

The Louisiana ports closest to the Flower Gardens are Morgan
City and Cameron. The closest in Texas are Sabine, Galveston,
Freeport and Port Aransas. Most of the traffic frequenting the
Flower Gardens originates from these cities (Bright, 1985a).

B. Sanctuary Resources

The Flower Garden Banks are unique among the banks of the
northwestern Gulf of Mexico in that they bear the northernmost
tropical Atlantic coral reefs on the continental shelf and
support the most highly developed offshore hard-bank communities
in the region. In addition to these resources, East Flower
Garden Bank harbors a localized assemblage of organisms
associated with a hypersaline, anoxic brine seep having a
chemosynthetic energy base analogous to that found at deep-sea
vents. Such communities are otherwise unknown on the world's
continental shelves.

East Flower Garden Bank is a single platform rising to a
crest of about 50 ft (15 m) below the water surface. Within the
100 m (328 ft) depth contour, the bank is 5.4 nautical miles (10
km) long and 3.5 nautical miles (6.5 km) wide. West Flower
Garden Bank consists of three platforms cresting at 65, 197, and
230 ft (20, 60 and 70 m) depths and separated by intervening
depths of 280 to 330 ft (85 to 100 m). Within the 100 m (328 ft)
contour West Flower Garden Bank is 5.4 nautical miles (10 km)
long and 3 nautical, miles (5.5 km) wide (Figure 4).

1. Geology

The East and West Flower Garden Banks are seafloor
expressions of domes (diapirs) formed by the intrusion of salt
from Jurassic evaporite deposits approximately 6.2 statute miles
(10 km) below the sea floor. Diapirism and faulting are
currently active at both Banks. The faulting of Bank crusts
resulting from a combination of tensional forces,due to domal
uplift and the removal of salt by dissolution is more advanced at
the West Bank. Consequently, it possess a larger and more
conspicuous central graben (down-faulted depression) than does
the East Bank.

*The information in this subsection on Flower Garden Bank
geology, environmental conditions, and natural resources was
prepared by Dr. Thomas Bright, Texas A&M University (Bright,.,
1985a).

930 58' 93*61' .93044' 93037'

too

27*55'
too
too

120

030

140
27*50' - 160

200
210-,

27*45'1 . . . . . .
03058, 93* 5 V 930 4 4' 93037#

Figure 4

The salt plugs beneath both Banks are quite near the sea
floor. High salinity brine seepage has been detected on the East
Flower Garden at 45 m. depth, indicating that the top of the salt
may lie directly beneath the central reef. A larger.brine seep
on the southeastern edge of the Bank at a depth of 233 ft (71 m)
flows at a rate of 400-700 cubic meters (14,125- 24,720 cubic ft)
per day. This discharge of 200 parts per thousand (ppt) brine is
thought to represent the removal of 10,000 to 22,000 cubic meters
(353,300 to 776,900 cubic ft) of solid salt per year from beneath
the East Flower Garden. Stratigraphic traps formed on the flanks
of the salt plugs are known to contain natural gas deposits, and
scattered seeps of natural gas of biogenic and petrogenic origin
occur on both Banks from their crests to their bases.

Surficial hard substratum at the Flower Gardens is
exclusively carbonate rock, constructed primarily by contemporary
populations of coralline algae and corals. Exposed sedimentary
facies on the Banks and their environs are strongly correlated.
with depth, and parallel closely the distribution of biotic
communities, which, above approximately 280 ft (85 m) depths, are
dominated by reef-building organisms (Figure 5).

Living coral reefs, made up.of massive heads produced by 18
species of tropical Atlantic corals are the primary features
between 50 and 150 ft (15 and 46 m) depths. The coral debris
facies at depths of 80 to 165 ft (25 to 50 m) consists of coarse
carbonate sand and gravel in basins and valleys between coral
heads and in narrow aprons surrounding the reefs. An Algal
Nodule Zone (Gyppina-Lithothamnium Facies), consisting
predominantly of gravel of algal nodules formed in-situ with
occasional algal reefs and pavements, extends downward and
outward from the coral debris facies to depths of 200-250 ft
(60-75 m).

Below the Algal Nodule Zone are carbonate sands consisting
mainly of the skeletal remains of the foraminifer,
Amphistegina, derived from living populations on higher bank
surfaces. The Amphistecrina Sand Facies extends to depths of 295
to 330 ft (90-100 m), where it is replaced by a Quartz-Planktonic
Foraminifers Facies consisting of planktonic foraminifers,
pteropods, mollusc and echinoderm fragments, and reefal detritus
in various mixtures with silt and fine, sand-sized quartz grains
and clay. This facies represents a transition between the
carbonate bank sediments and the terrigenous sediments.normally
found on this part of the continental shelf.

2. Environmental Conditions

(a) Clim!Ate

The Flower Gardens are geographically situated in a warm
temperate zone. Bay waters of the nearby coasts of Louisiana and

cDo w4m 3v C3m3ra4imlix-i Mmrilorcm

.... .... .........

..... ........

Vol
'A
4p
A

.... .........

lot
of. 41

lot
4

to'
iA,
It 4, jr

t
r
IP
0 , , - -1. :v
to. f
... to,, 0,
L - I
JL f
;go

r
:.,Aj
ILA*% j?. 0
Or

SEDIMENTARY FACIES some
Catbonales Tordsencous
Worm Real Mad
Coal 0011% Glavellif Mud OU s
SINIIIIII C-..wtlly M.14 felm
4o"Ptublegau Saw sh-111111 rmavellor 5.116d, U."I 191414
mushowask flasil q CO.Y c -a G
it 144.1killow sJoble sdl OZ
Mallf1i smod ems
sloyl-11i 104%.gly L1.1461; % d .64 So
H.G

VIM 4!1.u _s
SID*
4:1.p sm

04.1.
So -So --k

-c

Figure 5

North Texas may experience temperatures in excess of 90* F (32*
C) in late summer and may occasionally freeze in winter.

Rainfall is substantial on the mainland northeast of the
Banks, averaging 50 to 60 inches per year. Precipitation
diminishes southward along the coast, approaching semi-arid
conditions between Baffin Bay, Texas, and the Rio Grande River
(25 inches per year). Runoff from rivers in Louisiana and north
Texas greatly impacts coastal hydrography in the northwestern
Gulf. At peak discharge, the Mississippi River alone can
transport more than 100,000 cubic meters (3.5 million.cubic ft)
of fresh water per second to the Gulf.

Winds vary seasonally. In January, regional winds affecting
the offshore waters in the northwestern Gulf are generally from
the northeast. By March, they have shifted and blow primarily
from the east. In summer, prevailing winds are out of the
southeast. These average conditions are perturbed in winter by
intrusions of polar air masses into the Gulf in the form of
frontal passages (northers) which may result in severe storms at
the Flower Gardens, with waves approaching 16 ft (5 m) in height.
Furthermore, the northwestern Gulf is in the path of hurricanes
which pass through the region during summer and fall.

(b) Hydrography

Due largely to conditions of climate and runoff, the coastal
marine environment in the northwestern Gulf, though exceedingly
productive in terms of biomass and fisheries, is too harsh to
support the development of tropical reef systems such as those
existing at the Flower Gardens. Waters over most of the
continental shelf are too cold in winter and too turbid year
round due to sedimentation and sediment resuspension. During
periods of peak spring runoff, nearshore surface salinities may
drop substantially below 30 ppt and may be as low as 20 ppt near
the Mississippi and Atchafalaya deltas..

There is a strong tendency for these coastal water masses to
be held onshore and shunted west most of the year (particularly
during February to May) by the general shelf circulation pattern
and the prevailing winds, thereby allowing the tropical oceanic
water masses of the open Gulf to predominate on the outermost
shelf where the Flower Gardens are located. Typically, currents
on the inner shelf between the Mississippi and central Texas are
directed downcoast (westward and southwestward). Currents on the
outer shelf usually,flowtoward.the northeast and east. In
summer, this pattern may be disrupted, resulting in current
reversals and considerable cross-shelf exchange west of the
Mississippi (Figure 6).

The net result of this tenuous balance between neritic and
oceanic water movements is a shelf-edge zone wherein the near

-y Lp :L c= aL x- x, sms @c It-- 40a X" r-I m

GUS a VA-170PIS

C= R S-.A'nC"

zw=

=M 2 STATXM

--------------------------
op ap op
up lip ap sp

surface water comes primarily from the south, is perpetually
clear and well lit,.yaries little-in salinity beyond.34-36 ppt
and ranges in temperature from 68* F (18* C) (barely above the
minimal requirement for tropical reef development) to'86* F (300
C) (Figure 7)-. The introduction of uplifted substratum into
these waters by salt diapirism has provided a suitable habitat
for the development of tropical Atlantic reef communities on at
least 17 shelf-edge banks off Texas and,Louisiana. Only two,
however, the East and West Flower Gardens Banks, possess crest
depths shallow enough to support coral reefs comparable to those
in the Caribbean and southern Gulf from which the Flo@Ter Garden
biota are derived.

3. Benthic Communities

The Flower Garden Banksharbor approximately 500 acres of
submerged tropical coral reefs with 18 species of hermatypic
corals. Cresting at approximately 50 ft (15 m.) below the water
surtace, the reefs extend downward to 150 ft (46 m) depths, where
the hermatypic corals are replaced by reefal communities
dominated by coralline algae. This deeper "algal terrace" covers
most surfaces down to a depth of 290 ft.

The two coral reef zones (Diploria-Montastrea-Porites and
Madracis) on the shallowest crests of the' Flower Gardens have no
counterparts on the 15 or so similar banks stretching eastward
toward the Mississippi The lower-lying benthic communities at
the Flower Gardens, however, are representative of reef
assemblages occurring on other outer continental shelf banks in
the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. All of the biotic zones so far
recognized on the other shelf-edge carbonate banks (except the
Millepora-Sponge zone, which occurs*6nly on claystone-siltstone
outcrops) are represented at the Flower Gardens (Figures 8, 9,
10).

(a) Diploria-Montastrea-Porites Zone

The shallowest of the.Flower Garden biotic zones is the
Diploria- Montastrea-Porites zone.*,'The coral reefs,in this zone,
at depths of 50 to 120 @t (15 to 36 m), are of considerable
interest to scientist's.because they are isolated from other reef
systems by over 300 nautical miles,(550 km) and exist under
hydrographic conditions generally considered marginal for
tropical reef formation. Lar4ely because of their aesthetic
appeal, the reefs in this zone have'been the primary focus of
concern about the ecological fate of the Flower Gardens in light
of the increasing impact of human activity.

Possibly,because of their isolation and the marginal
hydrographic Conditions in whichithey exist, the Flower Garden
coral reefs are conside rably less diverse than their more
southerly counterparts. The Flower Garden reefs,, made, up of 7

m Ip -c-xv -t !s3 c) r-i c> cnct= -t 4= Z c@ rx 4@

SUbSt2ndal N017ft Influence - Penodic
High ruraidity and Reduced Salinity Oceanic Water
and TOMOOMM

pivor Puna# Winmr rwmwmt&wm
Oft" LM rhm Irc to Irc

20-

40-

W -
Love"
EM Avasocra Soongs Zone 3
flo- c4ral Reeft 44'
mgal-soonge Zone
100. Anboaltmnan Une
N""Osd Zone
CL Neonvaid Law (higM turbiditY aft
120-
"dim"Mution)
Plemesm-6-Ove Be"
1AO I C4"ie
2 Sonnter
ISO. 3 C4ffee L&WW
4 ScuVw"
Alclardles
Em Flower Garden
200m 7 JakkUla
Gover
2201 *Uq" PQm@WmdW to
I al%iVV. 0%V. Od light dIfFW

Figure

c> x-i m :L 4= xx 4c)mx m 13& C>IC M MVICI n C31 -t= A C:-.
W X c> w4m 3r a m x- cl 4m riL n ma. r-i Ic

F
< M a-d Note: High diversity coral reefs a P(plarfe-Abntastm-ftrites
<!@W J.04 040 i :.: Zone. Low diversity coral reefs a StepAmmomia-Millepora Zone.
dIMA This figure is also representative of the Nat Flower Garden
Bank.

NNW
3bb a

me >

Cow" andomm" O"d
"N
9"d

4P Low* 44- bomb bbo"
Caftmoommob d04 SAW-
.. WOMP wzhi@"-m 806"Oom 60=60"

_y
&Wpdmd.

Lhe hmms"ft

C400"a" j"Os"O"

do# AftmWom phmbd'
bw" %P
A-0

<34 VbPW"m Pena

do* Dedba"S
CdWW @::fj

1pammom" bug$ 86861"s
r08001"
Od 00 m"P 4 Selftseme

F1gure 8

:L -t -t c= a) MaL I-- -t c> rx
mamm,t v2cn1w*--x- 00Lx-c14-.-z-x me-ax-lic

Uving nqn amervirv core 'so
Z.-4WI
tavmg @ow dftwww cww few
zoml
'cnofft cover" wtm 31 tft c" unfects M-S
IA"opmeds za"i
Knolls or 09 UrUCtWn COV00411 -l" SDWVWt
isnaft of wft &*W fL*&#V A49W Zwel
C= cmamme swm aw -AMW -her* Sals"m to ""mg cor"
OWL C"Orrwo *1 oft vid am-is G"V" trol" tftft
oco'sl 006"s Fect"l; *ameen2 AM 82m coolift
cormarmwo at Ilarld and-aoons .7.1" a Sucamnlial
Cof"V Or 000 -C tCrWftA-t@f 1110110lftS 1AM00"S"Re

4 SON 1 actfol" coff""Ume" 001100 av
coram,ow AOCMW. @qft S"059011tow 0-ilwUpo"s of
smilil sgsn .0 MM 4CS MD I- Sna i#&FV a6qao:
Mg& MQGUM aftO rU0*la WIGOM94A air C*WW
no
&Mortere SOF4 of ON M&M Dollom $Algal-Socroge Za I
sftvop@@fwo -am"t"w. foge@ lwgdpv coverve
CMAM Of COM" m4a*: *00091COY SJ"Wlsf to
vt Deal'If-ata"woo 0111
Partly afe-.10 MPM ammomnairrml, co"m -rm I,vwq
mot"it Comm^@ Sigae. -M ocesmanst cr@ats Arle -*SOS
10 of r-ornnuvoc Car"
amm"d reaft commol imin Amm at hAo $"I ano
Deenng low armrs" itistramm commvwwrv lctuo"
tooo. actocaryn am somewv M*tVoc

5011. @ftmlll NNIA 00"00 4640041 DY OW04"N IMSWI
p
uw large man" ots"In-c ft""Oorm" am hiroas
St

V" L

0 BIOTIC ZONATION
LUT FLOWER GARCEN BANK
0 Quv OF kmaco - Tax" Irv

comonuo By
r"OL4" j. SMIC.W. STt*%ef 7 VIACA
Wo cHmfST0 I- Comm

OVAATWff OF OCL4MOGPAPNY
rexAs Aam umvgRSITY
'j fool

COWOUPI 1#47IRVAL 10 MCTM
0AnAk so LEM
Z7

rigure 9

M:Lcnot--14--
W40ftt-- V100Wft3r OMVaft" SMI-11C

Olt -ra

BIOTIC ZONATION
WEST FLOWER CARDEN BANK '--7777-77= ..... ..
GULF OF MEXICO - TEXAS

co"O.L.90 sy
-MCMAS@ SpiGmT STJP"ENT V1AQA
anc C"411STOP14611 L. COJAGS

zspAArmtr% -- '.)F CCEANOGRAP-M
rEXAS A&M UNIVUSITY

M.NTSAYAL. to MIFT"Is
DArum- 56A 6EVIL J

-A 011 *-M

lot all.
tow. W

'4(

rot v/. A.

low.
44

. .. ................

4
M Ltvmq Mqft (111001 fir WrIP MO

low an"
U.Ing IV Coro me

carbonate 1111100 am flifted: w"vv amscom To IMAQ Come
"Wis. Or ON * so" on coonii cm v tram owl
'g;;@-p7"j. between 7'
-of (cargo . ane M fP not
Cafflonsoo of Sam and dews weth 8 suomm"Im
Conigigrigm ol bemnse forev"Mirter formbift tAmontstepind
Psomi
Nor d go 911V WON bomm Conwnkw*ov GOWAnsed OV
-01410 810M. WAM UMMOMW 000"11000110.
a mild am AOSorms SM W?" am 101611f vq".I
Comwo a" nodums am fume Wndensin ov Wargo
catoonew tow or "m mm M110m fA"op-Saisn" Zone.
am mm -M wit" Im"
crustsar" nowas
of nmepkipp"m ..
OIWM rnft cumbirm VAM VWIOM at Own soch"m am
iow dime my simitiliv- cam"nunstv .004"
oemmoorm am mom" ar4wwdm"w

Ar SOL is". OMA Doom domwwmo Wt moi ovm -Atm&paom
W" Rowan" mommisperem arm Imines

IWtv imal Pak.

lrig%Lre 10

large, closely-packed heads and dominated by the star coral,
Montastrea annularis, conspicuously lack populations of shallow-
water octocorals (sea fans, sea whips) and branching corals of
the genus Acropora (staghorn and elkhorn corals) which are
abundant on reefs to the south. There are only 18 species of
reef building corals in the Diploria-Montastrea-Porites Zone
(Table 1), compared to 34 in the southern Gulf and 55 in the
Caribbean.

(b) Madracis Zone

The other reef zone occurring at the Flower Gardens, but not
at other banks in the region, is the Madracis zone. It is
dominated almost entirely by thickets of the small branching
coral, Madracis mirabilis. Knolls composed of the skeletal
remains of this species are found at the margins of the Diploria@
Montastrea-Porites zone in water depths of 90 to 150 ft (28 to 46
m). Some of the knolls are covered with Madracis thickets while
others have been overgrown by the.main.reef, possibly indicating
a successional relationship between the two zones.. Several
knolls are covered seasonally with dense populations of macro-
algae and are known as a Leafy Algae zone.

Lower diversity coral reefs occur in places at the Flower
Gardens and on two other neighboring banks at depths between 120
and 180 ft (36 and 55 m). These reefs harbor only 12 varieties
of reef building corals, the dominant varieties being
stephanocoenia michelini, and the fire coral MilleRora sp.
Stephanocoenia-Millepora zone.

(d) Algal-Sponge-Zone

The Algal-Sponge zone is the most important source of
carbonate substratum produced on the Flower Gardens and the other
shelf-edge banks. This zone, at depths from 150 to 290 ft (46 to
88 m), is overwhelmingly dominated by crustose coralline algae,
primarily Lithothamnium, Lithoporella and Tenarea. Forming vast
areas of algal nodules as well as algal reef patches and
pavements, these organisms are responsible for most of the reef-
building activity in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Leafy
algae are common within the zone and the assemblage of epibenthic
invertebrates is probably as diverse here as on the coral reefs
that have grown upward from the algal platforms.

(e) Nepheloid Laver

Below the Algal-Sponge zone there is generally insufficient
light to support reef-building activity by either corals or
coralline algae. However, evidence of previous reef-building is

TABLE

FLOWER GARDEN CORALS AND CALCAREOUS ALGAE

Cenus of
Collection Abundance
and or ____________________________________________________
Observation DMP Mad SM AS
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Red calcareous algae
Corallinaceae
Poroiithon 23-32 ?
Hydroiithon 23-65 ?
Archaeoiithothamnium 23-72 ?
Lithophyllum 23-80 ?
Lathoporella 23-85 ?
Tenarea 23-90- ?
Lithothamruum 23-90- ?
Mesophyllum 23-85 ?
Fosiieila? 23 ?

Squamariaceae
Peyssonneiia 23-90- ?

Green calcareous algae
Codiaceae
Haiimeda spp. 21-91 ?
Haiimeda tuna 48-61
Udotea spp. 40-64 ?
Udotea cyathiformus 58

Foraminiferans
Gypsina piana 21-68 ?

Corals
Astrocoenidae
Stephanocoenia michelini 21-52
Pocilloporidae
Madracis spp. 15-92
Madracis asperula 48-84
Madracis decaciis 15-41
Madracis ef. formosa* 62
Madracis murabiis 23-40
Madracis myriaster* 113
Agaricidae
Agaricidae (saucer-shaped)+ 18-12
Agaricia spp. 15-76
Agaricia agaricites 20-24 ?
Agaricia fragiis ? 20-53 ?
Helioseris 20-84 ?
Siderastreidae
Siderastrea siderea 21-50
Poritidae
Porites astreoides 21-40
Porites fureata 21
Favijdae
Colpophylia spp. 21-47
Colpophyllia amararthus 21-26
Colpophyllia natans 21-26
Diploria strigosa 15-55
Montastrea annularis 21-43
Montrastrea cavernosa 19-60

Mussidae
Mussa angulosa 21-54
Scolymia sp. (spp. ?)+ 18-46
Scolymia cubensis 21-27 ?
Milleporidae
Millepora alcicornis 15-55
Caryophylliidae
Oxysmilia sp.? 82-101
Pararyathus sp.? 19-? ? ?

present in the form of drowned reefs, which occur abundantly
around the bases of the Banks below 300 ft (90 m)-depth levels.
These remnants imply that the water was shallower at some time in
the past as a result of a sea-level rise or local subsidence, or
both. The drowned reefs are typically laden with silt that
continually settles out of the turbid bottom waters (nepheloid
layers) surrounding the Banks. The biota associated with these
drowned reefs are low in diversity and abundance and quite
different in species content from those occupying the living reef
zones above 290 ft (88 m).

(f) Brine Seeps

A unique feature of the Flower Garden Bank ecosystem is the
existence of two brine seeps at the East Bank. The more recently
discovered of the two is at a depth of 157 ft (48 m) on the
southwest flank of the bank. The other, more well known, issues
from hard substratum at a depth of 233 ft (71 m) on the eastern
margin of the East Bank (Figure 11). This seep, named Gollum's
Lake and Gollum's Canyon by researchers, this 200 ppt brine
spring and its associated biota are worthy in their own right of
Sanctuary protection. The brine lake occupies most of the sand
floor of a 13 ft (4 m) deep, amphitheater-shaped basin 165 (50 m)
long by 100 ft (30 m) wide. The lake is approximately 10 inches
(25 cm) deep and overflows into Gollum's Canyon. The canyon is
33 to 50 ft (10-15 m) wide, and it winds 315 ft (96 m) from the
basin to the edge of the Bank.

The brine in the lake results from the dissolution of salt
by interstitial sea water at the crest of the salt plug beneath
the Bank. Heavier than sea water, it percolates downward through
porous reef rock and exits through the sand on the basin floor.
In addition to containing large amounts of salt, the solution
becomes highly charged with sulfides and loses all dissolved
oxygen. This heavy, high salinity, high sulfide, anoxic brine is
toxic to most marine organisms, but its toxicity diminishes as it
overflows from the lake into a stream at the bottom of the canyon
and progressively mixes with overlying sea water on its passage
to the edge of the Bank.

Whereas typical Algal-Sponge zone biota surround the seep
system, the community of organisms within the system is
structured in response to balances between the sulfide and oxygen
content of the water and the resultant toxicity gradients. Thus,
the lake is occupied by a community of sulfur bacteria capable of
chemosynthetic and photosynthetic primary production using
sulfide or sulfate either in the absence of oxygen or at the
oxic-anoxic boundary. Some of these bacteria extend into the
mixing stream where sulfide and oxygen temporarily co-exist.

ve- X, X"I

W-W W-41 W-W

Note: (A) Brine lake (Gollum's lake), (8) overflow from
lake at 71 m (233 ft) depth, (C) stream of mixing brine and
seawater. Arrow to right of (C) indicates small brine pool
(Corner Pool) below overflow. Canyon mouth is 79 m (249 ft)
deep.' Area indicated as Chaetowrp& my be mixtures of
Chwtmrphe &W Cladophwa.

M-W.d IPW

r?
A

Alas

WAO
<M *"meow" 40K hw
4dIM Wow= wwmew@ 49=XIM "-W
am 4@ do ANOWUM
PWINWAd vwr@ OWUMS

40 cftpv@ &MMMM
10

wm@

Mats of bacteria from the mixing stream, plus bacterial
biomass overflowing from the lake, provide a source of food for
certain interstitial animals (largely gnathostomulids) which are
capable of resisting high levels of usually toxic sulfide in the
upper part of the mixing stream. Farther downstream, the
gnathostomulid community is replaced gradually by tanaidaceans,
amphipods and similar organisms less tolerant of sulfide but
capable of using the bacterial input as food.

The brine-seep system is an interesting shallow .water
analogy to sulfide-dependent, deep-sea, hydrothermal vent
communities and has great potential as a natural laboratory for
the study of processes of considerable current interest to the
marine science community.

4. Other Species Associated With Benthos

The Flower Garden Banks harbor at least 80 species of algae,
196 known macro-invertebrate species and more than 175 fish
species. The reef-building corals and coralline algae construct
and maintain the substratum and, through a multitude of
intraspecific and interspecific relationships, largely control
the structure of benthic communities occupying the Banks. Thus
they are by far the most important organisms in the Flower Garden
ecosystem.

Reef surfaces shallower than 100 ft (30 m) provide a habitat
for various types of mollusks. Mollusks present in these areas
include: the Atlantic thorny oyster (Spondylus americanus),
several varieties of scallops (F. Malleidae), the turtle cone
(Conustestudinarius), the Mindanao cone (C.-mindanus), cowries
(Genus Cypraea), the Hawk-wing conch (Strombus raninus), the
brown-lined latirus (Latirus Infundibulum), and the Atlantic
Hairy Triton (Cvmatiu Rileare) (Lipka, 1974). Other
invertebrates found at the Flower Gardens include: the brittle
stars (Q. Ophiurida), sea urchins (Class Echinoidea), the feather
duster worm (Hypsicomus elegans), spiny lobsters (Panulirus argus
and Panulirus auttatus), and the Spanish lobster (Scyllarides
aecruinoctialis)

Pelagic fish at the Flower Gardens include a number of
small, brightly colored reef fishes such as the blue tang
(Acanthurus coruleus), the gobies (F. Gobiidae), the bluehead
(Thalassoma bifasciatum), the damsel fishes (F. Pomacentridae),
the butterfly fishes (F. Chaetodontidae), some of the
parrotfishes (F. Scaridae), and some of the triggerfishes (F.,
Balistidae) (Bright and Cashman, 1974). The most important of
the larger, harvestable fish are groupers of various kinds and
red, vermilion, and other types of snapper.

Benthic and demersal fish, such as snappers and groupers,
play a major role in the coral-reef ecosystem. Some larger

carangids and some species of trigger fish occasionally move or
uproot coral during their feeding and nest-building activities
(Glyn, Steward and McClosker, 1972). Parrotfish and other
species feed on corals directly (see Randall, 1974, for a review
of fish predation on coral). Although such activities are
destructive to coral, they reflect normal ecological
relationships among biota in the reef system.

Snappers and other demersal fish, grazing on algae in the
live-coral and hard-bank zones, may also generate much of the
detritus (Hiatt and Strasburg, 1960; Stephenson and Searles,
1960; Randall, 1976) that could form the base of the coral-reef
food chain. Hobson and Chess (1978) monitored the activities of
planktivorous and detritivorous fishes that feed on assorted
biota in nearby waters and then return to the reef where they
defecate particles essential to the diet of coral polyps. A
similar nutrient cycle from algae to corals has been suggested by
Lewis (1977) for herbivorous fishes. All feeding and excreting
activities contribute to the suspended detritus load that forms
the bulk of coral-polyp diets. The complex energetics of these
interrelationships are discussed by Baka (1966, 1969).

Sea turtles are occasionally seen at the Flower Gardens,
both at the surface and on the reef, but only the loggerhead,
Caretta caretta, has been reliably identified. The loggerhead,
it should be noted, is a threatened species. The only marine
mammal frequently reported near the Flower Gardens is the spotted
dolphin, Stenellaplagiodon. Other species of turtles and marine
mammals are probably casual visitors. Although the Flower
Gardens are too far offshore for the typical occurrence of
coastal sea birds other than an occasional tern or booby, nearby
oil platforms attract migrating land birds, especially cattle
egrets, and sometimes warblers, vireos and other small species.
The land birds are usually exhausted from long overwater-flights.

5. Historical/Cultural Resources
The Flower Garden Banks lie well seaward of any area
identified as having a high probability of containing either
historical or prehistorical cultural resources (Interagency
Archeological Services, 1977). It is considered unlikely that
historical/cultural resources of any significance exist in the
vicinity of the Banks.

C. Human Activities

The principal human activities in the area of the Flower
Garden Banks are oil and gas exploration and development,
commercial fishing, recreational pursuits, ship transiting, and
research. Generally, these activities have a small impact on
Flower Garden resources, but anchoring by large vessels at the

Banks poses a special problem. The existing and proposed
regulatory regimes governing these activities are discussed in
Part III, Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative. The
environmental impacts of the activities are discussed in Part IV,
Environmental Consequences.

1. oil and Gas Activities

All current oil and gas operations at the Flower Garden
Banks are subject to special stipulations, imposed by the
Minerals Management Service (MMS) to protect sensitive biological
resources. The stipulations include the establishment of a no-
activity zone at each Bank.

Hydrocarbon reserves at the Flower Gardens are generally
expected to be natural gas, but the presence of oil at the Banks
cannot be discounted; at least small quantities of oil are
normally recovered from gas wells. The closest crude oil
production is located approximately 6.5 nm (12 km) northwest of
the West Bank. oil company activity involving the leasing of
tracts (Table 2), exploratory drilling, and production operations
seems to indicate a favorable outlook for the development of
hydrocarbon deposits in the vicinity of the Banks. A Mobil Oil
production platform was constructed in 1981 one nautical mile
southeast of the East Bank in block A-389 (Figure 12), and 42
blocks had been leased in the vicinity by October, 1987 (MMS,
1987).

2. Commercial Fishing

Several species of fish occurring at the Flower Gardens and
other regional banks are of proven or potential value to
fisheries. Red and vermilion snappers and groupers have been
harvested in the vicinity of the Flower Gardens by commercial
hook-and-line fishermen since the 1880's. Currently, the
commercial-fish harvest consists predominately of snappers. The
Flower Gardens and other banks rimming the Gulf are frequented by
a fleet of 14 to 20 snapper boats, based largely in Pensacola,
Florida. Most of the effort at the Flower Gardens is directed
toward the fringe of the coral reef cap in 100 to 165 ft (30 to
50 m) water depths where snappers seem most abundant. Fishing
vessels apparently do not anchor at the Flower Gardens during
fishing operations.

Some types of commercial fishing gear used in the Gulf of
Mexico could result in appreciable physical damage to Flower
Garden bottom formations. Fish trawls being dragged along the
bottom, for example, could cause scarring of the living reefs
similar to the damage caused by anchoring. The use of fish
trawls at the Flower Gardens, however, is impractical because

Table 2

TRACTS IN THE VICINITY OF THE EAST AND WEST FLOWER GARDEN BANKS
SUBJECT TO THE MMS BIOLOGICAL STIPULATION (ALSO REFER TO FIGURES
12 and 13)

TRACT LOCATION LEASE STATUS
(L--LEASED)

A-351 EAST FLOWER GARDEN(L)
A-352
A-353 (L)
A-354
A-355
A-361 WEST FLOWER GARDEN(L)
A-362 11 (L)
A-363 of
A-364 EAST & WEST FLOWER GARDEN
A-365 EAST FLOWER GARDEN(L)
A-366 it (L)
A-367 to (L)
A-368 of (L)
A-373 of (L)
A-374 of (L)
A-375 It
A-376 Is (L)
A-377 EAST & WEST FLOWER GARDEN
A-378 WEST
A-379 WEST
A-380 WEST FLOWER GARDEN(L)
A-381 WEST
A-382 WEST FLOWER GARDEN(L)
A-383 if (L)
A-384 It (L)
A-385 it (L)
A-386 EAST & WEST FLOWER GARDEN
A-387 EAST
A-388
A-389 L
A-390 EAST FLOWER GARDEN L
A-394
A-395 L
A-396 EAST &WEST FLOWER GARDEN
A-397 WEST L
A-377 WEST
A-398 WEST L
A-399 WEST L
A-400 WEST L
A-401 WEST L

A-402 L
A-403 L
A-173 L
A-217 L
A- 95 EAST FLOWER GARDEN
A- 96 EAST
A- 97 to L
A-133 West L
A-134
A-135 WEST L
A-136 WEST
A-138 EAST
A-139 EAST L
A-140 EAST L
A-177 WEST L
A-178 11
A-180 L

TABLE 2

FLOWER GARDEN BANK TRACTS SUBJECT TO MMS BIOLOGICAL
STIPULATION

LEASING STATUS* - OCTOBER, 1987

EAST FLOWER GARDEN WEST FLOWER GARDEN EAST & WEST
FLOWER GARDEN

TRACT STATUS TRACT STATUS TRACT
STATUS*

A- 95 L A-133 A-364

A- 96 L A-134 L A-377

A- 97 L A-135 A-386
A-138 L A-136 A-396
A-139 L A-173
A-140 L A-177
A-351 L A-178
A-352 L A-179
A-353 L A-180 L
A-354 L A-217 L
A-355 L A-361 L
A-365 L A-362 L
A-366 L A-363 L
A-367 L A-378 L
A-368 L A-379 L
A-373 L A-380 L
A-374 A-381 L
A-375 A-382 L
A-376 L A-383
A-387 L A-384 L
A-388 A-385
A-389 L A-397 L
A-390 L A-398
A-394 A-399 L
A-395 L A-400 L
A-403 L A-401 L
A-402
A-573 L
A-596 L

Source: MMS 1987.
*"L" indicates that the tract is leased; no notation indicates
that it is not leased.

-am _1L vi c@ m

(17) MACNEILBANK

-355 A-354 -353 A-352
A A -351

X_3,76@,000 00, A
Y_ 109,30c),00,

V-102,960.00'

A-364 A-365 A,366 A-367 A-W

(201

4 en (21)
(22)
87,120.00'

EAST F LOWE R G. I BAN K (23
LO N
14)
A-377 A-375 AV'5 A-374 A-373

I x
4 MILE ZONE
NI
V-71,21i0.00'

4 MILE ZONE
X,
Mobile Oil (24)
orporation
Platform
A-386 A,387 A-M A-389 A-390

(331 (25?
a
Y-SISA40.0

C,
96
SIS -
v (26
A-396 A-395 A-394
(32) y-10 IOS 920.00'
(27

28)
500.0o, t 129) 141
M -HIGH DIVERSITY CORAL REEF 1 140 Ix
EE3 PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS BOUNDARIES a 20 Thousand Feet
@
354
A

@I (23
I@E

EL'"M NOAcriviTYZONE- (30

Figure 12

C@ W4-- Jr 0 aL 3r a 4-M r*36 3B 4m ri 1.p-"

A-3130 A-361 A-363
62
z
0
(12

LU
I-- V-87,120.00'
-Z X-
LU (13)

co
cn
z
0 A-381 A-380 A-379 A-378
m Iwo as
0
< Ix
LU

LU
z
4 MILE ZONE
< <
.j LLJ

A-382 A-383 A-384 A-385
<

WVb I r LUVvr-m GAROEN BAf

4 MILE ZONE

A-400 A-391 A-397

Y-39;soo.oo,

136
135
134
z AAOI
A) 173 < 133
UA co
z

V-10.090 080.00,
LU <
(4) W 179
177 178
HIGH DIVERSITY CORAL REEF 136 d
EEE]PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONSBOUNDARIES ISO
jo NO ACTIVITY ZONE 2) (1) 0 20 Thcound Feet

Figure 13

1) the bottom is such rough terrain that trawl nets would be
subject to snag.ging, and 2) fish trawls and traps, long lines,
and gill or hoop nets have very limited potential in catching
snappers. Reef fish, including snappers, are best caught with
handlines (NMFS, 1981), the only commercial fishing method
documented at the Banks. In any case, the use of bottom trawls,
bottom longlines, traps and pots is.now prohibited at the Flower
Gardens on the portions of the Banks shallower than the 50'fathom
(300 foot). isobath by regulations implementing the Fishery
Management Plan for Coral and Coral Reefs.

3. Recreation

The principal recreational attractions at the Flower Garden
Banks are their regionally unique coral communities and the
abundance,and diversity of fish found in their ecosystems. Some
recreational boats travel to the Flower Gardens solely for sport
fishing purposes, but the majorit'y in the past have probably
carried SCUBA divers (Bright, 1986, personal communication). The
primary base-ports for recreationists are Freeport, Houston-
Galveston, and Port Arthur, Texas, and Cameron, Louisiana. Peak
recreational use occurs in July, August, and September when .
weather conditions,are generally most favorable and leisure time
is greatest.

only the most experienced private recreational boat
operators are willing to attempt the trip. Because of the often
.rigorous offshore conditions, private recreational boats visiting
the reefs are seldom smaller than 30 ft (9 m) in length. Trips
to the Flower Garden Banks and back require an average of 16
hours, and'therefore many boats remain overnight, weather
permitting.

In the late 19701s, between 50 and 150 b oats were estimated
to visit the reefs over the course of a year (Blood, 1978,
personal communication). Since the emplacement of an oil
production platform near East Flower Garden in 1981, navigation
to the site has become easier and boat traffic at the Banks has
probably increased (Bright, 1986, personal communica@ion). With
improved public awareness of the site after designation,
recreational visits to Flower Garden waters could increase
further. Moreover, as oil and gas development c 'ontinues in the
region, the attractiveness of the area for recreational fishing
could be enhanced by the emplacement of additional oil production
platforms.' Platforms provide new habitats for fish, and platform
crews can furnish emergency assistance to boats in distress.
Nonetheless, the Banks' distance from shore will continue to
limit recreational usage.

Sport fishermen visit the Flower Gardens in small parties on
private boats or in larger groups on charter vessels. Fishermen

on both classes of vessels spend one to several days in the area
using handlines to fish for snappers and groupers (Blood, 1978).
These vessels tend to anchor along the reef margins in water 100
to 150 ft (30 to 36 m) deep where snappers and groupers are most
likely to be found (Pulley, 1978, personal communication).

In addition to fishing by hook and line, some spearfishing
occurs in Flower Garden waters. Snappers are seldom found at
depths shallow enough to attract divers, and thus they are not
normally caught by spear fishermen. The target species for
spearfishing are generally the larger, predatory species such as
hinds, groupers, jacks, and possibly sharks. If these fish
became sufficiently depleted, predator/prey relationships could
be adversely affected (Bright, 1986, personal communication).

Recreational boats visiting the Flower Garden Banks for
diving purposes anchor on the shallowest portions of the reefs.
Although the more experienced divers may explore the deeper water
at the edges of the reefs, charter boat divers, and probably most
divers visiting in private craft, tend to limit their dives to 80
ft (25 m) (Blood, 1978, personal communication; Schaefer, 1978,
personal communication). Because the waters at the East Bank are
shallower, it receives considerably heavier recreational use than
the West Bank (Blood, 1978, personal communication). Anchoring
by recreational boats on the upper portions of the Banks is of
potential concern in protecting reef resources, but it does not
present nearly as severe a threat as anchoring by large vessels
(see Part IV, Section I: Environmental'Consequences of
Alternatives).

Other activities of recreational visitors, in addition to
spearfishing and anchoring, that may adversely affect Flower
Garden resources are overboard trash disposal and the collection
of specimens or souvenirs by divers. Many recreational visitors
to the Flower Gardens discard beer cans, soda bottles and other
items over the side rather than stowing them until they return to
port. Such non-biodegradable litter may remain in place for many
years, impinging upon the site's aesthetic quality and thereby
reducing its recreational value. Plastic items included in this
litter',ptesent a hazard to turtles and other creatures that may
ingest or become entangled in them.

The collection of souvenirs and specimens is associated with
virtually all recreational diving, but it is particularly
prevalent in coral reef environments because of the abundance of
attractive and removable items,. These items,.collected typically
for display in private homes, are generally small enough to be
carried underwater easily and are usually aesthetically pleasing
in form or color. They include various types of shellst corals,
starfish, sea urchins, anemones, small shrimp, feather duster
worms, and brightly colored reef fish.

The most common method of collecting souvenirs and specimens
is simply to grasp them with the hand. However, a range of other
techniques may be employed, depending on the ambitiousness of the
diver and the size or characteristics of the object he wishes to
collect. For example, collectors may use crowbars to pry corals
or shells loose; a block and tackle to raise heavy objects; and
slurp guns, hand nets, or fish-stunning chemicals to capture
small reef fish.

Tropical fish collecting for display in private marine
aquaria is a popular hobby and a growing commercial enterprise
throughout the Gulf of Mexico. A strong market exists in the
Gulf states and throughout the country for small, colorful,
coral-reef fishes. Some collection of tropical fish at the
Flower Garden Banks was reported in the late 1970's (Blood, 1978,
personal communication). Now, growing public awareness of the
regionally unique nature of the Flower Garden Banks could make
them increasingly attractive as a source of aquarium fish.
However, because recreational divers seldom dive deeper than 80
feet, souvenir collection may be generally limited to the
shallower portions of the Flower Garden coral-reef caps.

4. Commercial Shipping

The area surrounding the Banks is transited by commercial
cargo-carrying vessels en route to and from Texas coastal ports.
A maj or east-west shipping fairway, the "Gulf Safety Fairway,"
passes 6 nautical miles (11 km) south of West Flower Garden Bank.
This fairway leads to Corpus Christi, Texas, and connects with
other fairways serving major Texas and Louisiana ports. One of
these connecting fairways is located some 35 nautical miles (65
km) west of the West Bank and another is located about 45
nautical miles (83 km) east of the East Bank. Although use of
fairways by vessel traffic is not mandatory, traffic pattern data
collected in 1978 indicates that most vessels passing close to
the Banks follow the Gulf Safety Fairway (Naval Ocean
Surveillance Information Center (NOSIC), 1978). The traffic
patterns plotted by NOSIC in 1978 indicated that most of the
vessels using the fairway were traveling between Corpus Christi
and other U.S. ports. The remainder of the commercial vessel
.traffic in the vicinity of the Flower Garden Banks was engaged in
domestic trade involving Lavaca, Point Comfort, and Freeport
(NOSIC, 1978).

5. Anchoring by Large Vessels

The MMS stipulations prohibiting oil and gas development
operations within the no-activity zones apply to anchoring by
vessels engaged in development activities, including platform
service vessels, but anchoring by other vessels remains
unregulated and continues to be a threat to Flower Garden
resources. Further, the MMS stipulations apply merely on a lease

by lease basis. Both the 'coral reefs above 150 ft (46 m) depths
and the algal terraces below have been subjected to damage by
ground tackle (anchors, chains, cables) from vessels for many
years. Anchor damage probably began in the late 1800's with the
onset of the commercial snapper-grouper fishery, and it has
become more serious in recent times.

Research groups have reported large tankers anchored on the
reefs as early as 1972 (CSA, 1984). Other more recent sightings
are listed in Table 3. The NICK CANDIES anchoring is the best
documented incident to date (See 6. Research and Education and
Part IV, Section 1, B. Environmental Consequences, The Status Quo
Alternative).

I obviously, most anchoring instances have gone, and continue
to go, unobserved. However, lost anchors, chains and cables are
not uncommon on the Banks and have been encountered repeatedly.
In their numerous traverses of the Flower Gardens by researchers
in a submersible, Bright and Rezak (1976; 1978; Rezak and Bright,
1981) often observed.apparent anchor damage in the form of scars
or drags on the bottom. The largest anchor scar found extended
for approximately one mile on the algal terrace at West Bank and
was apparently continuous with a "roadcut-like" gouge into the
coral reef (Bright, 1983). Bright notes that anchoring appears
to be increasing in frequency at the Flower Gardens, though there
are no hard data to support this opinion. Vessel traffic is
certainly increasing, due in part to the development of offshore
oil and gas in the area (Bright, 1985b).

6. Research and Education

Scientific interest in the Flower Garden Banks was expressed
initially in a 1930 paper by A. C. Trowbridge on the Mississippi
Delta. The Banks first appeared on U.S. charts following a 1936
hydrographic survey made by the Coast and Geodetic Survey (now
the National ocean-Survey) along the continental shelf break in
the northwestern Gulf. One year later, Francis Shepard suggested
correctly that the banks mapped during the survey were formed as
a result of salt diapirism. Contour maps of the East and West
Flower Gardens were published by Carsey in 1950.

H. C. Stetson stated in 1953 that the Banks were either
reefs which had kept pace with rising sea level, or salt domes
(diapirs) with thin caps of calcareous organisms. Parker and
Curray dredged coral fragments from the Flower Gardens and in
1956 published another generalized map of the Banks. In the
following year, Nettleton confirmed the salt dome origin for the
West Flower Garden through bottom gravity surveys. Subsequent
studies that included the taking of drill cores have firmly

Based on Bright, 1985b.

TABLE 3

Recent Incidents of Anchoring.at _the Flower Garden Banks Witnessed by _R@searchers

DATE VESSEL TYPE ANCHORING SITE REMARKS

1978 Liberian tanker 1/2 mi. from reef crest

1978 77-UCO FLORIDA Tanker 3/8 mi. from reef crest
in 27-30 m (89-98 ft)
water depths

1979 RACHEL SANCHEZ Liberian tanker On nodule terrace Eeft within 45 min. of
radio/telephone contact

1979 OGDEN CHAMPION U.S. tanker East Flower Garden Reef Destroyed monitoring
site marker t*ioy

2980 WIL.LIAM! LAMAR Tanker Did not anchor - Left after contact by
MELMN Intended to anchor radio/telephone
within 100 m (328 ft)
of research vessel

1983 NICK CANDIES Tug and tow East Flower Garden Reef Reef damage assessment
barge crest in 24-30 m (79-98 by Continental Shelf
ft) water depths Assoc. Inc.

1985 Oil field East Flower Garden Reef Fishing at anchor
service vessel crest

established that both of the Flower Garden Banks, as well as the
other shelf-edge banks in the region, are salt diapirs.

The true nature of living benthic communities at the Flower
Gardens was uncertain until Dr. Thomas E. Pulley, Director of the
Houston Museum of Natural Science, staged trips to the Flower
Gardens, using SCUBA divers to make observations and photographs
and to collect specimens. In 1961, Dr. Pulley published the
first description of tropical coral reefs occupying the crests of
the Banks. At present, Pulley's extensive collection of Flower
Garden corals and mollusks resides in the Houston museum, where
there is also an excellent display depicting the reef.

In 1969, Levert and Ferguson published a brief review of
previous Flower Garden studies and an account of living reef
facies. At this time, interest in the Flower Gardens as objects
of scientific study was increasing due to Dr. Pulley's activities
in the preceding decade. A doctoral dissertation was produced in
1971 by G. S. Edwards of Texas A&M describing in detail the
geology and sedimentology of the West Flower Garden. The Flower
Garden Ocean Research Center, under the direction of Robert
Alderdice, was created at the.University of Texas Medical Branch
in Galveston. The results of studies carried out for the center,
including descriptions of reefal communities to depths exceeding
150 meters, were published in a 1974 book, Biota of the West
Flower Garden Bank, edited by T. Bright and L. Pequegnat.

During the same period it was realized that, because of
their structure, the outer continental shelf banks could well be
associated with commercial deposits of oil and gas. Hearings and
meetings were held by the Department of the Interior in 1973 and
1974, in part for the purpose of identifying the potential
environmental impacts of leasing the sea bed in the vicinity of
the Flower Gardens for petroleum exploration and development.
Drawing upon existing scientific information about the Banks and
advice from researchers then working at the Flower Gardens, lease
stipulations were devised for the reefs. These lease
stipulations have since been further developed and refined.

Another result of the combination of industrial interest in
the offshore banks with concern for their ecological integrity
was a substantial acceleration of environmental research at the
Flower Gardens and neighboring structures. In 1974, the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) undertook a modern electronic
positioning project, finally obtaining an accurate position for
the Flower Gardens. BLM established a contract with Texas A&M in
1975 to study the biology, geology and hydrography of the Flower
Gardens and, eventually, 38 other banks in the northwestern Gulf.
This multidisciplinary study, known as the BLM Topographic
Features Study, lasted through 1983 and resulted in the 1985
publication of Reefs And Banks of the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico
by three of the principal investigators, R. Rezak, T. Bright and

D. McGrail. This book contains the most thorough account to date
of the geological, biological and physical dynamics of the Flower
Gardens and other northwestern Gulf,banks. It'also contains a
comprehensive bibli6graphy-of*published literaturel reports,,
theses and dissertations pertaining to these banks. Brightand-
E. Powell,'with partial.,support from SRD, recently studied And
described a unique sulfide-dependent, brine seep ecosystem at the
East Flower Garden BAnk. These studies resulted@in the discovery
of at least three new species of nematodes, previously unknown to
science.

During a survey conducted immediately after the damage
caused by the NICK CANDIES'anchoring in .1 1983 (se'e 5. Anchoring by
Large Vessels), precise-positions were-determined,,'16 mm motion-
picture film-of the damage was; shot, and,numerous,still
photographs were taken. In addition, repetitive photographic
transects and quadrants were established, marked and sampled
within and adjacent to the damaged area. These observations
served as a basis for the initial damage assessment (CSA, 1984)
(see Part IV, Section I, B. Environmental Consequences, .The
Status Quo-Alternativ'e). In 1985--s1986, Gittings and Bright',
supported by SRD, again surveyed the site to ass@ess-therecovery
of the coral. The data from'this survey were analyzed in
comparison with'damage-assessment data collected two years
earlier.'@The study'f6und tha"t-all corals for which growth rate's
were measured appeared to be regrowing and that encrusting growth
rates along damaged coral borders may be more rapid than growth
rates along non-damaged borders.

As an educational resource, the Flower Gardens has'served as
the study area for the thesis or dissertation research of at
least 15 graduate students from regional universities, including
the University of Texas, Texas A&M, University of Houston, and
the University of Southwestern Louisiana. Video tapes, movies
and photographs made at the Flower Gardens have provided material
for lectures at educational institutions and presentations to a
variety of interest groups and for educational T.V. shows and
video news features as well.

The Flower Gardens' unique position as the northernmost
tropical coral reefs on the Atlantic continental shelf, combined
with their isolation from other comparable reef systems by some
.300 nautical miles of open ocean will insure continued interest
in them by researchers. Studies of the Flower Garden reef
communities may improve our knowledge of the effects of isolation
and near-stressful environmental conditions on such factors as
coral recruitment, growth and mortality, reef community structure
and diversity, and the extent to which reef systems can tolerate
the effects of man's increasing activity on the outer continental
shelf. If for no other reason, their protection is justified
because of their value as a scientific resource.

7. Ocean Incineration

Ocean incineration is regulated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to Title I of the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (33
USC 1401 et seq). The EPA has designated one deepwater disposal
.area in the Gulf of Mexico as a site for the incineration of
toxic wastes. The disposal site, located about 50 nautical miles
(100 km) south of the Banks (see Figure 3, p. 15), was designated
in 1976 for the incineration of hazardous wastes for a five year
period (41 FR 39319 (1976)). It was subsequently redesignated by
EPA in-1982 for continuing use (47 FR 17817). Burning operations
require an EPA permit, but currently no permit applications will
be reviewed until promulgation of the final ocean incineration
regulations. The site is described in 40.C.F.R. 228,12(b)(1)
(MMS, 1987).

8. Military Activity

The boundary of Military Warning Area W-602 is located just
southwest of the proposed Flower.Garden Banks National Marine
Sanctuary. Military operations within warning areas in the Gulf
include carrier maneuvers, missile testing,,.rocket firing, pilot
training, air-to-air gunnery, air-to-surface gunnery,
minesweeping operations, submarine operations, air combat
maneuvers, aerobatic training, missile testing and development,
and instrument training (MMS, 1987).

Section III: ACTION PLAN

A. Overall Management and Development

The long-term protection of resources is the highest
management priority for this,plan. Ensuring the protection of
Sanctuary resources depends on several factors affecting the
feasibility of proposed programs and actions. Factors affecting
management of the proposed Sanctuary include: its depth and
location; its proximity to hydrocarbon development operations and
shipping lanes; and the need to coordinate the responsibility for
comprehensive management of the site with other authorities.
These factors are discussed briefly below.

Visitor use of the Flower Garden Banks is severely limited
by their distance from shore and conditions at sea. These
conditions also present special problems for enforcement efforts
and research and educational activities. Because of these
constraints,, and the nature of actions planned for the proposed
Sanctuary, there is no need for a permanent, on-site Sanctuary
management structure. Management of the proposed Flower Garden
Banks National Marine Sanctuary will be the function of a
sanctuary manager assisted by a small staff.

Understanding the population dynamics of Flower Garden Banks
biota on a continuing basis and their interrelation with man's
activities in the area is of prime importance in protecting these
resources. The management plan calls for a research effort to
assess the impact of various human activities on Flower Garden
Banks ecological communities and the ability of these communities
to recover from the effects of anchor damage and other injuries.
Management oriented research studies will provide Sanctuary
management with a basis for assessing the need for additional
measures to protect and manage the Flower Garden Banks resources.

Interested organizations and the public in general will play
an important role in attaining resource protection goals in the
Sanctuary. Interpretation programs fostering public
understanding and support for Sanctuary regulations and
objectives are inherent in the plan's concept. The
interpretation program will depend largely on publications and
exhibits that convey the significance of the Sanctuary's
resources and the importance of following its regulations.

The management plan proposes actions tailored to the
specific issues affecting the Sanctuary. The plan recognizes the
need for a balanced approach reflecting the multiple use
character of the area as well as resource protection priorities.
Implementation of this plan will entail cooperation and
coordination among several agencies including NOAA, the U.S.C.G.,
the DOS, and the DOI. Because of the proximity of drilling and
production operations to the Banks, and the site's relative

isolation, the cooperation of oil and gas industry operators will
be solicited to assist in cost-effective, on-site management
activities.

The plan is designed to guide management of the proposed
Flower Garden Banks National'Marine Sanctuary for the first five
years after implementation. During this period, management
initiatives will generally fall into three basic program areas:
Resource Protection, Research, and Interpretation. The remainder
of this section describes guidelines and initiatives for each
program area.

B. Resource Protection

1. General Context for Management
The proposed designation of the Flower Garden Banks as a
national marine sanctuary focuses attention on the value of the
area's resources. To ensure that these resources are protected,
the Sanctuary resource protection program includes: (1)
coordination of policies and procedures among the agencies
sharing responsibility for resource protection; (2) participation
by other agencies and organizations in the development of
procedures to address specific management concerns (i.e.,
monitoring and emergency-response programs); and (3) the
enforcement of Sanctuary regulations in addition to those
regulations already in place.

2. Designation Document and Sanctuary Regulations

A summary of the existing regulatory regime in the area of
the proposed Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary is
included in Part III--The Status Quo Alternative. The proposed
Designation Document (Appendix 1) describes the relationship
between Sanctuary designation and other regulatory programs. The
proposed Designation Document also includes:

0 a list of activities subject to regulation now or in the
future;

0 provisions for additional regulations, as necessary.

To ensure protection of Sanctuary resources and qualities
and conserve the Flower Garden Banks habitat, NOAA proposes
regulations governing: exploration for, development, or
production of oil, gas or minerals; anchoring or otherwise
mooring? discharging or depositing materials or other matter;
alteration of the seabed; possessing various marine resources;
injuring or taking or attempting to injure or take Sanctuary
resources; possessing or using explosives or releasing electrical
charges; feeding fish; and possessing (except while passing

without interruption through the Sanctuary) or using fishing gear
except conventional hook and line gear. (This is *a summary., See
the regulations themselves for specifics.) NOAA also proposes,
for areas of the Sanctuary where oil, gas,. and mineral activities
are allowed (i.e., outside the no-activity zones), a requirement
to shunt all drilling cuttings and fluid 's to the seabed through a
downpipe that terminates an appropriate distance, but no more
than ten meters, from the seabed. A more detailed summary of
these regulations iS found in Part III, Section It A.

3. Contingency Plans for Major Emergencies.

The resources of the proposed Flower Garden Banks National
Marine Sanctuary are susceptible to natural and human-related
changes. Many of these changes are gradual and can be detected
only througli long-term monitoring of various environmental- and
biological indicators. However, certain changes in conditions
(due to an accidental oil spill,,for example) could seriously
impact resourcesand present severe health and safety.hazards.

Under the National Contingency Plan for the removal of oil
and hazardous substances, remedial action.to control or remove
such material is the responsibility of Regional Response Teams
acting through an on-scene Coordinator.and.a.Regional Response
Center. The Galveston Marine Safety Office, 8th USCG District
provides.on-scene coordination and Regional Response Center
facilities for response to oil or hazardous substance spills in
the area of the Flower Garden Banks.

Toprovide further protection to Flower Garden Banks,
resources, the,SRD will assess and monitor the state of
preparedness as it relates to the Sanctuary. This action will
entail exchanging information with government and industry
response teams and seeking their support in assessing detection
and clean-up capabilities that can be used to protect Sanctuary
resources.

A SRD-level contingency and emergency-response plan is now
under preparation. After its completion, a Sanctuary-specific
contingency and emergency-response plan'will be prepared. This.
plan will:

0 describe emerqency response procedures and coordination
requirements;

0 outline procedures for emergency research; and

0 provide damage assessment guidelines.

In conjunction with this plan, agreements may be formulated,
to improve spill detection programs and.augment containment

capabilities (i.e., with additional equipment, personnel, and
deployment plans)..

4. Encouraging Compatible Use of the Sanctuary

Encouraging the public to use the Sanctuary in ways that are
compatible with the'protecti6n of significant resource's is an
important aspect of'the resource program. SRD willencourage
compatible visitor use'by undertaking the following:

0 Monitoring commercial and recreational activities in the
Sanctuary and encouraging other agencies to do so to detect
incidents of particular management-concern;

6 Exchanging information on commercial and recreational.
activities in the Sanctuary;

0 Consulting with other agencies on policies and
proposals for the management of activities which may
affect protection of Sanctuary resources; and

.6 Displaying.Sanctuary boundaries on nautical charts
Iwith a notice summarizing Sanctuary regulations
@governing anchoring and vessel dipcharg Ie.s.

0 Developing brochures' and other information materials
for the purpose of enhancing public awareness of the
Sanctuary's resources and their need for protection.

Monitoring and information exchange programs are dealt with-
further under research (Subsection C). The development of
informational materials is discussed.further under interpretation
(Subsection D).

5. Surveillance and'Enforcement

The greatest problem in the enforcement of Sanctuary
regulations to protect Flower Garden Banks resources will be
surveillance. Neither NOAA nor the-USCG has the resources to
conduct systematic surveillanceafid enforcement operations to
ensure compliance with Sanctuary regulations. However, both the
USCG and the MMS conduct operations in the area. The USCG may be
able to provide limited surveillancd.in conjunction with multi-
mission, surface or aerial operations. MMS inspectors,
traversing the area to monitor oilexploration and production
operations, may occasionally be able to provide information
useful in identifying and prosecuting violators of Sanctuary
regulations. Additional surveillance information could be
provided by personnel'working on offshore platforms a 'nd by boat
operators in the area. NOAA,plans to initially rely on observers
from other agencies and cooperating organizations, including
excursion and service boat operators, to provide surveillance

information. Suspected violations will be reported'to the
Sanctuary Manager, who will investigate the reports and take
appropriate action. Emphasis will be placed onresponding to
reports of'violations and pursuing enforcement actions. The
reporting of violations by vessels,at the site will be
facilitated by putting violation reporting instructions in the
notice on nautical charts.

The enforcement program is expected to'be sufficiently
strong to deter widespread violation of SanctUary regulations.
However, because of the remoteness of,the site, compliance with
regulations is dependent more than usual on effective information
transfer, coupled with the cooperation of users. Information
development and dissemination will theteforebe a high priority
to engender voluntary compliance with Sanctuary regulations.

(a) Public-Education and Information

Because the most effective enforcement is prevention, the
Sanctuary interpretation program will make every effort to inform
visitors of the need to use the Sanctuary environment wisely.
Much of this effort will involve the preparation of easily
understood brochures and other materials on Sanctuary
regulations, and the reasons for them.' These materials will be
made available to all Sanctuar' . ; ally through
y users, princip
information centers and outreach programs.

(b) Planning and Coordination*
information obtained through the'research program and
surveillance and enforcement efforts on Sanctuary use patterns,
frequently occurring violations, and potentially sensitive
resources will be evaluated periodically by the Sanctuary Manager
to assess the adequacy of surveillance efforts.

C. Research

1. General Context for Management

Effective management of the Flower Garden Banks National
Marine Sanctuary requires the inauguration of a'Sanctuary
research program that addresses management issues. Research
funded by the SRD will be directed toward improving knowledge of
the Sanctuary's environment and resources and how they may be
affected by'various types of human activity@ SRD-sponsored
research at the Flower Garden Banks will be planned and monitored
throug h the headquarters office. To avoid duplication of effort
and achieve maximum benefits from the research, SRD will
coordinate its research efforts with those of MMS and other
agencies. The general direction of the research program and the

process for preparing an annual Sanctuary Research Plan is
discussed below.

2. Framework for Research

The res earch program consists of three generic project
categories:

0 Baseline studies to gather additional data on the
features and processes of the ecosystem and to describe
the pattern of human activity in the Sanctuary;

0 Monitoring to document changes in environmental
quality, ecology, and human activity; and'

0 Analysis and prediction studies to determine the
causes and effects of environmental and ecological
changes.

Each of these categories is described in more detail below:

(a) Baseline Studies

A considerable body of scientific baseline information on
the Flower Garden Banks has been produced by the research studies
of the past 30.years (see Part II, Section II. C..6. and Part
VII). However, improved, management-oriented,,baseline
information is needed on such factors as the characteristics and
environmental effects of.user activities. For example, more
needs to be known about vessel traffic patterns in the area and
the type and intensity of recreational use. A particularly
worthwhile study would be an assessment.of the effects of
recreational-vessel anchoring on coral at various projected use
levels to provide data needed in evaluating alternative mooring
systems.

With respect to scientific research, studies of active salt
diapirism, associated faulting, and consequent uplift or sinking
of the reefs could be important as basic research, and therefore
of interest to other funding agencies. Such studies could also
generate data on geological processes that may affect coral
growth, recruitment and survival as well as biotic ionation,
community structure and similar ecological relationships of
interest in managing the resources. other research opportunities
include studies of the sulfide-dependent, brine seep ecosystem at
East Flower Garden Bank, which could result in a better
understanding of similar systems existing elsewhere.

Although the potential for research at the Flower'Garden
Banks remains substantial,, research at the sites has been, and
will continue to be, relatively expensive because of the need for
comparatively large research vessels and because research divers

must operate at depths in excess of 65 ft (20 m). The'use of
submersibles, one of the most effective research tools for sites
such as the Flower Garden Banks, is especially costly.

(b) Monitoring

Effective sanctuary management requires a continuing program
of data collection on natural processes and human activities that
may modify the environment or the ecology within a sanctuary.'
These data must providean understanding of what is happening to
the resources and an indication of their relative health.
Properly implemented, monitoring results in data indicative@of
the health of resources and provides the means for detecting
environmental.and ecological trends.

The Sanctuary research program should include monitoring
studies of-dischlarges from offshore oil and gas operations in the
area and studies to monitor the dynamics of species recruitment,
growth, mortality, abundance, distribution and competition for
space on the coral and algal reefs capping the Banks. Changes in
these processes, especially as they relate to the dominant corals
and calcareous algae, could indicate the existence of natural or
man-caused threats to Bank resources.

In addition to baseline research and monitoring, the
Sanctuary research program will include studies, as needed, to
analyze the causes and consequences of changes in the ecosystem
and to predict the effects on it of new or more intense human
activity in the area. Such studies will be concerned with the
investigation of specific problems or issues affecting the status
of resources. A study of this type was recently supported by the
SRD to assess the recovery of coral on East Flower Garden two
years after the infliction of anchor'damage,to the reef by the
anchoring of the NICK CANDIES (see Part,II, Section II, C. 5, 6,
and 7).

Analysis and prediction studies could be useful-in resolving
a number of management problems that might arise after Sanctuary
designation. For example, if the monitoring program indicates
that a substantial increase in recreational boat anchoring on the
reefs is causing unforeseen damage to the coral, a study could be
initiated to determine the need for further restrictions on
anchoring and to evaluate the risks and advantages of implanting
additional mooring buoys.

3. Selection and Administration of Research Projects

To ensure that projects considered for funding by the SRD
are directed to the resolution of management issues and concerns,
the Sanctuary Project Manager will follow procedures, developed by
SRD to ensure that each Sanctuary's research program is
consistent with National Marine Sanctuary Program policies.
These procedures include: preparing an annual Sanctuary Research
Plan (SRP) and monitoring the progress of research in the
Sanctuary.

(a) Preparing n Annual Plan

Each year a SRP will be prepared for,the Flower Garden Banks
National Marine Sanctuary. The SRP will then be incorporated
into a national-plan that includes annual plans for each
sanctuary. Steps involved in the annual planning process
include:

'0 Management issues for the Sanctuary with supporting@
evidence or rationales are identified and listed.

0 Research priorities based on the list,of management issues
are established. The most important factors to be
considered in establishing annual research-priorities will
be the following:

(1) Immediate or evolving management issues
that may be resolved through directed
research projects;

(2) The prospects of research already-in
progress; and

(3) The availability of funds, instruments
and equipment for,research support.

0 Research workshops are held on an occasional basis to
facilitate the identification of research problems. ,
After the management issues and research:,priorities are
-developed, a draft SRP is prepared.

0 The draft SRP is circulated by the SRD for peer,
review.

0 A final SRP is prepared. This SRP includes documentation.,
of how each project meets the national selection criteria.
The final SRP is then incorporated by SRD into a National
Sanctuary Research Plan. The highest ranking research
projects are.selected from the national plan for funding.

0 A research announcement and request for proposals
(RFP) is prepared. The announcement discusses management
concerns and summarizes past and on-going research. Its
purpose is to solicit proposals from the scientific
community for specific research to carry out the SRP.

If research proposals include activities that are prohibited
by Sanctuary regulations, a permit to conduct these activities
may be issued by NOAA, or it may be determined that all or part
of the activities should be conducted outside the Sanctuary. As
noted earlier, coral collection is allowed only for research or
educational-purposes and requires the issuance of a permit. The
permit must specify the type and amount of coral to be taken, as
well as the location and time of intended collection. A report
of the collecting procedure and results is required after the
project has been completed. Research also may require additional
research permits from other agencies.

(b) Resegrch Supervision

The Sanctuary Project Manager will monitor the performance
of research projects and keep records of research underway,
equipment being used on site, frequency of researchers' visits,
and progress to date. Performance reports and draft and final
technical reports will be required as well as conformance to
schedules outlined under the terms of the contract. Draft
technical reports may be reviewed by recognized scientists and
resource managers before approval by the SRD. Outstanding
project reports will be published by the SRD in its Technical
Report Series.

4. Information Exchange

Direct SRD funding for research is limited. To complement
directly funded research, the SRD will encourage research funded
from other sources particularly where it supports Sanctuary
management objectives. 'In this regard, the SRD will make.
available to other agencies and private institutions current
Sanctuary resource data obtained from past and ongoing research
projects.

D. Education

1. General Context for Management

Increased public understanding and appreciation of the
natural value of Flower Garden Bank resources is essential for
their protection. The interpretation program for the Flower
Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary will be focused on
improving public awareness of the Sanctuary and its resources and
of the Sanctuary regulations designed to protect them.

2. Interpretation opportunities and Programs

The type of information to be conveyed to the public about
the Flower,Garden Banks is similar to that offered in relation to
other habitat-oriented marine sanctuaries. The primary
difference relates to the distance from shore of the Flower
Garden Banks and the concomitant need to provide information to
user groups whose activities could have an adverse impact on
Flower Garden resources or who may otherwise play a role in
resource protection.

Educational programs for the Flower Garden National Marine
Sanctuary will fall into three broad categories: interpretation
for visitors to the site, interpretation for visitors to
information centers, and outreach programs by Sanctuary
personnel.

(a) Site Visitor Programs

Interpretation for visitors to the Flower Garden Banks will
consist of written material describing the Sanctuary and
explaining its regulations. Information materials will be
available at information centers (see (b), below) and will also
be sent to excursion boat operators,known to have an interest in
taking groups to the Flower Garden Banks.

(b) Information Center Programs

Information on the Flower Garden Bankst consisting of
displays, video 'sequences, or brochures and other literature will
be made available at selected information centers in coastal
Texas and Louisiana. SRD is evaluating such information outlets
for Texas, including Padre Island National Seashore; Aransas
National Wildlife Refuge; Texas A&M Sea Grant Marine Information
Service; the Houston Museum of Natural Science; the Texas
Aquarium; and Texas State Coastal Parks such as Sea Rim,
Galveston Island, and Mustang Island. Similar outlets will be
considered for establishment at such Louisiana sites as McNeese
University in Lake Charles; Louisiana universities Marine
Consortium in Cocodrie; Louisiana Nature and Science Center and
the New Orleans Aquarium in New Orleans; Louisiana Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries' Natural Heritage Program; Department of
Natural Resources' Coastal Management Division; and LSU's Sea
Grant Program in Baton Rouge.

The outreach program will stress efforts to provide
information to special-interest groups and industry associations
that present a potential threat to Flower Garden Banks resources
or that may otherwise play a role in resource protection. The
major targets of outreach efforts will be merchant vessels bound

to and from Corpus Christi, Houston and New Orleans and other
nearby ports; the crews of offshore platforms and platform
service vessels based largely in Morgan City, Louisiana; and
commercial fishermen operating primarily out of Pensacola,
Florida.

Other projects will include the preparation of brochures,
films, slides, and other materials for use in educational
presentations in the school systems, by private organizations and
the media. For example, numerous high quality video tapes and
photographs from all depths at the Flower Garden Banks are
available through the Texas A&M Department of Oceanography.
These could be used effectively to construct presentations on
such themes as biotic community structure and distribution; the
snapper-grouper fishery; the brine seep ecosystem; salt daipirism
and the geologic origin of the Banks; oil and gas operations.;
sport diving; and research, including the use of-research
submersibles.

Section-,IV... Administration

A. Administrative Framework

This section of the management plan describes the roles of
the agenciesthat will.be i'nvolved in Sanctuary management,
proposes strategies to coordinate their activities, and provides,
for periodic evaluation of the effectiveness. ofthe management
plan. Sanctuary management consists,-of three functions: resource
protection, research, and interpretation. Administration -
oversees these functions and establishes who is@responsible for
implementing specific programs. The administrative framework
also ensures-that all management activities are coordinated.

The-SRD is responsible for the overall-management of the
proposed.Flower Garden,Banks National Marinesanctuary. The SRD
coordinates its on-site activities with the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG), the Minerals Management Service (MMS), and the Department
of State. The general administrative role of each agency is as
follows.

1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division

The National Marine Sanctuary Program is administered by the
SRD. A site-specific management plan is prepared for each
sanctuary to ensure that on-site activities in resource
protection, research, and interpretation are coordinated and
consistent with sanctuary goals and objectives.

The SRD establishes policies and procedures in response to
specific issues in the Flower Garden Banks National Marine
Sanctuary and develops a sanctuary budget setting out
expenditures for program development, operating costs, and
staffing. Funding will be reviewed and adjusted annually to
reflect the priorities and requirements of the National Marine
Sanctuary Program and evolving conditions at the Flower Garden
Banks. Detailed SRD responsibilities are listed below.

The Sanctuary Manager for the Flower Garden Banks reports
directly to the SRD. The Sanctuary Manager has responsibility
for all day-to-day activities affecting the Sanctuary and is its
primary spokesperson.

2. U.S. Coast Guard

The USCG is responsible for enforcing all Federal laws in
navigable waters under U.S. jurisdiction. The USCG also manages
operations for the control and removal of oil and hazardous
substances resulting from offshore spills and is responsible for
regulating vessel traffic and maintaining boater safety,
including the coordination of rescue operations.

3. Minerals Management service

The MMS is charged with the management of OCS hydrocarbon
and mineral exploration, development and production. This
responsibility includes-the formulation and enforcement of
special lease stipulations designed to protect specific
geological and biological features.

4. Department of State

The Department of State provides policy guidance on
activities involving foreign policy issues and international law.

B. Resource Protection: Roles and Responsibilities.

1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division

(a) Develops funding priorities for resource protection;

(b) Develops and monitors the effectiveness of interagency
agreements for surveillance and-enforcement and negotiates
changes where required;

(c) Develops contingency and emergency-response plans and,
based on these plans, negotiates applicable interagency
agreements;

(d) Monitors the effectiveness of existing sanctuary
regulations and promulgates changes where necessary;

(e) Coordinates efforts to manage and protect Sanctuary
resources with other Federal and international agencies and
with public and private organizations; and

(f) Evaluates overall progress toward the resource
protection objectives of the National Marine Sanctuary
Program.

2. U.S. Coast Guard

(a) Enforces all Federal laws in the Sanctuary as the
availability of enforcement personnel and resources permits;
and

(b) Provides on-scene coordination and Regional Response
Center facilities under the National Contingency Plan for
the removal of oil and hazardous substances in the event of
a spill that threatens the Sanctuary.

3. Minerals Management Service

(a) Enforces lease stipulations in the Flower Garden Banks
area, including the prohibition of anchoring on the reefs by
oil and gas production service vessels.

4. Department of State

(a) Provides counsel to ensure that regulatory
proscriptions are applied against foreign persons and
foreign-flag vessels in accordance with international
law and applicable international conventions.

C. Research: Roles and Responsibilities

1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division

(a) Prepares an annual Flower Garden Banks Sanctuary
Research Plan (SRP) based on management requirements
and research continuity;

(b) Prepares an annual National Research Plan (NRP) and
budget based on the SRP's of individual sanctuaries and
in accordance with priorities determined at the
national level;

(d) Administers interagency agreements and contracts for
research;

(e) Monitors research activities in the Sanctuary and
coordinates Sanctuary research program with research
activities sponsored by MMS and other agencies;

(f) Reviews all interim and final research reports; and

(g) Issues permits, through OCRM, for research activities
to ensure consistency with Sanctuary regulations and
provides for additional technical review where
necessary.

2. Minerals Management Service

(a) Sponsors research in support of the OCS leasing
program.

D. Interpretation: Roles and Responsibilities

1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division

(a) Prepares an.annual list of priorities for
interpretation and an annual budget;

(b) Administers interagency agreements and contracts for
interpretation;

(d) Disseminates information about the National Marine
Sanctuary Program and the Flower Garden Banks National
Marine Sanctuary;

(e) Evaluates progress towards accomplishing objectives for
interpretation, adjusting long-term priorities
accordingly; and

(f) Issues permits, through OCRM, for education activities
to ensure compliance with Sanctuary regulations and
provides additional technical review where necessary.

E. General Administration: Roles and Responsibilities

1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division

(a) Ensures that'the Sanctuary is operated in a manner
consistent with established National Program policies
and with applicable national and international laws;

(b) Formulates long-term management plans for the Sanctuary
and revises them as necessary;

(d) Identifies, analyzes, and resolves Sanctuary management
problems and issues;

(e) Coordinates sanctuary management with Federal agencies,
organizations and private citizens;

(f) Evaluates the effectiveness of Sanctuary management and
regulatory measures;

(g) Prepares a program budget for the Sanctuary; and

(h) Provides funding for overall sanctuary management and
administration.

F. Staffing Levels

The management of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine
Sanctuary will rely during the first year on a Sanctuary Manager
assisted by a secretary. An Assistant Sanctuary Manager will be
employed during the second year of operation. The details of
further staffing will be determined during the first two years of
operation. However, it is anticipated that additional support
and technical staff will eventually be needed on a part-time or
seasonal*basis. Such personnel may include enforcement rangers
and part-time or seasonal interpretation or education specialists
to staff excursion-boat cruises and information centers and to
provide outreach services.

G. Visitor Center Facilities

Sanctuary information distribution points will be
established at suitable locations in the Texas and Louisiana
coastal-regions (See Section III, D).

PART III: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

In evaluating the proposal to designate the Flower Garden
Banks National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA has analyzed institutional,
boundary, regulatory, and management alternatives in terms of
achieving optimum protection of the ecosystem, improving
scientific knowledge of the area and promoting public
understanding of the value of Bank resources. This section
describes the alternatives considered in the evaluation process.
Part IV describes the environmental consequences of the
alternatives described below.

The fundamental choice of alternatives is between the two
institutional alternatives: (1) no action or continuing the
status quo and (2) the preferred alternative, Sanctuary
designation, as a complementary measure to existing programs.
Boundary, management and regulatory alternatives are considered
in the context of the preferred institutional alternative.

Section I: The-Status Ouo Alternative

The proposed Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary
is located well beyond the limits of state authority and is
therefore wholly under the jurisdiction of Federal statutes. The
Federal agencies with primary existing responsibilities in the
area of the Flower Garden Banks are the Minerals Management
Service (MMS) of the Department of the Interior; the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of NOAA, Department of Commerce;
the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) of the Department of Transportation;
and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This section will
review the responsibilities of these agencies in the Flower
Garden Banks area. Additional information on existing
authorities is provided in Appendix II.

The MMS is responsible for regulating activities associated
with offshore oil and gas exploration and development in
accordance with the provisions of the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act. The MMS has established biological lease
stipulations, applied on a lease-by-lease basis, to mitigate the
potential impact of oil and gas exploration and development
activities on high relief banks of the Gulf of Mexico OCS. The
stipulations include the establishment of no-activity zones to
protect the biological resources of the Flower Garden Banks. The
no-activity zones are somewhat larger than the areas over the
Banks encompassed by the 100 meter isobaths.

Current lease stipulations provide that no oil development
activities, including anchoring or the emplacement of structures,
drilling rigs, or platforms, are allowed within the no-activity

r' Ition ap c les
zones. Thus the ancho inq prohib plies only to a tiviti
associated with MMS-regulated OCS oil and gas development. Lease
stipulations for development operations within the four-nautical
mile zones extending beyond the no-activity zones require
shunting all drill cuttings and drilling fluids from development
operations to the bottom through a downpipe that terminates an
appropriate distance, but no'more than 10 meters, from the
bottom.

The NMFS is charged, under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation
and Management Act, with approving and enforcing fishery
management plans (FMPs) prepared by regional fishery management
councils. The NMFS relies heavily on theUSCG for enforcement
operations. Flower Garden Banks resources regulated by FMPs
include coral and coral reefs and reef fish. The FMP for coral
and coral reefs is particularly important in the present
regulatory regime. The'regulations implementing the FMP for
coral and coral reefs establishes a.Habitat Area of Particular
Concern (HAPC) at the Flower Garden Banks. The boundaries,of
this HAPC is the 50 fathom (300 foot) isobath around each Bank.
Within the HAPC, fishing for coral and the use of toxic chemicals
to collect fish or other marine organisms is prohibited except as
authorized by a scientific or educational permit under the FMP
regulations. Fishing With bottom longlines, traps, pots or
bottom trawls is also prohibited. 50 CFR Part 638.

The regulations implementing the FMP for reef fish resources
of the Gulf of Mexico, 50 CFR Part 641, set bag and size limits,
place restrictions on the use of certain types of fishing gear,
and establish reporting and permit systems. They also prohibit
the use of poisons and explosives to take reef fish; however,
they allow powerheads to be used outside of stressed areas (the
Flower Garden Banks are not a stressed area for reef fish.) They
also prohibit vessels in the reef fish fishery from possessing on
board any dynamite or similar explosive substance.

The U8CG, in addition to its enforcement of fishing and
other regulations, is responsible for enforcing regulations under
the Clean Water Act, the Act to Prevent Pollution From Ships and
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which regulate discharges of oil,
hazardous substances and other pollutants. The USCG is also
responsible for coordinating spill response activities under the
National Contingency Plan and for regulating vessel traffic,
maintaining boater safety, and conducting search and rescue
operations.

EPA administers the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) under the authority of the Clean Water Act. The
NPDES permit for discharges near the Flower Garden Banks and
other topographic features requires no operational restrictions
on discharges as long as the MMS biological stipulations,
establishing no-activity zones and requiring shunting in buffer

zones.beyond, are in effect. If these stipulations cease to be
applied, EPA may require a variety of restrictions, including
limitations on discharge rates or a full prohibition on
di,scharges.

EPA also has regulatory responsibilities with regard to
ocean dumping. Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act prohibits the transportation of materials from
the United States for the purpose of dumping them into ocean
waters without a permit from EPA (the Corps of Engineers in the
case of dredged materials).

Under the status.quo alternative, existing activities and
controls would continue as presently administered. These
regulatory activities are.not performed in the context of a
comprehensive management plan, and there are no restrictions on
anchoring by vessels other than those associated with OCS oil and
gas development operations (see Part IV, Section I, B.
Environmental Consequences, Status Quo Alternative).

Section II: Designation as a National Marine Sanctuary

This alternative, NOAA's Preferred Alternative, proposes to
designate the East and West Flower Garden Banks as a national
marine-sanctuary, in accordance with the provisions of Title III
of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1431 et sea.). The alternative is
detailed in Part II of this document, the Sanctuary Management
Plan.' Through the management plan and the implementing
regulations (Appendix I), this alternative protects the Banks,
resources and vital habitat, offers research opportunities, and
provides for an interpretation program to enhance public
awareness of the Flower Garden Banks. This program is not
possible under any of the existing institutional structures
alone.

The preferred boundaries, Alternative 1, were selected
because they roughly encompass the depth of reef-building
organisms. These boundaries are somewhat larger than the MMS no-
activity zones, and larger than the HAPC established by the Coral
Fishery Management Plan. They encompass the present boundaries
of the MMS no-activity zones, rounded out to allow easy
identification of the boundaries of the Sanctuary for enforcement
purposes. The management and regulatory alternatives included in
Alternative 1 were selected because they are more cost-effective
than other alternatives and conform closely to the goals of the
National Marine Sanctuary Program.

The preferred alternative will cost some $200,000 per year
or $650,000 over five years. Approximately one-half of these
funds will be allocated to research and one-half to resource
protection and interpretation.

A. RegulatorvZBoundary Alternatives

A number of regulatory/boundary options were identified in
the evaluation process. These options were narrowed to three
regimes, which were then considered in terms of (1) the
distribution of living resources requiring protection;
(2). regulatory issues; and (3) management concerns.

1. Regulatory/Boundary Alternative 1

This alternative, the preferred alternative, establishes a
sanctuary of 41.70 square nautical miles (143.02 square
kilometers), 19.20 square nautical miles (65.85 square km) at the
East Bank and 22.50 square nautical miles (77.17 square km) at
the West Bank (Figure 14). As stated above, the alternative
encompasses the no-activity zones established by MMS at each of
the Flower Garden Banks (see Section I, Status Quo Alternative).
The Sanctuary boundaries, however, have been rounded out to allow

X 355 A-354 A.3s3

TERNATIVE BOU,,DAR,
4.547 AST FL(WER
A 363 A. 9ABI)EN BANK
A-367 A-361

A-572
A'379 X378
A-376 A,375 A.
HIGH ISLAND HIGH ISLAN AREA EAST ADDITI so EXTENSION Pi
+ ERNATIVE SouNDAR,
UTH ADDMO WES LOWER ION
GARDFN BANK
A- A-383
so 2 A.355 A-396 A-397
389

VE UN

399 A.3ee 95 96
A- A-395 97
10 A(:Mfy Zof*

172 33S 140 141
A401
GARDEN RANKS

I
BREA__"@ GARDEN BANKS -.8-D lei 182 183 184 185
EAST 'S
216 217 177-
r I C

--2-21 222 223 224 225 226 227 226 229 .230

LEGEND UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR SYSTEM UNITED STATES - GULF COAST
ZONE 15 GULF OF MEXICO
DIG171ZFD TURNING POINTS FOR PLANE r1JURDINATE VAIMES ARE IN FEFT SOUTHEAST OF GALVESTON
ALTERNATIVE SOUNDARI EB I &I
NAUTICAL MILES
wit PROPOSED EAST AND WEST FLOWER
Figure 14 El GARDEN BANKS MARINE SANCTUARY
0 1 2 3 4 5

easy identification of areas managed under the Sanctuary for
enforcement purposes.

Under this alternative, fourteen prohibitions and one
affirmative requirement would apply to activities that NOAA has
determined might adversely impact sanctuary resources and
qualities. The fourteen prohibitions are:

(1) Exploring for, developing or producing oil, gas or
minerals within a no-activity zone.

(2) Anchoring or otherwise mooring within the Sanctuary a
vessel greater than 100 feet (30.48 meters) in registered
length.

(3) Anchoring a vessel of less than or equal to 100
feet (30.48 meters) in registered length within an area of
the Sanctuary where a mooring buoy is available.

(4) Anchoring a vessel within the Sanctuary using more than
fifteen feet (4.57 meters) of chain or wire rope attached to
the anchor.

(5) Anchoring a vessel within the Sanctuary using anchor
lines (exclusive of the anchor chain or wire rope permitted
by (4) above) other than those of a soft fiber or nylon,
polypropylene, or similar material.

(6) Discharging or depositing, from within the boundaries
of the Sanctuary, any material or other matter except:

(i) fish, fish parts, chumming materials or bait used
in or resulting from fishing with conventionalhook and
line gear in the Sanctuary;

(ii) biodegradable effluents incidental to vessel use
and generated by marine sanitation devices approved in
accordance with Section 312 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C.� 1322;

(iii) water generated by routine vessel operations
(e.g., cooling water and deck wash down, and graywater
as defined by Section 312 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. � 1322)
excluding bilge pumping; or

(iv) engine exhaust.

The prohibitions in this paragraph (6) would not apply to
the discharge, in areas of the Sanctuary outside the no-
activity zones, of drilling cuttings and drilling fluids

necessarily discharged incidental to the exploration for,
development of, or production of oil or gas in those Areas
unless such discharge injures a Sanctuary resource or
quality. (See below for the shunting requirement applicable
to such discharges.)

(7) Discharging or depositing, from beyond the boundaries
of the Sanctuary, any material or other matter, except those
listed in paragraph (6)(i)-(iv) above, that subsequently
enters the Sanctuary and injures a Sanctuary resource or
.quality.

(8) Drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the
seabed of the Sanctuary (except by anchoring); or
constructing, placing or abandoning any structure, material
or other matter on the seabed of the Sanctuary.

(9) Injuring or removing, or attempting to injure or
remove, any coral or other bottom formation, coralline algae
or other plant, marine invertebrate, brine-seep biota or
carbonate rock within the Sanctuary.

(10) Taking any marine mammal or turtle within the
Sanctuary, except as permitted by regulations, as amended,
promulgated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as
amended, 16 U.S.C. �� 1361 et sea., and the Endangered
species Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. �� 1531 et sea.

(11) Injuring, catching, harvesting, collecting or feeding,
or attempting to injure, catch, harvest, collect or feed,
any fish within the Sanctuary by use of bottom longlines,
traps, nets, bottom trawls or any other gear, device,
equipment or means except by use of conventional hook and
line gear.

(12) Possessing within the Sanctuary (regardless of where
taken, collected, caught, harvested or removed), except for
valid law enforcement purposes, any carbonate rock, coral or
other bottom formation, coralline algae or other plant,
marine invertebrate, brine-seep biota, fish (except for fish
caught by use of conventional hook and line gear), turtle or
marine mammal.

(13) Possessing or using within the Sanctuary, except
possessing while passing without interruption through it or
for valid law enforcement purposes, any fishing gear,
device, equipment, or means except conventional hook and
line gear.

(14) Possessing, except for valid law enforcement purposes,
or using explosives or releasing electrical charges within
the Sanctuary.

Note: (a) The regulatory prohibitions would not apply to
(see the-regulations themselves for the exact provisions):

i) Activities necessary to respond to emergencies
threatening life, property or the environment.

ii) With regard to Department of Defense activities:
activities being carried out as of the effective date of
Sanctuarydesignation; activities that have no potential for
any significant adverse impacts on Sanctuary resources or
qualities; and activities having the potential for
significant adverse impacts that are exempted by NOAA after
consultation between NOAA and the Department of Defense.
(There would be requirements that the Department of Defense
carry out its activities in a manner that minimizes any
adverse impact on Sanctuary resources and qualities and that
it, in the event of threatened or actual destruction of,
loss of, or injuring to a Sanctuary resource or quality
[email protected] untoward incident including resulting but
not limited to spills and groundings, caused by it, promptly
coordinate with-NOAA for the purpose@of taking appropriate
actions to respond to and mitigate the harm, and, if
possible, restore or replace the Sanctuary-resource or
quality.

iii) Activities authorized by a National Marine Sanctuary
permit. (Such-permits may b Ie granted if NOAA finds that the
proposed.activity will: further research related to
Sanctuary resources; further the educational, natural or
historic resource value of the Sanctuary; further salvage
recovery operations in or near the Sanctuary in connection
with a recent air.or marine casualty; or assist in managing
the Sanctuary.)

iv). Activities authorized by a valid lease, permit, other
authorization or right in existence on the effective date of
Sanctuary designation, provided that the holder complies
with any terms and conditions on the exercise of such
authorization or right imposed by-NOAA as a condition of
certification as deemed necessary to achieve the purposes
for which the Sanctuary is designated.

V) Activities authorized by a valid lease, permit or other
authorization issued@after the effective date of Sanctuary
designation, provided that NOAA notifies the applicant and
authorizing agency that it does not object to issuance of
the authorization and the applicant complies with any terms
and conditions-NOAA deems necessary to protect Sanctuary
resources and qualities.

(b) Regulatory prohibitions 2, 4, 5, 8, and 14 would not
apply to necessary activities conducted in areas of the Sanctuary
outside the no-activity zones and incidental to exploration for,
development of, or production of oil or gas in those areas.

(c) In no event would NOAA be allowed to issue a permit
authorizing, or otherwise approve, the exploration for,
development of, or production of oil, gas, or minerals in a no-
activity zone.

The affirmative requirement imposed by Alternative 1 is, in
areas of the Sanctuary where oil, gas and mineral activities
would be allowed (i.e., outside the no-activity zones) to shunt
all drilling cutting and fluids to the seabed through a downpipe
that terminates an appropriate distance, but no more than ten
meters, from the seabed.

Prohibitions, restrictions and conditions validly imposed by
any other Federal authority would remain in effect, provided,
however, that if any valid regulation issued by any other Federal
authority, regardless of when issued, conflicts with a Sanctuary
regulation, the regulation deemed by NOAA as more protective of
Sanctuary resources and qualities shall govern.

Regulatory/Boundary Alternative 1 is compatible with the
existing MMS regime for OCS oil exploration and development and
the Coral Fishery Management Plan for the Flower Garden Banks
HAPC. The no-activity zone boundaries follow the 100 m (328 ft)
isobaths around each Bank, and include some areas outside of the
m isobath. The horizontal distance between the 50 m
isobaths, which contain the coral reef zones, and the 100 m
isobaths is 400 to 4,430 m (1,300 to 14,500 ft) at the East Bank
(Bright, 1977) and 300 to 1,000 m (1,000 to 3,300 ft) at the West
Bank (Bright and Pequegnat, 1974).

The preferred alternative would thus provide adequate buffer
zones around the Flower Garden Banks coral reefs to protect them
from damage resulting from large-vessel-anchoring. NOAA has the
authority under existing international law, and NOAA intends. to
apply its anchoring regulations, including.prohibition, to
foreign flag vessels. This view is shared by the Department of
State and Congress. NOAA consulted with the Department of State
as the regulations were being drafted.

2. Regulatory/Boundary Alternative 2

This alternative establishes a sanctuary area of 25.94
square nautical miles (88.97 square km), 12.93 square nautical
miles (44.35 square km) at the East Bank and 13.01 square
nautical miles (44.62 square km) at the West Bank. The

alternative encompasses all waters within the 100 meter isobaths
surrounding each of the two Banks (Figure 14). The regulatory
regime under this alternative would be identical to the one
embodied in Alternative 1, except:

A. (1) would be changed to read:

Exploring for, developing or producing oil, gas or minerals
within the Sanctuary.

B. Because of the change in (1), (6) would be shortened to
delete the exception for drilling cuttings and fluids; (b),
regarding regulatory prohibitions 2, 4, 5, 8,, and 14, would
be deleted; and the shunting requirement would be deleted.

This alternative, like the preferred alternative, would
provide management "tailored to specific resources" in accordance
with the goals of the National Marine Sanctuary Program, and it
is compatible with existing MMS stipulations and the Coral
Fishery Management Plan. However, the 100 m isobaths around the
Banks are so irregular that the boundaries cannot be plotted by
geographic coordinates for enforcement purposes.

3. Regulatory/Boundary Alternative 3

This alternative would establish a sanctuary of 259.22
square nautical miles (889.09 square km) and would encompass an
area of approximately four nautical miles (7.4 km) around the
Banks (Figure 14). As with Alternative 1, the sanctuary would be
divided into two different regulatory zones: (1) the core, no-
activity zones (see Status Quo Alternative) and (2) the remaining
buffer area extending from the no-activity zones to the sanctuary
boundaries.

In addition to the sanctuary regulations described under the
preferred alternative, the following restrictions would apply:

(a) In areas of the sanctuary outside the no-activity
zones:
(1) Bulk discharges of drilling fluids or
drilling muds must be found by NOAA to be
consistent with the purpose of the sanctuary
and to result in no significant adverse
impact to sanctuary resources.

(2) The effects of this discharge of
drilling fluids, drilling muds, cuttings or
produced water, must be certified by NOAA to
be adequately monitored. Such certification
shall include the condition that it shall be
revoked or suspended if the monitoring

discloses significant adverse impacts on
sanctuary resources.

(b) Permits issued prior to the effective date of
these regulations are not subject to the monitoring
certification requirements of this section for a period
of one year from such effective date.

In substance, this was the preferred alternative in the
proposed rules for the Flower Garden Banks National Marine
Sanctuary published on June 26, 1980 (45 Federal Register 43205)
(1980). As noted in Part I, Section E, History of the Proposal,
after these regulations were proposed NOAA dropped the site from
consideration as a national marine sanctuary.

This alternative would protect Flower Garden Banks resources
and incorporate the entire 4-mile zones established by MMS around
the Banks. NOAA recognizes that activities occurring in the 4-
mile zones may potentially generate pollutants that could
threaten the significant resources of the Flower Garden reefs.
NOAA therefore agrees that the reefs must be protected from the
possible adverse impacts of buffer zone activities. Alternative
1 requires drilling operations to comply with a sanctuary
regulation prohibiting discharges and deposits that enter the
sanctuary and injure a sanctuary resource or quality. NOAA
believes that this regulation, applying to other discharges and
deposits as well as drilling wastes, provides broad protection to
sanctuary resources. NOAA has also modified Alternative 1 by
including a shunting requirement for oil and gas activities in
the sanctuary (which are allowed only in the areas outside the
no-activity zones).

The goal of the National Marine Sanctuary Program is to
designate discrete areas of special national significance to
promote effective conservation of their resources, in this case
the coral and associated resources within the 100 meter isobaths
surrounding each of the Flower Garden Banks. These coral reef
areas are particularly susceptible to anchor damage, but they
would be adequately protected under the preferred altermnative.
NOAA is of the opinion that the Alternative 1 boundaries, which
encompass the present boundaries of the no-activity zones,
rounded out to allow more easy identification of the boundaries
of the sanctuary for enforcement purposes, are more in keeping
than the Alternative 3 boundaries with section 922.1(c)(2) of the
National Marine Sanctuary program regulations (15 CFR Part 922),.
which states that sanctuary size will be no larger than necessary
to ensure effective management.

With respect to activities within the no-activity zones,
NOAA agrees that the alternative 3 provision explicitly
prohibiting hydrocarbon exploration, development or production
within these zone provides stronger protection than the

prohibition on altering the seabed, the primary means of
regulating hydrocarbon activities within these zones under
Alternative 1. NOAA has therefore modified Alternative 1 by
incorporating into it an explicit prohibition of hydrocarbon
exploration, development and production activities within the
no0activity zones. Thus modified, Alternative 1 remains the
preferred alternative.

B. Management Alternatives

Two management alternatives were identified and considered
in terms of (1) resource protection, research, and interpretation
and (2) cost-effectiveness.

1. Management Alternative 1

Under this alternative, a Project Manager on the staff of
the SRD in Washington, D.C. would oversee the management and
administration of the sanctuary, at least for the next three to
five years. Surveillance of sanctuary activities for resource
protection would rely on cooperating organizations and
individuals to report suspected violations, which would then be
investigated by an enforcement officer provided by NOAA or
contracted for on an as needed basis.

This alternative would reduce the administrative costs of
the resource protection, research and interpretation programst
but the lack of an on-site manager would make it difficult for
management to be aware of sanctuary problems and to respond to
them effectively.

2. Management Alternative 2

Under this alternative, the preferred alternative, NOAA
would establish a site-specific management and administrative
system for the Flower Garden Banks sanctuary in an appropriate
location in the Texas/Louisiana coastal region. Using this
approach, minimum staffing needs entail the employment of a
Sanctuary Manager and secretary the first year at a cost of about
$50,000 and an assistant sanctuary manager the second year at an
additional cost of about $25,000. office space would be leased
at an estimated cost of $10,000 per year. The total cost of this
alternative for personnel and administration is estimated at
about $70,000 the first year and $90,000 the second year.

The Sanctuary Manager would represent SRD in the day-to-day
administration and management of the sanctuary. His/her
responsibilities would include local management of the
enforcement, interpretation and research programs.

PART IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

In selecting institutional, boundary, regulatory, and
management alternatives for the proposed Flower.Garden Banks
National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA evaluated the environmental
consequences of their implementation., This section discusses
these consequences.

Section I: Environmental Conseguenc es of Alternatives

A. Sanctuary Designation-The Preferred Alternative

The preferred alternative would promote resource protection
in three ways. First, it would bolster the existing regulatory
and enforcement regime. second, it would establish an integrated
research program focused on management-related issues facing the
sanctuary. Third, it would include an interpretation program to
strengthen public' understanding of the importance of the Banks'
coral-reef habitat 's and of the need for a long-term comprehensive
management framework to protect them.

1. Resource Protection Regime

The proposed designation is designed to improve the existing
regulatory regime by instituting new regulatory measures and,
where feasible, by augmenting surveillance and enforcement
activities. The primary environmental consequences of the
proposed designation would result from these measures. 'The
proposed regulations for the sanctuary include restrictions on
exploration for, development, or production of oil, gas or
minerals; anchoring or otherwise mooring; discharging or
depositing materials or other matter,-, alteration of the seabed;
possessing various marine resources; injuring or taking or
attempting to injure or take sanctuary resources; possessing or
using explosives or releasing electrical charges; feeding fish;
and possessing (except while passing without interruption through
the sanctuary) or using fishing gear except conventional hook and
line gear. (This is a summary. See the regulations themselves
for specifics.) NOAA also proposes, for areas of the sanctuary
where oil, gas, and mineral activities are allowed (i.e., outside
the no-activity zones), a requirement to shunt all drilling
cuttings and fluids to the seabed through a downpipe that
terminates an appropriate distance, but no more than ten meters,
from the seabed., See Par t II1, Section II for a list of
exceptions. The potential impacts of each regulation are
discussed below.

(a) Hydrocarbon and Mineral Exnloration. Development and
Production

Exploring for, developing or producing oil, gas or minerals
within the no-activity zones would be prohibited. Such
activities are currently prohibited by the MMS stipulations on a
lease-by-lease basis. This sanctuary regulation makes the
prohibition permanent. Another sanctuary regulation would make
the following MMS stipulation also permanent in the Sanctuary:
Persons engaged in the exploration for, development of, or
production of oil or gas in areas of the Sanctuary outside the
no-activity zones must shunt all drilling cuttings and drilling
fluids to the seabed through a downpipe that terminates an
appropriate distance, but no more than ten meters, from the
seabed.

(b) Vessel Anchoring

Anchoring or otherwise mooring by"veasels of over 100 feet
in registered length would be prohibited within the sanctuary.
This and all other regulatory provisions would be applied to ,
foreign persons and foreign vessels in accordance with recognized
principles of international law, and in accordance with treaties,
conventionst and other international agreements to which the
United States is a party. (See also Part III Section II, A. 1.)
Anchoring under emergency conditions would not be affected, and
the prohibition would have no socio-economic impact.

The prohibition on anchoring by large vessels is considered
the most important provision in the'proposed regulations for the
protection of sanctuary resources. It closes a gap in the
existing regulatory regime that has resulted in extensive damage
to the Flower Garden Banks coral reefs. The primary threat to
these reefs is presented by.vessel anchoring (see Subsection B,-
The Status Quo Alternative). Because the Flower Garden Banks
coral reef zones occur within the 50 m isobaths around each Bank,
this prohibition an anchoring within the Sanctuary (which is at
all points greater than or equal to the 100 m isobath) provides
substantial protective buffer zones around the reefs (see Part
III, Section II, A. 1. Regulatory/Boundary Alternative 1). The
prohibition should cause no hardship to vessel operators.

Under the regulations, vessels of less than or equal to ' 100
feet in registered length would not be permitted to anchor in
areas of the sanctuary where a mooring buoy is available. They
would, however, be permitted to anchor in areas of the sanctuary
where a mooring buoy is not available provided that they use
anchor lines of soft fiber, nylon, polypropylene, or similar
material with no more than 15 feet of chain or wire rope attached
to their anchors. This provision would reduce anchor damage
caused by recreational boats while allowing continued
recreational activity.

Requiring recreational boats and other boats less than or
equal to 100 feet in registered length to anchor on sand flats
was considered, but does not appear to be practical. The sand
flats at the Flower Garden Banks reefs are small and are thus
difficult anchoring targets (Blood, 1978, personal
communication). Moreover, if anchors are successfully lowered
into these areas, they may be dragged near or into the corals
before taking hold. Such anchoring near coral heads could result
in chafing by anchor chains that damage the coral. The
restriction on the type of anchor lines used, however, would
provide some protection-even though anchoring on coral is
permitted under certain circumstances as indicated above.
Requiring recreational boatersto anchor completely outside of
the reef zone would offer more protection, but would eliminate
most recreational use of the reefs. The water beyond the reefs
is too deep for most anchoring and its distance from attractive
reef diving sites would make diving unsafe.

Permitting recreational boats and other boats less than or
equal to 100 feet in registered length to anchor on the reefs in
the absence of mooring buoys would involve accepting the
possibility of some continuing anchor damage to corals, but at
least such anchoring Would be unlawful where buoys are installed
over the reefs. Mooring buoys could be placed in sand flats
within safe diving distance of-attractive dive sites or in good
fishing areas, very few of which are over the reefs. In addition
to their use as mooring stations, these buoys could serve to mark
reef areas for navigation and surveillance by sanctuary
enforcement officers.

A potential disadvantage to a mooring buoy system is that it
could result in a concentration of recreational use in particular
areas in the sanctuary. These areas would be expected to
experience more littering, souvenir collecting, and handling of
corals than other areas of the sanctuary. Such activities,
although prohibited, can be expected to occur and to -impact
resources at buoy sites. Present use levels, however, would
probably not cause great impacts to resources.

If use levels increased to the point where severe impacts
resulted, it might be possible to mitigate the effects of
concentrated use by initiating.a rotational system whereby only a
portion of the buoys would be available at any one time.
Alternatively, the buoys could be moved to spread the impact'of
concentrated use more evenly throughout the sanctuary.

The.,restrictions on anchoring (except the one regarding
anchoring vessels of less than or equal to 100 feet in areas of
the sanctuary where a mooring buoy is available) would not apply
to necessary activities conducted in areas of the Sanctuary
outside the no-activity zones and incidental to the exploration
for, development of, or production of oil or gas in those areas.

@'If the regulations' restrictions on an choring and the use of
anchor lines by recreational vessels or other vessels less than
or equal to 100 feet do not adequately prevent damage to Flower
Garden Banks corals, other.regulatory management options are
available. NOAA could further restrict or prohibit all anchoring.

it would be prohibited for any person to discharge or
deposit within the boundaries of the sanctuary any material or
other matter of any kind or description except: fishl fish parts,
chumming materials-or bait used in or resulting from fishing with
conventional hook and line gear in the sanctuary; biodegradable
effluents incidental to vessel use and generated by marine
sanitation devices approved in accordance with Section 312,of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act; water generated by routine
vessel operations (e.g,.- cooling water, deck wash down, and
graywater as defined by Section 312 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act) excluding oily wastes from bilge pumping;
or engine exhaust.

This prohibition would not apply to the discharge, in.areas
outside of the no-activity zones, of drilling cuttings and fluids
necessarily discharged incidental to the,exploration.for, - .
development of, or production of oil or gas in those areas unless
.such discharge injures a Sanctuary resource or quality.-
Depositing or discharging, from beyond the boundaries of the
sanctuary,any@material or other matter except for the exclusions
discussed above would also be prohibited if it enters the
sanctuary and injures a sanctuary resource or quality.
Additionally, there would be a regulatory requirement of shunting
of drilling cuttings and fluids for persons engaged in oil and
gas activities in the sanctuary outside the no-activity zones.

The discharges that probably produce-the-most public concern
are those involving oil and hazardous'substances. From 1974.to.
1981, there were 81 oil spills of more than 1,000 barrels in U.S.
waters. Forty-one of the spills were in the Gulf of Mexico: 35
in port,and three at sea (The Futures Group,1982). During this
period, however, there were only four spills of crude oil from
outer continental shelf oil and gas facilities, including
pipelines, that were greater than 1,000 barrels. Although the.
sanctuary.regulations establish a scheme of strict liability and
therefore of course apply to spills,-spills, because they are
unintentional, cannot be totally deterred by sanctuary
regulations. It is hoped that the sanctuary regulations.that
prohibit discharges will be very successful in deterring
intentional discharges and deposits.

'The regulations would, for example, prohibit the use in the
sanctuary of chumming materials for purposes other than

conventional hook and line fishing, for example to bring fish
into the area to be viewed or photographed. This practice has
been found to change the behavior of some fish in the Florida
marine sanctuaries.

These regulations would also prohibit the disposal of solid
matter, e.g., fishing lines and plastic or metal objects. marine
mammals, turtles, and birds may eat or become entangled in solid
wastes. The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, as amended by
the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987,
and its implementing regulations prohibit the the disposal of
plastic or garbage mixed with plastic into the Exclusive Economic
Zone, whichtincludes the sanctuary. They do not, however,
prohibit the disposal of paper, rags, glass, metal bottles,
crockery and similar refuse in the sanctuary. The sanctuary
regulations would. Such refuse may reduce the aesthetic
qualities of the reefs and thereby detract from their
recreational value and may also pose a risk to marine mannals,
turtles and birds, who may eat them. These regulations would
also prohibit dredged-material disposal within the sanctuary.

The impact of adhering to these regulations on the
operations of vessels and oil platforms is expected to be minor.
Potentially harmful wastes, i.e., wastes not falling under one of
the exceptions to the regulations, would have to be retained on
vessels until they could be disposed of properly. If a valid
regulation issued by another Federal authority conflicts with a
sanctuary regulation, the more protective regulation shall
govern.

The disposal of dredged material in Flower Garden Banks'
waters has not been proposed in the past, does not now occur, and
the area seems unlikely to become attractive for this purpose in
the future. This prohibition makes permanent the existing
situation and should thus have no burdensome impact on dredge
disposal activities.

(d) Altering the Seabed

Altering the seabed for purposes of hydrocarbon exploration
and development is presently prohibited within the no-activity
zones by MMS lease sale stipulations. This sanctuary regulation
would prohibit drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the
seabed for any purpose, or unintentionally, other than by
anchoring. (The regulatory restrictions on anchoring are
described above.) The regulation would also prohibit
constructing or abandoning any structure, material or other
matter on the seabed of the sanctuary. The regulation would not
apply to necessary activities conducted in areas outside the no-
activity zones and incidental to exploration for, development of,
or production of oil or gas in those areas. The regulation would
ensure the protection of sanctuary resources from, for example,

all dredging and construction operations. It is not expected to
have any socio-economic effects. Construction of any structure
and any excavation or fill activity in the territorial sea or on
the outer continental shelf is already prohibited without a
permit from the Corps of Engineers under section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. 403.

(e) Injuring or Removing sanctuary Resources

It would be prohibited to injure or remove, or attempt to
injure or remove, any coral or other bottom formation, coralline
algae or other plant, marine invertebrate, brine-seep biota or
carbonate rock within the Sanctuary. This regulation would go
beyond the regulations implementing the coral fishery management
plan in two ways: 1) the latter regulations only cover the 50
fathom isobath; and 2) As indicated above, the sanctuary
regulation addresses more than just coral and coral reefs.

(f) Taking Marine Mammals or Turtles

It would be prohibited to take any marine mammal or turtle
within the Sanctuary, except as permitted by regulations, as
amended, promulgated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as
amended, 16 U.S.C. �� 1361 et 'sea., and the Endangered Species
Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. �� 1531 et sea. This regulation would
track the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act
with regard to marine mammals and turtles.

(g) Catching or Feeding Fish

Injuring, catching, harvesting, collecting or feeding, or
attempting to injure, catch, harvest, collect or feed, any fish
within the Sanctuary except by use of conventional hook and line
gear would be prohibited within the Sanctuary. This regulation
would go beyond the regulations implementing the coral fishery
management plan in three main ways: 1) the latter regulations
only cover the 50 fathom isobath; 2) the sanctuary regulations
would prohibit spearfishing; and 3) the sanctuary regulations
would prohibit fish feeding. This regulation is not expected to
diminish recreational or commercial opportunities in the
sanctuary significantly. Hook and line fishing is by far the
most popular and successful method used by commercial and
recreational fishermen to catch reef fish. During the period
1972-1974, 94 percent of all reef fish taken were caught with
handlines. This fishing method would not be restricted by the
sanctuary regulations, except, however, that use of bottom
longlines would be prohibited and fishing with bottom longlines
is already prohibited with the 50 fathom isobath by the
regulations implementing the fishery management plan for coral
and coral reefs. 50 CFR Part 638.

Fish feeding would be prohibited because it is believed to
significantly alter the behavior of fish by disrupting normal
feeding patterns.

(h) Possession of Resources

The sanctuary regulations would also prohibit the following:
possessing within the Sanctuary (regardless of where taken,
collected, caught, harvested or removed) any carbonate rock,
coral or other bottom formation, coralline algae or other plant,
marine invertebrate, brine-seep biota, or fish (except.for fish.
caught by use,of conventional hook and line gear). The
regulations implementing the coral fishery management plan do.not
contain a prohibition on possession. This sanctu 'ary,regulation
would.aid the enforcement of the prohibitions discussed under
(e), (f) and (g) above.

(i) -Possession of Fishing Gear

Possessing or using within the Sanctuary, except possessing
while passing without interruption through it, any fishing.gear,
device or equipment except conventional hook and line gear would
be prohibited. The regulations implementing the coral reef
fishery management plan do not contain a prohibition on
possession, only use.. This regulation would aid the enforcement
of the sanctuary regulation discussed under (g).

(j) Possession or Use of Explosives or Release of Electrical
Charges

Possessing or using explosives or releasingelectrical
charges within the Sanctuary would be prohibited. The intent of
this prohibition'is to protect Sanctuary resources from the
harmful effects of explosives and electrical.charges. The
regulations implementing the fishery management plan for reef -
fish in.the Gulf of Mexico, 50 CFR Part 641, already prohibit the
use of explosives to take reef fish and prohibit vessels in the
reef fish fishery from possessing any dynamite or similar
explosive substance. The use of explosives and electrical charges
in seismic operations, for example, has been documented to be
lethal or damaging to fish eggs and larvae, disturbing to fish
and other marine life, and possibly destructive to commercial
fishing gear (Gulf of Mexico Sales 131, 135, and 137: Central,
Western and Eastern Planning Areas DEIS, USDOI, MMS, 1990).

One exception to the Sanctuary regulatory prohibition has
been carved out in order to allow necessary activities conducted
in areas of the Sanctuary outside the no-activity zones and
incidental to exploration for, development of, or production of
oil or gas in those areas.

(k) Enforcement

The impact of the enhanced surveillance and enforcement
efforts focused on sanctuary resources should be beneficial.
Enforcement at the sanctuary will focus on a coordinated program
with emphasis on resource protection at the Banks rather than an
elaborate surveillance and enforcement presence.

2. Research and Interpretation

The impacts resulting from-the implementation of the
research and interpretation programs are expected to be positive.
The research program should result in a coordinated mechanism for
studying the sanctuary's resources-and developing effective
management strategies. The research program would provide a'
coordinated effort to obtain management-oriented data,6n the
sanctuary environment and resources and possible impacts on them
resulting from projected levels of human activity. These data
can then be used in formulating measures to preserve the health
of sanctuary resources.

The interpretation prog ram would improve public awareness of
the importance and fragility of the Flower Garden Banks resources
and thus engender support for resource protection efforts. 'The
program would provide audiovisual material, exhibits, and other
information products for individuals, schools and interested
groups.

3. Boundary Alternatives

All three regulatory/boundary alternatives would protect the
coral and associated resources at the,Banks. Both of the first
two regulatory/boundary alternatives provide protection to-the
areas of significant coral and associated resources, but the
second, the preferred alternative@ would present fewer
enforcement problems because it rounds out the Sanctuary -
boundaries so they can be plotted by geographic coordinates for
enforcement purposes. The third alternative would also protect
the critical core areas of the Flower Garden Banks coral reefs,-
but it would incorporate the entire 4-mile zones established by
MMS around the Banks.

NOAA recognizes that activities occurring in the 4-mile
zones may potentially generate pollutants that could threaten the
significant resources of the Flower Garden reefs.. NOAA therefore
agrees that the reefs must be protected from the possible adverse
impacts*of buffer zone activities.@ Alternative 1 requires
drilling operations comply with a sanctuary regulation
prohibiting discharges and deposits that enter the sanctuary and
injure a sanctuary resource or quality. NOAA@believes that this
regulation, applying to other discharges [email protected] well as

drilling wastes, provides broad protection to sanctuary
resources. NOAA has also modified Alternative 1 by including a
shunting requirement for oil and gas activities-in the sanctuary
(which are allowed only in the areas outside the no-activity -
zones). NOAA is therefore of the opinion that the Alternative 1
boundaries, which encompass the present boundaries of the no-
activity zones, rounded out to allow more easy identification of
the boundaries of the sanctuary for enforcement purposes, are
more in keeping than the Alternative 3 boundaries with section
922.1(c)(2) of the National Marine Sanctuary program regulations
(15 CFR Part 922), which states that sanctuary size will be no
larger than necessary to ensure effective management.

With respect to activities within the no-activity zones,
NOAA agrees that the Alternative 3 provision explicitly
prohibiting hydrocarbon exploration, development or production
within these zones provides stronger protection than the
prohibition on altering the seabed, the primary means of
regulating hydrocarbon activities within these zones under
Alternative 1. NOAA has therefore modified Alternative 1 by
incorporating into it an explicit prohibition of hydrocarbon
exploration, development and production activities within the no-
activity zones. Thus modified, Alternative I remains*the
preferred alternative.

4. Management Alternatives

Alternative 1 is less costly, but Alternative 2 is far more
effective in day-to-day management and in responding to emergency
situations.

B. The Status Ouo Alternative

Under the status cruo, the Flower Garden Banks would not have
the degree of management or protection warranted by the
significance of their marine resources. In the existing regime,
management is provided by individual Federal agencies, each of
which is responsible for regulating specific activities under the
authority of statutes directed to specific and sometimes narrow
objectives. Although this regime is able to provide some degree
of protection to Flower Garden Banks resources against most
potentially damaging human activities, it, for example, provides
no protection from the effects of anchoring by large vessels,
considered the most serious continuing threat to the Flower
Garden Banks coral reefs (MMS, 1987), and it provides less
protection from discharges and harmful fishing practices than
would sanctuary regulations.

The MMS stipulations (see Part III,, Section I), prevent most
of the impacts to the Flower Garden Banks that may result from
OCS oil and gas development. Such impact producing factors

include oil spills, blowouts, structure emplacement, and drilling
discharges, as well as anchoring by vessels engaged in drilling
and production activities. The protection provided by the MMS
stipulations, however, is not permanent. The stipulations are
imposed on a lease-by-lease basis and can be modified or
eliminated at any time.

Oil spills may result from sea-surface sources (tanker
accidents, platform leaks) and seafloor sources (pipeline
accidents, oil well blowouts). Most small spills occur from
surface sources, while medium-sized or large spills are equally
likely to occur from surface or seafloor sources. Although it is
possible that spills from seafloor sources could impinge directly
on the Banks and cause significant adverse impacts to the biota,
the probability of such a spill occurring and reaching the Flower
Garden Banks is low (MMS, 1987). The threat of a seafloor spill
directly over the Banks has currently been eliminated by MMS1
establishment of the no-activity zones. If a subsurface spill
were to occur under normal conditions nearby, the contaminants,
instead of being deposited on the reefs, would be swept around
the banks by the subsurface currents (Rezak et al., 1985).

The Flower Garden Banks coral reefs are also currently
protected from the effects of oil industry construction and
drilling discharges by the MMS stipulations. Construction
activities by the oil industry are prohibited within the no-
activity zones, and restrictions on the disposal of drilling
wastes within four mile zones beyond the no-activity zones
require them to be shunted to the bottom. The MMS notes (MMS,
1987) that "shunting of drilling effluent to the nephloid layer
contains the effluent to a level deeper than the level of the
living reef of a high relief topographic feature. Shunting is
therefore an effective measure for protecting the biota of high
relief topographic features (Bright and Rezak, 1978; Rezak and
Bright, 1981; and NAS, 1983). Biological effect on the benthos
from the deposition of unshunted discharge is mostly limited to
within 1,000 m of the discharge (NAS, 1983).11

A large blowout occurring near a biologically sensitive area
could have severe environmental consequences. Large amounts of
sediment resuspended by a blo@out could smother coral communities
causing mortality. Accordingito MMS (MMS, 1987), the biological
stipulation "would not protect the banks from the adverse effects
of ..... a large blowout on a nearby oil or gas operation.
Fortunately, blowouts are rar6 in the Gulf." Because of their
rarity, blowouts generally pose far less environmental risk than
do oil spills. Since 1970, no oil spill of 1 bbl or more has
occurred as a result of a blowout during drilling operations.
Moreover, the amount of oil pollution during blowouts has been
decreasing. The amount of gas escaping during a blowout is
difficult to determine; however, no identifiable environmental

damage was caused by blowouts during the period 1979-1984 (MMS,'
1987).

Aside from their rarity,lblowouts are unlikely to damage-the
Flower Garden Banks because of the greater depth of the water
outside of the no-activity zones where drilling may occur.' The
flow of water at the base of the Flower Garden Banks is so *
strongly stratified-that little vertical motion is possible as
the,flow encounters the banks.' The"flow then diverges around the
banks with a very modest vertical excursion (on the order of 10
m) on the point of the banks where the flow diverges (Rezak et
al., 1985). Consequently, the contaminants from blowouts'would
normally be swept around the banks by the currents instead of
being deposited on the reefs.

The Flower Garden Banks are not as well protected from-the
impact of other activities as they are from oil and gas
exploration and development. The amount of@petroleum entering'
Gulf waters from vessels engaged in maritime transportation, most
of it as the result of operational discharges from tankers, is
eight times the amount caused by offshore oil exploration and
production (MMS, 1987). Although the Clean Water Act (CWA)
provides for the establishment'of the National Contingency Plan
to contain, disperse, or remove oil and'hazardous substances
after a spill (Part II, Section III), neither this act nor the
Protocol of 1978 Relating to the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, contains 'a general
prohibition on the discharge of oil and hazardous substances into
waters beyond 50 nautical miles (93 km) from the shore. The
Flower Garden Banks, being more than twice that distance from
shore and only 6 nautical miles (11"km) from a major shipping
fairway, are located in a general area where vessel discharges of
oil or oily,mixtures might,be expected.

Small surface spills, however, are unlikely to have any
significant impact on the health of Flower Garden Banks corals.
oil from surface spills, driven into the water column to depths
of 33 ft (10 m), is foundonly at concentrations several orders
of magnitude lower than those shown to have an effect on corals.
oil released in surface-spills@and driven 50 ft (15 m) deep to
the shallowest point on the Flower Garden Banks would be in such
low concentrations that it would have no impact on these reefs
(MMS, 1987)., Chronic oil pollution in shallow-waters above the
reefs could, however,'damage the environment aesthetically'and
thus detract from the recreational value of the area.

Although the CWA does not specifically prohibit the
discharge 'of oil and other hazardous substances in the vicinity
of the Flower Garden Banks, it does prohibit such discharges in
harmful quantities "which may affect natural resources.-.under
the exclusive management authority of the United'States.19
Moreover, the EPA permit under the National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System for,discharges near the Flower Garden Banks
requires compliance with the MMS biological stipulations that
establish no-activity zones and requiring shunting in buffer
zonesbeyond. If these stipulations cease to be applied, EPA may
require a variety of restrictions, including limitations on
discharge rates or a full prohibition on discharges. Further,
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990provides that any party responsible
for'the di scharge, or the substantial threat of discharge, of oil
into the Exclusive Economic Zone is liable for removal costs and
damages.

The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, as amended by the
Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987, and
its implementing regulations prohibit the disposal of plastic or
garbage mixed with plastic into the Exclusive Economic Zone.
They do not,,however, prohibit the disposal 12 nautical miles and
more from themearest land of.paper, tags, glass, metal bottles,
crockery and similar refuse. Such litter may reduce the
aesthetic qualities of the reefs and thereby detract from their
recreational value and may also pose a risk,to marine mammals,
turtles and birds, who may eat them.

Anchoring in the no-activity zones by vessels engaged in oil
and gas exploration and development activities is prohibited on a
lease by lease basis by MMS, but neither MMS nor NMFS has the .
authority.to regulate anchoring by other vessels, e.g., vessels
engaged in maritime commerce. Thus anchoring by these vessels
continues to pose the greatest continuing threat to Flower Garden
Banks resources.

A good example of the extent of damage caused by anchoring
is contained in a report prepared by Continental Shelf
Associates, Inc. (1984), describing the October 1983 anchoring by
a tug, M/V NICK CANDIES, and tow barge at the East Flower Garden
Banks (see Part II, Section II, C. 5. Anchoring). The impacted
area was on the coral reef between 55 and 90 ft (17 m and 27 m)
depths. Newly broken and overturned coral heads, gouges and
abrasions were observed in a band approximately 10 ft (3 m) wide
extending for 200 ft (61 m) or so across the shallower portion of
the.lanchor drag. The band of damage narrowed to about 5 ft (1.5
m) in deeper water, but extended.for an additional length of 400
ft (12'2 m).. Damage was considerably less on the deeper part of
the drag. Swimming approximately 150 ft (46 m) along the shallow
dam aged area,.Bright counted 205 damaged coral heads (Bright,
1985b). The "softer" corals (Colipophyllia.and Diploria) suffered
more extensive disruption than did the more solidly built forms
(e.g. Montastrea).

The NMFS regulations implementing the coral fishery
management plan make it unlawful without a scientific or
educational permit to fish for coral or to use toxic chemicals to
take fish or other marine organisms. Fishing with bottom

longlines, traps, pots or bottom trawls is also prohibited. (See
Part III, Section I). The proposed Flower Garden Banks marine
sanctuary regulations are substantially similar (see Part III,
Section-II),'but the sanctuary regulations would Apply within the
100 m (328 ft) isobath around each Bank, whereas the NMFS
regulations apply within the 50 fathom.(300 ft) isbbath only-
Further, the sanctuary regulations would prohibit-spearfishing
and fish feeding. Moreover, the penalties for violating
sanctuary regulations would be more severe than those for
violating the regulations issued under the coral fishery
management plan. Sanctuary regulations should therefore be more
effective in deterring prohibited activities.

Finally, little literature or other educational information
on the Flower Garden Banks and its habitat values is available to
the general public. The public is largely unaware of the Banks'
existence. Conse'quefitly, there is no informed public that can
appreciate the worth of its resources and support efforts to
protect them.

Under the status -quo alternative, existing activities and
controls will continue as presently administered. Although this
regime affords some protection to Flower Garden Banks reefs, it
does not provide the protection needed, especially from large-
vessel anchoring. Despite the widely acknowledged natural
significance of the Banks, there is no comprehensive plan for the
management of the Banks' resources and no organizational
structure to coordinate research and regulation and apply
research findings to.the resolution of management issues.

Section II: Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects

No unavoidable adverse environmental impacts due to the
implementation of the management plan and regulations are
foreseen.

Section III: Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of the
Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term
Productivity

Sanctuary designation emphasizes the importance of the
natural resources of Flower Garden Banks. The quality of the
Flower Garden Banks' environment is still pristine. Designation
provides long-term assurance that the natural resources of the
area will be available for future use and enjoyment, particularly
in terms of research and public awareness of the marine
environment. Implementation of the preferred alternative ensures
that changes in use patterns which could degrade Bank
environments are monitored.

The interpretation and s.urveillance/enforcement programs
will provide information, management and protection that develops
a foundation for wise public use of the area and results in long-
term productivity. Similarly, information collected in the I
research program will assist Federal managers in making better
management decisions. Better management will in turn help
resolve use conflict and mitigate the adverse impacts of human
activities.

Part V: LIST OF PREPARERS

Dr. Thomas Bright
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas

Ms. Darlene Finch - Program specialist
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, NOAA

Ms. Annie Hillary - Senior Project Manager
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, NOAA

Mr. Rafael Lopez - Regional Manager
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, NOAA

Mr. Joseph Uravitch - Chief
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, NOAA

Mr. William Windom - Project Manager
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, NOAA

PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS RECEIVING
COPIES

I .

PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS RECEIVING
COPIES

Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Council on,Efivironmen-tal Quality
Department of Agriculture
Department of the Air Force
Department of the Army
Department of the Army/Corps of Engineers
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of the Navy
Department of State
Department of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Gulf of Mexico Fishery-Management Council
Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission
Marine Mammal Commission
Maritime Administration
National Science Foundation
U.S. Coast Guard

Congressional

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.;
United States Senate
Committee on Merchant Marine and-Fisheries;
U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Lloyd Bentsen, United State Senate
Honorable John B. Breaux, United States Senate
Honorable Phil Gramm, United States Senate
Honorable J. Bennett Johnston,,United States Senate
Honorable Michael A. Andrews, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Bill Archer, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Lindy Boggs, U.S. House of Representatives'
Honorable Jack Brooks, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Tom DeLay, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable E. (Kika) de la Garza, U.S. House of'Representatives
Honorable Jack Fields, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Jimmy Hayes, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Craig A. Washington, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Bob Livingston, U.S. House of"@Representatives
Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable W. J. (Billy) Tauzin, U..S. House of Representatives
Honorable Charles Wilson, U.S.'House of Representatives

94'

State Government and Agencies

Honorable Bill Clements, Governor of Texas
Honorable Buddy Roemer, Governor of Louisiana
Honorable Debre Danburg, Texas House of Representatives
Louisiana Coastal Management Program
Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation,and Tourism
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
Louisiana Department of State
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Louisiana Geological Survey
Louisiana office of Intergovernmental Affairs
Louisiana office of State Parks
Louisiana State Office of Conservation
President, Louisiana Senate
Speaker, Louisiana House of Representatives
Speaker, Texas House of Representatives
Speaker Pro-Tem, Texas Senate
Texas Attorney General
Texas Committee on Natural Resources
Texas General Land Office
Texas Governor's Office of-Budget and.Planning
Texas Office of IntergovernmentalAffairs
Texas Office of State-Federal Relations
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Texas Secretary of State
Texas Tourist Development Agency

Interest Groups

Alliance for Environmental Education, Inc.
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
American Association of Port Authorities
American Bureau of Shipping
American Conservation Association
American Fisheries Society
American Gas Association
American Institute of Merchant Shipping,
American Littoral.Society
American Petroleum:,@Institute
American Recreation Coaliti
ion
Americans for the Environment
Amoco Production Company,--.
Atlantic Richfield Company,
Audubon Society
Boating Industry Association
CONOCO Inc.
Center for Law and Social Policy,
Center forMarine Conservation
Cities Service Oil, and,Gas.,Corporation
Citizens Advisory Committee"on-the-Gult Initiative

95'

Citizens Environmental Coalition
Clean Water Action Project
Coast Alliance
Coastal Society
Coastal States Organization
Conservation Education Association
Conservation Foundation
Conservation Fund
Continental Oil Company
Continental Shelf Associates
Council of State Planning Agencies
Council on Ocean Law
Cousteau Society
Defenders of Wildlife
Edison Electric Institute
El Paso Natural Gas Company
Environmental Action Foundation
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
Environmental Law Institute
Environmental Policy Center
Environmental.-Policy Institute
Exxon Company, U.S.A.
Federation of American Controlled Shipping
Friends of the Earth
Galveston Bay Foundation
Galveston Island Diving Association
Greenpeace
Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute
Gulf Coast Authority
Gulf Oil Exploration and Production Company
Houston Sierra Club
Houston Sportsmen's Club
Houston Underwater Club
Institute for the Human Environment
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
International Oceanographic Foundation
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc.
Louisiana University Marine Consortium
Louisiana Wildlife Federation
Marine Science Institute
Marine Technology Society
Mobile Oil Corporation
National Association of Conservation Districts
National Association of Counties
National Association of State Recreation Planners
National Audubon Society
National Coalition for Marine Conservation
National Federation of Fisherman
National Fisheries Institute
National Marine Education Association
National Maritime Council
National Ocean Industries Association

National Parks and Conservation Association
National Recreation and Parks Association
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Nature Conservancy
New Orleans Steamship Association
Oceanic Society
Petroleum Information Corporation
Port of Corpus Christi Authority
Port of Houston Authority
Port of Lake Charles
Port of Orange
Resources for the Future
Rigs to Reefs Company
Rinn Boats, Inc.
Shell Oil Company
Sierra Club
Sport Fishing Institute
Sportsmen's Clubs of Texas, Inc.
Standard oil Company
Texaco, Inc.
Texas Conservation Foundation
Texas Environmental Coalition
Texas Shrimp Association
Texas State Aquarium
Union Oil Company
United Nations Environment Programme
United States Chamber of Commerce
United States Tourist Council
Water Pollution Control Federation
West Gulf Maritime Association
Wilderness Society
Wildlife Management Institute
Wildlife Society, Louisiana Chapter
Wildlife Society, Texas Chapter
World Resources Institute
World Wildlife Fund U.S.

PART VII: REFERENCES

Abbott, R.E. 1975. "The Faunal Composition of the Algal-Sponge
Zone of the Flower Garden Banks, Northwest Gulf of Mexico." M.S.
Thesis, Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University, College
Station.

Abbott, R.E. 1979. "Ecological Processes Affecting the Reef
Coral Population at the East Flower Garden Bank,.Northwest Gulf
of Mexico." Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M
University, College Station.

Antoine, J.W., W. Bryant and B. Jones. 1967. "Structural
features of continental shelf, slope, and scarp, northeastern
Gulf of Mexico." AAPG Bull. 51, pp. 257-262.

Bakas, G.J. 1966. "Some relationships of fishes to benthic,
organisms on coral reefs." Nature 210 (5033), pp. 280-284.

Bakas, G.J. 1969. Feeding and energetics in shallow marine
waters." International Review of Gen. and Expertl. Zool. 4, pp.
275-369.

Blood, A. 1978. Personal communication. Charter boat captain,
Port Arthur, Texas.

Bright, T.J. 1977. "Coral reefs, nepheloid layers, gas seeps
and brine flows on hard-banks in the northwestern Gulf of
Mexico." Proc. Third Int. Coral Reef Symp., University of
Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, 1,
pp. 39-46.

Bright, T.J. 1983. "Flower Garden reefs - Fragile Beauty."
Texas Parks & Wildlife 41 (4), pp. 8-11.

Bright, T.J. 1985a. Enclosure to letter dated July 26.
Professor, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.

Bright, T.J. 1985b. Enclosure to letter dated September 26.

Bright, T.J. 1986. Personal communication.

Bright, T.J. And Cara Cashman. 1974. "Fishes." In T.J. Bright
and L.H. Pequegnat, Eds., Biota of the West Flower Garden Bank.
Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, pp. 339-409.

Bright, T.J., C. Combs, G. Kraemer, and G. Minnery. 1982. In
Environmental Studies at the Flower Gardens and Selected Banks.
Final Report to U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals
Management Service, Contract #AA851-CTO-25, Chapter III, NTIS
Order No. PB83-101303, pp. 39-102.

Bright,T.J., G.P. Kraemer, G.A. Minnery, and S.T. Viada. 1984.
"Hermatypes of the Flower Garden Banks." Bull. Mar. Sci., 34
(3), pp. 461-176.

Bright, T.J. P.A. LaRock, R.D. Lauer, and J.M. Brooks. 1980.
"A brine seep, at the East Flower Garden Bank, northwest Gulf of
Mexico." Int. Rev. Gesamten Hydrobiol., 65, pp 535-549.

Bright, T.J. and L.H. Pequegnat, Eds. Biota of the West Flower
Garden Bank. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, 1974.

Bright, T.J., E. Powell, and R. Rezak. 1980b. "Environmental
effects of a natural brine seep at the East Flower Garden Bank,
northwestern Gulf of Mexico." In R.A. Geyer, Ed., Marine
Environmental Pollution, "Elsevier Oceanography Series, 27A. New
York, pp. 291-316.

Bright, T.J. and R. Rezak. 1976. A Biological and Geological
Reconnaissance,of Selected Topographical Features on the Texas
Continental Shelf. Final Report to U.S. Department of the
Interior. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.

Bright, T.J. and R. Rezak. 1977. "Reconnaissance of reefs and
fishing banks of the Texas Continental Shelf." In R.A. Geyer,
Ed., Submersibles and Their Use in Oceanography. New York,
pp. 113-150.

Bright, T.J. and R. Rezak. 1978. Northwestern Gulf of Mexico
Topographic Features Study. Final Report to U.S. Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas.

Bright, T.J., J.W. Turnell, L.H. Pequegant, T.E. Burke, C.W.
Cashman, D.A. Cropper, J.P. Ray, R.C. Tresslar, J. Teerling, and
J.B. Wills. 1974. "Biotic Zonation on the West Flower Garden
Bank." In T. Bright and L. Pequegnat, Eds,. Biota of the West
Flower Garden Bank. Houston: Gulf Publishing company, pp. 4-54.

Bright, T.J., S. Viada, C. Combs, G. Dennis, E. Powell, and G.
Denoux. 1981."East Flower Garden monitoring study." In
Northern Gulf of Mexico Topographic Features Study. Final Report
to U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Contract #AA551-CT8-35, Vol. 3. Part C, NTIS Order No. PB81-
24876.

Brooks, J.M., T.J. Bright, B.B. Bernard, and C.R. Schwab. 1979.
"Chemical aspects of a brine pool at the East Flower Garden Bank,
northwest Gulf of Mexico." Limnol. & Oceanogr., 24(4), pp. 735-
745.

100

Burke, T.E,. 1974A. "Echinoderms.11 In T.J. Bright and L.H.
Pequegnat, Eds., Biota of the West Flower Garden Banks. Gulf
Publishing Company, Houston, pp. 311-332.

Burke, T.E. 1974B. "Echinoderms of the West Flower Garden Reef
Bank." Master's Thesis, Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M
University, College Station.

Cashman, Cara W. 1973. "Contributions to the IchihyefaunAs of
the West Flower Garden Reef and other reef sites-in the Gulf of
Mexico and Western Caribbean." Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
Oceanography, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1984. "Impact assessment
following an anchoring incident at the East Plower Garden Bank
coral reef." Report to Mobil Producing, Texas and'New Mexico,'
Inc., Offshore Texas Division, The Woodlands, TX.

Cropper, Dennis A. 1973. "Living Cheilostome Bryozoa of West
Flower Garden Bank, Northwest Gulf of Mexico." @Masterls Thesist
Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University, College
Station.

Curray, J.R. 1960. "Sediments and history of Holocene
transgression, continental shelf, northwest Gult-of Mexico." In
F.P. Shepard, F.B. Phleger, and T.H. Van Andel, Eds., Recent
Sediments, Northwest Gulf of Mexico. AAPG. Tulsa, Oklahoma, pp.
221-266.

Defenbaugh, R.E. 1974. "Hydroids.11 In T.J. Bright and,L.H.
Pequegnat, Eds., Biota of the West Flower Garden Bank. Gulf
Publishing Company, Houston, pp. 93-114.

Defenbaugh, R.E. 1976. "A Study of the Benthic
Macroinvertebrates of the Continental Shelf of the Northern Gulf
of Mexico." Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M
University, College Station.

Department of State. 1988. Letter dated April 8 to Chief,
Marine and Estuarine Management Division, NOAA, from Deputy
Assistant Secretary for oceans and Fisheries Affairs.

Dubois, Random. 1975. "A Comparison of the Distribution of the
Echinodermata of a Coral Community with that of a Nearby Rock.
Outcrop on the Texas Continental Shelf." Master's Thesis,
Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University, College
Station.

Edwards, G.S. 1971. Geology of the West Flower Ga rden Bank.
Texas A&M Sea Grant Publ., TAMU-SG-71-215.

101

Eiseman, N.J. and S.M. Blair. 1982. "New records and range
extensions of deepwater algae from East Flower Garden Bank,
Northwestern Gulf of Mexico." Contrib. Mar. Sci., 25, pp. 21-26.

Etter, P.C. and J.D. Cochrane 1975. Water Temperature on the
Texas-Louisiana Shelf. marine Advisory Bulletin, Commerce.
Texas A&M Sea Grant Publ., TAMU-SG-75-604.

Futures Group. 1982. Final Technical Report, Outer Continental
Shelf Oil Spill Probability Assessment. Prepared by The Futures
Group, Glastonberry, Connecticut, for the Bureau of Land
Management, Department of the Interior. ..

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1980. "Offshore Petroleum
Resource Development and Marine Mammals: a Review and Research
Recommendations." Marine Fisheries Review, Nov. 1980.

Geraci, J.R. and D. J. St. Aubin. 1982. Study of the Effects of
Oil on Cetaceans. Prepared for the Department of the Interior
and cited in MMS, 1984.

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1983. "Fifth Interim
Report-Study of the Effects of Oil on Marine Mammals." Prepared
for MMS and cited in MMS, 1984.

Giammona, Charles P. 1978. IlOctocorals in the Gulf of Mexico-
Their Taxonomy and Distribution with Remarks on Their
Paleontology." Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Oceanography,
Texas A&M University, College Station.

Gittings, S.R. 1983. "Hard-Bottom Macrofauna of the East Flower
Garden Brine Seep: Impact of a Long-Term, Point-Source Brine
Discharge." M.S. Thesis, Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M
University, College Station.

Glynn, P.W., R.H. Stewart, and J.E. McClosker. 1972. "Pacific
coral reefs in Panama: structure, distribution and predators."
Geologische Rundschann 61, pp. 483-519.

Goedicke, T.R. 1955. origin of the pinnacles on the continental
shelf and slope of the.Gulf of Mexico. Tex. J. Sci., 7, pp. 149-
159.

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1981. Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Reef Fish Fishery of the
Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, St.
Petersburg,.Florida.

102

Harrington, D.L4 1966. "Oceanographic observations on the
Northwest Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico: 1963-1965.11
Contribution No.. 329, National Marine Fisheries Service
Biological Laboratory, Galveston, Texas.

Hiatt, R.W. and D.W.*Strasburg. 1960. "Ecological relationships
of the fish fauna on coral reefs of the Marshall Islands.19
Ecolog. Monog. 30 (1), pp. 65-127.

Hobson, E.S. and J.R. Chess. '1978. "Trophic relationships among
fishes and plankton in the lagoon at Enewetak Atoll, Marshall
Islands." Fish. Bull. 76 (11, pp.133-153.

Hoese, H.D. and R.H. Moore. 1977. @Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico,
Texas, Louisiana, and Adjacent Waters. Texas A&M University
Press, College Station.

Hudson, J.H. and D.M. Robbins. 1980. "Effects of drilling mud
on the growth rate of the reef building coral, Montastrea
annularis.11 In R.A. Geyer, Ed., Marine Environmental Pollution,
Elsevier Oceanography Series, 27A. New York, pp. 455-470.

Humphris, C.C.', Jr. 1978. "Salt movement on continental slope,
northern Gulf of Mexico." In A.H. Bouma, G.T. Moore and J.M.
Coleman, Eds., Framework Fagies and Oil Trapping Characteristics
of the Upper Continental Margin, AAPG, Studies in Geology No. 7.
.Tulsa, Oklahoma, pp. 69-85.

Interagency Archeological Services. 1977. Cultural Resources,
Evaluation of the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf.
Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, National Park
service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Johnston, C.S. 1979. "Sources and Effects of Hydrocarbons in
the Marine Environment,." The Marine Environment and oil
Facilities. Inst. of Civil Engrs., London.

Knap, A.H., S.C.. Wyers, R.E. Dodge,,T.D. Sleeter, H.R. Frith,
S.R. Smith, and C.B. Cook. 1985. "The effects of chemically and
physically dispersed oil on the brain coral Diploria strigosa
(Dana) - a summary review." In: Proceedings, 1985 Oil Spill
Conference, February 25-28, 1985, Los Angeles, CA. Washington,
DC:American Petroleum Institute, pp. 547-551.

Kraemerl G.P. 1982. "Population Levels and Growth Rates of
Scleractinian Corals Within the Diploria Montastrea-Porites Zone
of the East and West Flower Garden Banks.11 M.S. Thesis,
Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University, College
Station.

103

,Lange, R. 1985. "A 100 ton experimental oil spill at Halten
Bank off.Norway.11 In: Proceedings 1985 Oil Spill Conference,
February 25-28, 1985, Los Angeles, CA. Washingtonj DC: American
Petroleum Institute.

Leuterman, Arthur. 1979. "The Taxonomy and Systematics of the
Gymnolaemate and Stenolaemate Bryozoa of the Northwest Gulf of
Mexico." Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Oceanography, Texas
A&M University, College Station.

Levert, C.F. and H.C. Ferguson, Jr. 1969. "Geology of the
Flower Garden Banks, northwest Gulf of Mexico." Trans. Gulf
Coast Assoc, Geol. Soc. , 19, pp. 89-100.

Lewis, J.B. 1977. "Processes of organic production on coral
reefs." Biol. Rec. 52, pp. 305-347.

Lipka, D.A. 1974. "Mollusks." In T.J. Bright and L.H.
Pequegnat, Eds., Biota of the West Flower Garden Bank. Houston:
Gulf Publishing Company, pp. 131-198.

Maddocks, R".F. 1974. "Ostracodes.11 In T.J. Bright and L.-H.
Pequegnat, Eds. Biota of the West Flower Garden Bank. Houston:-
Publishing Company, pp. 1-99-230.

McAuliffe, C.D., A.E. Smalley, R.D. Groover, W.M. Welsh, W.S.
Pickle, and G.E. Jones. 1975. "Chevron Main Pass Block 41 oil
spills: chemical and biological investigation." In:
P.roceedings 1975 Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil
Pollutio , March 25-27, 1975, San Francisco, CA, Washingtoni DC:
American Petroleum Institute.

McGrail, D.W. 1977. IlShelf edge currents and sediment transport
in the northwest Gulf of Mexico." (Abs.) Trans. Am. Geophys.
Union, 58, p. 1110.

McGrail, D.W. 1982. "Anomalous flow on the Outer Continental
Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico and its effect on sediment
transport." (Abs.) Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 63(3), p. 65.

McGrail, D.W. and M.R. Carnes. 1983. I'Shelfedge dynamics and
the nepheloid layer." In D.J. Stanley and G.T. Moore, Eds.,
Shelf Break: Critical Interface on Continental Margins, Soc.
Econ. Paleontol. Mineral.., Special Pub. No. 33, pp. 251-264.
i
McGrail, D.W., M. Carnes, D. Horne, T. Cecil, J. Hawkins, and F.
Halper. 1982a. In Environmental Studies at the Flower Gardens
and Selected Banks. Final Report to Minerals Management Service,
Contract #AA851-CTO-25, NTIS Order.No. PB83-101303, pp. 103-226.

104

McGrail, D.W., M. Carnes, D. Horne, and J. Hawkins. 1982b.
HydrograRhic Data ReRort. Northern Gulf of Mexico Topographic
Features Study. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Contract #AA851-CTO-25. Department of Oceanography,
Texas A&M University, Tech. Rep. #82-4T.

McGrail, D.W., T.M. Cecil, and F.B. Halper. 1982e. "Stacking of
nepheloid and boundary layers at the shelf edge in the Gulf of
Mexico." (Abs.) Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 63, p. 988.@

McGrail, D.W., F. Halper,. D. Horne, T. Cecil, M. Carnes. 1982c.
Time Series Data ReRort. Northern Gulf of Mexico Topographic
Features Study. U.S. Department,of the Interior,-Bureau of Land
Management, Contract #AA851-CTO-25. Department of Oceanography,
Texas A&M University, Tech. Rep. #82-5T.

McGrail, D.W. and D. Horne. 1979. "Currents, thermal structure
and suspended sediment distribution induced by internal tides on
the Texas Continental Shelf." Paper presented at the spring
meeting of the American Geophysical Union SANDS Symposium.

McGrail, D.W. and''D. Horne.. 1981, "Water and sediment dynamics
(Flower Garden Banksj." In Northern Gulf of Mexico Topographic
Features Study. Final Report to U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management. Contract #AA551-CT8-35, Vol. 3 NTIS
Order No. PB81-246676,', Part-B, pp. 9-@-45.

McGrail, D.W. and D.W. Huff. @1978. "Shelf sediment and local
flow phenomena: in'situ observations." .(Abs.) Program AAPG-SEPM
Annual Convention, p., 93.

McGrail, D.W., D.W. Huff, and S. Jenkins. 1978. "Current
measurements and dye'diffusion.studies.", In T. Bright and,R.
Rezak, Eds., Northwestern Gulf of Mexico Topographic Features
Study. Final Report to the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Contract #AA550-CT7-15,
NTIS Order No.PB-294-769/AS, pp. 111-3 to 111-72..

McGrail, D.W. and R. Rezak., 1977. "Internal waves and the
nepheloid layer on continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico."
Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc.-Geol. Soc., 27, pp. 123-124.

McGrail' D.W., R. Rezak, and T.J. Bright. 1982d. Environmental
Studies at the Flower Gardens and Selected Banks. Northwest Gulf
of Mexico, 1979-1981. Final Report to Minerals Management
Service, Contract #AA851-CTO-25, NTIS Order No. PB83-101303.

Minerals Management Service,, U.S. Department of the Interior.
19.84. Final Environmental Impact-Statement, OCS Sale No. 90.
Minerals Management Service, Atlantic OCS Region, Vienna,
Virginia.

1015

Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
1986a. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed oil and
Gas Lease Sales 110 and 112. Minerals Management Service, Gulf
of Mexico OCS Region, Metairie, Louisiana.

Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
1987. Final Environmental Imr)act Statement, ProOosed Oil and Gas
Lease Sales 113/1151116. Minerals Management Service, Gulf of
Mexico Region, Metairie, Louisiana.

Minnery, Gregory. 1984. "Distribution, Growth Rates and
Diagenesis of Coralline Algal Structures on the Flower Garden
Banks, Northwestern Gulf of Mexico." Ph.D. Dissertation,
Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University, College
Station.

National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council - marine
Board. 1983. Drilling Discharm in the Marine Environment.
National Academic Press. Washington, D.C. cited in MMS, 1984.

Naval ocean Surveillance Information Center (since abolished).
1978. Computer analysis of merchant vessel traffic, January-June
1978.

Nowlin, W.D., Jr. 1972. "Winter circulation patterns and
property distributions." In L.R.A. Capurro and J.L. Reid, Eds.,
Texas A&M University Oceanographic Studies, Vol. 2. Houston:
Gulf Publishing Company, pp..3-53.

Nowlin, W.D., Jr., and H.J-. McLellan. 1967. "A characterization
of the Gulf of Mexico waters in winter." J. Mar. Res, 25(l), pp.
29-59.

Nowlin, W.D., Jr., and C.A. Parker. 1974, "Effects of a cold-
air outbreak on shelf waters of the Gulf of Mexico." J. Phys.
Oceanogr 40), pp. 467-486.

Parker, R.H. and J.R. Curray. 1956. "Fauna and bathymetry of
banks on continental shelf, Northwestern Gulf of Mexico." Bull.
Am. Assoc.-Petrol. Geol., pp. 2428-2439.

Pequegnat, L.H. and J.P. Ray. 1974. "Crustaceans and other
Arthropods." In T.J. Bright and L.H. Pequegnat, Eds., Biota-of
the West Flower Garden Bank. Houston:Gulf Publishing Company,
pp. 231-290.

Pequegnat, W.E. 1970. "Deep-water brachyuran crabs." In W.E.
Pequegnat and F.A. Chace, Jr., Eds., Contributions on the Biolggy
of the Gulf of Mexico, Vol. 1. Texas A&M University, College
Station, pp.'. 171-204.

106

Poag, C.W. 1973. "Late Quaternary sea levels in the Gulf of
Mexico." Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc., 23, pp. 394-400.

Powell, E.N. and T.J. Bright. 1981. "A thiobios does exist-
Gnathostomulid domination of the canyon community at the East
Flower Garden brine seep." Int. Rev. Gesgmien Hydrobiol., 66(5),
pp. 675-683.

Powell, E.N., T.J. Bright, A. Woods, and S. Gitting@s. 1983.
"Meiofauna and the thiobios in the East Flower Garden Brine
Seep." Mar. Biol., 73, pp. 269-283.

Pulley, T.E. 1952. "A zoogeographic study based on the bivalves
of the Gulf of Mexico." Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University, @15
pp., Cambridge.

Pulley, T.E. 1963. "Texas to the tropics." Houston Geol. Soc.
Bull., 6, pp. 13-19.

Pully, T.E. 1978. Personal communication. Director, Houston
Museum of Natural Science, Houston,*, Texas.

Randall'J.E. 1974. "The effect of fishes on coral reefs." In
Proceedings of the Second International SyMiposium on.Coral Reefs,
I, June 22-July 2, 1973. The Great Barrier Reef Committee,
Brisbane, Australia, pp. 159-166.

Ray, J.P. 1974. "A Study of the Coral Reef Crustaceans
(Decap6da and Stomatopoda) of Two Gulf of Mexico Reef Systems:
West Flower Garden, Texas and Isla De Lobos, Veracruz, Mexico."
Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of oceanography, Texas A&M
University, College Station.

Reid, R.O. and R. Whitaker, in press. "Numerical Model for
Astronomical Tides in the Gulf of,Mexico.11 U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg.- Mississippi.

Rezak, R. 1977. "West Flower Garden Bank, Gulf of Mexico."
Stud. Geol., 4, pp. 27-35.

Rezak, R. 1981. "Geology." In Northern Gulf of Mexico
Topographic Features Study. Final Report to U.S. Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Contract #AA851-CT8-35,
Vol. 1, NTIS Order No. PB83-101303, pp. 23-59.

Rezak, R. 1982a. "Geology of the Flower Garden Banks." In
Environmental Studies at the Flower Gardens and Selected Banks.
Final Report to Minerals Management Service, Contract #AA851-CTO-
25, Chapter II, NTIS Order No. PB83-101303, pp. 19-37.

107

Rezak, R. 1982b. Geology of selected banks. In Environmental
Studies at the Flower Gardens and Selected Banks. Final Report
to Minerals'Management Service, Contract #AA851-C,TO-25,.Chapt er
VI, NTIS Order No. PB83-101303, pp. 253"300

Rezak, R. and T.J. Bright. 1981a. Northern Gulf of Mexico
Topographic Features Study. Final Report to U.S. Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Contract #AA551-CT8-35,
5 vols. NTIS Order Nos.: Vol. I, PB81-248650; Vol. II, PB81-
248668; Vol. III, PB81-248676; Vol. IV, PB81-248684; Vol. V,
PB81-248692. Texas A&M University, o@ollege Station, TX.

Rezak, R. and T.J. Bright. 1981b. I'Seafloor instability at East
Flower Garden Bank, northwest Gulf of Mexico."- Geo-MarineLett.,
1(2), pp. 97-103.

Rezak, R., T.J. Bright, and D.W. McGrail. 1985. Reefs and
Banks of the Northwest Gulf of,Mexico.- Their Geological,
Biological, and Physical bynamics. John Wiley and Sons: A
Wiley-Interscience Publication.

Rezak R-%'and W.R. Bryant. 1973. "West Flower Garden Bank."
Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc. 23rd Annual Conv. (Oct. 24-
26), pp. 377-382.

Rezak, R. and G.S. Edwards. 1972. IlCarbonate sediments of the
Gulf,of Mexico." Texas A&M Univ. Ocean. Stud.1 3, pp. 263-280.

Schaefer, L. 1978. Personal communication. Oil company salvage
and dive boat captain, Freeport, Texas.

Sonnier, F., J. Teerling, and H.D. Hoese. 1976. "Observations
on the Offshore Reef and Platform Fish Fauna of Louisiana.11
CoReia, 1, pp. 105-111.

Stafford, J.M. 1982. "An Evaluation of the Carbonate Cements
and Their Diagenesis on Selected Banks, Outer Continental Shelf,
Northern Gulf of Mexico." M.S. Thesis, Department of
Oceanography, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Stephenson, W. and R.B. Searles. 1960. "Experimental studies on
the ecology of intertidal environments at Heron Esland.
Australian J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 11 (2), pp. 241-267.

Stetson, H.C. 1953. "The sediments of the western Gulf of
Mexico, Part 1-The continental terraces of the western Gulf of
Mexico: Its surface sediments, origin, and development." Papers
in Phys. Oceanogr. Meteorol., M.I.T./W.H.O.I., 12(4), pp. 1-45.

Teerling, Joyce. 1975. "A Survey of Sponges from the
Northwestern Gulf of Mexico." Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
Biology, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette.

106

Temple, R.F., D.S. Harrington, and J.A. Martin. 1977. Monthly
Temperature and Salinity Measurements of Continental Shelf Waters
of the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico, 1963-1966. U.S. Department
of Commerce, National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and
National Marine Fisheries Service, Tech. Rept. #SSRF-707.

Tresslar, R.C. 1974a. "The Living Benthonic Foraminiferal Fauna
of the West Flower Garden Bank Coral Reef and Biostrome.11
Master's Thesis, Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M
University, College Station.

Tresslar, R.C. 1974b. "Foraminifers." In T.J. Bright and L.H.
Pequegnat, Eds., Biota of the West Flower Garden Bank,
Houston:Gulf Publishing Company, pp. 67-92.

Tresslar, R.C. 1974c. "Corals." In T.J. Bright and L.H.
Pequegnat, Eds., Biota of the West Flower Garden Bank,
Houston:Gulf Publishing Company, pp. 116-139.

Viada, S.T. 1980. "Species Composition and Populations Levels
of Scleractinian Corals Within the Diploria-Montastrea-Porites
Zone of the East Flower Garden Bank, Northwest Gulf of Mexico."
M.S. Thesis, Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University,
College Station.

Wills, J.B., 1976. "Benthonic Polychaeta of the West Flower
Garden Bank." Master's Thesis, University of Houston, Department
of Biology, Houston.

Wills, J.B. and T.J. Bright. 1974. "Worms." In T.J. Bright and
L.H. Pequegnat, Eds., Biota of the West Flower Garden Bank.
Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, pp. 291-310.

109

PART VIII: APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: FINAL DESIGNATION DOCUMENT FOR THE FLOWER GARDEN
BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

PREAMBLE

DESIGNATION DOCUMENT FOR
THE FLOWER GARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

Under the authority of.Title III of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (the ItAct"),
16 U.S.C. H 1431 et seq., two separate areas of ocean waters
over and surrounding the East and West Flower Garden Banks, and
the submerged lands thereunder including the Banks, in the
northwestern Gulf of Mexico, as described in Article II, are
hereby designated as the Flower Garden Banks National Marine
Sanctuary for the purposes of protecting and managing the
conservation, ecological, recreational, research, educational,
historic and esthetic resources and qualities of these areas.

Article I. Effect of Designation

The Act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue such
final regulations as are necessary and reasonable to implement
the designation, including managing and protecting the
conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research,
educational, and esthetic resources. and qualities of a sanctuary.
Section 1 of Article IV of this Designation Document lists those
activities that may have to be regulated on the effective date of
designation or at some later date in order to protect Sanctuary
resources and qualities. Thus', the act of designation empowers
the Secretary of Commerce to regulate the activities listed in
section 1. Listing does not necessarily mean that an activity
will be regulated; however, if an activity is not listed it may
not be regulated, except on an emergency basis, unless section 1
of Article IV is amended by the same procedures by which the
original designation was made.

Article II. Description of the Area

The Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary consists
of two separate areas of ocean waters over and surrounding the
East and West Flower Garden Banks, and the submerged lands
thereunder including the Banks, in the northwestern Gulf of
Mexico. The area designated at the East Bank is located
approximately 120 nautical miles south-southwest of Cameron,
Louisiana, and encompasses 19.20 square nautical miles, and the
area designated at the West Bank is located approximately 110
nautical miles southeast of Galveston, Texas, and encompasses
22.50 square nautical miles. The two areas encompass a total of
41.70 square nautical miles (143.21 square kilometers).

ill

Appendix I to this designation document sets forth the precise
Sanctuary boundaries.

Article III. Characteristics of the Area That Give It Particular
Value

The Flower Garden Banks sustain the northernmost living
coral reefs on the U.S. continental shelf. They are isolated
from other reef systems by over 300 nautical miles (550
kilometers) and exist under hydrographic conditions generally
considered marginal for tropical reef formation. The
composition, diversity and vertical distribution of benthic
communities on the Banks are strongly influenced by this physical
environment. Epibenthic populations are distributed among
several interrelated biotic zones, including a DiRloria-
Montastrea-Porites zone, a Madracis mirabilis zone, and an algal
sponge zone.

The complex and biologically productive reef communities
that cap the Banks offer a combination of esthetic appeal and
recreational and research opportunity matched in few other ocean
areas. These reef-communities are in delicate ecological balance
because of the fragile nature of coral and the fact that the
Banks lie on the extreme northern edge of the zone in which
extensive reef development can occur.- In addition to their coral
reefs, the Banks contain the only known oceanic brine seep in
continental shelf waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Because of these
features, the Flower Garden Banks are particularly valuable for
scientific research.

Article IV. Scope of Regulations

Section 1. Activities Subject to Regulation

The following activities are subject to regulation,
including prohibition, to the extent necessary and reasonable to
ensure the protection and management of the conservation,
recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational and
esthetic resources and qualities of the area:

a. Anchoring or otherwise mooring within the Sanctuary;

b. Discharging or depositing, from within the boundaries
of the Sanctuary, any material or other matter;

C. Discharging or depositing, from beyond the boundaries
of the Sanctuary, any material or other matter;

d. Drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the
seabed of the Sanctuary; or constructing, placing or
abandoning any structure, material or other matter on
the seabed of the Sanctuary;

112

e. Exploring for, developing or producing oil, gas or
minerals within the Sanctuary;

f. Taking,.removing, catching, collecting, harvesting,
feeding, injuring, destroying or causing the loss of,
or attempting to take, remove, catch, collect, harvest,
feed, injure, destroy or cause the loss of, a Sanctuary
resource;

g. Possessing within the Sanctuary a Sanctuary resource or
any other resource, regardless of where taken, removed,
caught, collected or harvested, that, if it had been
foundwithin the Sanctuary, would be a Sanctuary
resource.

h. Possessing or using within the Sanctuary, any fishing
gear, device, equipment or means.

i. Possessing or using explosives or airguns or releasing
electrical charges within the Sanctuary.

Section 2. Consistency with International Law

The Sanctuary regulations shall be applied to foreign
persons and foreign vessels in accordance with generally .
recognized principles of international law, and in,accordance
with treaties, conventions, and other international agreements to
which the United States is a party.

Section 3. Emergencies

Where necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction of,
loss of, or injury to a Sanctuary resource or quality,.or
minimize the imminent risk of such destruction, loss or injury,
any and all activities, including those not listed in section 1
of this Article, are subject to immediate temporary regulation,
including prohibition.

Article V. Effect on Other Regulations, Leases. Permits,
Licenses, and Rights

Section 1. Fishing Regulations. Licenses, and Permits

The regulation of fishing is authorized under Article IV.
All regulatory programs pertaining to fishing, including fishery
management plans promulgated under the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. �� 1801 et 'sea., shall
remain in effect. Where a valid regulation promulgated under
these programs conflicts with a Sanctuary regulation, the

113

regulation deemed by the Secretary of Commerce or designee as
more protective of Sanctuary resources and qualities shall
govern.

Section 2. Other

If any,valid regulation issued.by any Federal authority of
competent jurisdiction, regardless of when issued, conflicts with
a Sanctuary regulation, the regulation deemed by the Secretary of
commerce or designee as more protective of Sanctuary resources
and qualities shall govern.

Pursuant to section 304(c)(1) of the Act, 16.U.S.C.
1434(c)(1), no valid lease, permit, license, approval, or other
authorization issued by any Federal authority of competent
jurisdiction, or any valid right of subsistence use or access,
may be terminated by the Secretary of Commerce 'or designee as.a
result of this designation or as a result of any Sanctuary
regulation if such authorization or right was in existence on the
effective date of this designation. However, the Secretary of
Commerce or designee may regulate the exercise of such
authorization or right consistent with the purposes for which the
Sanctuary is designated.

Accordingly, the prohibitions set forth in the.Sanctuary
regulations shall not apply to any activity authorized by any.
valid lease, permit, license, approval, or Other authorization in
existence on the effective date of Sanctuary designation and
issued by any Federal authority of competent jurisdiction, or by
any valid right of subsistence use or access-in existence on the
effective date of Safictuary'designation, provided that the holder
of such authorization or right complies with Sanctuary .
regulations regarding the certification of such authorizations
and rights (e.g., notifies the Secr 'etary or designee of the
existence of, requests certification of, and provides requested
information regarding such authorization or right) and complies
with any terms and conditions on the exercise of such authoriza-
tion or right imposed as a condition of certification by-the
Secretary or designee as he or she deems necessary to achieve the
purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated.

Pending final agency action.on the certification request,
such holder may exercise such authorization or right without
being in violation of any prohibitions set forth in the Sanctuary
regulations, provided the holder is in compliance withSanctuary
regulations regarding certifications.

The prohibitions set forth in the Sanctuary regulations
shall not apply to any activity authorized by any valid lease,
permit, license, approval or other authorization issued after the
effective date of Sanctuary designation by any Federal authority
of competent jurisdiction, provided that the applicant complies

114

with Sanctuary regulations regarding notification and review of
applications (e.g., notifies the Secretary or designee of the
application for such authorization and provides requested
information regarding the application), the Secretary or designee
notifies the applicant and authorizing agency that he or she does
not object to issuance of the authorization, and the applicant
complies with any terms and conditions the Secretary or designee
deems necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities.'

The prohibitions set forth in the Sanctuary regulations
shall not apply to any activity conducted in accordance with the
scopel, purpose, terms, and conditions of a National Marine
Sanctuary permit issued by the Secretary or designee in
accordance with the Sanctuary regulations. Such permits may only
be issued if the Secretary or designee finds that the activity
for which the permit is applied will:' further research related
to Sanctuary resources; further the educational, natural or
historical resource value of the Sanctuary; further salvage or
recovery operations in or near the Sanctuary in connection with a
recent air or marine casualty; or assist'in managing the
Sanctuary.

The prohibitions set forth in the Sanctuary regulations
shall not apply to any activity conducted in accordance with the
scope, purpose, terms, and conditions of a Special Use
permit issued by the Secretary or designee in accordance with
Section'310 of the'Act.

if the Sanctuary regulations prohibit oil, gas, or mineral
exploration, development or production in any area of the
Sanctuary, the Secretary or designee may in no event permit or
otherwise approve such activities in that area, and any leases,
licenses, permits, approvals, or other authorizations issued
after the effective date of Sanctuary designation authorizing the
exploration, development, or production of oil, gas, or minerals
in that area shall be invalid.

Article VI. Alterations to This Designation

The terms of designation may be modified only by the Same-
procedures by which the original designation is made, including
public hearings, consultation with any appropriate Federal,
State, regional and local agencies, review by the appropriate
congressional committees and approval by the Secretary of
commerce or designee.

115

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, 15 CFR is amended
as follows:

1. Part 943 is added to read as follows:
Part 943 - Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary
Sec.

943.1 Purpose.

943.2 Boundaries.

943.3 Definitions.

943.4 Allowed activities.

943.5 Prohibited activities.

943.6 Shunting requirements applicable to hydrocarbon-

drilling discharges.

943.7 Emergency regulations.

943.8 Penalties.

943.9 National Marine Sanctuary permits - application
procedures and issuance criteria.

943.10 Certification of pre-existing leases, licenses,
permits, approvals, other authorizations, or rights to
conduct a prohibited activity.

943.11 Notification and review of applications for leases,
licenses, permits, approvals, or other authorizations
to conduct a prohibited activity.

943.12 Appeals of administrative action.

Appendix I--Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary
Boundary Coordinates

Appendix II--Coordinates for the Department of the Interior
topographic lease stipulations for OCS lease sale 112.

Authority: Sections 302, 303, 304, 305, 307, and 310 of

Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. �� 1431 et sea.

116

� 943.1 Purpose.

The purpose of the regulations in this Part is to implement
the designation of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine
Sanctuary by regulating activities affecting the Sa'nctuary
consistent with the terms of that designation in order to protect
and manage the conservation, ecological, recreational, research,
educational, historical and esthetic resources and qualities of
the area.

943.2 Boundaries.

The Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary consists
of two separate areas of ocean waters over and surrounding the
East and West Flower Garden Banks, and the submerged lands
thereunder including the Banks, in the northwestern Gulf of
Mexico. The area designated at the East Bank is located
approximately 120 nautical miles south-southwest of Cameron,
Louisiana, and encompasses 19.20 square nautical miles, and the
area designated at the West Bank is located approximately 110
nautical miles southeast of Galveston, Texas, and encompasses
22.50,square nautical miles. The two areas encompass a total of
41.70 square nautical miles (143.21 square kilometers). The
boundary coordinates for each area are listed in Appendix I,
following � 943.11.

� 943.3 Definitions.

(A) "Act" means Title III of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C.
�� 1431 et "e .

(B) "Administrator" or "Under Secretary" means the
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration/Under Secretary of Commerce for oceans and
Atmosphere.

(C) "Assistant Administrator" means the Assistant
Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management,
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.

(D) "Conventional hook and line gear" means any fishing
apparatus operated aboard a vessel and composed of a single line
terminated by a combination of sinkers and hooks or lures and
spooled upon a reel that may be hand- or electrically operated,
hand-held or mounted. This term does not include bottom
longlines.

(E) "Director" means the Director of the office of Ocean
and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.

117

(7) "Effective date of Sanctuary designation" means the
.date the regulations implementing the designation of the
Sanctuary become effective.

(G). "Historical resource"'-means a resource possessing
historical, cultural, archaeological or paleontological signifi-
cance,.including sites, structures, districts, and objects sig-
nificantly associated with or representative of earlier people,
cultures, and human activities and events.

(H) "Injure" means change adversely, either in the long or
short term, a chemical, biological.or physical attribute of, or
the viability@of. To "injure" therefore includes, but is not
limited to,, to cause the loss of and to destroy.

(I) "No-activity zone" means one of the two geographic
areas delineated by the Department of the Interior in
stipulations for OCS lease sale 112 over and surrounding the East
and West Flower.Garden Banks as areas in which activities
.associated with exploration for, development of, or production of
hydrocarbons are prohibited. The precise coordinates of these
areas are provided in Appendix II. These particular coordinates
define the geographic scope of the "no-activity zones" for
purposes of the regulations in this Part. These coordinates are
based on the-111/4 1/4 1/411 system formerly used by the Department
of the Interior, a method that delineates a specific portion of-a
block rather than the actual underlying isobath.

(J) "Person" means any private individual, partnership,
corporation, or other entity; or any officer, employee, agent,
agency, department or instrumentality of the Federal government,
of any State or local.unit of government, or of any foreign
government.

(K) "Sanctuary" means-the Flower Garden Banks National
Marine Sanctuary.

(L) "Sanctuary quality" means a particular and essential
characteristic of the Sanctuary, including but not limited to
water,quality and air quality.

(M) "Sanctuary resource" means any living or non-living
resource of the Sanctuary that contributes to its conservation,
recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational or
esthetic value, including, but not limited to, carbonate rock,
corals and other bottom formations, coralline algae and other
plants, marine invertebrates, brine-seep biota, fish, turtles and
marine mammals.

(N) "Shunt" means to discharge expended drilling cuttings
and fluids near the ocean seafloor.

118

(0) "Vessel" means a watercraft of any description capable
of being used as a means of transportation in the waters of the
Sanctuary.

Other terms appearing in the regulations in this Part are
defined at 15 CFR. � 922.2 and/or in the Marine Protection,
Research, and-Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C.
H 1401 et gjeq. and 16 U.S.C. �� 1431 et s

� 943.4 Allowed activities.

All activities-except those prohibited by section 943.5 may
be undertaken subject to the requirements of section 943.6,
subject to any emergency regulations promulgated pursuant to
section 943.7, and subject to all prohibitions, restrictions, and
conditions validly imposed by anyother Federal authority of
competent jurisdiction. If any valid regulation issued by any
Federal authority of competent jurisdiction, regardless of when
issued, conflicts with a Sanctuary regulation, the regulation
deemed by the Director or designee as more protective of
Sanctuary resources and qualities shall govern.

� 943.5 Prohibited activities.

(a) Except as specified in paragraphs (c) through.(h)
below, the following activities are prohibited and thus unlawful
for any person to conduct or cause to be conducted:

(1) Exploring fori developing or producing oil, gas or
minerals,within a no-activity zone.

(2) Anchoring or otherwise mooring within the Sanctuary a
vessel greater than 100 feet (30.48 meters) in registered length.

(3) Anchoring a vessel of less than or. equal to 100''
feet (30.48 meters) in registered length within an area of the
Sanctuary where a mooring buoy is available.

(4) Anchoring a-vessel within the Sanctuary'using more than
fifteen feet (4.57 meters) of chain.or wire rope attached to the
anchor.

(5) Anchoring a vessel within the Sanctuary using anchor
lines (exclusive of the anchor chain or wire rope permitted by
(4) above) other than those of a soft fiber or nylon,
polypropylene, or similar material.

(6) Discharging or depositing, from within the boundaries
of the Sanctuary, any material or other matter except:

119

(i) fish, fish parts,.chumming,materials or bait used
,in or resulting from fishing with conventional hook and
line gear in the Sanctuary;

(ii) biodegradable effluents incidental to vessel use,
and generated by marine sanitation devices approved in
accordance with Section 312 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. � 1322;

(iii) water generated by routine vessel operations
(e.g., cooling water, deck wash down, and graywater as
defined by Section 312 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. � 1322) excluding
oily wastes from bilge pumping; or

(iv),.engine exhaust.

The prohibitions in this paragraph (6) do not apply to the
discharge, in areas of the Sanctuary outside the no-activity
zones,'of drilling cuttings and drilling fluids necessarily
discharged incidental to the exploration for, development of, or
production of oil or gas in those areas unless such discharge
injures a Sanctuary resource or quality. (See section 943.-6 for
the shunting requirement applicable to such discharges.)

(7) Discharging or depositing, from beyond the boundaries
of the Sanctuary, any material or other matter, except those
listed in paragraph (6)(i)-(iv) above, that subsequently enters
the Sanctuary and injures a Sanctuary resource or quality.

(8) Drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the
seabed of the Sanctuary (except by anchoring); or constructing,
placing or abandoning any structure, material or other matter on
the seabed of the Sanctuary.

(9) Injuring or removing, or attempting to injure or
remove, any coral or other bottom formation, coralline algae or
other plant, marine invertebrate, brine-seep biota or carbonate
rock within the Sanctuary.

(10) Taking any marine mammal or turtle within the
Sanctuary, except as permitted by regulations, as amended,
promulgated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as amended,
16 U.S.C. H 1361 et secr., and the Endangered Species Act, as
amended, 16.U.S.C. �� 1531 et ggeq.

(11) Injuring, catching, harvesting, collecting or feeding,
or attempting to injure, catch, harvest, collect or feed, any
fish within the Sanctuary by use of bottom longlines, traps,
nets, bottom trawls or any other gear, device, equipment or means
except by use of conventional hook and line gear.

120

(12) Possessing within the Sanctuaryjregardless of where
collected, caught, harvested or removed), except for valid law
enforcement purposes, any carbonate rock, coral or other bottom
formation, coralline algae or other plant, marineinvertebrate,
brine-seep biota or fish (except for fish caught by use of
conventional hook and line gear).

(13) Possessing or using within the Sanctuary, except
possessing while passing without interruption through it or for
valid law enforcement purposes, any fishing gear, device
equipment or means except conventional hook and line gear.

.(14) Possessing, except for valid law enforcement purposes,
or using explosives or releasing electrical charges within the
Sanctuary.

(b) The regulations in this Part shall be applied to
foreign persons and foreign vessels in accordance with generally
recognized principles of international law, and in accordance
with treaties,.conventions, and other international agreements to
which the United States is a party.

(c) The prohibitions in paragraph (a)(2),(4),(5),(8)
and (14) do not.apply to necessary activities conducted in areas
of the Sanctuary outside the no-activity zones and incidental to
exploration for, development of, or production of oil or gas in
those areas.

(d) The prohibitions in paragraph (a)(2)-(14) do not.apply
to activities necessary to respond to emergencies threatening
life, property, or the environment.

(e)(1) The prohibitions in paragraph (a)(2)-(14) do not
apply to activities being carried out by the Department of
Defense as of the effective date of Sanctuary designation. Such
activities shall be carried out in a manner that minimizes any
adverse impact on Sanctuary resources and qualities. The
prohibitions in paragraph (a)(2)-(14) do not apply to any new
activities carried out by the Department of Defense that do not
have the potential for any significant adverse impacts on
Sanctuary resources or qualities. Such activities shall be
carried out in a manner that minimizes any adverse impact on
Sanctuary resources and qualities. New activities with the
potential for significant adverse impacts.on Sanctuary resources
or qualities may be exempted from the prohibitions in,paragraoh
(a)(2)-(14) by the Director or designee after consultation
between the Director or designee and the Department of Defense.
If it is determined that an activity may be carried out, such
activity shall be carried out in a manner that minimizes any
adverse impact on Sanctuary resources and qualities.

121

(2) In the event of threatened or actual destruction of,
loss of, or injury to a Sanctuary resource or quality resulting
from an untoward incident, including but not limited to spills
and groundings, caused,by a component of the Departmentof
Defense, the cognizant component shall promptly coordinate with
the Director or designee for the purpose of taking appropriate
actions to respond to and mitigate the harm and, if possible,
restore or replace the Sanctuary resource or quality.

(f) The prohibitions in paragraph (a)(2)-(14) do not apply
to any activity executed in accordance with the scope, purpose,
terms, and conditions of a National Marine Sanctuary permit
issued pursuant to section 943.9 or a Special Use permit.issued
pursuant to Section 310 of the Act.

(g) The prohibitions in paragraph (a)(2)-(14) do not,a pply@
to any activity authorized by a valid.lease,'permit, license, ap-
proval, or other authorization in existence on the effective date
of Sanctuary designation and issued by any F'ederal authority of
competent jurisdiction, or by any valid right of subsistence use
or.access in existence on the effective date of Sanctuary
designation, provided that the holder of such authorization or
right complies with section 943.10,and with any terms and condi-
tions on the exercise of such lease,.permit, license, approval,
other authorization, or right imposed by the Director or
designee.as a condition of certification as he or she deems
necessary to achieve the purposes for which the Sanctuary was
designated.

(h) The prohibitions in paragraph (a)(2) - (14) do not
apply to any activity authorized by any lease, permit, license,
approval or other authorization issued after the effective date
of Sanctuary designation, provided that theapplicant complies
with section 943.11, the Director or designee notifies the
applicant and authorizing agency that he or she does not object
to issuance of the authorization, and the applicant complies with
any terms and conditions the-Director or designee deems necessary
to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities.

(i) Notwithstanding paragraphs (f), (g) and (h) above, in
no event may the Director or designee issue a National Marine
Sanctuary permit under section 943.9 or a Special Use permit
under Section-310 of the Act.authorizing, or otherwise approve,
the exploration for, development of, or production of oil, gas or
minerals-in a no-activity zone, and any.leases, licenses,
permits, approvals, or other authorizations authorizing the
exploration for, development of, or production of oil, gas or
minerals in a no-activity zone and issued after the effective
date of Sanctuary designation shall be invalid.

122

� 943.6 Shunting requirements applicable to hydrocarbon-
drilling discharges.

Persons engaged in the exploration for, development of, or
production of oil or gas in areas of the Sanctuary outside the
no-activity zones must shunt all drilling cuttings and drilling
fluids to the seabed through a downpipe that terminates.an
appropriate distance, but no more than ten meters, from the
seabed.

� 943.7 Emergency regulations.

Where necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction of,
loss of, or injury to a Sanctuary res .ource or quality,, or
minimize the imminent risk of such destruction, loss or injury,
any and all activities are subject to immediate-temporary
regulation, including prohibition.

� 943..8 Penalties for-commission of prohibited activities.

(a) 'Each violation'of the Act, any regulatiori in this Part,
or any permit issued pursuant'-thereto, is subject to a civil..
penalty of not more than $50','000. Each day of a continuing
violation constitutes a separate violation.

(b) Regul ations setting forth the procedures governing'
administrative proceedings for assessment of civil penalties'.
permit sanctions and denials for enforcement reasons, issuance
and use of written warnings, and release or forfeiture of seized
property appear at 15 CFR Part 904.

(c) Under Section 312 of the Act, any person who':destroys,
causes the loss of, or injures any sanctuary resource is liable
to the United States for response costs and damages resulting
from'such destruction, loss,@or injury, and any-vessel used toL.
destroy, cause the loss of, or injure any sanctuary resource is
liable in rem to the United States for response costs'and damages
resulting from such destruction, loss, or injury.

� 943.9 National Marine sanctuary permits Application
procedures and issuance criteria.

(a) A person may conduct an activity prohibited by section
943.5(a)(2) - (14) if conducted in accordance with the scopel
purpose, terms, and conditions of a permit issued under this
section.

(b) Applications for such permits should'be addressed to
the Director of the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Manage-
ment; ATTN: Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Office of Ocean
and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1825 Connecticut Avenue,

123

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20235. An application must include a
detailed description of the proposed activity including a
timetable for completion of the activity and the equipment,
personnel, and methodology to be employed. The qualifications
and-experience of all personnel must be set forth in the.
application.' The application must set forth the potential
effects of the activity, if any, on Sanctuary resources and
qualities. Copies of all other required licenses, permits,
approvals, or other authorizations must be attached.

(c) Upon receipt of an application, the Director or
designee may request such additional information from the
applicant as he or she deems necessary to act on the application
and may seek the views of any persons.

(d) The Director or designee, at his or her discretion, may
issue a permit, subject to such terms and conditions as he or she
deems appropriate, to conduct an activity prohibited by section'
943.5(a)(2) - (14), if the'Director or designee finds that the
activity will: further research related to Sanctuary resources;
further the educational, natural or historical resource value of
the Sanctuary; further salvage or recovery operations in or near
the Sanctuary in connection with a recent air or marine casualty;
or assist in managing the Sanctuary. In deciding whether to
issue a permit, the Director or designee shall consider such
factors as: the professional qualifications and financial
ability of the applicant as related to the proposed activity; the
duration of the activity and the duration of its effects; the
appropriateness of the methods and procedures proposed by the
applicant for the conduct of-the activity; the extent to which
the conduct of the activity may diminish or enhance Sanctuary
resources and qualities; the cumulative effects of the activity;
and the end value of the activity. In addition, the Director or
designee may consider such other factors as he or she deems
appropriate.

(6) A permit issued'pursuant to this section is
nontransferable.

(f) The Director or designee may amend, suspend, or revoke
a permit issued pursuant to this section or deny a permit
application pursuant to this section, in whole or in part, if it
is determined that the permittee or applicant has acted in
violation of the terms or conditions of the permit or of these
regulations or for other good cause. Any such action shall be
communicated in writing to the permittee or applicant and shall
set forth the reason(s) for the action taken. Procedures
governing permit sanctions and denials for enforcement reasons
are set forth in Subpart D of 15 CFR Part 904.

124

(g) It shall be a condition of any permit issued that the
permit or a copy thereof be displayed on board all vessels or
aircraft used in the conduct of the activity.

(h) The Director or designee may, inter alia, make it a
condition of any permit issued that any information obtained
under the permit be made available to the public.

(i) The Director or designee may, inter alia, make it a
condition of any permit issued that a NOAA official be allowed to
observe any activity conducted under the permit and/or that the
permit holder submit one or more reports on the status, progress,
or results of any activity authorized by the permit.

(j) The applicant for or holder of a National Marine
Sanctuary permit may appeal the denial, conditioning, amendment,
suspension, or revocation of the permit in accordance with the
procedures set forth in section 943.12.

� 943.10 Certification of pre-existing leases, licenses,
permits, approvals, other authorizations, or rights to conduct a
prohibited activity.

(a) The prohibitions set forth in � 943.5(a)(2) - (14) do
not apply to any activity authorized by a valid lease, permit,
license, approval or other authorization in existence on the
effective date of Sanctuary designation and issued by any Federal
authority of competent jurisdiction, or by any valid right of
subsistence use or access in existence on the effective date.of
Sanctuary designation, provided that: 1) the holder of such
authorization or right notifies the Director or designee, in
writing, within 90 days of the effective date of Sanctuary
designation, of the existence of such authorization or right and
requests certification of such authorization or right;
2) the holder complies with the other provisions of this section
943.10; and 3) the holder complies with any terms and conditions
on the exercise of such authorization or right imposed as a
condition of certification, by the Director or designee, to
achieve the purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated.

(b) The holder of a valid lease, permit, license, approval
or other authorization in existence on the effective date of
Sanctuary designation and issued by any Federal authority of
competent jurisdiction, or of any valid right of subsistence use
or access in existence on the effective date of Sanctuary
designation, authorizing an activity prohibited by
section 943.5(a)(2) - (14) may conduct the activity without being
in violation of section 943.5, pending final agency action on his
or her certification request, Provided the holder is in
compliance with this section 943.10.

125

(c) Any holder of a valid lease, permit, license, approval,
or other authorization in existence on the effective date of@.
Sanctuary designation and issued by any Federal authority of
competent jurisdiction, or any holder of a valid right of
subsistence use or access in existence on the effective date of
Sanctuary designation may request the Director or designee to
issue a finding as to whether the activity for which the
authorization has been issued, or the right given, is prohibited
under section 943.5(a)(2) - (14).

(d) Requests for findings or certifications should be
addressed to the Director, office of ocean and Coastal Resource-
Management; ATTN: Sanctuaries and Reserves.Division, office of
ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1825 Connecticut
Avenue, N.W.@, Washington, D.C. 20235. A copy of the lease,
permit, license, approval or other authorization must accompany
the request.

(e) The Director or designee may request additional
information from the certification requester as or he deems
necessary to condition appropriately the exercise of the
certified authorization or right to achieve the purposes for
which the Sanctuary was designated.. The information requested
must be received by the Director or designee within 45 days of
the postmark date of the request. The Director or designee-.may
seek the views of any persons on the certification request.-

(f) The Director or designee may amend any certification
made under this section,whenever additional information-becomes
available justifying such an amendment.

(g) The Director or designee shall communicate any decision
on a certification request or any Action taken with respect,to
any certification made under this section, in writing, to both
the holder of the certified lease, permit, license, approval,
other authorization or right, and the issuing agency,.And shall
set forth the reason(s) for the decision or action taken.

(h) Any time limit prescribed in or established under this.,
section may be extended by the Director or designee for good
cause.

(i) the holder may appeal any action conditioning,
amending, suspending, or revoking any certification in accordance
with the procedures set forth in section 943.12.

(j) Any amendment, renewal or extension not in existence on@
the effective date of Sanctuary designation of a lease, permit,
license, approval, other authorization or right is subject to the
provisions of section 943.11.

126

� 943.11 Notification and review of applications for leases,
licensest permits, approvals, or other,authorizations to conduct
a prohibited activity.

(a) The-prohibitions set forth in section 943.5(a)(2)
(14) do not apply to any activity authorized by any valid lease,
permit, license, approval or other authorization issued after the
effective date of Sanctuary designation by Any Federal authority
of competent jurisdiction, provided that: 1) the applicant
notifies the Director or designee, in writing, of the application
for such authorization (and of any application for an amendment,
renewal or dxtension.of such authorization) within fifteen (15)
days of the date of application or of the-effective date of
Sanctuary designation, whichever is later; 2) the applicant
complies with the other provisions of this section 943.11; 3) the
Director or designee notifies the applicant and authorizing
agency that,he or she does-not object to-issuance of the
authorization (or amendment, renewal or extension); and'4) the
applicant complies with any terms and conditions the Director or
designee deems necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and
qualities.

(b) Any potential applicant for a lease, permit, license,
approval or other-authotization from any Federal authority (or
for an amendment, renewal or extension of such,authorization) may
request the Director or designee to issue a finding as to whether
the activity for which an application is intended to be made is
prohibited by section 943.5(a)(2) - (14).

..:(c) Notifications of filings of'applications and requests
for findings should be addressed to .the Director, Office of ocean
and Coastal Resource Management; ATTN: sanctuaries and Reserves
Division, office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management,
National Ocean Service, National oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, 1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20235. A copy of the application must accompany the
notification.

(d) The Director or designee may request additional
information from the applicant as he or she deems necessary to
determine.whether to object to issuance of such lease, license,
permit, approval or other authorization (or to issuance of an
amendment, extension or renewal of such authorization), or what
terms and conditions are necessary protect Sanctuary resources
and qualities. The information requested must be received by Ithe
Director or designee within 45 days of the postmark date of the
request. The Director or designee may seek the views of any
persons on the application.

(e) The Director or designee shall notify, in writing, the
agency to which application has been made of his or her review of
the application and possible objection to issuance. After review

127

of the application and information received with respect thereto,
the Director or designee shall notify both the agency and
applicant, in writing, whether he or she has an objection to
issuance and what terms and conditions he or she deems necessary
to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities. The Director or
designee,shall state the reason(s) for any objection or the
reason(s) that any terms and conditions are deemed necessary to
protect Sanctuary resources and qualities.

(f) The Director or designee may amend the terms and
conditions deemed necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and
qualities whenever additional information becomes available
justifying such an amendment.

(g) Any time limit prescribed in or established under this
section may be extended.by the Director or designee for good
cause.

(h) The applicant may appeal any objection by, or terms or
conditions imposed by, the Director or designee to the Assistant
Administrator or designee in accordance with the procedures set
forth in section 943.12.

� 943.12 Appeals of administrative action.

(a) Except for permit actions taken for enforcement reasons
(see Subpart D of 15 CFR Part 904 for applicable procedures), an
applicant for, or a holder of, a section 943.9 National Marine
Sanctuary permit, an applicant for, or a holder of, a Section 310
of the Act Special Use permit, a section 943.10 certification
requester, or a section 943.11 applicant (hereinafter appellant)
may appeal to the Assistant Administrator or designee: 1) the
grant, denial, conditioning, amendment,'suspension, or revocation
by the Director or designee of a National Marine Sanctuary or
Special Use permitJ: 2) the conditioning, amendment, suspension,
or.revocation of a certification under section 943.10; or 3) the
objection to issuance or the imposition of terms and conditions
under section 943.11.

(b) An appeal under paragraph (a) of this section must be
in writing, state the action(s) by the Director or designee
appealed and the reason(s) for the appeal, and be received within
30 days of the action(s) by the Director or designee. Appeals
should be addressed to the Assistant Administrator, Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, ATTN: Sanctuaries and
Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Ocean service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, 1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20235.

128

with such section may continue to conduct their activities
without being in violation of the prohibitions in section
943.5(a)(2) - (14). All other appellants may not conduct their
activities without being subject to the prohibitions in section
9 4 3. 5 (a) (2) - (14) .

(d) The Assistant Administrator or designee may request the
appellant to submit such information as the Assistant
Administrator or designee deems necessary in order f or him or her
to decide the appeal. The information requested must be received
by the Assistant Administrator or designee within 45 days of the
postmark date of the request. The Assistant Administrator may
seek the views of any other persons. The Assistant Administrator
or designee may hold an informal hearing on the appeal. If the
Assistant Administrator or designee determines that an informal
hearing should be held," the Assistant Administrator or designee
may designate an officer before whom the hearing shall be held.
The hearing officer shall give notice in the Federal Register of
the time, place, and-subject matter of the hearing. The
appellant and the Director or designee may appear personally or
by counsel at the hearing and submit such material and present
such arguments as deemed appropriate by the hearing officer.
Within 60 days after the record for the hearing closes, the
hearing officer shall recommend a decision in writing to the
Assistant Administrator or designee.

(eL) The Assistant Administrator or designee shall decide
the appeal using the same regulatory criteria as for the initial
decision and shall base the appeal decision on the record before
the Director or designee and any information submitted regarding
the appeal, and, if a hearing has been held, on the record before
the hearing officer and.the.,hearing officer's recommended
decision. The Assistant Administrator or designee shall notify
the appellant of the final decision and the reason(s) therefor in
writing. The Assistant Administrator or designee's decision
shall constitute final agency action for the purposes of the
Administrative Procedure Act.

(f) Any time limit prescribed in or established under this
section other than the 30 day limit for filing an appeal may be
extended by the Assistant Administrator, designee, or hearing
officer for good cause.

129

Appendix I: Coordinates for the Flower Garden Banks National
Marine Sanctuary

East Flower Ga@ Bank West F2c;.."-- Ca--,dm Bank,

Point No. Latitude LcngitLvje Point No. Latitude Lmvitude

E-1 27*52'52.13" 93037'46.52" W-1 27*t9'09. 24" 93050143.3VI
E-2 27053133.811, 93038'22.330 W-2 27*50'10.'23" 93*52107-96'@
E-3 27055113.31" 93038139.07" W3 27*51113.14" 93"52150.6a"
E-4 27057130.14" 93"38132-26" 93052149.79"
E-5 27'056'27-7911 9303742.93" W-5 27*52149.55" 93052121.69"
E-6 27*59100.2911 27"54159.08" 93*49141.87"
E-7 27058159.23" 93035'09.91" W-7 27*54'57.06" 93048'38-52"
E-8 27*51120.23" 93*34113-75" 27054133.46" 93*47110-36"
E-9 27*54103.3511, 93*34118.42n W-9 27*54" 13.51" 93 *46148 -*96"
E-10 27053125.9511 93*35'03.79" P-10 '27*53-137.67" 93*46150.67"
E-:11 27*52'51.14" 93*36157.59ff W-11 27*52116.44" 93047114-10"
W-12 27*50'3a.31" 93*47122.E6"
W-13 27*49'11.2311 93*48142.39"

130

AIIIV-pendix M. Coordinates for the Department of the Interior
Topographic Lease Stipulations for OCS Lease-.Sale 112

7LZW---A alizrN VEST

Block
Kock A-393
sz@' $--L; S";'
S'I,- sz@ S-.; 31.ock A-334
S@' SrL.

Sh, szk' Nz@;
S W'-' S";h'
-Blcck A-374 S"; N-' S
swk' 5;4'
Sri,,
S -'; k h , - S Wk, S;;k
W'- -h Block A-@as
' S-@' S;;k; S Z' S- S;;@. SA, S";h, Nwh;
Block A-375
E zrwk* S-Wh' S-4h.
Block A @-397
Wk N',;'
w1k,
Block X-:98

B-7=ck A-399

Eli, Nzh, S-;k; STh'
);-h, S'W L, ; S";,-.; E@' Fzh' S-,;k; SA, 2;-Z@' s-.;-.,-
sIrk, SW-11. N--;" szk' S-Wk.
5 W@' yz--@' S Block A-401
F,;k, S-7k; N-Wk, s;;h, S--h. N-zh, N4, MA, NEU
Block A-329 N--k,
yz-@' ; N-,;3- ' N-.;h; swk, N-,;.; Block 134
S-h' That portic3 of the blzck north
Q@ a I-Ine cannecting points 17
and 13, de!-;ned rnder the u-n4vez-sal
-wisverse =zz'--allor 5zid systa=
as follows:
Point 17: X- 1,378,080.009
Y-10,096,193.00'
I)Cint 18: X- 1,376,079.411

Block 135
viat Portion of the block
narthwest of a line conna=ting
points 16 and 17# defined tLida=
the. tnive=sal transvezse mem-cator
g--id syst@n as follows:
Point 16: X- 1,383,293.S4'
Y-10,103,251.931
Pz-;il. 17: X- 2,378,030,001

131

APPENDIX 2: LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR EXISTING MANAGEMENT
JURISDICTION

Major Legislative Authority for Existing Federal Management
Jurisdiction in the Area of the ProRosed Flower Garden Banks
National Marine Sanctuary

This appendix is designed to provide reviewers additional
information beyond that provided in the status quo section of the
FEIS/MP (Part III, Section I) on existing Federal jurisdiction
over activities conducted at the Flower Garden Banks. The
appendix serves as a basic reference to the status quo (Part III,
Section I) and environmental consequences (Part IV) sections of
the FEIS/MP.

1. Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) (16
U.S.C. 1801 et secr.)

The MFCMA provides for the conservation and management of
all fishery resources in the zone between 3 and 200 nautical
miles (5.6-370 km) offshore. The National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), NOAA, of the Department of Commerce is charged
with establishing guidelines for, and approving, fishery
management plans (FMP's) prepared by Regional Fishery Management
Councils for selected fisheries. These plans determine levels of
commercial and sport fishing that are consistent with the goal of
achieving and maintaining an optimum yield for each fishery. The
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council is responsible for
preparing FMP's governing fisheries in the area of Flower Garden
Banks. The MFCMA is enforced by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and
NMFS.

In July 1983, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
approved an FMP to protect the coral and coral reefs of the Gulf
of Mexico and the South Atlantic. This FMP provides the primary
basis for fishery management at the Flower Garden Banks. The
final rules implementing the FMP were published on July 23, 1984
(49 FR 29607 (1984), codified at 50 CFR Part 638). These
regulations establish management measures to be applied in coral
habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC's) such as the Flower
Gardens. The areas within the 50 fathom (300 foot) isobath
surrounding the East and West Flower Garden Banks are established
by the regulations as an HAPC. Within the HAPC, the following
restrictions apply:

(1) Fishing for coral is prohibited except as authorized by
scientific or educational permit; and

(2) Fishing with bottom longlines, traps, pots, and bottom
trawls is prohibited.

133

(3) The use of toxic chemicals to take fish or other marine
organisms is prohibited except as authorized by scientific
or educational permit.

Another FMP that has some application to Flower Garden
resources is the FMP for the reef fish resources of the Gulf of
Mexico. The regulations implementing this FMP, 50 CFR Part 641,
set bag and-size limits, place restrictions on the use of certain
types of fishing gear, and establish reporting and permit
systems. They also prohibit the use of poisons and explosives to
take reef fish; however, they allow p6werheads to be used outside
the stressed areas. They also prohibit vessels in the reef fish
fishery from possessing on board any dynamite or similar
explosive substance. Further, they establishes a stressed area
in Gulf, where reef fish are subject to special management
measures, and a longline and buoy gear restricted area. The
Flower Garden Banks are not included in these areas.

2. Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S. C. 1531 et secF.)

The ESA provides protection for listed species of plants and
animals in the territorial sea and upon the high seas. The Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS), in the Department of the Interior,
and NMFS determine which species need protection and maintain the
lists of endangered and threatened species. The most significant
protection provided by the ESA is the prohibition on taking. The
term "take" is defined broadly to mean "harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to
attempt to engage in such conduct" (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The FWS
regulations define the term "harm" to include significant habitat
modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures
wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral
patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering. The
regulations define the term "harass" to mean "an intentional or
negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury
to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly
disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but ate not
limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering" (50 CFR 17.3).

'The ESA also provides some protection to endangered species
and their habitats from less direct threats. This is
accomplished by means of a consultation process (known as section
7) designed to ensure that projects authorized, funded, or
carried out by Federal agencies are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of
such species which is determined by the Secretary (of the
Interior or@Commerce, as the case may be) to be critical, unless
an exemption is granted by a Cabinet-level committee set up for
that purpose under the ESA (16 'U.S.C. 1536). Critical habitat
areas for endangered species are designated by the FWS or NMFS
depending on the species.

134

3.. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et
.ge
A.)

The MMPA is designed to protect all species of marine
mammals. Its provisions apply in the territorial sea and on the
high seas. The MMPA establishes the Marine Mammal commission,
which advises the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service on marine'mammal matters and sponsors
relevant scientific research. The National Marine Fisheries
service is responsible for implementation of the MMPA's
provisions with respect to cetaceans (whales, porpoises,
dolphins), and pinnipeds other than sea lions and walruses. The
Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for all other marine
mammals.

The primary management features of the MMPA include:. 1) a
moratorium on "taking" of marine mammals; 2) the development of
management designed to achieve an "optimum sustainable
population" (OSP) for all species or population stocks of marine
mammals; and 3) protection of marine mammal populations
determined to be "depleted."

The MMPA defines "take" broadly to include "harass, hunt,
capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill
any marine mammal" (16 U.S.C. 1362(12)). The term "harass" has
been interpreted to encompass acts which cause unintentional
adverse effects on marine mammals, such as operation of motor
boats in waters where marine mammals are found. The MMPA allows
certain exceptions to the moratorium on taking. For example, to
implement a recent MMPA amendment, the National Marine Fisheries
service issued in May 1989 an interim rule, providing a five-year
exemption for certain incidental takings of marine mammals during
commercial fishing operations.

The MMPA also directs officials to seek "an optimum
sustainable population (of marine mammals]" (16 U.S.C.
1361(6)). optimum sustainable population (OSP) is defined as,
"with respect to any population stock, the number of animals
which will result in the maximum productivity of the population
or the species keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the
habitat and the health of the ecosystem of which they form a
constituent element" (16 U.S.C. 1362(8)).

Marine mammal species whose populations are determined to be
"depleted" receive additional protection under'the MMPA. With
the exception of scientific research permits, no permits for
taking depleted species may be issued. Species occurring within'
the area of the proposed Sanctuary which have been determined to
be depleted include the humpback whale, fin whale, northern right
whale, sei whale, and blue whale, based on their "endangered"
status under the Endangered Species Act.

4. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the
Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1251 et gm-)

The CWA establishes the basic scheme for restoring and
maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
the Nation's waters.

(a) Discharges in General

The CWA's chief mechanism for preventing or reducing water
pollution is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES), administered by EPA. Under the NPDES program, a permit
is required for the discharge of pollutants from a point source
into navigable waters of the U.S.,the waters of the contiguous
zone, or ocean waters. For example, an NPDES permit is required
for discharges associated with oil and gas development pursuant
to Feder'al (outer continental-shelf) lease sales. EPA generally
grants NPDES permits for offshore oil and gas activities based on
published effluent limitation guidelines (40 CFR Part 435).
other conditions beyond these guidelines may, however, be imposed
by the Regional Administrator on a.case-by-case basis.

(b) Oil Pollution

The CWA prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous
substances in quantities that may be harmful to the public health
or welfare or the environment, including but not limited to fish,
shellfish, wildlife, and public and private property, shorelines
and beaches: 1) into navilgable'waters.of the U.S., adjoining
shorelines, or into the waters of the contiguous zone, and 2) in
connection with activities under'the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act or,the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, or which may affect
natural resources belonging to, appertaining to". or under the'
exclusive management authority of the U.S., except, in the case
of such discharges into the'waters of the contiguous zone or
which may affect the above-mefitioned natural resources, where
permitted under the Protocol of 1978 Relating to the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships.

When harmful 'discharges do occur, the National Contingency
Plan for the removal of oil and hazardous substances takes
effect. The U.S. Coast'Guard, in cooperation with EPA,
administers the Plan, which establishes the organizational
framework for clean-up, including of oil spills resulting from
activities under the outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The
National Contingency Pianis discussed in greater detail in the
FEIS/MP in PART II, Section III, B. 3.

136

(c) Vessel Sewage
The CWA (33 U.S.C. 1322) requires vessels equipped with.
installed toilet facilities to contain operable and certified
.marine sanitation devices.

(d) Discharging Dredged or Fill Materials
Section 404 permits, issued by the Army Corps,of Engineers
and based on EPA-developed guidelines, are required prior to
discharging dredged or fill materials within three nautical miles
of shore.

5. The Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 401 et

Section 10 (33 U.S.C. 403) prohibits the unauthorized
obstruction of navigable waters of the United States. The
construction of any structure or any excavation or fill activity
in the territorial pea or on the outer continental shelf is
prohibited without 4 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.
Section 13 (33 U.S.C. 407) prohibits the discharge of refuse into'
navigable waters, but has been largely superseded by the CWA,
discussed above.

6. Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) (33 U.S.C. 1231
et secr.

The PWSA, as amended by the Port and Tanker Safety Act of
1978, is designed to promote navigation and vessel safety and the
protection of the marine 'environment. The PWSA applies out ' to
200 nautical miles. The I*SA authorizes the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG) to establish vessel traffic services for ports, harbors,
and other waters subject to congested vessel traffic or otherwise
hazardous. Two such services are the Vessel Traffic Separation
Scheme (VTSS) and designation of necessary fairways.

In addition to vessel traffic control, the USCG regulates
other navigational and shipping activities and has promulgated
numerous regulations relating to vessel design, construction, and
operation designed to minimize the likelihood of accidents-and to
reduce vessel source pollution. The 1978 amendments to the PWSA
establish a comprehensive program for regulating-the design,
construction, operation, equipping, and banning'of all tankers
using U.S. ports to transfer oil and hazardous materials. These
requirements are, for the most part, in agreement with protocols
(passed in 1978) to the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, and the International
Convention on Safety of Life at Sea, 1974.

The USCG is also vested with the primary responsibility for
maintaining boater safety, including the conduct of routine
vessel inspections and coordination of rescue operations.

137

7. Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) (43 U.S.C. 1331 et
sea.)

The OCSLA, as amended in 1978 and 1985, establishes Federal
jurisdiction over the mineral resources of the Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) beyond 3 nautical miles, and gives the Secretary of
the Interior primary responsibility for managing OCS mineral
exploration and development. The Secretary's responsibility
has been delegated to the Minerals Management Service (MMS).

The MMS has overall responsibility for leasing OCS lands.
In unique or special areas, MMS may impose special lease
stipulations designed to protect specific geological and
biological phenomena. These stipulations may vary among lease
tracts and sales. As noted in the FEIS/MP (Part II, Section II,
C. 1, Oil and Gas Activities) the MMS has established biological
stipulations for tracts at, and adjacent to, the Flower Garden
Banks.

The MMS is also charged with supervising OCS operations,
including the approval of plans for exploratory drilling and
applications for pipeline rights-of-way on the OCS. Several
types of regulatory authority are used in carrying out its
supervisory role. Such authority includes the enforcement of
regulations made pursuant to the OCSLA (30 CFR Parts 250 and 256)
and the enforcement of stipulations applicable to particular
leases.

8. Title I of the Marine Protection, Research,and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA) (33 U.S.C. 1401 gt aeg.)

The MPRSA, also known asthe Ocean Dumping Act, prohibits:
1) any person from transporting, without a permit, from the U.S.
any material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters
(defined to mean those waters of the open seas lying seaward of
the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured) and 2)
in the case of a vessel or aircraft registered in the U.S. or
flying the U.S. flag or in the case of a U.S.* agency, any person
from transporting, without a permit, from any location any
naterial for the purpose of dumping it into the ocean waters.
The MPRSA also prohibits any person from dumping, without a
permit, into the territorial sea, or the 12-nautical-mile
contiguous zone to the extent that it may affect the territorial
sea or the territory of the U.S., any material transported from a
location outside the United States. EPA regulates, through the
issuance of permits, the transportation, for the purpose of
dumping, and the dumping of all materials except dredged
material; COE, the transportation, for the purpose of dumping, of
dredged material.

138

9. Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) (33 U.S.C.
1901 et sea-)

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
of the Sea by Oil, 1954; and the Oil Pollution Act of 1961 have
been superseded by the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the
related 1978 Protocol (MARPOL 73/78.), and implemented in the
United States by the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 1980,
as amended in 1982 and 1987 (APPS). APPS, in implementing Annex
I of MARPOL 73/78, regulates the dischargeof oil and oily
mixtures from seagoing ships, including oil tankers._ APPS, in
,implementing Annex II of MARPOL 73/78, regulates the discharge of
noxious liquid substances from seagoing ships. Enforcement of
APPS is the responsibility of the U.S.Coast Guard.

When more than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land, any
discharge of oil or oily mixtures into the sea from a ship
,subject to APPS other an oil tanker or from machinery space
bilges of an oil tanker subject to APPS is prohibited except
when: 1) the oil or oily mixture does not originate from cargo
pump room bilges; 2) the oil or oily mixture is not mixed with
oil cargo residues; 3) the ship is not within a Special Area (the
Flower Garden Banks are not a Special Area for.purposes of APPS);
4) the ship is proceeding en route; 5) the oil content of the
effluent without dilution is less than 100 parts per million; and
6) the ship has in operation oiiy-water separating equipment, a
bilge monitor, bilge alarm or combination thereof. 33 CFR
151.10(a). The restrictions on discharges 12 nautical miles.or
less from the nearest land are more stringent. 33 CFR 151.10(b).

A tank vessel subject to APPS may not discharge an oily
mixture into the sea from a cargo tank, slop tank or cargo pump
bilge unless the vessel: 1) is more than 50 nautical miles from
the nearest land; 2) is proceeding en route; 3) is discharging at
an instantaneous rate of oil content not exceeding 60 liters per
nautical mile; 4) is an existing vessel and the total quantity of
oil discharged into the sea does not.e,xceed 1/15000 of the total
quantity of the cargo that the discharge.formed a.part (1/30000
for new vessels); 5) discharges, with certain exceptions, through
the above waterline discharge point; 6) has in operation a cargo
monitor and control system that is designed for use with the oily
mixture being discharged; and 7) is outside.the Special Areas.
33 CFR 157.37.

APPS is amended by the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and
Control Act of 1987 (MPPRCA), which implements Annex V of MARPOL
73/78 in the U.S. The MPPRCA and implementing 'regulations at 33
CFR 151.51 to 151.77 apply to U.S. ships (except warships and
ships owned or operated by the.U.S.) everywhere, including
recreational vessels, and to other ships subject to MARPOL 73/78

while in t .he navigable waters.or the Exclusive Economic Zone of.
the U.S. They,prohibit the discharge o 'f Plastic or,garbage mixed
with plastic into any waters and the discharge of dunnage, lining
and.packing mate ,rials that float within 25 nautical miles of the
nearest land.. Other unground garbage may be discharged beyond 12
nautical miles from the nearest land. other garbage ground to
less than one inch may be discharged beyond three nautical miles
of the nearest land. Fixed and floating platforms and associated
vessels are subject to morestrinqent restrictions. "Garbage" is
defined as all kinds of victual., domestic and operational waste,
6xcluding fresh fish and parts therof, generated during.the
normal operations of the ship and liable to be disposed of
continuously or periodically, except dishwater, graywater and
certain substances.. 33 CFR 151.05.

10. Oil Pollution, Act of 1990 (OPA).(P.L. 101-38.0)

The OPA addresse's a wide range of problems associated.with
preventing, responding to, and paying foroil spills. It does so
by creating a comprehensive regime for dealing with vessel and
facility-caused oil pollution. The OPA provides for
environmental, safeguards in'oil transportation greater than those
existing before its passage by: setting new standards for vessel
construction, crew licensing, and manning; providing for better
contingency planning; enhancing Federal response capability,;
br6adenin4-enforceme'nt authority";'increasing penalties; and
authorizing 'multi'-agency research and development. A one.billion
dollar trust fund is available to cover clean-up costs and
damages not compensated by the spiller.

itle I,establishes liability and limit
T I s to liability.

Liability: Any party responsible for the discharge, or the
substantial threat of discharge, of oil into navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines or the Exclusive Economic Zone is liable for
removalicosts and damages.. [� 1002(a))

Damages: Recoverable damages,include damages for injury to
natural'resources, real or personal property, subsistence use,
reIvenues, profits.and earning capacity,.public 'Services, and.the
cost of assessing those damages. (�� 1002(b),,1001(5)]

The measure of damages for natural resources is the,cost of
restoring, rehabilitating, replacing, or acquiring the .
equivalent; the diminution in value pending restoration; plus the
reasonable cost of assessing damages. [� 1006(d)(1)) NOAA has
the responsibility'of promulgating damage assessment regulations
and following the regulations will create a rebuttable
presumption in favor of a given assessment. [� 1006(e)]

140

Sums recovered by a trustee for natural resource damages are
retained in a revolving trust account to reimburse or pay costs
incurred by the trustee with respect to those resources.

Title II'makes numerou's amendments to conform other Federal
statutes, particularly section 311, of the Clean, Water Act, to the
.provisions of the OPA.

Title III encourages the establishment of an international
inventory of spill removal equipment'and personnel and requires
the Secretary of State to review relevant agreements and treaties
with Canada.

Title IV, subpart A, Prevention, gives added responsibility
to the Coast Guard regarding merchant marine personnel. * It also
imposes new requirements on the operation of oil tankers (double
hulls on new vessels, and eventually on older vessels)..

Title IV, subpart B, Removal, substantially amends
subsection 311(c) of the Clean Water Act, requiring the Federal
government to effectively ensure immediate removal from navigable
waters or adjoining shorelines or the Exclusive Economic Zone of
harmful quantities of oil or hazardous substances.'[� 4261(a)]
It also requires A revision and republication of the National
Contingency Plan within one year C�4201(c)] that will include,
among other things, a fish and wildlife re'sponse,plan developed
in consultation with NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
C�4201(b)]

Title IV, subpart C, Penalties and Miscellaneous,
substantially alters and increases the penalties for illegal
discharges and violations of regulations promulgated under the
Clean Water Act.

Title V relates to Prince William Sound.

Title VI addresses the Oil Spill Liability Trust'Fund.

Title VII creates an interagency committee to coordinate a
program of oil pollution research and technology development and
requires monitoring of long-term environmental effects of large
oil spills.

Title'VIII provides for improvements to the Tran-Alaska
Pipeline System.

Title X'addresses the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

141

APPENDIX 3: ABBREVIATIONS

bbls barrels
BIM Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior
C - Celsius
CFR - Code of Federal Regulations
CSA - Continental Shelf Associates
CWA - Clean Water Act
DEIS - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DOS - Department of State
DOD - Department of Defense
DOI - Department of the Interior
EIS - Environmental Impact Statement
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
F Fahrenheit
F. Family (biological classification)
FEIS -Final Environmental Impact Statement
FMP - Fishery Management Plan
ft - foot
HAPC -Habitat Area of Particular Concern
km - kilometer
LRA - List of Recommended Areas
m - meter
MMS - Minerals Management Service, Department of the Interior
MPRSA - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of
Commerce
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Department of Commerce
NOSIC - Naval Ocean Surveillance Information Center
NRP - National Research Plan (prepared by the MEMD)
OCS - outer continental shelf
ppt - parts per thousand
RFP - Request for Proposal
SEL - Site Evaluation List
sp. - species
SRP - Sanctuary Research Program
SRD - Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management, NOAA, Department of Commerce
USC - United States Code
USCG - United States Coast Guard

143

APPENDIX 4: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Appendix 4 includes the comments received on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan (DEIS/MP) prepared
on the proposed Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary,
and provides the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's responses to these comments. Generally, the
responses to comment are provided in one or a combination of
forms:
1. Expansion, clarification of other revision of the
DEIS/MP,

2. Generic Responses to comments raised by several
reviewers, and/or

3. Brief responses to detailed comments received from each
reviewer.

Written comments from individuals, organizations, State and
local governments and Federal, State and local agencies are
printed verbatim, and verbal comments, received at public
hearings, have been summarized.

Eleven general issues were raised frequently by reviewers of
the DEIS/MP. The responses to these issues are presented below.
Commenters will be referred to these generic in the text.

145

AMERICAN LITTORAL SOCIETY
CORAL REEF CONSERVATION CENTER
For The Study and Conservation of Marina Life
75 VIRGINIA BEACH DRIVE - KEY BISCAYNE - MIAMI, FLORIDA 33149 - (305) 361-4495

April 19, 1989
Joseph A. Uravitch, Chief
OCRH - HEMD / NOAA
1825 Connecticut Ave., NW.
Washington, D.C. 20235

re: Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary
Review of DEIS / Draft Management Plan
subject: Need for Designation

Dear Mr. Uravitch:

The American Littoral Society strongly supports the desi-
nation of a Flower Garden Books National Marine Sanctuary.

NOAA's resource Inventory has revealed the Flower Garden
banks to be "unique among the banks of the northwestern Gulf of

in that they bear the northernmost tropical Atlantic coral
reefs on the continental shelf and support the most highly deve-
loped offshore hard-bank communities in the region." (DEIS, p. 16)

This same resource Inventory finds that "the Flower Garden
Banks harbor approximately 500 acres of submerged tropical coral NO
reefs with 18 species of hermatypic (reef-building) corals.
Cresting at approximately 50 feet below the water surface , the
reefs extend downward to 150-foot depths ... The two coral reef
zones on the shallowest crests of the Flower Garden Banks have no
counterparts on the 15 or so similar banks stretching eastward
towards the Mississippi." (DEIS, p. 23)*

The shallowest of the 2 coral reef zones mentioned above (the
Diploria-Muntastrea-Porites zone) is found at depths of 50 to 120
feet and is even more remarkable in that the coral reefs in that
zone "are isolated from other reef systems by over 300 nautical
miles and exist under hydrographic conditions generally considered
marginal for tropical reef formation." (DEIS. p. 25)

We find that the resource assessment above clearly qualifies
the Flower Garden Banks under 16 USC 1431 et-seq. as a "discrete
marine area of special national significance '(with) distinctive
natural resources whose protection and beneficial use requires
comprehensive planning and management (of its) conservation, rec-
restional, ecological, research. educational and esthetic values."

The Flower Garden Banks clearly merit designation as a
national marine sanctuary, with boundaries and regulations
adequate to fulfill the protective intent of that designation.

Sincerely,

ALEXANDER STONE
AS:hm Center Director

AMERICAN LITTORAL SOCIETY
CORAL REEF CONSERVATION CENTER
For The Study and Conservation of Marine Life
75 VIRGINIA BEACH DRIVE - KEY BISCAYNE - MIAMI, FLORIDA 33149 - (305) 361-4495

April 19. 1989

Joseph A. Uravitch, Chief
OCRm - MEND / NOAA
1825 Connecticut Ave., NW,

Washington. D.C. 20235
re: Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary
Review of DEIS / Draft Management Plan
subject: Prohibited Activities (15 CFR 943.6)

Dear Mr. Uravitch:

The American Littoral Society strongly supports the desig-
nation of a Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. To
achieve the protective Intent of that designation, we request the
following Improvements to the sanctuary's regulatory regime.

Anchoring by Vessel (15 CFR 943.6 (a)(l)i,ii & iii)
NOAA has inarguably shown the need for anchoring restrictions
to protect the Flower Carden Banks' coral reefs (DEIS. p. 44-46).
NOAA has also documented that offshore platform service vessels
traversing the area are 90 to 180 feet long (DEIS. p. 14).
The DEIS provides no evidence that the anchoring damage from 1. Several of the excursion vessels that take divers to the
a 90-foot vessel is materially different than the damage from a Flower Garden reefs are between 90 and 100 feet in length.
100-foot vessel. N0AA considers the passengers of these vessels to be
Therefore; we request that 15 CFR 943.6(a)(I)i, ii, and iii legitimate users of the sanctuary. As NOAA has no evidence
be changed to apply to vessels "greater than 90 feet in registered that the anchoring damage from a 100 foot vessel is materially
length." instead of the currently proposed 100-foot limit. different from that of a 90 foot vessel, NOAA reaffirms its
Altering the Seabed (15 CFR 43.6(a)(3)) decision to permit anchoring of 100 foot vessels subject to
The need for regulations to protect sanctuary resources from sanctuary regulations. See also Generic Responses E and F.
direct and indirect effects of seabed alteration is illustrated by Note that the sanctuary regulations have been revised to
the recent leasing of 42 "blocks" in the vicinity of the sanctuary prohibit anchoring of vessels of less than or equal to 100
for hydrocarbon exploration and development (DEIS. p. 36). feet within an area of the sanctuary where a mooring buoy is
available.
Most of the natural values meant to be protected by a sanc-
tuary designation in this area are related to coral reef resources
and their attendant reef fish communities. The potential impacts
of hydrocarbon operations on these resources is very high.

The coral reefs of the Flower Garden Banks have already been
declared a Habitat Area of Particular Concern by the Gulf of
Mlexico Fishery Management Council (DEIS. p. 8). More recently,
the same Council's review of its Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan

concluded that one of the "primary threats to (reef fish) offshore
habitat comes from oil and gas development and production..."
(CNFMC. 32-33. attached). The GHFMC'S findings are
incorporated to this review by refererance.

These findings; conclude "adverse effects on fish and other
biota from the discharge of drilling mudz, drill cutttings. and
minor petroleum pollution due to wasdown ottivities. effluent
dicharges and trash disposal." (CHrMC. attached). Given. these
findings. even "discharges authoaized for [Outine operations" of
offshore platforms (DEIS.. p.' 55) should be restricted. 2. NOAA has added a regulation, 5 943.6, re
drilling cuttings and drilling fluids to
NOAA finds that the. MinersIs Hatingessent. Service has where oil and gas activities are allowed
established biological lease stipulations to prevent damage to no-activity zones. See also Generic Res
sensitive natural resources to the Flower Carden Banks area (DEIS.
p. 74). However. 110AA has also found that the e-stipulations way
primary among lease tracts and sales." (DEIS, ;. 1336). Additionally,
ur inuiries have found that NOAA-"END staff does not know
whether or under what conditth:cMinerals Management. Service
c. d ova t.0 C oge a., d/ 0r coon:l a h stipulations.
ul a ba
This highly uncertain situation cannot be 'considered to -
provide adeuate assurtrace of protection. for sensitive ' 'eigactuary
resources. It is essential that. VO&A codify an acceptable #at of
bi6logical lease stipulations as specific sanctuary regulatiting.

NOAA has acknowledged the wisdom of,such a sanctuary
regulatory codification for "the existing situation on dredge
dinposa,l activities" (DEIS. p. 90). The sane logic should apply
to hydrocarbon development operations.
Therefore. we reuest that I5FR 943.6(a)(3) specifically 3. Sea Generic Response A.
Ito corporfite and list out the biological lease stipulations listed
n page 74 of the PEIS, preferably using the language appearing on
[DFIS pages 81-8 under Regulatory/Poun4ory Alternative3. 4.
NOAA has added the definition of the
Similarly. we reu,-st that 15 CFR 943.3 specifically Incorp- formerly contained in j 943.6(a)(3)
rate a nd list*out.the "too activity zones" for hydrocarbon explo- definitions in 1 943.3.
ation appearing an DEIS Table-4 (DEIS. p. 75). It thus becomes
these Zones elsewhere in the regulations
Activfties Necessary for the National Defense
jis CFR 943.6_,a, I (b!! , .
As proposed. HOAA's sanctuar y re;:f.tj a exempt the Depart-
rent of Defense from any a nof all activity prohibitions, -Including
8..rRe vessel anchoring and the detonation of explosives where
"any activity necessary for the national. defense" is Involved.-

Although the defenne of the United States'is trauestionably
necessary, jt is NOT unuestionsSly necessary to 'Conduct training
nnery and other habitat -destructive operations in the sanctuary.
5. See Generic Response K.
Therefore, we reuest that NOAA negotiate with DOD and incor-
porate I n.t a 15 CFR 943.6 appropriate restrictions on military
training operations and their attendant vessel anchorings..

'Sincerely,

ALb-XANDERSTONE
AS:hm!enc. Center Director

AMENDMENT NUMBER I

TO THE

REEF FISH FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

(includes Environmental Assessment,
Regulatory impact Review, and
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis)

FEBRUARY 1989

GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
5401 WEST KENNEDY BOULEVARD
SUITE 881
TAMPA , FLORIDA 33609
(913)228-2815

6.3. Habitat Threats

Currently, the.,primary threat to offshore,habitat comes from oil-,
and "gas development and'production, offshore 'dumping, platform
removals, and the discharge of contaminants by -river systems, 'such
as the Mississippi River,,which empty into the Gulf of Mexico. The-,
destruction of suitable reefs .(natural and man-made) or other types'
of hard bottom areas also -may prove deleterious to this fishery as
most of the-:current data indicate an affinity for these habitats
by reef fish (Starck, 1968; Bright And Pequegnat, 1974;.. Shinn,,
1974; Gallaway et al., 1981; Gallaway and Lewbel, 1982;' Huntsman
and Waters, 1987). Natural impacts on reef habitat may arise from
severe weather conditions such as hurricanes-, red . tide, and
excessive freshwater discharge resulting -from heavy rai n.. Human
impacts on reef habitat result from -activities such as'pollution'
dredging and treasure salvage, boat anchor .dam-age,, f ishing an@
diving related perturbations, and petroleum 'hydrocarbons .(Jaap,,
1984). Ocean dum ing and nutrient overenrichment also ma
p I y pause
local problems. An additional problem occurs in the northern Gulf "
mainly off Louisiana, where large @ areas of oxygen depleted waters
have been observed (Stuntz et al., 1982; Boeschi: 1983';. Renaud,,.
1986). The effect of this 11hyppxia" is, unknown.

Nearsho're reefs, especially off Florida, may be impacted. by coastal
pollution such as sewage and non-point-source discharges, u *rban
runoff, herbicides, and pesticides (Jaap, 1984). Residues of the
organochlorine pesticides DDT, PCB, dieldrin, and endrin have been
found in gag, red grouper, black grouper, and red snapper (Stout,
1980). Heavy metal accumulations in sediment and reef biota near
population centers have been noted (Manker, 1975). Disposal-of
wastes has created local problems. Jaap (1984) reports of
batteries and refuse disposed of on the reef flat at Carysfort
Lighthouse in Florida. Juvenile snapper and grouper temporarily
residing in estuaries may be adversely affected by coastal
pollutants and alterations. The habitat section for the amended
Red Drum FMP (NMFS, 1986) provides details on the value of
estuaries and the impacts to them.

Dredging and salvaging near or on reefs is potentially the most
damaging physical human activity. Dredge gear impacts'reefs by
dislodging corals and other organisms and by creating lesion's or
scars that lead to infection or mortality. Sedimentation f rom
dredging may seriously damage reef s. Dredged sediments may be
anaerobic and bind up available oxygen thereby stressing corals
and other sessile reef organisms'. If the organisms cannot purge
the sediments deposited on them, they generally are killed. Silt
generated by dredging may remain in the area for long periods and
continue to impact reefs when suspended during storms. Reef
habitat also may be removed by dredging for borrow materials and
disposal on beaches and by dredging and filling associated with
navigation channel construction and maintenance.

Anchor damage is a significant threat to reefs, especially those
composed of corals. Anchors, ground tackle, lines, and chains can
break hard and soft corals, scar reefs, and open lesions which can
become infected. Heavy use of redf areas by boaters can compound
the problem. Although anchoring by oil and gas lease operators is
prohibited on most of the coral reefs in the Gulf of Mexico,
anchoring for otiher purposes is not restricted. -Fishing gear such
as -bottom trawls, bottom longlines, @and traps 'a!-..o may damage
reefs. Effects would be similar to anchor damage. Hook-and-line
fishing and related losses of line, leaders, hooks, and sinkers
also may damage corals. - Disposal of garbage by boats has been
identified as a problem at Pulaski Shoal near Dry Tortugas (Jaap,
1984).

Recreational spearfishing has damaged corals and may become more
of a problem in areas,of.heavy diver concentration. Divers often
illegally overturn corals and cause -other damage. Specimen
collecting also- may result in localized reef damage, especially
when chemical collecting agents are improperly used. Collecting
corals and the use of chemicals are regulated under the *Coral FMP
(GMFMC and SAFMC, 1982). Although there are some potential
.positive aspects of existing operational platforms -acting as
artificial reefs, unfortunately, these positive aspects are

severely compromised due to adverse effects on fish and other biota
from the discharge of drilling muds, drill cuttings, and -minor
petroleum pollution due to wash down activities,- effluent
discharges, and trash disposal. Malins (1982) reviewed laboratory
experiments describing the deleterious effects of petroleum
fractions on fish. Grizzle (1981) and Pierce et al., (1980) have.
documented that wild fish have been injured by petroleum
pollutants. Grizzle (1983) suggested that larger liver weights in
fish collected in the vicinity of production platforms versus
control reefs could have been caused by increased toxicant levels
near the platforms. He also suspected that severe gill lamella
epithelium hyperplasia and edema in red snapper, vermilion snapper,
wenchman, sash flounder, and creole fish were caused by toxicants
near the platforms. These types of lesions are consistent with
toxicosis and their prevalence and severity increased near drilling
platforms. The kinds of effects listed above could. result from
typical. daily activities at platforms. In addi 'tion, the
possibility of. major spills and/or well blowouts exists.

Extensive environmental impact statements were a prerequisite to
the installation of offshore platforms. However, prior.to 1986 no
formal environmental monitoring* of structure removals was required.
The U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service
(1987), estimates that there were 3,435 platforms in the federal
outer continental shelf as of December, 1986 and predicts between,
60 and 120 platforms will be removed annually for- the next five
years i . The National Research Council (1985) , estimates
approximately 1,700 platforms will. be removed between 1984 and
2000. The Council predicts about 100 to 130 removals annually
between 1990 and 2000. This- projection raises questions about the
impacts of the potential loss of valuable habitat to a wide variety
of marine life. Serious consideration should be given@ to research
projects centered on, assessing the importance of platf orms@ to reef.
fish productivity-

Besides the loss of potential habitat, the removal of a platform
often destroys -the associated platform ecosystem where one exists.
In addition to killing fish at a platform removal site, platform
removal will result in dispersal of survivors. , This would
adversely affect some of the commercial and recreational. fishermen
that fish near platforms. For example, approximately 112
commercial snapper/grouper boats from Florida fish the platforms
off Mississippi and Louisiana on a regular basis (Dimitrof f, 1982) .
The removal of platforms in the Gulf of Mexico may reduce the
catches of reef . f ish. Accordingly, new methodologies for platform
removals aside from the standard use of bulk explosives should be
devised.

6.4. Habitat'Information Needs

The following research needs-relative to reef fish habitat are.
provided so that state, federal, and private research efforts-can

AMERICAN LITTORAL SOCIETY
CORAL REEF CONSERVATION CENTER
For the Study and Conservation of Marine Life
75 VIRGINIA BEACH DRIVE KEY BISCAYNE - MIAMI, FLORIDA 33149 - (.305) 361-4495

April 19_1989
Joseph A. Uravitch, Chief
CRM - MEND / ROAA
5 Connecticut Ave., NW.
ton
Ing D.C. 20235
re: Fiower Garden,Banks National Marine Sanctuary,
Review of DEIS / Draft.Management Plan
subject; Sanctuiry Boundaries

Dear Mr..Uravitch:'

The American Litioral Society strongly supports the desig-
nation of'a Flower garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. To
achieve the protective intent of that designation. we reuest the
adoption of Regulatory/Boundary Alternative 3 (DEIS. p. 81).
The preferred Regulatory/Boundary Alternative I (DEIS, p. 79- The DEIS states (p. BOY that there is
80) leaves sections of the sanctuary's coral reefs very exposed to bank and 1300 feet on the east bank b
the potential impacts of hydrocarbon operations. On the West and the 100 meter (not
ank, this alternatiye allows as little-as.1000 feet between the isobaths
coral reefs and the boundary of the mineral Management -Service's boundaries). The 100 meter isobaths e
No Activty Zone. On the East Batik, as little as 1300 feet . is reefs are well inside the no-activity
aIlowed, between the reefs and potential siting of a hydrocarbon and just inside the no-activity zone c
:Iatf ,r (VE , p. 80). These buffers cannot be considered to be Considers these distances to provide a
adeuate to safeguArd'sensitive coral reefs and their associated safeguard the reefs.
fish communities from the impacts of hydrocarbon operations.
Regulatori/Boundary Alternative 3 provideslor an,' adeuate
buffer area around the core No Activity Zone;

NOAA states that such a boundary alternative would "add
little Substantive- prote6tion to that already provided by "MS
stipulations" .(DEIS, 0. 83). However, it would codify the
existing situation and assure NOAA of adeuate future protection.
2. See Generic Response A.
OAA has acknowledged the wisdom of such a Sanctuary
14 preregultory codification for the "existing situation on dredge
disposal activities" (DEIS, p. 90). The same logic should'apply
to hydrocarbon development operations and the establishment of
sanctuary boundaries that provide an appropriate buffer between
sanctuary resources and potential hydrocurbon impacts.
Sincerely,

ALEXANDER STORE
AS:hm/enc. CenterDirector

AMERICAN LITTORAL SOCIETY
CORAL REEF CONSERVATION CENTER

For the study and consrevation of marine life
75 BIRGINIA BEACH DRIVE KEY BISCAYNE MlAMI. FLORIDA 33149-305 361-4495

April 19. 1989

Joseph A. Uravitch. Chief
OCRN- HEND / NOAA
1825 Connecticut Ave.. NW..
Washington. D.C. 20235

re: Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary
Review of DEIS / Draft Management Plan
subject: Interpretation and Education PIan

Dear Mr. Uravitch:

The American Littoral Society strongly supports the desig-
nation of a Flower, Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. To
achieve the protective intent of such a designation. we reuest a
total redrafting of NOAA's plans for Interpretation and education.

In the particular case of the Flower Garden Banks National
"marine Sanctuary. "Interpretation" must be strategically redefined
and implemented as a resotorce protection tactic and NOT as the
soft" public education activity envisioned by NOAA. (DEIS. p. 11)
The primary target audience of such a -redefined interpre- 1. See Generic Reel
ton plan most be the potrotial impactor-ugers of the sanctuary
NOT the more general "Individuals. schools and Interested
groups being targeted by NOAA. (DEIS, p. 91)
Interpretation as a.Resource Protection Strategy
NOAA acknowledges that "neither MOAA nor the U.S. Coast Guard
has the resources to conduct systematic surveillance and enforce-
ment operations to ensure compliance... Because of the remoteness
of the site. compliance with regulations Is dependent more then
usual on effective information transfer. coupled with good will of
users. Emphasis must therefore be placed on Information develop-
ment and dissemination." (DEIS. p. 58-59) .1.

This self-assessment clearly calls for proactive information
transfer aimed, at Identified. major, Impactor-user groups and
implemented at the locations where these groups can be reached.

Targeting the Primary Impactor-User Groups
"V The primary *impactor-user groups are NOT the recreational
sitars to the site. visitors.to Information centers (or)
Interested groupi; not visiting the site of' the centers." that NOAA
sees as the appropriate interpretation audiences. (DEIS. p. 65)

It is imperative that NOAA focus its information transfer
efforts on the groups NOAA itself has identified an the sapc-
tuary's primary users and/or potential lepactors: the commercial
fishermen coming primarily fine Pensacola. Florida (DE14. p. 40).
the general shipping traffic using nearby vessel fairways *pri- 2. See Generic Response J.
marily headed to or from Corpus Christi. Texas (DEIS. p. 44). and
the offshore hydrocarbon platform working crews and service vise-
L!els coming primarily from Morgan City. Louisiana (DEIS, p. 14).
Additionally, NOAA's total dependence an Coast Guard and 3. NOAA fully intends to keep personnel from other agnecies
Minerals Management Service personnel for surveillance activities informed about matters that may assist them in developing
mandates that proactive and ongoing Information transfer be sited surveillance information for the enforcement of sanctuary
at those agencies' constantly changing and uninformed personnel. regulations.
Appropriate Siting for the Interpretation Activities
Information transfer and Interpretation for the sanctuary's on
primary user-impactor groups ins not be accomplished through the
passive intaking of visitors to information centers sited at parks
and museums. as envisioned by 11044. (DEIS. p. 66)
To be effective and to reach the right target groups. Inter-
pretation at this sanctuary must be primarily a proactive outreach
activity designed to reach the groups identified above an site in
Corpus Christi. Morgan City. Pensacola and to a lesser extent some
other ports identified by NOAA. (DEIS, p. 14)
This outreach can be accomplished by a formal program of 4. see Generic Response J.
sanctuary staff travel, communications with user industry naso-
iations. sanctuary staff and Information display siting at those
locations. and/or contract services provided through non-govern-
mental organizations (NGOs), consultants or educational centers.

Redefining Sanctuary Staff Roles
This proactive Interpretation and information transfer
strategy requires restructuring of the sanctuary staff's roles and
activities. Until additional funding and staffing to achieved,
the sanctuary 'tanager and assistant manager want take am the tasks
and travel necessary to achieve Information transfer to the sanc- 5. See Generic Response j.
188qn.17's primary user-impactor groups. This is justifiable, given
that (1) NOAA's management plan for the sanctuary doesn't envision
urveillance/patrolltng duties for the staffs (2) personnel
management needs will be minimal. and (3) research administration
annot logically take up most of the sanctuary manager's time.
Adequat Funding Priority for Intepretaqtion..
Currently. NOAA has allocated for interpretation an
inadequate 5% of the flint year's sanctuary budget and 82 of the
second year's budget for a "grand" two-year total of q$19,000.
fDesignation-Prospectus, p. 33-34) in line with the above restruc- 6. See Generic Response J.
turing of the interpretation program. funding must be realigned.

Sincerely,
ALEXANDER STONE
AS:hm Center Director

American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, Norlhwesl
Wash,nglon. D.C. 20005
202 682-8140

C I Sa-yet April 2S, 1989

Mr. Joseph A. Uravitch
Chief, Marine and Estuarine management Division
Offices of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Ocean Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Re: Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary,
54 Fed. Reg. 7953, February 24, 1989

Dear Mr. Uravitch:

The American Petroleum Institute (API) welcomes this opportunity
to comment on the proposed regulations implementing the Flower
Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. API is a petroleum
industry trade association representing more than 200 companies,
many of which are engaged in oil and gas leasing and development
operations in the Guif of Mexico. The designation of the Flower
Garden Banks as a national marine sanctuary and the regulations
proposed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
JNOAA) for the implementation of the sanctuary are of great
interest to our members.

API commends NOAA for the agency's concern that the regulations
proposed for the implementation of the Flower Garden Banks
Sanctuary do not utinecessarily interfere with oil and gas
activiti,es that are located near the sanctuary. However, API
believes that the regulations, as proposed, are not sufficiently
clear or precise so as to ensure that oil and gas operations in
the Gulf of Mexico are not unduly restricted. Therefore, API
submits the following comments.

A. Proposed Sanctuar Boundaries

Under Section 943.3 of the proposed regulations, the sanctuary
consists of two areas of marine waters located 110 nautical miles
sou of Galveston, Texas. The boundaries include the "no
a !heast
c ivity zone* established by the Department of Interior over the
East and West Flower Garden Banks. From the draft environmental
impact statement/managenient. plan for the sanctuary, it appears
that the sanctuary boundaries have been "rounded out" to
facilitate identification of the sanctuary.
API is concerned that these 'rounded out" boundaries could have

A@ emal vnp@-jy C-V",

Mr. Joseph A. Uravitch
April 25, 1909
Page Two

an adverse invact on oil and gas activities in the area.
Therefore, API recommends that MOAA:

1) Make the boundaries of the sanctuary identical to the
boundaries of the current noactivity zone. or See Gemric

2) Exempt oil and gas operations from the various
prohibitions listed under Section. 943.6(a) of the
regulations if these activitiestake place outside the
current no activity zone.

0. P d Prohibition on Deposits or Discharges of materials
Lro sea
analugstincesu side the Sanctuily

F. Under Section 943.6(a),(2)Aii) of the proposed regulations, NOAA
has banned the deposit or discharge of materials or substances of
any kind from any location beyond the boundaries of the sanctuary
which may, ter the sanctuary and injure a sanctuary resource.
However, draft environmental Impact statement prepared for
the Flower Garden Banks Sanctuary, clearly points out that 2. See Gerwric
stipulations found In current oil and gas leases are sufficient
to protect the sanctury from any potential damage. Since
current restrictions provide adequate protection, API believes
that the no discharge prohibition should specifically exempt oil
and gas operations.

Sincerely,
-A

AMA A MR PIE 104CL I UIA COMPOMAT ION 1,6001 G*9tft%P0-! rAQ% 1-vt I-0US$ON VEXAS 77060 702,015 0950

April 20, 1989

Marine and Estvarine
Management Division
office of ocean and Coastal
Resource Management
ational Ocean Service/140AA
1825 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Attn: Messrs. Joseph A. Urovitch, Chief
Rafael V. Lopez, Regional Manager

Anadarko Petroleum,Corporatioff is very interested In NOAA's efforts
to establish the Flower Garden Bank! as a-national Mari ne Sanctuary.,
As you are aware, Anadarko has operated An oil and gas production
platform on Block A-376 since the early eighties have reviewed
the draft Environmental [email protected] Statement/Draft Management Plan and
support the Section 11, Alternative I proposal.
oilI rs No re Ispons.e necessary. See also Part II
we believe that and gasproduction operations such.as ou
have proven that oil and gas activities can be harmoniously Public Hqbarings.
conducted within the Sanctuary*s boundaries. Anadarko supports the
prohibition of oil and gas. activities. within the "No Activity Zone"
as it does the other prohibited activities listed under Section 1-1.
regulatory Boundary Alternative I in order to protect the natural
beauty of the Flower Gardens. Further, we believe that the minerals
Management Service and Coast Guard guidel,ines presently in place
provide substantial protection for the Ranks and that the other
prposed alternatives would add very little substantive protection
for the Flower Gardens.

Should you wish to discuss our views. further please contact the
undersigned at (713) 675-0858.

Sincerely,

Paul Lankford
Coordinator of Rpgulatory
Affairs and Safety

PFL/ncl
PLNOSLE

cc: Mr. David Cottingham
Director, Office of Ecology
and Conservation
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Rm. 6222 j'.
Washington, D.C. 20230 r.1. VI

Center for Marine Conservatin

4/6/89

Ralph Lopez
National Marine.Sanctuary Program
Marine and Estuarine Management Division
National ocean Service
National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1625 Connecticut AVenije, N.W.@
Washington. DC 2023S

Deat Mr. Lopez,

Please find enclosed the Center's written comments regarding
the proposed designation and DEIS for the Flower Garden Ranks
National Marine Sanctuary.
Thank your for your considerati on of our views. We strongly See Generic Resp
upport the saInctuary, Out feel that h1ternative provides the
inimum protection necessary to adequately protect the nations lly
ignificant resources of this spectacular site.
Is

Sincerely,.

J@c k Sobel
Director, Marine Protected Areas

I D Sales Suee NW %ushwWon DC 20D)6 i 02i 429-56P 14elax 00218720619

Center for Marine Conservation

CHC TBSTIMONT 2N DRIS YOR FLOWER GARDEN BANKS NMS

The Center for Marine Conservation strongly supports the
desig at ion 0f Flower Gar den San ka as a National Marine
Sanctuary. We are pleased to. see that action Is finally being
taken to designate this worthy site following more than t8ft Years
of consideration. The presence 0f the northernmost and best
developed living coral sets on the U.S. Gulf Coaste and the only
known oceanic brine-seep community In continental shelf wStegf of
the Atlantic Ocean, certainly merit sanctuary status for this
outstanding site. We applaud the decision to include thill
site in the program due to three significant national treefUges.

Although we agree that the resources of Flower Garden Banks
are indeed worthy of the protection that can be afforded only
through the National marine Sanctuary Program, we are convinced.
that the preferred alternative outlined in the DEIS does not
properly safeguard these resources. HOAA claims to have analyzed
the institutional, boundary, regulatory, and management
alternatives In terms of achieving optimum protection of the
ecosystem. Such consideration for environmental protection is
consistent with the.sanctuary program's primary objective of,
protecting the national ly significant resources that quality a
site for inclusion in the program. Unfortunately. NOAA19
preferred alternative is riot compatible with the program's
Congress I onal ly-mandated priority of protecting those resources.

We believe that had WOAA analyzed the alternatives in terms
Joe achieving optimum protection of the Flower Garden Banks
ecosystem Regulatory/Boundary Alternative 3 would have been 2. See Generic Response A.
lected as the preferred alternative. we strongly support this
1. ternative over Regulatory/Boundazy Alternative I which NOAA
selected as its preferred alternative in the 691S and urge HOAA
to adopt it as, the preferred alternative in the FEIS. Such action
would ensure the adequate and comprehensive protection that this
important area deserves. Failure to take this action would be
inconsistent with the primary objective of the sanctuary program
to protect notionally significant marine areas and with President
Bush's stated concerns for protecting sensitive marine areas.
Alternative 3 would create a 259 square nautical mile
sanctuary extending four nautical miles around the banks and
would include two regulatory zones. Under this alternative, a
core zone consisting of the Mineral Management Service's (MKS)
no-activity zone would be surrounded by a buffer zone. The same
regulations would apply to the core zone as under Alternative 1 3. This specific prohibition of oil and
with the addition that oil and gas exploration would be no-activity zones has been inco
0n
specifically prohibited. Hydrocarbon exploration and development regulations. See Generic Response A
ould be allowed in the buffer. zone subject to applicable

DeSales Street NW Washington DC 20036 202 429 5609 Tele/Fax 2028720619

regulations. Sanctuary regulations would further require
hydrocarbon activities in the buffer zone to shunt cuttings and
drilling mods to within 10 meters of the bottom, to receive a
finding from the Assistant Administrator that bulk discharges
will not significantly impact sanctuary resources, and to obtain
certification from the Assistant Administrator that discharges
will be adequately monitored.

Alternative 3 would guarantee the long-term comprehensive
protection of the Flower Garden Banks ecosystem.. NOAA recognized
this in 1988 when it selected an essentially identical plan as
the preferred alternative for Flower Garden Banks. We do not
know of any new information that has surfaced since that time to
invalidate that selection. In fact, additional information that
has surfaced since 1980 supports the need for the type of
regulatory regime provided by Alternative 3.

NOAA cites two arguments against making Alternative 3 the
preferred alternative. First, NOAA argues that the additional
regulations add little protection to that already provided by the
MMS stipulation on current oil leases. The regulations are
indeed very similar to and compatible with the MMS stipulation.
MMS stated in its FEIS on lease sales 113, 115, and l16, "The
stipulation would prevent damage to the biola of the banks from 4. See Generic Response A.
the routine oil and gas activities resulting from the proposal.
Furthermore, oil and gas resources present near such areas could
be recovered." If this assessment is correct, it seems
reasonable to permanently provide similar protection for the
banks. However, the stipulations do not provide permanent
protection. They are applied on a lease by lease basis.
Permanent protection is essential for nationally significant
sanctuary resources such as Flower Garden Banks and would be
provided by Alternative 3.
The only additional oil and gas requirements contained in
alternative that are not in the stimulation are the finding by
the Assistant Adminsistrator that discharges will not result in
significant impact to sanctuary resources and the certification
by the Assistant Administrator that discharges age adequately
monitored. These additional requirements are minor and 5. NOAA intends to address the issue of monitoriny the effects
necessitated by the fragile and sensitive nature of coral reefs of oil and gas oil sanctuary resources as part of sanctuary
and by the uncertainty concerning the effects of oil and gas research. See also Generic Response A.
activities on them. Although a 1983 National Research Council
study found that discharges have minimal impact except on the
Immediate environment, more recent studies, including a 1985 EPA
study not mentioned in the DEIS, have shown considerable impacts
an benthic communities several miles away. The monitoring of
effects certainly fits well within both the research and
protection objectives of the program.

The most disturbing aspect of NOAA's approach to oil and gas
regulations is their complete deference to MMS an these matters.
This deference is troubling because of the divergent missions of 6. The proposed regulations were intended to have the effects of
MMS with respect to oil and gas development and NOAA with respect making permanent the protection provide to the Flower Gardens
to the marine sanctuary program. MMS is charged with fostering on a lease-by-lease basis by the MMS
sanctuary regulatory provisions have been strengthened. See
2 Generic Response A.

offshore oil and gas development. With regards to the sanctuary
program, NOAA's primary responsibility is to protect sanctuary
resouces. Therefore, it is incumbent upon NOAA to independently 7. The MMS regulatory regime is described in considerable detail
evaluate oil and gas regulations as they relate to protection of
sanctuary resources. Unlike MMS,NOAA's evaluation should be in the DEIS/MP, p. 74. The regulatory regime at the Flower
Gardens is based on the MMS Topographic Features Stipulation
based solely on resource protection. We do not believe that such
an evaluation was performed in the DEIS. Furthermore the for the Western Planning Area. In its application to the
present MMS regulatory regime applicable to Flower Garden Banks Flower Gardens, the stipulation reads as follows: "No
7. was not described in enough detail to allow a decision maker to activity including structures, drill rigs, pipelines, or
make an informed decision regarding alternatives. anchoring will be allowed within the listed isobath ('No
Activity Zone') of the banks as listed above. Operations
Even MMS recognized in its FETS that, "the stipulation would within the area shown as '1 Mile Zone' shall be restricted by
not protect the banks from the effects of an accident, such as a
large blowout on a nearby oil or gas operation." NOAA did not shunting all drill cuttings and drill fluids to the bottom
address the possibility of such an accident or the potential through a downpipe that terminates an appropriate distance,
effects of such an accident on sancutary resources. Recent but no more than 10 meters, from the bottom." The listed
events in Alaska demonstrate that accidents do happen! While isobath for the Flower Gardens is the 100 meter isobath as
they may not be entirely preventable, accidents should not be defined by 1/4 1/4 1/4 system, and the shunting requirement applies
ignored. More predictable threats to sanctuary resources, such

as those posed by routine oil and gas operations, deserve even in a 4 mile zone instead of a 1 mile zone.
greater attention. The regulations proposed in Alternative 3 are
a reasonable, moderate approach that would allow recovery of oil 8. The DEIS/MP contained brief references to the rarity of
and gas from the area while providing some protection for the blowouts, their possible impacts, and the improbability of a
Flower Garden Banks ecosystem. The degree of protection afforded seafloor spill's impinging on Flower Garden resources (pp. 93-
under Alternative 3 is the minimum amount that should be
94) (see also Generic Response D). This discussion has been
considered acceptable for a sanctuary.
expanded in the FEIS/MP.
The second argument made by NOAA against Alternative 3 is
that the larger boundaries would somehow contradict the goal of 9. The bottom area of the Flower Garden reefs and nearby bank
the program to designate discrete areas of special national surfaces are markedly distinct from the undifferentiated soft-
significance to promote effective conservation of their bottom areas of the surrounding continental shelf. NOAA is
resources. Although NOAA does not state how the larger
boundaries would contradict this goal, the implication seems to unaware of any distinctive natural resources in these zones
be that such a sanctuary would not be a discrete area. However, that warrant protection by the National Marine Sanctuary
it is not clear how NOAA made this determination. The area Program.
within the boundaries specified in Alternative 3 does not seem
10. See Generic Response A.
any more or less distinct than those specified in Alternative 1. 11. NOAA finds little similarity between the circumstances at
Furthermore, the goal of promoting effective conservation is
better served by the inclusion of the buffer area surrounding a
shallow water feature makes the area less discrete, this is Cordell Bank and at the Flower Gardens. A large deepwater

inconsistent with their recent decision to include such a area was included in the Cordell Bank National Marine

deepwater area in the preferred alternative for the Cordell Bank Sanctuary to reduce the threat of pollutant discharges in this
Sanctuary. area that could be carried to the resources at the higher
In summary, we strongly support the decision to finally levels of Cordell Bank by upwelling, to protect habitat and
designate Flower Garden Banks as a national marine sanctuary. foraging area used by marine mammals and birds, and to
The richness and diversity of the area certainly merit the facilitate management by making the boundaries of the Cordell
comprehensive management and increased protection that Bank and Gulf of the Farallones sanctuaries more fully
designation will bring. However, we feel that the primary goal contiguous.There are no comparable factors - upwelling to
of the program to promote effective conservation of a sanctuary's
nationally significant 'resources would be better served via transport pollutants, significant marine mammal and bird
Alternative 3. Therefore, we urge NOAA to select Alternative 3 populations, or opportunities to combine sanctuary manaagment
as the preferred alternative. resources- to be considered at the Flower Gardens.

ABILENE AMSTERDAM ANCHORAGE - - BRUSSELS - CHICAGO - COPENHAGEN DUBLIN
FORT LAUDERDALE GOTHENBURG HAMBURG LEWES UR LONDON LUXEMBURG MADRID MINTREAL OSLO PALMA OF MALLOREA
PARIS ROME SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOSE COSTA RICA SEATTLE STOCKHOLM SYDNEY TORONTO VANCOUVER VIENNA
WASHINGTON WORLD PARK EASE ANTARCTICA ZURICH

Greenpeace USA - 1436 U Street NW - Washington DC 2009 - Tel (202) 462-1177

IN 89 2359. Fax (202)462-4507

19 April 1989

Mr. Joseph A. Uravitch, Chief
Marine and Estuarine Management Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Ocean Service/NCAA
1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington. DC 20235

Re: Comments on the Flower Garden Banks National Marine
Sanctuary Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan

Dear Mr. Uravitch,

Greenpeace-firmly supports the,decision to finally designate
the East and West Flower Garden Banks as a National Marine
Sanctuary. These biologically rich and unique coral reef
ecosystems are a national treasure which deserve the highest
degree of protection.

We continue to be disappointed. however. by NOAA's
capitulation to MMS and the offshore oil Industry. We have seen
no evidence that coral reefs and offshore oil development are
compatible, In fact we have seen considerable evidence to
Indicate the it they are not. 'For -instance. every 'time an offshore
well is drilled, an a*jeragp of 1,500 to 2,000 tons of drilling
fluids (which 1q@ibricate the drill bit and maintain down-hole 1. See Generic Response D.
pressure) asd drill cuttings (pieces of rock ground by the drill
bit) are discharged Into the ocean. This constitutes an enormous
quantity of drilling dincharges. Research has shown that
components of drilling fluids - are highly toxic to marine
organisms generally and that coral reef ecosystems are composed

of extremely sensitive marine organisms. Greenpeace firmly
believes that exceptions for iesource ..protection should not be
made for oil exploration and development.,

e I ave read the testimony of the Center for Marine
2qEonseWrvatq!ion. presented on 30 March 1989 In Houston Texas. and
although we believe that they understate the case, the points
2qL4q(they raise are well ED 'ade and need not be repeated here. We 2. See Generic Response A.
concur that boundary Alternative 3 is the preferree alternative,
and the only oite that offers any -hope of protecting the Flower
Gardens.

Although the DEIS states that vessel anchoring is considered
the most Important Provision In the proposed regulations for the
protection of sanctuary resources, it is not clear how the marine
sanctuary ptogram plans on implementing this regulation.
Therefore Greenpeace would like to offer the following
suggestions.

*The international regulations which govern the safety of
navigation at sea (the Convention on the international Regulation
for preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, and the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. 1974). also include
provisions which are being used for the protection of specific
environmentally sensitive sea areas through the establishment o f
ship routing measures.

one of these -provisions is the designation of an area such
as 'the Flower Garden Banks as an "Area to be Avoided" by ships.
There are several examples of where this has already been used to
achieve protection for coral reefs. Part of the Great Barrier
Reef in Australia and part.of the reef track of Bermuda have been
designated as Ateas to be Avoided. as' well as an area north-west
of the Hawaiian Islands.

A decision to designate the Flower Garden Banks as an Area
to be Avoided must be Laken by the International Maritime
organization (IMO) . The Organization is currently discussing -how
to better use existing , IMO regulations for the envirormental
protection of specific sea areas. A- draft manual discussing
criteria for .'Particularly Sensitive Sea Area" status is on the
agenda for the next meeting. This manual is aimed at making
further improvements in the protection offered to specific,
relatively small, sensitive sea areas from damage by ships.
- A proposal to. designate the Flo"e-r_Garden Banks as an Area 3. See Generic ReSponse-F.
to be Avoided would have. to be submitted by the Government of the
United States, and N0AA*s work on this proposal would have to be
coordinated with the US Coast Guard.

The following criteria must be discussed in the proposal:
(a) the ecological sensitivity of the area;
(b) the. shipping patterns in the, area which can cause
damage to the reef,.
(c) the scientific value of the area; and
(d) the Importance to fisheries.

We believe this course of action would help with
notifi.cation to foreign vessels of the anchoring problems
t
0
t
P
0
r
0
0
crIt
are
9
rurt
reIa

tob
n.t

associated With the Flower Garden Banks. as well as providing a
buffer against the discharge of sewage and other matter from
ships in the.vicinity of the Marine Sanctuary.,

In surmnary, Greenpeace folly supports the designation of the
East and West Flower Garden Bankm as a National Marine Sanctuary;
we recommend that Boundary Alternative 3 be considered the
preferred alternative; we further recommend that resourCS
protection take piecedence over oll and gas exploration and
development; and, Lhat a recommendation be made to the INO that
the Flower Garden Banks be designated as an Area to be Avoided by
ships.

@ Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important
matter.

Sincerely.

Lynn Davidson.
Marine Habitat
Policy Coordinator

APR IS39

PENNZOIL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION COMPANY.
U S OFFSHORE DIVISION PENNZOIL PLACE - PO BOX 2967 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77252-2987 -(713) 548-0050

April 24, 1999

Joseph A. Uravitch, Chief
Marine and estuarine Management Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Ocean Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1825 Connecticut Avenue, Nw
Washington, DC 20235

RE: Proposal
Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary REgulations
54 FR 7953 (February 24, 1989)

Dear Mr. Uravitch:

Pennzoil Company is a natural resources company engaged
thorough its subsidiaries in the exploration, production,
refining and sales of petroleum products, and in the mining and
sales of sulphur. Pennzoil through its subsidiary, Pennzoil
Exploration and Production Company (PEPCO), engages in oil and
gas exploration and development operations on U.S. leases in the
gulf of Mexico. One of these leases is in the vicinity of the
proposed Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. Because
of this proximity, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
proponed regulations designating the Flower Garden Banks a
marine sanctuary.

We agree with NOAA that delicate environmental areas such as
the Flower Garden Banks should be protected to maintain the
value of the area's resources. We also agree that activities
that could infure the Sanctuary should be prohibited. We
believe that the no discharge prohibition for facilities in or
outside the Sanctuary included in this regulation needs to be
changed to specifically exempt oil and gas operations. Our
comments will center on this issue.

No Discharge Prohibition

In the proposal, NOAA bans certain activities inside the
boundaries of the Sanctuary, Section 943.6(a)(ii) specifically
prohibits the discharge of any material or substance within
boundaries of the Sanctuary. In addition, it prohibits the
discharge from outside the boundaries of any material or
substance that would enter the Sanctuary and injure a resource
therein. We believe that normal discharges fromoil and gas
operations both inside and outside the Sanctuary should be

a subsidiary of PENNZOIL COMPANY

Flower Garden Baitks
April 24, 1989
Paae 2

exempted from this prohitition because current rules and
reqtjlations provide adequate protection to the marine
environment including the Sanctuary.

Under the Minerals Kanagement Service (11DIS) lease sale
notice for areas around the Sanctuary, all operators of offshore
oil and gas leases must shunt their drill cuttings and drilling
fluids discharges to a depth of no more than ten meters from the
ocean floor (52 ER 7549, March 11, 1967). Any material
discharged at the depth requiredl by shunting remains at this
depth, and cannot rise up to the shallower area of the reefs,
due to the phenomenon known as., the nephelold layer or, mcre
comncnly, the bottom boundary layer. A report by Texas A&M 1. See Generic Response B.
University demonstrates this point:
W7ter arid sediment dvnemics studies indicate that water
f ows around topograp@ic prominences on the seafloor rather
than flowing upslope and over the crest of the prominence.
In terms of sediments or pollutants of any kind entrained in
the nepheloid layer which exists around the bases of many
hiqh relief banks, it is physically impossible to transport
sediment to the crest of the reef or bank. This conclusion
is supported by both g,volcgical and biological evidence. No
clay minerals have been found in sediments collected from
depths shallower titan 70 m at the Flower Carden Btnks, and
only traces have been found at depths of 80 to 85 m.

The mmS shunting r equirements were obviously designed with the
intent to prevent the discharges from presenting a problem.
Consequently, these current requirements provide sufficient
protection for the Sanctuary from any potential damage
L'.@egardless of the location of the discharge.
conclusion

We believe that current HMS requirements specifically
tailored for the Flower Garden Banks provide 'adequate protectioit
from aoiy adverse impacts of oil and gas discharges, such that
that NOAA should specifically exempt oil and gas operations from

Flower Garden Banks
April 24, 1989
Page 3

the no discharge prohibition. Alternatively, HOAA could simply
incorporate into its own regulations the same shunting and Ao
activity requirements imposed by the KMS.

Texas A&M University. Reefs and Banks of the
fiulf of nexico: Their Geological, Biological, and Physical
Dynamics. Final Report, no. 83-1-T. 1983, page 4.

Ver ly yours,

Ronald L. wris, Ph.D.
U.S. offshore Division Manager

PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY
BARTLESVILLE OKLAHOMA 74004 916-661-6600

EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION GROUP

April 25, 1989

15 CFR Part 943
Docket No. 80851-8151
Flower Garden Banks National
Marine Sanctuary

Joseph A. Uravitch
Chief, Marine and Estuarine
Management Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management
National Ocean Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Sir:

Phillips Petroleum company appreciates the opportunity to
comment on the proposed rules in 15 CFR Part 943 pertaining
to the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary.

Phillips acquired leases on Blocks 366 and 367 in OCS Lease
Sale 84 in 1984 which are in the immediate vicinity of the
designated sanctuary. In fact, Alternative Boundary 1, the
preferred alternative in the proposed rules, encompasses
approximately the southern one-third of Block-366 and the
southwest one-eighth of Block 367. We agree with the selec-
tion of Alternative Boundary I as preferable and the finding
that Alternative Boundary 3 would be unsatisfactory.

In the proposed rules, we refer to Section 943.6 Prohibited
activities (a) (6) Explosives. Electrical Charges and Toxins.
This section prohibits the detonation of explosives or the
release of electrical charges within the Sanctuary. We would
ask you to consider adding to this section a speeific exemp- 1. NOAA has no intention of regulating the use of air guns in
tion for the useof air guns in the acquisition of seismic seismic surveys at the present time. This activity has been
data. We, and others, have acquired seismic data by this listed for regulation, however, so that if the use of air guns
method on Blocks 366 and 367 and seek to acquire additional is later demonstrated to have an adverse impact on sanctuary
such data as part of our exploration program. resousrces, additional requlations can be proposed. if such
regulations are eventually proposed, the public will have an
opportunity to comment on them at that time.

page 2

We are, of course, aware of the stipulation attached to our
leases by the Minerals Management Service which bans
development drilling in the "no-activity zones" surrounding
the Banks. The prohibition on drilling in no way diminishes
the value of seismic data we seek to obtain in the portions
of our lease blocks which would become part of the proposed
Sanctuary! Our goal is to understand the geology of the
blocks as thoroughly as possible in our attempt to locate new
petroleum reserves.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Susan J. Robb
Staff Director, Legislative
Regulatory Affairs

SJR/te

SEASPACE

April 21, 1989 COPY

Joseph A. Uravitch, Chief
Marine and Estuarine Management Division,
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Ocean Service/NOAA
1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington. D.C. 20235

RE: Flower Garden Banks National Hering Sanctuary
Dear Mr. Uravitch,

The Houston underwater Club is delighted to hear that the Flower
Garden Banks will be designated a National Marine Sanctuary no later
than September of this year. I am writing to repeat the concerns
expressed by members of the diving community at the Houston public
hearing. 1. See Generic Response E.
First, as anchor damage is a primary concern, we would like to see 2. NOAA plans to consult with the local diving community and any
permanent moorings, with anchoring prohibited, in the very near other group that can be of use in managing the santuary.
Future, Should the cooperation of the Houston-Galveston-Freeport 3. See Generic Response G.
diving community be of use in this matter, please advise us. 4. See Generic Response I.

Second, we would like this sanctuary to be truly a safe haven for all
marine life, with no fishing of any kind no live collecting
allowed.

Houston Underwater Club spearheaded the effort for this sanctuary.
and our 500+ members hope very much that our opinions will influence
the future management of this delightful resource.

Thank you,

(lis.) Page S. Williams
Environmental Chairperson

cc: David Cottingham, Director, Office of Ecology and Conservation
Room 6222, U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington D.C. 20230

Houston Underwater Club, Inc. P.O. Box 3753 Houston, Texas 77253-3753

SIERRA LONE STAR CHAPTER
CLUB Houston Group of the Sierra Club

April 2, 1959

Joseph M. Uravitch Attentions Freedon of Information Request
Marine and Estuarine management Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource management
National ocean Service/NOAA
1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Mr. Uravitch,
Enclosed are the comments of the Houston Sierra Club concerning the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement/Management Plan for the proposed Flower Garden Banks National
Marins Sanctuary. The Club has had over a decade of interest is seeing the Flower
Carlens (PG) protected as a National Marine Sanctuary (WWS) and is cautiously opinl-
atic that this time designation will occur.

Before we look at the document and glve you our specific consents we want to men-
tion several other items. We appraciated the fact that NOAA held the public hearing
In Houston. Texas and that one session of the bowing was in the evening so that the
general public could attend after work. We are concerned, however, with the short
public notice given. The public notice appeared in The Houston papers on March 26th,
Sunday, only four days prior to the public hearing and the mailed public notice was
received on March 29th only one day before the Public hearing. In the future at least
a minimum of two weeks should be given for public notice and preferably one mouth.

I also had trouble getting an your mailing list to receive the DEIS; Even though
over the past year I wrote to N00AA at least twice to ensure that my name would be on the
list I heard that the DEIS was available from a friend who had already received his copy.
Therefore I hod to write NOAA again and once more for a copy of the document. This Is
not acceptable public participation procedure and I request that NOAA ensure that my
ease and addressl, shown at the and of this letter. Is on the mailing list to receive any
information about the FG that NOAA sends out in the future.

The Club also wants to Input Into the level contingency and emergency response 1. NOAA intends to consider any suggestions received for the
plan (page 57) which MEMD will develop. This to a crucial plan since It Is acknowledged development of contingency and emergency response plans.
In the BITS that more ship traffic and oil and gas drilling Is ongoing and expected to
Increase In the future. Therefore we need to ensure that adequate additional spill 2. Representatives from other agencies, academic institutions,
controls and prevention measures are available right at the WMS and other areas to ensure and environmental organizations may be invited to participate
quick enough response times. in workshops and other planning processes as the research plan
We also would Ilke to participate In the annual, research plan update. We would is developed. Sierra Club representatives may be considered
like to mention however that an annual update may be too frequent since research needs for participation as appropriate in the future planning of
several years to occur with data collection and analysis. A more realistic timeframe research for the Flower Gardens sanctuary.
way be every 3-5 years for a research update. Emergency situations which require un-
anticipated research can always be worked Into the budget each year. We also request
under the FOIA a copy of the research protocol an the East FC coral recovery from
anchorine study which is now ongoing.

"When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe." John Mair.
recycled paper

Also , as mentioned on page 54, please keep us informed about development of procedures to address specific management concerns.
The club wants to be actively involved in this effort. Now we would like to have specific, page- comments about the DEIS and management plan.
1) Page 4. We see the need to list all potentially inspecting activities now so that NCAA can regulate them quickly and not have
to seek specific approval for an amendment to this plan. Therefore collecting, spearfishing, oil and gas drilling, recreational
fishing, etc. all need to be listed and if possible have regulations drawn up now to maximize protections for this ecological area
that has already had much damage visited upon it. 2) 9 It is not acceptable, if true protection for thge Fg is to occur, to say
4. that the scope and scale of programs may be reduced due to budget constraints. If true long-term protection of the FG is to
occur a steady source of funding is needed.NOAA must and Mr. Mossbacher, our Texas Secratary of Commerce Department, educated about
the importance of his homegrown FG. Then Mr Mossbacher can see that President Bush and Congress are informed about the need for
more monies. This is the only way to guarrantee that sufficient recources will be available to protect the FG. In addition Mr.
Mossbacher can see that the Coast guard sets sufficient funds to enforce the NFS so that people willl be disuaded form abusing
the area. NOAA cannot relie on people's good faith efforts to ensure that enforcment of the FG will occur. We do not need laisefaire
enforcement. NOAA also needs to enforce EPA to accept its responsibility to enforce out in the Gulf the NPDES watewater peraits
so that the FG will be protected. EPA and the CG need to do most of the enforcement because EPA has an inheritent conflict of intrest
in promoting oil and gas drilling as well as protecting recources.In addition to their personnel are not trained to look at environmental
damage the way EPA and CC personnel are.3) page 10. NOAA could also deputise other state and federal agencies that more policing
of the NFS will occur.4) Page 11. For interpretation and public education NOAA needs to have an extensive very actice outreach
program with slide shows, movies, brochures, speakers, buttons to wear, radio and TV talk shows and FSA's, visits to the oil industry ,
insurers, shippers, pilots, pilot associations, tanker owners, sharter boat captains, etc. to inform the user groups about the
importance of their cooperation to the continued interrity of the Flower Gardens.Perhaps a non profit organization, like the National
Park Service has many of its parks, could be projects, and specific projects like marker and tie-up buoys.Although NOAA says
on page 53 that interested orginizations and the public will play an important role in attaining resource protection goals it
is not stated what this role is and how it will be helped by the public. It is obvious that since onsite users (page 65) are
using the area and thus have tthe highest potential for direct damage to th EG their education and cooperation should be sought
has had a long history of interest in the FG that the information center be located there either at the NOAA lab or at the
Texas A&M campus on Pelican Island.5) Page 40. Regulations for commercial fishing with the respect to reef fisheries would be better
coordinated with the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. They have a new Reef Fishery Management Plan out in draft form
which NOAA needs to take a look at. In addition since Red Snapper, other snappers, groupers, and other reef fish apppear at.
to be overfished NOAA needs to seriously consider whether regulations for recreational and commercial fishing needs to be pro-
mulated.These regulations would be different than

3. These activities are listed in the Designation Document. See Generic Responce A with regard to oil and gas drilling. See
Generic Responses G and H with regard to fishing.

4. U.S. Government budgets are quthorized on an annual basis.It is not possible therefore for NOAA, EPA, or the U.S. Coast Guard
to have a constantly predictable flow of funds available for their programs.Budgets may fluctuate, and unforeseeable budgetary
constraints may couse modifications in the scope and scale of programs.

5. The Flower garden Banks are well beyond the jurisdiction of coastal states. However, NOAA does plan to work with other federal
agencies to maximize surveillance efforts.

6. See Gezneric Responce J.

7. NOAA plans to work with non-profit orginizations and volunteers whenever possible. See also Generic Responce E.

8. The role of the public was explained more fully on pp. 58-59 of the DEIS. See also Generic Responce J.

9. These and other sites are being considered for the location of information centers.

10.As required by the Marine Protection, Reasearch and Sanctuarries Act and the national marine Sanctuary Program regulations,
NOAA consulted with the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Managment Council in prepairing its proposed Flower Garden Banks Sanctuary regulations. See
also generic Responce G.

11. See Generic Response H.

12. See Generic Response G.

13. See Generic Response H.

14. See.Generic Response J.
See Generic Response H.
15. see Generic Responses A and B.

16. See Generic Response F
17. See Generic Response A 12. See Generic Response G.

18. See Generic Response B.
19. see Generic response D. 13. see Generic see Responce n.
a result of oil and gas exploration somewhere.

20. NOAA acknowledges that oil entering the area from vessels is aenam at manssenent allows damage way not
be reversible before anytninig is done and then NCAA prooaed to study the damage done
that was revealed by monitoring to see If regulation Is seededl This 13 not protective
of the resource.
6) Pass 44. As mentioned earlier under 4 above special education efforts are needed for
users of the area. Here NCAA shows that most of the bast traffic comes from Corpate
C
it
qhr Lavaca. Palmt Comfort aid irresport with respect to commercial shipping am
therefore these are precisely the places that WOO should Otart with fastest th Its edu-
cation endeavors so trash disposal anchoring, tanker wishing and other activities that
"as ships might be Involved In that might impact the VC. 14. See Generic Responce J.

7 Pop 7.
We are deeply troubled by 0MA's lack of willingness
drilling operations. It to admitted that there Is Increased 15. See Generic Response A and B.
velopment In deep offshore areas for oil and gas and that tanker traffice or all vessel
raffic is lncresstng In the Area (page 47). Many of the deeper areas that will be drilled
use tankers Instead of pipelines and could be a direct tqliroat to the FC. In addl-
ton-the realonal Interacts of long-term oil and gas withdrawl. an the stability of the banks 16. See Generic Response F.
and their potentlaior active faulting and subsidence Is not known.
We finish It unacceptable that NOAA would allow any seabed alternations by. hydrocarbon
extr,setion activities. go need to protect the entire roof form the top to the bottom
alone with areas of clean water to ersuro & sufficient buffer zone Is In place that if
a bad accident does occur there may be some mitigation via dellution to keep harmful
tortals away from the redfa In Impacting quantities. Kbore yet knows 110 V the bottom 17. see Generic Response A.
: the entire roof structure Is ralted to' the corals or reef building zones. It Is not
cnsclousable to allow such experiments with the natural resources here. Prevention Is
the key ard that Is why we support strongly alternative boundary three with 4 nautical
miles of clean water to provide a mitleatine buffer from oil arid gas incidents.
disagree strongly that reculation of oil anbffas acitivittes are not needed more
the that M already qjoes. In 1403 PM allowed a lease tract which Included part of the IS See Generic Responce B.
G to be lessed by Exxon. Only a last istrute intercession by Texas Governor Mark White
covnitced Exxon to drop Its lease bid and not drill In this sensitive tract. We cannot
so

be assured that this will not occur In sometimes In the future. It Is also ridiculous
to say a subsea oil spill will simply be swept around the banks. No one has the do& donts
volthls and the more likely scenario to that sons would reach the PC and Impactareas. 19. See Generic RespMse D.
I
Ie be leve. as we have stated over arA over that the HAIr study Is a fliw0qW one which
rc4ed conctusions which were not tenable with wxlstlnc Information. We also remind
(page 91.) that oil enterina the area from vessels Ii a result of oll2pppas explar-
a
saewqre aA needs to be acknowled as such. 20,
"0q" acknOwledges that oil entering
result Of oil and gas e00qTIOnation sqoqeqm

404 shculd be c-tref-A in 7e:re,:e-tc-!-x the F.FS-, ZTS because they often are
lawpd dorime its then solves. Studios kra referinced which have been discredited in publlc
or which h&v never faced peer review bpenune they are gray literature or which were long
by the oil conpantes oi censultants hired bv that coon&nlea. We have dolnimened pro-
lems In the past with these documents and would before than happy, ici and YOU copies
of our canmenta if you so desire the.

Oil drill was operations should a o be rtwulned for the same reason that you repru-
ale other activillts. For Instance on pale 90 you prohibit dredging even though it
potentally will not occur how so why of do the same for oil a -ationa A-' so.
[.I gas opei-
:
I pace 96 you talk �@Uut r-egulatt-ut Ln:i ustne zenalties to discaurwe 4tv3as 21. see Generic Response A.
7211 ch also could be a recd deterent for any oil ard- ras'act!7!tles that havoi 'protle-to
nd Inpinve am the CYPS. We want the stiffer oerzaltle:t to aculy to &I-' actlvttes that 22. Spe Gic-neric Response
atentially could lo@act the FC.
23. Vessel discharges permitted include
M) Fare We believe all anchorinc should to regulated since all anchors damage down, graywater, non-oily dischar4g4
010a coral. The impacts. even from recreatinal anchoring tire curmlative ard there are effluents-from approv d sanitation
e
obvious alternatives It like moor1r buoys that can be utilizedo We need to put a
LOV svstem now and not wait for gore damage to occur. are considered necessary to the oper
the"' sanctuary. NOAA has no eviden
9) Past 5 We are not In favor of allowing any Uschwwas over the reefs Copling, threaten sanctuary resources. As 7
a ter2 may have all In them and arine sanitatior devices can fall. Ut particularly G, NOAA intends to facilitate compat
r a asainst the phrase "or routine operations". This Is do burad and has not definition and therefore will not make it impos
[that almost anything could im allowed. We want no discharges in the M NVS. there.
10) Fare . We are totally opposed to any With lonal Security exemption for explo- 24. See Generic Response K.
as or electrical charites or anythinc else. There Is no earthly excuse for using the
L4 at any time for security purposes. The FC must be protected fruit all 25. comment accepted. The FEIS/NP has
r cats period. 26. The wording of this phrase should
I ) a.7 acknowledge EPA's Importantal I FEIS/MP has been-co

cruises." The
n.6
For some reason ICOAA'do*s no,
n addition NOAA heads to hook Into EPA's Gulf Initiative aid
ther ace4m programs to ensure that the rG'Is recognized aid perhpas funding can case
Mis EPA for research In particular areas.
12) Paae 71. Mature viewine boat cruises are mentioned. Please intive a complete
G planation of what this Is. Now will It Impact the FG? 27. The preferred alternative, describ
discusses regulations to be proll
13) Paso M . The description of the preferred alternative leaves out recreational sanctuary designation. On p. 54
1charinn which to Included on pias 54. possibility that additional regulat
We approcItte this opportunity to comment and look forward to receiving a copy of a later date.
te rEIS aid management plan and bet" Included on the ROAA selling list to be kept
apprised of all future 110AA activities as they relate to the FC NFS@ Thank you.

Pincerely,
-d --t :M@@a n nc' % a
Conservation Committee
Houston Sierra club
629 Euclid
Houston, Texas 77009
H713-efil-llc,52, W713-640-4311

SIERRA LONE STAR CHAPTER
COASTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
CLUB

.ps 2C of tp_rLi z.
"t1p.e cttt
p?r
.?nl e ctu
pi d 1p3r
t ft
it . rt of t f my rt epic1pm-
d1p, 1 o :prt- for
-1pz coral reef v r from ps, @arttt1p* 1pa lone 4Cptr econd ly, what
We p3pjhieve In a . The tof these coat Ions *to hr seeks
tnbll1pn bition of
which In on a v brs y l1ps If Cie cl vpppavs be rpA feels t 11pre
In condition perceived as nobody 1pv1pipr_
e2p-de1pw:-:1phorpk from u causes. To co1paph e slotits rizontal distance between the 5 which
p--poscovered contain the coral reef zones and the' 100 m isobaths, which
fox In chickens.
lie well within the no-;-actives, is 400 to
p:t, a site -.there continues 4430 m (1300 to 145st Bank (Bright, 1977 uurbed. For ell tpdTps by 300 to 1000 a (1000 to 3300'ft) at thet and
fishermen e oil 2p. ton Peuegnat, 1974.). Contaminant spills at depths would be
then, as 2pI this eco carried around the' Banks (see Generic Response D)
r s pW?y of det1pT per p: Contaminants in surface layers are unlikely to reach the reefs
declared zo1pe lInt 50 to 120 feet below (see DEIS). The no-activity zones thus
even pee to do Studies to verify Vila! The has e.11ur@ 1pmp- appear to be adeuate. If they are later demonstrated to be
inadeuate, Ntemporary emergency regulations,
.jpn1pl cn2pitIve of
vested -interests, 2pjud Upon during which time more permanent measures can be devised.
1ps1plk u1pitpnherefore
acp%00.e nt1popw1p2. -The agreement among Anadarko Production Co., the Pennzoil Co.,
to l1p. by l p, a 1pa1p@n1pon1pape National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and EPA
resolved a dispute about the granting of NPDES permits to the
-or l,been oil companies. NOAA was not a party to the dispute and does
not believe that it must consider the agreement in developing
managing the proposed sanctuary. e.
however, intend to conduct monitoring studies of the effects
of discharges on t resources.

Joseph A grevisch 20 April, 1989

To indiction as included in the EIS that there is any question about the safety of any hydrocarben activity, whether pipeline or drilling activity .
The doubt that the EIS has not expressed is uppermost in out minds, and MUST be addressed in the next EIS. Very simply stated, the Flower Garden Banks
are in a mobile environment. Even an addition of the four mile zone to the current no-activity zone may be inadequate, but to permit continuation of
hydrocarbon activities in and about the BAnks is not at all in keeping with the term SANCTUARY. The cessation fo activity of oil companies will be
difficult. But it must be addressed.
First of all, no new drilling blocks may be leased; that is the easy step. Next, existing leases without activity, backdated to some prior date, so
that the leaseholder doesn't quickly bring in drilling equipment, must be cancelled, perhaps bought out.
This would include no more dollars than had been paid for the lease plus appropriate interest that might have been generated.
In return, a promise will be made that in perhaps 20 years, following completion of adequate studies, if that lease blcok is then made available, the
same leasor will be given presidence. That to do about existing drilling or producing activities?
The best is to shut them down; but that is likely impractical, and yet, the continued extraction of gas or oil may cause fault elicare, perhaps even
subsidence, and other geologic processes IN THIS UNDERSEA LOCATION which nothing is known about (and which is not at all addressed in the DEIS!).
The first step may well be to control the rate of production from existing wells; while an independent geological group studies the potential problem
at this location. And in some years (5,10,maybe as much as 20) the production will cease and the equipment removed - or it could perhaps be converted,
e.g. the cobil platform in block 389, as as an anchoring-tie-up site, monitoring base, or whatever suits.
In short, the DEIS avoids questioning hydrocarbon activities, and we do. When "offshore service vessels...are usually between 90 and 180 ft in length"
(page 14) and the proposed limitation on anchoring uses 100 feet, there is something woefully wrong in someone's thinking. 100 is as arbitrary as
110 or 50. The choice is not defended. Certainly no offshore service vessels should be allowed to anchor, no matter how long they are! Anchoring should
also be a function of currents and wind, since these are the forces that cause anchor dragging with an unpowered vessel.
Folks, let's think about these things and be rational in order to PROTECT the Banks!
Spearfishing should be prohibited also; perhaps limited permits can be issued in later years. For the present there is no control over this and that
situation could lead to decimation of specific desireable, or (probably) predator, species if unregulated. "e" on page 117 should be as generic as
statement "a"; thus statement one in article 5 on that page should be deleted.
On page 2 is stated that a ONE MILE surround (diameter) is now a sanctuary for the U.S.S. Monitor. WOW. Doesn't it make sense to make at least the four
mile zone around a biologically unique reef part of its sanctuary?
3. NOAA believes that its preferred alternative, as modified (see Generic Response A), will provide adequate protection to the
Flower Gardens. It may be worth noting, however that a ban on additional lease sales in the area might not have a sizeable
effect on future oil and gas activities because many of the 20 currently unleased tracts, lying wholly or partly within the
the outer boundaries of the four-mile buffer zones, may be unattractive for leasing. Twelve of the 20 were previously leased.
Their current unleased status may indicate that they have little potential for development. Another two of the unleased tracts
(A-375 and A-398) are entirely, or almost entirely, within the no-activity zones, and three (133, 136, & 138 are extremely
small. Of the total of 59 tracts, leased and unleased, only three (179, A-386, & A-394) have not recently been under lease, are
of standard size, and lie entirely beyond the no-activity zones.

4. Title III, 304 (c), of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act specifically states that the Act does not grant the
Secretary of Commerce the right ot terminate valid leases in existence at the time of sanctuary designation.

5. If it is indicated to NOAA in the future that fault slippage or subsidece is occurring, NOAA will consult with MMS to
determine what measures should be taken.

6. Several of the excursion vessels that take divers to the Flower Garden reefs are between 90 and 100 feet in length. NOAA considers
the passengers of these vessels to be legitimate users of the sanctuary. As NOAA has no evidence that the anchoring damage from a
100 foot vessel is materially different from that of a 90 foot vessel, NOAA reaffirms its decision to permit anchoring of 100 foot
vessels subject ot anctuary regulations. See also Generic Responses E and F.

7. Comment accepted. See Generic Response H.

8. The criteria used by NOAA in establishing the size of the MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary are irrelevant to the resource protection
requirements at the Flower Garden Banks and thus have no value in determining the appropriate size of the proposed Flower Garden Banks
National Marine Sanctuary.

pr' 1p.-i
pr c ibit fep, or
9. The -regulations have been changed to
p, or ::a
f ish.
v lit is attempting to feed,
2p.26
. t2put Other
t it 1prp2 nt #23 in-letter from Brandt 3 for lo. See response to COMO
pe At" n J1
1p5u or Or
p9 r
pe !,:1 J r - - - These and other sites are being considered.
o :-p.p- It is :c st 12. This role was listed an p. 70 of the DEIS under D. 2pIp.-ort2p- 1 -t4:ou
-upf- The inclusion an nautical charts of information about
sanctuary regulations
r -, -IOU -::.-a t@t .. . was discussed on pp. 57 and 58 of the
-r.1p!-tpae sr t 2p.3 lot ! t !I.- -to . r r I r I a a I a L 2p_ 14. NOAA has incorporated into the management plan: If tp5 -p.v-?! sp3 bimV proscriptions of the NNFthe Flower Garden
1. .p. 2p: HAPC; 2) proscriptions of the MKS pertaining to hydrocarbon
ph!O;1p.- to activities within.t zones; and 3) proscriptions
of 31 of other agencies pertaining to pollutant discharges. proscriptions applying in the four-mile buffer zones have not
it 1pooa been incorporated into the management plan, but other
par3 pa : p-h1po1p. provisions of th plan are designed the same or
-pr: tIn r broader protection (See Generic Response A.).
1p!r1pr1pg- c ni It 2p.'or o p: 11p13c-i- rv pOrrps_eturpirs See response m about boundary
Of pUrr-x.: pi-r p- 1perpmpA 1p11pV alternatives from the Amel Society.
t 2pi2p'pa to
lpDoatpat. But Clio bstill r 1e-Generic Response D.
2p- -c,
I 2p-
. Cs-ps c 17. This paragraph -ii
t 2po -pd , 11p@ not concerned with Proposed sanctuary
regulations* The paragraph describes existing regulations
1 7.1ps1pI at :nprs 3reLt promulgated under the Fishery Management Plan for coral and
coral reefs.
p1 loc t1pip-.e ,pd,
1p@ cites "t1p!-v Iph ctnt 18. That part of the regulation now reads "any material or other
matter." By this NOAA means everything;g of
c First off . 2pc Cp9 I--- be specific items included unnecessary possibly
-p-py1pl 0p-ti e not
- misleading, because it implies that some things. ar
::2_1p,r 1pir, I included.
I -or I- in zp; r . Generic Responses A and B.
20. comment accepted. NOAA will explore the feasibility of using
NASA remote sensing data for sanctuary monitoring and
enforcement activities.

, w l- r1pi1pi-1py1. See Generic Response E .v about labelling @1pnds directions for their use and -similar" measures will'be made by
i-s r' --?a a NOnctuary..
1prp. ear 1pi See D.
it Lpf l u:p)- currz 1pr tart 1 not i1ps
pzp.'sell science p,2p:tar!t 2p1t 1pick
pspo
:pcr-, pn `1p4 i':p0

a ?n rpI ap-r 6v1pipst 23. See Generic Response E.
"2pl0p- still be
to 24. See Generic Response F.
!pl of .pTcrn, ,-pti zone, .h In cpmi lose tp- 25. Divers are attracted to the Flower Gardens primarily because
dr1p: mud, tssr! pnly tpe or the presence of the high elevation coral areas. NOA re ccishould not be
L a1ptlt here. believes that diving in these areas should be considered a
legitimate use of sanctuary resources. However, if such
I ed phe diving is later demonstrated to have an adverse impact on the
1pVy lp1-tt much -more high elevation corals, NOAmooring buoys over
I these corals. NOAA also has the ability to regulate div 1pn here. woul
of ratum. n in these areas an a temporary emergency basis, during which
o-pfp-cp, time more permanent measures can be formulated for resolving
3rp. -this has b1pear the problem.
1 pI! pel: d:ir parr ith a p, 2ic Response K.
for'.-" lne the Pin. tcan r he rIopn 1prctivities
bl-prp;1plP
p.y 1Y 1p.pion Paid o 14n to at- , 2pe the com .pi2pf the o b, A9 which 1pwerent ro e these comments by If 1, too, hod cited
think you f1pn opportunity S1p? 1pept, Ph.D.
members it Lane er,
ec1pr, Sierra Club

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF GEOSCIENCES
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77843 MAR 30 1989

Reply to
Department of
OCEANOGRAPHY

Joseph A. Uravitch, Chief
Marine and Estuarine Management Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Ocean Service/NOAA
825 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington D.C. 20235

March 28, 1989

Dear Mr. Uravitch

I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS/ management
plan for the proposed Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. In
general, the DEIS/management plan is very thorough and well researched. I
would like to comment on several specifics. As information to qualify me for
comment, I have spent considerable time on the Flower Garden Banks involved in
numerous research efforts (a total of 28 cruises, 186 scuba dives (also submersible
and heliox-supplied bell dives), and 223 sea-days on the banks].

(p 31) An additional brine seep was discovered at the East Flower Garden Bank
at a depth of48 m (27* 54.37'. 93' 36.49') during the three year National Marine 1. Comment accepted. This information has been added in the
Fisheries study. Ecological Effects on Energy Development on Reef Fish of the FEIS/Mp.
Flower Garden Banks (Boland d. at. 1983)
In support of your premise that snappers are seldom found within diving
depths (p 42): 1 quantitatively analyzed a total of 357 hours of video transect
records at the banks resulting in surveyed areas of 1.335.532 m2 and 427, 108 qM2 at 2. No response necessary.
the East and West Banks respectively. The commercially important red snapper.
Lntivinoys cAnmerhminvis and verqmillion snapper, Rhornhoplites allrornhens were
never observed in the coral reef habitat. The only snapper species occurring with
any frequency at all on the high or low diversity reef in the gray snapper, Lutianus
griseus (Boland et. aL 1983)

(p 55) One major concern or myself and several colleagues is the matter of
spearfishing within the Marine Sanctuary. My personal feeling in that large 3- See Generic Response H.
3. groupers (the only highly desirable food fish in the coral habitat) are very rare.
and depletion by spearfishing would essentially eliminabe this resource from
enjoyment by other divers. To be consistent with the "highest priority
management goal" of protecting Lim resources of the Flower Garden Banks. it
would seem this activity should be totally prohibited.

Marine Sanctuary Boundary Alternative I (p 78) seems far superior to the
tremendous area included in Alternative 3 encompassing primarily softbottom
habitat prevalent throughout the shelf at these depths. I believe any theoretical 4. No response necessary.
additional protection beyond current MMS stipulations provided by the additional
restrictions on oil and gas development has been shown by existing literature and
reviously performed monitoring studies to be negligible.
[
'p 80) Mention might be included about capture or injury to marine turtles, even
ough they are all protected by the Endangered Species Act. I have personally
h@d the opportimity to have contact with a large resident loggerhead turtle on
numerous occasions at the West Flower Gard6n Bank.
With regard to lobster resources on the banks: During the NWS study of 1980- @5. Comment accepted. Turtles have been included among the
82, numerous night dives were performed. Except for a few uncertain resources mOntioned in � 943.5 (a) (10) of the sanctuary
observations, 100% of the lobster aightings were of the spotted lobster, EanulimA regulations.
guUjd". Interestingly. I did observe spiny lobsters. (PAnuhrun arkrug on the
Mobil platform 3 weeks after installation and on numerous occasions afterwards.
but spotted lobsters were never seen on the platform.
Spotted lobsters appeared to be numerous on the Flower Garden Banks. but 6. The injury or removal of spotted lobsters or other
unrestricted collection could possibly deplete t1xis resource. Restriction for invertebratea is prohibited by � 943.5 (a) (9) of the
collection of this invertebrate could be included specifically in the regulations, sanctuary regulations. S . 945. (a) (13) prohibits use of
assuming divers would attempt to use spear fiaNng "equipment" for collection (p spearfishing equipment.
80).
(p 83) 1 believe a professional on-aite manager would be fir superior to relying 7. A professional# site-specific manager and staff is provided
on public cooperation (and probable observational biases) for surveillance of for in Nanagament Alternative 2, the preferred alternative.
sanctuary activities and resource condition. Direct involvement in research and
actual visitation to the Flower Garden Banks is invaluable for informed
contribution to management decision&

Reference:

Boland, G.S., B.J. Gallaway. J.S. Baker, G.S. Lewbel. 1983. Ecological 6ffects on
energy development on reef fish of the Flower Garden Banks. LGL Ecological
Research Aasoq. Inc. Final Report to National Marine Fisheries. Galveston,
Texas. Contract No. NA80-GA-C-00057. 466 p.

Sinc

Gregory & Boland
Research Associate

cc: Mr. David Cottingham
Dr. Thomas J. Bright
Mr.'Ralph Lopez
0

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF GEOSCIENCES

Reply to
Department of
OCEANOGRAPHY 22 March 1989

Joseph A. Uravitch, Chief
Marine and Estuarine Management Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Ocean Service/NOAA
1825 Connecticut Avenue. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Door Mr. Uravitch,

I welcome the opportunity for written comment on the draft
environmental impact statement/management plan (DEIS/MP) prepared for
the proposed Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. members
of our Texas ALM Flower Gardens group have been discussing the
document since It arrived. and the topic most often discussed has been
the question of spearfishing within the Sanctuary.

My personal views on this topic are tempered by two decades of
working with and around fellow, SCUBA users. Including spearfishermen.
with the result that I strongly oppose permitting. spearfishing within
this or any other National Marine Sanctuary. In fact. since
spearfishing is already officially prohibitted at least at the Key
Largo and Lone Key National Marine Sanctuaries, I believe that It
would be at best philosophically Inconsistent to permit spearfishing
at the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. Also. my
experience-in other fisheries management situations suggests that it
would be such more difficult to stop spearfishing. once allowed, than
to prohibit it initially. The word "sanctuary" Itself seem
at odds with the mental images conjured by the term "spearfishiq".
There are more compelling reasons. described below. to not permit
spearfishing at the Flower Gardens.

Most often in my work. SCUBA is used an a aeons of getting us to
our work/study sites, and permitting underwater data-gathering.
However, I have on many occasions dealt with sport-divers whose
primary use of SCUBA was recreational. Spearfishermen are primarily
recreational divers and these cow In all sizes, ages. and
personalities. Spearguns range from the venerable. simple. and
relatively safe Hawaiian slings and polespears,to very sophisticated.
powerful. and relatively dangerous gas-operated and mult-rubber

powered guns. The latter types. In the hands of inexperienced and
even experienced halry-chested deep-sea underwater hunter-gatherer

sportsmen. can be extremely hazardous sure Ono just the targetted
fish. Even the simpler types of spearguns in the- hands of the Generic Re
inexperienced pan be very dangerous. Because of the distance of the See
Flower Garden Banks from shore and proper medical emergency care.
think that spearguns -should not be permitted simply from the
standpoint of Sanctuary user-safety. The question of liability in
case of serious injury or death due to a speargun accident within a

C.L. Combs
3/22/89
National Marine Sanctuary may also need to be considered. Would the
federal government or any of Its Sanctuary Office employees be liable?
This Is probably not an easily answered question. but might be totally
avoided by making spearfishing officially Illegal.
From a biological standpoint. spearfishing at the Flower Garden
Sanctuary should not. at least initially. be permitted. Because of
the working" water depths (70 to 100 feet or to). and hence the
limits on time which may be spent on the bottom by divers. there to
such more not known than known about the population densities of fish
and other critters there which would be probable targets of
spearfishermen. What is empirically known by those of us who have
orked out there over the years is that greater concentrations of
large fish arm found under and around oil-platforms than at our
"working" sites at the Flower Gardens. This Is not to say that there
are not concentrations of large fish at other places at the Flower
Gardens - it is to say that we do not now hove an answer to that
question, and that spearfishing should obviously not be permitted
until we do. Population densities and diversities of fish. corals.
and other organisms found at the Flower Gardens are in part defined by
geography. The fact that this site. at typically subtropical to,.-
temperate latitudes, displays so marry tropical characteristics 16 why
It is biologically unique and worthy of biological protection by -
designation as a National Marine Sanctuary.

Some of the species found there. such as spiny lobsters. appear
to be there only "by accident" and almost certainly are not capable of
sustaining a reproducing population. Lobsters, for instance. hove a
long-lived. multi-molt phyllosome planktonic larval stage which my
float around the Caribbean and Gulf for up to a year, and perhaps
more. Under certain yet unknown circumstances. these larvae settle to
the bottom and molt Into juvenile lobsters. I have seen very few
lobsters at the Flower Gardens; those seen were very large In
comparison to those that we (Florida Sea Grant) studied during 1975.
1978 in the Florida Keys; those seen at the Flower Gardens were
comparable in size to similarly large (and scarce) lobsters which I
have previously seen (Into 60's. early 70's) at the Florida Middle
Grounds (at similar latitude. similar distance from shore. similar
depths, but in the' eastern Gulf); of the very few lobsters seen at the
Flower Gardens none showed signs of reproductive activity. I have
personally seen/studied spiny lobsters (Panulirus arugs) in the
Florida Keys, a11 around the Caribbean, all around
the southwestern (Mexico). northeastern and northwestern Gulf of
Mexico. and have never seen a lobster larger than one I saw at the
,Flower Gardens. It is my considered opinion that if spearfishing were
permitted within the Flower Garden Sanctuary. such unique creatures
would rapidly be harvested (even though it has long been illegal to
capture lobsters using spears). Since they appear to be rare, and
since their exceptional size is probably due to great age and lock of
competition. I feel sure that once gone, the lose would be permanent.
I feel the some about the fate of large fish and turtles now residing
at the Flower Gardens if spearfishing is permitted. Such losses may

C. L. Combs
3/22/89

have unpredictable effects on the overall ecosystem, so should be
prevented If possible.

the study of unique ecosystems has helped elucidate generalized
mechanisms driving our global ecosystem. Biological protection of the
Flower Garden Banks through designation as a National Marine Sanctuary
should go far toward assuring the "undisturbed" survival of this
unique site. Ongoing biological studies and monitoring programs should
assure that this site will continue to serve as a living laboratory
which over time can provide baseline data on the biological health of
the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, and perhaps the entire Gulf.

It has been my privilege to have had the opportunity to be a part
of Tom Bright's Flower Gardens study group, now in the capable hands
of Steve Gittings. It Is a deep personal pleasure to see Dr. Bright's
considerable efforts to attain Sanctuary status for the Flower Gardens
apparently paying off. We ail greatly appreciate the ongoing efforts
toward this end by your offices, and again I thank you for this
opportunity to comment on the DEIS/MP.

Sincerely,

Christopher L. Combs
Graduate Research Assistant

cc: Mr. David Cottingham
Dr. Thomas J. Bright

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF GEOSCIENCES
Department of Oceanography
College Station, Texas 77843-3146

22 March 1989

Joseph A. Uravich, Chief
Marine and Estuarine Management Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Ocean Service/NOAA
1825 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Mr Uravitch,

I have recently reviewed the draft environmental impact
statement/draft management plan (DEIS/MP), prepared by your office, on the
proposed Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (FGBNMS). Below
are brief discussions of two concerns I have with policies outlined in the
document.

Regulations regarding the taking of lobsters from the banks should be
specified in the final EIS/MP. There have been a small number of sitings of
lobsters on the banks. They are apparantly limited in number, but some are
quite large, probably due to limited fishing pressure. The proposed regulations
under Section III.B2(e) (Fishing) do not address this issue. Due to the
apparently limited stock of lobsters, my personal recommendation is to
prohibit lobster fishing until stock and repopulation rate assessments can be
made.

I am concerned with NOAA's decision to allow spearfishing within the
Sanctuary. the issue is addressed in several places in the DEIS/MP (e.g. pages
54, 55, 60, 62, 80, and 123, and probably elsewhere). It is made clear that
spearfishing will be allowed until managers and/or researchers determine
that the fish stocks are being seriously depleted. the first problem with this
strategy is that we know very little about the current stocks of commonly
speared fish on the Flower Garden Banks. My own observations convince me
that stocks offish of a size suitable to this sport are low and would not support
a significant level of spearfishing. the depletion problem could be
exaccerbated if, as some research suggests, visitation to the reefs increases
after sanctuary designation. Increased levels of visitor use may result from
new divers patronizing new dive facilities that are expected to emerge in the
near future, or simply from concentrtration of northwestern Gulf divers at the
Sanctuary.
The second problem is that repopulation rates of fish stocks on these
isolated banks are probably quite low compared to other Western Atlantic
reefs. the closest tropical coral reefs are on the Yucatan Peninsula, over 400
miles away. It is likely that fish stocks, once depleted will take a long time to
recover. Our research group's observations on the (lack of) recovery of the sea
urchin population decimated by a disease-caused mass mortality that occurred
in 1983 and 1984 support this.

There are plenty of diving. sites in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico
capable of supporting the activities of spearfishing enthusiasts. These include
hundreds of oil platforms. a number Of infrequently visited banks. and
submerged artificial reefs and wrecks. It would be more prudent to allow these
alternative sites to support the spearfishing community than to pressure the
Flower Gardens to support both increased use by divers and spearishing.
Furthermore. if future research determines that the population levels and the
recovery potential of large fish stocks at the Flower Garden Banks can support
spearfishing. it seems. that it, would by easier from an enforcement standpoint
to repeal the spearfishing ban, than to impose , a prohibition at some future
date.

Thank you for considering my comments in your review process.

Sincerely.
Dr. Stephen R. Gittings
Dept. of Oceanography
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843-3146

cc: Mr. David Cottingham
Mr. Ralph Lopez
Dr. Thomas J. Bright

00 THE UNIVERSITY Or MASSACHUSETTS AT BOSTON
HARBOR CAMPUS
BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02126-3391

April 21, 1989

Joseph A. Uravitch
Chief
Marine and Estuaries
Management Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management
National Ocean Service/KOAA
1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.V.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Re: Comments on the draft environmental Impact statement/management
plan for the proposed Flower Garden Danko National Marine Sanctuary

Dear Joe:

I as pleased to see that you and NORA are moving ahead with this
designation of Flower Gardens. after much delay It needs to be said. I also
appreciate your staff soliciting my comments before the close of the comment
period -- otherwise I might have missed the opportunity of submitting then.

My comments on the draft environmental impact statement /management plan
(DEIS) will be limited to two issues. The first concerns the necessity under
the Marine Sanctuaries Act (primarily sections 303(2)(2), 304 and 305). and
under the National Environmental Policy Act. to consider and identify in the
DEIS the legal authority according to which NOAA and the United States will
regulate the navigational rights (such as the right to anchor) of foreign
vessels within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone and on Its
Continental Shelf. The second concerns the necessity under the sum Acts to
examine the potential effect of hydrocarbon activities taking place near this
proposed sanctuary upon its resources.

Regulating Anchoring by Foreign Vessels

NOAA has stated upon several occasions. and in notices published to the
Federal Register (e.g., see 49 Federal Register 30990 (1984)). that the
pr
imary threat to the coral resources of the Flower Gardens arises because of

anchoring of vessels on the Banks. Tbe DEIS Itself reiterates the Agency's
position on this matter. curiously, however, there in almost no discussion
in the DEIS of the Agency's view of its authority (and of course the
authority of the United States) to regulate anchoring br foreign vessols an One purpose of the regulatory pro
Flower Garden Banks. The views of the Department of State are also regulations shall be applied in acc
unexpressed. in this respect, one would have to conclude that thoDglg Is legal principles is to preserve
seriously detective. MPRSA regulations consistently
principles as they evolve, since i
The authority of the United States to protect resources such so the coral static body of law. As to the a
resources of the Flower Gardens is crucial to fulfilling the statutory considers that it has the a
purposes that Congress clearly had in mind according the status of a international law, and NOAA intend
national marine sanctuary under the Marine Sanctuaries Act Act upon the Flower regulations, including prohibitions
Garden Banks, as a consequence of the 1988 amendments to the Act. These This view is shared by the Departm
resources cannot be adequately protected unless the United States acts. 0KOAA consulted with the Department o
pursuant to Its coastal state and port state authority under international were being drafted. NOAA has not f
and national law. to regulate (and prohibit) anchoring on the banks by MPRSA or of the NEPA that require
specific legal theory or theories qt
foreign vessels. A paragraph has been added un
it in not sufficient. I .a my view, for XOAA merely -to assert that It will Regulatory/Boundary Alternative 1 i
regulate the activities of forelys vessels consistently with intermational
legal principles with respect to anchoring on the Banks. That is simply a
truism. it in necessary. however. for the Agency to state publicly the
grounds of its position that regulating or prohibiting the anchoring by
foreign vessels on the Banks Is consistent with International low. Such
grounds exist. is my opinion. and in tbV oplalon of officials of the United
States Government, as stated in communications to OOKA sod in the agency's
files (e.g., see citation to oise such document at 49 Federal neglater 309tO
11984)). For Informational purposes, I as attaching a copy of a paper
entitled "The Proposed Flower Garde@ Banks Narino Smactuary,"'31 Oceanus 54-
So 11988). treating many of theme imase.

I also call to your attentlom that the Congress has adopted the view that
sufficient grounds exist for prohibiting the harmful macborlog of foreign
vessels on Flower Garden banks. pursuant to the Marine Sanctuaries Act and
international law:

Vitb respect to the Flower Gardens Banks National Marine Sanctuary
qItqIbe Committee to pleased to learn that NOAA and the State Department
have now reached an understanding witb respect to NORA's authority to
prohibit harmful anchoring of foreign flag vessels within the proposed
Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. This Committee believes
that NOAA's exercise of this authority in fully consistent with
conventioal and customary International law, Including the 1958 Geneva
Convention an the Continental Shelf, the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the haw of the Sea.
and thin nation's traditional port state authority. Therefore. the

Committee believes that the deadline of March 31, 1989, for the final
designation for Flower Garden banks National Marine sanctuary is
reasonable and achievable.

H.R.. Rep. 100-739, 100th Cong. , 2d Sesa. , pt. 1. at 25-26 (1988).

It is also the case that, by virtu@ of the approval of the 1988
amendments to the Marine Sanctuaries Act by the President (Pub. L. 100-621,
approved November 7, 1988), this view of the authority of the United State#
as a coastal and port state. under international law, to prohibit anchoring
by foreign vessels on Flavor Garden Banks. Pursuant to the Marine Sanctuaries
Act,is now the law of the United States.

I very strongly suggest that these matters not be swept under the rug,
and that they be discussed clearly and fully In the NEPA documents, as
required by law, to order to dispel any doubt that NOAA will apply the law of
the United States to protect the resource of the Flower Garden Banks. Such
doubt arises necessarily when the Agency Ignores In the DEIS the single most
significant issue involved in the designation of the Flower Garden Banks, and one explicitly Identified by the Congress to legislatively mandating the
designation of this site as a national series sanctuary.

Finally, I recommend that the DEIS specifically discuss the advantages of
securing additional protection of the resources of the Flower Garden Banks by
applying to the International Maritime Organization for recognition of the
Banks as a protected ocean area to be avoided by vessels. The cooperation of 2 . see GeneriC Re
the Department of State and the Coast Guard will be necessary to achieve such
status, and should be sought by NOAA.

Hydrocarbon Activities

This Issue can be treated briefly. I assume that there is no doubt that
the Marine Sanctuaries Act provides sufficien authority to regulate and to
prohibit oil and gas activities within a sanctuary, despite the views of the
industry or the Department of the interior. it any, to the contrary.

Hydrocarbon activities were identified by NOAA. In the draft
environmental.impact statement prepared and published by the Agency to 1979
for Flower Garden Banks. an a source of major impacts as sanctuary resources
to be addressed in managing the Banks as a national marine sanctuary.
Responding to pressure from the Department of the interior and the oil and
gas Industry, NOAA abandoned its intention to regulate such activities within
the proposed sanctuary, citing the oil and gas stipulations issued by
Interior as sufficient to protect the resources of the sanctuary. At or near
the same time. NOAA Issued management plans and regulations applicable to
Sanctuaries offshore California that prohibited new hydrocarbon activities.

The resources of the "California" sanctuaries were arguable subject to the same degree of protection,
under rules issued and actions then taken by the Department of the Interior, as the coral resources of the
Flower Garden Banks are today. Yet, in 1979, these same "protective measures" taken by the Department of
the Interior were judged to be inadequate to preserve the resources of the Califorinia sanctuaries.

What has changed since 1979? The DEIS fails completely to treat this very significant issue, and merely
defers to the Minerals Management Service to protect the resources of the proposed sanctuary from adverse affects of
oil and gas exploration and development activities. At the least, a full enquiry into the record of such atipulations
and rules in protectin sanctuary resources, and into the record of actions taken by Department oftheInterior officials
form 1979 until the present, particularly with respect to the California sanctuaries, should be undertaken before NOAA
decides, pursuaat to its own, independest authority, to relyupon the authority of another agency to protect sancturay
resources. Such as enquiry, at a minimum, must consider the adequacy of such other authority (the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act Amendments) to provide the same degree of protection of sanctuary resources as that which is required
by the Marine Sanctuaries Act. The DEIS is totally without any analysis of these matters, and, is my opinion, must
be considered inadequate.

I want to thank you and your staff again for making a special effort to secure these comments on the Flower Garden
Banks DEIS. Such solicitude for informed public participation in the sanctuary designation process should not pass
without comment.

Sincerely,

Jack H. Archer, Esq.
Associate Professor
Environmental Sciences Program &
Urban Harbors Institute

3. NOAA intends to protect the resources of the sanctuary from adverse effects of oil and gas exploration and
development activities through, e.g., the enforcement of
943.5 (a) (1-4) and 943.6 of the sanctuary regulations.
See also Generic Responses A and B.

4. See Generic Respones A and B.

Volume 31, Number 1, Spring 1988

The Proposed Flower
Garden Banks Marine
Sanctuary
Protecting Marine Resources Under
International Law
C)ceanus

by Jack H. Archer

The Proposed Flow er
Garden Banks Marine
Sanctuary
Protecting Marine Resources Under
International Law

by lack H. Archer

The Flower Garden Banks in the Gulf of Mexico through or near .the Banks. Vessels dropping and
were first proposed as a marine sanctuary in 1977 dragging anchors on the shallow coral reef have
to protect some geograph ically- unique coral reefs been identified by the Nationa(Oceanic and
and related resources. Vessels anchoring and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as a majo 'r
discharging wastes and pollutants in or near the threat to the unique resources of the Flower
Banks were thought to be major threats. Oil and Garden Banks. Because of the massive size and
gas exploration and develcipment activities, which weight of ship anchors, even infrequent
were beginning in this part of the Gulf, also were occurrences rhay have devastating effects.
considefed significant risks to these resources. To Shortly after passage of the Marine
date, no final action has been taken to designate Sanctuaries Act (MSA) in 1972, interest developed
the Banks as a sanctuary, although it is still under in establishing the Banks as a national marine
.active' consideration. sanctuary, with controls on the activities of both
In the 10 years since the original proposal, domestic and foreign vessels traveling in or near
concern has focused on anchoring by foreign and the Banks to protect their coral and associated
domestic vessels as the primary source of injury to resources. In 1977, the Flower Garden Banks were
the Flower Carden Banks. The coral resources of formally proposed for designation as a sanctuary
zhe Banks may be protected under U.S. law. But, under the MSA.
prohibiting anchoring by foreign vessels in the Since the original proposal in 1977, NCIAA
Banks interferes with freedom of navigation, which has pursued a shifting course in considering the
includes the right for all to anchor on the high seas. status of the Flower Carden Banks area. In 1979,
There are, however, several possible legal bases for NOAA published a Draft Environmental Impact
exercising authority over anchoring by foreign Statement (DEIS) and propos@d regulationso
vessels within the boundaries of the proposed applicable to oil and gas, marine pollutiorf, and
%wer Carden Banks marine sanctuary. Thus, recreational activities, as well as anchoring within
authority over anchoring in this area would appear the proposed sanctuary-a relatively small area @of
!o be consistent with principles of international law. approximately 175 square nautical miles. Revised
Background proposed regulations were issued in 1980 that
relaxed previously proposed sanctuary restrictions
The Flower Carden Banks, located approximately an hydrocarbon activities, and relied on the oil and
1 10 nautical milessoutheast of Galveston, Texas, gas lease stipulations developed by the
,'Figure 1) are the northwestern-mosi living coral Department of the Interior under the Outer
reei.s on the continental shelf of the Gulf of Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978
Mexico. They are the only truly tropical coral reefs to protect sanctuary resources. But no final'action
in this area of the Gulf. They contain at least 18 to establish the sanctuary was taken, primarily . .1
cora( species, moTe than 100 species of Caribbean because of continuing opposition by the oil and gas
reef fish, and more than 200 invertebrate species. industry, which viewed any proposed regulations
Scientific interest in the Banks is relatively high; the potentially affecting the industry under the
3anks also are valued by recreational divers and authority of the Secretary of Commerce (rather
other visitors. Becaluse the proposed sanctuary is than the Secretary of the Interior) as an obstacle to
located near. shipping lanes -leading to U.S. ports in offshore energy development and bad precedent.
Texas and Louisiana, concern has arisen over the in 1982, NOAA removed the Banks from its
potentially destructive activities of vessels passing list of sites under consideration for sanctuary

LOUISIAkA
rEXAS rt Artnur
Houstone Carneron New Orleans
(Z) Morgan
Gaiveston
Freeport
Port Matagorda Ves.se' Fa,r@ays
O'Connor

Port Aransas
Corpus 0 23
Cristi rden Banks
Marine Sanctuary
Proposed

Port Isabel
Brownsville
rhe proposed flower Carden
Banks Marine Sanctuary,
nearby Cuff ports, and vessel L
traffic'Janes. 92'

designation, in part because a proposed Gulf of the authority is extended to foreign citizens and
Mexico Coral Fishery. Management Plan prepared foreign vessels that legal questions arise.
under the U.S. Fishery Conservation and The Marine Sanctuaries Act regulations are
Management Act would regulate vessel anchoring applicable to a person who is not a citizen of the
in the Flower Garden Banks-'the one remaining United States if they are in'accorci with either
unresolved issue identified in the DEIS,' according generally recognized principles of international law
to NOAA. The final Coral Fishery Management or agreements between the' United States and the
Plan, however, did not include regulations. foreign state of which the person is a citizen, or, if
applicable to anchoring. the person is a crewmember of a vessel, between
In response, in 1984, NOAA revived its the United States and the flag state of the vessel. in
proposaf to estab(ish the Banks as a national marine' the case of the Flower Garden Banks, the activities
sanctuary, and announced the preparation of a of foreign vessels. have received primary attention.
dtaft management plan and environmental imoact In 1984, before publishing its intention to
statement. Since 1984, N 'OAA has taken no further proceed with,clesignating the Flower Garden Banks
action on the designation of the sanctuary. Thus, as a marine sanctuary, NOAA obtained the opinion
more than 10 years after the original nomination, of the State Department on whether the United
NOAA has not yet created a national marine States could regulate anchoring on the Banks by
sanctuary on the Banks-despite considering the. foreign vessels in accordance with recognized
resources of the area to be of substantial principles of international law. The response
significance. asserted in part:
Protection Under International Law The Depaftment believes that the United States
Because the Flower Garden Banks lie outside the does have jurisdiction to prohibit anchoring (by
boundaries of the U.S. territorial sea (3 nautical foreign vessels] in the [FG81, except for
miles), where national sovereignty and jurisdiction anchoring by force majeure [unanticipated or
is certain, and within the 200-nautical-mile bncontrollable events].
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), whereffiere is a Communication from the Deputy Assistant
blending of national jurisdiction and international Secretary for Oceans and Fisheries Affairs to
rights, protecting the resources within the Chief, Sanctuary Programs Division, NOAA
proposed sanctuary involve's a balancing of both (April 19, 1984), cited at 49@ Federal Register
national and international interests. 30990(1984).
The Marine Sanctuaries Act authorizes the
Secretary of Commerce to regulate activities within This position, however, impairs the traditional
a marine sanctuary to protect nationally siSnificant freedom to navigate the high seas, codified in
.resource or humanruse values.* It is in the Article 2 of the 1958 Convention on the High Seasf
exercising of this, authority where legal nuances are
encountered. Jurisdiction over both persons and The high seas being open to all nations, no
vessels is involved. While the authority over U.S. State may validly Ourport to subject any part of
citizens and U.S.-flagged vessels is clear, it is when them to its sovereignty. Freedom of the high

seas is exercised under the conditions laid down The 1958 Continental Shelf Convention
by these articles and by the other rules of
international law. It comprises @among other Under Article 2 of the 1958 Convention on the
things] both for coastal and non-coa5tal states: Continental.Shelf, the United States has "sovereig
7) Freedom of navigation ... rights [over the continental shelf) for the purpose
of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources
Moreover, such sovereign rights are "exclusive."
Moreover, Article 6 of the 1958 Convention and do not depend on occupation or any express
provides that flag state jurisdiction is "exclusive" on proclamation with respect to the shelf. These
the high seas. That is, authority over a vessel on the conventional rights over the resources of the
high seas rests solely with the nation in which the continental shelf also are recognized generally to
ship is registered., be customary rights in international law, and are
Like the State 'Depart ment, NOAA asserted replicated in Article 77 of UNCLOS.
in principle jurisdiction by the United States to There is no doubt that the coral reefs of the
prohibit anchoring by foreign vessels in ocean Banks are natural resources of the continental she
areas outside U.S',, territorial waters. The 19 '84 and that the'sovereign rights of the United States
announcement reviving NOAA's proposal to under the 1958 Convention are sufficient to
designate the Flower Carden Banks as-a sanctuary, prohibit any activity harmful to them. A U.S. court
however, did not indicate any basis for tfiis has held that, under the terms of the 1958
assertion. Convention, activities on the continental shelf
Clearly, the right to anchm on the high seas damaging to coral (for example, dredging of and
is an esiential part of freedom of navigation. Thus, - the construction of facilities on a coral formation)
any abridgment of the right of ioreign vessels to may be prohibited (United States v. Ray, [ 19701).
anchor in the Flower Carden Banks must find its While Ray was a U.S. citizen, the matter of interest
justification in other, countervailing principles. @Twp. is that the court found that coral is a resource
relevant principles. examined in this article focus on protectable under the 1958 Convention. Further,
the authority of coastal states to protect marine Article 5.of the 1958 Convention, which provides
resources beyond national territory but subject to that the exploration and exploitation of the
coastal state resource lurisdiction, and/or to resources of the continental shelf must not result in
condition entry to ports upon compliance with any unjustifiable interference with navigation,"
regulations applicable to such resources. implicitly recognizes that the coastal state's
sovereign rights over the resources of the
Sources of International Law continental shelf include the authority to impose
'justifiable* limits on navigation. Article 78 of
The Marine Sanctuaries Act applies sanctuary UNCLOS employs language similar to Article 5 of
regu lations to persons who are not citizens.of the the 1958 Convention. Thus, a prohibition on
United States only if such regulations are in accord. anchoring within the relatively small area (175
with either i I, the body of international law referred square nautical miles) included within the
to as 'customary international law'-or 'generally boundaries of the proposed marine sanctuary, for
accepted rules of international law' that has the purpose of preventing damage to its unique
developed from the practice of the states of the coral resources, would appear to be justifiable
world, or 2) international agreements, treaties, and under international law. That is, the principle of
conventions binding on the contracting stites and freedom of-navigition land anchoring) on the high
permitting such regulation. In certain' seas can be superseded if the United States acts
circumstances, and often subject to controversy,. - narrowly (defining'a relatively small area) and
international agreements, whether ornot they'have% responsibly (pr.6tecting a valuable resource).
come into force between the contracting parties.,
may -be regarded as sources of, or indicative of palt State Auowr%y
emergingtrends in, customary international law.
Indeed, the United States, although'hot A.signa'tory,' There is:a second fegatp.rinciple that may be called
to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law., on. Although it has been argued that there is a
of the Sea (UNtLOS), considers that this. @ - .I eneral rule of intemational law allowing entry by
agreement, except for the provisions pertaining to loreign vessels to a state's ports, the prevailing view
deep seabed mining: is that states may deny entry subject to relatively
few restrictions. William T. Burke,- Professor of Law,
contains provisions wi Ith res e& to University*of Washington, Seattle, Washington, and
V co-authors have stated'.
traditional uses of-the oceans which generally
confirm exi.sti.ng maritime lav@ and practice and
fairly balance' the interests of all States. There is no doubt that a state may condition
Statement by t .he'President on'the Exclusive entry into its ports as it wishes and that such
Economic Zone ol@ the United States (March conditions may effectively regulate acts outside
10, 1983). national territory. -The limits on these broad
competences are to be found in the reciprocity
and,retaliations that maintain effective
There are, however, sources of authority other than international exchange of goods by vessels.
UNCLOS that justify U.S. jurisdiction to prohibit National and international Law Enforcement in
anchoring in the Flower Garden Banks. the. Ocean 0 975), page 47.

In accordance with this rule of internation,,l
law, the United States has enacted legislation
denying entry by foreign vessels to U.S. ports if
such vessels have a history of incidents indicating
that they-are unsafe, 'create a threat to the marine
environment,' or fail to comply with applicable
U.S. law (1972 Ports and Waterways Safety Act).
The Act defines 'marine environment' to include
the 'seabed and subsoil of the Outer Continental
Shelf of the United States, the resources thereof
and the waters superjacent thereto.' Certainly the
Marine Sanctuaries Act seeks to protect the
resources of the 'marine environment,' a term
employed and defined similarly in the Act. Thus,
regulations issued under the marine Sanctuaries
Act would appear to be "appficabie' and
enforceable under the Ports and Waterways Safety
Act. Therefore, in cooperation with the-Coast
Guard, which administers the Ports and Waterways _4
Safety Act, the Department of Commerce may
issue regulations under the Marine Sanctuaries Act
prohibiting anchoring by any foreign vessels on the.
Flower Garden Banks, and advising that any 0
violation of such regulations may result in the
denial of entry to U.S. ports. Enforcement actions,
of course, would be the responsibility of the Coast
Guard. Because a majority of foreign vessels A tankerat anchor on the East Flower Garden Bank in April
passing over or near the Banks are transiting to or, 1979. (Courtesy Dept. of Oceanography, Texas A&M
from U.S. ports, use of this authority as an University)
enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance
with sanctuary regulations would likely prove
effective.

Exclusive Economic Zone Authority
The United States is one among 72 states that have
declared an Exclusive Economic Zone extending
200 nautical miles from their shores. Using
language closely paralleling Article 56 of UNCLOS,
the United States asserts, 'sovereign tights for the
purpose of exploring, exploiting, conservip and,
managing natural resources, both living anl`non@
living, of the seabed and subsoil and. the
superjacent waters' of the zone (A Proclamation by
the President: Exclusive Economic Zone of the
United States (March 10, 1983)-see Oceanus
Vol. 27, No. 4, pages 3-6).Thus, as a matter of state.
practice, the establishment of exclusive economic
zones and the broad principles of coastal state
jurisdiction over the livin and non-living resources
d under
of such zones are generally recognize
customary international law. However, whether the
detailed provisions of Part V of UNCLOS setting-
forth the legal re me of the Exclusive Economic
Zone also are tote viewed as customary law is not m
certain. Surely they may be regarded as indicating -
developing international practice.
Considered in this light, several articles
ercising rights and duties
should be noted. In ex'
respecting the Exclusive Economic Zone, coastal
states are required to have 'due regard to the rights
41
and duties of other States and shall act. in a. manner
compatible with the provisions of (UNCLOS
(Article 56.2.). Reciprocally, other states Inust Coral head fractured by the anchor of a commercial vessel
extend the same regard to the rits of the coastal on the East Flower Garden Bank in 1983. (Courtesy
state, and must comply with the aws and Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., Irequesta, Florida)

regulations adopted by the coastal state in entry to foreign vessels violating sanctuary
accordance with international law (Article 58.3.). regulations, the United States may choose to
. In cases of conflict where UNCLOS does not ensure compliance through the offices of the
attribute rights or jurisdiction in the Exclusive International Maritime Organization (IMOY
Economic Zone to the coastal state or to other Member states may propose, and IMO may adopt,
states, the conflict should be resolved on the basis vessel routing systems that avoid environmental
of 'equity and in the light of all the relevant conservation areas such as the Flower Carden
circumstances, taking into account the respective Banks. Designation of the Banks as a national
importance,of the interests involved to the parties marine sanctuary under the Act would obviouslv
as well as to the international community as a assist in achieving international recognition of the
whole" JArticle 59). Banks as a protected area.
As argued under the language of the 1958 This article has addressed only the issue of
Convention on the Continental Shelf, the rights of protecting the coral resources of the Flower
the United States to protect the coral resources of Carden Banks under international law, from harm
the Flower Garden Banks are in accord with both caused by vessels anchoring on them. if the United
conventional and customary international law. States seeks to restrict other activities of foreign
Therefore, Article 58.3. requiring that other states vessels (for example, polluting the waters of the
comply with coastal state law would be pertinent Banks and damaging its resources), then other
to resolving conflicts arising from U.S. regulation of authority must be considered. However, actions by
anchoring by ioreign vessels on the Banks. Where coastal and port states to protect marine resources
f he attribution of rights among coastal and other under their jurisdiction from such harmful activities
states is not evident, Article 59 indicates principles also would be justified by the described principles.
to foilow in settling disputes. Careful Decisions Are Required
Enforcement Under the MSA Because protecting important marine resources
if we accept that domestic law is consistent with outside the territory of a coastal state may affect.
international law, then there are grounds for the navigation rights of other states, it is prudent to
extending U.S. law and policy to foreign persons or conclude on a note of caution. The U.S. Congress
vessels. If an incident occurs within a marine has already declared a policy of protecting such -
sanctuary, the MSA authorizes civil penalties for resources in the marine Sanctuaries Act. Yet, the
violating sanctuary regulations. As noted execution of that policy allows considerable
previously, a majority of foreign vessels passing discretion to program managers, and requires close
through the Flower Garden Banks are bound to or consultation with the State Department when
from U.S. ports; therefore, denial of entry for issues such as those raised by the proposed Flower
violating sanctuary regulations would probably Garden Banks sanctuary must be resolved.
ensure compliance. Decisions to protect these resources can be
For most practical purposes, however, carefully framed to have minimum impact on the
enforcing the civil law under other circumstances rights of other states. Some impact, however, is
depends on the person or vessel being physically unavoidable. But if no action is taken to protect the
within U.S. juri sd iction -that is, within U.S. resources of the Flower Garden Banks and similar
territorial waters. Therefore, if an offending vessel areas, however justified and well-considered,
voluntarily enters a U.S. port, the United States because of its effect on the principle of free
may assert jurisdiction to assess civil penalties for navigation, however slight, then the national policy
violations of regulations issued under the marine to protea unique marine resources under U.S.
Sanctuaries Act. In cases of actual physical harm to jurtsdiction is effectively checked. The oversight
the coral resources of the Flower Garden Banks, and reauthorization hearing on the Marine
the United States, by virtue of its 'protectable Sanctuaries Acrto be held 30 March 1988 provides
sovereign interest' in the resources of its an opportun4y for the Congress to consider this
continental shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone, matter afresh.
may seek damages (see page 44).
Regulating Vessels Under International Law
In addition to application of appropriate civil law,
there also are opportunities to pursue direct
international agreements. The Marine Sanctuaries
Act authorizes the Secretary of State to negotiate lack H. Archer is a Senior Fellow, Marine Policy and Ocean
.necessary arrangements for the protection of any Management Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic
national marine sanctuary.' Keeping in mind the Institution. He is a former Counsel to the U.S. House
effective limitation ('reciprocity and retaliations*) 5ubcommittee on Oceanography, and a former Senior
upon the exercise of port state authority to deny- Attorney, NOAA.

TEXAS MEMORIAL MUSEUM
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
2400 Trinity Austin, Texas 78705- (412)471-1604

March 16, 1989

Joseph A. Uravitch, Chief
Marine and Escuarine Management Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Ocean Service/NOAA
1825 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235.

Dear Chief Uraviech,

I am delighted to hear that the ecologically-distinct and unique reefs and brine seeps on the Flower Gardens
Bands finally are going to be included in the National Marine Sanctuaries Program. As you know, the reef coral
communities on the summits of these banks currently are especially vulnerable to destruction by the anchors and
chains of large vassels. Given the limited resources directly available to your agency for surveiliance and
enforcement, may I wish you useful collaborations with the USGS, MMS and the private oil companies working in this
areas.

Yours sincerely,

Judith C. Lang, Ph.D. NO response necssary.
Curator of Invertebrate Zoology

cc: David Cottingham, Office of Ecology & Conservation
Terrance Leary, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
Thomas Bright, Texas A&M University

APR 25 '89 14:07 FROM UXP RESION MAIL ROOM

Unocal Oil & Gas Division P.2
Unocal Corporation
4635 Southwest Freeway
900 Executive Plaza West
Houston, Texas 77027
Telephone (713) 423-8000

UNOCAL

April 21, 1989

Mr. Joseph A. Uravitch, Chief
Marine and Estaurine Mgmt Division
Nat'l Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin.
1825 connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20235

SUBJECT

Comments on Flower Garden Banks
National Marine Sanctuary Regulations
15 CFR Part 943
(Docket No. 80851-8151)

Dear Mr. Uravitch:

Union Exploration Partners, Ltd., is operator of three leases at the West Flower Garden Banks portions of which are
included in the proposed marine sanctuary. These leases are High Island Block A-384 (OCS-G-3316), High Island 385
(OCS-G 10311), and High Island 397 (OCS-G 8578). Union agrees it is desirable to establish the marien sanctuary,
however certain provisions of the rule limit operating flexibiltiy, reduce acreage which may be used, increase cost
of operation-and reduce the potential-value of leases.

In the preamble of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary Regulations rule (Fed Reg Vol 54 No. 36 Reg. 24,
1989 p. 7956) the following statement appears: "The third activity prohibited would be dredging, constructing
structures or otherwise altering the seabed or attempting to do so. for any purpose other than the authorized
installation of navigational aids or incidental to hydrocarbon exploration and development in areas of the Sanctuary
lying outside of the no-activity zones established by the Department of the Interior and defined by the topographical
lease sale 112."

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) no-activity boundary utilizes the 1/4, 1/4. 1/4 fo lease blocks system for
definition of areas of biological concern The MMS boundary is designed to provide a around the
truly sensitive area which is contained within the continuous 100 meter isobath. The results of the 1980 public
hearings and resultant settlement agreement regarding the Environmental Protection Agency National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit for the Flower Garden Banks indicate a recognition that the area of biological
concern was actually described within the 100 meter contiguous isobath containing the shallower water reefs

Oocket No. BOSSI-8151
April 21. 1989
Page 2

sobaths around the Banks. This alternative was not
[
t the East and West Flower GardensI Therefore the logical boundary for the 1. AeItternaitive 2 Provides for a boundary that follows the 100
anctuary and restrictions on anchoring should be based on the contiguous selected because the 100 meter isobaths are so irregular that
S00 otter Isobath containing the roof rather thaA the MMS no-activity they can not be plotted by geographic coordinates for
.boundary which is outside the 100 mmt*r contiguous isobath in all Instances enforcement purposes.
nd provides a buffer zone for the biologically sensitive are&.
he lease stipulations for sale 112 provide for no anchoring Inside the no- 2. NOAA disagrees. Vessels of less than or equal to loo feet
ctivity area but anchoring may be approved by the MNS subject to close on will be permitted to anchor, Using specified anchoring gear,
Ite supervision by the MS. The proposed rule requires additional approval in areas of the anctuary where no omoootrhienrgwisbeuomyosorainreg
available. The prohsbition on anchoring
f NOAA. This would be time consuming and an additional regulation which Is I
*It to be unwarranted. applies only to vessels greater than 100 feet. All vessels,
however, will be permitted to anchor under emergency
he no-activity boundaries extend further than those for sale 112 and thus conditions. HOAA believes that these restrictions are
further restrict Oil and gas operations and may require more complex and warranted by the history of anchor damage to the reefs.
expensive directional drilling to develop the leases'
. A map is attached
which shows the sale 112 boundary and that of the proposed rule by the West
Flower Garden Banks. Usable property under lease at the West Flower Garden 3. See Generic Response C.
Banks will be diminished by the Proposed rule.

In sumimary. the rule should provide for regulation of Oil and Gas operations
to rest solely with the MNS and not require additional NOAA permitting
requirements or sore stringent requirements. . Also the marine sanctuary
boundary should be limited to the 100 meter contiguous Isobath for Flower
Garden Banks.

Yours very truly.
Union Exploration Partners, Ltd..
Limited Partnership
By: Union Oil Comipaity of California.
Managing General Partner
ti@a- oma@@
R. A. Oliver
Region&) Engineer

RAO:ta
Attachment

see

A-303 C4w-'FvAty

Awn

ror

swulft a
vappm a
...... TU4

............
......... . ... M M "now"

rrw

.. ... AND CAS
..........

. ....... wal- FWWU GARDEf BAN][
A-401 00 =AM AM- OPP Tau

WA Lam

N -or w

SC= M FM

UNITED STATES Soil 101 South Main
DEPARTMENT OF Conservation Temple, Texas
AGRICULTURE Service 76501-7682

March 13, 1989

Mr. Joseph A. Uravitch, Chief:
marine and Estuarine Management Division
office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Ocean Service/NOAA
1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.M.
Washington, DC 20235

Mr. Uravitchs
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and No response necessary No response nec
Management Plan for Plower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary.
At this time we have no comments to make an this projeCt.
Thank you for allowing us to review this, document.

Sincerely.

HARRY W. ONETH
State Conservationist

cc:
David Cottingham, Director, Office of Ecology and Conservation
Pate Wright, AC, SCS, Alice, Texas

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Fisheries Center
Galveston Laboratory
4700 Avenue U
Galveston, TX 77551-5997

March 10, 1989 F/SEC6:RE:EFX:re

Mr. Joseph A. Uravitch, Chief
Marine and Estuarine Management
Division
office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management
National Ocean Service/NOAA
1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20235

Dear Mr. Uravitch:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft environmental impact
statement/draft management plan on the proposed Flower Garden Banks National 1. Comment accepted. The FEIS/MP has been corrected accordingly.
Marine Sanctuary. There were some minor corrections on pages 10 and 18 (see
attached), otherwise, it looks good.

Sincerely,

Edward F. Klima, Ph.D.
Laboratory Director

Enclosure
cc: FX1 - David Cottingham
F/SEC6- Gregg Gitachlag

73 Years Stimulating America's Progess * 1913-1988

coordination among all the agencies participating in sanctuary
management:

Develope an effective and coordinated program for the enforcement
of sanctuary regulations;

Promote Public awareness of and voluntary User compliance with
regulations through an interpretation program stressing resources
sensitivity and wise use: and

Reduce threats to sanctuary resources raised by major emergencies
through contingency and emergency-response planning.

2. Research

Substantial, site-specific research has been conducted at the Flower
Garden Banks, particularly over the past 15 years. This Work is
discussed in section II.C. Sanctuary research will build upon this foundat.

to improve understanding of the Flower Garden Banks' environment and resour
and to resolve specific management problems. Research results Will be used
interpretation Programs for Visitors and others interested In the sanctuary

or salt by dissolution is more advanced at the West Bank.

Consequently, it posses a larger and more conspicious central graben (down
faulted depression) than does the East Bank.
The salt Plugs beneath both Banks are quite near the sea floor. High
salinity brine seepage has been detected on the East Flower Garden at 45 m
dept, indicating that the top of the salt may lie directly beneath the
central reef. A large brine seep on the southeastern edge of the Bank at
depth of 233 ft (71 m) flows at a rate of 400-700 cubic meters (14,125-24
cubic ft) per day. This discharge of 200 parts per trillion (ppt) brine
thought to represent the removal of 10,000 to 22,000 cubic meters (353,300
775,900 cubic ft) of solid salt per year from beneath the East Flower Gard
Stratigraphic trape formed on the flanks of the salt plug are known to

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

HABITAT CONSERVATION Division
4700 Avenue U
Galveston, TX 77551-5997

April 21, 1989 F/SER112/DM:sP
409/766-3699

MEMORANDUM FOR: N/ORM2 - Joseph A. Uravitch
FROM: F/SER112 - Donald Moore

SUBJECT: Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Management
Plan (DEIS/MP)

We are pleased that the above DEIS/MP was Issued In February 1989

along with the Proposed Rules issued In the Federal Register on

February 24, 1989 (52 FR 7953-7960). Implementation of the

proposed regulations should Improve the conservation of this

sensitive habitat.

The likelihood of the proposed sanctuary providing sufficient

protection to maintain these coral reef habitats would be greatly
enhanced by eliminating all vessel anchoring on them. Along with
1. See Generic Response E. See also Generic Response F.
this, continued access to the reefs could be provided by Installing
sufficient mooring buoys, like those at the Key Largo National

Marine Sanctuary, to eliminate any need for future anchoring on the
banks.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
GALVESTON DISTRICT. CORPS of ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1229
GALVESTON, TEXAS 77533-1229

REPLY To
ATTENTION OF April 26. 1989

Environmental Resources
Branch

Mr. Joseph A. Uravitch
Chief, Marine and Estuarine
Management Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management
National Ocean Service/NOAA.
1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 2023S

Dear Mr. Uravitch:

Thank you for submitting the Draft Environment Impact Statement
(DEIS) /Management Plan for the Flower Garden Banks National Marine
Sanctuary for our review and comments. We have the following
comment: Designating a site as a marine sanctuary is not subject No response necessary.
to permit requirements. However, we still have regulatory authority
over the Flower Garden Banks under Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act and Section 103 of the Marine Protection. Research
and Sanctuaries Act.
We appreciate the opportunity to review the DEIS. If you
have questions concerning our comment, please contact Mr. Jim
Barrows, Environmental Resources Branch, at 409/766-3068.

Sincerely,
Sidney H. Tanner
Acting Chief, Planning Division

Copy furnished:

Mr. David Cottingham
Director, Office of Ecology and Conservation
U.S. Department of Commerce
1825 Connecticut Avenue,NW., Room 6222
Washington, DC 20235
MOVED

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
IASI Moss AVENUE SUITE 1200
DALLAS TEXAS 75238
APR 12 1989

Joseph A. Uravitch
Chief, Marine and Estuarine
management Division
office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management
National Ocean Service/NDAA
1825 Connecticut Avenue. N.V.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Mr. Uravitch:

in accordance with responsibilities under Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). the Region 6 office
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed your
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed designation
of the East and West Flower Garden Banks within the Gulf of Mexico as
a national marine sanctuary pursuant to the provisions of Title III of
the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. as amended.
Through the proposed sanctuary management plan and the Implementing
regulations. this proposed action will facilitate the long-term management
and protection of this valued marine resource. offers research opportunities,
and provides an interpretation program to enhance public awareness of the
Flower Gardens.

The East and West Flower Garden Banks are located approximately 120
nautical miles due south of the Texas-Louisiana border at the edge of the
continental shelf and encompasses an area of 41.70 square nautical miles.
The Flower Garden Banks are unique among the banks of the northwestern
Gulf of Mexico in that they bear the northernmost tropical Atlantic coral
reefs on the continental shelf and support the most "highly. developed off-
shore hard Kok communities in the region.
We classify your Draft EIS as Lack of Objection (LO). Specifically. we
have no objection and fully support the proposed designation of the East
and West Flower Garden Banks as a national marine sanctuary. Our classi-
fication will be published in the Federal Register according to our
responsibilities to Inform the public 0f our views on proposed Federal
actions, under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.

-2-
we appreciate the opportunity to review your Draft EIS. Please send our
office one (1) copy of the Final [IS at the same time it IS Sent to the
office of Federal Activities. U.S. Envirornmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C.
Sincerely yours,
Robert E. Layton Jr. P.E.
Regional Administrator

Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region. VI. Federal Center. 800 North Loop 288
Denton, Texas 76201-3698

March 13. 1981

Joseph A. Uravitch, Chief
Marine and Estuarine-
Management Division
1825 Connecticut Avg.. N.W.
Washington. D.C. 20235

Dear Mr.Uravitch:

Thank you for your letter of February 16. 1989. and the copy of Flower Carden
Banks National Marine Sanctuary. Draft EIS Management Plan.
Since this project Is proposed in open water of the Culf of Mexico and will No response necessary.
not involve coastal high hazard area. identified floodplains cc wetlands. the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has no comments.

Thank you again for providing our office with an opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Jim Lagrotte
Natural Hazards Program
Specialist
Natural Technological
Hazards Division

cc: Mr. David Cottinghas

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service

Centers for Disease Control

Atlanta GA 30333

April 25, 1989

Mr. Joseph A. Uravitch, Chief
Marine and Estuarine Management Division
Office Of Oman and Coastal
Resource Management
National Oman Service/NOAA
1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.M.
Washington, DC 20235

Dear Mr. Uravitch:

We have reviewed the Draft Enviromental Impact Statement (DEIS)
for the proposed Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary.
We are responding an behalf of the U.S. Public Health Service.
We concur with the preferred alternative to designate the Flower
Garden Banks as a national marine sanctuary. This designation
will insure the optimal management and protection of this
ecologically sensitive area. NOAA will encourage and promote diver sa

In our review, we concentrated on prosposed human activities in
the santuary area, particularly recreation. The DEIS suggests
a much higher recreation usage of this area in the future (page
41) with a concurrent increase in underwater recreational
activities. Die to the predictable hazards of underwater
recreational activity (e.g. diving). we recommend that Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) include now proposed
guidelines -for limiting the potential for accidents and injury.

Thank You for sending this document for our review. Please
insure that we are included an yaw mailing list for the FEIS
for this project as well as future documents with potential
public health impacts which am developed under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Sincerely yours,

David E. Clapp, Ph.D.,P.E.,CIH
Enviromental Health Scientist
Center for Enviromental Health
and Injury Control

U.S. Department Of Housing and Urben Development
Fort Worth Regional Office, Region, VI
1600 Tiwockmorton
P0 Box 2905

Fort Worth, Texas 75173-2905

March 3, 1989

Mr. Joseph A. Uravitch, Chief
Marine and Estuarine Management Division
Office Of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Ocean Service/NOAA
1825 Connecticut Avenue N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20235

Dear Mr. Uravitchs:

This office has reviewed the Draft Environmental impact
Statement/Management Plan for the Flower Garden Banks National
Marine Sanctuary In accordance with Section 1503.2 of the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA).
Inasmuch as the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
has no jurisdiction by law or special expertise in the area of

marine biology, we submit a "no comment" response.

Sincerely,

I. J. Ramsbotton
Regional Environmental Officer

United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

In Reply Refer To:
ER-89/158

Joseph A. Uravitch
Chief, Marine and Estuarine Management Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
182S Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Mr. Uravitch:

The Department has reviewed and provides the enclosed comments on the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration proposed regulations and draft environmental
impact statement for designating two marine areas in the Gulf of Mexico known as the
Flower Garden Banks as a national marine sanctuary (54FR7953; February 24, 1989). if
you have any questions about these comments, please contact Dr. John, H. Farrell, Acting
Director, Office of Environmental Project Review.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal.

Sincerely,

Michael McElwarth
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Policy and Analysis

Enclosure

United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT REVIEW
WASHINGTON, D.C 20240
MEMORANDUM APR 21 1989

TO: Deputy Assistant Secretary - Policy and Analysis

FROM: Office of Environmental Project Review

SUBJECT: Comments on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Proposal to Designate a National Marine Sanctuary at the Flower
Garden Banks in the Gulf of Mexico (ER-89/158)

The Department has reviewed and we have prepared the following comments on the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) regulations (15CFR943)
published on February 24, 1989 (54 FR 7953). The proposed rule would designate two
areas In marine waters of the Gulf of Mexico known as the Flower Garden Banks as a
national marine sanctuary. We have also prepared comments on the draft environmental
impact statement (EIS) supporting that proposal. General comments on both the
proposed rules and the draft EIS follow, and specific comments are attached.

No objection has been raised within Interior regarding the proposed designation of the
Flower Garden Banks as a national marine sanctuary. The "Regulatory/Boundary
Alternative I" (the "preferred alternative" described in the EIS) establishes an
appropriate sanctuary boundary and management scheme. for protecting the Bank%.
resources without Inhibiting Interior's OCS hydrocarborn development program. Under
this alternative, hydrocarbon activities would be permitted to continue outside the 1. See Generic Response A, B and C.
already established "no activity zone." Further. hydrocarbon development activities
would continue to be regulated by Interior and would be exempt from future sanctuary
regulations.
With respect to the proposed sanctuary regulations, it will be necessary for NOAA to
clarify that the prohibition on using explosives or electrical charges within the sanctuary 2. See Generic Response C.

does not apply to uses associated with hydrocarbon development activities regulated by
interior. Under Its existing regulations. the Department's Minerals Management Service
(MMS) requires that platforms be removed when they are no longer needed to support
hydrocarbon development activities. These platforms may be removed using either
mechanical or explosive methods to free them from the sea floor. The sanctuary
regulations should explicitly state that platform removal undertaken In accordance with
MMS regulations will be exempt from sanctuary regulation.
With respect to the overall objective or protecting the Flower Garden Banks from 3. See Generic Response E.
unacceptable harm, we note that anchor damage from small recreational boats is widely
3 . held as the single largest cause of environmental damage to Flower Garden corals. In
view of this, we urge that anchor buoys he placed in the sanctuary at the time of
designation, rather than awaiting a formal determination of need.

John H. Farrell
Acting Director

Attachment

Department of the Interior Specific Comments on the Proposed Regulations
for the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary
Page 7954, under "I. Background" it may he useful to underline briefly the 1988
amendments to Title 111 of the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act as 4. Comment accepted.
relevant to the Flower Garden Banks.
Page 7954, second column, last paragraph - In the sixth line from the end of the
paragraph, It appears that "Atlantic Ocean" should he "Gulf of Mexico." If "Atlantic 5. Comment Accepted.
Ocean" is correct, an explanation should be provided since the Flower Garden Banks
are clearly located in the Gulf of Mexico. Same comment applies for page 7955.

Page 7955, third column, Article 4, section 1, f - Should add "except activities
regulated by the Department of Defense and the Minerals Management Service as
provided below under Article 5, Section 2." at the end of this section. 6 & 7. Provisions regarding the Department of Defense and
regarding oil and gas activities in areas of the
Page 7956, first column, Article 5, Section 2 - Should add "and platform removals Sanctuary outside the no-activity zones have been added
7.
regulated by the Minerals Management Service." at the end of the first sentence. to the regulations. See Generic Responses C and K.

Page 7958. third column, under "(2) Depositing or Discharging Materials and
8. Substances" - Should add a new subsection "(C) any discarges authorized by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under a National Polutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit." 8. 15 C.F.R. #5 943.10 and 943.11 address treatment of
authorization from other authorities.

9. NOAA disagrees. The MKS Stipulations may be sufficient to
Page 7958, third column, under "(3) Altering the Seabed" - last two fines should be
9. protect sanctuary resources, but these stipulations are
replaced with "Interior through officially adopted topographic features stipulations
that include the Flower Garden Bank's." applied on a lease by lease basis and may be discontinued at
any time. Those stipulations that are incorporated into
Page 7959, first column, second paragraph, under item (6) - Should add "except for sanctuary regulations, however, are made permanent. NOAA
10. activities regulated by the Department of Defense and the Minerals Management believes that it must be able to regulate activities affecting qa
Service." at the end of the paragraph. the Sanctuary in order to protect Flower Garden resources.
If NOAA can not control the size of the no-activity zones,
Department of the interior Comments on the Draft EIS for the NOAA regulations lose effectiveness, and NOAA's ability to
- Proposed Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary provide protection to Flower Garden resources is diminished.
NOAA therefore reaffirms its intention to fix the boundaries
o General Comment - The Minerals Management Service has funded many studies on of the no-activity zones as they were defined by the
the biology of the Flower Garden Banks and other areas of the Gulf of Mexico. MMS topographic lease stipulation for OCS oil and gas lease sale
would be happy to provide relevant information from these studies to NOAA for use
11. in developing the final EIS. 112.
12. Page 18, first full paragraph, third -sentence. The brine seep discharge rate "ppt" 10. See response to 6 & 7 above.
should be parts per thousand, not parts per trillion.
11. No response necessary.
Page 37, Figure 12 - The "Mobile oil Platform" shown in the figure is incorrect and
misleading as it might be thought of as a mobile offshore drilling unit. It is actually
13. a permanent platform operated by the Mobil Oil Corporation and should be libeled as 12. Comment accepted. The FEIS/MP has been corrected accordingly.
such.
13. Comment accepted. The FEIS/MP has been corrected accordingly.
14. Page 39, Table 2 - This table should be amended to show that blocks A-97, A-
354, A-337, A-390, A-361, A-363, and A-396. are now under oil and gas leases. Also, 14. Comment accepted. The FEIS/HP has been corrected accordingly.

block A-103 was not included on the list For east flower Garden. This block is not
under lease but should be listed. The mms records also indicate that the following
blocks are no longer under lease: a-388, a-135, a-173, a-177, a-178, a-383, a-402,
a-364, a-377.
15. o page 74, first paragraph - the reference to the "quarter, quarter, quarter: system is
confusing and unnecessary. this reference should either be further explained or
eliminated (see also comments for page 75 below).
16. o page 75, table 4 - there are several mistakes in this table which, on the whole, does 15. comment accepted. the feis/mp has been corrected accordingly.
not seem very useful. maps prepared and available from mms fully describe the " no
activity zone" of the flower garden banks, and the "quarter, quarter, quarter" 16. comment accepted. the feis/mp has been corrected accordingly.
system is no longer used. the table should either be corrected or eliminated .
17.o page 80, last paragraph- the second sentence should read: "the no activity zone 17. comment accepted. the feis/mp has been corrected accordingly.
boundaries enclose the 100 m (328 ft) isobaths around each bank, thus including some
areas outside of the 100 m isobath."
18. o page 89, first full paragraph- the spill data in this paragraph should be
supplemented to show that, from 1974 to 1981, there were only four spills of crude 18, comment accepted. the feis/mp has been corrected accordingly.
oil greater than 1000 barrels from ocs oil and gas facilities (including pipelines).
19. o page 117, article 4, section 1, c, would in effect incorporate mms's topographic
features stipulation for sale 112 as part of future sancuturay regulations. while mms 19. NOAA disagrees. the application of NOAA regulations for the
may, in fact, adopt similar stipulations for future sales affecting the flower garden protection of flower garden bank resources can not be subject
banks, the proposed incorporation of the stipulation into sancutary regulations would to being changed by other federal agencies with entirely
tend to deprive mms of the flexibility of changing the stipulation in the future when different missions.
better technologies and procedures become available. in addition, the future
sanctuary regulations which incorporate the sale 113 stipulations may conflict with
existing stipulations appliciable to leases issued under other sales which contain
somewhat different requirements than those of sale 112. thereford, it would be
preferable to 'spell out the "no activity zone" rather than citing an mms leas
stipulation as part of future sancturary regulations. 20.comment accepted. the paragrah has been deleted in the
20. o page 136, second paragraph- the reference "secretarial order 2974" should be feis/mp.
clarified to indicate that it was replaced several years ago by a section of the
department of the interior manual (i.e., dm 055).

United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK service
padre ISLAND NATIONAL seashore
9405 south padre island drive
corpus christi, texas 79418
in reply refer to

N16

April 14. 1989

Joseph A, Uravitch. Chief
Marine & Estuarine Management Division
Office or Ocean & Coastal Resource Management
National Ocean Service/NOAA
1825 Connecticut Avenue. n.W.
Washington D.C. 20235

Dear Mr. Uravitch:

Padre Island national Seashore supports the proposed
designation or the Flower garden Banks as a national marine
sanctuary. These coral reers are complex; biologically
productive systems deserving protection Including
regulations covering the following:
a) anchoring or vessels prohibited within the sanctuary
b) depositing/discharging materials or substances
c) seabed alteration
d) removal. or Injuring coral or other resources
e) use or fishing gear other then conventional book and
line
f) detonating explosives or releasing electrical charges.

Padre Island supports NOAA preferred Regulatory/Boundary No response necessary
-Alternative I estabishing a sanctuary of 4J.7 nautical
miles concentrated in two rings 100 meter isobaths)
surrounding the two coral banks. This provides additional
protection specifically to the discrete areas or special
national significance. We also support NOAApreferred
Management Alternative 2.provision or site-specific
management in an appropriate location in the Texas/
Louisiana coastal region.

Sincerely.

John D. Hunter
superintendent

Us department commanders washington dc 20593-0001
of transportation united states coast guard symbol g-mps-1

united states
coast guard phone (202) 267-0504

5000
mr. joseph a uravitch
chief
marine and estuarine
management division
office of ocean and coastal
resource managemennt
national ocean service/noaa
1825 connecticut ave. nw
washington, d.c. 20235

dear mr. uravitch:

we have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement/draft management
plan one the proposed flower garden banks national marine sancturary. we have No response necessary.
no objection to the eis or draft plan.

thank you for providing us the opportunity to review this project

sincerely,

commander, u. s. coast guard
chief, pest operations branch
by directies of the commanders

copy: director, office of ecology
and conservation

apr 1939
received

Buddy roemer henry trudillo
governor secretary
state of louisiana
paul hardy department of culture, recreation and tourism bob leblanc
lieutenant governor office of tourism assistant secretary
and commissioner

March 9, 1989

Mr. joseph a uravitch, chief
marine and estuarine management division
office of ocean and coastal resource management
national ocean service/NOAA
1825 connecticut avenue, n.w.

RE: comments relative to proposed marine sanctuary status for the flower
garden banks areas off the coasts of louisiana and texas

dear mr. uravitch:
we have received our copy of the 139-page draft environmental impact statement
and management plan regarding the proposed marine sanctuary designation.

obviously, we cannot comment on the actual environmental impact or ecological
needs for this protection, but wish to offer our support to the plan in the
sense of its positive contribution to our marine fisheries resources.

such a designation can only help preserve the reef area and thus the fishing
and diving opportunities tied to those resources. ultimately, we see a
positive construbution to our tourism industry by offering another attration
and resource to that element of the interested population. charter fishing,
skin diving and other recreational interests will have yet another area to
visit, thus enhancing the economy of the portial from which they sail.

we hope that the flower grden banks do indeed obtain the marine sancturary
designation which will enhance its preservation.
no response necessary.

sincerely,

robert a budden, cpm
deputy assistant secretary

rad:ean/lan

received march

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

LOUISIANA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
University Station, G. Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70893-4107 (504) 388- 5320

April 5, 1989

Joseph A. Uravitch. Chief
Marine and Estuarine Management Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Ocean Service/NOAA
1825 Connecticut Ave.. N.W.
Washington, DC 20235

RE. Flower Carden Banks DEIS/MP

Dear Mr. Uravitch:

We support the designation of the Flower Carden Banks as a marine sanctuary and
the recommended regulatory/boundary and management alternatives presented in the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan. It is important to protect
the natural resources in this unique area from anchoring. harmful discharges, alterations
of the seabed, removal and injury of coral, destructive fishing gear, and explosives. In
addition. provisions for flexibility in the plan are also important since new issues may
emerge and additional factors may become important to provide protection to the Banks.

Informing the public about this unique resource is also etremely important. In the
document approximately nine areas for Information Centers in Texas are idenified and
none in Louisiana. While providing for Information Center and Outreach Programs in
Louisiana is mentioned no specific sites are listed. The following are suggestions that
NOAA should consider for location in Louisana: McNeese University in Lake Charles;
Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium(LUMCON) in Cocodrie; Louisiana Nature and
Science Center and the upcoming New Orleans Aquarium in New Orleans, and Louisiana 1. Comment accepted. These sites have been added to the list of
Department of Wildilife and Fisheries' Natural Heritage Program, Department of Natural sites to be considered as information centers in the FEIS/MP
Resources' Coastal Management Division, and LSU's Sea Grant Program in Baton Rouge. ites to be considered as information

Finally, on page 18 there seems to be an error in the description of the salinity of the 2. Comment accepted. The FEIS/MP has been corrected accordingly.
brine seeps of approximately 200 ppt. The text identifies the acronym as parts per trillion,

Sincerely,

C. G. Groat
Director and
State Geologist
cc; David Cottingham
Room 6222
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, DC 20230

An Equal Oppurtunity Employer

Senate

State of Louisiana

P 0. Box 94183
Boton Rouge, Louisiana 70804
(504)342-2040

April 12, 1989

Mr. Joseph A. Pravitch, Chief
Marine & Estuarine Management Div.
National Ocean Service/NOAA
1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

RE: Draft ELS/Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary

Dear Mr. Uravitch:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement/Management Plan for the Flower Garden Banks National Marine
Sanctuary.

The proposal to establish a national marine sanctuary in the waters offshore Texas-
Louisiana appears to have merit in that additional protection would be extended to
the coral reefs and associated resources of the Flower Garden Banks. Adequate
safeguards appear to be built into the management scheme for the sanctuary and I No response To
understand that the Coastal Management Division, Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources, has found no consistency problems with the proposed sanctuary.

Sincerely,

Samuel B. Nunez, Jr.
President Pro Tempore

SB/bj

cc: David Cottingham, Director
Office of Ecology and Conservation

STATE OF TEXAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, JR.
GOVERNOR April 20, 198S

Mr. Joseph A. Uravitch, Chief
National Ocean Service/(NOAA)
1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.V.
Washington, D.C. 20235

RE: TX-R-89-03-07-0002-50
Flower Garden banks National Marine Sanctuary

Dear Mr. Uravitch:

Attached are subsequent comments received on the above
captioned proposal.

If we can be of further assistance, please let me know.

Sincerely,

T. C. Adams
State Single Point of Contact

TCA/pon

Enclosure

TEXAS REVIEW AND COMMENT SYSTEM

REVIEW NOTIFICATION

Applicant/Originating Agency: National Ocean Service/(NOAA)

Project Title: FLOWER GARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

SAI/EISI: 7X-R-89-03-07-0002-5O-00

Date Received: March 1,1989 Date Comments Due BPO: 03/30/89

REVIEW PARTICIPANTS .... .........

Texas Attorney General's Office
General Land Office
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Special Notes/ Comments: NOAA provided copies under seperate mail. We
have provided additional copies to Bureau of Economic Geology and
Texas Water Commission.

No Comment.
Review Agency Signature

Return Comments to:
J.C. Adams, State Single Point of Contact
Governor's Office of Budget and Planning
P.O. Box 12428
Austin. Texas 78711
(512) 463-1778

Texas General Land Office

Sally S. Davenport Garry Mauro
Director Commissioner
Coastal Division

March 29, 1989

Mr. T. C. Adams, State Single Point of Contact
Governor's Office of Budget and Planning
P. 0. Box 2428
Austin, Texas 78711

RE. Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary
SAI/EIS No. TX-R-89-03-07-0002-50-00

Dear Mr.Adams:
My staff has reviewed the referenced document and we make the following
comments. East and West Flower Garden Banks have been under consideration as
a national marine sanctuary for at least a decade. Both before and during
this period a great deal has been learned of the values of these two complex
marine structures. Also, a great deal has been learned of their vulnerability
to man's activities. We support the designation of these areas as the newest
unit of The National Marine Sanctuary System.

We agree that anchoring of ships presents the most probable significant reef NO response nec
damaging activity, at least near-term. And we encourage close monitoring to
evaluate the effects of smaller vessels anchoring on the reefs, even with
their anchor line proscriptions.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this document of such importance
to Texas and the nation.

Sincerely,

Sally S. Davenport
Director
Coastal Division

SSD/HI/flw

Stephen F. Austin Building
1700 N. Congress Ave.
Austin, Texas 76701
(512) 463- 5059

STAFF COMHE"S

Although, staff supports Boundary Alt@tnttiV* 1,
Alternative III is preferred. While Alternative I provides
a protective umbrella- to the physical area of the Flower
Gardens, it does not provide a coordinating protective 1. See GeneriC Response A.
umbrella to the surrounding area. obviously, the Flower
Gardens are directly dependent on surrounding water quality
and any development acttivity@ (especially resulting An
increased turbidity) in their vicinity may adversely affect
the coral's growth. However, the potential threat fron
development close to the Flower Giordano Is mitigated by the 2. See Generic Response D.
Minerals Management Service rule riquiring, all drilling
cuttings and fluids to be shunted to no oiare than 10a from
the bottom.
Also, staff would prefer a different management approach
than that offered by Management Alternative I (pg. 83-84)
or Alternative 11 (pg. 84). Under management Alternative
I the sanctuary manager-in in Washington, D.C. and In too
far removed from -developing the personal knowledge about
the reefs required to make timely recommendations and 3. This and similar approaches have been considered, but they
ecisions. Under Alternative 11 the hiring of &'sanctuary have been rejected as inadequate to provide the staff
manager and assistant manager requires a substantial cost
to the tax payer ($90,000/year). Instead one of the capabilities needed to carry out sanctuary management
existing staff at the National Marine Fisheries service, responsibilities.
Galveston Laboratory, -could function as sanctuary manager.
This approach would place the manager in an area where he
has access to the resource and would keep the cost or the
program to that required to promote a staff member and
ossibly hiring one person to maintain the program. Should
t is approacb -not be possible, Alternative 11 is
acceptable.

Also Article 4. Section I.E should be worded so that any
fishing activity could be restricted by a rule change
instead of categorically permittingthook and line fishing.
The current wording assumes hook and line fishing cannot
be a threat to the reef, however, recent studies are 4. Comment accepted. See also Generic Response G.
showing intensive hook and line gear can threaten fish
populations. Rewording this section would ease the
regulation procedures for the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.
[
A

G
u
G

[d
a
t
a
G
T

TEXAS

Commissoners PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 1989

Mr. T. C. Adams
State Single Point of Contact
Governor's Office of
Budget and Planning
Post Office Box 12420
Austin, Texas 78711

Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Managagement Plan
Flower Garden Ranks National Matins Sanctuary

Dear Mr. Adams:

The document entitled Flower Garden Banks National Marine
Sanctuary: Draft Envirnmental Impact Statement/ Management
Plan has been reviewed by Department staff. The staff
recommends the Governor's office supportthe U.S. Secretary
of Commerce in designating the valuable and unique coral
reef Flower Gardens a National Marine Sanctuary. Although
several other U.S. regulatory agencies have passed rules
to protect this resource, the anchoring of large ships on
this beautiful underwater reef remains unregulated and this
poses a serious physical threat to the slow growing corals
which make up and maintain the reef. In addition, the
designation of the Flower Gardens as a National Marine
Sanctuary will provide a coordinating focus for future
management practices of the U.S. Department of the
Interior, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the U.S.
Department of Transportation.

This plan in needed to provide protection to the Flower
Garden which is not currently available. Therefore this
agency support the plan and the attached staff comments agency supports the plan and the attached staff comments
are provided for consideration to the final plan.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.

Sincerely,

Charles D. Travis
Executive Director

CDT:AWG:bls

Attachment

March 6, 1989

1. I am concerned about item "C" regarding the altering of the seabed except for 1. The DEIS exemption from the regulation prohibiting altering
hydrocaron exploration. The seabed of the Flower Gardens should not be the seabed applied only outside of the no-activity zones, the
disturbed for the exploration of oil and gas or any other thing. Protected boundaries of which are well beyond the reefs. The
should be protected. prohibition on oil and gas development activities within the
no-activity zones has been strengthened (see Generic Response
Mary Ellender A).
1521 Cypress St.
Sulphur, LA 70663

Existing regulatory authorities in the proposed sanctuary ( Appendix II)
will be unaffected by sanctuary designation. However, the following
activities may be regulated by NOAA under the terms of designation:

a. Anchoring by vessels ( initially, only vessels greater than 100 feet
in registered length would be prohibited from anchoring in the
sanctuary):
b. Depositing or discharging of materials or substances:
c. Altering the seabed except in the conduct of hydrocarbon exploration
and development in sanctuary areas lying outside of the no-activity
zones established by the Department of the Interior;
d. Removing or injuring coral or other resouces;
e. Using fishing gear other than conventional hook and line gear; and
f. explosives or releasing electrical charges.

The proposed sanctuary regulations are contained in the Designation Document,
which appears in Appendix I.

The administrative framework for managing the proposed sanctuary (Part
II, Section IV) recognizes the need for cooperation and coordination among all
participants in sanctuary managment and delinates the roles of the National
Oceanic and Atmosheric Administration's Marine and Estuarine Management
Division, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Minerals Management Service, and the
Department of State in resource protection, research, interpretation, and
general administration.

NDAA considered a number of alternatives in developing the proposal to
designate a national marine sanctuary at the Flower Garden Banks. These
alternatives, described in Part III, were considered in terms achieving
optimum protection for the ecosystem, improving scientific knowlege of the
resources. The alternative of sanctuary designation was selected as
preferable to no action, and the preferred boundary, management, and
regulatory alternatives were selected. The environmental consequences of the
alternatives are described in Part IV.

The emergence of the new issues or other unforeseeable factors may affect
specific aspects of sanctuary management as described in this plan. The plan
gained in actual management. However, the overall goals, management
objectives and general guidelines governing the plan's development will
continue to be relevant.

GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Lincoln Center Suite 881 5401 w. Kennedy Blvd.
Tampa. Florida 33609-2406 813 228-2815

March 16, 1989

Mr. Joseph A. Uravitch, Chief
Marine and Estuarine
Management Division
Office of Ocean andd Coastal
Resource Management
National Ocean Service/NOAA
1825 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20235

Dear Mr. Uravitch:
Reference is made to the draft environmental impact statement/drafts
management plan on the proposed Flower Garden Banks National Marine
Sanctuary.

We have reviewed the document and find it to be in accord with our fishery
management plan for corals in which we identified the Flower Garden
Banks as habitat areas of particular concern. We continue to endorse the
candidacy of the banks as a National Marine Sanctuary and urge the
adoption of the management measures proposed in your DEIS/DMP to
protect the corals. Particularly important is the proposal to limit
anchoring on the banks to vessels under 100 feet in length.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment and continue to offer our
support in achieving sanctuary designation.

Sincerely,

William D. Chauvin
Chairman

WDC:TRL:bab

cc: David Cottingham
Gulf Council
Staff

A council authorized by the Magnuson Fishery Conservation & Management Act

Scuba
Divers
Anonymous

MARINE & ESTUARINE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
NATIONAL 0CEAN SERVICE. NOAA
1825 CONNECTICUT AVENUE. N.W.
WASHINGTON. DC 20235

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

WE WHOLEHEARTEDLY APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH THE FLOWER
GARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY LOCATED IN THE GULF OF MEXICO OFF
TEXAS AND LOUISIANA.
WE COMMEND YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS PROJECT WHICH WILL ENABLE SPORT
DIVERS TO ENJOY THE BEAUTY OF THAT, WHICH LIES BENEATH THE, SURFACE. THE 1. See Generic Response A.
ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL SANCTUARY RIGHT IN "OUR BACKYARD", WILL BE
CHERISHED FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS OF SPORT DIVERS.
2. See Generic Response H. TO PRESERVE THIS NATURAL BEAUTY ACTIVITIES TO CONTROL/PREVENT 1. WASTE
DISPOSAL 2. SPEARFISHING. 3. ANCHORING. 4. SOUVENIR COLLECTION. AND 5. HYDROCARBON 3. See Generic Response E.
EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT, WHICH ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NATURAL RESOUR-
CES OF THE AREA, MUST BE ESTABLISHED 4. See Generic Response I. TO ESTABLISH SUCH A SANCTUARY AND THEN LET IT BE STRIPPED OF ITS
NATURAL BEAUTY, RESOURCES, AND INHABITANTS IS SUCH A WASTE 5. See Generic Response A.
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONCERN IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FLOWER
GARDENS AS A NATIONAL SANCTUARY BUT IN ORDER FOR THIS TO BECOME A TRUE
"SAFE HAVEN" FOR ITS INHABITANTS MEASURES MUST BE TAKEN TO PROTECT OUR
MARINE LIFE.

SINCERELY, 4/14/
K. A. BENNINGTON
11062 Trader's Ct.
Houston, Tx 77086

533 Tenth Street
Santa Monica, Ca 90402

March 9, 1989

Flower Garden Banks Request
Marine and Estuarine Mgmnt. Div.
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Mgmnt.
National Ocean Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW, #714
Washington, DC 20235

Gentlemen:

I shall be pleased to receive a copy of the of the DEIS/MP and any
follow-up information on the Flower Garden Banks National
Marine Sanctuary.
I wish to express my approval of the Executive Summary from No response necessary.
the DEIS/MP for this proposed marine sanctuary.

Sincerely yours,

Alex Castelli

MAR
RECEIVED

Scuba
Divers
Anonymous

MARINE & ESTUARINE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, NOAA
1825 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20235

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

WE WHOLEHEARTEDLY APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH THE FLOWER
GARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY LOCATED IN THE GULF OF MEXICO OFF
TEXAS AND LOUISIANA.

WE COMMEND YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS PROJECT WHICH WILL ENABLE SPORT
DIVERS TO ENJOY THE BEAUTY OF THAT WHICH LIES BENEATH THE SURFACE. THE 1. See Generic Response A. ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL SANCTUARY RIGHT IN "OUR BACKYARD" WILL BE
CHERISHED FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS OF SPORT DIVERS. 2. See Generic Response H.
TO PRESERVE THIS NATURAL BEAUTY ACTIVITIES TO CONTROL/PREVENT 1. WASTE 3. See Generic Response E. DISPOSAL. 2. SPEARFISHING. 3. ANCHORING. 4. SOUVENIR COLLECTION, AND 5. HYDROCARBON
EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT, WHICH ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NATURAL RESOUR-

CES OF THE AREA MUST BE ESTABLISHED. 4. See Generic Response I. TO ESTABLISH SUCH A SANCTUARY AND THEN LET IT BE STRIPPED OF ITS
NATURAL BEAUTY, RESOURCES, AND INHABITANTS IS SUCH A WASTE!

WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONCERN IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FLOWER 5. See Generic Response A.
GARDENS AS A NATIONAL SANCTUARY BUT IN ORDER FOR THIS TO BECOME A TRUE
"SAFE HAVEN" FOR ITS INHABITANTS MEASURES MUST BE TAKEN TO PROTECT OUR
MARINE LIFE

SINCERELY, 4/14/59

MARINE & ESTUARINE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, NOAA
1825 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20235

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

WE WHOLEHEARTEDLY APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH THE FLOWER
GARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY LOCATED IN THE GULF OF MEXICO OFF
TEXAS AND LOUISIANA.

WE COMMEND YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS PROJECT WHICH WILL ENABLE SPORT
DIVERS TO ENJOY THE BEAUTY OF THAT WHICH LIES BENEATH THE SURFACE. THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL SANCTUARY RIGHT IN "OUR BACKYARD" WILL BE
CHERISHED FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS OF SPORT DIVERS. 1. See Generic Response A. TO PRESERVE THIS NATURAL BEAUTY ACTIVITIES TO CONTROL/PREVENT 1. WASTE
DISPOSAL. 2. ANCHORING. 3. SOUVENIR COLLECTION, AND 4. HYDROCARBON 2. See Generic Response E.
EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT. WHICH ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NATURAL RESOUR- 3. See Generic Response I.
CES OF THE AREA. MUST BE ESTABLISHED. 4. See Generic Response A.
TO ESTABLISH SUCH A SANCTUARY AND THEN LET IT BE STRIPPTED OF ITS
NATURAL BEAUTY, RESOURCES, AND INHABITANTS IS SUCH A WASTE!

WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONCERN IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FLOWER
GARDENS AS A NATIONAL SANCTUARY BUT IN ORDER FOR THIS TO BECOME A TRUE
"SAFE HAVEN" FOR ITS INHABITANTS MEASURES MUST BE TAKEN TO PROTECT OUR
MARINE LIFE.

SINCERELY,
Jina & Jack Kasel
2031 Old Dixie Dr.
Richmond, Tx 77469

MARYE MYERS

March 9. 1989

Flower Garden Banks Request
Marine and Estuarine Mgmnt. Di v.
office of ocean and Coastal Resource Mgmnt.
National Ocean Service
National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW. #714

Gentlemen:

I shall I be pleased to receive a copy of the DEIS/MP and any
follow-up information on the Flower Garden Barks National
Marine Sanctuary.
I wish to express my approval of the Executive Summary from No response necessary.
the DEIS/HP for this proposed marine sanctuary.

Yours sincereLy,

rye

MM:ct

received

31 March, 1989

Joseph Uravitch, Chief
Marine & Estuarine Management Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Ocean Service/NOAA
1825 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20235

Dear Mr. Uravitch,

I would like to see the East and West Flower Garden
Banks designated as a national marine sanctuary. I would pro-
for the Alternative 3 Regulatory Boundary to estblish additional 1. See Generic Response A.
protection although I can appreciate the difficulties involved
with enforcement. I believe Management Alternative 2 is certain-
Management Alternat
ly the best one. 2. NOAA agrees.
alternative.

Sincerely,

Ms. Lyn Rosen Springut
216 Orford St.
Rochester, NY 14607

David Cottingham

21 April 1989

JOSEPH A. URAVITCH, CHIEF
MARINE AND ESTUARINE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
OFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE/NOAA
1825 CONNECTICUT AVE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20235

DEAR SIR

REF: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
THIS PROPOSED FLOWER GARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

I AGREE WITH THE MANAGEMENT PLAN AS PRESENTED WITH THE FOLLOWING
EXCEPTIONS:

ALL EXPLORATION FOR GAS AND OIL SHOULD BE PERMANENTLY BANNED
FROM THE AREA BOUNDARIES AS DESIGNATED IN THE FINAL PLAN. 1. See Generic Response A.
WOULD ASSURE PROTECTION TO SOME DEGREE FROM BLOW OUTS, BUT WOULD

PROTECT THE AREA FROM DAMAGE BY SESMIC EXPLOSIONS. 2. This activity has been listed for reulation so that if the
REGULATORY/BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVE 3 SHOULD BE CHOSEN AS THE use of air guns is later demonstrated to have an adverse
PREFERRED CHOICE. THE TWO REGULATORY ZONES SHOULD BE CONSI impact on sanctuary resources, additional regulations can be
AS NO-ACTIVITY ZONES BY THE MINERAL MANAGEMENTERNATIVE proposed.
3 WOULD GUARANTEE THE LONG TERM COMPREHENSIVE PROTECTION OF THE
FLOWER GARDEN BANKS ECOSYSTEM.
3. See Generic Response A.
I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE DECISION TO DESIGNATE FLOWER GARDEN BANKS
AS A NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY. THE RICHNESS AND DIVERSITY OF THE
AREA CERTAINLY MERIT THE COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT AND INCREASED
PROTECTION THAT DESIGNATION WILL BRING.

SINCERELY

HARRY E WILSON
2120 N CALLOW AVE
BREMERTON, WA 98312-2908
COPY TO: DAVID COTTINGHAM, DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF EOCOLOGY & CONSERVATION
ROOM 6222
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
WASHINGTON, DC 20230

MARINE & ESTUARINE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, NOAA
1825 CONNECTICUT AVENUE. N.W
WASHINGTON. DC 20235

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

WE WHOLEHEARTEDLY APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH THE FLOWER
GARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY LOCATED IN THE GULF OF MEXICO OFF
TEXAS AND LOUISIANA.

CES OF THE AREA, MUST BE ESTABLISHED. 3. See Gene
TO ESTABLISH SUCH A SANCTUARY AND THEN LET IT BE STRIPPED OF AS 4. See Gene
NATURAL, BEAUTY, RESOURCES. AND INHABITANTS IS SUCH A WASTE!

WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONCERN IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FLOWER
GARDENS AS A NATIONAL SANCTUARY BUT IN ORDER FOR THIS TO BECOME A TRUE
SAFE HAVEN- FOR ITS INHABITANTS MEASURES MST BE TAKEN TO PROTECT OUR
MARINE LIFE.

SINCERELY,

2022 OLD DIXIE DRIVE
RICHMOND, TX 77469

2q*q48q%qb

MARINE & ESTUARINE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, NOAA
1825 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.V.
WASHINGTON. DC 20235

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

WE WHOLEHEARTEDLY APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH THE FLOWER
GARDEN BANKS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY LOCATED IN THE GULF OF MEXICO OFF
TEXAS AND LOUISIANA.

WE COMMEND YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS PROJECT WHICH WILL ENABLE SPORT
DIVERS TO ENJOY THE BEAUTY OF THAT WHICH LIES BENEATH THE SURFACE. THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL SANCTUARY RIGHT IN "OUR BACKYARD" WILL be 1. See Generic Response A.
CHERISHED FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS OF SPORT DIVERS.
TO PRESERVE THIS NATURAL BEAUTY ACTIVITIES TO CONTROL/PREVENT WASTE 2. See Generic Response E.
DISPOSAL. 2 ANCHORING, 3 SOUVENIR COLLETION, AND 4 HYDROCARBON
EXPLORATION AND DEVLELOPMENT. WHICH ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NATURAL RESOUR-
CES OF THE AREA. MUST BE ESTABLISHED. 3. See Generic Response I.
TO ESTABLISH SUCH A SANCTUARY AND THEN LET IT BE STRIPPED OF ITS 4. See Generic Response A.
NATURAL BEAUTY, RESOURCES, AND INHABITANTS IS SUCH' A WASTE!

WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONCERN IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FLOWER
GARDENS AS A NATIONAL SANCTUARY BUT III ORDER FOR THIS TO BECOME A TRUE
"SAFE HAVEN" FOR ITS INHABITANTS MEASURES MST BE TAKEN TO PROTECT OUR
MARINE LIFE.

SINCERELY,
4qV8qA

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AT PUBLIC HEARINGS

March 30, 1989

COMMENT SUMMARIES AND RESPONSES

Commentor: Linda Maraniss - Regional Director, Center for
Marine Conservation - Morning Session.'

Summariz6d@ written @ comments sent by -Center for
Marine Conservation.

Response:

See responses to written comments from Center for Marine
conservation.

Commentor: Monte Thornton - Manager, Aquaventures Scuba Dive
Shop - Morning Session.

1. Collecting should be prohibited.

2. Spearfishing should be prohibited.

3. All fishing, including with hook and line, should be
restricted.

4. Restricting the number of divers visiting the reefs
should be considered.

Response:

1. See Generic Response I.

2. See Generic Response H.

3. See Generic Response G.
4. NOAA has no evidence that present levels of diving
present a threat to Flower Garden Bank resources.
However, if diving intensity is later demonstrated to
have an adverse impact on sanctuary resources, NOAA has
the abiLity to regulate diving on a temporary basis,
during which time more permanent measures for resolving
the problem can be decided upon.

commentor: Dean Lewis - Dive Shop operator- Morning session.

1. Spearfishing should be prohibited.

2. Collecting shoul.d be prohibited.

3. Mooring. systems should be installed to protect the reefs
from anchoring.

4. Hook and line bottom fishing can pull up coral.@
Response:

1. See Generic Response H.

2. See Generic Response I.

3. See Generic Response E.

4. See Generic Response G.,

Commentor: Page,Williams - Environmental Chairperson,-Houston
Morning Session.
Underwater Club

1. Spearfishing should be prohibited.

2.1 Permanent moorings. should be emplaced. - "Between the
clubs and the - Council and the dive shops, we could
probably work up.some sort of.matching funds, if you all
would consider putting some in."

3. 1 like the idea of limiting access to the Flower Gardens.
The number of divers in diving excursions to the Flower
Gardens could be registered ahead of time at the
sanctuary office, which could then provide them with
to go.

Respqnse:

1. see Generic Response H.

2. NOAA will continue to collaborate with local groups in
establishing a mooring buoy system. See Generic Response
E.

3. See response to comment #4 (above) by Monte Thornton at
hearings.

Commentor: William Jadkson - Southwest Regional' Liaison
officer, National marine Fisheries Service -Morning
Session.

1. The prohibition on using explosives is unenforceable
;.because of its wording. Its impossible to catch 'anyone-
in the act of using explosives.- The regulation should
therefore be reworded to prohibit' the* possession of
explosives or explosive devices aboard any vessel other
than one used for geophysical exploration.-

2. Because there seems' to be, such concern about diving,
spearfishing, and* the use of explosive 'devices such as
shark repellant sticks, the use of some sort of federal
registration and permits f or visiting the Flower Gardens
should be considered. Some kind of reporting requirement
following visits might also be desirable as a means of
compiling data for effective management of such.remote
areas as the Flower Gardens.

Response:
l.- Comment accepted. 'The regulAtion has 'been reworded
accordingly.

2. Comment accepted in part. NOAA will examine the
feasibility of establishing reporting procedures to
compile management data. With regard to restricting
access to the Flower Gardens, see response to comment #4
(above) by Monte Thornton at hearings.

Commentor: Paul Lankford Anadarko' tletrole'um Corporation
Morning-Session.

1. The use of explosives.to remove platforms is regulated
by MMS. 'Would sanctuAr'y * regulations restrict'this use of
explosives?

2. Would sanctuary regulation*s"r'estrict dischairges under EPA
permits by platforms just outside of the no-activity zones?

3. Would sanctuary- regulations- further restrict MMS shunting
requirements?

Reponse:

1. See Generic Response C.

2. See Generic Responses A and-C.

3. See Generic Respontes'A and'B.

Comme,ntor: Dick zingula,-.Scuba Diver-.Evening session.
1. Spearfishing should be prohibited.

2. Trawling should,be prohibited.

3. The transit of large ships over the Flower Garden Reefs
should be prohibited.

4. if. mooring buoys are to be placed over the Flower
Gardens, there should be,multiple moorings.
5. Educational material about the Flower Garden's should
inform people that not all changes in the ecosystem are
man-made. Many such changes, are due to natural causes.

Reponse:

1. See Generic Response H.

2. See Generic Response G.

3. See Generic Response F. The emplacement.of [email protected]
over thereefs will also discourage transiting by large
ships.

4. See Generic Response E. The feasibility of various
arrangements for employing multiple moorings is being
considered.

5. NOAA agrees and plans to include such information in its
education and interpretation program.

Commentor: Chuck Boyd - Bay Area Divers - Evening Session.. ..,
1. Moorin systems should-be,installed to protect the reefs
9,
from anchoring.

2. Commercial fish.ing-should be prohibited...

3. Electrically operated reels should be prohibited.-

4. Spearfishing should be prohibited.

5. All collecting should be prohibited.

6. The $50,000 penalty allowed for violations of regulations
is unrealistic.

Raisponse:

1. See Generic Response E.

2. See Generic Response G.

3. NOAA has@ no evidence that the use of electrically
operated reels threatens Flower Gardens resources. See
also Generic Response G.

4. See Generic Response H.

5. See Generic Response I.

6. The $50,000 pe'nalty was established by Congress as the
maximum penalty for each violation. The penalties that
are actually invoked vary considerably depending on the
nature of the offense and mitigating factors involved.

Commentor: Randy Widaman - Diver@- Evening Session.

1., Mooring systems should be installed to protect the reefs
from anchoring.

2. Spearfishing should be prohibited.

Response:

1. See Generic Response-E.

2. See Generic Response H@

Commentor: Gary Rinn - Rinn Boats,@ Inc. - Evening Session.

1. All live collecting should be prohibited.

2. Spearfishing should be prohibited.

3. Multiple mooring bouys should be installed to protect the
reefs from anchoring. "I am in the process of organizing
a non-profit organization to fund and maintain permanent
mooring buoys."

4. Regarding enforcement "I'll go on record in volunteering
our efforts to monitor any@possible violations."

Response:

1. See Generic Response I.

2. See Generic Response H.

3. See Generic Response E. NOAA looks forward to
cooperating with Mr. Rinn and any other individuals or
organizations that wish to provide assistance.

4. Again, NOAA looks forward to cooperating with Mr. Rinn
and any other individuals or organizations that wish to,
provide assistance.

Commentor: Jesse Cancelmo, - Evening Session.-

1. Spearfishing should be prohibited.

2. How soon after designation will t 'he Flower Garden's
national marine sanctuary status appear on nautical
charts.

Response:

1. See Generic Response H.

2. Notice that the Flowe r Garden Banks are a national marine
sanctuary will appear after designation on new navigation
charts as they are produced.

Commentor: jesse cancelmo - Evening Session.

1. Spearfishing should be prohibited.

2. How soon after designation will the Flower Garden's
national marine sanctuary status appear on nautical
charts.

Response:

1. See Generic Response H.

2. Notice that the Flower Garden Banks are a national marine
sanctuary will appear after designation on new navigation
charts as they are produced.

*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1991-298-129/40630

3 6668 00000 5746