Contention grows over Flower Garden Banks
WASHINGTON — A little over 100 miles south of the Texas-Louisana border, in an otherwise deep and barren stretch of the Gulf of Mexico, lies a series of coral reefs perched atop what in essence are underwater mountains.
Covered in large boulders of brain and star coral and home to everything from snapper to spaghetti eels, the Flower Garden Banks has long attracted fisherman and scuba divers. But for the past five years those reefs have drawn a very different sort of attention, developing into another battleground between environmentalists and oil companies.
After years of study, the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration is moving ahead on an expansion of the conservation area around the reefs, from 56 square miles to 160 square miles — seemingly a win for environmentalists. Only that expansion is a fraction of the size originally recommended by NOAA staff, which suggested expanding the conservation area to more than 380 square miles.
Some environmentalists have been quick to blame the Trump administration, which has been steadily dismantling federal environmental regulations since it came into office in 2017. But the decision follows the recommendation of an advisory council established in 2005, with a rotating cast of members that includes fishermen, environmentalists, dive shops and members of the oil industry.
In the run up to the council’s vote in 2018, schism lines quickly developed between environmentalists and the oil companies.
The oil companies threatened to stop the expansion all together in 2016, arguing that the conservation area recommended by NOAA staff was, “in excess of those needed to protect appropriate areas,” wrote representatives of trade groups including the American Petroleum Institute and the National Ocean Industries Association.
“Nearly a quarter of America’s oil and natural gas is produced from the (Gulf ), and extending the boundaries as proposed … is likely to result in substantial impacts to the exploration, development and production of oil and natural gas resources, undue restrictions on seismic surveys, and reductions in available pipeline corridors.”
As a compromise, the council decided to go with a middleground expansion to 160 square miles, roughly three times the area first established by former president George H.W. Bush in 1992.
But environmentalists were incensed. Jennifer Steinhaus, campaign director for Turtle Island Restoration Network in Galveston and a member of the advisory council, said she was so opposed she abstained from voting on the final recommendation.
“We were ignoring the science, all the science that had been done over the previous three years,” she said in an interview. “This process was controlled by oil and gas.”
Two years later, as NOAA takes public comment on the proposed expansion toward final passage, tempers have cooled somewhat.
Last week the activist group
Environment Texas put out a news release commending NOAA for an expansion they said would add 14 additional reefs and banks to the sanctuary, helping to protect threatened or endangered species including sea turtles and manta rays.
Asked if they had changed their opinion since 2018, Anna Farrell-Sherman, an associate at Environment Texas, said that while they were “disappointed” the original recommendation wasn’t accepted, they looked at the smaller boundaries as a stepping stone.
“Any type of expansion of this sanctuary is a step in the right direction,” she wrote.