Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan 



Page 124 



time as they are replaced with national whalewatch 

 regulations issued by NMFS. 



Existing enforcement and educational outreach 

 efforts would likely continue at a minimal level, 

 relying largely on voluntary compliance with existing 

 authorities by vessel operators. 



b. Identify the Activity as Subject to Sanctuary 

 Regulation: This is the preferred regulatory 

 alternative. NOAA believes that while NMFS 

 whalewatch regulations currently in development 

 will address the need to close the existing regulatory 

 gap related to enforcement of both commercial and 

 recreational whalewatch activities, it is nonetheless 

 likely that private, recreational vessel operators 

 (particularly those not engaged in whalewatching 

 activity), may not become informed of these 

 intended NMFS regulations. Because many 

 recreational vessels operate within the area of the 

 Sanctuary, NOAA also beUeves overall protection 

 and management of Sanctuary resources, especially 

 endangered cetaceans, would be enhanced by 

 NOAA ^ abihty to impose regulation of recreational 

 vessel operation if the need to do so arises in the 

 future. 



To this end, NOAA intends to coordinate and 

 assist other agencies and organizations in the 

 development of better information on the incidence 

 of marine mammal/vessel collisions. NOAA will 

 also coordinate and work closely with NFMS and 

 cetacean research and educational organizations to 

 ensure that all vessel operators in the Sanctuary are 

 fully informed of existing regulations related to the 

 protection of marine mammals. 



c. Regulate the Activity: Under this 

 alternative, NOAA would regulate recreational 

 (non-commercial) vessel operation within the 

 Sanctuary. Such regulation would hkely be focused 

 on vessel speeds and maneuvering in the proximity 

 of marine mammals, particularly during seasons of 

 the year when cetaceans are present in the 

 Sanctuary. These are the same management areas 

 ciurently being addressed by NMFS in its 

 development of national whalewatch regulations. 

 Therefore, NOAA believes additional regulation of 

 recreational vessel operation at this time is not 

 necessary. If the need for additional regulation is 



demonstrated in the future, such need may be met 

 by the adoption of alternative b., above. 



13. Installation or Placement of Submerged 

 PipeUnes and Cables 



a. No Sanctu£U7 Regulation: Under this 

 alternative, the permitting of any activity involving 

 the installation of pipelines or cables on or adjacent 

 to Stellwagen Bank would be affected by the 

 Sanctuary designation only through comments 

 provided to the relevant regulatory authorities, who 

 must formally recognize the presence of the 

 Sanctuary to varying degrees. If the activity is 

 subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (i.e., 

 any portion of the project within territorial waters 

 and involving the placement of 'fill'), it would be 

 subject to greater scrutiny by Federal permitting 

 agencies because it would pass through the 

 Sanctuary, which would be considered a 'ipecial 

 aquatic site',' as defined in the CWAS Section 

 404(b)(1) guidelines. The project would also be 

 subject to various state authorizations, including 

 CZM Federal Consistency and Water QuaUty 

 Certification, which would informally acknowledge 

 the presence of the Sanctuary in their permitting 

 reviews. This alternative would place few 

 administrative burdens on Sanctuary management 

 beyond commenting to regulatory agencies on any 

 proposed project involving the installation of 

 pipelines or cables. 



b. Installation Subject to Sanctuary 

 Certification: As a regulated activity imder the 

 provisions of Title III (Section 310), a Special Use 

 Permit could be issued for each proposal involving 

 the installation of pipelines or cables. Given the 

 generally-held view that most installations would 

 result in few significant environmental impacts, the 

 Special Use Permit process, or the certification of 

 other permits would allow the Sainctuary the 

 flexibility to accommodate acceptable projects. 

 However, the problems associated with potential 

 leaks in pipelines and electrical cables would 

 remain. 



It does not appear likely that such projects will 

 be proposed in the foreseeable futiu^e. If such a 

 project is proposed, a review would be undertaken 

 by the Sanctuary staff, and a permit processed 



