5. 



4 The FEIS should include a more detailed analysis of the 

 necessity of prohibiting activities in the sanctuary as opposed to 

 Identifying the activity as one subject to sanctuary regulation. 

 As an example, the discussion of oil and gas activities appears to 

 indicate that the current management regime is adequate and would 

 be appropriate with sanctuary oversight. At present, sand and 

 gravel mining is managed under the same regulatory regime, yet is 

 identified as an activity to be prohibited in the sanctuary. 

 Another example of an activity to be prohibited in the sanctuary, 

 where the discussion of the reasons is inadequate, is the placement 

 of pipelines and cables. 



5. FEIS discussions regarding the 

 necessity of Sanctuary regulation of 

 several activities have been expanded. 

 NOAA does not agree, however, that 

 "Sanctuary oversight" of the current 

 management of offshore hydrocarbon 

 activities is adequate or appropriate 

 for sound management of the Sanctuary. 

 NOAA proposes to list offshore 

 hydrocarbon activities as "subject to 

 Sanctuary regulation" in part because 

 currently, there is no planned OCS 

 leasing activity within the proposed 

 Sanctuary's boundaries, following 

 expiration of the moratorium in the year 

 2000. In addition, NOAA does not 

 believe the imposition of a regulatory 



prohibition is warranted at this time in 

 light of demonstrated lack of both 

 viable quantities of oil and gas 

 resources and industry interest in 

 development. This position does not 

 imply a lack of concern by NOAA over the 

 environmental threats posed by offshore 

 hydrocarbon activities to Sanctuary 

 resources and qualities. As stated in 

 PART THREE, Section II. C. 8., should 

 circumstances related to recoverable 

 resources and/or industry interest in 

 development change in the future, NOAA 

 will be able to make necessary deter- 

 minations regarding the necessity for 

 a prohibition on offshore hydrocarbon 

 activities within Sanctuary boundaries 

 at that time. See also generic response 

 E. Regarding the placement of submerged 

 pipelines and cables, see generic 

 response J. 



~ Certain activities are identified as being prohibited, however 



there has been no documentation as to the significance of the 

 threat or likelihood that the activity will occur. In addition, 

 this section of the FEIS should analyze the enforcement 

 capabilities, both current and future, and the amount of resources 

 needed for enforcement. Often, a regulatory program is quite 

 adequate if it is enforced . 



5. The FEIS should include a more thorough analysis of the 

 existing enforcement regime for the Stellwagen Bank region. The 

 analysis should discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the present 

 system, and identify more explicitly how a sanctuary enforcement 

 presence will improve upon this. 



6. NOAA agrees that existing regulatory 

 programs in many instances would be ade- 

 quate if enforcement capabilities were 

 sufficient to provide full implementa- 

 tion. However, both the U.S. Coast 

 Guard and the National Marine Fisheries 

 Service have commented that their en- 

 forcement personnel are fully utilized. 

 In this regard, it is NOAA's intention 

 to enhance enforcement capabilities in 

 the area of the Sanctuary. It is anti- 

 cipated that this objective will be 

 addressed through the development of 

 cooperative agreements, or memoranda of 

 understanding among involved agencies. 

 The development of such agreements would 

 require a more detailed analysis of 

 existing enforcement capabilities. See 

 also PART TWO, Section III.B.5. 



6. The FEIS should clarify NOAA's intent to regulate 

 aquaculture within the marine sanctuary. The DEIS does include a 

 discussion of aquaculture activities, but it does not clearly 

 identify the preferred management alternative. While the draft 

 regulations appear to prohibit intensive aquaculture, albeit 

 indirectly, through the Sanctuary's proposed regulation of 

 discharges, extensive aquacultural activities, where additional 

 food is not supplied to the organisms being cultured (and therefore 

 no discharge is involved) , would not appear to be subject to any 

 sanctuary regulation. 



7. See expanded discussion of 

 mariculture activities at PART TWO, 

 Section II.C.ll. See also generic 

 response G. 



Page G42 



