7. 



S". 



" paoes 164-169. 1. Resource Protection Regime: The regulatory 

 regime identified to protect sanctuary resources would not be 

 consistently applied to existing or potential future activities 

 within Sanctuary boundaries. Various human activities on 

 Stellwagen Bank have been identified including a proposed 

 regulatory program to control each use. This progression of 

 regulatory programs includes: no regulation, reliance on existing 

 regulations, identifying the activity subject to Sanctuary 

 regulation, prohibition of the activity, and making the activity 

 permissible under certain conditions. It cannot be determined 

 whether these regulated activities have been identified by 

 priority as to which ones address real threats and which are 

 causing, or have the potential for causing, the greatest impact 

 to the biological and physical resources on Stellwagen Bank. 

 This inconsistency should be addressed in the final rule. 



Although commercial fishing has probably caused the most 

 significant impact to population levels, fishing will not be 

 regulated as part of the management regime. However, unexploited 

 or relatively unexploited populations of seabirds, marine 

 mammals, and endangered species would be regulated by the 

 proposed management regime. This inconsistency is difficult to 

 understand considering the statement on page 153 that "The 

 regulation demonstrates the intent of the MPRSA to protect 

 Sanctuary resources on a holistic, or system-wide basis." The 

 regulatory regime proposed in the draft ElS/management plan does 

 not achieve that intent. Therefore, we suggest that a regulatory 

 regime be developed that can be consistently administered to all 

 activities that occur within the Sanctuary boundaries. Further, 

 it may be warranted that priorities be identified for activities 

 on Stellwagen Bank to ensure that funding is directed to the most 

 pressing resource problems. 



7. Conunent noted. The FEIS has be'en 

 revised to present the proposed regu- 

 latory regime in a more consistent 

 format. 



8. See generic response N. 



ttXPLY Rtns to: 



United States Department of the Interior 



NATIONAL PARK .SERVICE 



CAPE COD NATIONAL SEASHORE 

 SOUTH WELLFLEET, .MASSACHUSETTS 02663 



April 1, 

 L3215 



1991 



X 



dr. Joseph Uravitch. Chief 



Sanctuaries and Reserves Division 



Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource (lanagement 



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Aomi n i st rat ion 



1825 Connecticut Avenue NU, Suite 714 



Uashington, D-C 20235 



Dear nr . Uravitch: 



On behalf of Cape Cod National Seashore ue uould like to 

 emphasire our support for Stelluagen Bank National Harine 

 Sanctuary designation. This rich and highly sensitive marine 

 system is unique in Neu England for its importance to co.nmerc lal 

 fishing, endangered marine animals and environmental education 

 and deserves the recognition and protection offered by marine 

 sanctuary status. 



As a neighbor of the proposed sanctuary. Cape Cod National Sea- 

 shore's marine ana coastal resources uill benefit from any 

 protection that Stellwagen Bank receives. The tuo areas share 

 many of the same resources: including uater, fish, uhales, seals 

 and turt 1 es . 



Ue r 

 Stat 

 Atmo 

 desc 

 Envi 



larg 



reso 



Boun 



Mass 



off 



prot 



ecomme 

 ed abo 

 spher 1 

 r ibed 

 ronme 



er bou 

 urces 

 dary a 

 achuse 

 of Cap 

 ect ion 



nd thst the sanctuary be designated for the reasons 

 ve. Ue also recommend that the National Oceanic and 

 c Aominist rat ion select boundary alternative 3 as 

 in the Stelluaoen Bank National Harine Sanctuary Draft 

 t»l Impact Statement / r;anaoement Plan (DElS/n.= ). The 

 noary uill provide protection for the uildllfe 

 of the Bank that travel south to Cape Cod shores. 

 Iternative 3 shares its southern boundary uith the 

 Its Cape Cod Bay Marine Sanctuary and the state waters 

 e Ann, dassachuset t s , allouing for more complete 

 of the greater Stelluagen Bank ecosystem. 



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

 National Park Service 

 Cape Cod National Seashore 



1. No response necessary. 



2. See generic response B.l, 



3. 

 4. 



Ue support 

 their stro 

 any uay is 

 these rest 

 gas explor 

 for their 

 the propos 

 regul at ory 



the five prohibitions described in the DEIS/PIP for 

 ing preservation ideals. Alteration of the seabed in 



not a uise measure in the long-term. In addition to 

 rictions. ue suggest that activities such as oil and 

 a'_:on, aguaculture and recreational boating be reviewed 

 potential adverse effects on marine resources uithin 



d sanctuary and tnat approp'"iate management or 



actions be considered and evaluated- 



3. No response necessary. 



4. See generic responses E. , 



Page G30 



and K 



