per month.

This small increase should not result in any conflict with existing non-OCS traffic.

Traffic Separation Schemes (TSSs) and Precautionary Areas have been established by the Coast Guard and adapted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a branch of the United Nations, in an effort to reduce the possibility of collisions between vessels entering and exiting major port TSSs divide vessel traffic into designated inbound and outbound traffic lanes divided by a Separation Zone. TSSS and Precautionary Areas have been established in the Mid-Atlantic region at the approaches to Narragansett Bay, Buzzards Bay, New York Bay, Delaware Bay, and Chesapeake Bay and are shown on Visual No. 5. Although there are no formal restrictions concerning the placement of structures within TSSs, IMO guidance recommends that lanes remain free of obstructions. The Coast Guard does not usually approve siting structures within traffic lanes or within a 500-m buffer zone on either side of both the inbound and outbound lanes. Alternatively, traffic lanes can be temporarily shifted or suspended to permit exploratory drilling in areas which would otherwise be off-limits.

In the event the Coast Guard considers it necessary to prohibit structures within an entire TSS, it could, after appropriate rulemaking, place a fairway over the TSS. A fairway is a corridor, rather than a traffic organizing device, in which all structures are prohibited. Because of the possibility of either having to use directional drilling or having to position platforms on each side of a traffic lane, the cost of exploring and developing blocks with traffic lanes could be significantly higher than on blocks without such Coast Guard Policy concerning Precautionary Areas does not allow structures anywhere within the boundaries of such areas (Young, 1982). Because of the great danger of ships becoming stranded, IMO has designated an area off the southern Massachusetts coast known as Nantucket Shoals an "area to be avoided." As a result, all vessels in excess of 1,000 tons, as well as all vessels carrying oil and/or other potentially hazardous materials, are advised to avoid this shallow area which is shown on Visual No. 5.

By virtue of its authority under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the Coast Guard studied the entire United States coast to determine if they should establish Port Access Routes. If such routes, which would take the form of additional TSSs or fairways, were adopted, they could pose restrictions on the development of offshore oil and gas. Findings for study area 4, which included the Nantucket Sound and Rhode Island Sound areas, indicate that existing routing systems are sufficient. The study did, however, recommend that minor changes be made in the TSS at the approaches to Narragansett Bay and Buzzards Bay and also that a "precautionary area" may be needed in the area of intersection between the Boston Harbor Traffic Lanes and Nantucket to Ambrose Traffic Lanes (Federal Register, January 7, 1982). Results for study areas 5, 5a, and 6, which extends from eastern Long Island to the DelawareMaryland border, indicated that existing vessel routing systems are adequate (Federal Register, October 5, 1981). Finally, preliminary findings for study areas 7 through 12, which are from the Delaware-Maryland border south to the border between the Carolinas, state that, at the present time, no new vessel routing measures are warranted (Federal Register, December 15, 1980). It should be noted that, in the event of a major commercial oil or gas find, the Port Access Route Study could be reopened.

The northeastern seaboard of the United States was the first section of the country to be permanently settled by Europeans and occupies a unique position in American history. The region contains a great number of buildings, structures, sites, and districts which are of historic value either intrinsically or because they typify a certain period in the country's development. Because early settlement was closely tied to water transportation, many of these historic places are in proximity to the shoreline although only a few, such as coastal ports, forts, and lighthouses, are located in the immediate tidal zone. Of the latter group, bulwarks or other barriers are often used as protection against the erosive effects of waves and tides.

A cultural resource baseline study done by the Peabody Museum of Harvard University concluded that it was doubtful that prehistoric man inhabited the continental shelf from New Jersey south to North Carolina prior to 12,000 years B.P. and off Long Island prior to 9,000 years B.P. (Moir et al., 1979). The Peabody Museum study indicates that the 12,000 years B.P. shoreline lies somewhere between the present 40- and 60-m contours. An MMS in-house geological investigation for prehistoric archaelogical potential in the proposed Sale No. 111 area, however, indicates that the 12,000-B.P. and 9,000-B.P. shorelines lie approximately at the present 30-m water depth contour. This conclusion was based on a review of radiocarbon-dated "in place" salt-marsh peat and intertidal shells. Therefore, it would appear that that portion of the Mid-Atlantic Continental Shelf shoreward of the 30-m contour could contain prehistoric sites.

The Institute for Conservation Archaeology of the Peabody Musem also developed a model to predict the expected frequency of archeological sites on various portions of the shelf. This model is based on ecological theory as well as the use of site distribution analogs from onshore. As a general rule, the closer an area is to the present shoreline, the higher the expected site frequency. This is because areas closer to the present shoreline underwent marine transgression at a later time than more removed areas and consequently the period available for human settlement was longer. Also, the density of settlement increased through time. Ancestral river valleys such as those of the Hudson, Delaware, and Susquehanna also have a higher expected frequency than adjacent areas (Moir et al., 1979). In order for any possible sites on the shelf to have been preserved intact, burial beneath sufficient sediment to protect them from erosional shoreface retreat would have been required. Environments capable of such burial include the marsh-lagoonbarrier system and the floodplain-marsh-estuary system (Moir et al., 1979). Shipwreck locations are another cultural resource for which the Institute for Conservation Archaeology has developed a predictive model. The model has resulted in the establishment of zones showing the density of possible as well as known shipwrecks. As a general rule, those zones with a known or predicted density of either "very heavy" or "heavy" are located shoreward of the 60-m contour, therefore, the model has applications to historic shipping as well as to archeological artifacts. Known shipwrecks on the shelf are shown on Visual No. 1.

III.D.2. Ocean Dumping

Ocean dumping is authorized by Title I of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq., (the "Ocean Dumping Act"). Title I: Ocean Dumping is the primary regulatory section of the Act and establishes a permit program for the disposal of dredged and non-dredged materials. The ocean dumping regulations, which were revised in January 1977, established procedures and criteria for designating and managing ocean disposal sites and for reviewing and enforcing permits. In November 1977 the Act was amended to prohibit the disposal of harmful sewage sludge and again in December 1980 to prohibit disposal of harmful industrial wastes in ocean waters. In January 1983, MPRSA was amended to prohibit the ocean disposal of radioactive material for 2 years (January 1983 through January 1985). Ocean dumping of undetonated explosives (such as bombs and mines) and chemical munitions (such as rocket fuel), although not specifically addressed by an amendment, has been voluntarily discontinued (Ramsey, B., US EPA, Washington, D.C., personal communication, 1984).

Major responsibilities for the designation of all disposal sites and for reviewing, granting, and enforcing dumping permits for all wastes except dredged materials are EPA's. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issues permits for disposal of dredged material if it determines that the material is in compliance with EPA's environmental impact criteria (40 CFR 227). However, disposal sites for dredged material are designated and managed by EPA.

Ocean dumpsites located in the Mid-Atlantic OCS Planning Area are indicated in Visual No. 1. Dumpsites which specifically occur within or adjoining the proposed lease sale area include: six former explosives dumpsites (Smith and Brown, 1971; NOAA Nautical Chart No. 13003); three former radioactive materials dumpsites (Smith and Brown, 1971; NRC, 1981; US EPA, 1980b); one large, recently-discontinued industrial waste site (40 CFR 228; NOAA Nautical Chart Nos. 13003, 12300, and 12200); one newly-designated municipal sludge and one aqueous industrial site (Federal Register, May 4, 1984); and one large, proposed incineration site (US EPA, 1981a). The locations of the explosives and radioactive materials dumpsites are only approximately known because of incomplete records.

Explosives dumpsites may still contain undetonated explosives (such as bombs, mines, and munitions) although ocean dumping of explosives has been voluntarily discontinued since approximately 1970. Only low radioactive level materials (by-products), generally enclosed in steel drums, were dumped within the proposed lease sale area. Of the approximately 15,144 containers dumped, approximately 14,301 (including the reactor shell of the submarine Seawolf) were disposed at the 2800-Meter Site located in the northeast portion of the proposed sale area (NRC, 1981; US EPA, 1980b).

Industrial wastes and a small amount of municipal sludge have been dumped since 1961 at the large, industrial waste dumpsite (106-Mile Ocean Waste Dump Site) located in the northeast part of the proposed lease sale area. On May 4, 1984, EPA designated two new, much smaller disposal sites within and as a replacement for the previously interim-designated 106-Mile Site (Federal Register, Vol. 49, No. 88). The new eastern site is for disposal of municipal sludges (Deepwater Municipal Sludge Site) and the western site

is for disposal of aqueous industrial wastes (Deepwater Industrial Waste Site). Permits for dumping will be issued on a case-by-case basis and effects of disposal at these sites will be monitored by EPA and NOAA.

An extensive area within the eastern part of the proposed lease sale area has been proposed by EPA for at-sea incineration of toxic organic wastes, primarily organohalogens (US EPA, 1981a). This area, designated as the proposed North Atlantic Incineration Site, is located immediately south of the 106-Mile Site (Visual No. 1). EPA has estimated that the waste constituents from this proposed action would be dispersed and diluted in air and water to undetectable concentrations within a few hours of emission.

There are no dredged materials dumpsites located within or immediately adjacent to the proposed lease sale area. Eleven active dredged materials dumpsites are located nearshore to the Middle Atlantic Bight as shown in Visual No. 1 (40 CFR Part 228, July 1, 1983). Except for the "mud dump" site (immediately east of Sandy Hook, New Jersey) which was designated "final" (Federal Register, May 14, 1984), the other dredged material sites have "interim" status, meaning that environmental studies for determining impact and continued use have not been completed by EPA.

Other ocean dumpsites, outside of the proposed lease sale area, are also shown in Visual No. 1. Most of these dumpsites are concentrated in the New York Bight Apex area. The active sites include those designated for acid waste, cellar dirt, and wood incineration (periodic use). Although the dumpsite for wrecks is still designated for this purpose, it is presently inoperative. The sewage sludge site (12-Mile Sewage Sludge Dump Site) has only recently been discontinued (Federal Register, May 4, 1984). Additional sites (inactive) for acid waste (Delaware Bay Dump Site) and municipal sewage sludge (Philadelphia Dump Site) are located on the shelf east of the Delaware-Maryland State line.

III.D.3. NASA/DOD Activities

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) both use portions of the mid-Atlantic offshore area. The proposed area for Sale No. 111 includes warning and operating areas of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet offshore Norfolk, Virginia and extends north to the Narragansett Bay operating area. These Operating Areas are established to provide for the training of surface, submarine, and air units of the U.S. Armed Forces, and for the testing of ordnance, aircraft, and ships under the cognizance of the U.S. Armed Forces and other Federal Agencies. Operating Areas are normally established in areas with super jacent airspace designated as a warning area. A warning area includes airspace of defined dimensions outside of U.S. territorial waters in which a hazard to aircraft exists. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Wallops Flight Center in Virginia is an installation from which NASA launches rockets. Offshore, the Wallops Flight Center is the primary user of part of the Virginia Capes Operating Area (see Visual No. 5).

Overall responsibility for DOD's Offshore Military Activities Program is vested in the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics). Under the policy specified in 32 CFR 252, DOD will endeavor to accommodate, to the maximum extent feasible, joint use of any areas determined by the U.S. Department of the Interior to have mineral potential. In addition, conflicts which may arise because of the differing requirements

for mineral exploration and development and defense-related activities will be discussed and mutually agreeable solutions reached as early as possible in the planning process according to the Memorandum of Agreement between DOI and DOD, dated July 20, 1983.

Land use in the mid-Atlantic region covers the entire spectrum from fully-developed urban centers and industrial complexes to undisturbed natural areas. Although urbanized areas comprise only about 8 to 10 percent of the total land area, the region accommodates several of the country's largest metropolitan areas. Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and other cities serve as the nuclei of growth and development (see section III.C.1 for a discussion of population distribution). Much of the region's land is devoted to recreation, particularly along the shoreline where an estimated 60 percent is used for private and public recreation (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1971). The largest portion of land in the region, however, is used for farms and pastures, forests, and wetlands. Although still the largest portion of land use, these categories are experiencing steady declines in many areas. For example, in the 15-year period from 1966 to 1981 Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk counties) experienced reductions in the amounts of vacant and agricultural land and increases in all other land-use categories (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1982). Delaware, it is estimated, has lost approximately 25,000 acres of tidal wetlands in the past quarter century.

In an effort to control development and manage the growth and composition of an area, land-use planning has long been an integral part of State and, more commonly, local government activity. To this end, numerous State plans and county-wide master plans, municipal land-use plans, zoning ordinances, siting regulations, and other measures have been established. development of OCS-related facilities would be guided by these measures. The components of Sale No. 111's scenario are analyzed with respect to these measures in section IV.E.9.

areas,

Amidst growing concern about the resources in our Nation's coastal Congress enacted, in 1972, the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The Act, as amended, is aimed at balancing protection of the coastal environment with developmental and economic interests. Through the CZMA, the Office of Coastal Zone Management in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides grantsin-aid to States for "the development and implementation of management programs to achieve wise use of land and water resources of the coastal zone." In order to qualify for implementation funds, a State must have its proposed State coastal management program approved by the Secretary of Commerce. All States in the mid-Atlantic region (except for Virginia, as noted below) have approved coastal management programs. These programs, which are summarized below, are built upon both the existing land-use control measures previously mentioned as well as new efforts. Specific policies that relate to the facilities of the development scenarios are reviewed in section IV.E.9.

The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program (MCZMP, 1980) is a systematic effort to bring all State environmental legislative authority to bear