Comment from Scott Forrester

I think it is critical that there is a regularity body whose function is to review and revise sanctuaries to ensure that the integrity of the encompassing area has not been compromised. It is of particular importance when the sanctuary involved is the habitat for fisheries that are economically and ecologically important. I think it was a prudent decision to mandate review, not revision of designated sanctuaries. This is important to prevent arbitrary and unnecessary adjustments to sanctuaries that do not require tinkering. However, empowering an agency with such discretion may enable the NOAA to avoid a revision when it is inconvenient or lack sufficient resources to make the changes necessary. Permitting such discretion may also lead to rifts between the party members if disagreements arise as to what sanctuaries warrant revisions. These revisions are important to make changes that are only possible because of advances in technology. That was the case with the dimensions of the sanctuary. Due to technological advances, the NOAA was able to get a more precise estimate of the dimensions of the sanctuary. This brand of revision should be applied to all areas where a technological betterment allows for a more precise measurement or improved results. This is an area where the discretion of revision may account for less accurate measures than what current science could provide. Sanctuaries of ecological and economic importance should always be based on the most current science. The NOAA revised the management plan due to the recent environment impact of cruise ships that were discharging “grey water” that was degrading the quality of the sanctuaries water. I think that the NOAA should stay abreast to the routes of cruise ships because of their potential lethal impact on the environment. If an area of water designated as a sanctuary is scheduled to receive an immense amount of traffic, the NOAA should intervene and attempt to redirect the routes or delay