Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan 



Page 98 



implementation of the Stellwagen Bank National 

 Marine Sanctuary, in accordance with the provisions 

 of Title ni of the Marine Protection, Research and 

 Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 

 1431 et ieg. This alternative is discussed in the 

 Management Plan, presented in Part Two, Section 

 ni of this document. The preferred jdtemative will 

 provide for improved protection of both Sanctuary 

 resources and important habitat; offer opportunities 

 for independent research and coordination with 

 other research efforts; and provide an 

 interpretive /educational program to enhance pubUc 

 awareness and appreciation for the Stellwagen Bank 

 system through implementation of the management 

 plan and the Sanctuary regulations (Appendix A). 

 This comprehensive approach to system protection 

 and management is not available through any 

 existing institutional mechanism. 



The preferred alternative would cost 

 approximately $600,000 for the first full year of 

 operation, or approximately $3,000,000 over five 

 years. Estimated annual allocations of these funds 

 would be for: personnel and administration, 

 $113,000; facihties and equipment, $70,000; resource 

 protection, $250,000 (including one-time expense of 

 $100,00 for Sanctuary vessel); research and 

 education, $90,000; and manager! fund, $50,000. 

 The preferred boundary has been selected because 

 it closely correlates with the typical areal 

 distribution of hving resources and encompasses 

 important habitats for those resources, as well as 

 human uses of these resources. The management 

 alternatives were selected because of their 

 conformance with goals of the National Marine 

 Sanctuary Program, and because they are more 

 cost-effective than alternative management 

 structures. Scinctuary regulations were selected 

 because they would provide comprehensive and 

 long-term protection to the Stellwagen Bank system 

 currently unavailable through other management or 

 regulatory measiu^es. 



A. Boundarv Alternatives 



fifth boundary option were developed for discussion 

 in this document. These boundary options were 

 considered from the perspectives of: 1) distribution 

 of hving resources and occurrence of important 

 habitat areas; 2) geological and physical 

 ocecinographic pjirameters; and 3) management 

 logistics. 



Note to Reviewers : As previously noted, P.L. 102- 

 587 (§2202) designates the Stellwagen Bank 

 National Marine Sanctuary. The legislation also 

 mandates a Sanctuary boundary conforming with 

 boimdary alternative #5, as described below. 

 Therefore, the adoption by NOAA of any boundary 

 other than that identified as boundary alternative 

 #5 is precluded. 



Boundary alternatives depicted in Figures 18 

 through 22 are identified by both latitude/longitude 

 coordinates, and by LORAN-C lines. The addition 

 of LORAN-C Unes provides an alternative method 

 of locating boundary alternatives, particularly by 

 commerciiil and recreationed fishermen and other 

 vessels operators who currently employ LORAN-C 

 to locate their position. 



1. Boundarv Alternative #1 



This boundary alternative (Figure 18) is the 

 smallest area to be considered for Sanctuary 

 designation, encompassing approximately 259 square 

 nautical miles (342 square miles) of Federal waters. 

 Its boimdaries form an approximately rectangular 

 area close around the Bank feature itself. Boimdary 

 coordinates would be marked at: 42°26 57.88 'N x 

 70°32 03.01 "W (northwest point); 42°3000.25'N x 

 70°1958.78'W (northeast point); 42°08 14.84 'N x 

 70°06ll.35'W (southeast point); and 42''08l2.51"x 

 70'^7 03.48'W (southwest point). 



The boundary is based on the importance of 

 the physical structure of the Stellwagen Bank 



Five boundary alternatives were selected for 

 review from the ideas offered during the evaluation 

 process, and are discussed here. In response to 

 comments on the DEIS/MP document, which 

 presented three boundary alternatives, a fourth and 



