Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan 



Page 112 



throughout the New England area. DAMOS 

 program activities include bathymetric surveys, 

 side-scan sonar, underwater photography, divers, 

 submersible vessels, sediment analyses and 

 biological analyses. 



The DAMOS program currently continues to 

 monitor and manage the MBDS, and to conduct 

 scientific investigations of the site. Since the 1988 

 Site Evaluation Report issued by the COE, 

 monitoring activities have included: bathymetric 

 surveys (DAMOS, October 1988); side-scan sonar 

 (DAMOS, January 1989); sampling for sediment 

 chemistry and tissue analyses (EPA/COE June 

 1989); and sampling for tissue analyses in fish and 

 benthic organisms (EPA/COE, June 1990). 



The regulatory framework surrounding the 

 permitting of oce3in disposal of dredged materials at 

 MBDS therefore fully compUes with Title I 

 requirements. Notwithstanding the careful 



management described above, however, a National 

 Marine Sanctuary is by definition an area 

 recognized and designated for its 'ipecial national 

 significance'! encompassing resources and quaUties 

 deserving of special protection to ensure their long- 

 term preservation and management. Title III states 

 in part that, 'While the need to control the effects of 

 particular activities has led to the enactment of 

 resource-specific legislation, these laws cannot, in all 

 cases provide a coordinated and comprehensive 

 approach to the conservation and management of 

 special areas of the marine environment'! A central 

 purpose of National Marine Sanctuary designation 

 is to provide the authority to allow this 

 comprehensive and coordinated conservation and 

 management. 



While Title I provides for the regulation and 

 management of the disposal of dredged materials 

 into the marine environment, as a regulatory 

 authority directed solely at a single activity, it cannot 

 be expected to ensure that even the most rigorous 

 appUcation of this statute will provide the level of 

 protection appropriate to an area of 'Special 

 national significance" designated as a National 

 Marine Sanctuary. 'Comprehensive and 



coordinated conservation and management "of the 

 Sanctuary require a broader context for regiilatory 

 decisionmaking than that which is possible under 



Tide I. 



A large part of providing this broader view is 

 the establishment of appropriate thresholds of 

 significance for the analysis of impacts from disposal 

 activities. Direct reference is made to National 

 Marine Sanctuaries in Title I regulations (40 CFR 

 §§ 228.5(b) and 228.10(b)(1)), which require the 

 analysis of impacts of disposed materials on national 

 marine sanctuaries. The designation of Stellwagen 

 Bank National Marine Sanctuary will result in a 

 higher level of scrutiny of impacts from dredged 

 material disposal, under both Titles I and III of 

 MPRSA. Standards and criteria established in Title 

 I regulations for the evjiluation of environmental 

 impacts associated with ocean disposal encompass 

 a comprehensive array of issues, from human health 

 to the health of the entire marine ecosystem. These 

 criteria have been established to provide a 

 framework for identifying 'Unacceptable adverse 

 effects." However, there are no specific references 

 provided in the statute or regulations for 

 determining the threshold for 'Imacceptable" 

 impacts from disposal activities within an area 

 recognized and set apart from other oceEui areas as 

 possessing resources and quaUties of 'ipecial 

 national significance'! 



Another facet of considering ocean disposal 

 from the broader perspective of impacts on National 

 Marine Sanctuaries is the assessment of cumulative 

 effects. Title I regulations require the assessment of 

 cumulative effects for site designations (40 CFR 

 § 228.6(a)(7)), but restrict the discussion to long- 

 term, chronic impacts of continued disposal at a 

 disposal site. While the inclusion of any discussion 

 of cumulative impacts is both necessary and 

 beneficial, the limited scope of that discussion does 

 not permit meaningful analysis of how cumulative 

 impacts associated with disposal activities may be 

 exacerbated by adverse impacts associated with 

 other, unrelated activities. 



This type of comprehensive impact analysis is 

 difficult when attempted solely within the context of 

 a regulatory analysis, primarily because individual 

 projects are reviewed independently. A far more 

 effective approach would be one based on 

 comprehensive plcinning, faciUtating the a priori 

 development of scientifically and technicaUy 



