Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan 



Page 143 



would be developed from the perspective of 

 ecosystem relationships and interdependence. 



Inclusion of most or all of the MBDS within 

 this boundary alternative would increase the 

 possibihty for direct and indirect environmental 

 damage to Sanctuary resources or qualities; and 

 could also potentially increase the administrative 

 costs of Sanctuary management. Real costs to the 

 Sanctuary could also be increased under this 

 boundary alternative, if in the future clean-up of 

 hazardous materials in the vicinity of the MBDS is 

 required. While the environmental consequences of 

 boundary alternative #3 would be anticipated to be 

 beneficial to the Stellwagen Bank system overall, the 

 increased costs to the Program may delay complete 

 achievement of Sanctuary goals. 



Boundary alternative #4 (Figure 21), 

 encompassing 330 square nautical miles, is similar 

 in configuration to boundary alternative #1, except 

 that the western border extends further into 

 Stellwagen Basin, to the west of the Bank feature. 

 The configuration of this alternative is primarily 

 premised on a Sanctuary which would protect the 

 Stellwagen Bank feature; encompass the entirety of 

 the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS); and 

 otherwise be limited in its physical coverage. 

 Alternative #4 was also suggested to NOAA for its 

 consideration as an area identified by LORAN-C 

 lines. This is the primary method utilized by many 

 vessel operators of determining vessel location 

 within the Sanctuary area. 



Although alternative #4 would provide an area 

 within which the opportunity exists for protection of 

 the Stellwagen Bank feature, several important 

 habitat areas for invertebrate, fish and cetacean 

 species are excluded. Because of these exclusions, 

 areas of concentrated human activities are not fully 

 encompassed by this boundary alternative. 

 Moreover, inclusion of the MBDS within Sanctuary 

 boundaries may also increase the management 

 responsibilities and costs to NOAA, related to 

 possible clean-up requirements in the area of the 

 MBDS. Under this alternative, therefore, the 

 objective of system protection would not be fully 

 possible, due to hmitations in NOAA's ability to 

 protect important resources and habitat areas; and 

 to the potential for increased administrative and 



management costs. 



The environmental consequences of boundary 

 alternative #4 would be of limited benefit to the 

 resources and quaUties of the overall Stellwagen 

 Bank system. 



Boundary alternative #5 (Figiu-e 22), 

 encompassing approximately 638 square nautical 

 miles has been Congressionally designated, pursuant 

 to P.L. 102-587, §2202(b). With the exception of its 

 western border, the boundary configuration is the 

 same as boimdary alternative #2. The western 

 border extends in a straight line from the 

 southwestern corner of boundary alternative #2, to 

 a west-northwestern point adjacent to 

 Commonwealth jurisdictional waters off Cape Ann 

 (Gloucester). The significant difference between 

 this boimdary alternative and alternative #3 is the 

 exclusion of the MBDS currently proposed by EPA 

 for permanent designation. This boundary option 

 includes the habitat areas identified as important to 

 marine mammals, fish, invertebrates, and seabirds. 

 These areas also attract the majority of human 

 activities involving the Stellwagen Bank area. 



These "focused" areas of hving resource 

 activities within boundary alternative #5, 

 representative of the high natural resource and 

 human use values of the site, provide the basis for 

 soimd long-term "management of a conservation 

 unit", as discussed in the NMSP's site identification 

 criteria. The presence of identified management 

 concerns affecting, or possibly affecting, the 

 Stellwagen Bank system, also offer opportunities for 

 coordinated efforts to achieve system conservation 

 and management. Participation of the 



Commonwealth of Massachusetts, via its Ocean 

 Sanctuaries Program, as well as the Massachusetts 

 Bays Program/NEP, would provide the potential for 

 effective, system-wide management, incorporating 

 long-range planning, for the overall Massachusetts 

 Bay/Stellwagen Bank system. 



The administrative costs of boundary 

 alternative #5 are anticipated to be less than those 

 of alternatives #3 or #4, given the exclusion of the 

 MBDS. Exclusion of the MBDS from the 

 Sanctuary is also expected to be beneficial to the 

 Bank system generally, as it eliminates the 



