based on the following estiaated costs: 



Education/enforceaent staff X 2 140,000 



Office lease X 2 $10,000 



(in reality, we feel it may be possible 



to have the necessary apace donated at 



each location, or to use existing NOAA 



space) 



Office equipment 12 $10,000 



Addition to Manager's Fund $25,000 



Activities having a potentially negative impact on the Sanctuary's resources 

 are increasing daily. Establishing satellite offices quickly, m the two 

 areas where most visitor use is likely to originate, can only benefit the 

 Sanctuary's goals of resource protection, education, research, and multiple- 

 use. In addition, local involvement in the Sanctuary and its programs is 

 likely to increase with the addition of these satellite offices. 



We strongly concur with NOAA's intention to establish a ijanctuarv Advisory 

 Committee (page 112) to assist in all phases of Sanctuary management. This 

 committee should be comprised of members of the various Stellwagen Bank user 

 groups, including the whalewatching and fishing industries, representatives 

 of the environmental community, and institutions that have conducted 

 research on Stellwagen Bank. 



3. Comments noted. See PART TWO, Section 

 IV. A. 4. 



4 



Commercial and Hecreational Fishing 



He concur with NOAA's recommendation that commercial and recreational 

 fishing ..hall not be regulated as part of the Sanctuary management regime 

 (page 186). Existing fishery management authority under the New England 

 Fishery Hanageaent Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service should 

 continue to regulate all fishing activity within the Sanctuary. However, we 

 do feel that sanctuary designation can provide assistance to these agencies 

 in terms of educational programs for both recreational and commercial 

 fishermen. Sanctuary enforcement staff can also serve to enforce existing 

 regulations passed by the Management Council under the Magnuson Fishery 

 Conservation and Management Act 16 U.S.C. 1801. The additional 

 environmental protection afforded by sanctuary designation should prove to 

 be helpful in assuring the future of fish stocks as well. 



4. See generic response N. 



s 



Discharge or Disposal Activities. 



We fully support NOAA's preferred regulatory 

 discharges o 



alternative of prohibiting all 



s 



port NUAA s prererreg regu iaLorv ait.ct;ia,.i .^ ^>. — ^ n -t--, 



r deposits from any location within the boundaries of the 

 Sanctuary. We concur with the fact that the prohibition should also apply 

 to the deposition or discharge, from beyond the boundaries of the Sanctuary, 

 of materials or substances of any kind that subsequently enter the Sanctuary 

 and injure a Sanctuary resource or quality (page 135). This position is 

 also supported by the Stellwagen Bank Coalition. 



Dredged Material Disposal 



We concur with NOAA's preferred alternative of continued disposal at the 

 MBDS under Sanctuary oversight, but prohibite d elsewhere (page 136). 



Considering all the economic and environmental factors, we feel that this 

 is, in fact, the only acceptable alternative. 



While the concept of a dredged disposal dump site within a National Marine 

 Sanctuary may on the surface appear to be in contradiction to the general 

 goals of sanctuary designation, we understand that the existing site is 

 considered by the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and EPA to be the most 

 feasible site. It is not our intention to halt the disposal of clean 

 dredged material within Massachusetts Bay, any material that passes the 

 strictest interpretation of the EPA's 1989 protocols for clean dredge spoils 

 should prove harmless to sanctuary resources. Under these circumstances, we 

 see no difficulty in continuing the use of the MBDS under Sanctuary 

 oversight. In addition, we see no reason why the other agencies involved 

 (MCZM, EPA, or COE) should have any objection to this arrangement. 



However, future plans for development in the Boston area that are likely to 

 require the disposal of large quantities of contaminated material continue 

 to raise concerns regarding the nature of that disposal. Sediments which do 

 not meet the standards set by the 1989 regional protocols established by the 

 COE, EPA, NMFS, and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) should clearly not 

 be permitted at the MBDS under any circumstances, and will meet with strong 

 objections from the Center for Coastal Studies regardless of Sanctuary 

 status. If it is the intention of the other regulatory agencies to dispose 

 of nothing but clean material at the site, we see no reason to designate a 

 smaller sanctuary for the sole purpose of excluding the MBDS from its 

 boundaries. 



Regulations under 40 CFR 228.10, Criteria for the Management of Disposal 

 Sites for Ocean Dumping, provide special consideration of the effects of 

 disposal activities on nearby National Marine Sanctuaries. Consistency 

 dictates that the same reasoning used by NOAA in relation to wastewater 

 discharge - "Given that this area contains a number of highly sensitive 

 resources and is subject to intensive human use, even relatively small 

 impacts can produce significant environmental changes" (page U3) - be 

 applied to disposal of dredge spoils. We hope that "relatively small 

 impacts" will be detected early through any additional monitoring of the 

 disposal site provided through the Sanctuary program. 



5. See generic responses B.l. and D.l. 



Page G53 



