the 

 sting 

 ction 

 DEIS, 

 that 

 fined 

 ithin 

 se of 

 icant 

 (P- 



While there is little debate on the value of Stellwagen Bank 

 Status Quo Alternative discussion argues that the exi 

 regulatory framework does not provide the level of prote. 

 required for marine sanctuary resources. According to the 

 the primary reason for the lack of adequate protection is 

 " individual agency or program missions are often de 

 narrowly, without consideration of the larger ecosystem w 

 which they operate." (p. 123) It further states that, becau 



the fragmented regulatory framework, there remain " signil 



gaps in the protection of the overall Stellwagen Bank system. 

 123) 



We recommend that NOAA identify and perhaps provide examples in 

 the EIS of the problems caused by the "gaps" in regulated activity 

 within the proposed sanctuary, particularly in terms of harm caused 

 to marine resources therein. Where there is scientific uncertainty 

 about the degree of harm caused by an activity, we suggest that 

 NOAA describe how that issue would be better dealt with under a 

 marine sanctuary management regine versus existing scientific 

 research efforts. 



, ^- rrT,H«.i- the Preferred Regulatory 

 p p q^natory Alternatives ; ^„„°"='" ..^ties that take place on 

 Alternative a "^"^/J^i^Hr^ady fali^der state and Federal 

 Stellwagen Bank some of "^^^^^^^^^^^^^f ^regulation by NOAA. With 

 regulation, would come under 3dd^'^^°"^j-.„rr^:aterial disposal , we 

 regard to proposed regulations for ^^^%^5f„^^"^„^„^t support NoJu^•s 

 believe that the ^"^^^^^^ ''l^^^t.Jfn! Protection, -Research and 



l^nciul^^es^c^ J^ll^.. ^^^^^ ^^^-^^U^^l^rZ 

 resources and request that farther information be proviaea, 



discussed below. 



AS the DEIS discusses, EPA is required under Title I of the HPRSA 



to designate sites suitable for °=-" //^^^"^^^^J^Y Final site 



^:!^^-tird:er^o-^ti^ ip ^o £of^ 



in^^thtfTn^d^"luaT"ev?:5-o?V%o%"ed"^!^:| 



individual proposal for ocean disposal will "J /^^^'itlt ,rnFi 

 p?oject-by-project basis by the U.S. Army Con^s of ^nginee" (COE) 

 Shich has responsibility for issuing ocean disposal permits unde. 

 Section 103 of the MPRSA. 



AS you know, EPA is currently investigating, through the JfEPA 

 process, a rknge of alternatives for the designation of a dredged 

 material disposal site in Massachusetts Bay 0^°"" " ^.he 

 Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site, or the MBDS) . The =1^^ currently 

 proposed by EPA for designation does not overlap with NOAA s 

 proposed sanctuary boundary for Stellwagen Bank. Under NOAA's 

 preferred RegulatVry Alternative, however, if "^=, ,"^°^ ""^,i°"^:^ 

 inside the sanctuary, disposal ^=tivity would be prohibited 

 anywhere within the sanctuary other than at the MB°S. Dredged 

 maCrial disposal would be allowed at the MBDS, but NOAA would 

 assume the authority to review permit applications deny 

 certification or require additional conditions on any disposal 

 activity at the site. 



we believe that NOAA has not provided in the DEIS a technical basis 

 for its premise that the application of environmental protection 

 standards under Title I of the MPRSA on any. ocean disP°"l 

 activities will not adequately protect marine "sources even those 

 resources of "special national significance.- (P/^ ^^'""f ' . *f 

 presented, the principle justification for the additional 

 Regulation of ocean disposal activities is the assumption of an 

 inherent conflict between the two agencies' programs, both of which 

 have environmental protection as their primary intent and b°th of 

 which originated from the same environmental statute. We request 

 that NOAA indicate what additional activities it would request or 

 undertake if, as the EIS states, NOAA believes that EPA and the COE 

 are already "....aggressively pursuing the maintenance of state 

 of-the-art research on dredged material disposal. (p. u^J 



In addition to regulation of disposal activity within the Sanctuary 

 boundary, NOAA proposes to regulate disposal activity outside the 



boundary if it determines that discharged material has " entered 



the Sanctuary and injured a Sanctuary resource or quality, or if 

 it may reasonably be expected at the time of such discharge that 

 the material will enter the Sanctuary and injure^ a Sanctuary 

 resource..." (p. 137) EPA has determined in its EIS for the 

 proposed KBDS designation that, using the proposed management 

 practices, dredged material disposal at the KBDS will not adversely 

 affect marine resources. Given this, we request that NOAA clarify 

 how and under what circumstances it envisions NOAA's regulatory 

 authority being applied to dredge material disposal activities. 

 We further request that NOAA detail the technical standards by 

 which an adverse change to Sanctuary resources would be judged and 

 whether it believes these are more protective than current 

 regulatory standards for disposal activities. 



4. NOAA believes the FEIS provides an 

 adequate description of the status of 

 living and non-living resources and 

 human activities, and the potential 

 environmental results of human activi- 

 ties absent Sanctuary designation and 

 management. 



NOAA has identified several current or 

 potential activities for which there are 

 either inadequate or non-existing mech- 

 anisms for resource protection. For 

 example, see FEIS discussions on sand 

 and gravel activities; lightering; 

 offshore fixed artificial platforms; 

 mariculture; at-sea incineration; and 

 submerged pipelines and cables. The 

 scope and intent of Title III extends 

 beyond resource protection which may or 

 may not be adequately provided under 

 various existing authorities. Imple- 

 mentation of Title III focuses on 

 national recognition of significant 

 marine systems deserving of special 

 protective management. This encom- 

 passing mission is not found in any 

 other single authority. The success of 

 such management clearly depends on 

 coordination with existing authorities. 



5. See generic response D.4. As pre- 

 viously noted, NOAA intends to pursue 

 the development of a MOU with COE and 

 EPA to identify NOAA's role in the 

 review process for disposal permit 



applications, and to involve NOAA in 

 continuing monitoring of the MBDS. 

 Identification of specific technical 

 standards by which adverse change to 

 Sanctuary resources or qualities would 

 be judged should be addressed as part of 

 the inter-agency consultation described 

 above . 



Page G26 



