7. 



€. 



Gas and OU Development; We do not understand, nor agree with. NOAA's suggested 

 altemaUve to list these actlviues under the scope of regulaUons. We fed that these 

 activities should be prohibited from the outset 'Hie risk to the biological resources of the 

 bank region does not JustLfy these activities. 



Although there Is presenUy a moratorium on the development of hydrocarbons in this 

 area until the year 2000. this is a relatively short period of time, and the establishment of 

 the SB^fMS is a plan for the long term. Further, this restriction could be lifted at any 

 time by an act of congress. It therefore seems more appropriate to recognize all of these 

 acUviUes as Inconsistent with the goals of the sanctuary, and prohibit them now, rather 

 than go through the entire process again later. It would also seem that the proposed 

 prohibitions on the use of pipelines and/or construction/alteration on the seabed would 

 preclude many hydrocarbon activities. We urge NOAA to simply prohibit these acUvlUes. 



Marine Mammals. Reptiles, and Seablrds: We are In full support of NOAA's Intent to 

 protect marine mammals, reptiles, and seablrds within the sanctuary. However, we are 

 not clear on how the protection of non-endangered seablrds would affect normal fishing 

 operaUons. Moreover, reference to e-xlsUng protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty 

 Act should be added to the discussion on pp. 152-153. This act also prohibits exceptions 

 to sanctuary regulation for commercial fisheries" Incidental catches of seablrds listed in 

 the Federal Register notice. 



Both of the management actions we favor are delineated in Management Option #3. as 

 listed on pp. 133-134 of the DEIS. We favor adoption of this opUon as the preferred 

 alternative. 



Aquaculture: We do not see the need to place such a structure within the boundaries of 

 the sanctuary. It would present a significant hazard to marine m^mmal . s and reptiles, and 

 possibly seablrds as well. It would also be an additional hazard to navigation, and with the 

 amount of baffle already utilizing the area, establishment of a mariculture facility would 

 make more sense outside of the SBNMS. 



Other: There have been unconfirmed reports of •fuel tanker lightering- (moving fuel from 

 one vessel to another) within the proposed SBNMS region. Our understanding Is that In 

 general, there Is always some spillage during this type of operaUon. and the possibility 

 exists of an accident, which could cause severe damage to the ecosystem. 



Boston Harbor Is not considered a very deep harbor, and the construction of a new 

 harbor tunnel will preclude the possibility of that changing with regard to tanker fraiEc. 

 As tankers become larger, and their drafts increase (as has been the general trend), there 

 may be an Increasing "need- to move fuel (or other cargo) from one vessel to another. We 

 would recommend that this activity be prohibited within the sanctuary. 



[InclneraUon: The possibility has been raised of permitting incineraUon of trash In the 

 U SteUwagen region (page 86). We recommend a prohlbiUon on this acUvity within the 

 SBNMS. 



10. 



//. 



See generic reponse E. 



8. See generic response L. 



9. Comment noted. See PART THREE, 

 Section II. B. NOAA intends to have 

 selected a Sanctuary Manager and offic 

 facility by the time of final designa- 

 tion. Remaining Sanctuary staff will b 

 hired shortly thereafter. 



10. See generic response G. 



11. See generic response F. 



12. See generic response H. 



JSE 



MANAGEMENT 



"This entire area Is heavily frequented by tourists. Including many who visit the SteUwagen 

 Baiik area. Sanctuary headquarters should be placed In a locaUon that takes Into 

 consideration the Vide arc of access to the sanctuary", stretching from Cape Ann on the 

 north to Cape Cod on the south. A central locaUon would make the most sense. If there Is 

 to be only one office. However, the concept of -sateUlte offices- (or InformaUon centers) 

 offers many posslblUUes which could greaUy enhance educational programming, contact 

 with the pubUc. and coordination of such efforts with edstlng research. educaUonal. and 

 conservaUon organlzaUons scattered around the perimeter of the bay. We lavor this latter 

 alternative. 



Page G65 



