3. 



of JefEre/s Ledge. Both the DEIS/MP and the EPA's July 1990 Draft Environmental 



Impact Statement for the Designation of Dredging Material Disposal Site in 



Massachusetts Bay (pages 5-7), identify these areas as being heavily utilized for ' , 



feeding, nursery and spawning purposes by the same marine mammals and fishery 



populations that frequent Slellwagen Bank. Inclusions of these key areas would 



greatly increase the ability to comprehensively protect important sanctuary resources 



without greatly increasing its size. The DEIS/MP seems to recognize this on page 



131. 



Secondly, boundary alternative #3 extends to and abuts four state ocean 

 sanctuaries. TTie DEIS/MP states on page 173 that NOAA supports the link between 

 the Marine Sanctuary and the Cape Cod Ocean Sanctuary because "possibilities for 

 coordinated approaches to this objective should result in better, more cost-efficient 

 management of the overall Stellwagen Bank/Cape Cod Bay system." The Center 

 agrees with this statement and believes that links between the Marine Sanctuary and 

 the other three Ocean Sanctuaries which alternative #3 offers will also result in 

 achieving the same benefits for the entire area. We also believe these links will be 

 effective in improving management since the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has 

 officially expressed its support for boimdary alternative #3 and has voiced its desire to 

 actively partidpate in the management of this sanctuary. 



Thirdly, alternative #3 encompasses all of the proposed Massachusetts Bay 

 Disposal Site. This inclusion will allow for adequate monitoring of the resources, if 

 this site continues to be used. It will also provide another level of protection to 

 ensure that this activity does not damage the sanctuary's marine resources. 



NOAA's "preferred" boundary alternative #2 does not encompass all of the 

 area's critical resources and habitats. The DEIS/MP seems to recognize this on 

 page 173 and 131. In addition, because many of the resources do move in and out 

 of these areas, boundary alternative #2 does not adequately protect the resources it 

 suggests it will from several activities that threaten them. These activities include the 

 alteration and dismrbance of the sea bed (through the development of artificial 

 islands or mining), hydrocarbon development, aquaculrure and the leaking of pipelines. 



If the intent is to ensure that vital sanctuary habitats are provided with 

 comprehensive protection, and not, as it appears in the DEIS/MP, to make 

 allowances for EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers with the Massachusetts Bay 

 Disposal Site and Minerals Management Service for industrial materials and 

 hydrocarbon development, then at a minimum you must include the area's habitats 

 that are highly frequented by the areas marine manmials and fish, allow for the 

 sanctuary to be adjacent to the four state ocean sanctuaries and include the MBDS in 

 the boundary. 



Prohibitions /Reeulations 



The Center strongly endorses four of the six prohibitions NOAA proposes for 

 the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. These include the prohibition of: 



o dredging, excavation, or any other alteration of, or construction on, the 

 seabed within the sanctuary; 



o all phases of developmental activities coimected with the extraction of 

 industrial materials (e.g., sand and gravel resources); 



o the installation of pipelines and cables within the Sanctuary; and 



o the removal, alteration, or damage (or the attempt to cause the 

 removal, alteration, or damage) to any historical or cultural resource within the 

 Sanctuary. 



The Center finds the remaining proposed regulations deficient in that they are 

 ambiguous and/or inadequate to offer the level of protection this area and its 

 resources deserve. 



Discharge /Deposit : While NOAA proposes a prohibition on the discharge or 3^ ggg PART TWO, Section II. C. 8. and 



deposit of materials or substance (this does not include routine vessel operations) particularly the discussion* at PART 



either from within or outside Sanctuary boundaries that will affect the Sanctuary's THREE Section II C 1 A 



resources, NOAA is unclear as to what such a prohibition would mean, and in ' 



particular, what it would mean with regard to the continued use the Massachusetts 

 Bay Disposal Site (MBDS). NOAA should clarify this to ensure that it is consistent 

 with protecting the sanctuary's resources from the effects of pollution within the 

 Sanctuary and outside the sanctuary where it might adversely impact the sanctuary. 



CMC reconmiends that NOAA take the position that EPA do further studies to 

 locate a site that does not endanger the resources. If such studies fail to locate such 

 a site and a decision is made to continue dumping at the MBDS, NOAA, as the 

 agency responsible for protection and management of the area's national significance 

 of marine resources, should be actively involved in these derisions regardless of 

 whether the site is located within or adjacent to the sanctuary. Permits should be 

 rigorously conditioned with respect to cleanliness and volimie of dumped materials. 



With increased spoils of over 4 imllion cubic yards from activities including the D <-• c o 



development of the third anery turmel projert and several large dredging projects fage GOo 



there is a great danger of too much material and contaminated materials being 

 dumped in the site because of the bck of an alternative plan for excess and 

 contaminated materials. 



