z 



7. The FEIS should clarify whether the intent of the 

 sanctuary is to allow only clean material for disposal at the 

 Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. 



r ' 



-land cu 

 la surv 



. in the section on management alternatives for historical 

 Itural resources, the FEIS should clarify if the conducting 



vey of these resources will be allowed in the- sanctuary. 



8. NOAA's Sanctuary boundary does* not 

 include any portion of the proposed 

 MBDS. Existing authorities and 

 guidelines relating to the nature of 

 materials to be disposed at the MBDS 

 will not be directly affected by 

 Sanctuary designation. However, as 

 discussed more fully at PART THREE, 

 Section II.C.l., and at generic re- 

 sponses D.'l and 4., NOAA maintains its 

 authority under Title III to regulate 

 disposal activities occurring outside 

 the Sanctuary, if the results of those 

 activities enter the Sanctuary and cause 

 harm to Sanctuary resources or quali- 

 ties. Within this context, NOAA intends 

 to pursue the development of a protocol 

 among EPA, COE, and NOAA which specifi- 

 cally identifies NOAA's role in the 

 existing process of disposal permit 

 review, and in monitoring of the effects 

 of disposal activities at the MBDS on 

 Sanctuary resources and qualities. 



9. Comment noted. NOAA intends to 

 prohibit the removing, taking, or 

 injuring of historical or cultural 

 resources within Sanctuary boundaries. 

 The conduct of surveys to locate and 

 identify potentially historic and/or 

 cultural resources within the Sanctuary, 

 whether carried out by NOAA or by 

 private individual or institution, will 

 require a National Marine Sanctuary 

 permit. See Proposed Designation 

 Document, Article V. ("Effect on Other 

 Regulations, Leases, Permits, Licenses, 

 and Rights") . 



9. The figures in the FEIS should be of a higher quality than 

 those reproduced in the DEIS. The figures have valuable 



,_ information on them but are difficult to read. In addition, the 

 'O. p£js should include a figure that clearly shows the sanctuary 

 boundaries, the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) , and the 

 location of the proposed Massachusetts Water Resources Authority 

 (MWRA) outfall. 



Boundary, Management, and Coordination 



10. Comment noted. NOAA has attempted to 

 improve the quality of figures and 

 charts in the FEIS. 



//. 



a 



Boundary 



;^fter reviewing the description of the environment and the 

 boundary discussion in the DEIS, Massachusetts supports boundary 

 alternative /3. From an ecological perspective, this alternative 

 is more satisfactory because it encompasses the whole of Tillies 

 Bank and Stellwagen Basin. The discussion in the DEIS indicates 

 that Tillies and Stellwagen Banks and the Stellwagen Basin may be 

 functionally related in that sediment transport may occur between 

 the Bank and the Basin. This alternative will also allow for a 

 greater degree of coordination with the Massachusetts Ocean 

 Sanctuaries Program and the Massachusetts Bays Program. Maximizing 

 the area of Massachusetts Bay to be included within the sanctuary 

 will provide for more cooperative protection of important resources 

 and their habitats from potential adverse environmental impacts. 



Management 



The DEIS makes clear the importance of Stellwagen Bank to the 

 state, as Massachusetts citizens are the primary users of the Bank 

 and its resources. These resources, particularly the economically 

 important fish species and endangered marine mammals, move inshore 

 and offshore without regard to geopolitical boundaries. The link 

 between state and federal waters underscores the important role 

 Massachusetts has in the management a Stellwagen Bank marine 

 sanctuary. 



The FEIS should provide a more detailed discussion of the 

 federal consistency authority exercised by Massachusetts through 

 the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (MC2M) Program. Since 

 Congress has clarified states' federal consistency jurisdiction 

 over activities seaward of state territorial waters, Massachusetts 

 strongly believes that the DEIS and Management Plan should clearly 

 state that all activities that are regulated by the Sanctuary would 

 also be subject to federal consistency jurisdiction. Federal 



11. No response necessary. See FEIS 

 discussion at PART THREE, Section 

 II. A. 2. 



12. In addition to a statement regarding 

 Federal Consistency Determination (see 

 "Note to Reader", part D, page xvii) , an 

 expanded discussion of Federal consis- 

 tency authority has been incorporated at 

 PART TWO, Section IV. A. 6. 



Page G43 



