The NEAq's mission Is to promote the conservation and protection of aquatic resourc- 

 es. We strongly support the goals of the National Sanctuary Program. We believe 

 that the proposed sanctuary holds tremendous potential to protect the ecosystems of 

 Stellwagen Bank and environs. However, this potential can be realized only through 

 a strong commitment to the best possible sanctuary program for Stellwagen Banl<. 

 Full staffing and funding are essential to the long-term success of the sanctuary. 



Unless otherwise noted, the NEAq supports the prohibitions and regulations presented 

 in the DEIS/MP. Our comments are grouped according to specific aspects of the 

 proposed sanctuary. Regulatory issues for the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site 

 (MBDS) and sanctuary boundary alternatives will be discussed first, as they are the 

 most complex, and are closely linked in certain instances. Other regulatory, enforce- 

 ment, research, and education Issues for the sanctuary will be discussed last. 



KEW ENGLAND AQUARIUM 



1. No response necessary. 



Management of Dredged Materials Disposal 



♦ Ipp. 136-42:1 We applaud NOAA's preferred management alternative for the 

 disposal of dredged material at the .MBDS. Such a management scheme would allow 

 the Sanctuary Manager to rigorously condition the permitting of disposal activities at 

 the MBDS. Several Boston area dredging and excavation projects are scheduled to 

 commence within the next decade, which could yield over 3 million cubic yards of 

 material. It is imperative that the spoils be uncontaminated. Unfortunately, a much 

 of the material to be considered for disposal at the MBDS is contaminated. The 

 Sanctuary Manager must have oversight of permitting for this activity. 



Ipp. 102. 137. 1941 NOAA acknowledges the importance of sanctuary oversight for 

 dredge disposal at the MBDS. yet. because NOAA's preferred boundary alternative 

 does not encompass the MBDS. the preferred management alternative for the MBDS is 

 impotent. If the MBDS is not included within the sanctuary, the regulatory authority 

 3f the Sanctuary Manager is non-existent . The precondition for intervention by 

 sanctuary officials In dumping activities outside the sanctuary, as outlined in 4. (a) 

 ind (b) on page 137. is an ex post facto prohibition, and thus a logical impossibility. 

 3ne cannot prohibit an activity after it has taken place. The legal fine-points of 



this issue should be worked-out such that the Sanctuary Manager has effective right 

 of review over permits to dump at the MBDS. 



See generic responses B.I., D.I., 



Boundary Issues 



♦ Ip 131] The NEAq strongly supports the selection of Boundary Alternative 3 as 

 the preferred alternative, for Its more comprehensive approach to ocean management, 

 its protection of other important areas near Stellwagen Bank, and its inclusion of the 

 MBDS, which would allow the preferred management alternative for the MBDS to be 

 Implemented. 



♦ Boundary Alternative 3 abuts Massachusetts state ocean sanctuaries on both the 

 North and South. This configuration would allow state and federal cooperation on 

 certain pollution prevention and control programs, particularly those aimed at 

 management of land-based point and non-point source pollution. Cooperative ocean 

 management between the National Marine Sanctuary Program, the Massachusetts Bays 

 Program (EPA), and the Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuary program stands to increase 

 the effectiveness of each of these programs. 



♦ Stellwagen Bank is the most Important physical feature within any of the proposed 

 boundary alternatives; yet. there are other prcxlraate underwater features, such as 

 TUlie's Bank and Jeffrey's Ledge, which are important to the health of the marine 

 life on Stellwagen Bank. Many of the residents of Stellwagen Bank also frequent 

 these areas. Further, because of the proximity of these areas to Stellwagen Bank, 

 human activities (i.e. dumping, mining, etc.) In these areas pose a significant threat 

 to Stellwagen Bank as well. Boundary Alternative 3 affords portions of these areas 

 protection, enhancing the protection offered to the Inhabitants of Stellwagen Bank 

 and Stellwagen Basin. 



Although nnanclal considerations played a role In NOAA's selection of Boundary 

 Alternative 2. we believe that Boundary Alternative 3 would not require significantly 

 higher funding levels to adequately manage. The larger area could be cost-effec 

 lively managed by concentrating on higher levels of enforcement over and near 

 Stellwagen Bank. Outlying areas of the sanctuary would provide a -buffer- around 

 the major feature of the sanctuary. 



♦ Many commercial fishermen argue that the final boundary for the sanctuary be 

 delineated on Loran C coordinates. As this Is the primary navigational system used 

 by commercial boats (fishing and otherwise), ■we suggest that Boundary Alternative 3 

 be adjusted to Loran C coordinates. NOAA should consider the likelihood of different 

 navigational systems replacing Loran C. and determine If future boundary adjustments 

 to accommodate new navigaUon systems can be easily accomplished -- preferably 



Jwithout having to Initiate a new DEIS/MP. 



% The Stellwagen Bank Coalition sought to develop a working relationship with 

 members of the commercial fishing Interests that utilize Stellwagen Bank. ""1°^- 

 tunately. much remains to be done to secure the support of fishing Interests. Their 

 fundamental distrust of government regulation has created an impasse In our efforts 



to assure them that the sanctuary will not adversely affect their ability to make a 

 living. 



3. See generic responses B.l. and B.2. 



4. A primary objective of Sanctuary 

 management is the development of an 

 education/interpretative program which 

 reaches a wide audience, including in 

 particular, the user public. In 

 furtherance of this objective, NOAA 

 intends to work closely with other 

 educational organizations and programs 

 to further public awareness and under- 

 standing of the Sanctuary Program. 

 Additionally, NOAA intends that a 

 Sanctuary Advisory Committee be estab- 

 lished, which should include the repre- 

 sentation of fisheries, as well as othe 

 user interests. 



Page G78 



