CLF 



Conservation Law Foundation of New England, Inc. 



3 Joy Slreel 



Boston. Massachusetts 



02109-1497 



(617) 742 2540 

 Fax. (617)5ZW019 



April 3, 1991 



Joseph A. Uravitch, Chief 



Sanctuaries and Reserves Division 



Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 



National Ocean Service 



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 



1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW, suite 714 



Washington, D.C. 20235 



RE: 



Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 27, pp. 5232-5295 



1 



J. 



3. 



4 



S. 



c. 



Dear Mr. Uravitch: 



The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) is pleased to have the 

 opportunity to comment on the proposed designation document, 

 proposed regulations, and Draft Environmental Ir.pact 

 Stateme.nt/Management Plan (DEIS/MP) for a National Marine 

 sanctuary at Steilwagen Bank. CLF supports designation of 

 Stellwagen Bank as a National Marine Sanctuary and recommends 

 adoption of the following alternatives for boundaries, 

 management, and regulation. 



CLF recommends that the boundaries for the sanctuary be 

 selected either as proposed alternative i1 or as "alternative #4" 

 (proposed by regional fishing organizations, but not included in 

 the DEIS/MP; boundary alternative #4 is defined by the latitude 

 and lonaitude coordinates that result in boundaries corresponding 

 to Loran C lines 13750, 13870, 44140, and 44295). The reason for 

 CLF recommending either alternative S3 or alternative S4 is that 

 both alternatives include the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site 

 (MBDS) within sanctuary boundaries. This inclusion would allow 

 greater sanctuary oversight of disposal of dredged materials at 

 MBDS, which CLF supports. We consider the question of the 

 relative location of MBDS and the sanctuary to be the most 

 pressing issue with regard to sanctuary boundaries. 



CLF supports a combination of management alternatives S2 

 and #3. We would like sanctuary staff to include both an 

 education coordinator and a research coordinator, and we would 

 like to see satellite centers established because of the many 

 points of access from land to the sanctuary. However, a phased- 

 in approach to staffing, as proposed in management alternative 

 S2, may well be efficient and cost-effective. 



CLF supports most of the regulations as proposed and most of 

 the preferred regulatory alternatives in the DEIS/MP, with the 

 following recommended changes. 



Because of the serious threat of toxic contamination to the 

 marine environment, the exploration, development and lightering 

 (transfer from vessel to vessel) of oil and gas should be 

 completely prohibited within the sanctuary. This prohibition 

 should be added to § 940.5 (h) of the proposed regulations. In 

 addition, the incineration of waste material within the 

 sanctuary should be prohibited. 



If possible under existing law, an exemption to the 

 prohibition on taking marine reptiles and seabirds in § 940.5 (a) 

 (6) should be allowed for takings that are incidental to normal 

 fishing operations. This exemption would be comparable to the 

 exemptions granted to fishing operations in paragraphs (4) and 

 (5) of § 940.5, which CLF supports. 



— Section 940.6 on emergency regulations has some serious 

 deficiencies. First, it does not specify who has the authority 

 to issue emergency regulations. NOAA's intent was probably to 

 give that authority to the Director of the Office of Ocean and 

 Coastal Resource Management at NOAA, rather than to the Governor 

 of Massachusetts or the President of the United States, b^t it 

 needs to be specified. It is possible that authority should lie 

 with a more senior position within NOAA or the Department of 

 Commerce than the Director of OCRM. Second, no limit is set on 

 the duration of emergency regulations. A maximum of 90 days, 

 with a single extension for an additional 90 days, as allowed 

 under the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, 

 might be advisable. Third, there is no requirement for public 

 hearings soon after promulgation of emergency regulations; CLF 

 recommends the addition of such a requirement. 



CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION 

 1. No response necessary. 



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

 In addition, see generic response D.l. 



3. Comments noted. NOAA intends that tt 

 Sanctuary be fully staffed as appro- 

 priate to the needs of the site. It is 

 anticipated that one or more satellite 

 offices will be established within a 

 reasonable period of time following 

 establishment of a Sanctuary head- 

 quarters facility. 



4. See generic responses E. 



and H. 



5. Under existing authorities (ESA anc 

 MBTA) , any taking of marine reptiles c 

 migratory birds within the Sanctuary : 

 illegal, unless sanctioned by permit 

 issued under those authorities. Exemp- 

 tions under Title III for incidental 

 take of these species during the cour; 

 of normal fishing operations would 

 conflict with existing, valid 

 authorities. 



6. The authority to issue emergency 

 regulations under proposed § 94 0.6 is 

 vested in the Director of OCRM. 



No limit is set on the duration of 

 emergency regulations; NOAA retains 

 discretionary authority to deter- 

 mine the necessity of emergency 

 regulations and their duration. NOAA 

 will take appropriate actions to ensu 

 the public is aware of the need for a 

 emergency regulations imposed in the 

 Sanctuary. p^gg g67 



