c. 



Currently, 23 of the approximately 600 humpbacks in the Center for Coastal 

 Studies' file population (3.8%) exhibit scar3 presumed to be indicative of vessel collisions; 

 of these, 1989 was the first year during which they saw evidence of the smaller propeller 

 scars illustrated in the accompanying photographs. Of the 313 fin whales in their file 

 populations, 22 (7%) exhibit vessel-related scars. Of the 300 North Atlantic right whales 

 identified in the New England Aquarium's photographic catalog, 24 (8%) also exhibit 

 vessel-related scars. 



We agree with NOAA, that based on the potential for marine m a mm al mortalities 

 caused by collisions with ships, commercial shipping traffic should be subjen to 

 regulations (page 154). However, the above data would indicate that, for consistency, lU 

 mmmerclal. recreational and research vpisel trafH c should be subject tp r^gulatiqn. We 

 do not agree that including such traffic within the scope of regulation would be any more 

 dupUcative (page 155) than NCAA's proposal to list commercial shipping traffic as a 

 regulated activity. 



rnmmerdal Vessel Traffic: The DEIS/MP states (page 70) that future shipping in the 

 area will Tje dominated by the movement of petroleum". However it also reports that 

 the "possibility of oil spills resulting fi-om vessel collisions is very mimmal." The 

 Coalition disputes this statement especially because Boston is one of the top ten U.S. 

 ports in the quantity of oil it handles. The Coalition would like to see NOAA discuss 

 probabiUties of oil spills for the area in the FEIS/MP. This informadon can be found 

 by contacting the Coast Guard or NOAA's Ocean and Marine Assessment office. Events 

 including oil spills that occurred off the coasts of Alaska, Rhode Island, Delaware, and 

 Texas, the last three occurring during a single day in June 1989 demonstrate that 

 accidents do occur, can result in extensive damage to marine resources, and will occur 

 even when the possibility of oil spills is very mimmal. The Cpa'ition recommends that 

 NOAA support efTorts to monitor the mnveinen t of commercial cargo vessel; in thg arga 



to alleviate vessel collisions and other events that mav lend m oil spills. A suggestion 



is to develop a Vessel Traffic System for the area 

 ' offshore Gas and Oil Development: The DEIS/MP states on page 96 that "the highest 



?. 



management priority for the proposed sanctuary is long-term protection of the living and 

 non-living resources of the Stellwagen Bank system." In working toward this goal, the 

 Coalition recommends that NOAA permanently prohibit offshore hydrocarbon activities 

 within the boundaries of the sancmary. Indeed, we strongly disagree with NOAA's stated 

 approach to only list this activity vnthin the scope of regulations. In addition, the 

 moratorium on the development of hydrocarbons until the year 2000 for the Stellwagen 

 Bank area does not provide the long-term protection that the areas resources deserve 

 especially as a National Marine Sanctuary. NOAA recognizes on page 169 the dangers 

 of gas and oil development It also recognizes on the same page that "the biological 

 resources of the Stellwagen Bank system, especially the marine mammals^ and the 

 commercially-important fisheries, will always be vulnerable to the effects of oil and gas 

 development artivities". A prohibition on oil and gas activities within the Sanctuary's 

 boundaries would provide permanent protection to these and other resources. This 

 prohibition would not be a duplication of the moratorium since a prohibition will provide 



long-term protection for the resources. This prohibitioQ is consistent with NOAA's goal; 

 to protect the areas resources. 



Aquaculture : Aquaculture is not only a navigational hazard, but may provide 

 greater potential for marine mammal entanglements and obstruction for traditional uses 

 of the Bank including commercial fishing. This activity is not compatible with protecting 

 the marine resources. The Coalition nrpes NOAA to prohib it anuaculture activities in 

 the sanctuary- 



Marine Mammals and Seabirds: The Stellwagen Bank Coalition strongly supports 

 additional protection being aSorded by the sanctuary program to marine mammals, 

 marine reptiles and sea birds within the SBNMS. However, to sufficiently document 

 protection afforded to seabirds in the areas, there is a need to discuss the Migratory Bird 

 Treaty Ka in the DEIS/MP. 



Fisheries: The Coalition believes that recreational a nd commercial fishing 

 activities can he compatible with sanrtunrv desitTiation. We concur with the statement 



10. 



on page 186 that " fishing in the Sanctuary, including fishing for shellfish and 

 invertebrates, shall not be regulated as part of the Sancmary management regime 

 authorized by the Act However, fishing in the Sancmary may be regulated other than 

 under the Act by Federal and State authorities of competent jurisdiction, and designation 

 of the Sanctuary shall have no effect on any regulation, permit or license issued 

 thereunder, e.g. regulations implementing Fishery Management Plans promulgated under 

 the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 



6. Given the safety record of commercial 

 shipping operations within the Vessel 

 Traffic Separation Scheme in and out of 

 Boston, NOAA has not found compelling 

 reasons to develop detailed discussions 

 of the probabilities of an oil spill 

 within the Stellwagen Bank area. How- 

 ever, development of the Sanctuary's 

 contingency plan will address these 

 areas of investigation. Any changes to 

 the Vessel Traffic Separation Scheme are 

 the responsibility of the U.S. Coast 

 Guard. 



7. See generic reponse E. 



8. See generic response G. 



9. A discussion of the Migratory Bird 

 Treaty Act (MBTA) has been added to the 

 FEIS at Appendix B. See also generic 

 response L. 



10. See generic response N. 



Page G85 



