^. 



3. 



Prohibirions/Regularions 



The Coalition 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 conneaed with the extraction of 

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



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



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 Coalition 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 

 J deserve. 



Discharge /Deposit : While NOAA proposes a prohibition on the discharge or 

 deposit of materials or substances (this does not include routine vessel operations) either 

 from within or outside Sanctuary boundaries that will affect the Sanctuary's resources, 

 the DEIS/\fP is unclear as to what such a prohibition would mean. In particular, 

 clarification is required with regard to the continued use of the Massachusetts Bay 

 Disposal Site (MBDS). NOA.A should clarify this to ensure that it is consistent with 

 protecting the sanctuary's resources from the effects of pollution from sources either 

 within the Sanctuary or outside of the sanctuary where it might adversely impact the 

 _sanctuary. 



The inclusion of the MBDS within the sanctuary boundaries, as defined in 

 Alternative #3, will allow for cooperative oversight of the MBDS by NOAA. Future 

 management of the MBDS. and the potential for disposal of conlaminaled material at 



2. No response necessary. 



i 



5 



the site, is a major cause of concern for all the membe p; of the Stellwagen Bank 

 Coalition. If a decision is made to continue dumping at the MBDS, permits should be 

 rigorously conditioned with respect to cleanliness and volume of dimiped materials. 

 Future projects including the third anery tunnel and several large dredging projects will 

 result in the dimiping of over 4 million cubic yards of spoils into the site. There is a 

 danger of too much material and contaminated materials being dumped in the site 

 because of the lack of an alternative plan for excess and contaminated materials. 



An adequate monitoring program should be implemented to detert any adverse 

 impacts on sanctuary resources or qualities. In addition, it should be clearly stated that 

 if the MBDS is located in sanctuary boundaries or outside, the burden of proof is on the 

 discharger to show that sanctuary resources will not be damaged before a 

 permit/certification can be given. In this regard, the sanctuary program should pay 

 special attention to the potential for "cumulative impacts." 



NOAA should be required to officially "approve" or "disapprove" a permit or 

 certification request. The requirement will allow NOAA to achieve it's goal of protecting 

 the resources so as to avoid creating a situation where an activity might be permitted 

 because "no action' was taken by the agency. This role must be reflected in the 

 Memorandum of Agreement between NOAA, EPA and COE. The sanctuary manager 

 and the sanctuary advisory committee should be very active in these decisions. 



~ The sanctuary program should be used as a vehicle to improve and monitor water 

 quality in the area. We look to NOAA to work with existing water quality management 

 entities to ensure that established water quality standards for already permitted point 

 source discharges are fiercely enforced and violations prosecuted. In addition, NOAA 

 should vigorously pursue and encourage the best available management and monitoring 

 practices to minirtuze pollution associated with on shore point sources including effluent 

 outfall tunnels. We are especially concerned with effects the Massachusetts Water 

 Resources Authority (MWRA) sewage outfall tunnel - which will spew out 500 million 

 gallons of primary treated effluent into Massachusetts Bay daily for at least four years - 

 - will have on the resources. There is still a great concern among many scientist of the 

 impacts this amount of increased nutrients will have on this fragile ecosystem. 



Recreational Vessel Traffic : While the DEIS/MP discusses in some detail vessel 

 traffic related to commercial whale watching (pp.63-68), sportfishing (pp. 68-69), and 

 commercial shipping (pp. 69-75), little attention is given to the potential irnpact on 

 sanctuary resources of recreational boaters. The DEIS/MP recommends including 

 conunerciai shipping traffic within the scope of future regulations based on the potential 

 for marine mammal strikes, yet data recently compiled by the Center for Coastal Smdies 

 indicate that, in fact, most vessel strikes on whales may be caused by relatively small 

 boats, as evidenced by the size of wounds and noticeable propeller scars. While strikes 

 by smaller vessels do not in all probability result in as high a percentage of rnortalities 

 among animals hit, there can be little doubt that they represent a negative impact to 

 sanctuary resources (i.e. endangered marine maiiunals.) 



3. See expanded discussion at PART 

 THREE, Section Il.C.l.a. NOAA is 

 currently pursuing the development of a 

 protocol, or memorandum of agreement 

 with EPA and COE regarding its role in 

 the review of permit applications for 



disposal at the MBDS, and for monitorinc 

 activities to determine any effects on 

 Sanctuary resources or qualities from 

 disposal activities. 



4. See generic response C.2. 



5. See generic response K.l. 



Page G84 



