i;j 



13. 



14. 



IB. 



"within that realn, the Sanctuary document must consider the 

 -l^ps^" cLb fishery, which is not traditional ^"^ may cause 

 damage to the seabed. Currently, there is one boat ^^^ing for 

 clams on the Bank. However, there may be plans for two "o" 

 boats (Don Mason, NMFS Port Agent, personal communication, 1991). 

 This fishery should be deemed experimental and its impacts 

 evaluated. At the very least, the DEIS should acJcnowledge the 

 potential impact of the fishery to the seabed. 



Offshor" Hydroc arbon Dfvplopment 



The outright prohibition of industrial materials development 

 Isand and gravel mining), as opposed to the relaxed attitude 

 toward oil and gas development is not sufficiently justified. 

 The effects of oil and gas exploration, development, and shipment 

 cSuld be as severe to bith the physical structure of the ban)c and 

 its living marine resources as sand and gravel mining. Despite 

 the Presidential moratorium and lack of evidence of hydrocarbons 

 in the area, this activity should be prohibited. 



Such a prohibition would be consistent with those for placement 

 of submerged pipelines and cables and alteration of or 

 construction on, the seabed, including "drilling and ocean 

 mineral extraction", in the Sanctuary. These activities are 

 closely related to oil and gas development. Would their 

 prohibition by nature prevent oil and gas development. 



" rajcina of Marine ReP^i^es■ Ma rin e Mamma ls, and Seabirds 



The preferred alternative would prohibit the taking of these 

 animals. Although this is duplicative with the ESA and MMPA, 

 such protection is allowed under these acts as long as it is more 

 restrictive (Gene Martin, NOAA GCKE, personal communication). 

 However, the claim of the DEIS that "[T]he regulation 

 demonstrates the intent of the MPRSA to protect Sanctuary 

 resources on a holistic, or system-wide basis" is not supported. 

 (Webster's dictionary defines holistic as "emphasizing the 

 organic or functional relation between parts and wholes." 

 According to the DEIS "[T]he preferred regulatory alternative 

 would provide such protection (holistic or system-wide) by 

 effectively including all seabirds, marine reptiles, and marine 

 mammals in the Sanctuary." Apparently the additional protection 

 here is for seabirds, which are already protected by the 

 Migratory Bird Treaty Act. No mention is made of endangered fish 



or invertebrates, so that in reality the Sanctuary regulation 

 covers fewer species than the ESA. 



The regulation prohibits taking unless conducted pursuant to a 

 "Sanctuary permit, or otherwise permitted under the MMPA or ESA." 

 Such a permit could not be issued alone, without appropriate MMPA 

 or ESA permits (Gene Martin, NOAA GCNE, personal communication) . 

 The DEIS should also identify the purpose and benefits of such a 

 permit. Whalewatching may be an activity that should be licensed 

 (see specific comments on whalewatching, below) . 



Whalewatch. Commercial Charter Boats, and Private Craft 



Whalewatch and other charter boats often approach whales during 

 their normal operations. The Sanctuary would benefit from 

 efforts to educate and enforce vessel approach guidelines or 

 regulations. 



The idea of a Sanctuary permit to conduct whalewatching 

 activities on Stellwagen bank should be explored. Whether such a 

 permit is warranted should be contingent on an assessment of 

 vessel traffic and the success of Sanctuary education and 

 enforcement programs. Thus, commercial charter boat and 

 whalewatch activities should be identified as an activity which 

 may be regulated in the future. 



The same attitude may be appropriate for small, private craft but 

 we lack the information to offer any comments beyond anecdotal 

 accounts that such vessels may affect marine mammal behavior. 



Enforcement 



USCG and NMFS enforcement offices are currently pressed to 

 fulfill commitments under the Magnuson Act, marine debris/MAilPOL 

 laws, and other marine law. The Sanctuary document should 

 clarify that program intent is to augment that enforcement 

 capability, not dilute it. You should also specify that the 

 Sanctuary Manager will enlist help from established enforcement 

 offices to hire qualified officers and to assign them to priority 

 Issues. 



Sanctuary Officers) 



We agree that the Sanctuary needs an office, and suggest that 

 satellite offices/booths would help acquaint the public with the 

 Sanctuary and its objectives. The m2in office and any other 

 offices should be: located in accessible towns/cities; 

 coordinated with related Stellwagen Bank activities like fishing 

 ports or whalewatch hubs; and integrated with other protection 

 programs like parks or education programs. 



11. As noted at PART TWO, Section 

 II.C.l., the New England Fishery 

 Management Council has requested the 

 lead role in developing a FMP for the 

 Stimpson clam. During the course of 

 developing such FMP, NOAA would ex- 

 pect to investigate the potential 

 effects of such fishery upon the 

 seabed within the Sanctuary. 



12. See generic response E. 



13. The necessity of appropriate MMPA or 

 EPA permits for taking of marine mammals 

 or endangered species will not be 

 changed by Sanctuary designation. The 

 proposed Sanctuary prohibition on taking 

 of marine mammals, marine reptiles, or 

 seabirds, although duplicative to 

 existing protections under the ESA, 

 MMPA, and MBTA, will enable NOAA to 

 provide an additional level of 

 regulatory protection to these species. 

 NOAA has determined that this is 

 appropriate, given the importance of 

 marine mammal, marine reptile, and 

 seabird species to the overall vitality 

 of the Stellwagen Bank system. Identi- 

 fication of the purpose and benefits of 

 EPA or MMPA permits could be addressed 

 through the Sanctuary education/inter- 

 pretation programs. 



14. See generic response K. The discus- 

 sion at PART TWO, Section II. C. 2. raises 

 the possibility that one reason for the 

 occasional harassment of cetaceans may 

 be an excessive number of whalewatch 

 vessels in close proximity to the 

 cetaceans. In addition to focused 

 Sanctuary research into this activity, 

 NOAA intends to coordinate with NMFS in 

 the implementation of whalewatch 

 regulations, which could address the 

 number of whalewatch vessels if it is 

 documented as a causal factor in 

 harassment of cetaceans. 



15. NOAA is aware that NMFS and the USCG 

 are fully committed to existing 

 responsibilities under the Magnuson Act, 

 marine debris/MARPOL statutes, and other 

 marine laws. As identified in PART TWO, 

 Section IV. B., the intention of the 

 Sanctuary Program is to promote 

 coordination and enhancement of 

 appropriate enforcement capabilities of 

 NFMS and USCG. 



Page G21 



