L 



We question NOAA's interpretation of potential for regulation of dredge 

 disposal activites outside of the boundary as possible only "if it is 

 deterained by NOAA . . . that this naterial has entered the Sanctuary and 

 injured a Sanctuary resource or quality" (paje 137). Under 40 CFR 228.11, 

 the effects of activities at the disposal site shall be categoriied in 

 Impact Category I if "There is identifiable progressive movement or 

 accumulation, in detectable concentrations above normal ambient values, of 

 any waste or waste constituent from the disposal site within 12 nautical 

 Biles of any shoreline, marine sanctuary designated under Title III of the 

 Act, or critical area designated under section 102(c) of the Act." Our 

 legal consultants have interpreted this language to indicate that any 

 disposal activity within 12 miles of the Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary can be 

 regulated by NOA.A. Both Boundary Alternatives #2 and »3 would thusly 

 require co-management of the MBDS by NOAA, COE, and EPA. 



Wastewater Discharges uv » t 



We support NOAA's preferred regulatory alternative of prohibition of 

 wastewater di-^rharges into the Sanctuary (page 143). This is also the 

 preferred regulatory alternative of the Stellwagen Banii Coalition. Clearly, 

 the Clean Water Act does not provide for permit analysis of cumulative 

 impacts of wastewater discharge into coastal waters; in a meeting held on 

 October 31, 1990, in the Hyannis, Massachusetts, office of Congressman Gerry 

 Studds, this very shortcoming in the Clean Water Act was discussed by 

 representatives from the EPA in relation to the wastewater outfall planned 

 by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA). 



6. No response necessary. See generic 

 response C.2. 



t 



Aquaculture Activities ,_., -^ . --u ►», 



We believe that aquaculture activities should be prohibited within the 

 Sanctuary . Construction of large fish farms, such as the one recently 

 permitted for construction east of Gloucester, Massachusetts, would be in 

 violation of the proposed prohibition on alteration of, or construction on, 

 the seabed. In addition, the relatively large areas required for such 

 activities result in exclusive use of open ocean space; we feel that this 

 exclusion of all other users to areas within the Sanctuary would be contrary 

 to the purposes for which Marine Sanctuaries are designated. 



7. See generic response G. 



Alteration of, or Construction on, the Seabed 



We fully support NOAA's preferred alternative of prohibitton of alteration 



of. or constrrution on. the seabed , other than those exceptions listed on 



OI . or COn3Lrt-UI- mil mi t \.\\^ jcnm^vJt w w..^. 



page 146 of the DEIS/MP. As noted in the DEIS/MP, existing regulations _ 

 leave considerable gaps in seabed protection for this special area. This is 

 the recommendation of the Stellwagen Bank Coalition as well. 



8. See generic response J. 



Offshore Hydrocarbon Development 



We do not agree with NOAA's recommendation that offshore hydrocarbon 

 development within the Sanctuary be identified as subject to regulation 

 (page 149). We feel that any hydrocarbon development within a National 

 Marine Sanctuary cannot under any circumstances be considered to be amenable 

 to the purposes of sanctuary designation, and such activities should 

 therefore be prohibited . This is also the recommendation of the Stellwagen 

 Bank Coalition. 



ative impacts on Sanctuary resources from a drilling or 

 accident are obvious, as noted on page 149 of the DEIS/MP. 

 agree that the current moratorium on hydrocarbon 

 area would result in duplicative regulation. In light of 

 's recently released National Energy Policy, which 

 e hydrocarbon development, we feel it is particularly 

 e activities to be prohibited within the Sanctuary from 



The disastrous neg 

 transport-related 

 However, we do not 

 development in the 

 the Administration 

 encourages offshon 

 important for thes 

 designation. 



A precedent exists 

 Sanctuaries at the 

 hydrocarbon activi 



for prohibition of hydrocarbon development within Marine 

 Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, where 

 ties were prohibited on new leases at designation. 



/O. 



lining and other 



Offshore Industrial Materials Development 



We fully support NOAA's recommendation that sand and travel 



industrial development be prohibited (page 151). The Stellwagen Bank 



Coalition also supports NOAA's recommendation on this issue. There is no 



doubt that such activities would change the very nature of the Bank, and 



destroy the delicate fabric of this ecosystem. 



9. Comments noted, 

 response E. 



See generic 



10. See generic response M. 



Vessel Traffic 



The Center for Coastal Studies has obtained data from the vessel registry 

 maintained by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts which indicate that 

 registration of vessels under 40 feet has increased drastically within the 

 past decade. During 1989 the Commonwealth registered 250,115 vessels, an 

 increase of 26,000 over the previous year, and an increase of 39,688 since 

 1986. Of these, the majority (188,430 or 75.31) are vessels of under 40 

 feet driven by inboard or outboard engines (auxiliary sailing vessels not 

 included). While it is impossible, based on e-xisting data, to determine 

 what percentage of these boats use the Stellwagen Bank area, we can most 

 likely assume that many of them are used in Massachusetts coastal waters, 

 and that those in the 16-40 foot range (86,153 or 34.41) are easily capable 

 of travel to within the proposed sanctuary boundaries. A number of the 



Page G54 



