UnilM Sl«i«s Co"' <J>^"' 



United States 

 Coast Guard 



wundignxi DC 2059J-OOO1 



SianSyiTOoi G-MEP-l 

 BwM (202) 267-0504 



16004 



1. 



APR I I 1991 



Mr Joseph A. Uravitch 



Chief Sanctuaries and Reserves Division 



Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 



National Ocean Service/NOAA 



1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 



Washington, D.C. 20235 



Dear Mr. Uravitch: 



The U S. Coast Guard has reviewed the Notice of Proposed 



Ru!e"aklng of February 8. 1991. and the <*"" ^^^^^°™tCagen 



I.pact Statement/Management Plan on *^-,P-P°=^^i:^i^"I?: 



Bank National Marine Sanctuary. The toiiowmy 



submitted for your consideration. 



Generally the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ;•< DEIS ) for 



Ste!"agen Bank does not Justify the "^^"^ °^^^f ["^^"^Lting 



vessel operations as cited in the proposed "^"^^^l P"'" ^^t^^^^ 



vessel wastewater discharges ^^^^^''^''l,^^^^ ^Zllll' could 



-ti-i;^a?^:^t-hni:bil^trorMa-J hS f £ cial 



^^ t^^t^-/T^ ?rtL^p:o^osir^anc^;:ry.^ 



NCAA is proposing solutions to a P^^^^" . ^^^^^f="„'f Research 

 adequately defined and based on scientific "^f ^•„^^°^^4"^^^'''' 

 needs to be done to document that the P"^^"^,^""^" ^^^'^^^^ 

 near Stellwagen Bank has been detrimental. Also there is 

 insufficient evidence that the present regulations are 

 inadequate to protect the natural resourc=:S xu the a-eo. 



The draft Section 940.5 of the proposed rule regarding discharge 

 prohibitions conflicts with Annex V of the Internationa 

 Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as 

 modified by the 1978 Protocol relating thereto as amended 

 (MARPOL 73/78), to which the United States is a party. It also 



conflicts with the regulations contained in Title 33 Code of 

 Federal Regulaltlons, Section 151.69 (33 CFR 151.69) which 

 implement this convention in U.S. regulation. We, tnerefore 

 recommend that the wording be changed to that used in 

 15 CFR 924.3(i) for the Monitor Marine Sanctuary, "Discharging 

 waste material into the water in violation of any Federal 

 statute or regulation." 



Since this sanctuary is within a traffic separation scheme 

 (TSS), the Coast Guard is concerned that future regulations 

 might' be considered to limit vessel speed or change the traffic 

 patterns. Any regulations affecting the safe navigation of 

 vessels on the high seas, must be endorsed by the International 

 Maritime Organization before it can apply to foreign vessels. 

 Therefore, any future regulation to change the speed of foreign 

 vessels transiting Stellwagen Bank or their traffic pattern 

 would need international endorsement to be enforceable. 



The responsibility of Iteeping the Massachusetts ports navigable 

 should remain the purview of the New England Division of the 

 Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). Contrary to the first sentence 

 of the second paragraph on page 2 of the DEIS, that states this 

 sanctuary designation would not change the authority of any 

 other agency; NOAA could modify the ACOE's ability to dispose 

 dredge spoils at the MBDS. A better management policy of dredge 

 spoils is alternative two vice three on page 136 of the DEIS. 

 The present twenty year planning proposal for the dredging of 

 Boston Harbor would be further delayed if the MBDS cannot be 

 used. 



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 United States Coast Guard 



1. NOAA does not propose to prohibit the 

 discharge from vessels of wastewater 

 materials such as: fish, fish parts, 

 chumming materials or bait used in or 

 resulting from traditional fishing 

 operations; biodegradable effluents 

 incidental to vessel use generated by 

 marine sanitation devices approved by 

 the U.S. Coast Guard; water generated by 

 routine vessel operations (e.g., cooling 

 water, deck washdown, and graywater, as 

 defined by the FWPCA) ; and engine ex- 

 haust. (See proposed 15 CFR 940.5.). 

 Excluded from these exceptions are oily 

 wastes from bilge pumping. NOAA does not 

 intend, or believe there to be, any 

 conflict between its proposed regulation 

 at 15 CFR Part 940.5 and Annex V of the 

 International Convention on the ^ 

 Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

 (MARPOL 73/78) , implemented by the Act 

 to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) . 



2. Comment noted. NOAA has added refer- 

 ence to the necessity of endorsement by 



the International Maritime Organization 

 (IMO) of any proposed Sanctuary regu- 

 lation affecting navigation of vessels 

 on the high seas before it may be ap- 

 plied to foreign vessels. See PART 

 THREE, Section II.C.9. 



3. Sanctuary designation will not 

 invalidate or alter authorities imple- 

 mented by the COE to maintgain navigable 

 ports in Massachusetts. However, NOAA 

 maintains that disposal activities at 

 the MBDS are subject to Sanctuary 

 oversight. See generic response D.2. 



Page G37 



