-• •-!- I i--^ ■vf^'Y
wccDS ;
.jii
TUTION
Stellwagen
Bank
National
Marine
Sanctuary
Final Environmental
Impact Statement/
Management Plan
Volume I
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
- rl
aries and
es Division
e
..<°?%
^'''flrts o« '^
\
/
Original Cover Artwork by Margie B. Scanlon, 1990 ^^Bi
Stellwagen Bank
National Marine Sanctuary
Final Environmental
Impact Statement/
Management Plan
Volume I .,...^'^--^'""'^'T^:rnTUT;o.
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
1305 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
July 1993
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division .^owjjqs^..
'ENT Of ^
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Page i
Title: Final Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan for the Stellwagen Bank National
Mcirine Sanctuary
Abstract: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration proposes to implement the
Congressional designation of a marine area encompassing Stellwagen Bank, and situated
appioximately 3.5 miles northwest of Provincetown, Massachusetts as a national marine
sanctuary.
The sanctuary is comprised of Federal waters and the underlying lands within a 638-square-
nautical-mile area surrounding the Bank, which measures approximately 19 miles by 6.25 miles
at its widest point. Water depths around the Bank range from 65 feet to over 300 feet.
The designation of Stellwagen Bank as a national marine sanctuary will provide a long-term
integrated program of resource protection, research, and interpretation/education to assure
comprehensive management and protection of the Stellwagen Bank system. Resource
protection will involve cooperation with other agencies and organizations in formulating
resource protection policies and procedures, including the enforcement of regulations affecting
uses of the Bank's resources.
Cooperating agencies in the development of this fiaal environmental impact
statement/management plan document have included the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (New
England Division), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Region I), and the Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management Office.
Nine Sanctuary regulations are proposed for implementation. The first regulation prohibits the
discharge or deposit of materials or other matter from within the Sanctuary boundary. The
second regulation prohibits the discharge or deposit of materials or other matter from outside
the Sanctuary boundary, that subsequently enter the Sanctuary and injure a Sanctuary resource
or quality. The third regulation prohibits exploration, development, and production of
"industrial materials" (e.g., sand and gravel) within the Sanctuary. The fourth regulation
prohibits any construction, placement, or abandonment on the seabed of any structure or
material, and prohibits any alteration of the seabed within the Sanctuary. The fifth regulation
prohibits the movement, removal, or injury (or the attempt to move, remove, or injure) of any
historical resource within the Sanctuary. The sixth regulation prohibits the taking of any marine
reptile, marine mammal, or seabird within the Sanctuary (except as permitted by the
Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, or Migratory Bird Treaty Act). The
seventh regulation prohibits "hghtering" within the Sanctuary. The eighth regulation prohibits
possession within the Sanctuary of any historical resource, or of any marine reptile, marine
mammal, or seabird taken in violation of the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal
Protection Act, or Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The ninth regulation prohibits interference with,
obstruction, delay or prevention of investigations, searches, seizure or dispositions of seized
property in connection with enforcement of Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act or any regulation or permit issued under that Act.
Additionally, certain activities not currently proposed for regulation are identified in the
Designation Document as subject to Sanctuary regulation if, in the future, the need to regulate
is demonstrated as necessary for the protection of Sanctuary resources and qualities. Activities
identified as subject to Sanctuary regulation are:
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page a
Lead Agency:
• exploration, development, or production of oil and gas resources within the Sanctuary;
• operation of vessels within the Sanctuary, and
• mariculture activities within the Sanctuary.
Alternatives to the proposed action include regulatory and non-regulatory management
alternatives.
Research will include baseline studies, monitoring, and analysis and prediction projects to
provide information needed in resolving management issues. Interpretive/education programs
will be directed at improving public awareness of the Sanctuary ^ resources and the need to
manage them wisely to ensure their continued viabihty and abundance.
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceamic and Atmospheric Administration
National Ocean Service
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
Cooperating U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Agencies: New England Division
Waltham, Massachusetts 02254
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
Boston, Massachusetts 02201
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Coastal Zone Management Office
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
Contact: Mr. R. Randall Schneider, Regional Manager
Atlantic & Great Lakes
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Ocean Service/NOAA
1305 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
(301) 713-3132
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Page Hi
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE STELLWAGEN BANK NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
List of Figures xi
List of Tables riii
Note to Reader xiv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
PART ONE: INTRODUCTION
A. Authority for Designation 4
B. Mission and Goals of the National Marine Sanctuary Program 4
C. Terms of the Designation 4
D. Status of the National Marine Sanctuary Program 4
E. History of the Proposal 6
F. Purpose and Need for Action 7
PART TWO: SANCTUARY MANAGEMENT PLAN
Section I: Management Plan for the Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary 9
A. Introduction 9
B. Sanctuary Goals and Objectives 9
1. Resource Protection 9
2. Research 9
3. Interpretation/Education 10
4. Visitor Use 10
Section II: The Sanctuary Setting 10
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Page iv
A. Regional Context 11
1. Location of Sanctuary 11
2. Regional Access 11
B. Sanctuary Resources 11
1. Environmental Conditions 14
a. Geology 14
b. Bathymetry 15
c. Oceanography 16
2. Natural Resources 18
a. Phytoplankton 18
b. Zooplankton 19
c. Benthic Organisms 20
d. Fishes 22
e. Sea Turtles 24
f. Marine Mammals 25
1) Endangered Cetaceans 25
2) Non-Endangered Cetaceans 28
3) Pinnipeds 30
g. Seabirds 30
3. Historical and Cultural Resources 35
a. Prehistoric Cultural Resources 35
b. Historic Vessel Traffic 36
c. Historic Shipwreck Resources 37
d. Aircraft 38
C. Human Activities 38
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Page v
1. Commercial Fishing 38
a. Regional History 38
b. Present Day Fishing in the Stellwagen Bank Area 39
c. Fishing Gear 43
d. Fisheries Management 44
2. Commercial Charterboating 46
a. Whalewatching 46
b. Sportfishing 50
3. Recreational Boating/Tourism 51
4. Commercial Shipping 52
5. Military Activity 56
6. Offshore Oil and Gas Activity 57
7. Sand and Gravel Mining 60
8. Ocean Disposal Activities 64
a. General Disposal Activities 64
b. Dredged Material 65
c. Fish Processing Wastes 67
d. Incineration of Trash 67
9. Ocean Discharges 68
10. Submerged Pipelines and Cables 71
11. Mariculture 71
13. Offshore Fixed Artificial Platforms 73
14. Research and Education 74
Section III: Sanctuary Management Plan 77
A. Overall Management and Development Concept 77
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Page vi
1. General Context 77
2. Existing Management Programs 77
a. Regional Management (within Massachusetts) 77
b. Commonwealth of Massachusetts 78
c. Joint State/Federal Programs 78
d. International Management: The Gulf of Maine Initiative 80
B. Resource Protection 80
1. General Context for Management 80
2. Designation Document and Sanctuary Regulations 80
a. Discharges and Deposits 80
b. Alteration of the Seabed 80
c. Development Activities for Industrial Materials 8
d. Submerged Pipelines and Cables 8
e. Incineration of Trash 8
f. Lightering 8
g. Historical and Cultural Resources 8
h. Taking of Marine Mammals, Marine Reptiles,
and Seabirds 8
3. Contingency Plans for Major Emergencies 8
4. Encouraging Compatible Uses of Sanctuary 82
5. Surveillance and Enforcement 82
a. Public Education and Information 83
b. Planning and Coordination 83
C. Research 83
1. General Context for Management 83
2. Framework for Research Program 83
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Page vii
3. Selection and Management of Research Projects 84
a. Annual Sanctuary Research Plan 84
b. Research Project Monitoring Program 85
4. Information Exchange 85
D. Interpretation/Education 85
1. General Context for Management 85
2. Interpretive Opportunities 85
3. Interpretive Programs 86
a. On-site Visitor Programs 86
b. Visitor Center Programs 86
c. Outreach Programs 86
Section IV: Administration 87
A. Administrative Framework 87
1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division 87
2. National Marine Fisheries Service 87
3. U.S. Coast Guard 87
4. Sanctuary Advisory Committee 87
5. Other Federal Agencies 88
6. State, Regional, and Local Agencies 88
B. Resource Protection: Roles and Responsibilities 89
1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division 89
2. Sanctuary Manager 89
3. Sanctuary Advisory Committee 90
4. Federal Agencies 90
C. Research: Roles and Responsibilities 91
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Pageviu
1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division 91
2. Sanctuary Manager 91
3. Sanctuary Advisory Committee 91
D. Interpretation/Education: Roles and Responsibilities 91
1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division 91
2. Sanctuary Manager 92
3. Sanctuary Advisory Committee 92
E. Site Administration: Roles and Responsibilities 92
1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division 92
2. Sanctuary Manager 93
3. Federal, State, Local and Regional Agencies 93
4. Sanctuary Advisory Committee 93
F. Sanctuary Staffing 94
G. Sanctuary Facilities 94
PART THREE: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Section I: Status Quo Alternative (No Action) 95
A. Federal Agencies 96
B. State Agencies 97
Section II: Designation of a National Marine Sanctuary
(Preferred Alternative) 97
A. Boundary Alternatives 98
1. Alternative #1 98
2. Alternative #2 100
3. Alternative #3 102
4. Alternative #4 104
5. Alternative #5 (Preferred Alternative) 104
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Page ix
B. Management Alternatives 107
1. Alternative #1 107
2. Alternative #2 (Preferred Alternative) 108
3. Alternative #3 108
C. Regulatory Alternatives (By Activity) 109
1. Discharge or Disposal of Materials 109
a. Dredged Material Disposal 110
b. Disposal of Fish Processing Wastes 113
c. Discharge of Trash and Other Debris 114
d. Wastewater Discharges 114
2. Ocean Incineration 115
3. Offshore Industrial Materials Development 116
4. Alteration of, or Construction on, the Seabed 118
5. Mariculture Activities 118
6. Removing, Taking or Injuring Historical or
Cultural Resources 119
7. Taking of Marine Reptiles, Marine Mammals, and
Seabirds 120
8. Offshore Hydrocarbon Activities 120
9. Operation of Commercial Vessels 122
10. Lightering 123
11. Operation of Commercial Charterboats 123
12. Operation of Recreational Vessels 124
13. Installation or Placement of Submerged Pipelines and Cables 124
14. Fishing Activities 125
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Page x
PART FOUR: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES
OF SANCTUARY DESIGNATION
Section I: Environmental Consequences of Alternatives 127
A. Status Quo Alternative 127
1. Resource Protection 128
2. Research and Interpretation/Education 132
3. Management 132
B. National Marine Sanctuary Designation (Preferred Alternative) 134
1. Resource Protection Regime 135
2. Research and Interpretation/Education 140
3. Boundary Alternatives 141
4. Management Alternatives 144
Section 11: Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or Socioeconomic Effects 145
Section III: Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and
the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 145
PART FIVE: LIST OF PREPARERS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 146
PART SIX: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS
RECEIVING COPIES OF THE FEIS/MP DOCUMENT 147
PART SEVEN: APPENDICES
A. Designation Document and Proposed Regulations Al
B. Existing Federal and State Authorities Relevant to Management Jurisdiction Bl
C. Abbreviations CI
D. Nationjd Register of Historic Places Criteria Dl
E. References r El
F. New England Fishery Management Council Response to NCAA Consultation
Under Section 305(b)(5) of Title III Fl
G. Responses to Comments Received on the DEIS/MP Gl
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Page xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
1 National Marine Sanctuary System 3
2 Regional Context of Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary 12
3 Sanctuary Boundary 13
4 Dominant Circulation of the Gulf of Maine 17
5 Area Recommended for Northern Right Whale Critical
Habitat Designation 27
6 Statistical Area 514 40
7 Diagram of Existing New England Whalewatching
Guidelines 42
8 Vessel Traffic Separation Scheme 53
9 Air Force Warning Areas W102 and W104A 58
10 North Atlantic OCS Planning Area 59
11 Gravel Distribution Offshore Boston
Metropolitan Area 62
12 Sand Distribution Offshore Boston
Metropolitan Area 63
13 Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site 66
14 Existing Wastewater Discharges into
Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay 69
15 EPA Recommended MWRA Outfall Location ^: ^ 70
16 Offshore Fixed Artificial Platform 76
17 Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries 79
18 Sanctuary Boundary Alternative #1 99
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Pagexii
LIST OF HGURES (CONTINUED)
Figure Title Page
19 Sanctuary Boundary Alternative #2 101
20 Sanctuary Boundary Alternative #3 103
21 Sanctuary Boundary Alternative #4 105
22 Sanctuary Boundary Alternative #5 (Preferred Alternative) 106
23 Cape Cod National Seashore 133
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Pagem.
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1 Macrobenthic Taxonomic Groups at Georges
Bank, by Biomass and Density 21
2 Species/Species Groups of Marine Birds
Occurring in the Southwestern
Gulf of Maine 32
3 Commercial Fisheries Landings
Data: 1988-1990 41
4 Total 1989 Bluefm Tuna Landings from
Stellwagen Bank (Indicated by Port) 48
5 Total 1990 Bluefin Tuna Landings from
Stellwagen Bank (Indicated by Fort) 48
6 Total Number of Fish Caught in
Recreational Fishery Beyond Three-Mile
Jurisdiction (North Atlantic): 1987-1989 51
7 Seasonal Trends in Commercial Ship
Traffic Across Stellwagen Bank (1989-90) 54
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Pagem
Note to Reader:
A. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPAl
This document is both a management plan and a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the Stellwagen
Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Some of the section headings, and the order in which they are presented, are
different from those frequently found in other environmental impact statements. To assist NEPA reviewers, the
following table has been developed. Topics normally discussed in an EIS document are listed under the heading
"NEPA Requirement". The corresponding section of this document and the page numbers are provided in the
other two columns.
NEPA Requirement Management Plan /EIS Page
Purpose and Need for Action Part One: Introduction 4
Alternatives
Preferred Alternative Part Three: Section II 95
Other Alternatives Part Three: Sections I, II 93, 95
Affected Environment Part Two, Section II 9
Environmental Consequences
General and Specific Impacts Part Four, Section I 124
Unavoidable Adverse Part Four, Section II 142
Environmental or Socioeconomic Effects
Relationship Between Short-Term Part Four, Section III 142
of the Environment and the Maintenance and
Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity
Possible Conflicts Between the Part Two, Section III 75
Proposed Action and the Objectives of
Federal, State, Regional, and Local Land
Use Plans, PoHcies and Contacts for
the Area Concerned
List of Preparers Part Five 143
List of Agencies, Organizations, Part Six 144
and Persons Receiving Copies of the F^IS
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Page xv
B. Endangered Species Act (ESA")
Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service of the U.S.
Department of the Interior, and the National Marine Fisheries Service of the U.S. Department of Commerce,
were consulted in the performance of the biological assessments of possible impacts on threatened or endangered
species that might result from the designation of a National Marine Sanctuary at Stellwagen Bank. These
consultations confirmed that some 11 endangered (E), 3 threatened (T), and 1 proposed threatened (PT) species
are either known to or may occasionally occur in the area. Informal consultation with FWS concluded that
designation and promulgation of regulations for the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary are not likely
to adversely affect threatened or endangered species under FWS jurisdiction. Formal consultation with NMFS
concluded that Sanctuary designation and management are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
any threatened or endangered species under NMFS jurisdiction. The species identified are:
1. Peregrine falcon {Falco peregriniis anatum) E
2. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) E
3. Roseate tern {Sterna dougallii) E
4. Piping plover {Charadrius melodus) T
5. Humpback whale {Megaptera novaeangliae) E
6. Fin whale {Balaenoptera physalus) E
7. Northern right whale {Eubalaena glacialis) E
8. Sei whale {Balaenoptera borealis) E
9. Blue whale {Balaenoptera musculus) E
10. Leatherback sea turtle {Dermochelys coriacea) E
11. Loggerhead sea turtle {Caretta) T
12. Kemp's (Atlantic) ridley sea turtle E
{Lepidochelys kempi)
13. Green sea turtle {Chelonia mydas) T --_
14. Shortnose sturgeon {Acipenser brevirostrum) E
15. Harbor porpoise {Phocoena phocoena) PT
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Pagexvi
C. Resource Assessment
The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, as amended, requires a resource assessment
report documenting present and potential uses of the proposed Sanctuary area, including uses subject to the
primary jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of the Interior. This requirement has been met in consultation with
the Department of the Interior, and the resource assessment report is contained in Part Two, Section II.
D. Federal Consistency Determination
Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, requires that each Federal
agency conducting or supporting activities directly affecting the coastal zone shall conduct or support those
activities in a manner which is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved state coastal
management programs. A Federal Consistency Determination must be provided to the Massachusetts Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA), which has been a cooperating agency with NOAA in the development
of this designation. To meet this requirement, NOAA has formally provided its Consistency Determination to
the EOEA at the release of this Final Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan, which finds that the
designation of Stellwagen Bank as a National Marine Sanctuary is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable,
with the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Plan.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Stellwagen Bank is located in the extreme southwestern Gulf of Maine, within Massachusetts Bay. The
Bank's southern end is situated approximately six miles north-northwest of Provincetown, Massachusetts. In
accordance with Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C.
1431 et seq.. this Final Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan proposes implementation of the
Congressionally designated Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary to facilitate the long-term protection and
management of the resources and qualities of the Stellwagen Bank system.
Part One of this document reviews the authority for national marine sanctuary designation; the mission and
goals of the National Marine Sanctuary Program; the history of this proposal's development; and the purpose
and need for designating a national marine sanctuary at Stellwagen Bank.
Part Two, Section I outlines Sanctuary management goals and objectives in resource protection, research,
interpretation/ education, and visitor use. Part Two, Section II describes the environmental conditions, living
and non-Uving resources of the Sanctuary area, and the human activities occurring in the vicinity.
Part Two, Section II describes the Sanctuary setting. The boundary surrounds the entire Stellwagen Bank
and includes approximately 638 square nautical miles (842 square miles). The glacially-deposited Bank feature
measures approximately 16.30 nautical miles (18.75 miles; 30.17 km) in length, and 5.43 nautical miles (6.25
miles; 10.01 km) in width, at its widest point. Two distinct peak productivity periods produce a complex system
of overlapping mid-water and benthic habitats within the sanctuary study area. Commercially important fisheries
include extensive benthic, invertebrate, and pelagic species. The Bank system also provides important feeding
and nursery grounds for large and small cetacean species, several of which are endangered. Diverse bird species
forage at the Bank, some in direct association with feeding cetaceans and fishing vessels.
Traditionally, the principal human activity dependent on the Bank's resources has been commercial fishing,
and this tradition continues. Recently, whale-watching has also become an important commercial activity. To
a lesser degree, sportfishing also generates significant economic revenues. Additional human activities involving
the Bank system include recreational fishing, research, commercial shipping, and dredged materials disposal.
In addition to these activities, possible sand/gravel mining, development of offshore artificial fixed platforms, and
mariculture operations could affect Stellwagen Bank resources and qualities in the future.
The sanctuary management plan is presented in Part Two, Section III of this document. This plan provides
guidelines to ensure that all management activities conducted during the first five years following designation are
directed at addressing important issues as a means of meeting sanctuary objectives. Management actions are
considered within the context of three categories of program objectives: resource protection, research, and
interpretation/education. Resource protection will involve cooperation with other agencies in formulating
management policies and procedures, including the enforcement of regulations. Research will include baseline,
monitoring, and predictive studies to provide information needed to address management issues.
Interpretation/education programs wUl focus on improving public awareness and understanding of sanctuary
resources, and the need to protect them.
Existing regulatory authorities affecting the sanctuary area (Appendix B) will not be replaced or superseded
by sanctuary designation. Rather, the effect of such existing authorities will be strengthened via cooperative
efforts among implementing agencies. The following activities, however, will be regulated by NOAA under the
terms of designation:
a. Discharging or depositing of materials or substances, (either within or from outside the Sanctuary);
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Page 2
b. Developing offshore industrial materials;
c. Construction, placement, or abandoimient of any substance or material on, or any alteration of, the
seabed;
d. Removing or damaging historical resources;
e. Taking marine mammals, marine reptiles, and seabirds (except as permitted by the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act);
f. Transferring any petroleum-based product from vessel-to-vessel ("lightering");
g. Possessing any historical resource, or any marine mammal, marine reptile, or seabird taken in violation
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act;
and
h. Interfering, obstructing, delaying or preventing any investigation, search, seizure or disposition of seized
property in connection with enforcement of the Act.
Several activities also are identified as "subject to regulation", but will not be regulated now. These are:
a. offshore hydrocarbon activities;
b. mariculture activities; and
c. vessel operation.
Sanctuary regulations are contained in the Designation Document (Appendix A).
The administrative framework for managing the sanctuary (Part Two, Section IV) recognizes the need for
coordination and cooperation among all participants. The roles and responsibiUties of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, and National Marine Fisheries Service; the U.S.
Coast Guard; the Sanctuary Manager and staff; and a Sanctuary Advisory Committee are dehneated, as they
relate to the areas of resource protection, research, interpretation/education, and general administration.
Opportunities for cooperation with state and regional agencies, as well as private institutions and organizations,
are also discussed.
NOAA considered a range of alternatives in developing the proposal for a national marine sanctuary at
Stellwagen Bank. These alternatives, described in Part Three, were evaluated in terms of achieving optimum
protection for the ecosystem, improving scientific knowledge of the area, and promoting pubhc understanding
of the values of the Stellwagen Bank system's resources. Sanctuary designation was selected as preferable to no
action; and preferred boundary, management, and regulatory alternatives were selected. The environmental
consequences of other alternatives are discussed in Part Four. Congressional designation of the Sanctuary
(P. L. 102-587, §2202) establishes a boundary (depicted in this document as boundary alternative 5), and
specifically prohits exploration for and mining of sand and gravel and other minerals within the Sanctuary.
Emerging issues or changing circumstances may affect specific aspects of sanctuary management as described
in this plan. The plan will be reviewed at least every five years following designation, or sooner if necessary, and
management measures revised as necessary to incorporate experience gained in actual management. However,
the overall goals, management objectives, and general guidelines governing the plan's development will continue
to be relevant.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 3
The National Marine Sanctuary
Program
Olympic A
Coast
J^orthwest Strait
Cordell Bank 4
Gulf o( the (
Farallones
Monterey Bay '
Channel Islands #
Hawaiian Islands f^
Fagatele Bay,
American Samoa
A Proposed
# Designated
Stellwagen
Bank
' A Norlolk Canyon
I MONITOR
• Gray's Reef
Florida Keys
- Key Largo
- Looe Key
FIGURE 1: NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY SYSTEM
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 4
PART ONE: INTRODUCTION
decisionmaking in national marine sanctuaries;
A. Authority for Designation
Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seg., as
amended (MPRSA) (the Act), authorizes the
Secretary of Commerce to designate discrete marine
areas of special national significance as national
marine sanctuaries. The purpose is to promote
comprehensive long-term management of their
conservation, recreational, ecological, historical,
research, educational, or aesthetic values. National
marine sanctuaries may be designated in those areas
of coastal and ocean waters, the Great Lakes and
their connecting waters, and submerged lands over
which the United States exercises jurisdiction,
consistent with international law. National marine
sanctuaries are built around the existence of
distinctive natural and cultural resources whose
protection and beneficial use require comprehensive
planning and management. The National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
administers the National Marine Sanctuary Program
through the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
(SRD), in the Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management (OCRM).
3. Enhance pubUc awareness, understanding, and
wise use of the marine environment through
public interpretive, educational, and recreational
programs; and
4. Facilitate, to the extent compatible with the
primary objective of resource protection,
multiple uses of national marine sanctuaries.
C. Terms of Designation
Section 304(a)(4) [16 U.S.C. 1434(a)(4)] of
MPRSA provides that as a condition for estabUshing
a national marine sanctuary, the Secretary of
Commerce must set forth the terms of the
designation. The terms must include: (a) the
geographic area included within the proposed
Sanctuary; (b) the characteristics of the area that
give it conservation, recreational, ecological,
historical, research, educational or aesthetic value;
and (c) the types of activities that will be subject to
regulation in order to protect those characteristics.
The terms of the designation may only be modified
by the same procedure through which the original
designation was made.
B. Mission and Goals of the National Marine
Sanctuary Program
D. Status of the National Marine Sanctuary
Program
In accordance with Title III of the MPRSA, the
mission of the National Marine Sanctuary Program
is to identify, designate, and comprehensively
manage nationally-significant marine areas, based
on the criteria noted above. National marine
sanctuaries are estabhshed for the long-term
benefit, use and enjoyment by the pubhc. To meet
these objectives, the following National Marine
Sanctuary Program goals have been estabhshed:
1. Enhance resource protection through
comprehensive and coordinated conservation
and management tailored to specific resources
that complements existing regulatory
authorities;
2. Support, promote, and coordinate scientific
research on, and monitoring of, the site-specific
marine resources to improve management
Thirteen national marine sanctuaries have been
estabhshed since the Program's inception in 1972
(Figure 1):
• The Monitor National Marine Sanctuary serves
to protect the wreck of the Civil War ironclad,
U.S.S. MONITOR. It was designated in January
1975, and is one square nautical mile in
diameter. The Sanctuary is located 16 miles
southeast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.
• The Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary was
designated in December 1975, and provides
protection and management to a 100 square-
nautical-mile area of tropical coral reefs south of
Miami, Florida. The Sanctuary is a seaward
extension of the John Pennekamp State Coral
Reef Park.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 5
• The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary
was designated in September 1980, and
encompasses 1,252 square nautical miles off the
coast of Santa Barbara, California. The
Sanctuary surrounds the four northern Channel
Islands and Santa Barbara Island, and provides
protection to valuable habitats for marine
mammals, including extensive pinniped
assemblages, and seabirds.
• The Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary was
designated in January 1981 and consists of a
submerged section of the Florida reef southwest
of Big Pine Key. The five square-nautical-mile
site includes a beautiful "spur and groove" coral
formation supporting a diverse marine
community and a wide variety of human uses.
• The Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary,
designated in January 1981, is a submerged live
bottom area located on the South Atlantic
continental shelf due east of Sapelo Island,
Georgia. The Sanctuary encompasses about 17
square nautical miles, and protects a highly
productive and unusual habitat for a wide variety
of species including corals, tropical fish, and
endangered and threatened sea turtles.
• The Gulf of the Farallones National Marine
Sanctuary was designated in January 1981, and
encompasses 948 square nautical miles off the
northern coast of San Francisco, California. The
Sanctuary includes important habitats for a
diverse array of marine mammals and seabirds,
as well as pelagic fish, plants, and benthic biota.
• The Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary in
American Samoa was designated in April 1986.
The 163-acre bay site contains deepwater coral
terrace formations that are unique to the high
islands of the tropical Pacific. The Sanctuary
protects habitat for a diverse array of marine
flora and fauna, including the endangered
hawksbill sea turtle and the threatened green sea
turtle.
• The Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary,
located approximately 20 miles west of Point
Reyes, California, was designated in May 1989.
The 397 square-nautical-mile site surrounds a
grcuiitic formation which provides habitat for an
unusual assortment of marine and intertidal
species, including colonies of purple hydrocorals.
Abundant fish species attract feeding cetaceans
and seabirds.
• The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
was Congressionally-designated in November
1990, and encompasses approximately 2600
square nautical miles of coral reefs, seagrass
beds, and related shoreline habitats off Florida.
NOAA is required to complete a comprehensive
management plan including implementing
regulations by May 1993. Upon its completion,
existing National Marine Sanctuaries at Key
Largo and Looe Key will be incorporated into
this plan.
• The Flower Garden Banks National Marine
Sanctuary encompasses approximately 42 souare
nautical miles surrounding two separate
submerged features, the East and the West
Flower Garden Banks, situated over 100 miles
off the coast of Texas. Designated in January
1992, the Sanctuary protects the northernmost
coral reefs on the North American continental
shelf.
• The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
encompasses 4,024 square nautical miles of
coastal and ocean waters off Monterey,
California. Designated in September 1992, the
Sanctuary protects a a variety of nearshore and
offshore habitats, including Monterey Canyon,
which measures over 10,000 feet in depth at its
seaward edge. Abundant marine mammals,
birds, fish, invertebrates and floral and faunal
communities depend upon these habitats, and
are important to central and northern CaUfornia.
• The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary
was Congressionally designated in November
1992 and encompasses 638 square nautical miles
of biologically productive waters between Cape
Cod and Cape Aim, Massachusetts. The Bank
feature supports plankton, invertebrate and fish
species important to a variety of marine
mammals, including humpback, fin, sei, and
northern right whales. The Bank is heavily used
for both fishing and whalewatching activities.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 6
° The Hawaiian Islands National Marine
Sanctuary was Congressionally designated in
November 1992. The Sanctuary includes waters
within the 100-fathom isobath of the islands of
Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and a portion of Kaui.
Among Sanctuary purposes are protection of
humpback whales and identification of additional
marine resources and ecosystems of national
significance. Unless determined to be
unsuitable, waters around the island of
Kahoolawe will be added to the Sanctuary in
January 1996.
In addition to Stellwagen Bank, the Sanctuaries
and Reserves Division is actively developing
designation documents for four additional proposed
Sanctuaries. The proposed Sanctuaries are:
Northwest Straits, Washington; Olympic Coast,
Washington; Norfolk Canyon, Virginia; and
Thunder Bay, Michigan.
E. History of the Proposal
In January 1982, NOAA published a Program
Development Plan (PDF) for the National Marine
Sanctuary Program, describing the Program's
mission and goals; site identification procedures and
criteria; and establishing a sanctuary nomination
and designation process. Pursuant to the PDP and
Program regulations, NOAA initiated a pubUc
process in February 1982 to estabUsh a Site
Evaluation List (SEL), to be comprised of highly-
qualified marine sites meeting Program criteria for
further evaluation as possible national marine
sanctuaries. Potential SEL sites were identified and
recommended to NOAA by regional resource
evaluation teams, in accordance with the Program's
mission and goals, as set forth in the PDP and in
Program regulations.
A marine area of approximately 500 square
miles (1294.99 sq. km) surrounding Stellwagen Bank
(offshore Massachusetts) was nominated jointly by
Defenders of Wildlife, Inc. and Dr. Charles A.
Mayo, of the Provincetown Center for Coastal
Studies, to the North Atlantic Regional Resource
Evaluation Team for its consideration. The
nomination was subsequently recommended by the
evaluation team to NOAA for placement on the
proposed SEL. A proposed SEL, including the
Stellwagen Bank site, was published on March 1,
1983 (48 FR 8527); and, following a public comment
period, the final SEL was published August 4, 1983
(48 FR 35568).
The Secretary of Commerce (acting through
NOAA), will from time to time select sites from the
SEL as Active Candidates, which formally initiates
evaluation of a site for possible designation, through
implementation of the National Environmental
PoHcy Act (NEPA) process. Prior to the 1988
Congressional amendments to Title III of the
MPRSA, there was no time limit on NOAA's
consideration of a site for national marine sanctuary
designation. However, the 1988 amendments to the
National Marine Sanctuary Program (Title II of
Pub. L. 100-627, codified at 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.)
establish (at Section 304(b)) a finite period of time
(i.e., 30 months) from the time of Active Candidacy
to a notice of designation (or findings regarding why
such notice has not been published).
Additionally, the 1988 Amendments specifically
require (Section 304(e)) that a prospectus on the
Stellwagen Bank proposal be submitted to Congress
for its review and comment no later than September
30, 1990. The prospectus on a proposed national
marine sanctuary contains, among other
information, the draft environmental impact
statement and the draft management plan
(DEIS/MP). To meet this Congressionally-
mandated deadline, NOAA elevated the Stellwagen
Bank proposal to Active Candidate status on April
19, 1989 (54 FR 15787).
Following the Federal Register notice
announcing Stellwagen Bank as an Active Candidate
for National Marine Sanctuary designation, NOAA
conducted four public scoping meetings during the
week of June 12-16, 1989 at Provincetown, MA;
Portsmouth, NH; Gloucester, MA; and Boston, MA.
The purpose of the meetings was to gather
information and comments from individuals,
organizations, and government agencies on the
range and significance of issues related to the
Sanctuary proposal. Attendees were provided
information sheets on the study area for the
proposal, and were asked to comment on identified
management issues; to suggest additional issues for
examination; and to provide information useful for
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 7
NOAA's evaluation of the site's potential as a
National Marine Sanctuary.
Significant concerns were identified through this
process regarding possible threats to the Stellwagen
Bank environment from proposed human activities.
Natural resources at risk include the Bank feature
itself, as well as commercially-important fisheries
and endangered cetaceans.
The DEIS/MP on the proposed Stellwagen
Bank National Marine Sanctuary, and the
Prospectus to Congress were published on February
8, 1991, initiating a 60-day pubUc comment period,
and a 45-day Congressional review period, during
this period, a series of pubUc hearings were
conducted (March 11-18, 1991) in Portsmouth, NH;
Gloucester, MA; Duxbury, MA; Provincetown, MA;
and Washington, DC. Approximately 225 persons
attended the pubUc hearings, and over 860 written
comments were received during this period.
Additionally, petitions signed by more than 20,000
persons supporting designation of the Stellwagen
Bank National Marine Sanctuary were also received
by NOAA by the comment deadline of April 9,
1991.
Prior to the issuance of this FEIS/MP, the U.S.
Congress passed and the President signed into law
the National Marine Sanctuaries Amendments Act
of 1992, which reauthorizes and amends Title III of
the MPRSA (P. L. 102-587, Nov. 4, 1992). Section
2202 of P. L. 102-587 designates the Stellwagen
Bank National Marine Sanctuary; establishes a
Sanctuary boundary; prohibits the exploration for
and mining of sand and gravel and other minerals
in the Sanctuary; requires consultation with the
Secretary of Commerce by Federal agencies
proposing agency actions in the vicinity of the
Sanctuary that may affect Sanctuary resources;
authorizes funding levels for fiscal years 1993 and
1994; and directs the Secretary of Commerce to
consider estabUshment of a satellite Sanctuary office
in Provincetown, Gloucester or Hull, MA.
F. Purpose and Need for Designation
The combination of physical and oceanographic
characteristics over and around the Stellwagen Bank
feature produces two distinct peak productivity
periods annually. This occurs when overturn and
mixing of coastal waters with nutrient-rich waters
from deeper strata result in a complex system of
overlapping mid-water and benthic habitats. This
cychc biological productivity supports a large variety
of fishery resources, including mackerel, bluefin
tuna, bluefish, shad, menhaden, herring, cod,
haddock, flounders, quahog, and sea scallop. Large
populations of the predominant forage fish, the sand
lance, support larger fish species and seasonal
populations of cetaceans. Sand lance are also
responsible for seasonal concentrations of a variety
of seabirds. Several species of cetaceans have been
recorded at Stellwagen Bank, including Atlantic
white-sided dolphins, white-beaked dolphins, harbor
porpoises, orca whales, pilot whales, minke whales,
humpback whales, fin whales, sei whales, and
northern right whales. The latter four species are
Federally-Usted as "endangered."
The proximity to land and accessibility of this
biologically rich and diverse system have resulted in
extensive levels of human activities. The primary
commercial use of the Bank's resources is fishing,
which has occurred in the area for several
generations. More recently, commercial
whalewatching also has become a principal
commercial activity. Whalewatchers visiting the
Stellwagen Bank region number more than 1.25
million a year, involving more than 40 vessels.
Commercial vessel traffic lanes in and out of
Boston Harbor traverse directly across the Bank
feature. Waters near the Stellwagen Bank have
been and continue to be used for disposal of
dredged materials. There are also activities
currently underway to estabhsh an extended outfall
tunnel, ending approximately 15 miles from
Stellwagen Bank, to carry and release treated
wastewater effluent from Boston Haibur.
Pubhc awareness of and attention to coastal
management issues, and the desire to ensure the
future of such areas for commercial, recreational,
and other uses, have highlighted both the
importance of the Stellwagen Bank system and the
current lack of comprehensive and coordinated
management for this area. The Sanctuary occurs in
Federal waters not fully protected from potentially
harmful activities, and lacking the benefits of
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Page 8
coordinated, multiple-use management. Sanctuary
designation will provide both the coordination of
ongoing and planned human activities, and the
mechanism for ensuring long-term protection of the
system, through regulatory, research, monitoring,
and interpretive/educational programs.
On October 7, 1992, Congress passed legislation
reauthorizing and amending Title III of the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (Title III).
This legislation was signed into law on November 4,
1992 (P. L. 102-587). Title III, as amended,
designates the Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary, and additionally mandates the adoption
of a Sanctuary boundary described in this document
as boundary alternative 5; prohibits the exploration
for, and mining of, sand and gravel and other
minerals in the Sanctuary; requires consultation with
the Secretary of Commerce by Federal agencies
proposing agency actions in the vicinity of the
Sanctuary that may affect Sanctuary resources;
authorizes fiscal years 1993 and 1994 funding levels
for the Sanctuary; and directs the Secretary of
Commerce to consider establishment of a satellite
Sanctuary office in Provincetown, Gloucester or
Hull, MA (Section 2202).
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 9
PART TWO:
PLAN
SANCTUARY MANAGEMENT
Section I: A Management Plan for the Stellwagen
Bank National Marine Sanctuary
A. Introduction
National marine sanctuaries are established in
areas of the marine environment which have been
selected for their conservation, recreational,
ecological, historical, research, educational, or
aesthetic values. Regulations implementing the
National Marine Sanctuary Program (15 CFR Part
922) require the preparation of management plans
for all proposed sanctuaries. These management
plans identify long-term, comprehensive strategies
for the administration and operation of marine
sanctuaries following designation. Strategies focus
on the site's goals and objectives, management
responsibilities, research and interpretation/
education programs, and plan implementation
policies. The management plan is also a pubUc
document, providing information to government
agencies, research and education institutions, other
organizations, and the interested pubUc on how,
why, and by whom the Sanctuary will be protected
and managed.
The management plan establishes an
administrative framework for the Sanctuary that
considers the cooperation and coordination
necessary to ensure effective management. The
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD), of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), however, retains overall responsibility for
site management.
Program regulations also require that progress
towards implementation of the management plan
and the goals of a designated Sanctuary be
evaluated every five years (or sooner). Evaluation
takes into account the variability of funding for staff
and program development, and recognizes the
effects on specific aspects of plan implementation.
Modifications to the scope and scale of a
Sanctuary's programs may be required due to
unforeseeable changes in funding levels. However,
the goals and objectives of the management plan
remain unchanged.
B. Sanctuary Goals and Objectives
Sanctuary goals and objectives provide the
framework for developing management strategies.
The goals and objectives direct Sanctuary activities
towards the dual purposes of resource conservation
and public use, and are consistent with the intent of
the National Marine Sanctuary Program.
Management strategies planned for the
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary are
focused on the goals and objectives outlined below.
Although Sanctuary goals and objectives are listed
discretely, their effects overlap. For instance,
research and interpretation/education efforts
contribute both to resource protection, and to
enhancement of public use of the Sanctuary.
1. Resource Protection
The highest priority management goal is
protection of the marine environment and resources
of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary.
Specific objectives of the resource protection
program are to:
• Establish cooperative agreements and other
mechanisms for coordination among all the
agencies participating in Sanctuary
management;
• Develop an effective and coordinated program
for the enforcement of Sanctuary regulations;
• Promote pubUc awareness of and voluntary
user compUance with regulations through an
interpretation/education program stressing
resource sensitivity and wise use; and
• Reduce threats to Sanctuary resources posed by
major emergencies through contingency and
emergency response planning.
2. Research
Both site- and resource-specific research has been
conducted in the Stellwagen Bank/Cape Cod and
Massachusetts Bays areas, particularly with regard
to cetacean use. Sanctuary research will build upon
existing data to improve overall understanding of
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 10
the Stellwagen Bank environment and resources,
and to identify and resolve specific management
issues. Research results will be used in
interpretation and education programs, for visitors
and others interested in the Sanctuary, as well as for
resource protection. Specific objectives of the
research program are to:
• Establish a framework and procedures for
administering research projects to ensure that
they are responsive to management concerns,
and that research results contribute to
improved management of the Sanctuary;
• Gather necessary baseline data on the physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics of the
Sanctuary;
• Gather necessary baseline data on cultural and
historical resources of the Sanctuary;
• Monitor and assess environmental changes as
they occur;
• Identify the range of effects on the Sanctuary
environment resulting from changes in human
activities;
• Incorporate research results into the
interpretation/education program in a format
useful for resource users and the general
public; and
• Encourage information exchange among all
agencies and organizations conducting
management-related research in the Sanctuary,
to promote informed management.
3. Interpretation/Education
The interpretation/education program is directed
to improving public awareness and understanding of
the significance of the Sanctuary and the need to
protect its resources. Specific objectives of the
interpretation/education program are to:
• Provide the public with information on the
Sanctuary, and its goals and objectives, with an
emphasis on the need to use its resources
wisely to ensure their long-term viabihty;
• Enhance and broaden support for the
Sanctuary and Sanctuary management by
offering programs suited to visitors with a
range of diverse interests;
• Provide for public involvement by encouraging
feedback on the effectiveness of
interpretation/education programs; and
• Collaborate with other organizations to provide
interpretation/education services, including
extension and outreach programs and other
volunteer projects, that explain the purposes of
the Sanctuary and the National Marine
Sanctuary Program.
4. Visitor Use
The Sanctuary's overall goal for visitor
management is to encourage commercial and
recreational uses of the Sanctuary, compatible with
resource protection. Specific objectives of the
visitor use program are to:
• Provide relevant information about Sanctuary
resources ^md Sanctuary uses policies;
• Collaborate with public and private
organizations in promoting compatible uses of
the Sanctuary by exchanging information
concerning its commercial and recreational
potential; and
• Monitor and assess the levels of Sanctuary use
to identify and control potential degradation of
resources and minimize potential user conflicts.
Section II: The Sanctuary Setting
The most important factors to be considered in
developing a management plan for the Stellwagen
Bank National Marine Sanctuary aie its location; its
physical characteristics, environmental conditions,
and biological resources; its human uses; and the
roles of the agencies with management
responsibihties in the proposal area. These factors
are summarized below to provide the background
context necessary for understanding the
management plan.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 11
A. The Regional Context
Stellwagen Bank is located in the southwestern
Gulf of Maine, which is formed by the bight of the
northwest Atlantic coastline between Cape Cod,
Massachusetts and Cape Sable, Nova Scotia (Figure
2). Roughly rectangular in shape, the Gulf of
Maine measures about 200 miles (321.8 km) long by
120 miles (193.1 km) wide. A series a shallow
banks forms its southern border and isolates it from
deeper waters of the North Atlantic, except at the
Northwest Chaimel, where Gulf depths attain 270
meters. The Gulf and its offshore banks constitute
a geographic entity that has maintained its integrity
for at least the last 13,000 years (Campbell, 1987).
Between Cape Ann and Cape Cod, in the
southwest corner of the Gulf, is Massachusetts Bay,
75% enclosed by land. The Bay's most prominent
submarine feature is Stellwagen Bank, which lies at
the Bay's eastern edge and partially blocks its
mouth. The Stellwagen Bank is a shallow, glacially-
deposited, primarily sandy feature, curving in a
southeast-to-northwest direction for almost 20 miles.
Water depths over and around the Bank range from
65 feet to more than 300 feet. Seaward of the
Bank, the seafloor slopes to depths of 600 feet or
more.
1. Location and Boundary of Sanctuary
The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary
is located approximately 25 nautical miles east of
Boston, Massachusetts, at the eastern edge of
Massachusetts Bay. The site is also located
approximately 3 miles north-northwest of Race
Point (Provincetown), Massachusetts; and 3 miles
southeast of Cape Ann (Gloucester), Massachusetts.
The Bank feature itself measures 18.75 miles in
length, and roughly 6.25 miles across at its widest
point, at the southern end of the Bank. The
Sanctuary boundary occurs entirely within Federal
waters, i.e., beyond the three-mile limit of
Commonwealth jurisdiction. The Sanctuary
boundary surrounds the entirety of the Stellwagen
Bank feature, as well as Tillies Bank (situated to the
northeast), and southern portions of Jeffreys Ledge
(situated to the north). The Sanctuary's southern
border follows a line tangential to the seaward limit
of Commonwealth jurisdiction adjacent to the
Commonwealth-designated Cape Cod Bay Ocean
Sanctuary; and is also tangential to waters
designated by the Commonwealth as the Cape Cod
Ocean Sanctuary. The northwest border of the
Sanctuary coincides with the Commonwealth-
designated North Shore Ocean Sanctuary.
The Sanctuary boundary is marked by the
following coordinates, which indicate the northeast,
southeast, southwest, west- northwest, and north-
northwest points: 42°45'59.83"N x 70°13'01.77"W
(NE); 42°05'35.51"N x 70°02'08.14"W (SE);
42°07'44.89"N x 70°28'15.44"W (SW); 42°32'53.52"N
X 70°35'52.38"W (WNW); and 42°39'04.08"N x
70°30'11.29"(W) (NNW). The Sanctuary boundary
encompasses approximately 638 square nautical
miles, or 842 square miles (Figure 3).
2. Regional Access
Resources of the Stellwagen Bank area have
traditionally supported an active commercial fishing
industry, which reaches the Bank's fishing grounds
primarily from Gloucester (approximately 12 miles
northwest of the north end of the Bank), and
Provincetown (approximately 6 miles south of the
southern end of the Bank) (Figure 2). Additional
fishing ports using the area include Boston,
Chatham, New Bedford, Plymouth, Scituate,
Hyannis, Fall River, Manomet, Falmouth, Wellfleet,
Barnstable, Beverly, Salem, Ipswich, Rockport,
Dartmouth, Westport, Fairhaven, Cuttyhimk,
Duxbury, and Onset. Out-of-state fishing vessels
also visit the Bank area from New Hampshire
(primarily Portsmouth), Maine, and (less frequently)
Connecticut. Currently, there are approximately 280
commercial fishing vessels fishing regularly in the
Stellwagen Bank region. (Kellogg, 1990).
Recently, the number of both commercial and
recreational vessels using the Bank for
whalewatching activities has increased. These
vessels operate primarily out of Provincetown and
Gloucester. Overall, commercial whalewatch vessels
using Stellwagen Bank seasonally number
approximately 40. (MacKenzie, 1986).
B. Sanctuary Resources
Stellwagen Bank is a glacially-deposited, primarily
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 12
Trio'
43°00' p
7roo'
70°30'
70°00'
42°30'
42°00'
41°30'
69°45'
43° 00'
42°30'
42°00'
41°30'
7ri5'
7r00'
70°30'
70°00'
69° 4 5'
FIGURE 2: REGIONAL CONTEXT OF STELLWAGEN BANK SANCTUARY
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 13
43''00'
Tl'OO'
70=30'
70°00'
42°30'
42°00'
4r30'
71°15'
69°45'
43°00'
42=30'
42°00'
41-30'
71°00'
70''30'
70°00'
69°45
FIGURE 3: SANCTUARY BOUNDARY
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Pc^e 14
sandy submerged feature measuring nearly twenty
miles in length, occurring in a southeast-to-
northwest direction between Cape Cod and Cape
Aim, Massachusetts. Generally counterclockwise
surface currents flow over the Bank, where waters
depths range from 65 feet to over 300 feet. Bank
waters are characterized by two distinct productivity
periods annually, when overturn and mixing of
coastal waters with nutrient-rich waters from deeper
strata produce a complex and rich system of
overlapping midwater and benthic habitats.
This cyclic biological productivity supports a large
variety of commercially important fisheries, which
have in turn supported generations of fishermen.
The Bank's resources are also important feeding
and nursery grounds for an abundance of
endangered cetacean species; and provide habitat
for several additional marine mammal species and
associated coastal/pelagic seabirds. Because of its
proximity to land, Stellwagen Bank attracts an
increasing number of commercial, recreational and
scientific users and visitors.
Several additional human activities occur over or
near the Sanctuary, including transit of commercial
vessels and ocean disposal of dredged materials.
1. Environmental Conditions
a. Geology
Like Cape Cod and the islands of Martha's
Vineyard and Nantucket, Stellwagen Bank and other
submerged banks and ledges off the northeastern
U.S. coast were created by the advance and retreat
of glaciers. The southward advance of massive ice
sheets nearly 19,000 years ago was influenced by the
existing topography; and the ice was shaped into
huge lobes. Two of these lobes created the land
masses identified above. One ice lobe was formed
by what is now Cape Cod Bay; the other by the
present-day Great South Channel, located to the
southeast of Cape Cod. The advance of ice over
the continental land mass ground the land into
fragments and carried them along with the
movement of the ice.
With general climatic warming between 18,000
and 15,000 years ago, the glaciers began to melt and
retreat from their coverage. The ice lobes became
more pronounced, and retreated at differing rates,
depending on the depths of topographical
depressions within which they moved. During this
process enormous amounts of pulverized continental
land were released from the melting ice. These
land fragments, or "outwash" from the two ice lobes
formed much of the present Cape Cod peninsula.
Retreat of the ice lobe formed by the Great
South Channel was sufficiently slow that much of
the land fragments it carried melted out and were
deposited on the sea floor. These materials formed
the submerged elevation now known as Stellwagen
Bank. The Bank originally was made up of sand,
gravel, silt, and "rock flour" (ultra-finely ground
rock); but over time, most of the finer-grained
materials have been carried away by currents and
deposited in basin areas on either side of the Bank
(Tucholke and Hollister, 1973; Hassol, 1987; and
CampbeU, 1987).
The outer rim of the Gulf of Maine (including
Nantucket Shoals, Georges Bank, and the Nova
Scotian Shelf) is floored primarily with Scmd and
gravel. There is a general tendency for grain size to
increase from southwest to northeast along this
portion of the Continental Shelf.
The Gulf of Maine basin contains mostly silty-
clay, or clayey-silt sediments. Banks and ridges
within the Gulf of Maine are floored with gravel
and boulders; gravel and sand are usual substrates
in nearshore areas.
Clayey-silt also covers most of Stellwagen Basin
and Cape Cod Bay, to the west of Stellwagen Bank.
Small hillocks of coarser, till-like sediment are also
generally found in both areas, and these areas may
act as local sources of detritus, in addition to the
contiguous Stellwagen Bank, Jeffreys Ledge, Tillies
Bank, and the coastal shelf.
Shallow banks and ledges in this general area are
veneered by sand and mixtures of gravel and sand.
Jeffreys Ledge, north of Stellwagen Bank, is
composed primarily of gravel or gravelly-sand, and
is flanked by a sandy apron to the southeast.
Stellwagen Bank is mainly sand or pebbly-sand,
flanked to the east by gravel or gravelly-sand. The
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 15
broad area between Stellwagen Bank and Jeffreys
Ledge (and east of Tillies Bank) is also covered by
sand mixed with small amounts of gravel. The sand
cover extends from Stellwagen Bank southward into
the current-swept channel between the southern
edge of Stellwagen Bank and the northern tip of
Cape Cod. From this channel, a cover of silty-
clayey sand extends westward and northward into
the southern portion of Stellwagen Basin.
Sand is the predominant sediment for the inner
shelf off Cape Cod. The sand is likely derived from
the reworked sandy deposits of Cape Cod. In
deeper waters, sandy deposits give way to silty-
clayey sand; in the center of Stellwagen Basin, sandy
cover gives way to sand-silt-clay bordering clayey
silt.
Broad bathymetric features such as Stellwagen,
and other banks and basins, relate to sediment type,
whereas smaller topographic featiues such as
hillocks, knobs, and swales in rugged areas
bordering the Massachusetts coastline, have little
relation to sediment types. These latter types of
areas exhibit a large variety of sediment types, and
lateral changes from one type to another are rapid.
Sediment types in basins are affected by nearby
sources of coarse-grained sediment. Tillies Basin,
for example, is a small narrow depression
surrounded by shallow banks and ledges, which are
covered with coarse-grained sediment. This coarse
"debris" is apparently easily moved into the adjacent
Tillies Basin, as evidenced by the presence of sand
in Basin floor sediments. In Stellwagen Basin and
Cape Cod Bay generally, it is also possible that
nearby coarse-grained glacial deposits provide a
source for the coarse sediments foimd in these
areas.
The highest concentrations of gravel in this
general area are found on Jeffreys Ledge; the
inshore shelf between Cohasset and Plymouth; and
an area east of Stellwagen Bank. Minor amounts of
gravel are associated with sand on Stellwagen Bank,
and also with till-like deposits foimd at Fishing
Ledge in Cape Cod Bay.
As mentioned above, gravel deposits were most
likely transported to the Cape Cod-Cape Ann area
by glaciers. Associated with many sediment types,
gravel occurs in different water current regimes. It
forms a lag veneer with sand, and marks a late
stage of ice deposition. Hence, gravel materials
may provide a crude guide for detecting the waning
stages of ice retreat from the offshore area.
Assuming the basic theory of gravel's glacial
deposition and of gravel's indication of ice retreat,
then both Stellwagen Bank and Jeffreys Ledge may
actually be offshore moraines and outwash, which
have been reworked during post-glacial rises in sea
level (CampbeU, 1987).
Sand dominates the inshore shelf, shallow banks
(such as Stellwagen and Jeffreys), and the deep
water area east of Tillies Bank. Sand forms an
irregular belt of deposits stretching southward from
Jeffreys Ledge to Cape Cod. Although sand floors
deep as well as shallow areas, it is particularly
abimdant aroimd the periphery of Cape Cod Bay,
and along parts of the Massachusetts coastal shelf.
The distribution of sand also provides a guide to
water currents. Currents are particularly strong on
Stellwagen Bank and in the channel between the
Bank and the tip of Cape Cod. The irmer shelf also
is an area of strong coastal currents and wave
action; and if sand is available as on Cape Cod, the
contiguous Bay sediments contain abundant sand.
Areas of sand also are foimd next to banks
composed in part of glacial deposits, such as
Jeffreys Ledge. Sand deposited by currents
apparently settles the bottom of the inner shelf
north of Cape Ann, where bathymetric contours are
widely spaced.
b. Bathvmetrv
The sea floor of the general area encompassing
Cape Cod to Cape Ann is dominated by two broad
ridges, Stellwagen Bank and Jeffreys Ledge, located
to its north. Stellwagen Bank extends some 24.85
miles (40 km) in a northwest direction between
Cape Cod and Cape Ann, and occiu-s at depths of
less than 50 meters (164 ft.). Jeffreys Ledge
extends northeast from Cape Arm at depths less
than 60 meters (196.8 ft.). A third, much smaller,
and completely dissected bank known as Tillies
Bank, is located between these two larger banks,
and is oriented in roughly a north-south direction.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 16
Tillies Bank rises to within 60 meters of the surface,
and is surrounded by a "moat" which reaches a
maximum depth of 200 meters (656 ft.). There is
also a subparallel ridge east of Tillies Bank which
rises abruptly to within approximately 65 meters of
the surface. In general, most bottom areas west (or
shoreward) of this bank-ledge system are smooth
and gently sloping. East of the bank-ledge system,
the bathymetry is more complex and exhibits
steeper gradients.
Together, Stellwagen Bank, Jeffreys Ledge, and
Tillies Bank partly isolate three basin areas from
the outer shelf. From north to south, these areas
are Scantum Basin, Tillies Basin, and Stellwagen
Basin. Stellwagen Basin is bordered by the
Massachusetts coastline on the south and west, and
by Cape Cod and Stellwagen Bank on the east and
northeast. Like Stellwagen Bank lying along its
eastern and northeastern borders, the Stellwagen
Basin is elhptical in configuration, with a long axis
trending in a northwest direction. Much of the
Bank's southwest side slopes gently toward the deep
axis of the Basin at gradients of about 0.1 to 0.5
percent. The northeast side of the Basin, however,
dips steeply toward the axis at gradients of up to 6
percent.
East, or seaward of the Bank-Ledge system, the
ocean bottom dips irregularly, attaining a maximum
depth of about 220 meters (722 feet) due east of
Boston (Schlee, Folger, and O'Hara, 1973).
c. Oceanography
Stellwagen Bank is subject to the same general
surface circulation patterns as the Gulf of Maine
overall. In general, surface waters of the Gulf
exhibit a counterclockwise flow (or gyre), which
moves in a southwest direction along the coasts of
Maine and New Hampshire and into Massachusetts
Bay. At Massachusetts Bay, the flow turns
gradually eastward, moving over the northern tip of
Cape Cod and toward the northern edge of Georges
Bank. Continuing east toward Nova Scotia, currents
turn north toward the Maine and New Brunswick
coasts. Close to the coast, currents divide and flow
in different directions, with the major portion
turning westward toward Maine. The smaller
remainder of the currents flows north into the Bay
of Fundy. In Massachusetts Bay, some of the flow
moves southward into Cape Cod Bay, moving along
the western edge. On the eastern side of Cape
Cod, some of the currents are directed southward
and pass between Cape Cod and Georges Bank, in
the Great South Channel (Figure 4).
East of Stellwagen Bank, net surface currents
move to the southeast at between 1.8 to 9.3 km/day
(or 2 to 10 cm/sec). West of the Bank, surface
ciurents flow southerly in western Cape Cod Bay
and Massachusetts Bay, and northerly in eastern
Cape Cod Bay, forming the generally counter-
clockwise movement discussed above. Results of
bottom drift testing indicate that residual bottom
water flow over Stellwagen Bank is southeasterly.
Bottom flow in much of the area west of Stellwagen
Bank is usually southerly into Cape Cod Bay.
Currents on Stellwagen Bank move mostly east
and west at maximum velocities of 10 to 45
cm/second. Maximum bottom current velocities
show some relation to the bottom sediment type,
and to the sea floor bathymetry. Maximum bottom
velocities measured on Stellwagen Bank (45
cm/sec.) are adequate to move coarse sand.
Similar maximum velocities have been noted in the
broad sandy-covered channel separating Stellwagen
Bank from the tip of Cape Cod. Bottom current
velocities are less strong in Stellwagen Basin, and in
the passage southeast of Cape Ann (where
maximum bottom current velocities usually do not
exceed 18 cm/sec).
Internal waves are periodic phenomena occurring
in all the world's oceans. Investigations have
indicated that tidally-generated internal wave
packets are common along the U.S. East Coast
(Sawyer and Apel, 1976), as well as other locations
exhibiting the right combination of bathymetry,
tides, and stratification (Gregg and Briscoe, 1979;
and Haury, Wiebe, Orr, and Briscoe, 1983).
During the late summer, internal wave packets
occur twice daily throughout Massachusetts Bay.
These high-frequency, predictable wave packets are
formed over Stellwagen Bank and are transmitted
into the Bay at about 60 cm/sec, finally dissipating
in the shallow waters of the Bay's western edges.
Dominant waves have been measured at
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 17
FIGURE 4: DOMINANT CIRCULATION OF THE GULF OF MAINE
(Adapted from Bigelow, 192 7)
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 18
approximately 300 meters (984 ft.) in length,
occmring over 8 to 10 minutes, with amplitudes of
up to 30 meters (98 ft.) being exhibited.
Overturning of the waves has also been acoustically
recorded over Stellwagen Bank, in deep Bay center
waters (80 meters or 262.5 ft.), and during
dissipation in shallow western bay waters.
Phytoplankton (chlorophyll) and zooplankton are
carried up and down by the overturning and mixing
action of internal waves, causing the vertical
distributions of plankton to be altered. Within time
periods of approximately 10 minutes, displacement
of plankton by as much as 30 meters occurs twice
daily during late summer months in Massachusetts
Bay. Thus, hght levels experienced by
phytoplankton cells may vary from 0.1 to 26% of the
ambient surface illumination. Such rapid changes in
hght are thought to alter fluorescent yields of plant
cells, affecting in turn, primary productivity of the
Bay generally.
Water temperature and salinity are seasonally
variable in the Gudf of Maine. During winter
months. Gulf waters are coldest in shallow areas,
with little temperature differences exhibited in high
salinity waters along the eastern and western parts
of the coast.
2. Natural Resources
a. Phytoplankton
The seasonal presence of more than 675 species
of phytoplankton has been documented in coastal
waters of the northeastern United States (Marshall
and Cohn, 1982). Although several similar species
are common throughout this area and throughout
the year, highest concentrations of phytoplankton
cells are associated with peak productivity (or
outburst) periods occurring from roughly December
through late March/early April. A second, less-
marked growth period also occurs generally during
July and August. In all seasons, diatoms generally
dominate phytoplankton species.
Relative to Stellwagen Bank, periods of the year
when highest phytoplankton concentrations are
exhibited include: December through early April
(highest concentrations); and in August (Marshall
and Cohn, 1982). The seasonal cycle of
phytoplankton abundance is tied to this spring
bloom, and is similar to those found in boreal
waters throughout the world.
Phytoplankton abundance is low in the winter;
sparse flora are dominated by Coscinodiscus and
Ceratium. Spring bloom is well imderway by mid-
to late-March in the area between Cape Ann and
Cape Ehzabeth. The bloom usually starts m
western Georges Bank waters, and by mid-April,
peaks in Massachusetts Bay; in eastern coastal
waters off Nova Scotia; and over eastern Georges
Bank. By late-April, bloom has peaked over
southern areas of the western basin and by early
May over northern parts of the western basin and
the northern coastal waters.
The annual phytoplankton cycle divides the Gulf
of Maine into two areas: 1) northern coastal belt to
Bay of Fundy, Georges Bank, and eastern coastal
area off Nova Scotia; and 2) all other Gulf of Maine
waters. Nantucket Shoals, Georges Bank, south-
western Nova Scotia, and the Maine coast northeast
of Penobscot Bay are identified as highly productive
in summer; and high biomass extends to the
southwest over Jeffreys Basin and Ledge.
Thalassiosira nordenskioldii bloom for 2 to 4
weeks in the southwestern and eastern Gulf of
Maine. This bloom is succeeded by a 4 to 6 week
bloom of the genus Chaetoceros throughout the
Gulf of Maine. Following late spring, moderate
increases occur in phytoplankton cells during July
and August over the central Gulf basin. From year
to year, there is variation in the dominating genus:
diatoms may dominate the flora, and in other years,
Pontosphaera may replace the diatoms.
Phytoplankton blooms may occur when critical
depth (above which total photosynthesis is greater
than total respiration) is equal to or exceeds the
mixed layer depth, assuming a sufficient supply of
nutrients. Lx)w winter phytoplankton growth in the
Gulf results from low light levels, which produce
shallow critical depth. Rising light levels in spring
deepen the critical depth as increased temperature
and fresh water runoff cause the mbced layer to
shoal.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 19
b. Zooplankton
the autiimn months in the Gulfs coastal waters.
The vast majority of zooplankton species are
endemic in origin, and reproduce with sufficient
frequency to maintain a local stock within the
boundaries of the Gulf of Maine. The coastal zone
(shallower than 100 m) is generally more productive
for zooplankton (particularly for Calanus) than the
central basin area. Deeper waters of the Gulf are
important reproduction areas for Pseudocalanus and
Oithona.
The total amount of zooplankton biomass is
usually greater in deeper waters (greater than 100
m); though more concentrated in shallower waters.
Massachusetts Bay is highly productive for copepods
and pelagic fish eggs. Smaller copepods are found
in greater concentrations in shallow waters; larger
species in deeper waters. Zooplankton densities are
greater in stratified western coastal areas than along
the turbulent eastern coast of the Gulf.
Although the Gulf of Maine is rich in
zooplankton species (more than 160 identified),
faima are dominated (over 80%) by only three or
four species. Fauna are dominated by crustaceans,
primarily copepods (and most prominently. Calanus
finmarchicus). An exception to this dominance
occurs nearshore in the spring when barnacle
nauplii, or occasionally euphausids, ctenophores and
other zooplankters, may swarm locally (Fish and
Johnson, 1937).
Other less numerous species of the Calanus
community include the copepods, Pseudocalanus
minutus and Metridia lucens. Other, less abundant
species include the chaetognath. Sagitta elegans: the
amphipod genus Euthemisto; and euphausid genera
Thvsanoessa and Meganvctiphanes: and the
cetenophore, Pleurobrachia pileus (Cohen, 1975).
The abundance of all zooplankton forms is greater
in the western coastal sector than in the eastern
coastal sector.
The two Calanus species, £, finmarchicus and
Pseudocalanus minutus account for more than 70%
of the zooplankton biomass in winter, spring and
summer. Three species - Pseudocalanus minutus.
Temora longicornis. and Centropages tvpicus —
compose 85% of the zooplankton biomass during
During summer months, three major groups of
zooplankton can be identified based on their
seasonal vertical distribution. The surface layer
contains small, young forms of copepod nauplii,
copepodites, fish eggs, fish larvae and smsdl
copepods. The second layer contains the boreal
Calanus community, which occurs generally in mid-
depths above 100-150 meters, but below the surface.
The third zooplankter group occurs in deeper
waters of the Gulf, and is characterized by the giant
copepod, Euchaeta norvegica. Also included, in
lesser amounts, are the chaetognaths Eukrohnia and
Sagitta lyra: the decapod shrimp, Pasiphaea and
Meganyctiphanes norvegica.
Differences among these three communities are
most pronounced in the summer when waters over
the deep basins and in the western Gulf are
markedly stratified. Differences are least apparent
in well-mixed waters, i.e., shallow areas of heavy
tidal mbdng, and throughout the Gulf during winter
and spring. In general, copepod densities are
greatest at deeper levels in the nearshore areas of
the Gulf (Sherman, 1976).
Gulf of Maine zooplankton generally may be
divided into two fundamental ecological subsets -
neritic and oceanic — depending upon their degree
of dependence on shallow, food-rich coastal zone
waters. Water depth, in fact, is the single most
important parameter influencing the distribution of
zooplankton in the Gulf of Maine (Sherman, 1976).
Typical neritic zooplankton are larval stages of
various benthic organisms, such as barnacles,
worms, bivalve and gastropod mollusks, decapod
crustaceans, and echinoderms. Also included in this
group are pelagic eggs and larvae of all fish species
that spawn in shallow waters. Oceanic zooplankton
are pelagic throughout their life, and show no
particular dependence on coastal areas. Neritic
organisms are rarely encountered outside the 100-
meter (328 ft.) isobath.
Zooplankton do not pass through the seasonal
pattern of succession as phytoplankton species;
rather, zooplankton stay quaUtatively the same
throughout the year, while experiencing quantitative
changes in total biomass. Zooplankton begin spring
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 20
increases along coastal waters of Massachusetts Bay
in waters north of Cape Ann sometime during
March, evidenced by copepod larvae. Copepod
(primarily Calanus fmmarchicus) production
expands seaward toward the mouth of the Bay
during late April, and continues over the
southwestern Gulf of Maine as spring season
progresses. Peak zooplankton production occurs by
the end of May. Rapid decrease in zooplankton
abundance is evidenced in June. In the Gulf of
Maine there is a gradual decline in zooplankton
biomass from spring (i.e., June) to fall.
Hydrographic factors in the Gulf of Maine control
the production, dispersal and survival of
zooplankton (Fish and Johnson, 1937). For
instance, water temperature dictates community
type; £md the horizontal distribution of zooplcuikton
is controlled by water circulation, stability, and
occasionally salinity. The dominant counter-
clockwise circulation pattern in the Gulf of Maine
moves all plankton, copepod eggs, and larvae in a
southwestward direction (unless they are situated in
areas protected from these circulation patterns).
Due to the relatively "closed" nature of the Gulf
of Maine, temporal and spatial changes in
zooplankton quantities are primarily the result of
reproduction, growth, and mortality of endemic
species, such as Calanus. Pseudocalanus. Oithona.
and Microstella.
c. Benthic Organisms
Benthic invertebrates provide food for the vast
array of fish species found in the Stellwagen Bank,
and larger Gulf of Maine area. Invertebrate species
such as shrimps, crabs, worms, moUusks and
echinoderms sustain many groundfish species. The
health and availability of these food supplies are
integrally important in assisting the assessment of
variations in fish growth rates; changes in fish egg
production and survival rates of newly-hatched
young; deviations in normal fish migration routes
and times of migrations; and survival of juvenile and
adult fish stocks.
To date, few studies have been conducted to
determine the particular composition of benthic
communities on offshore banks and ridges similar in
makeup to Stellwagen Bank within the greater Gulf
of Maine/Massachusetts Bay region. Baseline
surveys of macrobenthic communities conducted at
Jeffreys Ledge, north of Stellwagen Bank, identified
149 faunal and floral species within horizontal and
vertical communities, and at various depths. At a
monitoring station near Jeffreys Ledge, two major,
ecologically distinct benthic communities have been
identified: an algal-polychaete community, and a
sponge-tunicate community (NOAA/NEFC, 1982).
However, these communities exist on rock or other
hard surfaces such as those comprising Jeffreys
Ledge; bottom sediments at Stellwagen Bank are
quite different.
Investigations conducted by NOAA's Northeast
Fisheries Center into the macrobenthic communities
of the Georges Bank system included sampling
stations within the Stellwagen Bank vicinity; and
findings are appUcable to the overall New England
region, as well as to the Middle Atlantic Bight
(Theroux and Grosslein, 1987). There are four
dominant taxonomic groups of macrobenthic
invertebrates found in the Georges Bank/Gulf of
Maine region: annehds, crustaceans, moUusks, and
echinoderms. Dominance among these four groups,
however, differs significantly depending upon
whether species are ranked by biomass, or by
numerical abundance (density). In general, both the
largest biomass and the greater diversity tend to be
supported by gravel and sandy sediments (Campbell,
1987). Coarse-sand bottom sediments have been
shown to support the highest mean biomass of
macrobenthic organisms, often in the range of 371
g/m" (Theroux and Grosslein, 1987). Biomass and
diversity are also generally greatest around the rim
of the Gulf of Maine, in waters depths less than 100
meters (Campbell, 1987).
Premised on the predominantly sand to pebbly-
sand composition of Stellwagen Bank's bottom
sediments, it is reasonable to suppose that
macrobenthic biomass on Stellwagen Bank is quite
high. Major taxonomic groups occurring on
Georges Bank have been ranked by both biomass,
and population density (Theroux and Grosslein,
1987: Table 1).
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 21
Table 1: Macrobenthic Taxonomic Groups at
Georges Bank, by Biomass and Density
Taxon
Total Biomass (%)
Echinoidea
41.3
Bivalvia
37.8
Annelida
5.0
Ascidiacea
3.5
Ceriantharia
3.1
Taxon
Total Density %
Amphipoda
45.1
Annelida
26.3
Echinoidea
4.7
Chaetognatha
2.8
Bivalvia
2.5
Sampling data from both mud and sand reference
stations in Cape Cod Bay within and outside the
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS), situated
immediately northwest of the Stellwagen Bank study
area, indicate an overwhelming dominance of
anneUd species in both mud and sand sediments.
Annelids comprised between 89.6% and 95.4% of
macrobenthic species at mud reference stations;
between 85.9% and 86.1% at sand reference
stations (Hubbard, Penko, and Fleming, 1988).
Species found at these stations are listed below.
Mud Site
Sand Site
Paraonis gracilis Exogone verugera
Heteromastus filiformis Prionospio steenstrupi
Anobothrus gracilis
Nicomache spp.
Paraonis gracilis
Ampharetid spp.
Myriochele oculata
Chone infundibuliformis
Cossura longocirrata
Spio pettiboneae
Oligochaete spp.
Chaetozone setosa
Mediomastus ambiseta
Myriochele oculata
Trochochaeta multisetosa Astarte undata
Prionospio steenstrupi Phloe minuta
Thvasira flexuosa
Aricidea quadrilobata
Sternaspos scutata
Maldane sarsi
Praxillura longissima
Exogone hebes
Mediomastus ambiseta
Spio pettiboneae
Cossura longocirrata
Streblosoma spiralis
Similarly, sampling conducted by NOAA's
Northeast Monitoring Program at two stations in
the Gulf of Maine between 1978 and 1985 indicated
dominance by polychaetes at Station 35, situated
near the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site location
(NOAA/NMFS, 1990). Seasonality of polychaetes
was indicated, and biomass levels were ranked
between 100 and 250 g/m". Polychaetes were
dominated by Spio Filicornis. This and other
polychaete species (sabelUds and nereids) provide
important prey for flounders. The echinoderms
Ctenodiscus crispatus and Molpadia oolitica were
also found in abundance.
The second sampling site (Station 28), located in
the extreme western portion of Georges Bank, was
overwhelmingly dominated by echinoderms,
primarily two species: Brisaster fragiUs (urchin), and
Ophiura sp. (brittlestar). Ophuroids in particular
are important prey for cod and plaice.
Typical inhabitants of the Stellwagen Bank (areas
primarily of sand or pebbly-sand composition)
include organisms adapted to loose and occasionally
shifting substrate, such as:
Echinarachnius parma. common sand dollar
Crangon septemspinosis. sand shrimp
Lunatia heros. (carnivorous gastropod moUusk)
Nassarius trivitattus.(carnivorous gastropod moUusk)
Spisula solidissima. surf clam
Astarte castanea. chestnut astarte
Leptocuma. (cimiacean crustacean)
Chiridotea. (isopod crustacean)
Pagurus acadianus. Acadian hermit crab
Ophelia, (polychaete worm)
Goniadella. (polychaete worm)
Clymenella. (polychaete worm)
Heterostigma. (tunicate)
Molgula. (tunicate)
Haustorid and phoxocephalid amphipods. (beach
fleas)
In the few areas of Stellwagen Bank where
sediment composition is partially gravel, the
following invertebrate fauna may be found:
Polymastia, (sponge)
Clionia. (sponge)
Myxilla. (sponge)
Balanus crenatus. (barnacle)
B. hameri. (barnacle)
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 22
Tubularia. (hydroid)
Eudendrium. (hydroid)
Sertularia. (hydroid)
BoupainvilUa. (hydroid)
Brachiopoda terebratuUna. (lampshells)
Gersemia. (soft corals)
Boltenia. (tunicate)
Ascidia amaroucium. (tunicate)
Modiolus, (bivalve mollusk)
Placopecten. (bivalve mollusk)
Anomia. (bivalve mollusk)
Muscuius. (bivalve mollusk)
Serpula. (polychaete worm)
Chone. (polychaete worm)
Spiorbis. (polychaete worm)
Solaster. (starfish)
Crossaster. (starfish)
Neptunea. (gastropod)
Hyas. (toad crab)
Doris, (nudibranch)
Dendronotus. (nudibranch)
Ophiopholis. (brittlestar)
Ophiacantha. (brittlestar)
(Species list from Wigley, 1968)
Western Stellwagen Basin infauna are dominated
by several polychaetes: shrimp; brittle starfish
(Ophiura sarsi and Q. rubusta: and pink anemome
(Bolocera tuediael. A sizeable shrimp population
is also located in Jeffreys Basin, between Cape Ann
and Jeffreys Ledge; and another shrimp species,
Dichelopandalus leptocerus. is widely-spread and
abundant in the overall northeast region.
d. Fishes
The overall Gulf of Maine, encompassing
Stellwagen Bank, supports a very wide variety of
pelagic and demersal fish and shellfish species.
Pelagic species include herring, mackerel, sharks,
swordfish, bluefish, bluefin tuna, capelin, and
menhaden. Demersal species include cod, haddock,
hake, pollack, whiting, cusk, and several species of
flatfish such as flounders and halibut.
This notable variety of species results from the
geographic and thermal transition zone occurring at
Cape Cod, which separates the Gulf of Maine from
the Mid-Atlantic region. The transition zone
exhibits both varying composition and abundance of
fish fauna; and is the cause of substantial seasonal
variation of species. Most of the pelagic species
exhibit clear seasonal migratory movements in
response to changes in water temperatures.
Seasonal movements among several demersal
species are generally confined to shifts within the
overall Gulf of Maine area, although some species,
such as pollack, are migratory.
Generally, the Gulf of Maine is dominated by
boreal, non-migratory species; and the Mid-Atlantic
is largely populated by warm-water, migrating
species. Spring bottom trawl surveys conducted
between 1968 and 1981 indicate over 86% of species
in the Gulf of Maine are boreal, or cold temperate.
Autumn surveys also indicate the majority of Gulf
fish species are cold temperate (79.5%) (NMFS,
1982). Typically, warm temperate species, such as
bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrixl will migrate
southward during cold months of the year; while
some cold temperate species, such as cod (Gadus
jmorhua), retreat northward during warm months.
Although considerable information is available on
commercially-important fish fauna of the Gulf of
Maine, relatively few studies have been conducted
on fish fauna as a whole (Azarovitz and Grosslein,
1987). Inventory activities conducted over the larger
Georges Bank area during 1968-1981 employed
otter trawls, to which not all species aj^e vulnerable
(in particulcU", large pelagics such as tuna and
billfish); therefore, the listings below of fish and
invertebrate species are not complete. The diversity
of fish and invertebrate fauna is highest during
autumn months; approximately 100 species have
been identified over the Georges Bank-Gulf of
Maine area (Grosslein and Azarovitz, 1987).
Seasonal distribution and movement of fish and
migratory invertebrate species are explained
generally by classification of abundant species into
four groups which demonstrate particular movement
patterns. Groupings are based on seasonal
movements within the 60-fathom (110 meter)
contour.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 23
Group I: Residents Found in All Seasons
Little Seasonal
Movement (la)
Little skate
Winter skate
American sand lance
Sea raven
Longhorn sculpin
Windowpane flounder
Yellowtail flounder
Winter flounder
Sea scallop
Seasonal Shifts (lb)
Spiny dogfish
Atlantic herring
Goosefish
Atlantic cod
Haddock
Ocean pout
American lobster
Group 1 species are typically found in the overall
Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank area throughout the
year. Within this group, there are some species
(lb) which demonstrate seasonal shifts within the
general area, but not away from the Georges Bank
vicinity.
Group 2: Seasonal Migrants Found Only in Warm
or in Cold Months
Common in
Cold Months (lb)
Pollack
American plaice
Common in
Warm Months (23)
Silver hake
Red hake
White hake
Butterfish
Fourspot flounder
Shortfin squid
Longfin squid
Group 2 fishes are seasonal visitors; they are
consistently found in the Gulf of Maine-Georges
Bank area during one or two seasons. Those
species Usted as common in warm months (2a)
typically move further offshore or south when
temperatures cool; those species listed as common
in cold months typically demonstrate opposite
behavior and move north or east into deeper waters
in the summer.
Group 3: Mid-Atlantic Species That Migrate to the
Georges Bank - Gulf of Maine During the Warm
Season
Group 3 species are common to the Mid-Atlantic
area, and migrate north to the Gulf of Maine-
Georges Bank area during late summer to early
autumn, usually in low numbers (Azarovitz and
Grosslein, 1982).
Group 4: Cold Water Species Common in the Gulf
of Maine/Deep Water Areas, But Rare on Georges
Bank
Smooth skate
Thorny skate
Redfish
Cusk
Witch flounder
Species Usted in Group 4 are common to deeper
waters of the Gulf of Maine, or those surrounding
Georges Bank. They are not normally abundant on
Bank areas, but do visit in the cold season.
Spawning areas for several fish species occur
generally within the southwestern Gulf of Maine,
including those for pollack, Atlantic cod, herring
and squid. There is also particularly strong
evidence that Stellwagen Bank provides spawning
habitat for the American sand lance (Ammodvtes
americanus), a primary forage species for humpback
and fin whales. (Sherman, etal., 1981; Sherman, et
al., 1984; Richards, 1965).
Many of the identified Gulf of Maine species have
been traditionally important commercially, and
continue to provide an important economic resource
to the New England region. Commercially
important species include:
Summer floimder
Bluefish
Scup
Bluefin Tuna
Common Name
American plaice
(sand dab)
American lobster
American shad
Atlantic herring
Atlantic mackerel
Atlantic wolffish
Atlantic cod
Black sea bass
Bluefin tima
Bluefish (snapper)
Scientific Name
Hippoglossoides
platessoides
Homarus americanus
Alosa sapidissima
Clupea harengus
Scomber scombrus
Anarhichas lupus
Gadus morhua
Centropristis striata
Thunnus thynnus
Pomatomus saltatrix
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 24
Butterfish
Cusk
Dogfish
Haddock
Little skate
Northern shrimp
Ocean pout
Ocean quahog
Pollack
Red hake
Redfish (Ocean perch)
Scup (Porgy)
Sea scallop
Silver hake (Whiting)
Squids
Striped bass (Rockfish)
Summer flounder
White hake
Winter flounder
Winter skate
Witch flounder
Yellowtail flounder
Peprilus triacanthus
Brosme
Squalus acanthias
Melanogrammusaeglefinus
Raja erinacea
Pandalus borealis
Macrozoarces americanus
Arctica islaadica
Pollachius virens
Urophyucischuss
Sebastes spp.
Stenotomus chrvsops
Placopecten magellanicus
Merluccius bilinearis
Illex spp.
Morone saxatilis
Parahchthys dentatus
Urophycis tenuis
Pleuronectes americanus
Raja ocellata
Glyptocephalus
cynoglossus
Pleuronectes ferrugineus
(NMFS, 1988)
System boundaries for many fish species may be
provided by Gulf circulation patterns which carry
eggs and larvae. Many gadoid species, such as cod,
haddock, silver hake, sand dabs, and witch flounder
breed on Stellwagen Bank (or in nearshore coastal
waters), but not over deeper Gulf waters.
Due to its location at the southwestern end of the
coastal circulation pattern, all of Massachusetts Bay
acts as a "catch basin" for a variety of species.
Several of these demonstrate somewhat localized
distributions within the Gulf of Maine, including
cod, haddock, pollack, hake, and herring.
e. Sea Turtles
Although four species of sea turtles have been
recorded in Gulf of Maine waters, only two, the
leatherback and the Atlantic ridley, are seen with
any regularity. All species are currently Usted as
either threatened or endangered.
Atlantic, or Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelvs kempiV
Atlantic ridleys are observed in waters off
Massachusetts as juveniles, having either swum or
drifted north in the Gulf Stream from hatching
areas off the southern coast of Mexico. Juvenile
ridleys generally measure 10" to 12", and weigh
around seven poimds. Southern New England
waters are important feeding grounds for ridleys
and are thus considered important habitat for this
endangered species. Each fall (generally between
November and January), as Cape Cod Bay water
temperatures decline, a number of ridleys regularly
strand on Cape Cod due to cold-stunning (Prescott,
1986). Cold-stimning occurs when water
temperatures fall below 12°C (57°F), and turtles are
unable to swim or digest food. Between 1977 and
1987, a total of 115 juvenile ridleys were found
stranded on Cape Cod beaches (Danton and
Prescott, 1988).
Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea). The
endangered leatherback is a regular summer visitor
to the waters around Cape Cod, the Gulf of Maine,
and Nova Scotia. This is the only species of sea
turtle that colonizes cold waters for feeding
activities, which include jellyfish (notably the Hon's
mane jellyfish), comb jellies, salps, and other jelly
organisms abundant in these waters during the
summer. The largest and heaviest of all extant
reptiles, leatherbacks may grow to U feet in length
and weigh up to 1,900 pounds. Turtles observed in
the area between Cape Cod and Newfoundland are
generally single, mature animals, frequently
measuring more than six feet in length and weighing
over 1,000 poimds. Of dl sea turtles, leatherbacks
appear to migrate the farthest in search of summer
food; Western North Atlantic leatherbacks breed
anytime between April and November along
beaches in Central and South America (with very
occasional nesting activity noted in southern
Florida). Females usually nest only every other
year, during March and April, and may not migrate
as far north as males during breeding years. This
may explain why most leatherbacks observed in the
Gulf of Maine are males. Sightings off
Massachusetts are most frequent during late
summer (July through September). The turtles
usually first appear in the Gulf of Maine between
May and June, and are most frequently seen in the
Gulfs southerly coastal waters. In the autumn, the
turtles move further offshore and begin their
migration south for the winter (Payne, et al., 1986).
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 25
The physiological adaptations of leatherbacks to
pelagic environments make this species poorly-
equipped to deal with obstructions in shallow
waters. Leatherbacks regularly become entangled
in fishing nets and lobster pot lines, situations which
are compounded by this species' inabihty to either
maneuver easily or to swim backwards. In addition
to these problems, leatherbacks have been reported
to die from intestinal blockage following
consumption of plastic bags, which they presumably
mistakenly identify as jellyfish. Collisions with boats
also occasionally result in leatherback mortaUty.
Loggerhead (Caretta). Although loggerhead sea
turtles are the most widespread and numerous
species along the eastern seaboard, they are
generally absent in shelf waters north of Cape Cod,
including Cape Cod Bay and the Gulf of Maine.
Water temperature is the primary factor in marking
Massachusetts as the northern tolerance limit for
this endangered species. Following nesting activity,
loggerheads disperse northward, and there are
limited sightings along outer Cape Cod and the
islands during mid-summer through fall.
Occasionally, loggerheads become trapped inside
Cape Cod Bay in late fall and winter, resulting in
cold-stunning and death.
Green (Chelonia mydas). Juvenile green sea turtles
are rare summertime stragglers as far north as Cape
Cod Bay. This endangered species generally is
found in waters warmer than 20°C.
f. Marine Mammals
Thirteen species of marine mammals are known
to frequent the waters over and around Stellwagen
Bank, and rare sightings of an additional two
species have been recorded. Resources of the Bank
environment provide important sources of food for
a seasonal variety of large and small cetaceans, and
serve as nursery grounds for some of these species.
Two species of pinnipeds have also been
documented in the Stellwagen Bank area.
1. Endangered Cetaceans
Humpback whales (Mepaptera novaeangliae; 30 to
60 feet, or 9.1 to 18.3 meters in length) are perhaps
the most easily identified of large cetaceans due
both to their distinctive markings and long flippers
and to their highly-visible feeding and socialization
behaviors. The species was first scientifically
described based on observations made of an
individual taken off the coast of Maine, and hence,
the Latin name novaeangUae. which means "New
England". In spite of this description, humpback
whale populations may be found in all oceans,
although overall numbers remain depleted
compared to pre-exploitation levels. The species
has been protected from commercial hunting since
1962, and classified as "endangered" under the
Endangered Species Preservation Act since 1970.
(The Endangered Species Preservation Act was the
predecessor to the 1973 Endangered Species Act).
The Western North Atlantic population of
humpbacks is currently estimated at 5,505 animals
(NMFS, 1991).
Migrating north from calving and mating grounds
in the eastern central Caribbean, a significant
number of humpback whales, estimated at around
550, arrive in the Massachusetts Bay area annually,
beginning approximately in early March, when they
are first observed within Cape Cod Bay waters. By
April, humpbacks begin to move farther offshore
toward the Bank, where they generally remain until
mid-November, intensively engaged in feeding
activities. Primary prey of the humpback whales in
this area is the American sand lance (Ammodvtes
americanus), whose populations are seasonally
prolific in the Bank environment. Other species of
fish occasionally taken by humpbacks include
herring, mackerel, cod, and hake. Generally,
humpbacks consume 95% fish, 5% zooplankton.
North of Stellwagen Bank, capelin (Mallotus
villosis) is the preferred prey. The Bank also serves
as an important nursery area for mothers with
calves. This "residency" period of approximately 7-
1/2 to 8 months of the year in the Stellwagen Bank
vicinity is one of the longest such periods known
anywhere in the world. By mid- to late-November,
the humpbacks begin their annual migration south
to warmer coastal waters.
Due to their distinctive fluke patterns, photo
identification has been possible for at least 500
individual humpbacks by local cetacean research
organizations during the past 12 years. The growing
photographic and other data bases on humpback
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
P(^e26
whales in the Stellwagen Bank area have added
much to understanding the biology and habitat
requirements of this species. Combined with the
accessibility of the Bank to land points, pubUc
observation of humpbacks has in recent years
become an increasingly popular recreationcd activity
in the New England area.
Northern right whales (Eubalaena glacialis: 20 to 50
feet, or 6.1 to 15.2 meters in length) are the most
seriously depleted species of large cetaceans.
Estimates for the two known populations (found in
the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans) indicate the
total world population may number fewer than 400,
and probably does not exceed 500 individuals
(Marine Mammal Commission, 1991). The
population for the North Atlantic stock is thought to
be between 300 and 350 whales (NMFS, 1990).
Although this species has been protected from
almost all hunting since 1935, it has not recovered
to anywhere near its pre-exploitation numbers which
are thought to be around 10,000 animals (NMFS,
1989).
In May 1990 the Right Whale Recovery Team,
pursuant to Section 4 of the Endangered Species
Act, petitioned the National Marine Fisheries
Service to designate three areas off the eastern
seaboard as critical habitat for this species,
including Cape Cod Bay (Figure 5). Additionally,
the Recovery Team also recently published a
Recovery Plan for the Northern Right Whale.
Given its endangered status, the photo-
identification of at least 100 northern right whales
using the Bank seasonally indicates the particular
importance of this system to a significant portion of
the existing total North Atlantic population for
feeding and nursing activities. Right whale
courtship behavior may also be observed during
spring, summer and fall months, with calving
occurring in coastal waters off Georgia and Florida
during late winter (NMFS, 1990).
Right whales begin to enter the Massachusetts
and Cape Cod Bay systems by late winter or early
spring from coastal Georgia and northeast Florida
waters; and from other offshore over-wintering
areas. The Massachusetts/Cape Cod Bays area is
one of five identified "high-use" areas for Western
North Atlantic northern right whales. (The other
four areas are: coastal Florida and Georgia; the
Great South Channel east of Cape Cod; the Bay of
Fundy; and Browns and Baccaro Banks south of
Nova Scotia.) The whales generally remain in this
system until approximately July, when most begin
moving further north toward the lower Bay of
Fundy, or areas on the southeastern shelf off Nova
Scotia. By October, the whales have generally
begim migrating to wintering areas.
Northern right whales feed primarily below the
surface, and exclusively on zooplankton; the primary
prey at Stellwagen Bank are copepods (in particular
Calanus finmarchicus), and juvenile euphausiids.
Because of the whales' slow movement, and a
tendency to rest at the surface, the species is
vulnerable to collisions with ships.
Fin (or Finback) whales (Balaenoptera physalus:
30 to 70 feet, or 9.1 to 21.3 meters in length) are
the most common species of large baleen whale in
the Gulf of Maine. While the preferred feeding
habitat for the North Atlantic population of fin
whales is over deeper waters of the continental shelf
(300 to 600 feet), they are regularly observed
anywhere from coastal to very deep water areas.
Some fin whales overwinter near Cape Cod;
however, their abundance near Stellwagen Bank
peaks between April and October. Fins' behavior
around boats is usually more restless than
humpbacks; however, they will sometimes approach
still and quiet vessels (Katona, et al. 1983).
An asymmetric coloration of the head — the right
side (including lip and baleen areas) always white or
pale gray; and the left always dark — is unique to fin
whales, and may play an important role in feeding
behavior. Fin whales are often observed circUng in
a clockwise direction (thus with their light colored
side down), herding prey fish for easier
consumption. Various species, especially sand
lance, capelin, and herring, form the primary diet of
fin whales (90%); the species is often seen feeding
with humpbacks. Smaller individuals may also
consume copepods and squid.
The pre-exploitation Western North Atlantic
population is not known. The current Western
North Atlantic population is thought to number
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 27
70°30'
Aa-so'
2°00'
FIGURE 5: AREA RECOMMENDED FOR NORTHERN RIGHT WHALE
CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION
(NMFS, 1990)
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Pc^e28
between 3,590 and 6,300 individuals (NMFS, 1991);
and the worldwide population is roughly estimated
at about 120,000.
Sei whales (Balaenoptera borealis: 25 to 50 feet, or
7.6 to 15.2 meters in length) are smaller and darker
than fin whales, but difficult to identify. Sei whales
were first positively observed feeding in the
Stellwagen Bank area in 1986; and the numbers
recorded since then have been relatively low. They
feed exclusively on zooplankton, primarily copepods
and euphausiids (and krill in other feeding habitats).
There are no recent population estimates for sei
whales in the North Atlantic. NMFS has estimated
approximately 4,000 individuals may be present in
this overall area. (NMFS, 1991). In 1988,
approximately 40 individual sei whales were
photographically identified at Stellwagen Bank;
however, a greater number were present.
Blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus: 25 to 100 feet,
or 7.6 to 30.5 meters in length) are the largest
mammals on Earth. The first documented sighting
of a blue whale on the east coast of the United
States was recorded in October 1986 on the western
edge of Stellwagen Bank. Two additional sightings
of blue whales were recorded at the Bank in 1987.
In all instances, the whales were observed feeding,
probably on euphausiids. Blue whales may also
occasionally feed on copepods, fish, and squid.
Although blue whales have been seen regularly
during summer months in the Gulf of St. Lawrence,
and around southern and northern Newfoundland,
there are few data available on Western North
Atlantic populations. The worldwide, pre-
exploitation population level is estimated at 300,000
animals. Current population estimates for the
North Atlantic range between 100 and 555
individuals. (NMFS, 1991).
2. Non-Endanpered Cetaceans
Minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata: 15 to 30
feet, or 4.6 to 9.1 meters in length) are the smallest
of the balaenopterid species of cetaceans. Although
rehable population figures for the Western North
Atlantic stock are not known, minke whales are
commonly seen in the northern Stellwagen Bank
and southern Jeffreys Ledge area from March until
November. The species may also overwinter in
these areas; although further winter surveys would
be necessary to make this determination.
Minke whale abundance in the study area is
highest in the spring and the late summer/early fall.
Larger concentrations of muikes appear during the
latter period, frequently observed in the immediate
vicinity of fin whales. It is likely that the seasonal
movements of this species are similar to those of fin
whales.
Minkes feed primarily on schooling fish and
euphausiids, in particular herring, sand eel, capelin,
cod, pollack, mackerel, squid and copepods.
Although surface feeding patterns have been
documented, minkes more normally feed below the
surface. Calves are not generally seen in these
feeding areas. Due to their inconspicuous
appearance and behavior, population counts have
been difficult to obtain.
Pilot whales (Globicephala spp.; 10 to 20 feet, or
3.0 to 6.1 meters in length) are distinguished by the
species' large bulbous head. The most common
species occurring in the Gulf of Maine is
Globicephala melaena. though in the Western North
Atlantic, this species is found in the same areas as
short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala
macrorhvncha'). These small jet black whales are
generally observed along the shelf edge in the
company of bottlenose dolphins (1(K) to 1,(K)0 meter
contour), but may also be seen in central and
northern Georges Bank/Great South Channel/ Gulf
of Maine areas between May and October.
Pilot whales feed almost exclusively on squid
(Illex spp.). with fish and invertebrates as alternative
prey. Average pod size is approximately 20 animals.
Orca (or killer) whales (Orcinus orcus; 22 to 30
feet, or 6.7 to 9.1 meters in length) are most
commonly seen in the southwestern Gulf of Maine
from mid-July to September, although these whales
are also known to overwinter in the Gulf of Maine.
Orcas have been frequently recorded on Jeffreys
Ledge, between the Isles of Shoals and on
Stellwagen Bank, where they are thought to follow
schools of bluefin tuna. As opportunistic feeders,
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 29
orcas consume a variety of fishes including tuna,
herring and mackerel, and have also been known to
attack pinnipeds, seabirds, and other cetaceans.
White-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus: 7 to
9 feet, or 2.2 to 2.7 meters in length) are
widespread throughout the Gulf of Maine/Georges
Bank environment all year, and are particularly
abundant in the southwestern portion of the Gulf
(incorporating Stellwagen Bank). These highly
social cetaceans are found only in the North
Atlantic, and are generally present on northern
portions of the Bank and on Jeffreys Ledge at all
times of the year. They are frequently seen feeding
with fin whales, and may also be seen bow-riding
fins or humpbacks, as well as vessels. Pods of
white-sided dolphins may range in size from 10 to
over 1,000 animals, although most groups number
between 25 and 150. Calves are also observed in
this area throughout the year. Prey species include
a variety of fishes, such as herring, hake, smelt,
capelin, cod, and squid.
White-beaked dolphins (Lagenorhynchus albirostris:
8 to 10 feet, or 2.4 to 3.0 meters in length), like the
white-sided dolphins, are found only in the North
Atlantic; although they generally follow a more
northerly range, from Cape Cod to Greenlcuid.
White-beaked dolphins are considered casual
visitors to the northern end of Stellwagen Bank,
where sightings usually occur between April and
November. While in the Gulf of Maine, white-
beaked dolphins likely feed on sand eels; squid may
also be consumed. In the 1950's, white-beaked
dolphins were more abundant in the overall Gulf of
Maine; they have been displaced by increased
numbers of white-sided dolphins.
Harbor porpoises (Phocoena; 4 to 6 feet, or 1.2 to
1.8 meters in length) are locally abundant in
temperate waters of the Bay of Fimdy and the
northern Gulf of Maine during summer months.
The species exhibits seasonal patterns in spatial
distribution within this general region, and is
particularly concentrated in the southwestern Gulf
of Maine, the Great South Channel, Jeffreys Ledge,
and coastal Maine during mid-spring months.
Sightings are generally recorded from south of Cape
Cod north to the Bay of Fundy during spring
months. Following April, harbor porpoises are
only rarely seen in Cape Cod waters, and the
decrease in sighting frequency suggests a general
northeast movement toward the northern Gulf of
Maine and Bay of Fundy. (Cited in T. Bigford,
NMFS/NER, AprU 1991).
The summer population estimate of
approximately 16,000 harbor porpoises in the Gulf
of Maine is considered somewhat unreliable, due to
seasonal changes in species distribution, which make
survey consolidation difficult. The Northeast
Fisheries Center of NMFS planned a summer 1991
survey of harbor porpoise, which should produce
more reUable population estimates. (T. Bigford,
NMFS/NER, April 1991). Harbor porpoise diet
consists primarily of small schoohng fishes,
polychaetes, and cephalopods. In the Gidf of
Maine, likely prey species include mackerel, herring,
squid, and sand eel.
A number of harbor porpoises annually are
entangled and killed incidentally in both U.S. and
Canadian gillnet fisheries in the Gulf of Maine.
Although reliable estimates of affected harbor
porpoises in the U.S. fishery do not exist at this
time, the possibility exists that the species may be
declining due in part to entanglement losses. (T.
Bigford, NMFS/NER, April 1991). Through the
Marine Mammal Exemption Program, (§ 114 of
MMPA) and the gillnet industry, NMFS is currently
seeking to assess and rectify this problem.
Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus; 8 to 12
feet, or 2.4 to 3.7 meters in length) are occasionally
seen in the Gulf of Maine during the late summer
and fall. This species, generally occurring offshore
along shelf areas from Cape Hatteras (North
Carolina) to Georges Bank is the larger of two
recognized forms of Tursiops truncatus. (The
smaller form occurs more frequently in inshore
areas of the mid-Atlantic south of Delaware Bay.)
While in the Gulf of Maine, bottlenose dolphins
feed opportunistically on a wide variety of fish,
squid, and invertebrates.
Common (or Saddleback) dolphins (Delphinus
delphis; 6 to 8 feet, or 1.8 to 2.4 meters in length)
are occasional visitors to the Gulf, particularly in
the fall and winter. Saddlebacks are generally seen
over northeastern portions of Georges Bank,
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Pc^e30
feeding on fish and squid.
Striped dolphins CStenella coeruleoalba: 6 to 8 feet,
or 1.8 to 2.4 meters in length) are seen occasionally
in the Gulf of Maine. This species generally prefers
more pelagic waters, along the edge of the
continental shelf. Diet consists primarily of fish and
squid.
Grampus (or Risso's dolphin) (Grampus griseus: 9
to 13 feet, or 1.27 to 3.96 meters in length) are
generally considered absent from the Gulf of Maine,
although there have been several individuals
recorded. More normally, this species stays outside
the 100-meter contour, south of Cape Cod.
Grampus feed almost exclusively on squid.
3. Pinnipeds
Two pinniped species occur commonly in the
Sanctuary area: the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina);
and the gray seal (Halichoerus grypus).
Harbor seals are common from Labrador to Long
Island, New York (and occasionally found as far
south as South Carohna and Florida). It is the most
abundant pinniped species in eastern United States
waters. Harbor seals are widely distributed in
nearshore waters along the coast, preferring
sheltered and undisturbed rocky ledge haulout areas
in bays and estuaries from Maine south to
Plymouth, Massachusetts.
During the first half of the 20th century, harbor
seals bred as far south as Cape Cod Bay, but
currently are only seasonal residents in southern
New England (from late September until late May).
State bounties in southern New England states
existed until 1962, and probably caused not only an
overall reduction in seal populations, but also a
northerly shift in distribution of breeding
populations. Breeding occurs from late April until
late June, and exclusively north of Massachusetts.
Since the passage of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act in 1972, harbor seal populations have
increased steadily. In 1983, estimates of Maine's
harbor seal population were 12,000 to 15,000
animals, and increasing. Approximately 4,000 of
these (or 25% of the New England population)
overwinter south of Maine, and 60% of these (or
2,4(X) animals) occur on and around Cape Cod
(Payne, etal., 1983).
Harbor seals are opportunistic feeders, preferring
small schooling fishes such as herring, squid,
alewife, flounder, and hake. In the relatively deep
waters of southern New England, redfish, cod,
herring, and yellowtail flounder are also consumed.
In the shallower waters adjacent to Cape Cod, and
within the Sanctuary proposal area, harbor seals
feed almost exclusively on sand eel (or sand lance).
Gray seals (Halichoerus grypus) are the most
abundant pinniped species occurring in southern
areas of eastern Canada, from Labrador south
through the Bay of Fundy. Population estimates for
the Canadian Maritimes were 40,0(X) to 50,000
animals and increasing in 1983. Gray seal colonies
in the Gulf of Maine, however are much smaller
(approximately 6(X) animals in 1983).
In the 1940's, the Massachusetts population of
gray seals numbered about 70 animals; and by 1963,
this population was reduced to 20 or fewer seals as
the result of bounty kills. The remaining resident
Massachusetts population is located southwest of
Nantucket Island, and is the only active breeding
population in the eastern United States. Pupping
occurs in mid-winter; however, pupping rates have
been low. The total gray seal population
overwintering in Massachusetts numbered more
than 100 animals in 1986, likely due to the
immigration of seals from the expanding Canadian
population.
Gray seals feed both on fish and invertebrates, as
they are available. The Nantucket Island population
most commonly feeds on skates, alewife, and sand
eel, which are abundant from mid-winter to late
spring.
g. Seabirds
Over 40 species of marine birds are found
throughout the year in the southwestern Gulf of
Maine (Payne and Seltzer, 1986). Although they
return to land to breed, seabirds spend anywhere
from 50 to 90 percent of their Uves at sea, foraging
and competing with other predators for food (Fisher
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 31
and Lockley, 1954; Ainley, 1980). Distribution and
abundance of seabird species at Stellwagen Bank
are related, as they are in other parts of the Gulf of
Maine, to the availability of preferred prey (e.g., fish
and fish larvae, cephalopods, crustaceans, and offal).
Various seabird species are often specialized in
their feeding behavior, resulting in little overlap in
preferred prey species. This occurs even among
closely related species, such as the several species of
shearwaters found in the Gulf of Maine region
(Powers and Brown, 1987). The high levels of
biological productivity at Stellwagen Bank,
combined with the presence of fishing vessels, result
in a predictable and abundant variety of associated
species of both coastal and pelagic seabird species.
There are ten species groups of marine birds
which are generally dominant in the southwestern
Gulf of Maine (Table 2). In addition to these
species groups, several species of scoters occur in
the Stellwagen Bank area, as well as eiders,
mergansers, and oldsquaws (Payne and Seltzer,
1986). These species include:
Melanitta deplandi. White-winged scoter (sea duck)
M. negri. Black scoter (or sea duck)
M. perspicillata. Surf scoter (or sea duck)
Somateria molUsima. Red-Breasted merganser
Clangula hvemalis. Oldsquaw
Additional occasionally-seen migratory species
include the Sharp shinned hawk (Accipiter striatust.
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus^. Peregrine falcon (Falco
peregrinus). and Atlantic brant (Branta bernicla
hrota).
With a single exception (Leach's storm petrel,
Oceanodroma Jeucorhoa), all seabirds occurring
around the Stellwagen Bank area are either
migrants or non-breeding residents. In general,
spring months are the time of greatest seabird
abundance on the Bank. (Powers and Brown, 1987)
It is possible that some limited hunting for sea
duck species (such as oldsquaws, mergansers,
scoters, and eiders) may occur within the area of
the Sanctuary, pursuant to licenses issued under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). However, as
most sea duck hunting occurs in sheltered bays or
inlets adjacent to land, hunting near the open ocean
Stellwagen Bank is likely to occur only on an
infrequent basis, if at all. (V. Lang, USFWS, pers.
comm., June 1991).
U.S. Fish and WildUfe Service analysis of National
Marine Fisheries Service sea sampling data (1989-
1990) also indicates that incidental take of sea bird
species generally resulting from commercial or
recreational fishing activities does not happen
frequently, or pose an exploitation threat to any
species. (V. Lang, USFWS, pers. comm., June
1991).
Loons - The Common loon (Gavis immer"). and the
Red-throated loon (Gavis stellata) breed in
northeastern North America and migrate along the
Atlantic seaboard. While Red-throated loons are
primarily found in nearshore waters and the western
margin of the Gulf of Maine, Common loons
additionally cross over Georges Bank during May
and November. Loons are pursuit divers, feeding as
tertiary carnivores, primarily on fishes, and as
secondary carnivores on crustaceans, mollusks, and
aquatic insects (Palmer, 1%2). Loons have been
recorded frequently offshore during spring and fall
migrations.
Albatrosses - Two species of albatrosses, the
Yellow-nosed (Diomedea chlororhynchos) and the
Black-browed (D. melanophrisl are considered rare
visitors to western North Atlantic waters; at least
one yellow-nosed albatross was reported on
Georges Bank in 1976 (Powers and Brown, 1987).
Fulmars - The Northern fulmar (Fulmarus
glacialis). ■ The pelagic distribution of northern
fulmars encompasses the North Atlantic; in the
Western North Atlantic, fulmars extend as far south
as the Mid-Atlantic Bight. As "opportunistic"
secondary and tertiary carnivores, fulmars consume
a large variety of zooplankton. fish, squid,
crustaceans, and offal from fishing vessels. They
are found off the New England coast throughout the
year, with the exception of August, when they move
northward. Peak abundance over the Stellwagen
Bank/Georges Bank area is usually from
approximately January to April, when flocks of
several thousands have been recorded (Powers,
1983).
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 32
Table 2: Species/Species Groups of Marine Birds Occurring in the Southwestern Gulf of Maine
Group
Loons
Albatross
Fulmars
Shearwaters
Storm Petrals
Gannets/
Cormoraiits
Phalaropes
Alcids
Gulls/Jaegers/
Skuas
Terns
Species/Common Name
Gavis immer. Common Loon
G. stellata. Red-throated Loon
Diomedea spp.
Fulmarus glacialis. Northern Fulmar
Calonectris diomedea. Corey's Shearwater
Puffmus gravis. Greater Shearwater
£. griseus. Sooty Shearwater
P. puffmus. Manx Shearwater
Oceanites oceanicus. Wilson's storm petral
Oceanodroma leucorhoa. Leach's strom petral
Sula bassanus. Northern Gannet
Phalacrocorax carbo.Great cormorant
P. auritus. Double-crested cormorant
Phalaropus fulicaria.Red phalarope
P. lobatus. Red-necked phalarope
Alca torda. Razorbill
Uria aalge. Thin-billed (common) murre
U. lomvia. Thick-billed (Brunnich's) murre
Alle. Dovekie
Cepphus grylJe. Black guillemot
Fratercula arctica. Atlantic (Common) puffin
Larus hyperboreus. Glacuous gull
L. glaucoides. Iceland gull
L. marinus. Great Black-backed gull
L. argentatus. Herring gull
L. delawarensis. Ring-billed gull
L. atricilla. Laughing gull
L, Philadelphia. Bonaparte's gull
Xema sabini. Sabine's gull
Rissa tridactvla. Black-legged kittiwake
Stercorarius pomarinus. Pomarine jaeger
S. parasiticus. Parasitic jaeger
^ longicaudus. Long-tailed jaeger
Catharacta skua. Great skua
C. maccormickii. South polar skua
Sterna hirundo. Common tern
S. paradisaea. Arctic tern
S. dougalii. Roseate tern
S. albifrons. Least tern
S. maxima. Royal tern
S. sandivicensis. Sandwich tern
S. anaethetus. Bridled tern
^ fuscata. Sooty tern
Chlidonias niger. Black tern
Major Food
Fish
Fish
Fish , Cephalopods
Fish, Offal
Crustaceans, Cephalopods
Fish, Cephalopods
Crustaceans
Crustaceans, Fish
Cephalopods
Fish
Crustaceans
Fish eggs, larvae
Fish
Crustaceans
Fish, Cephalopods
Offal
Small Fish
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 33
Shearwaters - Four species of shearwaters occur
with regularity over the Stellwagen Bank/Georges
Bank area: Cory's shearwater (Calonectris
diomedea); Greater shearwater (Puffinus gravis'):
Sooty shearwater (P, griseusl: and Manx
shearwater (P, pufFuius). A fifth species,
Audubon's shearwater (Puffinus Jherminieri),
normally is found on southern edges of Georges
Bank during the summer.
Cory's shearwaters are abundant in New England
waters generally from July until October; and in
some years significant numbers of this species have
moved into the Gulf of Maine and stayed until the
autumn (Powers and Brown, 1983). The largest
local concentrations have occasionally been
recorded at 30-100 birds/km^ (Powers, 1983). The
species feeds at or near the surface as secondary
and tertiary carnivores on fish, fish larvae,
cephalopods, and crustaceans.
The Greater shearwater is highly abundant over
Georges Bank, beginning in May and peaking in
June and July, when densities may reach 25
birds/km". The species is most numerous over
Stellwagen Bank during summer and autumn
months. Like the Cory's, the Greater shearwater
feeds as a tertiary carnivore on fish and
cephalopods; as a secondary carnivore on
crustaceans; and as a scavenger on offal from
fishing vessels.
Between May and September, Sooty shearwaters
migrate in a clockwise manner around the North
Atlantic basin; they are abundant on Georges Bank
from late May to mid-July, and are found over
Stellwagen Bank during the summer months.
Typically, the species feeds at or near the surface as
a secondary or tertiary carnivore on fish,
cephalopods, and crustaceans; however, this species
does not appear as frequently in association with
fishing vessels as other shearwaters (Wahl and
Heinemann, 1979).
Manx shearwaters occur over Georges Bank from
June to October (Powers and Brown, 1983); and are
occasionally seen over Stellwagen Bank during
summer months. Like other shearwaters, the Manx
is a secondary and a tertiary carnivore, feeding on
small fish, cephalopods, crustaceans, and probably
offal.
Storm Petrels - Of the two species of storm petrels
occurring in and around the Stellwagen Bank area,
Wilson's (Oceanites oceanicus) and Leach's
(Oceanodroma Jeucorhoa), the Wilson's is by far
the more commonly-seen.
Wilson's storm petrels arrive in the Gulf of Maine
by late May, and reside through the summer
months; this residency largely coincides with the
seasonal peak in zooplankton. The species is
primarily a surface-feeder on zooplankton,
euphausiids, and amphipods, and (to a lesser
degree) as a tertiary carnivore on small fish and
cephalopods. Also known as Mother Carey's chick
(Powers and Brown, 1983), the Wilson's storm
petrel is the second most abundant seabird species
during the summer over the Georges
Bank/Stellwagen Bank area.
Leach's storm petrels are also found in this region
between April and November, although they are
more abundant on the Southern Scotian Shelf, to
the north. This is the only seabird species which
utilizes northern areas as breeding habitat, in
particular, the Bay of Fundy region (Powers and
Brown, 1983).
Gannets and Cormorants - The Northern gannet
(Sula bassanus) are tertiary carnivores feeding
almost exclusively on fish and squid, although the
species is known to scavenge offal from fishing
vessels and may also take fish directly from fishing
nets near the surface (Powers, 1983). Gannets are
most numerous in the Gulf of Maine, and in
particular over Stellwagen Bank and through the
Great South Channel. During winter-spring, large
concentrations of gannets have been observed
feeding in association with cetaceans (Payne and
Seltzer, 1986).
Two species of cormorants occur very occasionally
over Stellwagen Bank; they are more typically
coastal inhabitants.
The Great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) and
the Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax
auritus) exhibit migratory movements in the spring
and autumn in the western Gulf of Maine, and feed
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 34
primarily on fish.
Phalaropes - Of the two species known to occur
occasionally in the vicinity of Georges
Bank/Stellwagen Bank, the Red phalarope
(Phalaropus full car i a) is more frequently observed
than the Red-necked, or Northern, phalarope
(Phalaropus Jobatus). Both species are most
common during April to June, and again during
August to October, during migratory passages. The
spring migration northward occurs largely along the
outer edge of the shelf (60 to 200 meters, or 1%.8
to 656 feet); although some of both species have
been known to follow the coast into the western
Gulf of Maine on their northward migration
(Powers, 1983). Both species feed at the surface as
secondary carnivores on planktonic crustaceans, fish
and squid eggs, and larvae.
Alcids - At least five, and possibly six species of
alcids occur in the Gulf of Maine/Stellwagen Bank
vicinity. Razorbills (Alca torda) are pursuit-diving
birds, feeding as secondary and tertiary carnivores
on crustaceans and fish. The species is present in
the area from late November to May, most
commonly in shoal areas around Cape Cod, over
the Great South Channel, and along northern parts
of Georges Bank. The Georges Bank area appears
to be an important wintering area for this species
(Powers and Brown, 1983).
Two species of murres, the Thin-billed, or
Common (Uria aalge) and the Thick-billed, or
Brunnich's (Uria Jomvia), are occasionally seen
during the winter in the southern Gulf of Maine,
including areas around Stellwagen Bank. By March,
these species are more common on northeast
Georges Bank and over the Northeast Channel to
the north. Murres and razorbills are all large auks,
vkith similar feeding habits. Murres are pursuit-
divers, feeding as secondary and tertiary carnivores
on crustaceans, fish and cephalopods.
Dovekies (AUe) are generally observed from
December to May in the Gulf of Maine, and also
south across the Nantucket Shoals. The species
feeds as a secondary carnivore on crustaceans, and
may also eat zooplankton.
Black guillemot (Depphus grylle) are also a
pursuit-diving birds, feeding as secondary and
tertiary carnivores on benthic crustaceans and
moUusks, and fish. The Black guiUemot is primarily
a coastal inhabitant, but is occasionally seen over
Stellwagen Bank.
The Atlantic, or Common, pufTm (Fratercula
arctica) is found between November and early June
over Georges Bank; Uttle is known about its
distribution. Like other alcids, puffins are pursuit-
divers, feeding almost exclusively on fish as tertiary
carnivores.
Gulls, Jaegers, and Skuas - Eight species of gulls
occur with regularity in the southwestern Gulf of
Maine, and over Stellwagen Bank. Among these,
the Herring gull (Larus argentatus) and the Great
black-backed gull (Larus marinus) occur in greatest
numbers over Stellwagen Bank. Both species are
omnivorous, feeding as secondary, tertiary, and
upper level carnivores on crustaceans, insects, fish,
squids, birds and eggs, and as scavengers on offal
and carrion. Large numbers of both species are
closely associated with fishing vessel activities
throughout the year.
Glaucous gulls (Larus hvperboreus) and Iceland
gulls (Larus glauacoides glaucoids) also feed as
secondary, tertiary, and upper level carnivores on
macrozooplankton, fish, and offal, as well as on the
eggs and young of other seabirds. Both species are
seen in the Gulf of Maine region from the autumn
through the spring, commonly in association with
Herring and Great black-backed gulls following
fishing vessels.
Laughing gulls (Larus atricilla) are usually seen
during summer months in the Gulf of Maine,
surface feeding on small fish and scavenging on
offal. This species is also known to take the eggs of
terns on land.
Ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis).
Bonaparte's gulls (Larus philadelphis^. and Sabine's
gulls (Xema sabini) all appear in offshore areas
throughout the Gulf of Maine during migratory
periods only.
Like the gulls, the Black-legged kittiwakes (Rissa
tridactvla) feed as secondary and tertiary carnivores
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 35
on crustaceans, fish and squid, in addition to offal.
The species is extremely abundant during November
to March, particularly in the cu-ea from Jeffreys
Ledge south and east across the northern portion of
Georges Bank. In winter months, the density of
kittiwakes over Stellwagen Bcmk and Jeffreys Ledge
is probably higher than for any other species of
seabird.
Three species of jaegers occur in the western
North Atlantic, although only two are regularly
observed in the southwestern Gulf of Maine, over
Stellwagen Bank: the Parasitic jaeger (Stercorarius
parasiticus) and the Pomarine jaeger (Stercorarius
pomarinus). The Long-tailed jaeger (Stercorarius
longicaudus) is only seen very occasionally in the
Gulf. Jaegers are migrants across Georges Bank,
principally in spring and fall months. Jaegers feed
at the surface, seizing prey or snatching from other
birds, such as gulls and terns. The species are
secondary and tertiary carnivores feeding on
crustaceans, fish and cephalopods, as well as offal.
Two species of skuas appear over Georges Bank
and the surrounding areas, the Great skua
(Catharacta skua) and the South polar skua
(Catharacta maccormickii'). The great skua is most
common from October to March, although
individual sightings have been made every month
(Powers and Brown, 1983). The south polar skua,
only recently recognized in the overall western
North Atlantic, has been generally observed from
May to October over Georges Bank. Like the
jaegers, skuas feed primarily on fish, cephalopods,
and offal.
Terns - All nine species of terns identified as
occurring around the Stellwagen Bank region feed
exclusively on small fish. Of the group, it is known
that Common terns (Sterna hirundo). Arctic terns
(Sterna paradisaea). Roseate terns (Sterna
dougallii), and Least terns (Sterna albifrons) breed
along Atlantic coastlines at various points,
depending on the individual species, between Nova
Scotia and Florida (and, in the case of the Least
tern, also along the Gulf coast). Terns are typically
seen around the Bank during summer and autumn
months. The roseate tern is Federally-listed as an
endangered species.
3. Historical /Cultural Resources
There are several known and potential submerged
cultural resources within or adjacent to the
Sanctuary. Given the distance from the nearest
landfall, submerged cultural resources might include
prehistoric materials and sites, historic and modern
shipwrecks, disposal areas, and aircraft. At present,
the only submerged cultural resources identified are
shipwrecks and aircraft.
a. Prehistoric Cultural Resources
While no known prehistoric cultural resources,
artifacts, or sites have been located in the Sanctuary
area, the potential for their existence must be
considered. The occasional recovery of megafauna
remains (such as mammoth and mastodon skeletcd
materials) by fishermen demonstrates that
environmental conditions were present to support
Paleo-lndian populations. Recently, skeletal
materials (mastodon or mammoth tooth) were
recovered by commercial fishermen several miles off
Provincetown (H. Arnold Carr, pers. comm., 1990).
However, these discoveries do not necessarily
presume the presence of Native American remains.
Further, a more diverse subsistence pattern of
foraging and hunting (big-game and smaller
animals) was more likely for Paleo-lndian groups
(Funk, 1978; Barber, 1979).
A Bureau of Land Management study of the
Outer Continental Shelf (Barber, 1979)
characterized two possible periods when the study
area was not inundated and could have supported
Native American exploitation. Between 12,(M)0 and
9,000 B.P. (Before Present), the Stellwagen Bank
area was a series of shoals and small islands. Seal
hunting would have been a major subsistence
activity. Between 9,000 and 6,000 B.P., the Bank
appears to have been one large coiitinuous island
that may have supported Native Americans similar
to the nearby Provincetown area of Cape Cod (shell
middens and habitation). Sites are characterized as
small in size and low in frequency.
Some researchers assert Native American
populations were exploiting large marine mammals
at sea prior to European contact (Proulx, 1986).
Erickson (1978) observed that porpoises and seals
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 36
were hunted in the open ocean. However,
exploitation of these resources appears to be
restricted to nearshore or onshore activities, such as
utilizing beached whales or hunting seals along the
shore, rather than on the open ocean (Salwen, 1978;
Snow, 1978). Therefore, there is Uttle hkelihood for
the occurrence of prehistoric cultural materials m
the Sanctuary area from roughly after 6000 B.P.
b. Historic Vessel Traffic
The Sanctuary area can be described as the
"gateway" to maritime commerce of Massachusetts.
Historically, as today, the main shippmg lanes
crossed over Stellwagen Bank. Until the opening of
the Cape Cod Canal, this was the only access to the
ports inside Massachusetts Bay, such as Boston,
Plymouth, Salem, Gloucester, and Provincetown.
With the opening of the Canal, vessel traffic not
destined for Massachusetts Bay ports crossed the
study area with much greater frequency. Further,
fishing vessels utilized the study area not only as a
fishing ground but also as the route to major fishing
grounds on Georges Bank and the Great South
Chaimel.
Historical fisheries and whaling activities of this
region are well established. It is clear that near
shore fisheries (including whaling from long boats)
encompassed Stellwagen Bank (Stuart Frank, pers.
comm., 1990). It was the shift from smaller vessels
to the schooners which moved the majority of
fisheries further offshore to areas such as Georges
Bank, Great South Channel, and Grand Bank.
Nearshore fisheries were typically restricted to a few
small open boats engaged in market fisheries almost
exclusively in the winter months up to the Civil War
(Collins, 1890). It appears that Stellwagen Bank
was not heavily exploited by the schooner-based
fisheries because Georges Bank was more lucrative
(Collins, 1889). Growth of the trawler and dragger
fishing industries focused attention back to
Stellwagen Bank in this century.
The late 19th/early 20th century saw the highest
level of coastal shipping in the Northeast (Fish,
1989). At the turn of this century, the region saw
its greatest number of shipwrecks per year (Fish,
1989). Primary causes of vessel loss (shipwrecks)
fall into four broad classes: (1) acts of war - naval
engagements, piracy, law enforcement; (2) natural
forces - storms (gales/hurricanes); (3) human error
- seamanship, fire, collision; (4) abandonment - for
the reasons stated above, plus vessel condition,
economic reasons.
Bias may exist in the historical jmd documentary
record to selectively not record location or other
information on shipwreck sites which do not pose a
hazard to navigation, involve human tragedy, or
carry valuable cargo. Government data are aimed
at identifying and locating those man-made and
natural objects which are hazards to navigation. In
many instances of deep water shipwrecks, the
reported locations are approximated and not
verified because they do not pose a hazard to
navigation. Further, reUable location information is
in private hands (sport divers, researchers,
fishermen) whose varying purposes and needs
generally preclude making this information public.
Most available pubhshed sources of shipwreck
information concentrate on "romance of the sea,"
and/or major calamities and disasters; their
audience is typically popular and not scholarly.
Many of these works are laundry hsts of shipwrecks
often published without sources. Further, many
works reflect a certain selective presentation of facts
such as including only larger vessels or those
carrying "valuable" cargo. Thus, vessel loss is, in
general, unrecorded.
The ambiguity of location given for most
maritime disasters generally precludes establishing
statements of impacts to specific resources.
Ambiguity exists over the reported locations of
shipwrecks, particularly at sea and the types of
vessel losses reported. Typically, the presumed
nearest landfall is used when the shipwreck does not
occur at a recognized landmark, that is, on shore,
on rocks, near a buoy marker or lightship.
References such as off-Provincetown, off-Cape Ann,
off-Massachusetts Coast, or off-New England, or
"left port never to be heard of again," are frequently
the only description of shipwreck locations.
Additionally, for most Colonial writers, places of
loss were far less important to record than who and
what were lost.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 37
c. Historic Shipwreck Resources
While historic data strongly suggest the existence
of shipwreck sites within the Stellwagen Bank
Sanctuary area, few have been positively located at
this time. Reliable sources place between 1500 and
3000 shipwrecks off Massachusetts coasts; yet there
are no specific references to Stellwagen Bank as the
resting place for wrecks (Berman, 1972; Lonsdale
and Kaplan, 1964; Luther, 1958, 1%5; Luther and
Weeks, 1967; Marx, 1987; Fish, 1989).
The National Ocean Service's Automated Wreck
and Obstruction Information System (NOS, 1988)
places seven shipwrecks within or immediately
adjacent to the Sanctuary area:
Shipwrecks Occurring Within the
Stellwagen Bank Area
Date Lost
1917
1937
1938
1942
1944
1950
1950
The spatial distribution of these vessels appears
random. Insufficient information is presently
available to discuss the potential historical
importance of these shipwreck sites.
The remote sensing records of the Historic
Maritime Group of New England (HMGNE) note
approximately twenty-five anomalies which it
considers to represent shipwrecks, as opposed to
other debris or natural features (Fish, pers. comm.,
1990). HMGNE has not as yet investigated each
location. The distribution of these anomalies
demonstrates a slight clustering to the western half
of the Sanctuary study area. In addition, HMGNE
places the wreck site for the recently-found wreck,
the steamer PORTLAND within the Sanctuary (in
particular, within boundary alternatives #3 and #5).
Vessel Name
Vessel Tvpe
ALDEN
Trawler
NATALIE
Schooner
HAMMOND
OCEAN
Trawler
RESTLESS
Trawler
YF415
Patrol Boat
AUGUSTA
9
SNOW
LEAH F
Trawler
An historically-important shipwreck, the
steamship PORTLAND was lost with over 160 Uves
during the Portland Gale of 1898. The side-wheeled
paddle steamer was built in 1890 by the New
England Shipbuilding Company of Bath, Maine.
The vessel was 291 feet in length, 42 feet m breadth,
15 feet in draught and had a gross tonnage of 2283
tons. Its top speed was 15 knots, and it served the
Portland Steam Packet Company in its Boston-
Portland Line (Cram, 1980).
The loss of the steamer PORTLAND is one the
most controversial marine mysteries in the history
of the region (Fish, 1989:93). The ship's loss
marked a change in coastal passenger shipping in
the region. Following the loss of the PORTLAND,
a duplicate passenger list was always left on shore
when a passenger vessel left port (Fish, 1989:95).
Changed also was the design of coastal passenger
steamers. Paddle wheel steamers, like the
PORTLAND, were of shallow draft which, while
permitting passage up Maine's rivers did not handle
well in heavy seas. Later vessels were of the
propeller type rather than paddle wheel, and had
deeper drafts and were more enclosed. These
changes allowed for more seaworthiness in the
unpredictable sind often wild waters of the
Northeast (Fish, 1989:95). The PORTLAND is
valued as a memorial site, and has historical
importance due to its effect on maritime business
and technology. Its eligibility for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places should be
determined (Appendix D).
Another vessel lost during the same storm was
the PENTAGOET. Built in Philadelphia in 1864,
the vessel served as a gun boat during the Civil
War. It was converted to the coastal trade and
owned by the Manhattan Steamship Company in
service for its New York - Rockiand - Bangor route
(Cram, 1980). Several anonymous sport diving
sources place this vessel on the southern end of
Stellwagen Bank; it is referred to as the "Toy or
Christmas Wreck", due to its cargo of toys. If the
identity and history of the vessel can be verified, it
could possess potential historical importance, and its
eUgibility for inclusion on the National Register of
Historic Places also should be determined.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 38
d. Aircraft
At least one aircraft crash site may be located
within the Sanctuary. It has been reported that a
P-38 Lightning is located on the western edge of
Stellwagen Bank (Grey Eagle Charters, personal
communication, 1990). At this time, however, no
information is available to explain the reason for its
occurrence at this site, or to assess its possible
importance (Lawrence Webster, pers. comm., 1990).
C. Human Activities
1. Commercial Fishing
a. Regional History
Historically, the most economically important
human activity directly dependent on the resources
of the entire Gulf of Maine, including Stellwagen
Bank, has been commercicd fishing. The yield from
groundfish, invertebrate, and pelagic fisheries has
been the most important commercial resource
available throughout the New England region since
the time of early Colonists. This traditional activity
continues today as an important source of revenue
to the New England coastal states.
Three hundred years ago, catch was abundant
from local coastal waters; there was no need to
venture to distant offshore banks. Handlines
employed off of small skiffs and sail craft yielded
necessary daily catches; modest weirs or traps
placed at river mouths or harbors captured plentiful
amounts of migratory fish; and shellfish were readily
available from intertidal areas.
Colonization of the northeast seaboard was itself
spurred by the discovery in 1497 by explorer John
Cabot of vast codfish grounds in the northwest
Atlantic. Early settlements in Maine and New
Hampshire estabhshed the first fish curing stations
before the arrival of the Pilgrims at Plymouth,
Massachusetts in 1620. It was cod fishing that
brought the first settlers to Gloucester, Marblehead,
Salem, Weymouth, and Scituate, Massachusetts
(McFarland, 1911). In the decade between 1765
and 1775, the business of cod fishing actively
involved 20 towns, 605 vessels, 1,475 fishermen, and
9,600 others in curing, packaging, and shipping
(McFarland, 1911).
The coimtry's growth increased pressure to extend
fishing efforts to offshore locations, and necessary
developments occurred in commercial gear and
methodology. The technology of fishing gear
advanced rapidly, starting at the turn of the century
with the mechanization of equipment. Primitive
nets evolved into purse seines, otter trawls, giU nets
and trap and pound nets. The major advance in the
fishing industry during this time was the
development and use of diesel-propelled fishing
vessels, which replaced steam-driven and sail craft.
Fishing gear itself also became mechanized, greatly
enhancing the success of various fisheries. With the
introduction of electronic equipment, such as ship-
to-shore telephones, loran plotters, direction finders,
depth indicators and recorders, "fish fmders", radar,
and automatic steering devices during the 1940's,
both the safety of navigation and the productivity of
fishing activities were improved. Finally, the
introduction of synthetic fibers now used in most
fishing gear has improved fishing methods, as well
as the equipment.
Commercial fishing changed at the turn of the
century, with the introduction of the steam engine
and mechanized otter trawl gear. The effect of
these innovations was an increase in fresh fish
landings from shorter trips. As the demand for fish
grew, Boston became the primary fishing port,
because of its position as the New England
marketing and transportation center. Gloucester
businesses, suffering from both the decreased
demand and less expensive imports from Norway,
Canada, and Iceland, nonetheless survived by
improving fish processing techniques (notably
"quick-freeze" methods), and shipping. Improved
processing and transportation permitted the
introduction of new species to both fresh and frozen
fish markets in the East and the Midwest.
Large foreign trawlers began fishing on Georges
Bank in 1961, primarily on non-traditional fish
species, such as hake, herring, and squid. By 1973,
approximately 300 vessels from 16 countries were
also targeting more traditional domestic species,
notably haddock, and New England fisheries began
to feel the pressure. Because there was no effective
management of fisheries outside the existing U.S.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 39
12-mile contiguous zone, the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976 was
passed to extend U.S. management jurisdiction out
to 200 nautical miles. This action reduced the level
of foreign fishing in the Gulf of Maine, and
revitalized both Massachusetts and U.S. fisheries
(Maclssac and Hotz, 1982).
b. Present Day Fishing in the
Stellwagen Bank Area
An extensive and active commercial fishery
continues currently throughout the southwestern
Gulf of Maine and surroimding waters. Stellwagen
Bank is one of several areas of concentrated effort,
in addition to Jeffreys Ledge, Cashes Ledge, Tilhes
Bank, Brown Bank, and the more expansive
Georges Bank. Over 280 commercial vessels
actively fished on Stellwagen Bank in 1990 (C.
Kellogg, pers. comm., June 1990).
Most fish species in the Stellwagen Bank area are
taken on a year-roimd basis; however, seasonal
abundance of several species results in peak fishing
activity periods for those species. Peak fishing
intervals in the Stellwagen Bank area occur for the
following regulated species (^fMFS/NEFC, 1990):
January through March April through June
Winter flounder
Atlantic herring
Northern shrimp
Winter flounder
Redfish
American plaice
Witch flounder
Atlantic cod
July through September October through Dec.
Bluefin tuna
Red hake
Summer flounder
Striped bass
Redfish
American plaice
Witch flounder
Bluefish
Silver hake
Red hake
Pollack
Atlantic mackerel
Butterfish
White hake
Winter flounder
Atlantic herring
American lobster
Sea scallop
Bank area have been grouped into four principal
categories: groundfish, pelagics, other fmfish, and
invertebrates (NMFS/NFC, 1988). Landings data
(Table 3) are recorded within "Statistical Area 514"
as developed by NMFS (Figure 6).
Groundflsh Species
Atlantic Cod, Gadus morhua
Haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefmus
Redfish (Ocean Perch, Rosefish), Sebastes spp.
Silver Hake (Whiting), Merluccius bilinearis
Red Hake (Squirrel Hake), Urophvcis chuss
Pollack, PoUachius virens
Yellowtail Flounder, Pleuronectes ferrugineus
Summer Flounder, Paralichthys dentatus
American Plaice (Dab), Hippoglossoides
platessoides
Witch Flounder, Glvptocephalus cvnoglossus
Winter Flounder, Pleuronectes americanus
Scup (Porgy). Stenotomus chrysops
Ocean Pout (Muttonfishl Macrozoarces americanus
White Hake, Urophvcis tenuis
Cusk, Brosme
Atlantic Wolffish, Anarhichas lupus
Fourspot Flounder, Paralichthys oblongus
Windowpane Flounder (Sand Dab), Scophthalmus
aquosus
Greenland (Atlantic) Halibut, Reinhardtius
hippoglossoides
King Whiting (Kingfish), Menticirrhus saxatihs
Sculpins, Mvoxocephalus octodecimspinosus
Sea Sturgeon. Acipenser sturio
Tautog (Blackfish), Tautoga onitis
Sjmd Eel (Sand Lance), Ammodvtes americanus
American Eel, Anguilla rostrata
Black Sea Bass, Centropristis striata
Pelagic Fish
Atlantic Herring, Clupea harengus
Atlantic Mackerel, Scomber scombrus
Butterfish, Peprilus triacanthus
Bluefish (Snapper). Pomatomus saltatrix
Deep Sea Angler, Ceratias holboUi
Menhaden (Pogy), Brevoortia tyrannus
Bluefm Tuna Thunnus thvnnus
Capelin, Mallotus villosus
Fish species commercially taken in the Stellwagen
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 40
I L'^^i
SITiI
» M I I I I I I
TTTTTs ■
>^
I I I M N I t H
; ' I i:]T I I I I I I I iTTTpt \ -!
MM M I I I I I M M M M M I M r- ^ Ni
i,\ ,r^^^
M f I I
;m '^-1 3: M I I M I I M M I !4'e:5; Kl M I rf Li'S:3.' I '
M M M I , .
STELLWAGEN BANK ^ m m m 1 M
/I I t 1; l"l M j M M M M [ M III I I M
M I I I I I I ! I I I > I I ! I I I I I I I I I I M I
M M M I I
1 ■' I I i M I M I I I M M M M I M |TM
!5i].'5i II I M I- ! I I II I I M M
I I M II I I M M M ^i'S.4' M M M I M I I- M I
I II I I I I M M [ M I M M I I M I
I I yLs;2'
M M t ) M M I M M M t M I I M I II M I I
I f:i I i M 1 I M M I I
M I M I M I. M I i I I
I M I I i I M U I I I M i5i23' I m" I M I I M I M
M r M I
I I I I M M M I M M
bl'.V I t I L£:2? ( n f M M II I M
M M M I
M M M M M M M M M I M M
M [ Jl M I M M ) M I 1574 i .
1 1 II I ) 1 1 1 1 M' I M I III ) I r
I I
Mill
Mill
I I
I I I
I t M I I ' I i i M I I I I M I t I II I M M M I I
) i I II I I I I M t I I M I i I I M M II M I M I I
I II i I M M i I I I M I I I I I M M ( ( I m
SIZEI
I I I ii'2'.bt M M I I M I M M M I M
m
1-1 M
I I I U t I I M M i I M M t I M M M I i
I I I
I I M M II M 11 I
I M
MM
I I
MM M M I M
I I M I
MSl
; M I M M M I M M
I ) I M II ( M I
I 543 I I
M M M I M M M M M M I 543 M M M M II
I I t ' I I I M I t I t I I I I t I I I I I M M M i M 1 II
FIGURE 6: STATISTICAL AREA 514
(NMFS, 1989)
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 41
TABLE 3: Commercial Fisheries Landings Data from Statistical Area 514 (NMFS 1989, 1991)
1988 1989 1990
Groundfish Species
Live Pounds Landed
Pounds Sold
Value (Gutted)
10,673,447
9,946,977
5,109,987
8,762,550
8,055,646
4,953,756
11,674,220
10,848,543
5,979,134
Pelagic Species
Live Pounds Landed
Pounds Sold
Value (Gutted)
2,510,822
2,270,782
8,850,300
2,094,816
1,893,510
9,294,267
3,121,707
2,845,696
7964,716
Invertebrates
Live Pounds Landed
Pounds Sold
Value (Gutted)
521,062
104,308
327,221
410,715
107,719
257,203
2,340,251
553,482
555,582
Other Finfish
Live Pounds Landed
Pounds Sold
Value (Gutted)
4,799,670
3,762,228
361,080
5,267,744
4,395,288
429,393
9,380,835
7,976,452
821,988
Totals
Live Pounds Landed
Pounds Sold
18,505,001
16,084,295
16,535,825
14,452,163
26,517,013
22,517,173
Value (Gutted)
14,648,498
14,933,619
15,321,420
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 42
FIGURE 7: DIAGRAM OF EXISTING NEW ENGLAND WHALEWATCHING GUIDELINES
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 43
Other Finfish
American Shad, Alosa sapidissima
Striped Bass (Rockfish^. Morone saxatihs
Spiny Dogfish, Squalus acanthias
Skates, Rajidae spp.
Mako Shark, Isurus oxvrinchus
Atlantic Silverside (Capelin), Menidia
Invertebrates
c. Fishing Gear
Depending on the target fishery, several types of
gear traditionally have been employed, and are
currently used in commercial fishing operations
throughout the Gulf of Maine. "Mobile" or "fixed"
fishing gear are classified by the nature of their
catching properties. Specific gear types used in the
Gulf of Maine, and around Stellwagen Bank are
desscribed below:
Short-Finned Squid, Illex illecebrosus
Long-Finned Squid. Loligo pealei
American Lobster, Homarus americanus
Northern Shrimp (Pink Shrimpl Pandalus boreahs
Surf Clam, Spisula solidissima
Ocean Quahog, Artica islandica
Sea Scallop, Placopecten magellanicus
In its annual assessment of Northeastern fishery
stocks, NMFS makes a general analysis of
species/stocks, by weighing each species or stock's
"stock level" against its "exploitation rate." Stock
levels are categorized as "low", "medium", or "high."
These are weighed against categories of exploitation
rates, classified as "unknown", "protected", "not
exploited","under-exp]oited","moderately-exploited",
"fully-exploited", and "over-exploited." Although
exploitation levels of individual species vary, the
overall exploitation level for commercial species in
the Stellwagen Bank/Gulf of Maine area is high.
NMFS has assessed the 1990 overall status of stocks
for the following species: (NOAA, 1986)
Under-exploited: Red Hake, Mackerel, Butterfish,
Spiny Dogfish, Skates, Short-finned Squid,
Long-fmned Squid
Fully-exploited: Silver Hake, Black Sea Bass, White
Hake, Atlantic Herring, Bluefish, American
Lobster, Northern Shrimp, Surf Clam, Ocean Pout,
Windowpane Flounder, Ocean Quahog (in some
areas)
Over-exploited: Atlantic Cod, Haddock, Redfish,
Pollock, Yellowtail Flounder, Summer Flounder,
Witch Flounder, Winter Flounder, American Plaice,
Scup, Wolffish, Sea Scallop
1) Mobile Gear
Otter Trawls are the most commonly-used trawl in
New England, accounting for more than 50% of the
gear types used at Stellwagen Bank. (C. Kellogg,
NEFMC, pers. comm., 1990.) Otter trawls are
conical nets towed along the seabed to catch
bottom-dwelling fish, such as Atlantic cod, haddock,
pollack, redfish, flounder, hakes, and other
groundfish species. When fully constructed and
rigged, the otter trawl takes on the shape of a
funnel when towed along the ocean bottom. Floats
and weights are used to keep the mouth of the net
open while in motion, further aided by otterboards
(or trawl doors), pulling in different directions in
reaction to the water's resistance.
Scottish Seines are also conical nets used in
combination with long ropes to herd bottom-
dwelling fish species into the net along the seabed.
Purse Seines are encircling nets used to catch
pelagic fish species that live or grow at or near the
ocean's surface. Included in this group of fisheries
are Atlantic mackerel and bluefin tuna.
Scallop Dredges are metal-framed devices used
primarily for harvesting shellfish species from the
seabed surface. Hydrauhc or jet dredges are
specifically designed to wash out scallops resting on
the ocean floor.
Clam Dredges are essentially the same device as
scallop dredges; however, the metal-framed
apparatus is specifically designed to harvest shellfish
from within the seabed.
Protected: Striped Bass Unknown: Cusk
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 44
2) Fixed Gear
Hook and Line are hand-held gear used for
catching either groundfish or tuna.
Tub Trawls also target groundfish, using multiple
hooks baited with natural or artificial lures and
attached to a long line. Trawls may be anchored or
permitted to drift at any level in the water.
Fish Traps /Lobster Traps are stationary gear used
to harvest groundfish species, or lobsters and crabs.
Traps are rigid in construction, and vary in design
and dimension.
Sink Gillnets are anchored stationary nets
commonly used for catching groundfish. Gillnets
may be generally described as vertical "walls" of
fiber netting, which capture and hold individual
fishes in their meshes. Mesh size is designed for
specific sizes of targeted fish species. Depending on
the target species, gillnets may be suspended at the
water's surface, in midwater, or close to the bottom
by controlling the number and size of floats and
weights. At Stellwagen Bank, sink gillnets are used
for a variety of mid-water fisheries.
Harpoons in the Southern New England fishery are
hand-thrown, and used in catching large fish species,
such as bluefin tuna.
d. Fisheries Management
Most commercial and recreational fishing
activities in the Stellwagen Bank area are regulated
by fishery management plans (FMPs) developed by
Fishery Management Councils. FMPs recognize the
inseparable association between fishery resources
and the commercial/recreational interests
dependent upon them. The goal of FMPs is to
preserve the fishery resource, through implemen-
tation of a management scheme which provides
operational flexibihty, encourages efficiency and
lessens regulatory mechanisms.
Depending upon the particular target species,
Stellwagen Bank fisheries are managed by the New
England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC),
and/or the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (MAFMC), pursuant to the provisions of
the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (16 U.S.C. § 1801) (FCMA).
Section 303 of the FCMA requires that FMPs
contain conservation jmd management measures;
assessment of present condition of the fishery and
its maximum sustainable yields; the capacity and
extent of fishing vessel harvest of the fishery; and
information on the significance of the habitat of the
fishery. Owing to the seasonal variabihty of specific
species, the two Fishery Management Councils
make recommendations to each other when
additional information is required.
Once an FMP is approved by the Secretary of
Commerce, implementation of its provisions is the
responsibility of the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG),
and an FMP Technical Monitoring Group.
Approved fishery management plans developed by
the New England Fishery Management Council
currently exist for the following species: Atlantic
Salmon Fishery (August 1988); Atlantic Sea Scallop
Fishery (most recently amended August 1989);
American Lobster Fishery (most recently amended
July 1989); and the Northeast Multispecies Fishery
(most recently amended 1990, and presently being
updated to incorporate silver hake, red hake, and
ocean pout).
The Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management
Plan establishes the following:
• minimum size regulations for several major
commercial species (including but not limited to):
Atlantic cod, haddock, pollack, witch flounder,
yellowtail flounder, American plaice, and winter
lounder.
• minimum size regulations for recreationally-
caught haddock and Atlantic cod.
• closure of spawning areas over Georges Bank
and southern New England.
• major increase in the mesh size of mobile trawl
gear.
• marking requirement for gillnet gear.
In response to continuing documentation of
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 45
declines in groundfisli populations, a lawsuit was
filed in mid-1991 by the Conservation Law
Foundation and the Massachusetts Audubon
Society, charging NfMK with failure to prevent
overfishing on New England groundfish stocks,
including haddock, cod, and flounder. Pursuant to
an out-of-court settlement reached in August 1991,
the New England Fishery Management Council is
afforded the opportunity to draft by March 1, 1992
a new multi-species FMP designed to rebuild the
groimdfish stocks. The Council may also present a
final groundfish stock rebuilding program to the
Secretary of Commerce by September 1, 1992.
Failure to meet these court-established deadlines,
however, will require the Secretary of Commerce,
through NMFS, to put into place its own groundfish
stock rebuilding program by not later than
November 1, 1992,
The presently over-fished condition of groundfish
species throughout the Gulf of Maine is indicated in
part by the following statistics from the NEFMC:
(NEFMC, October 1991)
Groimdfish
Stock
Gulf of
Maine Cod
Georges
Bank Cod
So. New
England
Yellowtail
Georges
Bank
Yellowtail
% of Stock
Removed/Year
by Fishing Activity
56%
43%
% Required
for Stock
Recovery
30%
27%
75%
52%
35%
40%
The NEFMC also has developed the FMPs for
scallops and lobster, which establish:
• overall landing amounts allotted for the species;
FMP for Atlantic herring in coordination with the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
(ASMFC); and has requested the lead role in
developing a fishery management plan for the Arctic
surf (or Stimpson) clam, for which commercial
exploitation has recently been initiated in the
Stellwagen Bank area. (P. Fiorelli, NEFMC, pers.
comm.. May 1990).
The Northern shrimp FMP was developed by the
Atlantic States Fishery Management Commission
(ASFMC). The ASMFC is additionally responsible
for striped bass and bluefish fisheries (the plan for
the latter species is developed in cooperation with
the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Coimcil).
The Mid-Atlantic FMC is charged with sole
responsibility for management plans on summer
flounder, butterfish, short and long-finned squid,
surf clam, ocean quahog and mackerel.
Commercial bluefin tuna fishing, representing
approximately 50% of the economic value of all
fisheries in the Stellwagen Bank area, is currently
regulated under the International Commission for
the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), as
implemented via the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act
of 1975. Quotas for bluefin tuna are determined by
ICCAT; since 1983, the U.S. quota has remained
constant at 1,529 short tons (st). NMFS allocates
this quota by categories assigned to the four gear
types employed in this fishery: hand-line, rod and
reel, harpoon, and purse seine net. (The species
also is caught incidentally by longline vessels.)
The majority of the total U.S. Atlantic bluefin
tima catch is landed in Massachusetts. Currently,
there are approximately 10,000 individuals Ucensed
in Massachusetts to participate in this fishery. In
addition to Stellwagen Bank, bluefin tuna also are
fished at Jeffreys Ledge, Cape Cod Bay, east of
Chatham, and southwest of Martha's Vineyard
Island (Table 4).
• fishing practices to be used for these fisheries;
and
• effort limits allotted to the fishery.
Currently, the NEFMC is developing an updated
Spavming stocks for this species are considered
depleted (B. Chase, 1991). Recently, management
of the U.S. Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery was
included in reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, to enhance
NMFS' ability to provide improved species
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 46
Management.
2. Commercial Charterboating
In addition to commercial fishing, numerous
vessels engage in the commercial enterprises of
whalewatching and sportfishing activities focused on
the Stellwagen Bank area.
a. Whalewatching
Although both large and small cetacean species
have been attracted to Stellwagen Bank as a feeding
ground (and nursery ground for some species) for
many years, the relatively recent focus of scientific
attention on several endangered species of "great"
whales has also drawn the public's attention and
interest to these species, and in opportunities to
observe them in natural habitats.
Whalewatching is more than an important
economic activity; whalewatch vessels iifford
recreational and educational, as well as scientific
opportunities to learn more about marine mammals.
The combination of public interest and the
accessibility of Stellwagen Bank from several ports
has resulted in a commercial whalewatching industry
which has steadily grown in popularity and revenues
since its inception in this area in 1976.
Whalewatching trips are often combined with
opportunities for observing marine birds,
particularly when naturalists are aboard vessels to
identify and discuss various species.
Whalewatching companies operate out of ports
from Maine to Connecticut, and are largely focused
on Stellwagen Bank and Jeffreys Ledge to the north
(offshore of Cape Ann). By the 1985 season, at
least twenty-one whalewatch companies were
operating throughout these areas, employing
between 40 and 48 vessels (MacKenzie, 1986). The
majority of these vessels are based in
Massachu-setts, and operate primarily out of
Gloucester and Provincetown. Trips are conducted
from late April through September or early
October.
Humpback whales are the primary target of
whalewatch trips because of their long seasonal
residence around the Bank, and because of their
highly visible markings and behavior patterns. In
addition to humpbacks, fm whales, minke whales,
and white-sided dolphins are commonly seen in the
vicinity of Stellwagen Bank. Northern right whales
are less frequently encountered, owing both to their
more critically-endangered population status (i.e.,
fewer right whales overall frequent Stellwagen
Bank), and to the shorter period of residence
around the Bank (generally late winter or early
spring to approximately July).
Whalewatch vessels range in size anywhere from
approximately 50 feet (35-40 passenger capacity) to
over 140 feet (400 passenger capacity). Depending
on the originating port, a vessel may make one, two
or even three trips per day to the Bank area.
Hassol (1987) estimated approximately 1.5 miUion
persons participate annually in whalewatching trips
to Stellwagen Bank; and found that ticket prices
averaged $15.00 during the period of 1985 and 1986.
Annucd revenues from commercial whalewatching
for this two-year period were thus estimated at
sUghtly over $20 million. (J. Hassol, 1987). A
separate study has also provided an estimate of
more than 9,200 vessel trips were to Stellwagen
Bank in 1985, carrying approximately 1.25 million
passengers (W.T. Rummage, 1990).
The number of commercial whalewatch vessels
declined in 1986 due to the shift in humpback whale
presence that year, a change attributed to observed
changes in sand lance distribution. The following
year, however, the humpbacks returned to the Bank
and the commercial whalewatch business resumed
at full strength. Revenues (ticket price only)
projected for the 1990 season were $17.6 million
(W.T. Rummage, 1990).
Along with increased levels of commercial (as
well as private) whalewatching activities, have come
increased concerns regarding potentially adverse
effects of such activities on the whales, and
particularly on endangered or threatened whale
species. Researchers, conservationists,
Federal/State managers, and others have considered
the possibility that any vessel activity near marine
mammals may disrupt feeding behavior or cause
abandonment of feeding areas; displace cow/calf
pairs; or induce avoidance behavior requiring
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 47
increased energy expenditure necessitated by vessel
interference in migratory paths or feeding activities.
At the Stellwagen Bank area, these types of
disruptions may be especially detrimental to nursing
calves.
All marine mammals are protected from
harassment, injury, killing, capturing, or attempts to
do any of these activities by the Marine Mammal
Protection Act of 1972. In addition, those species
of marine mammals identified as either "threatened"
or "endangered" are also protected under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973. "Harassment" is
defined as any intentional or negligent act that
substantially disrupts the normal behavior of an
animal. In the case of whales, disruption of normal
behavior may be evidenced by reactions such as
rapid changes in swimming direction or speed;
prolonged diving; apparently evasive swimming
patterns; interruption of feeding, nursing, or
breeding activities; and protective movements to
shield a calf from a vessel. Violation of MMPA
and ESA prohibitions against harassment may result
in civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation
(under MMPA), and up to $25,000 per violation
(under ESA). Criminal penalties up to $20,000
under MMPA, and up to $50,000 under ESA are
also possible, in addition to imprisonment and
seizure of property (e.g., vessels).
The NMFS Northeast Region issued whalewatch
guidehnes in 1985 to help all vessel operators
prevent harassment of whales (Figure 7). These
guidelines, applicable to all vessels, commercial or
private, are specifically focused on operation in the
vicinity of endangered whales in the overall Gulf of
Maine. The guidelines currently provide:
1. When in Sight of Whales (1/4 mUe or 1500 ft.,
or 457 meters):
• avoid excessive speed or sudden changes in
speed or direction.
• Aircraft observe the FAA minimum altitude
regulation of 1,000 ft., (305 meters) over water.
2. Close Approach Procedure (300 ft. or 91.4
meters):
• Approach stationary whales at no more than
idle or "no wake" speed.
• Parallel the course and speed of moving
whales.
• Do not attempt a "head-on" approach to
moving or resting whales.
3. Multi- Vessel Approach (within 300 ft., or 91.4
meters):
• All vessels in close approach stay to the side
or behind the whales so they do not box in the
whales or cut off their path.
• When one vessel is within 300 ft. (91.4
meters), other vessels stand off at least 300 ft.
from the whales.
• The vessel within 300 ft.(91.4 meters) should
limit its time to 15 minutes in close approach to
whales.
4. No Intentional Approach (within 100 ft., or 30.5
meters):
• Do not approach within 100 ft. (30.5 meters)
of whales.
• If whales approach within 100 ft. or your
vessel, put engine in neutral and do not re-
engage props until whales are observed at the
surface, clear of the vessel.
Although the New England guidelines appear to
be generally followed by commercial whalewatch
vessel operators, there are still at least occasional
incidents of harassment. One problem may be
simply the number of vessels engaged in
whalewatching activities, regardless of whether those
vessels are operated in conformance with existing
NMFS guidelines. Federal managers are faced not
only with the problem of clearly identifying what
constitutes harassment; but also with a lack of
regulations which are enforceable as law.
Additionally, at this point there is no uniformly-held
opinion as to whether or not whalewatching
activities may or may not be detrimental to whales,
even if the guidelines are followed.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Page 48
Table 4: Total 1989 Bluenn Tuna Landings from Stellwagen Bank (Indicated by Port) Source: MDMF 1991.
NUMBER OF
PORT
nsH
POUNDS
New Bedford
88
50,872
Gloucester
668
283,799
Green Harbor
129
71,750
Sandwich
97
56,443
Provincetown
31
16,671
Newburyport
27
12,220
Barnstable
17
7,016
Sesuit Harbor
8
3,257
Scituate
19
10,554
Beverly
12
4,282
Wellfleet
5
1,983
South Shore
9
4,219
Boston Harbor
5
2.210
TOTALS
1,115*
525,276
Of the 1,115 fish landed, 895 were landed by hand-gear; 220 by purse seine nets.
Table 5: Total 1990 Bluefln Tuna Landings from Stellwagen Bank
(Indicated by Port)* Source: MDMF 1991
NUMBER OF
PORT
nsH
POUNDS
Gloucester
242
118,953
Green Harbor
231
137,141
Provincetown
38
23,939
Sandwich
15
9,618
Barnstable
9
4,458
Sesuit Harbor
7
4,072
Newburyport
3
1,424
Beverly
10
3,365
South Shore
13
7,168
Cape Cod Bay
2
1,078
TOTALS
570**
311,208
Prehminary figures.
Of the 570 fish landed, 551 were landed by hand-gear; 19 by purse seine nets.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Page 49
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 50
In an effort to address these and other whale-
watch issues on a national basis, NMFS and the
Center for Marine Conservation co-sponsored a
workshop in November 1988 to review and evaluate
whale-watch programs and management needs, and
to provide recommendations to NMFS for possible
whalewatching regulations.
Final panel recommendations resulting from that
workshop are:
1. The primary focus of new regulations should be
minimum approach distances based on regional
considerations.
2. Include in regulations restrictions on related
activities, including thrill craft, swimming and diving
with whales.
3. The regulations should address behavior, such as
how to operate a vessel if a whale approaches the
vessel, as well as distances.
4. The regulations should provide special
restrictions, as warranted, for particular areas, such
as feeding or calving grounds, or special situations
such as whale watching on mating pairs or cow/calf
pairs.
5. The regulations should include a prohibition on
whale watching activities that involve the feeding of
wild populations of cetaceans. (Fed. Reg. Vol. 54,
No. 201, October 18, 1989)
These recommendations have provided guidance
to NMFS in the formulation of proposed regulations
for whalewatching activities, whether conducted by
commercial or private boaters. Proposed national
whalewatching regulations are scheduled for
issuance for public review and comment in 1992.
During the 60-day public comment period, NMFS
will also conduct public hearings on the proposed
regulations. (M. Lorenz, NMFS, pers. comm., July
1991). The proposed regulations will address
primarily approach distances, speed, and
maneuvering by vessels operating in proximity to
marine mammals. A primary advantage to
promulgating regulations, rather than continuing
with guidelines, is that the regulations will be
enforceable, thus enabling NMFS and other
managers to better carry out the provisions of the
MMPA and the ESA.
An additional observation made by participants
in the 1988 Workshop and in public meetings
conducted by the NMFS Northeast Region in
December 1989 to discuss possible whalewatch
regulations, is the need to educate private boaters,
who are generally not famiUar with the provisions of
the MMPA and the ESA.
b. SportFishing
Sportfishing is a major commercial activity over
Stellwagen Bank and throughout Cape Cod Bay.
The activity may be categorized by three types of
commercial vessels:
1. Party boats are usually 50 feet or longer and
carry 20 to 80 passengers, who pay a set fee for
their trip;
2. Charter boats generally measure 25 to 30 feet,
and carry an average of 6 paying passengers; and
3. Private rental boats measure 20 feet or longer,
and are used by individual anglers and their
associates. Commercial sportfishing vessels began
working the Stellwagen Bank area by the mid-
1970's, although a few party boats had initiated
recreational ground fishery operations by the late
1940's (T. Hill, 1990). Previous to the mid-1970's,
the recreational fishery was largely based in near-
coastal waters, within 3 or 4 miles of shore.
Two factors occurring around 1976, however,
dramatically changed the number of recreational
vessels operating in the Stellwagen Bank vicinity.
The first was the decline in nearshore groundfish
stocks, which necessitated vessels moving farther
offshore to catch these species. By 1978, a dozen
party boats and several charter boats were regularly
fishing on Stellwagen Bank (Jarvis, 1990). During
prime groundfishing season, it is not unusual today
to see 15 to 20 party boats; 25 or 30 charter boats;
and up to 200 private rental boats fishing at the
Bank (Jarvis, 1990).
The second factor causing large increases in the
number of recreational vessels working the Bank
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 51
was the opening of the market for bluefin tuna in
Japan. Before 1976, tuna was not a highly
profitable fishery. However, the foreign demand for
tuna by the late 1970's resulted in huge increases in
prices paid for this species; and equal increases
occurred in the number of vessels fishing for tuna
on Stellwagen Bank. By 1976, 200 or more vessels
were operating on the northwest and southwest
corners of the Bank, utilizing a variety of gears
(Jarvis, 1990).
Today, targeted sportfishing species, jmd their
seasons include tuna (June to early November); all
varieties of ground fish (March through June); and
"sport" and bait fish (late May to September)
(Jarvis, 1990). Commercial sportfishing vessels
operate virtually year-round (except for the period
January through February), and are always
dependent on weather conditions.
In 1987, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
issued 21,475 recreational permits for shellfish; and
12,080 for lobster (Massachusetts Bays Program,
1988). A total of over 4,000 NMFS permits for tuna
fishing had been issued by 1989 (Jarvis, 1990).
Although figures are not currently available
indicating the economic value of commercial
sportfishing operations specific to Stellwagen Bank,
the level of fishing effort is indicative that the value
of this activity to the regional economy is significant.
On a statewide basis, the value of 195,000 charter
boat trips in 1987 (out of 90 ports throughout the
state), was valued at $9.5 miUion (Massachusetts
Bays Program, 1988). For the same year, 1.6
million private rental boat trips were made
throughout the state, valued at $167 miUion.
Licensing and operation of commercial
sportfishing vessels, like commercial fishing vessels,
are regulated by existing state and Federal
authorities. Current guidelines relating to vessel
operation in the vicinity of marine mammals apply
to all fishing vessels, in addition to commercial
whalewatch vessels and private vessels.
3. Recreational Boating /Tourism
Recreational and tourism activities directly
involving waters around Stellwagen Bank include
privately-owned boats engaged primarily in fishing
or whalewatching/birdwatching activities. While
participation in these activities is high, there are no
precisely comprehensive figures indicating levels of
participation and revenues generated from these
activities. However, some discussion of statewide
data provides a general, if unspecified, picture of
the extent of recreational activities in the Stellwagen
Bank area. During 1985, tourists visiting Barnstable
County (Cape Cod) spent over $1.1 billion,
representing about 17.5% of all tourist expenditures
in Massachusetts for that year. (Greenbaum and
O'Donnell, 1987).
With regard to recreational fishing, a total of
790,000 saltwater anglers fished during 596,644
angler days in Massachusetts during 1987, spending
approximately $803 million in related sales. (Hart,
1989; NMFS, 1988b). These figures include shore
fishing (i.e., from beaches, banks, jetties, piers,
docks, and bridges), and boat fishing (i.e., from
private rental, charter, or party boats). Cape Cod
generally is a primary tourist area during summer
months, and many of its visitors, as well as
residents, participate in both shore-based and boat-
based recreational fishing.
Most recreational fishing within the North
Atlantic (New England) cu-ea occurs in inland
waters (e.g., sounds, inlets, tidal portions of rivers,
bays, estuaries, and other areas of salt of brackish
water), or within the territorial limit (i.e., within
three miles of shore). Throughout the North
Atlantic area generally, the majority of recreational
fishing, regardless of the area fished, is conducted
from private or rental boats. (Essig, et al., 1991).
In waters beyond the three-mile Umit, which
would include Stellwagen Bank, the total number of
fish caught by the recreational fishery varies
considerably from year to year, although generally
the majority caught from year to year are from the
same several species groups.
Table 6: Total Number of Fish Caught in North
Atlantic Recreational Fishery Beyond Three-Mile
Jurisdiction (In Thousands): 1987-1989
1987
1988
1989
9,161
7,430
3,397
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 52
The most prevalent species groups caught in the
North Atlantic recreational fishery in waters beyond
the three-mile jurisdictional limit for the same years
are indicated as follows (compiled from Essig 1991):
1987:
Species Group
Scup
Bluefish
Atlantic Cod
Winter Flounder
Atlantic Mackerel
Pollock
Tautog
Total Fish Caught (x 1,000)
2,863
1,486
1,461
1,057
381
371
317
1988:
Species Groups Total Fish Caught (x 1.000)
Atlantic Mackerel 2,325
Atlantic Cod 1,704
Bluefish 803
Scup 546
Dogfish Sharks 500
Winter Flounder 139
Summer Flounder 125
1989:
Species Groups
Total Fish Caught (x 1.000)
Atlantic Cod
1,217
Bluefish
529
Pollock
370
Atlantic Mackerel
349
Scup
314
Dogfish Sharks
262
As previously discussed, it appears that existing
NMFS whalewatch guidelines for the Gulf of Maine
are generally followed by commercial whalewatch
vessel operators. However, there are at least
occasional, albeit largely unconfirmed reports of
whale harassment and collisions with smaller, non-
commercial vessels, such as those used for
recreational fishing and/or whalewatching activities.
Evidence of these incidents is in large part
supported by photographs of cuts and scars on the
backs, flukes, and fins of cetaceans, which have been
identified as hkely resulting from coUisions with
smaller (i.e., less than 50 feet) vessels. (Center for
Coastal Studies, 1991).
NMFS is developing proposed national
whalewatch regulations, which would be applicable
to all vessels (regardless of their commercial or
non-commercial status). It is anticipated that these
proposed regulations will be published for public
review and comment during 1992. Presently,
however, the Gulf of Maine whalewatch guidelines
issued by NMFS in 1985 remain in effect, but are
not enforceable as law.
4. Commercial Shipping
Vessels crossing Stellwagen Bank come from two
principal sources. The first is vessels arriving at and
departing from Boston Harbor. There is an
estabUshed Vessel Traffic Separation Scheme
(VTSS) recommended for this approach to Boston
Harbor (Figure 8). The VTSS originates in the
Great South Channel, heads in a northerly direction
until just off the easterly side of Provincetown
(Buoy "BD"), where it proceeds in a northwesterly
direction, crossing the Bank, and ending in a
Precautionary Area off the entrance to Boston
Harbor. The second source of vessel traffic across
the Bank is from the Cape Cod Canal. Based on
data provided for the Port of Boston by the Boston
Shipping Association, and a review of data logs
from the Cape Cod Canal Field Office of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, for the twelve month
period May 1989 to May 1990 (Table 7),
approximately 2700 vessels crossed Stellwagen Bank
(average of about 225 trips per month). About half
of the vessels crossing the Bank are carrying liquid
petroleum products. The remainder of the cargo
volume is made up of bulk materials (e.g., asphalt,
gypsum, cooking oils), containers, fish, scrap metals,
and automobiles. The Port of Boston is also visited
by a small number of cruise ships, research and
mihtary vessels. Vessel activity does not appear to
vary much seasonally. While fluctuations have
occurred, and will probably continue to occur
periodically, it is likely that shipping activity in and
out of the Port of Boston will remain relatively
stable, and be dominated by the movement of
petroleum (Edwju'd O'Leary, COE/NED, pers.
comm.. May 1990). Despite the proposed
deepening of portions of the Harbor to be
completed by the mid-1990's and the worldwide
trend toward larger vessels, it is unlikely that
significantly larger vessels will use Boston Harbor.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 53
70
HONDANCtnOUS WftCCH^
1 176/ •»••• *••• #i™»mrt »>•« <*•« «*•
FIGURE 8: VESSEL TRAFFIC SEPARATION SCHEME
Note: Marked boundary depicts NOAA study area for proposed Sanctuary
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 54
100
50
I
1
JAN
FEB
MAR
r
I
i
APR
i
^
MAY
I
I
I
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
OIL TANKERS
OIL BARGES
CARGO SHIPS
CARGO BARGES
TOTAL SHIP
TOTAL BARGE
TOTAL TRIPS
107
53
77
22
184
75
259
57
59
76
18
133
77
210
51
64
84
24
135
88
223
68
66
91
23
159
89
248
36
51
81
19
117
70
187
37
64
105
22
142
86
228
59
46
79
25
138
71
209
51
60
88
26
139
86
225
51
64
108
26
159
90
249
43
46
101
19
144
65
209
46
56
77
28
123
84
207
72
57
87
28
159
85
244
OIL TANKERS
CARGO SHIPS
OIL BARGES
HI] CARGO BARGES
TABLE 7: SEASCNAL TRHCS IN COMMEFCIAL SHIP TRAFFIC ACRCGS STELLHAGEN BANK (1989-90)
(Scjurce: Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management, 1990)
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 55
Cruise ships currently comprise only a small part
of vessel traffic using the Port of Boston, averaging
about 30 visits per year. However, given the
presence of a new state-of-the-art terminal (Black
Falcon Cruise Terminal on the Reserved Channel),
the Port could support significant expansion in this
area. The Massachusetts Port Authority
(Massport), Maritime Department has suggested
that the numbers of cruise ships visiting Boston
could be increased considerably with appropriate
promotion of the Port as a point of departure for
cruises to other ports to the north, particularly
maritime Canada; and as a base for "cruises to
nowhere" (Anne Aylward, Maritime Division,
Massport, pers. coram., May 1990). A possible
seagoing ferry link to HaUfax or some other Nova
Scotia port has also been discussed.
Given the dominance of petroleum products as
cargo of vessels passing over Stellwagen Bank, the
principal threat, at least theoretically, is oil spills.
Because the Bank, as a geologic feature, occiu-s at
much greater depths than safe navigational depths
for all vessels that might pass over it, spills caused
by grounding are not an issue. With the Vessel
Traffic Separation System having been in place and
operational for a number of years, the possibility of
oil spills resulting from vessel collisions is very
minimal.
The Coast Guard maintains at least two different
historical oil spill data bases. The Coast Guard
Management Information Branch in Washington has
identified, for an area which includes the shipping
lanes across Stellwagen Bank (but not the entirety
of the study area), seven oil discharge incidents for
the years 1988 and 1989. All reports involved
fishing vessels, and only two yielded observable
discharges, totalling approximately 52 gallons. The
USCG Marine Safety Office in Boston has
identified six incidents in the past 10 years, within
an area somewhat larger than the study area,
involving no observable discharges.
To estimate the possibiUty of vessel collisions
causing oil spills, vessel accident records, maintained
by the Coast Guard Marine Safety Evaluation
Branch in Washington, were consulted. For the
period 1984-1988, there were a total of 105 so-called
"vessel casualties" reported for the study area. Of
this total, nearly all reports (98) involved fishing
vessels; five were pleasure or passenger vessels; and
two involved commercial vessels (tugs). Only two
incidents were reported as collisions, both involving
fishing boats. Given the volume of ship traffic
crossing the Bank, these historic data indicate that
the chance of a vessel collision on the Bank appears
to be quite remote. The prospects of a significant
oil spUl are even less.
Chronic discharges of oil from tank washing and
ballast discharge is also a potential soiu^ce of
contamination. Grossling (1976) has suggested that,
where large numbers of petroleum tankers and
barges are present, such discharges can be a
significant source of oil in the marine environment.
However, it is not thought that tank washings or
ballast discharges occur in the vicinity of Stellwagen
Bank (Robert Calder, Executive Director, Boston
Shipping Association, pers. comm.. May 1*390).
Coast Guard Oil Regulations (33 CFR L57.37)
prohibit the discharge of an "oily mixture" (i.e.,
mixture of oil and water from tank washing and/or
ballasting) unless the vessel is at least 50 nautical
miles from the nearest land.
"Lightering", described as the ship-to-ship
transfer of petroleum products, is an additional
potential source of contamination. This activity is
regulated under the authority of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seg.).
Relevant sections of the Act have recently been
amended by the Oil Pollution Control Act of 1990
(33 CFR § 2701). Lightering is conducted to
transfer petroleum products onto smaller, shallower
draft vessels which are able to enter harbors not
able to accommodate larger commercial vessels.
This activity occurs within Boston Harbor, and in
Broad Sound, immediately east of Deer Island, near
the entrance to the Harbor. When lightering is
scheduled to occur within the "anchorage" (the
major deep draft area within Boston Harbor), ship
operators are required to provide four hours' notice
to the U.S. Coast Guard.
Lightering is not known to occur on a routine
basis within the area of Stellwagen Bank. (LCDR
George Matthews, Marine Safety Office USCG,
Boston, MA, pers. comm., June 13, 1991).
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 56
Routine discharge of other materials (garbage,
refuse, and other debris) could also present
potential problems. Although the Coast Guard
regulates such discharges under the Marine Plastic
Pollution Research and Control Act, which
implements Annex V of the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships (MARPOL), these regulations would allow
the dumping from vessels of most forms of refuse,
with the exception of plastics and garbage that
floats, on all or part of the Bank (depending on the
type and character of the material involved).
Certain vessels, such as those of the military, have
exemptions from any prohibitions on dumping
imposed by these regulations. While a vessel in
transit from Boston to Portland was recently fined
$12,000 for discharging refuse (in this case,
dunnage), in an area directly adjacent to the study
area boundary, there is no estimate available as to
how much material is currently being discharged
from ships passing over Stellwagen Bank.
Another potential issue of concern involving the
shipping industry is the potential for vessel collision
with marine mammals. The Draft National
Recovery Plan for the Northern Right Whale
(NMFS, 1990) devotes significant attention to the
problem of marine mammal colhsions with vessels.
The report states that over the last two decades,
twenty five right whale mortahties have been
documented, with five (20%) attributable to ship
collisions. One such mortaUty was reported over
Stellwagen Bank. Approximately 24, or 8% of the
300 North Atlantic Right Whales identified in the
New England Aquarium's photographic catalog
exhibit marking presumed to be indicative of vessel
collisions, although the size and characteristics of
vessels likely to have been involved in these
collisions are not definitively known. (Kraus, Crone
and Knowlton, 1988).
The potential for possible collisions arises
because right whales exhibit behaviors such as
resting at the surface, surface skim feeding, and
surface courtship, which increase exposure to
possible vessel collisions. In addition, because right
whales are a relatively slow swimmers, avoiding an
approaching vessel is sometimes impossible,
particularly at night when visibility is reduced.
The Plan identifies the reduction of vessel
collision-related mortahties as one of its
implementation priorities. Two principal
recommendations are made to deal with this
problem. The first is to identify responsibihties
related to reducing ship coUisions with northern
right whales. This is to be accomplished by: 1)
collecting additional information regarding areas
and seasons of potential conflict, and
characterization of the types of vessel typically
involved in ship collisions; and 2) analyzing known
kills and scarring patterns on Uving northern right
whales to identify vessel activities which put whales
at risk of collision. The second priority is to
investigate strategies for reducing ship collisions
with right whales. To implement these objectives
the Recovery Plan proposes to: 1) educate mariners
about right whales through pubUshing special
warnings, identifying seasonal high-use areas in
Coast Guju-d and Defense Mapping Agency Notices
to Mariners and VHP radio Marine Information
Broadcasts; identifying those areas on nautical
charts; and 2) implement appropriate controls on
ship operation and design.
This final objective involves activities such as:
a) restricting vessel speeds in "high risk" areas
during "high risk" periods; b) requiring lookouts on
ships during these "high risk" periods; c) shifting
shipping lanes where feasible; d) placing acoustical
warning devices on ships, if feasible; e) using
appropriate technologies to detect whales in the
path of vessels (e.g., side-scan sonar, low light
intensity television); f) investigating alternative
vessel designs to reduce probabihty of collisions;
amd g) investigating satellite capabilities for the
detection of transmitter-tagged whales in shipping
lanes. The implementation of the "ship colhsion"
objectives of the Recovery Plan are identified by its
authors as a top priority.
5. Military Activity
The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)
designates areas of water and air space as
"operating areas" (water) and "warning areas" (air),
in support of military operations involving training,
readiness, and support of national defense and
security interests. Stellwagen Bank Ues within the
Boston Operating Area, which extends from
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 57
offshore Nantucket Island north to offshore
Washington County, Maine. Military exercises in
the Boston Operating Area include such activities as
submarine operations, gunnery practice, anti-
submarine warfare tactics, sea triak, radar tracking,
warship maneuvers, and general operations. The
designated warning areas closest to Stellwagen Bank
are Air Force Warning Areas W-103 and W-104A,
located northwest and east of the Bank, respectively.
(Figure 9). These areas are used as training areas
for high-speed aircraft operating out of several New
England bases.
Military operations or exercises are not routinely
conducted on Stellwagen Bank. From August 17
through 31, 1985, however, the U.S, Navy conducted
vessel operations known as "Ocean Safari '85" in
Massachusetts Bay and in the approaches to Boston
Harbor. In connection with this activity, local
notices to mariners were issued by the U.S. Coast
Guard that certain waters over Stellwagen Bank and
the Massachusetts Bay Precautionary Area were
closed to fixed gear fishing activities between
August 22 and 31, 1985. Navy exercises involved
streaming strings of equipment aft of vessels that
could cause damage to, or loss of fishing gear.
Within the Boston Operating Area, safety zones
were established around each vessel, and fishermen,
recreational boaters, and other mariners were
advised to maintain distances of at least 1,000 yards
from Navy vessels. These restrictions were enforced
by U.S. Coast Guard imits. This military operation
was prefaced by an environmental assessment, a
request for consistency determination from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and consultation
with the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Sanctuary regulation of human activities does not
prohibit any Department of Defense activity
necessary for national defense in an emergency. In
the event of future planned military activities,
coordination and consultation between the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs
and Logistics; the office with overall responsibility
for DOD's Offshore Military Activities Program)
and the Sanctuary Manager and NOAA will be
required.
6. Offshore Oil and Gas Activity
The Secretary of the Interior has the statutory
authority and responsibility to plan for and to
conduct the offering of leases of OCS acreage, as
directed in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act,
as amended (OCSLA) (43 U.S.C. § 1331 et seg.).
Within the Department of the Interior (DOI), the
Minerals Management Service (MMS) has primary
responsibility for management of OCS minerals
operations.
Pursuant to Section 18 of the OCSLA, the
Secretary of the Interior, through the MMS,
prepares, periodically revises, and maintains an oil
and gas leasing program to carry out OCSLA
policies. (43 U.S.C. § 1344). This leasing program
consists of a schedule of proposed offshore lease
sales indicating as precisely as possible the size,
timing, and location of leasing activity determined to
best meet national energy requirements for the five-
year period following approval or re-approval of the
schedule. Previous to 1978, OCS leasing programs
were issued via discretionary act of the Secretary of
DOI. In June 1980, the first five-year OCS oil and
gas leasing program was approved, covering the
period September 1980 through June 1985. To
date, a total of three five-year programs have been
approved, the last of which covers the period
between mid-1987 and mid-1992.
For purposes of OCS oil and gas leasing
activities, the Atlantic OCS Region (extending from
offshore Maine to the Florida Keys) is subdivided
into four planning areas. Stellwagen Bank occurs
within the northwest portion of the North Atlantic
Planning Area of the Atlantic OCS Region (Figure
10). Within this Planning Area, three areas of
hydrocarbon potential have been identified: 1) the
Gulf of Maine; 2) the Georges Bank Basin, and 3)
the deep-water area seaward of the continental
slope. Limited geological and geophysical data exist
related to the Gulf of Maine area; and the
petroleum potential of this area is not well known.
(U.S. DOI, MMS, 1989). The first of two COST
(Continental Offshore Stratigraphic Test) wells was
drilled in the Georges Bank Basin in April 1976.
Eight additional wells were drilled in the Georges
Bank Basin in 1981-1982. Drilling sites ranged from
110 to 150 miles southeast of Nantucket Island.
The results of these drillings were negative, and the
wells were subsequently plugged. No OCS oil and
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 58
ANTIC
GURE 9: AIR FORCE WARNING AREAS
W102" AND Win4A
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 59
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE
ATLANTIC OCS REGION
NORTH ATLANTIC
PLANNING AREA
FIGURE 10: NORTH ATLANTIC OCS PLANNING AREA
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 60
gas lease sale activities have been conducted within
the area of the proposed Sanctuary. No exploratory
wells have been drilled anywhere on the Atlantic
OCS since 1984.
Initial industry interest in the overall Atlantic
OCS region focused on an ancient buried reef
trend, believed to extend intermittently from
Massachusetts to Florida. However, industry
interest in the Atlantic OCS has decreased since
1984 for two reasons: 1) leasing moratoria and
numerous OCS subarea deferrals; and 2) failure to
locate commercially viable quantities of oil or
natural gas. (U.S. DOI, MMS, 1989).
The current 5- Year Leasing Program Mid-1987
to Mid- 1992 proposes two lease sales for the North
Atlantic Region: Sale #96 (scheduled for February
1989), and Sale #134, (scheduled for February
1992). Both Sales are currently cancelled due to a
Presidential Order, signed on June 26, 1990. Under
that Order, no OCS leasing and development
activity may occur in the Georges Bank area of the
North Atlantic Planning Area until after the year
2000. Stellwagen Bank is included within the area
covered by this Order. Therefore, no leases will be
offered within the vicinity of the proposed Sanctuary
in the foreseeable future. However, based upon the
September 25, 1990 recommendation of the
Director of MMS, the North Atlantic Planning Area
would be considered for MMS geologic and
environmental studies during the currently proposed
mid- 1992 to mid-1997 five-year oil and gas leasing
program.
Marine transportation issues related to the
transport of oil and gas resources have also been
examined for the North Atlantic Planning Area.
The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
Office has conducted a preliminary pipeline siting
study for natural gas originating from the OCS.
The study focused on the types of data necessary for
identification of natural gas pipeline corridors,
including physical, geological, and biological features
and existing land-use patterns. Transportation
scenarios are developed based on the proximity of
potential hydrocarbon discoveries to existing
refineries or processing facilities. Prehminary
identification also was made of potential pipeline
corridors. However, since no commercially
producible quantities of oil and gas have been
discovered, no pipeline or tanker routes have been
designated.
7. Sand and Gravel Mining
Within the past decade, the Boston metropolitan
area has experienced significant and rapid economic
growth, which has in turn encouraged substantial
industrial, commercial, and residential development.
Pressures on both the housing industry and
transportation systems to meet the demands of this
growth have resulted in increased consumption of
and demand for sand and gravel resources, for use
as aggregate in construction activities.
Recently, three large-scale public works projects
have been initiated in this area: the construction of
a new secondary wastewater treatment facility by
the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
(MWRA); reconstruction of the Central Artery, the
major highway through Boston, by the
Massachusetts Department of Public Works
(MDPW); and construction of the Third Harbor
Tunnel, also being undertaken by MDPW. These
projects will create additional demand for
construction aggregate.
Stubblefield and Duane (1988) identify two
principal areas in Massachusetts Bay and
surrounding waters where sand and mixed aggregate
are known to occur in significant quantities. The
first is in the inshore waters off Boston Harbor
between Hull and Plymouth. Fitzgerald, si a].
(1990) in characterizing these deposits, provide a
very speculative estimate of the total volume of
material in three potential deposits within this area
as approximately 4.8 million cubic yards (3.7 million
cubic meters). The second area is Stellwagen Bank.
Setlow (1973) estimated that the volume of material
(predominantly sand) on or adjacent to the Bank
was 114.7 million cubic yards (87.7 million cubic
meters). Sands account for over 90% of the Bank
feature's composition (BOM 1987).
More recently, Stellwagen Bank has been
identified by the Minerals Management Service
(MMS) as a potentially favorable area for possible
mining activities, primarily for sand deposits (MMS,
1987). Environmental considerations were not.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 61
however, factored into the MMS analysis of site
suilabihty. The Bureau of Mines made particular
reference to the possibihty that concerns over
environmental protection "could have significant
adverse effects on any dredging and processing
operations". (BOM, 1987). Several small deposits
of gravel and coarse sand occur on top of the Bank,
which could be individually exploited.
The distribution of gravel and sand on
Stellwagen Bank is provided in Figiu-es 11 and 12,
respectively.
Most of the sand and gravel resources on the
Bank occur in less than 130 feet, indicating the
feasibility of recovery using currently available
mining technology. While a number of small gravel
deposits have been identified immediately east of
the Bank, and in waters off of Cape Ann, these
areas are considered too deep to make the deposits
economically recoverable (MMS, 1987). Other
factors which make Stellwagen Bcmk a desirable
source for sand and gravel are its proximity to
Boston (approximately 30 miles east of Boston
Harbor), and its occurrence in Federal waters,
making the area potentially available for leasing
(Hassol, 1987).
Sand and gravel resoiu^ces are unconsolidated
deposits classified as "industrial materials" by MMS
(Cruickshank, et a]., 1987). These deposits maybe
collected directly either at or under the seafloor.
While numerous methods have been developed to
exploit offshore sources of mineral aggregate,
current mining technologies appUcable to sand and
gravel deposits on Stellwagen Bank would likely
include individual variations of two basic methods:
scraping the surface and excavation of pits and
tunnels into the surface. Variations in methodology
could include both traihng suction dredges
(scraping), or anchored suction dredges
(excavation). It is likely that the latter method
would be used at Stellwagen Bank, depending on
water depths at operating locations. Similar
methods are routinely used for mining of sand and
gravel at depths of less than 100 feet (30.48 meters).
In general, the environmental effects of offshore
sand and gravel mining include: destruction of the
existing benthic biota; resuspension of fine
sediments; and alteration of the surface profile
(Hurme and PuUen, 1988). To date, however, there
have been few studies thoroughly assessing the
effects of offshore mining activities. During the late
1970's, the New England Offshore Mining
Environmental Study (NOMES) addressed the
impacts of commercial-scale mining, although the
study was terminated prior to actual test mining.
The NOMES project identified several possible
results of offshore hydraulic mining for sand jmd
gravel, including: formation of stagnant water-filled
excavation pits, causing in turn coastal erosion or
penetration of freshwater aquifers; harm (or
benefit) to fisheries, depending on the physical
nature of the bottom surface following excavation;
introduction, via discharge plumes, of pollutants and
undesirable nutrients, causing interference with
fdtering, feeding, and respiratory functions of
marine organisms; direct smothering of benthic
species; loss of food sources and habitat; lowered
photosynthesis and oxygen levels; and degraded
appearance of the water itself. Unavoidable changes
in bathymetry and bottom type may also cause
alterations in population and migration patterns
(Hurme and Pullen, 1988).
Of particular concern at Stellwagen Bank are
impacts to fish, invertebrates, and marine mammals
resulting from mining operations. The sandy
substratum is especially important to sand lance, the
primary forage fish for cetaceans. Sand lance
burrow into the Bank's sandy substratum during the
day, and may also burrow for longer periods of
inactivity during the late summer. (S. Katona, 1991).
In terms of fmfish, there is general agreement
among the sources consulted (DeGroot, 1979; ICES,
1981; MMS, 1987; Hurme and Pullen, 1988;
Oulasvirta and Lehtonen, 1988) that individual adult
fish are unlikely to be affected by mining
operations, as they are likely to avoid the disturbed
site. Early fish life stages are less mobile, however,
than adults and more sensitive to elevated
suspended sediment concentrations. DeGroot
(1979) has determined that dredging and
construction of a sand island would cause damage
to fisheries of the area, as well as a sizeable
permanent economic loss to commercial fisheries
(Dfl. 10,000,000, or approximately $ 5.3 million in
1990 dollars). In a study of the effects of sand
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 62
FIGURE 11: GRAVEL DISTRIBUTION OFFSHORE BOSTON METROPOLITAN AREA
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 63
C K P L A N A
S«nd in tcdid
.»0 KC
low p..
T 1 O N /
1
(Allw M«nn»im
i«?j]
(j
i^>|
r
-x 1
|>
FIGURE 12: SAND DISTRIBUTION OFFSHORE BOSTON METROPOLITAN AREA
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 64
extraction on herring in the Gulf of Finland
(Oulasvirta and Lehtonen, 1988), while results did
not indicate that Baltic herring were affected by the
mining operation, the catch in a trapnet set nearby
was significantly reduced over that of years previous
to the operation.
Some of the direct impacts to organisms that live
on or in the sediment can be mitigated through
various operational practices, such as avoiding
overlap of dredging paths. However, as there are
increased costs generally associated with such
practices, and comphance can be difficult to ensure,
rehance upon operational practices as a mitigating
factor can be of limited value.
Data on potential effects of offshore mining on
marine mammals are almost nonexistent. A recent
study associated with locating a dredged material
disposal site in Cape Cod Bay (Battelle, 1987)
stated that evidence available on suspended
sediments indicated that elevated levels would have
no effect on whales. This conclusion was based on
the speculation that whales often live in turbid
environments (inshore waters during winter months,
or offshore of glaciers); and certain species are
known to feed on organisms in or on the surface of
the sediment. However, secondary effects may be
significantly more important than direct impacts.
Bowhead and beluga whales have been observed
altering their swimming patterns within 2.4 miles of
a dredging operation, a change in behavior thought
to be associated with the noise generated by the
dredging operation (DOI, 1983b, reported in MMS,
1987). Similar effects also have been observed in
grey whales off the California coast (MMS, 1987).
Impacts to principal prey species of marine
mammals also may be important. Both zooplankton
and phytoplankton can be affected by exposure to
elevated suspended sediment (MMS, 1987), possibly
causing some secondary impacts to marine mammal
predators. If fish actively avoid dredging plumes,
whales in the area may have to exert more effort in
feeding or other behavioral changes. The available
information presently is inadequate to allow any
conclusions to be drawn about this issue, beyond
suggesting that a potential for adverse impacts
exists.
There is additionally some concern about
physical effects on the Bank feature resulting from
a substantial mining operation. Stellwagen Bank is
biologically productive because the Bank feature
causes upwelling to occur, bringing nutrient-rich
waters to the surface. Any change in the physical
characteristics of the Bank could alter the pattern of
upwelling. Even small alterations in the
characteristics of the circulation and upwelling could
have profound effects on the biology of the Bank.
In addition, there is some indication that the Bank
feature is very important in propagating internal
waves in Massachusetts Bay (Gardner 1990).
Internal waves seem to be important in affecting
both the Bay's general circulation, and its primary
and secondsuy production in surface waters. Any
change in the Bank feature caused by a mining
operation could affect the wave propagation
properties of the Bank. However, further
investigation and analysis are necessary to develop
a better understanding of the relationship between
the Bank and Massachusetts Bay.
8. Ocean Disposal Activities
a. General Disposal Activities
Between the 1940's and the 1970's, numerous
offshore areas throughout Massachusetts Bay were
used for the disposal of a variety of industrial waste
products (including canisters, construction debris,
dereUct vessels, and radioactive waste). These
activities were largely unregulated and unrecorded.
Disposal of low-level radioactive waste material
was permitted at foiu- areas within Massachusetts
Bay between 1953 and 1959, the most frequently-
used site being centered at 42'26.8'N and
70*35.0'W. Such low-level wastes were normally
generated by academic, commercial, and medical
institution sources (EPA 1980). Some radioactive
wastes were also disposed at this site during the
period between 1946 and 1953; however, previous to
1952 disposal records were not kept. Thus, specific
description of disposed materials has not as yet
been possible (EPA, 1984).
In 1963, the U.S. Coast Guard deployed disposal
marker "A" buoy in the vicinity of the present
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (42°26.8'N X
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 65
70'35.0'W). At this time the area became known as
the Industrial Waste Site (IWS). Between 1963 and
1975, this area was also authorized for disposal of
toxic and hazardous wastes. In 1975, at the request
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the
Corps of Engineers, the IWS buoy marker was
moved one nautical mile east, to its present location
(42*25.7'N X 70*35.0'W).
b. Dredfzed Material
In 1977, EPA promulgated its Ocean Dumping
Regiilations, and subsequently granted "interim site
designation" status to ocean disposal sites which had
been historically used (40 CFR 228). The disposal
area, now known as the Massachusetts Bay Disposal
Site (MBDS), was established over a two-nautical-
mile-diameter circle (Figure 13) centered at
42*25.7'N X 70'35.0'W, and overlapped the old
IWS. The MBDS has alternatively been called the
"Marblehead Site" and the "Foul Area Disposal Site"
(FADS). The name "Foul Area" was used because
disposed materials on the bottom would tend to tear
or "foul" fishermen's nets. Since 1977, the MBDS
has been used only for the disposal of dredged
materials. Approximately 3,160,000 cubic yards of
dredged material have been placed at MBDS since
1975. Nearly all of these materials are generated
from dredging coastal harbors and waterways
ranging from Rockport, Massachusetts to Plymouth,
Massachusetts.
In 1988, the COE prepared a site evaluation
report using the criteria for selection of ocean
disposal sites (40 CFR §§ 228.5 and 228.6), and
summarizing 15 years of site monitoring. In
September 1989, EPA published a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement on the continued
use of the MBDS under a permanent ocean disposal
site designation. In response to public review
comments, a Supplemental EIS was prepared in
July 1990 which more fully evaluates alternative sites
for dredged material disposal activities. The
alternatives analysis is being prepared using the
guidelines prepared by EPA and COE for dredged
material site designation (EPA, 1986). A zone of
siting feasibihty (ZSF) has been established to
develop a reasonable range of alternative sites. The
following factors are taken into consideration in
estabUshing the ZSF: cost of dredging, transport.
and disposal; navigation restrictions; distance to the
edge of the continental shelf; existing poUtical
boundaries; environmentally sensitive areas; and
areas of incompatible uses. The suitabiUty of these
alternative sites are evaluated using the five general
and eleven specific criteria for disposal site
designation (40 CFR §§ 228.5 and 228.6).
Prior to the preparation of the COE's MBDS
Site Eviduation Report, a review of the Disposal
Area Monitoring Program (DAMOS) program
reports and pertinent scientific Uterature was
conducted to identify data gaps in the
oceanographic knowledge of site specific conditions
at MBDS. Extensive site evaluation studies were
contracted during the preparation of the site
designation document to fulfill the criteria of Title
I of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (40 CFR §§ 228.5 and
228.6). Physical oceanographic data were collected
using bathymetric surveys, current meters, and side
scan sonar. Water colimin chemistry was measured
and chemical analyses were also performed on
sediments and organisms (worms, shellfish, and
sandlance), both inside and outside of the MBDS
boundary. Benthic analyses were made using
conventional grab samples (soft sediments), and
manned submersible dives (hard and soft
sediments). Additional fish were sampled using
trawls and gill nets. These data along with NMFS
fish catch statistics were used to evaluate fish
resources in the area. Specific programs and results
are foimd in the MBDS site evaluation study (COE,
1987) and in supporting documents (SAIC, 1987).
A major effort was also made to determine the
use of the area by cetaceans, marine reptiles, and
seabirds. Data were collected from the following
sources:
1) Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program,
Bureau of Land Management (1978-1980);
2) National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast
Fisheries Center-sponsored marine mammal
surveys, Manomet Bird Observatory, Manomet,
Massachusetts (1980-1985);
3) Right Whale Surveys of Cape Cod Bay, Center
for Coastal Studies, Provincetown, Massachusetts
(1983-1986);
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 66
FIGURE 13: MASSACHUSETTS BAY DISPOSAL SITE
Note: Marked boundary depicts NOAA study area for proposed Sanctuary
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 67
4) Cetacean Research Unit of the Gloucester
Fisherman's Museum, Gloucester, Massachusetts
(1980-1985);
5) Gulf of Maine Cetacean Sighting Network
College of the Atlantic, Bar Harbor, Maine
(1975-1981);
6) Aerial surveys at MBDS (monthly, January-June,
1986); and
7) Onboard observers during site designation
cruises.
These data, along with a synthesis of the primary
hterature, were used to map the distribution and
abundance of cetaceans, turtles and seabirds in the
area around Stellwagen Bank and the MBDS.
Complete descriptions of these studies can be found
in MBO (1987), and results are summarized in the
MBDS Site Evaluation Report (Hubbard et ad.,
1988).
The Army Corps of Engineers (Hubbard et al.,
1988) estimates that if the MBDS is ultimately
designated by EPA, it is likely to receive an average
of approximately three million cubic yards of
dredged material per decade. The Boston Harbor
Deepening Project, which involves the dredging of
certain portions of the Harbor to allow safer
passage for vessels entering and leaving the Harbor,
or other proposed infrastructure improvement
projects currently under review, could triple this
estimate in any one decade.
c. Fish Processing Wastes
In 1985, and again in 1987, requests were made
to the EPA to allow ocean dumping of fish
processing wastes. Section 102(d) of the MPRSA,
and the regulations at 40 CFT^ § 220.1(c), specify
that "the transportation for the purpose of dumping
or the dumping in ocean waters of fish wastes" does
not require a permit, provided that the dumping
does not occur in: 1) "harbors or other protected or
enclosed coastal waters'; or 2) "any other location
where the administrator finds such dumping may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger health, the
environment, or ecological systems." In response to
those proposals in 1985 and 1987, EPA, in
consultation with NMFS and the fishing industry,
provided suggested locations for such disposal and
recommended a number of conditions which, if
followed, would allow such dumping to meet
criterion 2, as described above. Those conditions
included criteria for the character of the material to
be discharged (e.g., must be ground/no chunk
greater than 1"; no shells from shellfish), and how
the discharge should occur (e.g., laid down in rows;
no revisiting the site of discharge for at least three
days). Also, these sites were only to be used when
fish processing plants either break down and are
imdergoing repairs, or are temporarily shut down
for repairs. When recommendations for suitable
sites were being developed, attempts were made to
avoid active fishing areas, and to ensure that the
wastes did not drift onshore. No post-disposal
assessments were conducted. Dumping of fish
processing wastes did take place, under the
conditions described above, at a site off Gloucester.
Future activity involving the dumping of fish
wastes within or adjacent to the proposed Sanctuary
is highly uncertain. One of the principal reasons for
this uncertainty is the unpredictable nature of the
fisheries themselves.
The Northeast Region Office of NMFS has
suggested that this disposal activity is not
particularly problematic from an envirormiental
standpoint, as most of the material appears to
disappear quickly from the sea bottom. (C.
Mantzaris, NMFS, pers. comm., June 1990).
Results of an informal study conducted by EPA's
Region I Office on dimiping of dogfish wastes in
Maine were consistent with the opinions expressed
by NMFS.
It should be noted that this issue is confined to
the disposal of fish wastes as defined at 40 CFR §
220.1(c). It does not include such activities as the
discharge of fish or parts and chumming materials
(bait) from fishing vessels. It is limited to large
scale commercial fish processing operations wishing
to transport and dump fish wastes within or
adjacent to the Sanctuary.
d. Incineration of Trash
A proposal has been recently put forward to
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Pc^e68
construct vessels and facilities to allow the offshore
incineration of trash from metropolitan Boston.
While much of the proposal is preliminary, and
therefore proprietary, the proposed activity would
generally involve the construction of a shoreside
facihty from which to load trash into a special
incineration vessel.
Offshore incineration of trash may be conducted
via permits issued pursuant to regulations
implementing Title I of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.
§ 1431 et seg.), at 40 CFR §§ 220.3(0, 228.4(b).
In general, § 220.3(f) states that permits for
incineration of wastes at sea will be issued only as
"interim" permits or "research" permits (defined at
40 CFR §§ 220.3(d) and 220.3(e), until specific
criteria regulating this type of disposal are
promulgated, except in instances where studies have
been conducted on: the waste material; incineration
method and vessel; amd the site to be used.
Additionally, the site in question must have been
designated for incineration at sea according to
procedures set forth in § 228.4(b). These
procedures must be conducted in accordance with
the same site designation requirements for other
types of ocean disposal activities, found at §§ 228.5
and 228.6. Among those requirements is the
particular consideration to be given to avoidance of
sensitive areas, such as beaches, shorehnes, marine
sanctuaries, or geographically limited fisheries or
shellfisheries.
Currently, there is no site within the Stellwagen
Bank area designated for ocean incineration.
Because incineration activities have not occurred
previously, it is unclear at this point what precise
effects, if any, such an operation could have on the
proposed Sanctuary's resources. In the event of a
proposed incineration site designation, or the
issuance of an interim (or research) permit under
Title I regulations, future action by the Sanctuary
Manager may be warranted to ensure that
Sanctuary resources and qualities are protected
from any harmful effects resulting from such an
activity.
9. Ocean Discharges
Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay receive
waste, in the form of effluent or sludge, from a
number of pipes extending from municipal
wastewater treatment plants (Figure 14) (MBP
Management Committee, 1989). The total
combined flow of this material is reported to be 566
million gallons per day (MGD), with approximately
500 MGD of that total discharged by the existing
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
(MWRA) treatment works at Deer and Nut Islands,
the plants that serve the greater Boston Area. Most
industrial discharges enter Massachusetts Bay
through the municipal wastewater treatment plants,
principally the MWRA system.
The MWRA is currently involved in the
construction, to be completed by 1999, of a new
wastewater treatment facihty on Deer Island. The
new plant will provide more effective, secondary
treatment of the wastewater, and eliminate the
discharge of sludge into coastal waters (by 1991).
The discharge point, an ocean outfall, is to be
relocated from the entrance to Boston Harbor to an
area between 7.9 and 9.4 statute miles (or 12.7 and
15.1 km) east-northeast of Deer Island (Figure 15).
This location is approximately 12.5 nautical miles
(23.12 km) from the Sanctuary study area.
An extensive environmental assessment of the
potential environmental effects of the proposed
outfall was undertaken by the MWRA, with the
results pubHshed in Volume V, "Effluent Outfall", of
the MWRA Secondary Treatment Facihties Plan
(1988), and appendices. An Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) was also prepared by the EPA for
this project. Each of these documents concluded
that a diffuser-type outfall located in the area
identified above would be environmentally
acceptable.
Increases in discharge volume have also been
proposed for the South Essex Sewer District and
the Town of Plymouth, discharging into
Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay, respectively.
No points source discharges have been proposed
directly within the Sanctuary.
The Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries Act
prohibits any new discharge of wastewater into
areas designated as ocean sanctuaries. (Such areas
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 69
Existing wastewater
treatment plants discharging
into or near Ocean Sanctuaries
^y Primary ticufiiicnt
O SeconboTY treolment
CommoTTMi'vafrh o^ Mouodxnerti
Ex«cirfiv» Offc» o^ bmnanmfTfol Affaia
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMEMT
FIGURE 14: EXISTING WASTEWATER DISCHARGES INTO MASSACHUSETTS BAY
AND CAPE COD AREA
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 70
FIGURE 15: EPA RECOMMENDED OUTFALL LOCATION
Note: Marked boundary depicts NOAA study area for proposed Sanctuary
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 71
encompass all of the Massachusetts coast except for
the area between Marshfield and Lynn). A recent
amendment to the Ocean Sanctuaries Act adds a
variance procedure to allow increases in discharge
volumes from existing wastewater treatment plants
if a strict set of criteria are successfully met.
10. Submerged Pipelines and Cables
No submerged electrical cables or pipelines are
known to exist on or adjacent to Stellwagen Bank.
Additionally, no international telephone cables exist
or are contemplated for the Stellwagen Bank area
(Jeff Ewald, AT&T, pers. comm.. May 1990).
NOAA nautical charts indicate the presence of a
"submerged cable" passing immediately to the south
of the Bank, which has been identified as an
inactive telegraph cable (Jeff Ewald, pers. comm..
May 1990).
Very speculative and preliminary information is
available regarding proposals for the construction of
pipelines or the installation of submarine cables on
or adjacent to Stellwagen Bank. Only one instance
has been found where the possibility of constructing
a pipeline across the Bank was discussed.
Discussions surrounded an OCS lease sale for the
northern portions of Georges Bank (P.Hughes,
MCZM OCS Coordinator, personal communication.
May 1990). If the volume of oil discovered had
been of sufficient quantity, a direct pipeline to the
Boston area would have been proposed, most likely
along an alignment which could traverse the Bank.
In terms of submarine cables, the MCZM Office
was contacted two to three years ago regarding the
possibility of installing an electrical transmission
cable from Nova Scotia to the Boston area,
presumably as a part of planning for the Fundy tidal
power project (Jan Smith, MCZM Water Ouality
Planner, pers. comm.. May 1990). Additionally, in
response to the DEIS/MP on this Sanctuary,
reference has been made to a tentatively proposed
submarine cable, known as the Bluenose Project,
which would transmit "significant amounts of power
and energy between Nova Scotia and the Pilgrim
Nuclear Station in Plymouth, Massachusetts." (R.
Gillis, Esq., April 1991). Nova Scotia Power also
has indicated that preliminary discussions have been
conducted with "a number of interests in
Massachusetts" regarding the installation of a
submarine cable across Stellwagen Bank for the
purpose of electricity transmission." (R. Smith,
Nova Scotia Power, April 1991). Almost all
possible alignments for submarine cables would
intersect with the Stellwagen Bank feature.
Although the laying of submarine cables is
thought to be reasonably benign environmentally,
the presence of a cable in an active fishing area
could cause problems with damage to both the
cable and fishing gear. Some have speculated that
cables on the sea bottom could create obstacles to
the movement of bottom -dwelling organisms
(Darnell, 1976). The trench and fill required for
burying cables and pipelines could disturb sensitive
fish spawning areas; and the activity of the
installation equipment could disturb marine
mammals and seabirds. Excavation activity can also
disturb or destroy marine archaeologicjd sites.
The most significant problem with pipelines, and
with electrical transmission cables which use
circulating oil for cooling, is the possibility of leaks
causing contamination of the surroimding waters.
11. Mariculture
Given the open-ocean environment of Stellwagen
Bank, the only form of commercial fish culture (or
mariculture) operation likely to be sited on or
adjacent to the Bank would be a fmfish pen or
cage-culture operation. ("Aquaculture" operations
involve freshwater areas.) These are generally
"grow-out" operations, where fish smolts are held in
pens, usually fed from the surface and medicated
with antibiotics to control diseases, and harvested
when they reach marketable size.
Most existing operations at other locations
involve the culture of salmonids (principally Atlantic
salmon); however, a number of experimental
attempts are being proposed to expand the effort to
species such as cod, haddock, striped bass and
hahbut (C. Mantzaris, NMFS, pers. comm., August
1991). As of 1989, there were 37 commercial
mariculture leases in New England (18 in
operation), with most located on the coast of Maine
(Bettencourt and Anderson, 1990).
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 72
NMFS has identified, in the NMFS Strategic
Plan, aquaculture as one of ten agency-wide
priorities. However, the NMFS Northeast Regional
Office does not anticipate embarking on any new
policy initiatives or major projects related to
aquaculture (C. Mantzaris, NMFS, pers. comm.,
August 1991). NMFS has nonetheless issued joint
State/Federal guidelines (prepared by NMFS, the
Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the State of Maine) for net
pen finfish aquaculture projects. In this joint
guidance, finfish leases are prohibited in, or within
1/4 mile of, any area "named in acts of Congress or
Presidential proclamations such as national parks,
national wilderness eu"eas, national recreation areas,
national lakeshores, national natural landmarks,
national wildlife refuges, and such areas as may be
established under federal law for similar and related
purposes." Similar guidance has been developed by
the New England Division of the COE, for
information required in applying for floating fish
pen project permits.
Mantzaris (1990) identifies five key factors
related to siting issues and environmental impacts
associated with finfish pen culture: 1) distance
between the bottom of the net and the sea floor -
minimum has been 30 feet, but recently reduced to
10 feet; 2) currents - should be sufficient to insure
the dispersal of organic matter generated by the
operation; 3) tidal range - as with factor #1, this
factor is a consideration only with the siting of
inshore operations; 4) location with respect to rare,
threatened, endangered, or otherwise protected
species (particularly seal nursing sites); and 5)
commercial and recreational conflicts - operations
should not be located or interfere with significant
commercial fishing or recreational areas.
Wildish (1990) generally identified five basic
ecological issues of interest concerning aquaculture:
1) organic site-specific pollution or waste-related
pollution; 2) eutrophication or nutrient enrichment;
3) interaction of aquaculture with traditional
fisheries; 4) toxic chemicals in cultured products
(antibiotics, pesticides, hormones, antifoulants); and
5) disease transmission (principally to native fish
stocks). With the exception of confUcts with
traditional fisheries and other human activities, the
remainder of the issues are generally not
problematic with offshore operations.
While no mariculture facihty is currently
operating in the offshore waters of New England,
in 1987 a proposed was developed by American
Norwegian Fish Farm, Inc. (based in Gloucester,
Massachusetts) to estabUsh a floating mariculture
facihty offshore of Cape Ann, for commercial
production of salmon. Apphcation was made to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to obtain a permit
under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, for
construction, installation, and maintenance of two
facilities, one inshore for raising juvenile salmon
(smolts), and a second offshore site for raising the
smolts to market size.
The original apphcation proposed an inshore
facihty to be moored to the seabed adjacent to the
southwest side of the Federal breakwater in Sandy
Bay, approximately 1-1/2 miles offshore of
Rockport, Massachusetts. At this site, smolts were
to be raised between April and October annually, to
5" in size, and then transferred to the offshore site,
for growth to market size. The offshore site would
encompass a 7-nautical-mile by 7-nautical-mile area,
situated 27 miles east of Cape Ann.
In addition to the requirements of § 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act, the appUcant was required
to comply with § 402 of the Clean Water Act
(requiring a National Pollution Discharge
EUmination System, or NPDES, permit),
administered by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
Following pubUc hearings and consultation with
Federal and state agencies on the structural,
environmental, and economic feasibihty of this
proposal, the apphcant withdrew entirely plans for
the inshore facihty and combined the proposed
operation to a single site, located approximately 37
miles (59.5 km) offshore of Cape Ann. This
location occurs slightly northeast of Sanctuary
boundary alternative #3.
The modified configuration of the offshore
facihty would consist of nine anchored strings of 10
fish pens each, for a total of 90 pens. The conical-
shaped pens would each measure 90' from top to
bottom, and 90' in diameter at the top. At
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 73
optimum capacity, each pen would hold
approximately 500,000 pounds of fish of market size
(8" to 10"). Nets hanging beneath the water surface
would be 1-1/2" mesh, and designed to exclude
marine mammals, fish, and seabirds.
The total area required for the site would be
approximately 55.6 square nautical miles. Water
depths at the revised location are approximately 700
meters (2,296.5 ft.), deeper than the 300-400 foot
depths at the original offshore location. The
proposed site is located outside normal commercial
vessel traffic lanes, and would be marked in
conformance with U.S. Coast Guard guidelines.
Several aspects of the offshore faciUty have
presented siting, structural, environmental, and
economic concerns. In response to the original
application, the COE required extensive additional
information before processing of the application
could proceed, covering structural, resource,
operational, administrative and financial specifics of
the proposed project. Additionally, a Section 7
consultation (pursuant to the Endangered Species
Act) with the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) was conducted, and resulted in a biological
finding of "no jeopardy" to endangered marine
species in the vicinity of the proposed aquaculture
facility. (C. Mantzaris, NMFS, pers. comm., May
1990).
Although the fish farm operation would be "self-
monitoring" to attain best management practices,
both COE and EPA permits would carry with them
several requirements, including an endangered
species monitoring program requirement.
Under this "monitoring program" requirement,
fish pen operators would conduct monitoring
activities during four months of each year. During
those periods, 360° surveys of the pens would be
made to determine the presence of any endangered
species, and to note any interaction between
endangered species and the fish pens. These
surveys would be made every 15 minutes, over an 8-
hour period, on a total of six days during a two-
week period (total of 48 observations of all pens
over each two-week period). Secondly, boat surveys
would be made during the same time periods to
note (from the water's surface) any interactions
between endangered species and the fish pens.
If the results of these monitoring activities
indicate interaction problems, the permits would be
subject to additional NMFS and EPA review (and
possible hearings) to determine whether the permits
should be withdrawn.
A Section 10 permit was recently issued by the
COE for this project. Subsequent to the issuance of
this permit however, two actions have resulted in
uncertainty regarding the future of the Norwegian
Fish Farm proposal. The COE permit was
challenged in court by the Conservation Law
Foundation (CLF) which charged, among other
claims, that the fish farm facility would
uru-easonably displace other hirnian uses of the site.
Secondly, the Department of the Navy has
recently raised strong objections to the permit on
the grounds that the proposed location for the
facihty conflicts directly with certain Navy air and
sea operations. On the basis of national security,
the COE was requested to revoke the Section 10
permit for this project. The Norwegian Fish Farm
proposal has currently been moved to a site further
north, offshore of New Hampshire.
13. Offshore Fixed Artificial Platforms
A proposal and plans initiated by a private
marine consultant in the mid-1980's for the
construction of a fixed offshore artificial "island", or
platform, were submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) for its review under § 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act (as extended by § 4(f) of
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)).
The offshore fixed platform, to be known as
"Gugel's Arabian Nights", was proposed as a holiday
resort facihty, incorporating restaurants, shopping
malls, hotels, casinos, apartments, a hospital, a
heUport.and other amenities to accommodate
100,000 persons (Figure 16).
As originally proposed, the physical structure
would consist of an octagonal-shaped steel platform
supported by 16 steel piles, located approximately
30 miles (48.3 km) east of Boston, in water depths
of 80 to 85 feet (24.4 to 25.9 meters), and directly
over the Stellwagen Bank, at 42°23'N x 70°23'W
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 74
(Figxu-e 16). Each of the 16 piles would support
850,000 tons, and would rest in pockets cut into
bedrock (no additional anchoring would be
required). The platform itself would be 1000 feet
(304.8 meters) wide and 60 feet (18.3 meters) deep,
and constructed of steel and reinforced concrete.
The bottom of the platform would rest 60 feet (18.3
meters) above the mean high water level.
The interior of the platform would consist of two
or more levels. The lower level (approximately
800,000 square feet) would be between 20 and 40
feet (6.1 to 12.2 meters) high, and contain support
systems for the facihty, including diesel electric
powerhouse; garbage disposal; fire pumps; storage
tanks for fuel, potable water, emergency water
(fire); food storage; maintenance shops and
warehouses. The upper level (approximately
800,000 square feet) would contain multiple stories,
including eight towers rising above the main
platform. Transportation to and from the facihty
would be aided by a heUcopter landing pad, and
three docking spaces for cruise hners.
During the summer and autumn of 1988, the
COE received comments from the public and other
Federal and state agencies in response to the
proposed project. Significant concerns were raised
regarding the effects of the project on the marine
habitat and hving resources of the Stellwagen Bank
system. Also, the Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management Office (MCZM) determined the
proposal was likely to affect the Massachusetts
coastal zone, and was thus subject to a Federal
consistency review and determination, pursuant to
§ 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (15
CFR Part 930.53(b)). In addition to raising
questions concerning structural stabihty and
integrity, the Commonwealth asserted the proposal's
hkely effects would include:
• Operation of necessary support facihties in one
or more ports or harbors;
• Increased boat and barge traffic within State
waters, and in trips to and from Stellwagen Bank;
• Interaction with commercial and recreational
fisheries on Stellwagen Bank;
• Potential environmental harm to fishery
resources and the Bank's ecology, resulting from
construction activities; volume and composition of
discharges; fuel and other spills occurring during
transfer operations; accidental loss of debris and
htter; noise and Ught-induced changes in fish
behavior;
• Potential environmental harm to threatened and
endangered species, especially the northern right
whale and sea turtles, resulting from noise and
vessel traffic; and
• Interaction with whalewatch vessels.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
also stated that a NEPA environmental impact
statement (including consultation pursuant to § 7 of
the Endangered Species Act), would be necessary to
address these concerns. In 1990, the appUcant
proposed the relocation of the artificial platform to
a site further north (42°30'N x 70°06'W); and the
expansion of the project to include two identical
platforms, or "twin towers", each 1,000 feet wide and
connected by a gangway. The COE has indicated
numerous uncertainties still require resolution
before the proposal may move forward, including
the financial support for this project (T. Bruha,
COE, pers. comm., June 1990). Additional inquiries
to the COE have indicated there has been no
further progress on this proposal (T. Bruha, ACOE,
pers. comm., June, 1991).
14. Research and Education
Several research and educational institutions or
agencies conduct activities in the vicinity of
Stellwagen Bank. These activities are largely
focused on Uving resources of the Bank, and involve
both on-site and off-site programs. In addition to
living resources, scientific inquiry has also been
directed at physical processes of the overall Gulf of
Maine. The public's interest in understanding hving
and non-Uving resources of the Gulf of Maine has
more recently fostered the expansion of
educational/interpretive activities by several
organizations.
Among agencies, institutions, or organizations
which have conducted research and educational
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Page 75
projects related to or in the area of Stellwagen
Bank are: U.S. Department of the Army (Corps of
Engineers), U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, University of Massachusetts,
University of Rhode Island, New England
Aquarium, Atlantic Cetacean Research Center,
Center for Coastal Studies, Center for Marine
Conservation, Cetacean Research Unit,
Conservation Law Foundation, International
Wildlife Coalition, Manomet Bird Observatory,
Massachusetts Audubon Society, Marine Biological
Laboratory, and Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 76
MAIN TOWER
ADMINISTRATION
CONVENTION CT;^
GAMING —
ENTERTAINMENT
MAST
ROTATING
NIGHT CLUB,
RESTAURANT, ETC.
MARINA 4
UNDERSEA
ARENA
0 100 200 300 400
1 ' I ! 1
SCALE FEET
FIGURE 16: OFFSHORE FIXED ARTIFICIAL PLATFORM
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 77
Section III: Sanctuary Management Plan
A. Overall Management and Development Concept
1. General Context
The highest management priority for the
Sanctuary is long-term protection of the living and
non-living resources of the Stellwagen Bank system.
Effective protection of Sanctuary is dependent on
several factors affecting the feasibiUty of Sanctuary
programs and actions. Factors affecting
management of the Sanctuary include: its size; its
depth and location; its accessibility; and
coordination of responsibiUties for comprehensive
management of the site with other authorities.
As discussed in previous sections, the
Stellwagen Bank area receives moderate-to-high
levels of human use. with particularly high levels of
visitation on a seasonal basis. The proximity to
shore and accessibility of the site indicate the need
for a Sanctuary management structure which
provides for coordination of resource protection,
research, and interpretation/education activities.
Understanding the ecological relationships
among the diverse and abundant species of benthic
organisms, invertebrates, fishes, mammals, and
seabirds dependent on the Stellwagen Bank
environment is of primary importance in providing
system protection. The Sanctuary management plan
proposes a research program which will characterize
and monitor environmental conditions. This
continuing program will provide the basis for
detecting significant changes in the status of
populations and their habitats. These data bases
and predictive studies will in turn provide the basis
for formulation of contingency plans and response
mechanisms to unforeseen threats to the Sanctuary
environment and surroimding waters.
Interested individuals and organizations
throughout Massachusetts and New England will
play an important role in attaining resource
protection goals in the Sanctuary. Inherent to this
management plan, and critical to its success, are
effective interpretive programs enhancing public
understanding, and hence, support for management
objectives. Establishment of the Stellwagen Bank
National Marine Sanctuary will provide a unique
opportunity to inform the public about both the
value of resource protection and the need for long-
term management of the overedl Bank system.
Communicating these messages effectively to the
public will depend on publications, exhibits, and
special events tailored to a varied public audience.
This management plan outlines actions tailored
to specific issues affecting Sanctuary resources. The
plan recognizes the basic need for a balanced
approach to system management, reflecting both
protection priorities and the multiple-use character
of the Bank system. Implementation of this plan
will involve cooperation and coordination among
several agencies with specified regulatory
responsibilities for the Stellwagen Bank tirea. In
addition to NOAA's National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), other agencies include the U.S.
Coast Guard (USCG), the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE), and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (MA). Regular information
exchanges and coordination of poUcies and
procediu-es for resource protection will be integral
to all Sanctuary programs, including research and
interpretation. The management plan is designed to
guide the management of the Sanctuary for the
first five years following designation. During this
period, management initiatives wiU occur in three
basic programs: resource protection, research, and
interpretation. Guidelines and specific initiatives for
each program are discussed in the remainder of this
section.
2. Existing Management Programs
The ocean areas within and surrounding the
Sanctuary are currently subject to a number of
management plans, either existing or in preparation.
While none of these efforts focus particularly on the
resources of the Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary, all
affect, or will be affected by, designation of the
Sanctuary.
a. Regional Management (Within
Massachusetts)
Management of the Massachusetts Bay and
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 78
Cape Cod Bay coastlines falls under the jurisdiction
of regional planning entities. While the interest of
these organizations in planning for coastal waters is
highly variable, some of the management initiatives
arising from these groups could have secondary or
indirect effects on the Sanctuary. For instance,
management objectives estabhshed for the region
regarding waterfront development may have an
effect on the relative difficulty of gaining access to
the Sanctuary from adjacent harbors, or on the
availabihty of shoreside services for fishermen.
The regional planning agency likely to have the
greatest interest in waterfront planning (and thus
possible effects on access to the Sanctuary), is the
Cape Cod Commission. Created in 1989 by the
Massachusetts Legislature, the Commission has
direct regulatory authority, which can in certain
instances supersede local by-laws. As one of its first
acts, the Commission is charged with producing a
comprehensive management plan for areas within its
jurisdiction. Given the importance of water quality
protection issues, it is Ukeiy that the Commission
will give significant attention to coastal waters in its
comprehensive regional management pl^m.
In addition to this agency, the New England
Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) also has
regional management responsibiUties related to the
continued viability of fishery resources throughout
the New England region. Within this context, the
NEFMC prepares fishery management plans, which
are periodically amended to ensure conservation
and management measures (including regulation)
necessary to attain maximum sustainable yields.
b. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Two state management programs will have
some direct impact on the Sanctuary: the
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program
(MCZM), and the Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries
Program. The MCZM is established under the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
amended, and is the principal planning and policy
agency of the Commonwealth for coastal issues.
MCZM jurisdiction includes all State territorial
waters, and any activity seaward of State territorial
waters that will likely have an effect on the coastal
zone. The MCZM Plan encompasses 27 program
poUcies directing activities proposed for the coastal
waters and adjacent areas. The pohcies cover a
broad range of issues, from protection of critical
areas, to port cmd harbor operations, to offshore oil
and gas development. MCZM program policies are
currently being rewritten to update the coastal zone
management plan. Ocean policy is an area within
that effort which will likely receive significant
attention in the updated management plan.
The Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries Program
is administered by the Department of
Environmental Management. Ocean Sanctuaries are
designated to provide protection "from any
exploitation, development, or activity that would
seriously alter or otherwise endanger the ecology or
the appearance of the ocean, the seabed, or the
subsoil thereof, or the Cape Cod National Seashore"
(Figure 17). To this end, specific activities are
either prohibited or special performance standards
are established for regulated activities, to insure that
the activity does not violate the provisions of the
Act. Implementation of these provisions is
accomplished through state regulatory authorities.
With the exception of an area off Boston (generally
described as waters from Brant Rock north to
Nahant, seaward to the boundary of state territorial
waters), the remaining areas of state waters,
including the entirety of Cape Cod Bay, are
designated as Ocean Sanctuaries.
c. Joint State /Federal Programs
In 1987, Boston Harbor, and Massachusetts
and Cape Cod Bays were nominated to EPA for
designation as an "Estuary of National Significance"
under the National Estuary Program (NEP),
pursuant to § 320 of the Clean Water Act.
Designation was ultimately made by EPA in April
1990.
As an Estuary of National Significance
encompassing Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod Bay,
Ipswich Bay, and Boston Harbor, EPA and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts are in the process
of developing a single Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan (CCMP) for this area.
While the EPA designation was only recently made,
the Massachusetts Bays Program has been in place
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 79
r
-J
■"^^.^^T { Nonh Shore
• ^^ ) Ocean
\ I Sanauary
cap*
South Essex
Ocean Sanauary
Ocean Sanctuaries of
Massachusetts as defined
by M.G.LC. 132A ss. 13-16 and 18
Caoe Cod
Ocean
Sanctuary
''±^^
Caoe ana Islands
Ocean Sanauary
FIGURE 17: MASSACHUSETTS OCEAN SANCTUARIES
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 80
for well over a year, funded through an
environmental trust fund with monies derived from
the settlement of a lawsuit over pollution in Boston
Harbor. The initial work of the Bays Program has
been to set up the infrastructure for the NEP, and
initiate the research which will provide the strong
technical basis for the Comprehensive Plan.
The timing of the NEP designation provides a
unique opportunity for the NEP and the National
Marine Sanctuary Program to explore various ways
these two programs can be linked for their mutual
benefit. Given the high degree of coordination
existing between these Programs and the MCZM,
further opportunities are presented for Coastal
Programs to add to, and benefit from this
relationship.
d. International Management: The Gulf of
Maine Initiative
Initiated a few years ago as a joint program
funded under Section 309 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act, the Gulf of Maine Initiative
involves the States of Maine, New Hampshire, and
Massachusetts, and now includes the Provinces of
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. A Gulf of Maine
Council, made up of representatives from each of
the States and Provinces bordering the Gulf of
Maine, was recently empaneled with the charge of
protecting the resources of the Gulf through
coordinated action on critical issues. While the
goals and objectives of the Council are quite broad,
the international coordination and cooperation
provided by the Council are a vehicle to facihtate
future efforts on specific issues.
One of the first Council tasks was to provide
the framework for a coordinated monitoring
program for the Gulf of Maine. This task has been
completed, and pilot monitoring studies are being
implemented.
B. Resource Protection
long-term protection for these resources, the
Sanctuary resource protection program will include:
1) coordination of policies and procedures among
agencies currently possessing resource protection
responsibilities; 2) participation by other agencies in
the development of new procedures to address
specific management concerns (e.g., long-term
monitoring and emergency-response programs); and
3) enforcement of Sanctuary regulations, in addition
to enhancement of enforcement of regulations
already in place.
2. Designation Document and Sanctuary
Regulations
A summary of existing regulatory mechanisms
apphcable in the area of the Stellwagen Bank
National Marine Sanctuary is presented in Part
Three, Section I (Status Quo Alternative).
Sanctuary designation will have no direct effect on
these existing regulations. The Designation
Document (Appendix A) describes the relationship
between the Sanctuary's regulatory program and
other regulatory programs. The Designation
Document also includes:
• a Ust of activities subject to regulation
immediately upon the Sanctuary's designation,
or in the future;
• regulations for specified activities; and
• provisions for establishment of additional
regulations, as necessary.
To ensure protection of Sanctuary resources
2md conservation of the Stellwagen Bank ecosystem,
NOAA proposes additional regulations governing
generally discharges and disposals, alterations of the
seabed, development of industrial materials,
placement of submerged cables or pipelines,
incineration of trash, lightering, taking of
historic/cuhural resources, and disturbance of
marine mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds.
1. General Context for Management
Designation of the Stellwagen Bank National
Marine Sanctuary will focus public attention on the
value of the area's resources. To ensure enhanced,
a. Discharges and Deposits
Discharges and deposits of materials within the
Sanctuary are prohibited. Discharge or deposit
from beyond Sanctuary boundaries is also
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 81
prohibited if the substance or material discharged
enters the Sanctuary and injures any Sanctuary
resource or quality. Excluded from these
prohibitions are discharge or deposit of fish wastes
and bait; marine sanitation device effluents; water
generated by routine vessel operations (such as
deckwashings); and engine exhaust.
b. Alteration of the Seabed
Dredging, excavation, or any other alteration of, or
construction on, the seabed within the Sanctuary is
prohibited. Excluded from this prohibition are
temporary alterations to the seabed which may
result from traditional fishing operations.
c. Development of Industrial
Materials
All phases of developmental activities
connected with the extraction of industrial materials
(e.g., sand and gravel resources) are prohibited
throughout the Sanctuary.
d. Submerged Pipelines and Cables
The installation or placement of pipeHnes and
cables within the Sanctuary is prohibited to ensure
protection against possible adverse environment
effects on resources, quahties, or habitat areas of
the Sanctuary.
e. Incineration of Trash
g. Historical and Cultural Resources
It is necessary and desirable to protect and
manage, for the long-term, any historical or cultural
resources located in the Sanctuary. It is the
responsibiUty of NOAA, as a Federal agency, under
Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, to "locate, inventory and nominate to the
Secretary (of the Interior) all properties under the
agency's ownership or control..." The intentional
removal, taking, or injuring, or the attempt to
remove, take or injure any historical or cultural
resource in the Sanctuary is prohibited. Any
activities resulting in the discovery or fmding of such
resources will be carefully investigated to determine
their historical or cultural significance. This
prohibition will be appUed to any such resource
determined to be historically or culturally
significant.
h. Taking of Marine Mammals. Marine
Reptiles, and Seabirds
The taking of any marine mammal, marine
reptile (sea turtle), or seabird in or above the
Sanctuary is prohibited. Exempted from this
prohibition are takings of marine mammals which
occur incidentally to commercial fishing operations,
covered by §114 of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA), as amended in 1988 (P.L. 100-711).
Also exempted from this prohibition are takings
permitted under the MMPA, Endangered Species
Act (ESA), or Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
The incineration of trash and waste from
onboard vessels is prohibited throughout the
Sanctuary to ensure prevention of any adverse
environmental effect to resources or quahties of the
Sanctuary.
f. Lightering Activities
The transfer of petroleum-based products from
one vessel to another is prohibited anywhere within
the Sanctuary, to prevent the possibihty of
accidental spillage and thus better protect Sanctuary
resources and qualities.
3. Contingencv Plans for Major
Emergencies
Resources of the Simctuary are susceptible to
both natural and human-related changes. Because
many of these changes are gradual in nature, they
may only be detected or forecasted through long-
term monitoring of environmental indicators.
Certain changes in conditions, however, may result
from specific, dramatic events (e.g., oil or other
toxins introduced into the environment through an
accidental vessel collision), and pose serious threats
to resources and pubhc health and safety.
Under the National Contingency Plan, removal
of oil and other hazardous substances from the
Stellwageti Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 82
marine environment is the responsibility of Regional
Response Teams, directed by the U.S. Coast Guard
Marine Safety Office. The Teams will receive
scientific support from NOAA, and assistance from
other appropriate Federal and State agencies.
The Oil Pollution Control Act of 1990 (33
U.S.C. § 2701) requires the preparation of
contingency plans for individual vessels. These
plans are reviewed by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Added protection for Stellwagen Bank
resources will be provided through ongoing
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division monitoring and
assessment of Sanctuary preparedness for
emergency situations. SRD's actions will
incorporate continuing dialogue and information
exchange with government, industry and private
response teams, in order to enhance support in
detection, assessment and clean-up capabilities
applicable to the Stellwagen Bank system.
SRD is developing a National Marine
Sanctuary Program contingency and emergency-
response plan, with a specific prototype being
developed for the Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary. Sanctuary-specific contingency and
emergency-response plans will be prepared for each
site in the National system, including Stellwagen
Bank. The plan developed for Stellwagen Bank will:
• outline and describe emergency-response
procedures and coordination requirements for
SRD and Sanctuary staff;
• provide a geographic information system (GIS)
depicting resources at risk;
• outhne procedures for emergency research;
• provide guidelines for damage assessment.
In conjunction with the SRD contingency/
emergency-response plan, cooperative agreements
may be formulated to improve spill detection
programs and to enhance containment capabihties
(i.e., through additional deployment plans,
equipment, and staff). Such additional efforts will
be closely coordinated through the Sanctuary.
4. Encouraging Compatible Uses of the
Sanctuary
An important element of resource protection
for the Sanctuary is the encouragement of public
uses of the site that are compatible with the overall
objective of long-term resource and system
protection. SRD will foster such compatible public
uses by initiating the following actions:
• monitor commercial and recreational activities
within the Sanctuary; and encourage other
agencies to undertake similar actions and to
improve overall detection of areas for
particular management concern;
• exchange information on commercial and
recreational activities occurring within the
Sanctuary;
• consult with other agencies on proposals and
poUcies for management of activities which
may affect Sanctuary resources; and
• develop materials designed to enhance pubhc
awareness and appreciation of Sanctuary
resources and show the need for their
protection.
Anticipated monitoring and information
exchange activities are discussed below under
Research (Subsection C); and development of
public materials is also discussed below under
Interpretation (Subsection D).
5. Surveillance and Enforcement
Essential to the resource protection program
is surveillance of Sanctuary waters and enforcement
of Sanctuary and other applicable regulations. The
U.S. Coast Guard has broad responsibility for
enforcement of Federal laws in navigable waters
under U.S. jurisdiction. In the Sanctuary proposal
area, enforcement of laws pertaining to fishing
harvests are cooperatively the responsibility of the
U.S. Coast Guard, the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (through its Division of
Environmental Law Enforcement, within the
Massachusetts Department of Fisheries, Wildlife
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 83
and Environmental Law Enforcement). Within the
exclusive economic zone, responsibility for
enforcement of fishing regulations is shared among
these agencies.
Designation of the Sanctuary broadens the
enforcement responsibilities of the U.S. Coast
Guard with respect to Sanctuary regulations.
Should analysis of human use patterns indicate the
need for additional surveillance of the Sanctuary,
then NOAA will provide for increased enforcement
to strengthen resource protection. An evaluation of
Sanctuary enforcement effectiveness will be
conducted within two years and annually thereafter.
a. Public Education and Information
The Sanctuary interpretive program will inform
users of the need to use Sanctuary resources wisely.
Means for accomplishing this objective will include
brochures and other written materials concerning
Sanctuary regulations and their purpose. These
materials will be available to all Sanctuary users.
b. Planning and Coordination
The results of Sanctuary research and
surveillance-enforcement activities concerning visitor
use patterns, frequently-occurring violations, and
potentially sensitive resources will be incorporated
into the agendas of periodic meetings between the
Sanctuary Manager and enforcement agency
personnel, to assist in determining the adequacy of
Sanctuary surveillance.
C. Research
1. General Context for Management
Effective management of the Sanctuary
requires a research program which addresses
management issues. Understanding the
relationships and interactions among system
components, and how the system functions as an
ecological unit are critical to developing effective
solutions to management problems. Research
supported by SRD will primarily be directed toward
improving understanding of the Sanctuary system,
and how Sanctuary resources may be affected by
human activities. The general framework for
research program activities and the process for
preparation of an annual Sanctuary Research Plan
are discussed below.
2. Framework for Research Program
The Sanctuary Research Program will consist
of three primary project categories:
• baseline studies to determine: featiu^es and
processes of the enviroimient; abundance,
distribution, and interactions among the Uving
resources; and patterns of human activities;
• monitoring studies to document changes in
ecology, environmental quality, and human
activities in the Sanctuary; and
• predictive studies to assess causes and effects
of ecological jmd environmental changes, and
to anticipate management issues.
Initial baseline studies will focus on gaining
enhanced knowledge and better imderstanding of
Sanctuary ecology. Cychc biological productivity
levels of the Stellwagen Bank system are subject to
changes due to a variety of factors. For example, in
recent years, variations in the availability of food
sources have contributed to periodic changes in the
distribution of cetacean feeding patterns, and may
also have contributed to the relative success of
commercial fishing efforts. A better understanding
of productivity cycles will provide a basis for better
imderstanding of relationships among the
Sanctuary's living resources, and the effects of
variations in those cycles.
In addition to data bases documenting plant,
animal, and non-living components of the Sanctuary,
successful management requires knowledge and
understanding of long-term changes occurring within
the Stellwagen Bank system. Continuing
monitoring programs could provide the means to
such understanding. Ecological changes and trends
may be detected through monitoring data which
provide indicators of the relative health of Sanctuary
resources.
The monitoring program should include
pollution monitoring studies, and studies on species
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Pc^e84
population dynamics as indicators of species'
response to natural or human-caused threats to the
Bank's resources.
Additional monitoring studies should include
fluctuations in cetacean and seabird abundance and
relative effects of sport fishing, commercial fishing,
and whalewatch activities.
As needed, the Sanctuary research program
will also conduct focused predictive studies, jmalyze
the causes and consequences of system changes, and
predict the effects on the system of new or
increased levels of human activity. For instance,
possible areas of predictive study might include: the
effects of increased boating traffic on marine
mammals.
3. Selection and Management of Research
Projects
Sanctuary research projects fimded by SRD
will address the resolution of management issues
and concerns. The Sanctuary Manager and SRD
staff will follow research selection procedures
established by SRD to ensure that the Sanctuary's
research program is consistent with the poUcies and
directions of the National Marine Sanctuary
Program. Research selection procedures include:
preparing an annual Sanctuary Research Plan
(SRP); and monitoring progress on research
conducted in the Sanctuary.
a. Annual Sanctuary Research Plan (SRP)
A Sanctuary Research Plan (SRP) will be
prepared each year. Annual Research Plans for
individual National Marine Sanctuaries are
incorporated into a National Research Plan for the
overall National Marine Sanctuary Program. The
annual research planning process involves the
following steps:
(1) Sanctuary management concerns are identified,
with supporting evidence or rationales.
(2) Research priorities are established, based upon
the identification of management concerns.
Research priorities are established by the
Sanctuary Manager, in consultation with SRD.
Important factors to be considered in
establishing research priorities include:
• immediate or evolving management issues
which can be resolved through directed
research;
• prospects of related research in progress;
and
• availability of funding and equipment for
research support.
(3) Following the identification of management
concerns, a research announcement and
request for detailed research proposals is
prepared. The announcement and request for
proposals discusses the identified management
concerns, and summarizes past and current
related research. Occasionally research
workshops are conducted to faciUtate the
identification of research problems.
(4) A draft SRP is prepared based on suggestions
generated by the aimouncement, workshops or
other means. A Ust of proposed research
projects is presented in the draft SRP, with
supporting discussion and rationales.
(5) The draft SRP is forwarded to SRD and
circulated for peer review.
(6) A fmal SRP is prepared, documenting how
proposed research projects meet the national
selection criteria.
The fmal SRP is forwarded to SRD; and it is
incorporated into the National Marine Sanctuary
Program Research Plan. The highest ranking
proposed research projects are selected from the
National Plan, and procurement schedules are then
prepared.
In instances where a research proposal entails
activities prohibited by Sanctuary regulations, a
research permit may be issued by NOAA upon
separate application by the researchers.
Alternatively, SRD may determine that all or part
of the research should be not conducted inside the
Sanctuary's boundary. Resccuch activities involving
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 85
threatened, endangered, or otherwise protected
species may require additional permits from other
agencies.
b. Research Project Monitoring Program
As a routine activity, the Sanctuary Manager
will monitor the performance of researchers
conducting research activities in the Scmctuary. The
Sanctuary Manager will also maintain records of all
current research, equipment being used on site,
frequency of researchers' visits on site, and current
progress on each project. Interim progress reports
and final reports by the researcher to SRD and the
Sanctuary Manager are required to ensure
adherence to schedules outUned in the terms of the
contract. Final research reports may be reviewed by
scientists recognized in the particular field of
research, as well as by resoiu^ce managers before
final approval of the report by SRD. Particularly
outstanding research reports may be pubUshed by
SRD in the NOS/SRD Technical Report Series.
4. Information Exchange
SRD encourages Sanctuary research funded by
other sources to complement research directly
funded by NOAA. To assist in this research
exchange effort, SRD will make Sanctuary research
data bases derived from past and ongoing research
projects available to other agencies and private
institutions.
D. Interpretation/Education
1. General Context for Management
Public awareness, understanding, and
appreciation for the special values of the Stellwagen
Bank ecosystem are essential for its protection and
continued vitality. The Sanctuary interpretive
program will focus on improving pubUc
understanding by providing information on the
Bank's functions and resources, and on the
Sanctuary regulations designed to ensure resource
protection. To accompUsh this objective,
interpretive information m\\ be targeted to a variety
of audiences, including in particular, the user public.
2. Interpretive Opportunities
Interpretive opportunities for the Sanctuary
will be targeted toward three basic audiences:
visitors to the Sanctuary; visitors to the Sanctuary
headquarters; and interested individuals or
organizations not visiting either location (off-site).
Numerous interpretive opportunities exist for all
types of audiences.
The accessibility of Stellwagen Bank to
numerous recreational and commercial boaters, to
commercial fishermen, and to scientific researchers,
provides a variety of ways in which to reach the
visiting pubUc with information about the
Sanctuary's resoiu'ces and programs. Among
anticipated methods of reaching this on-site user
public are brochures and other informational
materials distributed aboard whalewatch vessels;
through recreational charterboat captains; and
through research and educational institutions
sponsoring vessel trips to the site.
Establishment of a Sanctuary headquarters in
Plymouth, MA will provide a focal point for
interested members of the pubUc who may or may
not intend to actually visit Stellwagen Bank. The
visitor center will make available interpretive
materials on the Stellwagen Bank system, its
resources, recreational activities, and protective and
safety regulations in effect.
Some of these materials will be presented in
audio-visual formats; others in printed form. The
sanctuary headquarters will also provide a location
for the public to learn about other private or
governmental activities occurring within or near the
Sanctuary. Information will also be provided on
how the Sanctuary program coordinates with other
public and private institutions or agencies to ensure
the continued protection and viability of the
Stellwagen Bank ecosystem. National Marine
Sanctuary Program information will also be
available at the Sanctuary headquarters.
Finally, Sanctuary interpretive staff will
conduct outreach activities to make Sanctuary
information available to individuals, schools, and
organizations throughout the New England area.
These materials will be directed at those who are
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 86
not likely to actually visit the Sanctuary, but who are
nonetheless interested in learning about the SBNMS
and the National Marine Sanctuary Program.
3. Interpretive Programs
Interpretation for the Sanctuary will consist of
three distinct programs:
• On-site visitor programs for fishing and
whalewatching vessels, and other recreational
boating visitors to the Sanctuary;
• Visitor center programs for individuals visiting
the Sanctuary headquarters, or other nearby
information centers; and
• Outreach programs for interested individuals
and groups not visiting the Sanctuary or its
headquarters.
a. On-Site Visitor Programs
On-site interpretation for the Sanctuary will
consist primarily of printed materials on the
Sanctuary and its regulations made available on
commercial fishing and/or whalewatching vessels.
The program will rely heavily on the cooperation of
excursion boat operators. Many of the commercial
whalewatch vessels incorporate the onboard services
of a naturalist, to identify and discuss various
species of cetaceans. Verbal information on the
Sanctuary will be included in such discussions, in
addition to brochures or other printed materials
which excursion p2u-ticipants may carry home with
them. Local organizations, such as Manomet Bird
Observatory, Cetacean Research Unit, Center for
Coastal Studies, or the New England Aquarium,
may also be interested in co-sponsoring special
excursions to the Bank.
Race Point and South Wellfleet.
c. Outreach Programs
Off-site interpretive programs will involve
coordinated and cooperative efforts with local and
regional environmental study organizations, e.g.,
Center for Coastal Studies, Cetacean Research
Unit, Manomet Bird Observatory, International
Wildlife Coalition, New England Aquarium, and
Massachusetts Audubon Society. Additionally,
Sanctuary staff will make interpretive materials
available to local and regional schools and
universities. Materials may include shde
presentations and travelling exhibits, curriculum
materials and other teacher aids. Opportunities will
be assessed for Sanctuary outreach locations in
areas of heavy public visitation, such as highway
welcome centers and public docks.
b. Visitor Center /Headquarters Programs
Exhibits, audio-visual information, and printed
materials will be available to the public at the
Sanctuary visitor center/headquarters. Additional
potential distribution points for Sanctuary brochures
and other materials include NOAA's National
Marine Fisheries Service facility (Gloucester), and
the Cape Cod National Seashore Visitor Centers at
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 87
Section IV. Administration
A. Administrative Framework
This section of the management plan describes
the roles of various agencies that will be involved in
Sanctuary management; proposes strategies to
coordinate their activities; and provides for periodic
evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the
management plan. As previously discussed,
Siuictuary management consists of three basic
functions: resource protection, research, and
education/interpretation. Administration oversees
all other functions and establishes who is
responsible for implementing specific programs.
The administrative framework ensures that all
management activities are coordinated.
The Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD)
is responsible for the overall management of the
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary
(SBNMS). SRD will coordinate its on-site activities
through cooperative agreements with the
Commonwealth, regional, local and other Federal
agencies. The general administrative roles of each
agency are described below.
1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
The National Marine Sanctuary Program is
administered by SRD. A site-specific management
plan is prepared for each individual Sanctuary to
ensure that on-site activities involving resource
protection, research, and education/interpretation
are coordinated and are consistent with Sanctuary
goals and objectives.
SRD develops a general budget, setting out
expenditures for program development, operating
costs, and staffing. Funding priorities will be
reviewed and adjusted annually to reflect evolving
conditions in the SBNMS and National Marine
Sanctuary Program priorities and requirements.
SRD also establishes policies and procedures in
response to specific issues in each Sanctuary.
Detailed SRD responsibihties are listed under the
resource protection, research, education/
interpretation, and general administration sections
which follow.
The Sanctuary Manager for the SBNMS
reports directly to the Atlantic and Great Lakes
Regional Manager at SRD. In this capacity, the
Manager represents SRD and is the primary
spokesperson for the SBNMS. The Sanctuary's
headquarters will be located at a site which provides
access both to the visiting pubUc and to the
Sanctuary. The town of Plymouth has been selected
for the location of the SBNMS headquarters office;
additional "satellite" information centers will be
estabUshed following the designation of the
Sanctuary.
2. National Marine Fisheries Service.
Northeast Region
The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), within NOAA, has a variety of missions
which are directly involved with Sanctuary resources.
In general, these include implementation of the
various Fishery Management Plans; and
implementation of the provisions of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species
Act. (Further discussion of NMFS roles is presented
m Part Three, Section I: Status Quo Alternative.)
NMFS offices are located in Gloucester and in
Woods Hole.
3. U.S. Coast Guard
The U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for
enforcement of Federal laws in waters under U.S.
jurisdiction, including those related to vessel traffic
and search and rescue activities. (See further
discussion in Part Three, Section I: Status Quo
Alternative.) The First Coast Guard District office
is located in Boston; Coast Guard stations are
located at Boston Harbor, Gloucester, Scituate,
Sandwich, Merrimack River, Provincetown, Cape
Cod Air Station (at Otis Air Force Base), and
Woods Hole. _ .
4. Sanctuary Advisory Committee
The National Marine Sanctuary Program differs
from many other special area management
programs, in that Sanctuaries are managed to
enhance research and education/interpretation, as
well as to ensure the primary goal of overall
resource protection. Several agencies.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 88
organizations, and interest groups are already
involved with resources and qualities within the area
of the Sanctuary. A mechanism will be established
to facilitate the participation of interested and
appropriate individuals and groups in providing to
the SanctUcuy Manager recommendations on poUcy
related to management of the Sanctuary. In
accordance with the provisions of Title III of the
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA), as amended, a Sanctuary Advisory
Committee (SAC) will be established to provide this
means of participation. Section 315 of Title III (as
amended at P.L. 102-587, §2112) provides that the
Secretary of Commerce may appoint up to 15
individuals who are: employed by Federal or State
agencies with expertise in management of natural
resources; members of relevant Regional Fishery
Management Councils estabUshed under section 302
of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act; or representatives of local user
groups, conservation and other pubhc interest
organizations, scientific organizations, educational
organizations, or others interested in the protection
and multiple use management of Sanctuary
resources.
Groups, individuals and agencies will be
consulted to ensure that all interests are taken into
account, and that the SAC is representative of a
broad-based constituency. For example, interests
represented on the SAC should include commercial
and recreational fishing, commercial whalewatching,
commercial and recreational boating, environmental,
research, and education groups, and regional
ocean/coastal management initiatives. Final
selection of SAC members is the responsibility of
the Secretary of Commerce, as parent agency to
NOAA.
A SAC with a broad representation will help
ensure that the Sanctuary Manager has an expanded
information base upon which to make management
decisions. The experience and expertise of the SAC
will be available to the Manager on an ad hoc basis,
as well as at regularly scheduled meetings. In order
for the SAC to function efficiently, it may be
beneficial to divide the SAC into subcommittees
that deal directly with resource protection, research,
education/interpretation, and general administration
issues. Responsibilities of the SAC are detailed in
the resource protection, research,
education/interpretation, andgeneral administration
sections which follow.
5. Other Federal Agencies
The Environmental Protection Agency, Region
I office (EPA) in Boston, has regulatory
responsibilities related to sewage outfalls and ocean
disposal activities. Certain ocean disposal activities
are also permitted and monitored by the U.S. Corps
of Engineers, New England Division, located in
Waltham, MA. The Corps is also responsible for
certain activities in navigable waters.
The Minerals Management Service (MMS),
within the U. S. Department of the Interior, is
responsible for activities conducted pursuant to the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OSCLA).
(Further discussion of other Federal agency
responsibilities is provided at Part Three, Section I:
Status Quo Alternative.)
6. State. Regional and Local Agencies
NOAA will work closely within the existing
administrative framework of Commonwealth
agencies, such as the Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management Office and the Division of Marine
Fisheries, to ensure a coordinated approach to the
ocean and ocean resource management
responsibUities of all agencies.
It is NOAA's intention to work to ensure full
cooperation and coordination with other State and
State/Federal programs, such as the Massachusetts
Bays Program. This cooperation may involve
formalization of Cooperative Agreements and/or
Memoranda of Understanding.
To facUitate the administrative procedures
regarding certification and notification of leases,
hcenses, permits, approvals, rights or other
authorizations (as described above in Part Two,
Section III, Designation Document and
Regulations), NOAA intends to work closely with
the owners or holders of, or applicants for, leases,
Hcenses, permits, approvals, rights or other
authorizations as well as with the appropriate
issuing agencies.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 89
Given the proximity of the Sanctuary to the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the close ties
between resources of the Commonwealth and those
of the Stellwagen Bank area, it is presumed that all
activities proposed for Stellwagen Bank which are
subject to direct Sanctuary management can be
demonstrated to potentially affect land and water
uses and natural resources of the Massachusetts
coastal zone. Such activities will, therefore, be
subject to the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management Program (MCZM).
Such activities — whether they are direct Federal
activities, require Federal permits, or are supported
with Federal funds -- are subject to review by
MCZM to determine whether they are consistent
with applicable enforceable MCZM Program
poUcies. The determination of consistency with the
Commonwealth's enforceable policies, known as
Federal Consistency Review, is conducted by the
MCZM Program Office pursuant to § 307 of the
Coastal Zone Management Act and its
implementing regulations.
NOAA intends to seek the active participation
of the MCZM Program Office in Sanctuary
management issues; to draw upon the
Commonwealth's experience and expertise in coastal
ocean resource management; and to provide direct
links with relevant Commonwealth environmental
management and regulatory agencies. When it is
feasible, reviews of proposed activities which are
subject to both Sanctuary and MCZM jurisdiction
will be conducted concurrently.
As a networking coastal program, MCZM
implements its program policies through the
regulatory authorities of several different
Commonwealth agencies. NOAA believes,
therefore, that close coordination with the MCZM
Program will provide an effective means of
developing appropriate and direct linkages between
the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Ssmctuary and
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
B. Resource Protection: Roles and Responsibilities
1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
a. Approves priorities for funding for resource
protection;
b. Monitors the effectiveness of interagency
agreements for surveillance and
enforcement and negotiates changes where
required;
c. Develops contingency and emergency-
response plans and based on these plans,
negotiates applicable interagency
agreements;
d. Monitors the effectiveness of existing
Sanctuary regulations and promulgates
changes where necessary;
e. Coordinates efforts to protect and manage
Sanctuary resources with other Federal,
State, regioncd and local agencies, and with
pubUc and private organizations; and
f. Ensures involvement of commercial and
recreational fishery interests in Sanctuary
resource protection issues, through
participation in the Sanctuary Advisory
Committee and by other appropriate
means.
2. Sanctuary Manager
a. Recommends to the SRD priorities for
allocation of funds aimually to resoiu-ce
protection, considering the advice of the
SAC to ensure consistency with Sanctuary
regulations and provide adequate resource
protection;
b. Assists in the coordination of surveillance
and enforcement activities by providing
liaison with the Federal, State, regional and
local agencies;
c. Coordinates regularly with commercial and
recreational fishery representatives,
primarily through the Sanctuary Advisory
Committee, on resource protection issues
affecting fisheries;
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 90
d. Reports regularly to the SRD on
surveillance and enforcement activities, cuid
emergencies;
e. Provides information for use in training
Sanctueu7 enforcement officials;
f. Monitors and evaluates the adequacy of
emergency-response plans and procedures
in the Sanctuary;
g. Maintains a record of emergency events
(e.g., oil spills) in and around the
Sanctuary; and
h. Evaluates overall progress toward the
resource protection objectives of the
Sanctuary program and prepares semi-
annual and bi-monthly progress reports
highlighting activities for the SRD.
3. Sanctuarv Advisory Committee
a. Advises the Sanctuary Manager on the
effectiveness of interagency agreements for
surveillance and enforcement;
b. Advises the Sanctuary Manager on the
effectiveness of the Sanctuary regulations in
providing adequate resource protection;
and
c. Recommends improved methods of
resource protection.
4. Federal Agencies
a. NMFS works closely with Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries, under the
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MFCMA), on approving
and enforcing Fishery Management Plans
(FMPs) prepared by regional fishery
management councils to ensure protection
of fishery resources;
b. NMFS implements the Marine Mammal
Protection Act and provisions of the
Endangered Species Act. Shares
responsibihty with the USFWS for
provisions of the Endangered Species Act
to prevent taking of any endangered
species;
c. USCG holds broad responsibihty for
enforcing all Federal laws throughout the
Sanctuary, including coordination with
NMFS on enforcement of Fishery
Management Plans.
d. USCG and NMFS ensure enforcement of
Sanctuary regulations;
e. USCG provides on-scene coordination and
Regional Response Center facihties under
the National Contingency Plan for the
removal of oil and hazardous substances in
the event of a spill that threatens the
Sanctuary;
f. EPA implements regulatory responsibihties
regarding sewage outfalls (Clean Water
Act, via the National pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits);
and ocean dumping (Title I of the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act)
to protect water quality;
g. The Corps of Engineers grants, based on
EPA guidelines, permits for disposal of
dredged materials at EPA-designated
disposal site, and monitoring effects of
disposal activities. Grants permits (under
Rivers and Harbors Act) for marine
construction, excavation or fill activities in
any navigable waters of the U.S. (33
U.S.C. § 403). The COE may refuse to
issue permits on the basis of threats to
navigation or potential adverse effects on
the environment;
h. MMS leases and permits (under Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act
Amendments) marine mining activities for
resources other than hydrocarbon
resources, subject to safety and
environmental regulations.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 91
C. Research: Roles and Responsibilities
1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
a. Prepares annual Sanctuary Research Plans
(SRP's) for each Sanctuary;
b. Prepares annual National Research Plan
(NRP) and budget, based on the SRP's of
individual Sanctuaries and in accordance
with priorities determined at the National
level;
c. Sets dates for procurement based on the
NRP;
d. Administers interagency agreements and
contracts for research;
e. Reviews all interim and final research
reports submitted by the Sanctuary
Manager; and
f. Issues permits, through the Office of Ocean
and Coastal Resource Management, for
research activities, considering the
recommendations of the Sanctuary
Manager, to ensure consistency with
Sanctuary regulations and provide
additional technical review where
necessary.
2. Sanctuary Manager
a. Recommends generic areas of research to
resolve management issues;
b. Develops the Sanctuary Research Plan
(SRP);
c. Reviews research documents and progress
reports submitted by contractors;
d. Prepares assessments of research needs
and priorities based on management
requirements and research continuity;
e. Implements the Sanctuary Research Plan
(SRP);
f. Coordinates research and monitoring
activities in the Sanctuary in cooperation
with the SRD, Sanctuary Advisory
Committee, and other interested agencies
or parties;
g. Coordinates an on-site process for
reviewing and evaluating research proposals
and permits requests, considering the views
of the SRD, Sanctuary Advisory
Committee, concerned individuals and
interest groups;
h. Submits recommendations to SRD on the
issuance of Sanctuary research permits,
considering the recommendations of the
SAC; and
i. Oversees permitted research activities.
3. Sanctuary Advisorv Committee
a. Advises the Sanctuary Manager on review
of research proposals, interim, and final
reports;
b. Advises the Research Coordinator and the
Sanctuary Manager on priority research
needs; and
c. Advises the Sanctuary Manager on the
issuance of research permits.
D. Education /Interpretation: Roles and
Responsibilities
1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
a. Reviews and approves the list of annual
priorities for education and the annual
education budget prepared by the
Sanctuary Manager;
b. Reviews and approves design proposals for
cdl educational facilities;
c. Reviews all educational/ interpretive
materials prepared for the Sanctuary;
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 92
d. Evaluates progress toward accomplishing
objectives for education/interpretation, and
adjusts long-term priorities accordingly; and
e. Issues Sanctuary education permits,
through OCRM, considering the
recommendations of the Sanctuary
Manager, to ensure compUance with
Sanctuary regulations and provide
additional technical review where
necessary.
2. Sanctuary Manager
a. Recommends aimually to SRD a list of
priorities and an annual budget for
education;
b. Prepares and circulates as required
Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for
educational/ interpretive projects;
c. Supervises the design and production of
educational/ interpretive materials and
facilities for the Sanctuary;
d. Makes available training for educational
staff assigned to the Sanctuary;
e. Encourages local and regional
organizations to participate in Sanctuary
education;
f. Disseminates information about the
National Marine Sanctuary program and
the Sanctuary;
g. Oversees the development of any faciUties
constructed for the Sanctuary, reviews site
analyses and design specifications, makes
recommendations as to construction and
maintenance contracts, and performs
similar tasks;
h. Submits recommendations to SRD on the
issuance of Sanctuary education permits,
considering the recommendations of the
SAC; and
i. Oversees permitted educational/
interpretive activities.
3. Sanctuary Advisory Committee
a. Advises the Sanctuary Manager in raising
pubhc awareness of the Sanctuary and
advises on the development of a local
constituency by means of brochures,
presentations, structured events, articles for
pubUcation, and other activities consistent
with the management plan; and
b. Advises the Sanctuary Manager on the
issuance of education permits.
E. Site Administration: Roles and ResponsibiUties
1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
a. Ensures that the Sanctuary is operated in a
maimer consistent with established
National Program poUcies and with
appUcable National and international laws,
and provides guidance to the Sanctuary
Manager;
b. Identifies, analyzes, and resolves major
Sanctuary management problems and
issues;
c. Formulates comprehensive, long-term
management plans for the Sanctuary and
revises the Management Plan as necessary;
d. Directs and assists the Sanctuary Manager
in the implementation of the Management
Plan;
e. Coordinates Sanctuary management with
other Federal and State agencies and
private orgcinizations;
f. Evaluates the effectiveness of Sanctuary
management and regulatory measures;
g. Prepares a program budget for the
Sanctuary;
h. Provides funding for overall Sanctuary
management and administration;
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 93
i. Makes recommendations to the Director of
the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management as to the issuance of National
Marine Sanctuary permits containing terms
and conditions deemed appropriate
(including research and education permits;
see above), considering the
recommendations of the Sanctuary
Manager, to conduct an activity otherwise
prohibited by the Sanctuary regulations, if
the activity will: further the educational,
natural or historical resource value of the
Sanctuary; further salvage or recovery
operations in or near the Sanctuary in
connection with a recent air or marine
casualty; assist in managing the Sanctuary;
or have only negligible, short-term adverse
effects on Sanctuary resources or Sanctuary
qualities.
j. Issues certifications, through OCRM, with
terms and conditions deemed necessary to
protect Sanctuary resources and qualities,
of leases, licenses, permits, approvals, or
other authorizations, considering the
recommendations of the Sanctuary
Manager, to conduct a prohibited activity;
and
k. Issues terms and conditions, through
OCRM, deemed necessary to protect the
Sanctuary resources and qualities on
appUcations for leases, Hcenses, permits,
approvals, or other authorizations,
considering the recommendations of the
Sanctuary Manager, to conduct a
prohibited activity.
2. Sanctuarv Manager
budget for the Sanctuary;
d. Oversees day-to-day operation of the
Sanctuary, including administrative
functions such as bookkeeping, purchasing,
and keeping records of visitor activities;
e. Supervises Samctuary staff and other
personnel, including enforcement and
interpretive employees assigned to the
Sanctuary;
f. Represents the Sanctuary viewpoint on
local issues and at pubhc forums; and
g. Submits recommendations to SRD on
criteria and terms and conditions for
National Marine Sanctuary permits,
certifications and appUcations for leases,
Ucenses, permits, approvcds, or other
authorizations, or rights to conduct a
prohibited activity.
3. Federal. State. Local and Regional
Agencies
a. Assists in the preparation and
implementation of a comprehensive, long-
term management plan for the Sanctuary;
b. Assists in the periodic review of the
management plan; and
c. Appropriate issuing agency assists in the
development of criteria and terms and
conditions for certifications and
applications for leases, licenses, permits,
approvals, other authorizations, or rights to
conduct a prohibited activity.
a. Coordinates on-site efforts of all parties
involved in Sanctuary activities, including
State, Federal, local and regional agencies,
and the public;
b. Reviews the miinagement plan periodically
and recommends changes to SRD as
needed;
c. Assists the SRD in preparing the annual
4. Sanctuary Advisory Committee
a. Advises on the specific plans for Sanctuary
development;
b. Advises on proposals for activities within
the Sanctuary;
c. Advises on rules and conditions for all
forms of public recreation;
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Page 94
d. Advises on an overall plan for the use,
development and maintenance of Sanctuary
lands and facilities; and
e. Advises the Sanctuary Manager on
recommendations to SRD on criteria and
terms and conditions for National Marine
Sanctuary permits, certifications and
applications of leases, licenses, permits,
approvals, other authorizations, or rights to
conduct a prohibited activity.
F. Sanctuary StafFmg
Depending on the budget and personnel
assigned to the Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary, staffing will include a NOAA Sanctuary
Manager, an administrative assistant, a research
coordinator, an education coordinator, and one or
more enforcement/ interpreter positions. The
Sanctuary staff will work closely with the USCG, the
NMFS, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and
other Federal agencies in providing enforcement
and surveillance in the area of the Sanctuary. The
need for additional staffing will be determined
during the first two years of Sanctuary operation.
G. Sanctuary Facilities
A Sanctuary headquarters, housing
administrative offices and visitor center facilities,
will be established at a suitable location convenient
to the Sanctuary site. The town of Plymouth has
been selected by NOAA as the location for the
SBNMS headquarters office. PubUc Law 102-587,
at §2202 (d), also directs the Secretary of
Commerce to consider establishment of a satellite
Sanctuary office in Provincetown, Gloucester, or
Hull, MA.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 95
PART THREE: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING
THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
To evaluate the proposal for designating
Stellwagen Bank as a National Marine Sanctuary,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) has analyzed institutional,
boundary, management, cmd regulatory options for
achieving optimum protection for the overall
Stellwagen Bank system; for increasing scientific
knowledge of the area; and for promoting pubUc
understanding of the value and sensitivity of
Stellwagen Bank resources. Part Three discusses
the alternatives considered during this evaluation
process. Part Four, following, describes the
environmental consequences of the alternatives
discussed in this Part.
Note to Reviewers: On October 7, 1992, Congress
passed legislation reauthorizing and amending Title
III of the MPRSA, and this legislation was signed
into law on November 4, 1992 (P.L. 102-587). As
amended, Title III designates the Stellwagen Bank
National Marine Sanctuary (P.L. 102-587, §2202).
Thus, the Status Quo (or No Action) alternative, as
described in Section I, below, is precluded as an
institutional alternative. P.L. 102-587 additionally
mjuidates specific actions by the Secretary of
Commerce affecting the Sanctuary boundary and
human activities in the Sanctuary. These mandates
are discussed in the sections following related to
boundary alternatives and regulatory alternatives.
The institutional alternative of Sanctuary designation
is general is discussed as a complementary measure
to existing authorities and programs. Within this
context, various individual management and
regulatory alternatives are presented below.
Section I: Status Quo Alternative (No Action)
The status quo alternative proposes no action,
and reUes on existing State and Federal authorities
and programs operating in the Stellwagen Bank
area for long-term protection and management of
the Stellwagen Bank system. The nature and extent
of these existing authorities is summarized in
Appendix B.
Several Federal and State government agencies
and programs are charged with responsibility for
regulation and management of both individual
resources and/or human activities in the Stellwagen
Bank area. With regard to certain resources or
activities, these responsibihties are shared via inter-
agency agreements and programs. While these
arrangements — most often aimed at single resource
management or at environmenteilly-safe conduct of
human activities - are generally satisfactory, there
remain significant gaps in the protection of the
overall Stellwagen Bank system. No existing
authority or program has either the mandate or the
ability to provide for long-term protection and
management of this system, which attracts an
increasing number and variety of human users to its
resources. The gaps have become more apparent as
real or potential results of human activities are
identified. Faced with the realistic prospect of
increased human uses in the Stellwagen Bank area,
existing authorities are likely to lose their ability to
function effectively or fully. Deficiencies in
personnel, equipment, and enforcement funding
have aheady been identified as serious problems in
ensuring resource protection under existing
mandates in the Bank area.
Additionally, in spite of good intentions,
individual agency or program missions are often
defined narrowly, without consideration of the
larger ecosystem within which they operate. As the
level of uses increases in this area, the potential also
increases for confusing and overlapping
jurisdictional authorities. At present, there is no
single institutional entity with the ability to facilitate
conflict resolution; and to provide a focal point to
the pubUc for understanding both the resources and
the management of the Stellwagen Bank system.
Given the variety and level of resources and uses,
the presence of such an entity is critical to overall
system protection. Appendix B identifies existing
Federal and State management authorities related
to resources and activities in the Stellwagen Bank
area. Appendix C identifies the abbreviations used
in this document.
Federal agencies with existing primary
responsibilities in the area of Stellwagen Bank are:
NOAAS National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), of the U.S. Department of Commerce; the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), of the U.S.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 96
Department of the Interior; the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA); the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE), of the U.S. Department of the
Defense; the Minerals Management Service (MMS),
of the U.S. Department of the Interior; and the
Coast Guard (USCG), of the U.S. Department of
Transportation.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts agencies with
programs operating in the area of Stellwagen Bank
include: the Coastal Zone Management Office; the
Division of Marine Fisheries; and the Board of
Underwater Archaeological Resources.
This section briefly reviews the responsibiUties
of these agencies in the Stellwagen Bank area.
Appendix B provides additional information.
A. Federal Agencies
The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) is responsible for the implementation and
enforcement of Fishery Management Plans (FMP i)
developed by the New England Regional Fishery
Management Council, pursuant to the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The
CommonwejJth S Division of Mauine Fisheries also
enforces FMP S within three miles of the Common-
wealth S coastal baseline jurisdiction.
NMFS is also responsible for implementation
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), as it is apphcable
to certain threatened or endangered marine species.
Responsibilities under the ESA are shared with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), of the U.S.
Department of the Interior. In the Stellwagen Bank
area, NMFS is responsible for the protection of
cetaceans, piimipeds, shortnose sturgeon, and sea
turtles. The FWS is responsible for the protection
of endangered or threatened bird species.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has regulatory responsibiUties for ocean disposal
activities, under the provisions of Title I of the
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 (also referred to as the Ocean Dumping Act).
Title I of MPRSA prohibits the transportation of
any materials from the United States for the
purpose of disposing them into the territorial sea,
the contiguous zone, or the ocean beyond, without
a permit. EPA is responsible for the designation of
ocean disposd sites, issuance of certain permits and
oversight of COE permits for dumping dredged
materials.
EPA is additionally mandated with
implementation of the provisions of the Clean
Water Act (CWA), notably the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which
regulates, through permits, the discharge of
pollutants from point sources into navigable waters
of the United States, contiguous zone waters, and
ocean waters beyond.
Finally, EPA is responsible for development of
the National Estuary Program (NEP), pursuant to
§320 of the Clean Water Act. The NEP recognizes
and designates estuaries of national significance, and
provides Federal monies for directed research
activities, in cooperation with States. Massachusetts
Bay was approved by EPA for inclusion in the NEP
in 1990.
The Corps of Engineers (COE) issues permits,
based on EPA guidelines, for the disposal of
dredged matericds at EPA approved and designated
ocean disposal sites. The COE is also charged
under Title I with the responsibility for ocean
disposal site management, including the conduct of
monitoring studies on the environmental effects of
ocean disposal activities.
Under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899, the COE is charged with issuing
permits for any marine construction, excavation, or
fill activities in navigable waters of the United
States. Interference with navigation and adverse
effects on hving marine resources are among the
factors for which the Corps may deny issuance of
Section 10 permits.
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) (of
the U.S. Department of the Interior), under the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), has
overall authority for the management of activities
connected with exploration and development of
offshore oil and gas resources. This authority
includes enforcement of regulations implementing
the OCSLA, and stipulations applied to individual
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 97
OCS leases. The MMS is also responsible for
management of exploration and development
activities connected with the extraction of
submerged industrial materials, such as sand and
gravel deposits. The conduct of those activities is
also subject to the provisions of the OCSLA.
Coast Guard units operating in this region are
responsible for regulation of vessel traffic,
maintenance of boater safety, and coordination of
search and rescue operations. Additionally, the
Coast Guard is responsible for enforcement of
fishing regulations; enforcement of regulations
under the Clean Water Act and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), which addresses the
prevention of pollution caused by vessel discharge of
oil, hazardous substances, or other pollutants. The
First Coast Guard District Office is located in
Boston, and Coast Guard stations are situated at
Boston Harbor, Gloucester, Scituate, Sandwich,
Merrimack River, Provincetown, Cape Cod Air
Station (at Otis Air Force Base), and Woods Hole.
B. State Agencies
The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
Act, (Ch. 21A; Reg. 310 CMR 20.00 et seq.V
passed in 1978, established the Coastal Zone
Management Office, housed within the
Massachixsetts Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs (EOEA). The Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management Office exercises widespread authorities
over activities conducted within the Stated three-
mile jurisdiction, as well as over activities occurring
outside this jurisdiction that have an effect in the
State S coastal zone.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts asserts
jurisdiction in State waters in Cape Cod Bay and
Massachusetts Bay, within the southwestern Gulf of
Maine. As part of an overall effort to provide a
system-approach to ocean management, the
Commonwealth has established a system of Ocean
Sanctuaries in these waters (M.G.L.C. 132 A §§13-
16 and 18). The boundaries of some of these State-
designated Ocean Sanctuaries occur adjacent to
waters presently being considered for National
Marine Sanctuary designation. Additionally, the
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office
houses the Massachusetts Bays Program, which
seeks to identify and conduct needed research and
educational activities in designated bay areas to
improve their environmental quality. As noted
earlier, EPA has recently approved the inclusion of
Massachusetts Bay into the National Estuary
Program, thereby increasing the prospects of
effective protection efforts through direct Federal
support and coordination activities.
The Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF),
within the EOEA, is responsible for the
management of commercial and recreational fishing
activities within State waters, in cooperation with
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
The DMF also participates in the management of
fisheries in Federal waters, and has authority to
enforce fishery regulations as promulgated under
Fishery Management Plans developed by the New
England Fishery Management Council, and as
approved by NMFS. The DMF sits on the New
England Fishery Management Council.
The Board of Underwater Archaeological
Resources is also housed within the EOEA, and is
responsible for the preservation and management of
underwater historical, cultural and archeological
resoiu^ces within Commonwealth waters.
The activities and regulatory controls under
existing authorities and programs will continue as
presently administered. In addition, a
comprehensive, long-term management scheme for
the Stellwagen Bank environment will be be
developed and implemented.
Section II: Designation of a National Marine
Sanctuary (Preferred Alternative)
Note to Reviewers: As previously discussed, P.L.
102-587 (§2202) designates the Stellwagen Bank
National Marine Sanctuary. Therefore, NOAAS
preferred alternative to designate the Sanctuary has
been Congressionally mandated and signed into law.
Discussions following related to specific boundary
and regulatory alternatives are consistent with this
Congressional action, and have been edited
accordingly.
NOAA 's preferred alternative is
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 98
implementation of the Stellwagen Bank National
Marine Sanctuary, in accordance with the provisions
of Title ni of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C.
1431 et ieg. This alternative is discussed in the
Management Plan, presented in Part Two, Section
ni of this document. The preferred jdtemative will
provide for improved protection of both Sanctuary
resources and important habitat; offer opportunities
for independent research and coordination with
other research efforts; and provide an
interpretive /educational program to enhance pubUc
awareness and appreciation for the Stellwagen Bank
system through implementation of the management
plan and the Sanctuary regulations (Appendix A).
This comprehensive approach to system protection
and management is not available through any
existing institutional mechanism.
The preferred alternative would cost
approximately $600,000 for the first full year of
operation, or approximately $3,000,000 over five
years. Estimated annual allocations of these funds
would be for: personnel and administration,
$113,000; facihties and equipment, $70,000; resource
protection, $250,000 (including one-time expense of
$100,00 for Sanctuary vessel); research and
education, $90,000; and manager! fund, $50,000.
The preferred boundary has been selected because
it closely correlates with the typical areal
distribution of hving resources and encompasses
important habitats for those resources, as well as
human uses of these resources. The management
alternatives were selected because of their
conformance with goals of the National Marine
Sanctuary Program, and because they are more
cost-effective than alternative management
structures. Scinctuary regulations were selected
because they would provide comprehensive and
long-term protection to the Stellwagen Bank system
currently unavailable through other management or
regulatory measiu^es.
A. Boundarv Alternatives
fifth boundary option were developed for discussion
in this document. These boundary options were
considered from the perspectives of: 1) distribution
of hving resources and occurrence of important
habitat areas; 2) geological and physical
ocecinographic pjirameters; and 3) management
logistics.
Note to Reviewers: As previously noted, P.L. 102-
587 (§2202) designates the Stellwagen Bank
National Marine Sanctuary. The legislation also
mandates a Sanctuary boundary conforming with
boimdary alternative #5, as described below.
Therefore, the adoption by NOAA of any boundary
other than that identified as boundary alternative
#5 is precluded.
Boundary alternatives depicted in Figures 18
through 22 are identified by both latitude/longitude
coordinates, and by LORAN-C lines. The addition
of LORAN-C Unes provides an alternative method
of locating boundary alternatives, particularly by
commerciiil and recreationed fishermen and other
vessels operators who currently employ LORAN-C
to locate their position.
1. Boundarv Alternative #1
This boundary alternative (Figure 18) is the
smallest area to be considered for Sanctuary
designation, encompassing approximately 259 square
nautical miles (342 square miles) of Federal waters.
Its boimdaries form an approximately rectangular
area close around the Bank feature itself. Boimdary
coordinates would be marked at: 42°26 57.88 'N x
70°32 03.01 "W (northwest point); 42°3000.25'N x
70°1958.78'W (northeast point); 42°08 14.84 'N x
70°06ll.35'W (southeast point); and 42''08l2.51"x
70'^7 03.48'W (southwest point).
The boundary is based on the importance of
the physical structure of the Stellwagen Bank
Five boundary alternatives were selected for
review from the ideas offered during the evaluation
process, and are discussed here. In response to
comments on the DEIS/MP document, which
presented three boundary alternatives, a fourth and
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 99
STELLWAGEN BANK
urmnt
LOMCtTOBt
Al
42 30 00.25
70 19
56.71
U
43 08 14. t4
70 M
11.35
u
43 06 12.91
70 27
03.41
M
43 26 57.11
UMm
70 33
03.01
fVftffW 9960%
13.737.06 23
662.39
13,764.31 25
440.63
13.190.57 33
331.74
13,«2».17 25
712.66
NAUTICAL MILES
I 0 I 2 3 < 9 <
CONTOURS IN UETEXS
UNTTED STATES ■ EAST COAST
ATlANnC OCEAN
STELLWAGE.^ BANK
NATIONAL MARINE S.A-NCTUARY
FIGURE 18: SANCTUARY BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVE #1
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 100
feature, as both habitat and as causal agent in the
predictable occurrence of internal waves and
upwelling phenomena, which contribute to the
biological productivity of the overall larger system
surroimding the Bank. Identified cetacean,
pinniped, and seabird species occur within this
alternative^ boundaries, as do most of the fish
species. These boimdaries may not, however,
incorporate all habitat areas important to shellfish
and other invertebrate species of the overall
Stellwagen Bank system. The boundaries also do
not include all of those areas known to be primary
cetacean feeding areas, and therefore do not
encompass those marine areas most heavily used by
commercial and recreational whalewatch vessels.
The limitations of this boundary alternative would
not permit the development of research or
interpretive programs based on investigations into
system-wide relationships.
Additionally, this boundary alternative does not
coincide with any areas identified by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts as Ocean
Sanctuaries, thereby precluding the opportunity for
a direct connection between the Sanctuary and the
Commonwealth S Ocean Sanctuaries Program.
However, this boimdary alternative would provide
the opportunity for coordination with research
efforts of the Massachusetts Bays/NEP.
Designation of boimdary alternative #1 would
also provide the opportimity for protection of the
Bank feature under Title III from permanent
alteration resulting from activities such as sand and
gravel mining, and from other potentially adverse
environmental impacts.
2. Boundary Alternative #2
This boimdary alternative (Figure 19)
encompasses approximately 453 square nautical
miles (521 square miles) of Federal waters
surrounding Stellwagen Bank. Like boundary
alternative #1, the boundary forms an
approximately rectangular area around the entirety
of the Bank feature, except for the southern border,
which coincides with the seaward limit of State
jurisdictional waters, and follows the arc formed by
that limit as it occurs along the northern end of
Cape Cod. The boundary occurs in an approximate
southeast-to-northwest orientation, the northeast
and northwest comers of which are marked by the
following coordinates, respectively: 42°36 00.10'N x
70°13 56.46 "W, and 42^30 <J9.14'N x 70°34 55.72 "W.
The Sanctuary S eastern and western borders extend
in a south-southeast direction from these points to
coincide with the northern limits of State
jurisdiction waters off the northernmost land mass
of Cape Cod. The Sanctuary S southern border
follows an approximately west-to-east line, until the
boundary reaches an offshore point three miles
from the mean high tide line at Race Point, the
northermnost point of land on Cape Cod. At that
point, the Sanctuary S southern border curves in a
line tangential to the three-mile jurisdictional
boundary of Massachusetts around the northern
Cape Cod land mass. The southeast and southwest
comers are marked by the following coordinates,
respectively: 42°06 29.53 'N x 70°04 03.36 'W; and
42°07 44.89 'N x 70°28 15.44 "W. (Figure 19). The
area of boundary alternative #2 is roughly
equidistant from the land points of Cape Cod, to
the south, and Cape Ann, to the north.
Boundary alternative #2 encompasses
identified important marine habitats resulting from
the cychc upwelling and mixing phenomena found at
Stellwagen Bank. Several species of endangered
and other cetaceans, pinnipeds, sea turtles, and
numerous species of commercially-important fish
and invertebrates depend on habitats over and
surrounding the Bank feature. This boundary
encompasses the entirety of the most frequently-
utilized feeding and nursery habitats for the largest
high-latitude population of humpback whales
occurring in the contiguous United States. Also
included in this boundary option are spawning areas
for the primary prey of the humpback whales, the
American sand lance. Additional endangered whale
species utilizing the habitats enclosed by boundary
alternative #2 are fin and northern right whales;
other non-Usted marine mammal species found
within area include minke, orca, and pilot whales, as
well as white-sided dolphins and harbor seals.
Boundary alternative #2 reflects closely the
size and configuration of the site originally proposed
to NOAA m 1982, during development of its Site
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 101
STELLWAGEN BANK
• 1 <2
36 00
10
70 13
36
46
■2 4:
06 n
93
70 04
03
36
u 4:
07 02
70
70 05
13
•4 4:
07 13
80
70 06
23
■s 4:
07 35
95
70 07
27
•6 42
07 42
33
70 08
26
B7 42
07 J9
94
70 09
19
•8 A1
08 04
95
70 10
34
■9 42
07 S5
19
70 11
47
■ 10 42
07 39
84
70 13
03
• II 42
07 46
55
70 14
21
• 12 42
07 27
n
70 15
22
• U 42
06 54
57
70 16
42
•14 42
07 44
89
70 31
15
44
• IS 42
10 49
14
[0MI
TO 34
53
72
U
467.76
13
760.30
417.53
13
764.52
427.27
13,
770.54
434.45
13.
775.08
442.51
13
780.33
448.27
13
784.24
455.02
13
790.27
461.28
13
799.38
467.56
13
•06.58
474.95
U
•15.52
480.62
U
823.21
13
U3.88
487.79
13
900.14
563.22
13
826.42
734.71
NAirnCAL MILES
1 0 I 2 S 4 5 t
CONTOURS IN METERS
UNITED STATES - EA5T COAST
ATLA-NTIC OCE.\.N
STELLW.AGEN BA.VK
NATI0N.4L MARIKE S.\NCTUARY
FIGURE 19: SANCTUARY BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVE §2
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 102
Evaluation List (SEL) of candidate sites qualified
for possible futiu-e consideration as national marine
sanctuaries. Placement of the Stellwagen Bank site
onto the final SEL indicates that the proposed area
has been determined by NOAA to meet four site
identification criteria established to assess the value
of any site proposed as a national marine sanctuary.
Those criteria are categorized as: 1) natural
resource values; 2) human-use values; 3) potential
activity impacts; and 4) management concerns.
Management concerns may include such concerns as
relationship to other programs; management of a
conservation unit; accessibility; surveillance and
enforcement; and economic considerations.
As a result of its high natural resource values,
this alternative includes most of the 'focused "areas
for commercial and recreational whalewatching
activities. Much of the historical and current fishing
activities are also focused on the areas encompassed
by this boundary. The boundary therefore also
encompasses a majority of those areas of highest
interest to the research community, and of highest
use by other commercial interests and the general
public.
The southern border of boundary alternative
#2 coincides with the seaward limit of
Commonwealth of Massachusetts jurisdictional
waters adjacent to the Commonwealth-designated
Cape Cod Bay Ocean Sanctuary; and is also
tangential to waters designated by the
Commonwealth as the Cape Cod Ocean Sanctuary.
The connection between boundary alternative #2
and these areas estabUshes the potential for
NOAA/Commonwealth cooperative ocean
management efforts, through the Massachusetts
Ocean Sanctuary Program and the Massachusetts
Bays Program/NEP.
Boundary alternative #2 does not encompass
any of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site
(MBDS), as currently proposed for permanent
designation by EPA.
3. Boundarv Alternative #3
Boundary alternative #3 (Figure 20) would
establish a Sanctuary area of approximately 702
square nautical miles (927 square miles). The
western, northwestern, northern, and eastern
borders of this boundary alternative are expanded
from boundary alternative #2, so as to encompass
all of the Stellwagen Bank feature, TiUies Bank, and
southern portions of Jeffreys Ledge, located north
of Stellwagen Bank. With the exception of that
portion which extends further westward into
Stellwagen Basin, the southern border is the same
as boundary alternative #2. As with boundary
alternative #2, the southern border of boundary
alternative #3 coincides with the seaward limit of
Commonwealth of Massachusetts jiu^isdictional
waters adjacent to the Commonwealth-designated
Cape Cod Bay Ocean Sanctuary; and is also
tangential to waters designated by the
Commonwealth as the Cape Cod Ocean Sanctuary.
The northwestern border extension additionally
expands the Sanctuary to coincide with coastal
ocean waters designated by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts as the North Shore Ocean Sanctuary.
Boundary alternative #3 is marked by the
following coordinates, which indicate the northeast,
southeast, southwest, west-northwest, and north-
northwest points: 42°45 59.83 'N x 70°D 01.77 'W
(NE); 42''05 55.51'N x 70°02 08.14 "W (SE);
42°0813.90'N x 70°35 03.80'W (SW); 42°32 53.52 'N
X 70°3552.38'W (WNW); and 42*39 04.08'N x
70°30ll.29'W (NNW). (Additional coordinates are
noted at Figure 20.)
In addition to encompassing all of the
'focused" areas for commercial and recreational
whalewatching and fishing activities, this boundary
alternative also includes additional habitat areas
important to invertebrate, fish and cetacean species.
Adoption of boundary alternative #3 would also
strengthen the potential for increased cooperative
ocean management plaiming between the National
Marine Sanctuary Program and the Commonwealth
through the Massachusetts Oce2in Sanctuary
Program and the Massachusetts Bays
Program/NEP.
Boundary alternative #3 encompasses all of
the 'bterim" Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site
(MBDS), which is used for the disposal of dredged
materials. The EPA is currently proposing to
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 103
CIO
CIl
C13
cia
C14
CIS
CI 6
C17
CIS
C19
C30
C21
C22
C23
C34
C2Z
C3«
C27
C3I
STELLWAGEN BANK
usmix
43 4S 59.13
42 03 33. SI
42 06 18.25
42 06 29.5a
42 07 02.70
«2 07 13. BO
42 07 35.95
42 07 42.33
42 07 59.94
42 08 04.95
42 07 55.19
42 07 59. 84
42 07 46.55
42 07 27.29
42 06 54.57
42 08 13.90
42 32 53.52
42 33 30.24
42 33 48.14
42 34 30.45
42 34 50.37
43 35 16.08
42 35 41.80
42 36 23.08
42 37 15.51
42 37 58.88
42 3* 32.46
42 39 04.01
13,607.19
13,753.39
13.756.73
13.760.30
13,764.5!
13,770.54
13.r75.08
13,780.35
13.784.24
13,790.27
13,799.38
13,806.58
13. 815.52
13,823.21
13.833.88
13,939.87
13.831.80
13.814.43
13.811.68
13.803.64
13,795.43
13,787.92
13,780.57
13.772.14
13.763.69
13.758.09
13.785-07
13.752.75
25.738.57
25.401.78
25.412.46
25,417.53
25.427.27
25,434.45
25.442.51
25.448.27
35.455.02
25.461.28
25.467.56
25,474.95
25.480.62
25,484.05
25.487.79
35.810.66
25.773.51
25.773.54
25,T74.28
25.774.59
25.770.55
25.768.31
35.766.25
25,766.14
2S.7M.12
35.771.07
25,774. M
35,778.35
NAimCAL MILCS
10 12 3 4 5 8
CONTOURS IN METERS
UNTTTD STATES - E.\ST COAST
ATLANTIC OCE-OJ
STELLWAGEN BANK
NATIONAL MARINE S.\NCTUAilY
FIGURE 20: SANCTUARY BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVE #3
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 104
designate an area southwest of the existing
MBDS, a two-nautical-mile diameter circle,
centered at 42*25.1 N x 70*35.0W (EPA 1992).
Inclusion of all or part of the MBDS within the
Sanctuary would conflict with the general NOAA
poUcy against ocean disposal activities in marine
sanctuaries. Encompassing the MBDS within the
Sanctuary is not necessary to protect Sanctuary
resources and quaUties, because pursuant to their
own programs, EPA and COE ocean disposal
activities must avoid harm to Sanctuary resources.
Moreover, Sanctuary regulations prohibit the
disposal of materials outside the Sanctuary
boundary which enter and injure resources or
quaUties.
4. Boundary Alternative #4
Boundary alternative #4 (Figure 21) was
submitted for consideration by several reviewers,
including the New England Fishery Management
Council, in response to the DEIS/MP document.
This alternative encompasses approximately 330
square nautical miles (436 square miles). This
rectangular boundiiry configiiration is similar to that
of boundary alternative #1. As with boundary
alternative #1, alternative #4 would essentially
encompass the Stellwagen Bank feature itself;
however, the western border extends well into
Stellwagen Basin, so as to encompass entirely the
interim MBDS, as well as the MBDS currently
proposed for permanent designation.
Boundju7 alternative #4 is further described
by the following latitude/longitude coordinates:
42°34 24.00'N x 70°2506.00'W (northeast comer);
42°1112.00'N X 70°0618.00'W (southeast comer);
42°0656.00'N x 70°22 50.00'W (southwest comer);
and 42^28 54.00 'N x 70°40 00.00 "W (northwest
comer). This boundary option is also described as
being marked by the following LORAN-C lines:
13750, 13870, 44140, and 44295.
Boundary altemative #4, like all other
boundtu^ options, encompasses the entirety of
Stellwagen Bank, thereby offering the opportunity
for Sanctuary protection of the Bank feature.
However, important habitat areas for invertebrate,
fish and cetacean species are not included in this
altemative. For instance, boundary alternative #4
would not encompass all of the important cetacean
use areas north of the Bank, which are also heavily-
frequented by whalewatch vessels. Thus, the
opportunity for system protection and management
would be somewhat diminished imder boundary
alternative #4.
This smaller configuration also limits the
opportunity for coordination in ocean system
management with the Commonwealth through its
Ocean Sanctuaries Program, as it does not coincide
with any coastal marine areas designated by the
Commonwealth as Ocean Sanctuaries. However,
the opportunity would be retained for coordination
in research and educational activities with the
Massachusetts Bays Program/NEP.
Boundary alternative #4, like boundary
altemative #3, would encompass the 'Interim"
MBDS, and would also include the area currently
proposed by EPA for permanent designation. As
discussed in the description of boundary alternative
#3, disposal of dredged materials is generally
considered an incompatible use of sanctuaries.
5. Boundary Alternative #5
Note to Reviewer: Purusant to P.L. 102-587
(§2202(b)), boundary altemative #5, the preferred
altemative as described below, is established as the
bounary for the Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary.
Boundary altemative #5 (Figure 22) is the
preferred altemative, encompassing approximately
638 square nautical miles (842 square miles) of
Federal waters surrounding Stellwagen Bank and
additional habitat areas.
The configuration of this boundary altemative
is the same as that of boundary altemative #3
(Figure 20), except for the westem border, which
extends in a str2iight line from the Sanctuary S
southwestern corner, at 42°07<W.89'N x
70"^ 15.44 "W, to a west-northwestera point, at
42°32 53.52 'N x 70^35 52.38 'W. From that point, all
boundary coordinates are otherwise the same as
those of the northwestern, northern, eastern, and
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 105
LATITUDX
Dl 42 34 24.00 70 2S 0».00
D2 42 11 12.00 70 06 11.00
D3 42 06 36.00 70 22 30.00
D4 42 28 24.00 70 40 00.00
W60W SS&SS
13.743.46 2S. 719.56
13.750.31 2S.462.07
13.870.46 23.319.74
13,871.13 23.771.16
NAUTICAL MILES
10 12 3 4 5 6
UNITED STATES - EAST COAST
ATLANTIC OCEAN
STELLWAGEN BANK
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
FIGURE 21: SANCTUARY BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVE #4
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 106
STELLWAGEN BANK
BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVES
ElO
CIl
E12
CI 3
C14
CIS
C16
E17
E18
C19
E20
C21
C12
C23
C2<
C25
C26
C27
C2B
LAzrnix
42 43 59.83
42 OS 3S.S1
42 06 18.25
42 06 29.33
42 0? 02.70
42 07 13.80
42 0? 35.95
43 07 42.33
42 07 59.94
42 08 04.95
42 0? 35. 19
42 07 59.84
42 07 46.55
42 07 27.29
42 06 54.37
42 07 44.89
42 32 33.52
42 33 30.24
42 33 48.14
42 34 30.45
42 34 50.37
42 35 16.08
42 33 41.80
42 36 23.08
42 37 15.51
43 37 M.M
43 38 33.46
43 3« 04.01
I3.ft07.lt
13.7U.3*
13,75i.T2
13.760.30
13.764.53
13.r70.54
13.T75.08
13.780.35
13,784.24
13,790.27
13.799.38
13.806.58
13.813.52
13.823.21
13.833.88
13,900.14
13.821.60
13.814.43
13.811 .6a
13.803.64
13.795.43
13.787.92
13.780.57
13.772.14
13,763.69
13,798.09
13,753.07
13,752.75
70 13 01.77
70 02 08.14
70 03 17.55
70 04 03.36
70 05 13.61
70 06 23.75
70 07 27.89
70 08 36.07
70 09 19.78
70 10 34.40
70 11 47.67
70 13 03.35
70 14 31.91
70 15 32.95
70 16 42.71
70 38 15.44
70 35 52.38
70 35 14.96
70 35 03.81
70 34 22.98
70 33 21.93
70 33 33.29
70 31 44.20
70 30 58.98
70 30 33.01
70 30 06.W
70 30 06.54
70 30 11.29
25. 728.:
».401.'
25.412.1
35.417.1
25,427.:
25.434.1
35.442.1
23.448.:
33.433.1
23.461.:
35.467.;
23.474.^
35.480.1
25. 484. <
25.487.'
25.563.:
25.773.:
25.773.:
25,774.:
25.774.:
25.770.:
25.768.:
25.766.:
25.766.:
25, 7M.:
25.771.1
25.774.!
25,778.:
XAUnCAL MILES
UNITED STATES - EAST COaST
ATLA>rnC OCEAN
STELLWAGEN BANK
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
FIGURE 22: SANCTUARY BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVE #5
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 107
southern borders of boundary alternative #3.
Borders of the Sanctuary are equidistant from the
land points of Cape Cod, to the south, and Cape
Ann, to the north.
The preferred boundary alternative #5
encompasses all of the Stellwagen Bank feature;
TiUies Bank to the northeast of Stellwagen Bank;
and southern portions of Jeffreys Ledge, to the
north of Stellwagen Bank. Portions of the
Sanctuary are adjacent to three ocean areas
designated by the Commonwealth as Ocean
Sanctuaries. The northwestern border coincides
with the North Shore Ocean Sanctuary. The
southern border coincides with the seaward limit of
Commonwealth jurisdictional waters adjacent to the
Cape Cod Bay Ocean Sanctuary; and is also
tangential to the Cape Cod Ocean Sanctuary. As
with boundary alternative #3, therefore, the
potential for coordination efforts with the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts related to ocean
system management is optimal; as is the potential
for cooperative educational and/or research efforts
with the Massachusetts Bays Program/NEP.
I The preferred boundau^ alternative #5
encompasses identified important marine habitats
resulting from the predictable cyclic seasonal
upwelling and mixing phenomena caused by the
presence of the Stellwagen Bank feature. Several
species of endangered and other cetaceans,
pinnipeds, sea turtles, and numerous species of
commercially-important fish and invertebrates
depend on the habitats over and surrounding the
Bzmk feature. The boundary includes the entirety of
the most frequently-utilized feeding and nursery
habitats for the largest high-latitude population of
humpback whales occurring in the contiguous
United States. Additional endangered cetacean
species utilizing the habitats enclosed by boundary
alternative #5 are fin and northern right whales.
Other non-listed marine mammal species found
within this boundary area include minke, orca, and
pilot whales, as well as white-sided dolphins, harbor
porpoises, and harbor seals.
I The expanded area of boimdary alternative #5
encompasses additional habitat areas around Tillies
Bank and southern portions Jeffreys Ledge which
are also important to fish, invertebrate, and
cetacean species. Jeffreys Ledge, to the north of
Stellwagen Bank, provides feeding grounds for
harbor porpoise and fish spawning areas. TiUies
Bank, situated to the northeast of Stellwagen Bank,
is an additional important feeding area for
humpback and fin whales. Sand lance, primary prey
for humpback and fin whales, as well as for some
fish species, spawn within habitats included in
boundary alternative #5.
The natural resource values of boundiU7
alternative #5 also result in high levels of both
commercial and recreational fishing and
whalewatching activities. Again owing to its
resource values, the majority of areas of particular
interest to the research community are enclosed
within boundary alternative #5.
The preferred boundary alternative #5
encompasses a portion of the 'Interim" MBDS;
however, the disposal site proposed by EPA for
permanent designation is located entirely outside
the Sanctuary boundary. Adoption of this expanded
boundary alternative would not invalidate NOAA S
authority under Title III to prohibit disposal
activities at the MBDS which enter the Sanctuary
and harm Sanctuary resources or quahties; nor
would adoption of the expanded boimdary option
alter NOAA S prohibition on disposal and discharge
activities inside the Sanctuary. Inclusion of all or
pju-t of the MBDS would conflict with the general
NOAA poUcy against ocean disposal activities in
marine sanctuaries. Encompassing the MBDS
within the Sanctuary is not necessary to protect
Sanctuary resources or quahties, because, pursuant
to their own programs, EPA and COE ocean
disposal activities must avoid heum to Sanctuary
resources.
B. Management Alternatives
1. Management Alternative #1
Under this alternative, management of the
Sanctuary would be conducted from SRD
headquarters in Washington, D.C. Sanctuary
Manager responsibiUties would be assumed by an
SRD Project Manager, who would coordinate,
through cooperative agreements, with other Federal
and State agencies located in the area of the
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 108
Sanctuary, to achieve implementation of Sanctuary
regulations and programs. Working in coordination
with the SRD National Programs Branch (formerly
the Technical Projects Branch), the Sanctuary
Manager would also initiate and coordinate research
and interpretive projects for the Sanctuary, including
investigations into possible historical/cultural
resources within the Sanctuary. Interpretive
outreach projects would be coordinated through
other on-site agencies or institutions.
This management alternative would result in
reduced administrative costs, because of limited
staff requirements, and the absence of any separate,
on-site Sanctuary facihties or equipment.
Disadvantages of this alternative, however, include
the lack of any on-site Sanctuary presence and
minimal Sanctuary identity; and thus a lack of pubUc
awareness of the Sanctuary Program. Meeting any
of the Sanctuary objectives (resource protection,
research, education, multiple use) would be difficult
under this alternative.
2. Management Alternative #2
The preferred management alternative is to
identify a Sanctuary Manager and establish a
Sanctuary headquarters facihty in Plymouth, MA
within a very short period of time following
designation. In addition to the Manager, Sanctuary
staff would consist of an administrative assistant, a
research coordinator or an educational/
interpretation coordinator, and at least one
enforcement officer.
Under this alternative, an independent
management and administrative system for the
Sanctuary, housed in a NOAA-operated
headquarters facihty, would be estabUshed.
Sanctuary headquarters would be located in the
North Shore, South Shore, or Outer Cape area,
depending in part on the size and configuration of
the final Sanctuary boundary.
A variety of Sanctuary program activities
would be phased in, with initial focus on research
and education/interpretation. The Sanctuary
headquarters would coordinate directly and actively
with other Federal and State agencies in the
implementation of Sanctuary regulations. The
Sanctuary Manager and staff, and the Sanctuary
Advisory Committee would begin the processes of
informing the pubUc as well as regional officials of
the Sanctuary S mandate, regulations, and research
and education programs.
Although more expensive than management
alternative #1, management alternative #2 is cost-
effective overall because it phases in necessary
management structures and measures
commensurate with the growing presence of the
Sanctuary and the needs of Sanctuary users.
Identification of a Sanctuary Manager immediately
upon designation would assist in establishing
Sanctuary visibihty at an early phase: although
pubhc awareness initially may be low.
Due to the numerous points of access to the
Sanctuary available to the commercial and other
user public, one centralized Sanctuary
headquarters/information center may not provide
optimum access to the variety of commercial and
recreational Sanctuary users. The need for and
timing of 'SateUite" information centers would be
determined over a relatively short period of time, as
development of the Sanctuary programs increases.
3. Management Alternative #3
Under this management alternative, a
Sanctuary headquarters would be established soon
after designation (within six months or earher), and
would be fully staffed with a Sanctuary Manager, an
administrative assistant, a research coordinator, an
education coordinator, and one or more
enforcement officials. Additionally, 'SateUite"
information centers as well as the Sanctueuy
headquarters facihty, would be established quickly,
so that the user and other interested pubUc may
easily gain access to, cuid information about, the
Sanctuary 5 mandate, regulations, and research and
education programs.
This alternative would provide rapid
implementation of the Sanctuary program, which
would enhance the potential for early cultivation
and coordination of public support. Because of the
wide variety of opportunities for research and
interpretation, full-time Sanctuary research and
education coordinators will allow the Sanctuary
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 109
Manager to focus on coordination among existing
mcinagement authorities and resource protection
efforts.
The start-up costs of this alternative would be
greater than those of Alternatives #1 or #2, and
may put Sanctuary staff into place prematurely.
Over the longer-term, however, these staff and
facilities are likely to be necessary to a successful
Sanctuary program.
C. Regulatory Alternatives
Regulatory alternatives related to individual
resources or to types of human activities have been
evaluated in terms of three principal criteria found
in the language of Title III: 1) whether the activity
is generally consistent with the purposes of
Sanctuary designation; 2) whether existing
authorities regulating that activity provide
appropriate and sufficient protection for Sanctuary
resources; and 3) whether the additional Sanctuary
regulation being proposed will be effective in
protecting Sanctuary resources.
Areas of evaluation included the following
human activities: discharges and deposits, including
dredged materials, wastewater effluents, fish wastes,
trash and other debris; incineration; development of
mariculture operations; industrial materials
extraction (i.e., sand and gravel mining); oil and gas
extraction; historical/cultxiral resoiu'ces exploitation;
placement of fixed or tethered platforms;
submerged pipeline and cable installation;
commercial shipping; hghtering; commercial
charterboating (whalewatching and sportfishing
vessels); recreational vessel operation; and taking of
marine mammals, marine reptiles, and seabirds; and
fishing.
1. Discharge or Deposits of Materials
Discharge or deposits of materials or
substances into the ocean encompass a variety of
individual activities. Following is a discussion of
regulatory alternatives for discharge and deposit
activities in general, followed by discussions of
individually-identified discharge or deposit activities.
a. No Regulation: Under this regulatory
alternative, protection of S2inctuary resources from
the potentially harmful effects of discharges and
deposits from land and sea sources would rely on
the existing provisions of the Clean Water Act
(CWA); Title I of the Marine Protection, Research
and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA); Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA); and the National Oil Spill
Contingency Plan.
Discharges from ships are regulated in the
U.S. tmder the provisions of the Act to Prevent
Pollution from Ships of 1980 (APPS), as amended
in 1982 and 1987 (33 U.S.C. § 1901 etisg.). APPS
is the implementing legislation for the 1973
International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships, as modified by the Protocol of
1978 (MARPOL 73/78), as amended. Within
MARPOL, there are currently five Aimexes
addressing: prevention and control of pollution by
oil (Annex I); noxious hquid substances in bulk
(Aimex II); packaged or containerized harmful
substances (Aimex III); sewage (Aimex IV); and
garbage (Aimex V). Annexes I, 11, and IV are
presently in force in the United States, and the U.S.
Coast Guard has promulgated implementing
regulations.
In addition to Title I of MPRSA, disposal of
dredged materials at the Massachusetts Bay
Disposal Site (MBDS) would also remain subject
to the Federal consistency requirements of
§ 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA), as asserted by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
b. Regulation of the Activity: The preferred
regulatory alternative is to prohibit all discharges or
deposits from any location within the boundary of
the Sanctuary, of materials or substances of any
kind (except for those listed in Appendix A, at §
940.5(a)(1)). This prohibition would also be
appUcable to the discharge or deposit, from beyond
the boundary of the Sanctuary, of materials or
substances of any kind, except for the exclusions
noted above, that subsequently enter the Sanctuary
and injure a Sanctuary resource or quality. This
regulation would apply to discharges or deposits of
solid wastes as well as effluents.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 110
Existing discharge or deposit activities being
conducted pursuant to valid permits executed prior
to the effective date of these Sanctuary regulations
would be excluded from this prohibition. Such
discharges or deposits would be allowed, subject to
all prohibitions, restrictions, and conditions imposed
by any other valid authority, as well as to all
prohibitions, restrictions, or conditions imposed by
applicable regulations, permits, licenses or other
authorizations and consistency reviews issued by the
appropriate authority. However, pursuant to the
provisions of Title III of MPRSA, NOAA also may
regulate the exercise of these existing permits
consistent with the purposes for which the Sanctuary
is designated.
NOAA may certify permits issued by other
authorities for activities which are otherwise
prohibited by Sanctuary regulations, such as
discharges occurring outside Sanctuary boundaries
which enter and harm a Sanctuary resource or
quality. NOAA may deny certification or require
additional conditions necessary to protect Sanctuary
resources, or to achieve other Sanctuary
management objectives. In all cases, NOAA will
consult with the relevant authority over the activity
and provide scientific information concerning
Sanctuary resources to the existing regulatory
authority. NOAA will cooperate with the existing
authorities to formalize the consultative and
management roles of the Sanctuary. To facilitate
such coordination, memoranda of understanding
and/or protocol agreements may be developed.
Individual Discharge or Disposal Activities
a. Dredged Materials Disposal
Alternatives dealing with the regulation of
dredged materials disposal within the Sanctuary are
discussed below. These alternatives have been
developed under the premise that permitted
disposal of dredged materials will occur at an
MBDS designated by EPA at a location outside, but
in close proximity to, the Sanctuary boundary.
1) No Sanctuary Regulation: Under this
alternative, disposal of dredged materials would not
be an activity regulated by the Sanctuary. Disposal
activities could continue, pursuant to the jurisdiction
of existing applicable Federal (Title I of the
MPRSA) and State authorities. The selection of
this alternative would be made under the
presumption that those existing authorities are
entirely adequate to protect Sanctueuy resources.
2) Disposal is Prohibited Throughout the
Sanctuary: Under this alternative, disposal of
dredged materials would be prohibited in all areas
of the Sanctuary. The selection of this alternative is
made under the presumption that dredged materials
disposal activity within the Sanctuary may destroy,
cause the loss of, and/or injure Sanctuary resources
or quahties, and is generally inconsistent with the
purposes for which the Sanctuary is designated.
3) Disposal Allowed at MBDS but Prohibited
Throughout Sanctuary: This is the preferred
alternative. Under this alternative, disposal of
dredged materials would continue at the MBDS
pursuant to Titles I and III of the MPRSA and their
implementing regulations. Current studies indicate
that no dredged materials have entered and injured
resources within the Sanctuary. However, NOAA
would review disposal permit applications involving
the uses of the MBDS to confirm that such use
does not conflict with the purposes for which the
Sanctuary was designated. Disposal of dredged
materials anywhere within the Sanctuary boundary
would be prohibited.
Selection of the Preferred Alternative: Principal
reasons for the selection of the preferred alternative
(disposal allowed at MBDS but prohibited
throughout the Sanctuary) are discussed below.
Regulations at 40 CFR § 228.10 provide
special consideration of the effects of disposal
activities on nearby National Mjuine Sanctuaries.
Listed as 'Sensitive areas "in the Ocean Dumping
Regulations, National Marine Sanctuaries are
identified as areas 'Where natural resources are
likely to be adversely affected by ocean disposal"
(EPA, 1986).
However, if the disposal activity is outside the
Sanctuary boundary, regulation of the activity by
NOAA may only occur when it is determined by
NOAA that this material has entered the Sanctuary
and injured a Sanctuary resource or quality.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 111
One of the central tenets of the National
Marine Sanctuary Program is that any regulation
promulgated by the Sanctuary should 'tomplement
existing regulatory authorities'! Existing regulatory
authority, principally the Ocean Dumping Act (Title
I of the MPRSA) and regulations promulgated
thereunder, provide a rigorous framework for
assuring that each disposal event will not endanger
'human health, welfare, and amenities, and the
marine environment, ecological systems, and
economic potentialities" (Section 2(a) of the
MPRSA). However, a consideration central to this
discussion is whether the regulation and
management of ocean disposal under Title I is
adequate for the protection of the resources and
qualities of a National Marine Sanctuary. To
determine whether additional Sanctuary
management is necessary, it is important to fully
understand how ocean disposal of dredged materials
is currently regulated, in particular at the MBDS.
Ocean disposal is regulated under Title I of
the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA). Disposal of dredged materials at
the MBDS is regulated by the Secretary of the
Army under Section 103 (Title I) of the MPRSA.
All other disposal activities are regulated by EPA
under Section 102 (Title I) of the MPRSA.
Dredged materials disposal is permitted when it is
determined 'the dumping will not unreasonably
degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or
amenities, or the marine environment, ecological
systems, or economic potentialities'.' In making its
permitting determinations, the Corps is mandated to
use the criteria established by EPA imder Section
102 (promulgated as regulation at 40 CFR § 227).
An implementation manual describing tests
and procedures to be used in determining the
suitabihty of dredged materials for ocean disposal
was developed jointly by EPA and the COE in 1977.
This testing manual, 'Evaluation of Dredged
Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal',' was
updated in 1991 (EPA 1991). The techniques
described therein are considered state-of-the-art,
and reflect years of research on disposal activities
conducted jointly by EPA and COE since 1977.
The COES New England Division worked with
EPAS Region I (Boston), in coordination with
regional offices of the U.S. Fish and WildUfe Service
(FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMF^) to develop a draft regional protocol (15
May 1989), in accordance with the draft National
Protocol and forthcoming revisions to the Ocean
Dumping Regulations.
Many factors are considered in characterizing
the nature of the materials to be disposed, including
but not limited to: the physical characteristics of the
sediments; hydrography of the dredging area in
relation to known or anticipated sources of
contaminants; results from previous testing in the
area; and historical records. In most cases,
grain-size analyses and bulk chemistry analyses are
performed. Among the parameters routinely
checked are total organic carbon, water content,
metals, polycycUc aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
and polychlormated biphenyls (PCBs). Where
necessary, biological tests such as bioassay and
bioaccumulation may also be employed to evaluate
acute toxicity and the potential for biological uptake.
Each project is announced via a pubhc notice
and comment period (typically 30 days). All
projects are closely coordinated with EPA, FWS
and NMFS. The determination of suitability of
dredged materials for open water disposal is made
at the regional level by the COE. EPA has
regulatory oversight of these determinations.
Disposal activities at the MBDS are generally
inspected by an onboard COE observer. Buoys are
maintained at the MBDS and precise coordinates
are stipulated for the approved disposal point within
the site. Violations are subject to substantial fmes.
Monitoring activities at MBDS are conducted
by EPA and COE. EPA is responsible for
managing and maintaining effective ambient
monitoring programs for the site. The COE (New
England Division) monitors the disposal site
through its Disposal Area Monitoring System
(DAMOS). Although DAMOS was not formally in
place until 1977, the COE has conducted
oceanographic sampling at the MBDS since 1973,
via contract with various scientific organizations and
environmental consulting firms. DAMOS
investigates all aspects of dredged materials disposal
in New England, and monitors physical, chemical
and biological conditions at nine disposal sites
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 112
throughout the New England area. DAMOS
program activities include bathymetric surveys,
side-scan sonar, underwater photography, divers,
submersible vessels, sediment analyses and
biological analyses.
The DAMOS program currently continues to
monitor and manage the MBDS, and to conduct
scientific investigations of the site. Since the 1988
Site Evaluation Report issued by the COE,
monitoring activities have included: bathymetric
surveys (DAMOS, October 1988); side-scan sonar
(DAMOS, January 1989); sampling for sediment
chemistry and tissue analyses (EPA/COE June
1989); and sampling for tissue analyses in fish and
benthic organisms (EPA/COE, June 1990).
The regulatory framework surrounding the
permitting of oce3in disposal of dredged materials at
MBDS therefore fully compUes with Title I
requirements. Notwithstanding the careful
management described above, however, a National
Marine Sanctuary is by definition an area
recognized and designated for its 'ipecial national
significance'! encompassing resources and quaUties
deserving of special protection to ensure their long-
term preservation and management. Title III states
in part that, 'While the need to control the effects of
particular activities has led to the enactment of
resource-specific legislation, these laws cannot, in all
cases provide a coordinated and comprehensive
approach to the conservation and management of
special areas of the marine environment'! A central
purpose of National Marine Sanctuary designation
is to provide the authority to allow this
comprehensive and coordinated conservation and
management.
While Title I provides for the regulation and
management of the disposal of dredged materials
into the marine environment, as a regulatory
authority directed solely at a single activity, it cannot
be expected to ensure that even the most rigorous
appUcation of this statute will provide the level of
protection appropriate to an area of 'Special
national significance" designated as a National
Marine Sanctuary. 'Comprehensive and
coordinated conservation and management "of the
Sanctuary require a broader context for regiilatory
decisionmaking than that which is possible under
Tide I.
A large part of providing this broader view is
the establishment of appropriate thresholds of
significance for the analysis of impacts from disposal
activities. Direct reference is made to National
Marine Sanctuaries in Title I regulations (40 CFR
§§ 228.5(b) and 228.10(b)(1)), which require the
analysis of impacts of disposed materials on national
marine sanctuaries. The designation of Stellwagen
Bank National Marine Sanctuary will result in a
higher level of scrutiny of impacts from dredged
material disposal, under both Titles I and III of
MPRSA. Standards and criteria established in Title
I regulations for the evjiluation of environmental
impacts associated with ocean disposal encompass
a comprehensive array of issues, from human health
to the health of the entire marine ecosystem. These
criteria have been established to provide a
framework for identifying 'Unacceptable adverse
effects." However, there are no specific references
provided in the statute or regulations for
determining the threshold for 'Imacceptable"
impacts from disposal activities within an area
recognized and set apart from other oceEui areas as
possessing resources and quaUties of 'ipecial
national significance'!
Another facet of considering ocean disposal
from the broader perspective of impacts on National
Marine Sanctuaries is the assessment of cumulative
effects. Title I regulations require the assessment of
cumulative effects for site designations (40 CFR
§ 228.6(a)(7)), but restrict the discussion to long-
term, chronic impacts of continued disposal at a
disposal site. While the inclusion of any discussion
of cumulative impacts is both necessary and
beneficial, the limited scope of that discussion does
not permit meaningful analysis of how cumulative
impacts associated with disposal activities may be
exacerbated by adverse impacts associated with
other, unrelated activities.
This type of comprehensive impact analysis is
difficult when attempted solely within the context of
a regulatory analysis, primarily because individual
projects are reviewed independently. A far more
effective approach would be one based on
comprehensive plcinning, faciUtating the a priori
development of scientifically and technicaUy
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 113
supportable thresholds of significance. Such
planning ideally should be addressed jointly by EPA,
COE, and NOAA.
Impacts of continued disposal activities were
evaluated in the MBDS site evaluation study (COE,
1988) and in the DEIS (EPA, 1989). No effects on
Sanctuary resources or quaUties from disposal
activities at MBDS have been identified as a result
of these evaluations. This conclusion is based on a
number of studies including: surveys to determine
the extent of the disposed sediments on the bottom;
biological colonization on and around the disposed
sediments; sediment chemistry surveys; and surveys
of contaminant levels in organisms hving on and
near the site. Many of these studies have focused
on near-field samples, where impacts could be
expected to be most evident. Disposed sediments
have been found to exist in well-defined deposits
within either the present or the historical disposal
sites. Bottom-dwelling organisms have recolonized
these deposits, and are similar to the commimities
present at undisturbed reference sites. Sediment
chemistry in these deposits has been generally
consistent with that of sediments originally tested at
the dredged materials disposal site. Contaminant
levels found in the marine worm Nephtys. the clam
Astarte. the shrimp Pandalus. and the scallop
Placopectin indicate minimal bioaccumulation levels
at and around the disposal site at the time of those
studies.
At present, the MBDS site is considered an
Impact Category II" site, as defined in Title I
regulations and criteria (40 CFR § 228.10(c),
indicating that no detectable changes in species
composition or population has occurred in habitats
immediately outside the deposition area (EPA,
1990). It does not appear, therefore, that the
previous use of the site has significantly degraded
the resources of the area.
The preferred Sanctuary regulatory alternative
is to prohibit disposal of dredged materials
anywhere within the Sanctuary. Assuming that a
permanent MBDS is designated outside the
Sanctuary boundary, there should be no
environmental impact on Sanctuary resources or any
economic impact on users of the MBDS. NOAA
plans to review disposal permit appUcations in order
to ensure that disposals do not enter the Sanctuary
and harm Sanctuary resoiu'ces or quahties.
However, since there is no evidence of hcum to
Sanctuary resources or qualities from MBDS
activities, no certification of these permits is
necessary.
b. Disposal of Fish Processing Wastes
1) No Sanctuary Regulation: Under this
regulatory alternative, the disposal of fish wastes,
i.e., wastes from fish processing operations, would
not require a permit under the Ocean Dumping Act
(Title I of the MPRSA), provided that disposal not
occur in 'harbors or other protected or enclosed
coastal waters'! or any other location that may
'feasonably be anticipated to endanger health, the
environment, or ecological systems. "(40 CFR
§ 220.1(c)). Proposals for disposal of fish wastes
also may be required to meet EPA conditions
related to location, character of the materials to be
disposed, and methodology of the disposal activity.
The terms of these conditions would be developed
by EPA in consultation with NMFS and the fishing
industry.
2) Disposal of Fish Processing Wastes Subject
to Sanctuary Certification: Under the preferred
regulatory alternative, proposals involving the
disposal of fish processing wastes would have to be
certified by the Assistant Administrator of NOAA
to ensure that the activity is consistent with the
purposes of the Sanctuary, and that it will have no
significant effect on Sanctuary resources or qualities.
This additional certification process will ensure that
the Sanctuary, not specifically mentioned in the
Ocean Dumping Act, is considered during any EPA
decisionmaking process related to the disposal of
fish processing wastes. Listing this as a regulated
activity will also allow oversight of any fish
processing wastes disposal activity occurring outside
the Sanctuary boundary, to ensure that the effects of
such activity do not enter the Sanctuary and cause
harm to Sanctuary resources or quaUties.
c) Discharge of Trash and Other Debris
As discussed in Part Two, Section II.C.4.
(Commercial Shipping), existing regulatory
authorities permit the discharge of several types of
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 114
solid wastes into ocean waters. Regulatory
alternatives for discharge of trash or other debris
into the Sanctuary are:
1. No Sanctuary Regulation: Under this
regulatory alternative, existing authorities would
continue to regulate the discharge of trash and
other debris into Sanctuary waters. The following
materials may presently be discharged: floating
dunnage; lining and packing materials; paper; rags;
glass; metal; bottles; crockery (ground, comminuted,
or whole); and food waste (ground, comminuted, or
whole). Plastics are prohibited from discharge
anywhere in the ocean, and are therefore prohibited
from overboard discharge.
2. Discharge of all forms of soUd waste would
be prohibited in the Sjmctuary: This is the
preferred alternative. With the exception of those
items exempted by Sanctuary regulations, any
discharge of soUd waste would be prohibited in the
Sanctuary. This alternative would ensure the
prevention of environmental harm to Sanctuary
resources. Additionally, the general scope of this
prohibition would facilitate enforcement of the
existing prohibition on discharge of plastics into the
marine environment, by providing for a ban on the
discharge of any soUd materials. Because of the
problems for marine wildhfe resulting from the
presence of such materials in the ocean (such as
entanglement and ingestion), it is enviroimientally
advantageous to apply this general prohibition to all
solid waste materials.
d) Wastewater Discharges
Regulatory alternatives related to management
of wastewater discharges from ocean outfalls into
the Sanctuary are:
1. No Sanctuary Regulation: Under this
alternative, point source discharges would not be
subject to Sanctuary regulation. Existing
management and regulation of ocean outfall
discharge activities would continue under NPDES
permits, and other Federal and State authorities, as
appHcable.
2. Wastewater discharges subject to Sanctuary
Certification: This regulatory alternative would
allow the discharge of wastewater through ocean
outfalls into the Sanctuju^, provided that permits
issued for such discharges are reviewed and certified
by NOAA as being consistent with the purposes of
Sanctuary designation, i.e., they would cause no
injury to Samctuary resources or quahties. Under
this alternative, NOAA could approve discharge
permits which clearly demonstrate no potential for
harm to Sanctuary resources.
3. Wastewater discharges into the Sanctuary
would be prohibited: This is the preferred
regulatory alternative. Under this alternative, all
outfall discharges of wastewater into the Sanctuary
would be prohibited. Neither the NPDES sections
of the Clean Water Act (CWA), nor its regulations
make any specific reference to special standards or
criteria for discharges into National Marine
Sanctuaries. Existing authorities require no analysis
of the cumulative effects of such discharges into
coastal waters. It is therefore clear that existing
authorities are inadequate to fuUy protect the
resources of a National Marine Sanctuary.
Two factors contribute significantly to the
conclusion that discharges of wastewater are
generally not consistent with the designation of
Stellwagen Bank as a National Marine Sanctuary.
The first is that it is highly unlikely that any
wastewater discharge could meet the resource
protection standards appropriate for a National
Marine Sanctuary. Generally, an increase in volume
of wastewater discharged into waters of
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays could lead to
general degradation of water quality, particularly in
terms of reductions in dissolved oxygen
concentrations (notably during summer months
when stratification of the water column is most
Ukely); and elevation of nutrient concentrations in
coastal waters. However, it is uncertain at what
threshold such system-wide impacts would be
observable. Most industrial discharges enter coastal
waters through wastewater treatment plants; and
there is the possibihty that increased concentrations
of contaminants could be introduced in these
effluents. Combined with non-point sources of
contamination, there is a potential for further water
quaUty degradation. Within the area directly
adjacent to a wastewater discharge outfall (the so-
called 'ione of initial dilution',' or ZID), changes to
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 115
the biological community will almost certainly occur
as a result of the discharge. There is some question
as to whether EPA Water Quahty Criteria would
have to be met within the ZID. Further,
considering the high cost of constructing ocean
outfalls (the 9.5-mile outfall currently under
construction by the MWRA will cost a minimum of
$278 miUion), any outfall would Ukely require a
significant capacity large enough to justify its cost.
Language in the existing regulatory authorities is
somewhat broad, providing few performance
standards. Given that this area contains a number
of highly sensitive resources and is subject to
intensive human use, even relatively small impacts
can produce significant environmental changes.
With regard to the proposed MWRA outfall,
the results of extensive analyses regarding the
effects of its proposed discharge indicate the outfall
would not be directly affected by this Sanctuary
prohibition. Although the MWRA outfall will be
the most significant single input of wastewater into
waters adjacent to the Sanctuary, the MWRA has
suggested that adverse impacts on Sanctuary
resources are extremely unlikely (MWRA, 1990).
This conclusion is based in part on physical
oceanographic analysis of Massachusetts Bay, which
generally appears to be well-mixed, allowing
appropriate dilution of the effluent. In addition, the
level of treatment of the effluent will be greatly
improved; the concentrations of toxic contaminants
in the waste stream are likely to be reduced by
implementation of an industrial pretreatment
program; sludge will no longer be discharged into
coastal waters; and more effective grit screening will
remove a larger portion of plastics and other
floatable materials. Results of a far-field modeling
study (MWRA, 1987- Volume V/Appendix H)
appear to support these conclusions.
The EPA designation of Massachusetts Bay and
Cape Cod Bay as an Estuary of National
Significance, under the National Estuary Program
(NEP), also plays an important role in this
discussion. Many of the potential implications of
point source and non-point source discharges will be
carefully scrutinized in the Management Conference
developed under this Program. The research and
monitoring undertaken in the Massachusetts Bays
Program (MBP), and the management plan
ultimately developed will focus attention on the
quahty of these waters and will contribute
significantly to informed decisionmaking regarding
wastewater discharges to coastal waters.
Under any regulatory alternative, establishing
a high degree of coordination with the MBP/NEP
is essential. The management framework
established through the MBP/NEP will greatly
enhance resource protection within the Sanctuary.
Appropriate channels of communication and
coordination should be established, and a priority
placed on this coordination activity.
Of equal importance will be close coordination
with the Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries Program
(within the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Management), particularly in hght of
the prohibition against new or increased discharges
in designated Ocean Sanctuaries, except as
permitted through a very strict variance procedure.
2. Ocean Incineration
a. No Sanctuary Regulation: Under the
regulatory status quo, existing authorities provided
in Title I of the MPRSA would continue to apply to
any proposed incineration activities. Under those
authorities, ocean incineration of waste materials
may occur (except as described below) imtil there
has been designated an incineration site (pursuant
to 40 CFR § 228.4(b)). Additionally, Title I
regulations place requirements upon EPA to
consider the effects of designating incineration sites
near significant areas, such as marine sanctuaries
(See 40 CFR §§ 228.5 and 228.6).
Pending the promulgation by EPA of specific
criteria regulating ocean incineration activities,
permits for this activity may only be granted as
'Interim"or as 'lesearch" permits.
b. Identify the Activity as Subject to
Regulation: Under this alternative, no regulation of
ocean incineration activities would be proposed at
this time. However, in the event of EPAS
identification of a proposed incineration site which
occurs within the boundaries of the designated
Sanctuary, or in the event of appUcations for
permission to conduct incineration operations under
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 116
interim Title I permits, NOAA may impose
Sanctuary regulation of this activity, to ensure the
protection of Sanctuary resources and qualities.
c. Regulation of the Activity: This is the
preferred regulatory alternative. Under this
alternative, both the designation of incineration sites
and the permitting of any incineration activities
within the boundaries of the designated Sanctuary
would be prohibited. This alternative would prevent
any environmental harm to Sanctuary resources
which may result from incineration activities.
Moreover, the preferred regulatory alternative
would conform to and reinforce existing regulatory
guidance currently foimd in Title I regarding the
designation of incineration sites. Those regulations
recognize the sensitivity of certain marine areas and
resources (such as those found within designated
marine sanctuaries) by requiring that incineration
sites be located in areas where the effects of
mcineration activities will not reach marine
S2uictuary boundaries. However, EPA has not
previously designated an incineration site in the area
of the Sanctuary; Title I S regulatory guidance has
therefore yet to be apphed with regard to this
specific type of designation.
3. Offshore Industrial Materials Development
Note to Reviewers: Pursuant to P.L. 102-587
(§2202(d)), the exploration for and mining of sand
and gravel and other minerals in the Sanctuary is
prohibited. This legislative mandate is consistent
the NOAAS preferred alternative, as described
below.
a. No Sanctuary Regulation: There are no
ciurent proposals to initiate extraction activities for
industrial materials (i.e., sand and gravel resources)
piu-suant to the provisions of the OCSLA. The
Minerals Management Service, within DOI, has
identified Stellwagen Bank as a potential source for
these materials; however, substantial preliminary
exploratory activities would be necessary prior to
consideration of actual lease offerings by DOI. No
overall leasing plan has yet been developed by DOI
for development of industrial materials. Should
DOI develop such a plan and offer offshore areas
within the Sanctuary for sand and gravel extraction
operations, NOAA would exercise the same
authorities for certification and conditioning of
leases as described later in this section, with respect
to offshore oil and gas leasing activities (see
following item #8, 'Offshore Hydrocarbon
Development').
Since only cursory assessment of offshore sand
and gravel resources has been made to date,
significant further exploration and delineation are
necessary prior to actual mining activities on
Stellwagen Bank. The MMS is developing an
overall, case-by-case leasing program in cooperation
with States, to match analysis and regulatory
controls with the wide variety of environmental and
operational issues associated with offshore mining.
Following issuance of any leases, the MMS would
require detailed exploratory eind site-specific mining
plans. Before commencement of operations, those
plans would have to be assessed in terms of both
long- and short-term environmental effects,
particularly on hving resources of the Bank, before
actual mining could proceed.
b. Identify the Activity as Subject to Sanctuary
Regulation: Under this alternative, no regulation of
offshore sand and gravel mining would be proposed
at this time. In the event of the development of
actual proposals for sand and gravel extraction
activities (following MMSi implementation of a
leasing program for industrial materials under the
OCSLA), NOAA will impose Sanctuary regulation
of this activity, in order to make determinations of
measures necessary for the protection of Sanctuary
resources and qualities.
Such regulation would require, at a minimum,
no initiation of activities to develop industrial
materials until thorough investigation and
assessment are made of the feasibility of conducting
sand and gravel extraction (and related) activities in
a manner which ensures the protection of Sanctuary
resoiuces and quaUties.
It is possible that, based upon such
investigations and assessments. Sanctuary regulation
would result in a prohibition on all development
activities associated with the extraction of sand and
gravel (or other industrial materials) resources
within the Sanctuary.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 117
c. Regulation of the Activity: Sanctuary
regulation of industrial materials development
activities would result in one of two possible
options: permit under certain conditions, or
prohibit.
1) Permit Under Certain Conditions:
Under the option of permitting industrial materials
development activities imder certain conditions, a
Sanctuary regulation would be promulgated
restricting sand and gravel extraction to certain
levels and amounts; to certain areas of the
Sanctuary, and/or to certain seasons of the year.
These actions would be taken to avoid or to
minimize adverse impacts on particularly sensitive
jireas of the Sanctuary, such as fish spawning areas.
Development of specific Sanctuary regulations in
coordination with MMS, however, would be
necessary for protection of Sanctuary resources not
already incorporated into the MMS leasing process
to be imposed on lessees.
2) Prohibit: This is the preferred alternative.
A prohibition on sand and gravel extraction
activities would preserve the physical structure of
the Bank featiu-e, in addition to preventing the
physical (and possible chemical) disturbances
associated with extraction activities.
Physical disturbances resulting from extraction
operations would include destruction of benthic
biota; resuspension of fme sediments: and alteration
of the Banks surface profile. Additionally,
extraction activities may result in the introduction of
pollutants or undesirable nutrients, which in turn
would result in: interference with filtering, feeding,
and respiratory functions of marine organisms;
direct smothering of benthic species; loss of food
sources and habitat; lowered photosynthesis and
oxygen levels; and (possibly) degraded appearance
of the water itself.
Preservation of the Bank S physical structure
and profile is important to the continuation of the
cycle of seasonal upwellings, which generates the
high biological productivity of the Bank system.
Thus, the preferred regulatory alternative would
prevent any such alteration of the physical character
of the Sanctuary.
From the perspective of supply and demand
for mineral aggregate within the New England
region generally, it appears that the need to remove
sand and gravel resources from Stellwagen Bank in
order to supply regioned demand is questionable.
None of the large pubUc works projects currently
underway (i.e., the MWRA wastewater treatment
faciUty in Boston Harbor, the MDPW Central
Artery project, and the MDPW Third Harbor
Tunnel project), has identified Stellwagen Bank as
a possible source of construction materials.
Although all of these projects are in early phases of
construction, the time required for exploration,
permitting, and facihties construction associated
with a new marine mining operation at the
previously-unexploited Stellwagen Bank make it
highly unUkely that mineral aggregate materials
necessary for these metropoUtan Boston area
projects could be suppUed in time to be of direct
assistance.
Additionally, a recent progress report to the
New England Governors Conference on the
construction aggregate demand study under
development (Eastern Research Group, Inc., 1991),
made the observation that industry representative
survey respondents commented that while the
Boston projects (such as the harbor tunnel) will
rettim successful companies to better capacity rates
(80-85%), the projects will not, of themselves,
create a shortage of sand and gravel (or aggregate)
resources. The industry opinion here expressed,
therefore, is that sand and gravel resources from
Stellwagen Bank are not necessary for the
completion of the Boston area projects.
4. Alteration of. or Construction on. the
Seabed
a. No Regulation: Under this alternative, the
benthic resources and the seabed within the
Sanctuary would continue to be protected by
management measures available under existing
Federal statutes. Federal regulations governing
activities on the seabed would continue to apply
within the Sanctuary. There would be no particular
emphasis placed on the importance of either the
Bank feature or of the seabed in providing the
biologically rich area supporting fisheries, cetacean,
and seabird populations.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 118
Also under this alternative, NOAA would rely
on the regulatory requirements of existing
authorities to ensure the protection of the Bank
during the construction and operation of man-made
structiu-es, such as artificial platform facihties.
Assuming all such requirements are satisfactorily
met, there would be no particular safeguards (unless
permits issued for this activity incorporate specific
conditions) against discharges from the facihty
entering the Sanctuary and possibly causing harm to
a Sanctuary resource or quality. Additionally, the
scope of consultations conducted under the
Endangered Species Act perteiin only to those
species currently listed as threatened or endangered;
full consideration of effects on all Uving marine
resources is not addressed. Under the 'ho
regulation "alternative, therefore, there remeiin gaps
in protection against possible adverse effects of
seabed alterations.
b. Regulation of Alteration of, or Construction
on, the Seabed: The preferred alternative is to
prohibit the alteration of, or construction on, the
seabed, or the placement or abandonment of any
structure or material on the seabed; or the attempt
to do so for any purpose other than anchoring
vessels; bottom trawling or dredging resulting from
traditional commercial fishing operations; routine
navigation operations; and ecological maintenance.
The intent of this regulation is to protect the
resources of the Sanctuary from the harmful effects
of activities such as, but not limited to: excavation
of historical and/or cultural resources; drilling into
the seabed; or ocean mineral extraction. This
regulation is also mtended to prohibit the placement
of man-made objects or structures on the seabed,
such as, but not limited to, pilings, supports or
anchors for artificial platforms or islands; and
submerged pipelines and cables. This regulation
includes abandonment (which may include vessels
that have run aground), and thereby ensures that
vessel owners are responsible for the removal of
such vessels.
5. Mariculture Activities
Beyond existing requirements related to
construction and maintenance of offshore fish-
raising facihties, there are no regulatory controls
currently imposed on the placement of large
amounts of manufactured fish feed into the marine
environment. Inasmuch as this type of activity is
untested in an ocean location subject to strong
storm events, it is unclear whether the proposed
structure can withstand such events, and what the
environmental and impacts would be if the structure
broke apart during such an event.
a. No Sanctuary Regulation: Under this
regiilatory alternative, the initiation of mariculture
operations would be subject to existing regulatory
procedures at § 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
of 1899, administered by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and coordinating Federal resource
agencies. These regulations address the
construction, installation and maintenance of any
offshore tethered facihty for raising fish as a
commercial enterprise. Additionally, the activity
would be subject to the requirements of § 402 of
the Clean Water Act (Nationid Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System, or NPDES), administered by
the U.S. EPA. CompUance with these existing
regulations would also likely require that conditions
be attached to the operation, including an
endangered species 'honitoring" program
requirement, conducted regularly by on-site fish pen
operators, to ascertain any interaction between
endangered species and fish pens.
It is likely that existing guidance from the
COE for the permitting of fish pen mariculture
activities would preclude the permitting of any fish
pen mariculture operation in a designated National
Marine Sanctuary. In the COE guidance document.
Information Required for Department of the Army
Permits: Aquaculture (Floating Fish Pen) Projects"
(dated 25 November, 1988), fish farms are
prohibited from areas 'hamed in Acts of Congress
or Presidential Proclamations as National Rivers,
National Wilderness Areas, National Seashores,
National Recreation Areas, National Lakeshores,
National Parks, Monimients, or Wildlife Refuges,
and such areas as may be established under federal
law for similar or related purposes." [Emphasis
added.] While National Marine Sanctuaries are not
specifically hsted in this guidance, this prohibition is
apphcable to National Marine Sanctuary areas.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 119
b. Identify the Activity as Subject to
Regulation: This is the preferred regulatory
alternative. Currently, there is no proposed under
consideration for the establishment of a mariculture
facility and operation within, or nearby, the
Sanctuary boundary. Given the concerns previously
raised regarding structure stabiUty, the proximity of
vessel traffic lanes, the proximity to Department of
Navy air and sea operations, possible entanglement
or other harm to marine mammals and seabirds,
water quaUty issues, and private commercial use of
Federal waters, as well as current COE guidance
related to the siting of fish pen operations, it is
unlikely that any maricultiue proposal directly
involving Sanctuary waters will be proposed in the
future. However, in the event of a future proposal
for the establishment of a mariculture operation
within the Sanctuary boundary, NOAA will
determine, \aa a rule-mciking process, the necessity
for a prohibition or other restriction on such
activity.
c. Prohibit Mariculture Operations Within the
Sanctuary. A prohibition on the placement and
operation of a commercial fish-rearing faciUty
within the boundaries of the Sanctuary would ensure
the prevention of any marine mammal (endangered
or otherwise), seabird, or other living resource
confUct with fish pens. A prohibition would also
prevent any possible adverse impacts on Uving or
non-living resources which might result from the
deposit of large amounts of fish feed into the
marine environment. Finally, a prohibition on this
activity within the Sanctuary affirms one of the
Sanctuary S objectives, which is public use consistent
with the overall Program goal of resource
protection.
6. Removing. Taking or Injuring Historical
or Cultural Resources
a. No Sanctuary Regulation: Under this
alternative, all cultural and historical resources
would remain protected under the existing
management regime. Any historical or cultural
resources within the Sanctuary, notably those
eUgible for listing on the National Register under
the National Historic Preservation Act, would be
carefully monitored by Sanctuary staff, once such
designation is made. Additionally, any future
activity leading to the discovery or finding of
cultural or historical resources would be carefully
monitored and any regulations or management
actions necessary for the protection of those
resources would be decided on a case-by-case basis.
The Sanctuary would ensure that information is
made available regarding the national significance of
such resources, and that appropriate management
measures are implemented.
b. Prohibit the Removal, Taking, or Injuring
of Historical or Cultural Resources: This is the
preferred regulatory alternative. A prohibition
provides the means necessary to protect and
manage any historical and/or culturiil resources that
may be in the Sanctuary, particularly until an
inventory can be performed to document the
presence of such resources. Under this alternative,
a prohibition on removing, taking, or injuring, or
attempting to take, remove, or injure historical
and/or cultural resources would apply throughout
the Sanctuary. NOAA intends to conduct an
inventory of historical/cultural resources, following
SanctUEiry designation, to determine whether any
such resources are eUgible for listing on the
National Register.
7. Taking of Marine Reptiles. Marine
Mammals, and Seabirds
a. No Regulation: Under this alternative,
protection would continue to be provided to marine
mammals generally, under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA); to certain species of
marine mammals, seabirds, and marine reptiles
protected under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA); and to migratory seabirds generally imder
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Marine
reptiles, marine mammals, and seabirds would
continue to be protected on a species-by-species and
case-by-case basis, without particular consideration
of the importance of their role within this
ecosystem.
b. Prohibit Taking Marine Reptiles, Marine
Mammals, and Seabirds: This is the preferred
regulatory alternative. This provision would
prohibit taking (including harassment) activities
involving marine reptiles (sea txutles), marine
mammals, and seabirds in the Sanctuary, unless
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 120
conducted pursuant to a Sanctuary permit, or
otherwise permitted under the MMPA, ESA,
or the MBTA.
Marine mammals taken incidentally to
commercial fishing activities would continue to be
exempted from this prohibition, pending any
alteration of the current § 114 of the MMPA.
NOAA enforcement personnel would continue to
consider taking (or harassment) cases occurring in
the Sanctuary within the same context they are now
considered cmd reviewed under the Marine Memimal
Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.
Taking of these species would only be authorized
within the Sanctuary if the activities were conducted
pursuant to vaUd permits issued by the National
Marine Fisheries Service or the Fish and Wildlife
Service, or other managing agencies, including
special use permits issued by the Sanctuary. The
preferred regulation would overlap to some extent
with the MMPA, ESA, and the MBTA, but would
also extend protection to species not covered by
either of those statutes. The regulation
demonstrates the intent of the MPRSA to protect
Sanctuary resources on a holistic, or system-wide
basis. The preferred regulatory alternative would
provide such protection by effectively including all
seabirds, marine reptiles, and marine mammals in
the Sanctuary.
8. Offshore Hydrocarbon Development
a. No Regulation: Under the alternative of
no regulation, the Sanctuary S resource protection
regime would rely on provisions of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), as
administered by the Department of the Interior,
through the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and
Gas Five- Year Leasmg Program, and other DOI
programs developed to implement the ActS
provisions; the regulatory and management
framework of the Sanctuary; and other existing
Federal statutes to provide adequate protection for
Sanctuary resoiuces. Such other existing Federal
statutes include, for instance, the provisions of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act and the
Endangered Species Act, which provide protection
for certain marine species.
Although no leasing of OCS tracts is currently
permitted for areas within the Sanctuary until the
year 2000, the Five- Year OCS Leasing Program
may, following the expiration of the moratorium,
offer tracts in the area of the Sanctuary for
development of oil and gas resources. However,
results of exploratory drilling in this general area
have not indicated hydrocarbon reserves of
sufficient quantities to warrant significant industry
interest in exploitation of the Stellwagen Bank area.
Under the provisions of the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act and the National Environmental
Policy Act, thorough environmental review and the
opportunity for pubhc comment must occur prior to
any hydrocarbon development activities. If in the
future, areas within the Sanctuary are offered for
lease for hydrocarbon development and production
activities, NOAA has the authority to certify and
condition, or to deny such certification as necessary,
permits or other authorizations granted to operators
(lessees or contractors) by other authorities for
activities within the Sanctuary which are otherwise
prohibited by Sanctuary regulation. Such conditions
may include, but are not Umited to, estabhshment of
a monitoring program and scientific studies to
assess £ind measure the effects of hydrocarbon
activities, and of restrictions on discharges, on
Sanctuary resources. Conditions imposed by NOAA
or other authorities' permits will be made in
consultation with those agencies and with the
permitees.
Also, as with other activities, NOAA has the
authority to impose emergency restrictions
prohibiting any and all hydrocarbon activities (or
any other activities) within the Sanctuary to prevent
immediate, serious amd irreversible dsimage to a
Sanctuary resource or quaUty. In accordance with
Title III regulations, such emergency regulations
would remain in effect for not more than 120 days,
during which time permanent regulations may be
proposed by NOAA.
b. Identify the Activity as Subject to Sanctuary
Regulation: This is the preferred regulatory
alternative. No regulation of offshore hydrocarbon
development activities is proposed at this time.
However, in the event of increased industry interest
in exploitation of the Stellwagen Bank area for oil
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 121
and gas resources (following the expiration of the
current moratorium on leasing activities La the year
2000), NOAA will impose Sanctuary regulation of
this activity, in order to make determinations of
measures necessary for the protection of Sanctuary
resources and quaUties.
At a minimum, such regulation would require
that no hydrocarbon development activities be
permitted within the Sanctuary before the
completion of thorough investigation into the
feasibility of conducting such development activities
in a manner which ensures no harm to Sanctuary
resources or quahties.
At a maximum, such regulation would result in
a Sanctuary prohibition on development of
hydrocarbon resources within Sanctuary boundaries.
NOAA regulation of this activity would be
determined following a Sanctuary rulemaking
process, which includes opportunity for pubUc and
agency comment.
c. Regulation of the Activity: Sanctuary
regulation of hydrocarbon development activities
would result in one of two possible options: permit
under certain conditions, or prohibit.
1) Permit Under Certain Conditions: Under
the option of permitting hydrocarbon development
activities under certain conditions, a Sanctuary
regulation would be promulgated prohibiting oil and
gas activities within specified discrete areas within
the Sanctuary. Such areas could include identified
habitats over and around the Stellwagen Bank which
are especially fragile and vulnerable to the effects of
oil and gas development activities. If permitted
under Sanctuary regulation, such hydrocarbon
activities could be conducted only if executed with
discharge and/or monitoring requirements.
Monitoring requirements would be similar to the
following:
Within specified areas of the Sanctuary, the
operator (lessee) is required to submit a
monitoring plan to assess the effects of oil and
gas exploration, development and operations
on the biotic communities of the Sanctuary.
Monitoring investigations are to be conducted
by qualified, independent scientific personnel.
These personnel and all required equipment
must be available at the time of operations.
The monitoring team must submit its findings
to the Minerals Management Service Regional
Manager (RM) (North Atlantic OCS Office)
and to the SRD in accordamce with a pre-
established schedule. The fmdings must be
submitted immediately in case of imminent
danger to the biota of the Simctuary resulting
from drilling or other operations. If it is
determined by the RM, in consultation with
the SRD, that surface disposal of drilling fluids
presents no danger to the Sanctuary, no
further monitoring of that particular well or
platform is required. If, however, the
monitoring program indicates that the biota of
the Sanctuary are being harmed, or if there is
any likelihood that a particular well or
platform may cause harm to the biota of the
Sanctuary, the RM and SRD shall require
implementation of mitigating measures such
as: (1) the disposition of all drill cuttings and
fluids by barging, or by shunting the material
through a down pipe that terminates an
appropriate distance, but no more than 10
meters, from the bottom, or (2) other
appropriate operational restrictions.
2. Prohibit: The biological resources of the
Stellwagen Bank system, especially endangered
northern right whales, humpback whales, fm whales,
and other cetaceans, pinnipeds, seabirds, marine
turtles, and commercially-important fisheries and
other fishes and invertebrates, are vulnerable to the
effects of oil and gas development activities. A
prohibition on oil and gas activities within the
Sanctuary S boundaries would provide permanent
protection to these and other resources. However,
because of the current moratorium on hydrocarbon
development activities in this area, such prohibition
is unnecessary at this time, and would result in
duplicative regulation. — -- _
9. Operation of Commercial Vessels
a. No Regulation: The term 'tommercial
vessel "includes any vessel engaged in the trade of
carrying cargo, including but not limited to tankers
and other bulk carriers and barges, vessels used in
seismic surveys, and vessels engaged in the trade of
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 122
servicing offshore installations. The operation of
commercial vessels is currently controlled by
existing Coast Guard regulations. Under the 'ho
regulation" alternative, commercial vessels would
still be subject to the Sanctuary S regulations
relating to discharges.
Under this alternative, the Sanctuary program
would work with existing agencies and authorities
recommending investigations into the level of
commercial vessel collisions with cetaceans to
determine the need for reducing vessel speeds
during seasons when cetaceans are present in the
area of the Sanctuary, or during other times which
may require reductions in speed, or other measures
necessary for the prevention of such coUisions.
b. Identify the Activity as Subject to Sanctuary
Regulation: This is the preferred regulatory
alternative. NOAA beUeves there is insufficient
documentation presently available related to vessel
speed and collisions with cetaceans to justify the
imposition of speed limitations on commercial
vessels within the Sanctuary at this time.
Further data are necess2U7 to determine the
level of vessel collisions with cetaceans and to make
soimd decisions regarding the protection of
Sanctuary resources, such as seasonal (or other)
restrictions on vessel speeds, or on other vessel
activities in the proximity of cetaceans within the
Sanctuary. The Sanctuary program will support
investigations into commercial vessel speeds and the
incidence of collisions with cetaceans. Investigations
into the feasibiUty of communicating real time
sighting data to commercial vessels in the Sanctuary
is also a possible area of Sanctuary support, as well
as enhancement of information available to
commercial shippers and the public on
vessel/cetacean interactions.
If the results of such further investigations
demonstrate that current commercial vessel speeds
are causing harm to S2mctuary resources (i.e.,
cetaceans), and that seasonal (or other) reductions
in commercial vessel speeds would significantly
reduce the level of harm, then the Sanctuary would
impose, through regulation, seasonal (or other)
restrictions on commercial vessel speeds through the
Sanctuary. Documentation of conflicts is required
before a recommendation can be supported for
seasonal restrictions on commercial vessel speed.
Also, any proposed regulation affecting the
navigation of vessels on the high seas is subject to
endorsement by the International Maritime
Organization (IMO), before its application to
foreign vessels.
c. Regulation of Commercial Vessels: Under
this alternative, reductions in commercial vessel
speed (or other restrictions) would be imposed
during seasons when endangered cetaceans are
present in the area of the Sanctuary. The
Sanctuary program would propose coordination of
Sanctuary enforcement personnel with National
Marine Fisheries Service agents and other cetacean
research organizations to provide enforcement of
this regulation.
Although the immediate regulation of
commercial vessel speed may have some benefit on
endangered cetaceans in the Sanctuary, NOAA
beheves there currently is no firm evidence that
such regulation is necessary, or therefore
supportable.
10. Lightering
a. No Regulation: Under this regulatory
alternative, existing authorities affecting the at-sea,
ship-to-ship transfer of petroleum products would
continue in effect. Any Ughtering activities
occurring within the Sanctuary would be regiilated
via the Oil Pollution Control Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C.
§ 2701).
b. Identify the Activity as Subject to
Regulation: Lightering presently occurs in areas
closer to shore, e.g., within and just outside Boston
Harbor. There is no current information indicating
that Ughtering occurs in the area of the Sanctuary.
In the event that Ughtering activities may be pro-
posed to occur within the Sanctuary in the future,
NOAA will consider the need to regulate this
activity, to ensure the safety of Sanctuary resources
and qualities.
c. Regulate the Activity: This is the preferred
regulatory alternative. Under this regulatory
alternative, NOAA would impose a prohibition on
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 123
lightering within the boundaries of the Sanctuary.
While there is no firm information indicating that
Lightering presently occurs within the area of the
Sanctuary, and although any possible future
lightering activities occurring in this area would be
regulated by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, it is not
likely that such activities would be directly
monitored by the U.S. Coast Guard, given their
distance from shore.
Sanctuary regulation of lightering, via a
prohibition, would prevent any accidental spillage of
petroleum products resulting from this activity,
thereby providing better protection of Sanctuary
resources and qualities. A prohibition on hghtering
would also provide the opportunity, via Sanctuary
enforcement personnel, for an extended area of
observation to ensure that no potential threats to
the marine environment occur as a result of this
possible activity.
11. Operation of Commercial Charterboats
The licensing and operation of commercial
whalewatch and sportfishing vessels, like commercial
fishing vessels, are regxilated by existing authorities.
Licensing requirements will not be changed by
Sanctuary designation, nor will any existing
requirements or restrictions on vessel operations be
affected. Guidelines or regulations relating to vessel
operation in the vicinity of marine mammals apply
to all commercial fishing, commercial whalewatch,
and commercial sportfishing vessels, as well as to
recreational/private vessels. Those guidelines or
regulations also will not be affected by Sanctuary
designation. The Sanctuary staff wiU work closely
with commercial vessel captains through the New
England Fishery Management Council and other
appropriate entities such as charterboat associations,
to ensure vessel operators are fully informed about
applicable requirements for their activities within
the Sanctuary.
a. No Regulation: The national whalewatching
vessel regulations currently being developed by
NMFS should provide mechanisms to ensure
protection for endangered and other whales in the
Sanctuary area from harassment by all vessel
operators. The Sanctuary staff will work closely
with NMFS managers to help ensure adequate
enforcement of NMFS whalewatching regulations.
The Sanctuary Program may also be able to provide
assistance in NMFS (and other) efforts to inform
the user public about vessel operation in the vicinity
of whales.
b. Identify the Activity as Subject to Sanctuary
Regulation: This is the preferred regulatory
alternative. NOAA recognizes that current NMFS
whalewatch guidelines are generally followed on a
voluntary basis by commercial whalewatch vessel
operators. Commercial sportfishing vessels are also
subject to current guidelines; however, as discussed
previously, the guidelines are not enforceable as
law. Therefore, real protection to marine mammals
is limited to the extent of voluntary compliance.
Additionally, there are currently no restrictions on
the number of whalewatch vessels operating in the
vicinity of marine mammals. Under the preferred
regulatory alternative, the Sanctuary staff will have
the necessary means to determine whether
regulations additional to the pending NMFS
whalewatch regulations are necessary. Additionally,
the Sanctuary staff will work closely with NMFS
personnel and whalewatch captains in making these
determinations.
c. Regulation of Whalewatching and
Sportfishing Vessels: Promulgation of
whalewatching and sportfishing vessel regulations in
the Sanctuary would provide for protection of
whales within the Sanctuary boundaries, but would
£ilso create regulations somewhat duplicative to
currently pending NMFS whalewatch regulations.
Moreover, there is presently no firm documentation
that additional regulations are necessary.
12. Operation of Recreational Vessels
a. No Regulation: Under this regulatory
alternative, existing authorities affecting the
operation of recreational (non-comroercial) vessels
would be relied upon for the protection of marine
mammals from harassment and/or collisions.
Those authorities include regulations implementing
the Endangered Species Act and the Marine
Mammal Protection Act. Whalewatch guidelines
for vessel operators in the Gulf of Maine would also
continue to apply to recreational vessels (although
those guidelines are not enforceable), until such
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 124
time as they are replaced with national whalewatch
regulations issued by NMFS.
Existing enforcement and educational outreach
efforts would likely continue at a minimal level,
relying largely on voluntary compliance with existing
authorities by vessel operators.
b. Identify the Activity as Subject to Sanctuary
Regulation: This is the preferred regulatory
alternative. NOAA believes that while NMFS
whalewatch regulations currently in development
will address the need to close the existing regulatory
gap related to enforcement of both commercial and
recreational whalewatch activities, it is nonetheless
likely that private, recreational vessel operators
(particularly those not engaged in whalewatching
activity), may not become informed of these
intended NMFS regulations. Because many
recreational vessels operate within the area of the
Sanctuary, NOAA also beUeves overall protection
and management of Sanctuary resources, especially
endangered cetaceans, would be enhanced by
NOAA ^ abihty to impose regulation of recreational
vessel operation if the need to do so arises in the
future.
To this end, NOAA intends to coordinate and
assist other agencies and organizations in the
development of better information on the incidence
of marine mammal/vessel collisions. NOAA will
also coordinate and work closely with NFMS and
cetacean research and educational organizations to
ensure that all vessel operators in the Sanctuary are
fully informed of existing regulations related to the
protection of marine mammals.
c. Regulate the Activity: Under this
alternative, NOAA would regulate recreational
(non-commercial) vessel operation within the
Sanctuary. Such regulation would hkely be focused
on vessel speeds and maneuvering in the proximity
of marine mammals, particularly during seasons of
the year when cetaceans are present in the
Sanctuary. These are the same management areas
ciurently being addressed by NMFS in its
development of national whalewatch regulations.
Therefore, NOAA believes additional regulation of
recreational vessel operation at this time is not
necessary. If the need for additional regulation is
demonstrated in the future, such need may be met
by the adoption of alternative b., above.
13. Installation or Placement of Submerged
PipeUnes and Cables
a. No Sanctu£U7 Regulation: Under this
alternative, the permitting of any activity involving
the installation of pipelines or cables on or adjacent
to Stellwagen Bank would be affected by the
Sanctuary designation only through comments
provided to the relevant regulatory authorities, who
must formally recognize the presence of the
Sanctuary to varying degrees. If the activity is
subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (i.e.,
any portion of the project within territorial waters
and involving the placement of 'fill'), it would be
subject to greater scrutiny by Federal permitting
agencies because it would pass through the
Sanctuary, which would be considered a 'ipecial
aquatic site',' as defined in the CWAS Section
404(b)(1) guidelines. The project would also be
subject to various state authorizations, including
CZM Federal Consistency and Water QuaUty
Certification, which would informally acknowledge
the presence of the Sanctuary in their permitting
reviews. This alternative would place few
administrative burdens on Sanctuary management
beyond commenting to regulatory agencies on any
proposed project involving the installation of
pipelines or cables.
b. Installation Subject to Sanctuary
Certification: As a regulated activity imder the
provisions of Title III (Section 310), a Special Use
Permit could be issued for each proposal involving
the installation of pipelines or cables. Given the
generally-held view that most installations would
result in few significant environmental impacts, the
Special Use Permit process, or the certification of
other permits would allow the Sainctuary the
flexibility to accommodate acceptable projects.
However, the problems associated with potential
leaks in pipelines and electrical cables would
remain.
It does not appear likely that such projects will
be proposed in the foreseeable futiu^e. If such a
project is proposed, a review would be undertaken
by the Sanctuary staff, and a permit processed
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 125
under standard Title III procedures for such actions.
The use of the process allowing for certification of
other permits would be somewhat less burdensome
administratively than the Special Use Permit
process.
c. Prohibition of Installation Within Scmctuary
Boundaries: This is the preferred regulatory
alternative. Under this option, the installation of
pipelines or submarine cables within the Sanctuary
would be prohibited. This prohibition would
eliminate any possibiUty of damage-induced leaks
within the Sanctuary in pipelines and electrical
cables, as well as any potential adverse impacts
associated with installation. Additionally, possible
damage to fish spawning areas, fishing gear, or
archeologjcal sites will be prevented by adoption of
this alternative.
14. Fishing Activities
a. No Regulation: This is the preferred
regulatory alternative. Under the regulatory status
quo, commercial fishing activities, as well as some
recreational fishing activities, would continue to be
regulated by various fishery management plans
(FMPs) developed by Fishery Management Councils
and approved by the Secretary of Commerce.
Implementation of FMPs would continue to be the
responsibility of NMFS, the U.S. Coast Guard, and
an FMP Technical Monitoring Group. Fishing
activities involving Atlantic bluefin tuna would
continue to be subject to landing quotas established
via the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), and
allocated through NMFS. (Note, however, the
recent inclusion of the bluefin tima fishery into the
reauthorization of the FCMA, in order to enhance
NMFS^ abiUty to provide improved species
management.)
In addition to direct regulation imposed
through FMPs, fishing activities are also subject to
existing regulations pertaining to provisions of the
MMPA and the ESA, as well as to NMFS
guidelines related to operation of fishing vessels in
proximity to marine mammals.
Within the context of NO AA 5 consideration of
this area for National Marine Sanctuary designation.
fisheries have been identified as a resource of
national significance. Also established is the
presently overfished, or potentially overfished, status
of several groundfish stocks within the Sanctuary
and the extended marine areas surrounding it. A
primary objective under Title III is to ensure the
long-term protection and viability of this resource.
As discussed at Part Two, Section Il.C.l.d., the
regulatory mechanism established by the FCMA
provides for comprehensive authority over fishing
activities. NOAA/OCRM beheves the existing
mechanism for regulation of fishing is appropriate
and sufficient to attain the objective of species
protection and maintenance shared by the FCMA
and Title III. NOAA/OCRM recognizes, however,
that the current implementation of that existing
mechanism is inadequate. In response to the
identified problems, a number of initiatives have
been implemented to restore depleted stocks, and to
better manage fisheries generally.
NOAA/OCRM does not believe the
imposition of Sanctuary fishing regulations would
provide any constructive benefit to the issues
currently being addressed by other authorities. One
factor in this determination is the existing authority
of the Fishery Management Councils and NMFS to
address fisheries management from the perspective
of a larger geographic area than that encompassed
by the Sanctuary. In addition, NOAA/OCRM
believes that appropriate Sanctuary management
does not necessarily mandate regulation. In this
instance, the role of the Sanctuary should be to
work in close coordination with both NMFS and the
Fishery Management Coimcils to ensure that:
necessary scientific and management information is
provided; appropriate information to the user and
other concerned pubUc is provided; and assistance
in enforcement efforts is made available.
b. Identify the Activity as Subject to
Regulation: Under this regulatory alternative, no
Sanctuary regulation of fishing activities would be
proposed at this time. The appropriate Fishery
Management Councils and NFMS would continue
to exercise their mandates under the FCMA, and in
response to recent initiatives to restore depleted
groundfish stocks. However, under this alternative,
NOAA/OCRM would be provided with the means
to fill any regulatory gap related to fishing activities
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Page 126
which may be identified in the future. No Sanctuary
regulation of fishing activities would be proposed,
however, without following the procedures required
by Title III of the MPRSA (found at 15 CFR
§ 922.31(f))- Those procedures include providing
the appropriate fishery management council the
opportimity to prepare and recommend draft
regulations for fishing within the Sanctuary.
c. Regulation of Fishing Activities: Under this
regulatory alternative, NOAA/OCRM would
regulate fishing activities in the Sanctuary. The
intent of such regulation would be the preservation
of fishery resources, which have been identified as
a nationally-significant quality of the Sanctuary.
However, such measures by the Sanctuary would
also create duplicative and overlapping regulations.
Such regulations are not supported by a
demonstrated need, particularly in Ught of recent
management mandates imposed upon the FMCs
and NMFS to rectify the currently-overfished status
of several groundfish stocks within the Sanctuary
area.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 127
PART FOUR: ENVIRONMENTAL AND
SOCIOECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF
SANCTUARY DESIGNATION
Section I: Environmental Consequences of
Alternatives
In selecting appropriate institutional, boundary,
management and regulatory alternatives for the
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA
evaluated the environmental consequences of their
implementation. This section discusses these
consequences.
A. Status Quo Alternative
Under the status quo alternative, no
implementation of the Congression2Ll designation
would occur. In addition to the prohibition on
mining of sand and gravel resources within the
Sanctuary mandated by the Congressional
designation (P.L. 102-587, §2202), other existing
Federal and State authorities would be reUed upon
for long-term protection and management of the
Stellwagen Bank area and its resources. Existing
resoiu-ce protection and management authorities,
however, are generally mandated to manage single
species or areas of particular human activities.
Apart from the efforts of some private
organizations, there is very httle potential under
existing management authorities for education/
interpretive activities addressing the Stellwagen
Bank area. Likewise, scientific studies involving the
Bank area generally are focused on individual
species or human activities. While the data
resulting from these studies are unquestionably
useful, there are limited mechanisms for
coordinating and disseminating these data to
decisionmakers who must address the multiple
facets of ocean system management. Existing
mechanisms also do not provide for the long-term
monitoring and assessment of biological and other
trends occurring in the Stellwagen Bank system.
Such assessment of resources and environmental
conditions is critical to determinations on both the
adequacy of current regulatory and management
schemes, and on the specific regulatory and
management needs for this system. The status quo
alternative would leave to chance coordination
among research, education, and management
institutions.
Significant gaps in the protection of the overall
Stellwagen Bank system would remain, due to the
structure of single-resource management or
individual human activity management authorities.
These gaps have become more visible as the results
of real or potential human activities have been
identified. There is little question that human
activities directly involving the Stellwagen Bank and
its resources will increase in the future, and existing
authorities may well lose their abiUty to fimction at
full effectiveness. As both human uses and
individual agency mandates increase, so too does
the potential for overlapping and confusing
jurisdictional authorities. There is presently no
single institutional entity with the abiUty to facihtate
confUct resolution; given the variety and level of
human uses, such a presence would greatly enhance
overall system protection.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts's Ocean
Sanctuaries Program is primarily a regulatory
mechanism available to control human activities
occurring within designated areas. The Program
does not, however, attempt to inform the public
about the need to protect these areas, nor does it
engage in long-term monitoring and research
necessary for appropriate management of these
areas.
The Massachusetts Bays Program, initiated in
1988 by the Commonwealth (and now progressing
in cooperation with the Environmental Protection
Agency, through its National Estuary Program), is
primarily focused on the development of a
comprehensive conservation and management plan
for the Bays areas. There are similar objectives
between this Program and the National Marine
Sanctuary Program, and thus the potential exists for
a natural link between programs to achieve a
coordinated, comprehensive, and long-term
management scheme for the entire Massachusetts
Bay/Cape Cod Bay/Stellwagen Bank ecosystem.
Without Sanctuary designation, however, there will
be Httle attention directed at the Stellwagen Bank
environment, which is immediately adjacent to the
Bays areas, and directly influences it.
Thus, the environmental consequences of not
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 128
implementing the National Marine Sanctuary
designation at Stellwagen Bank are likely to be
negative over time, resulting in part from a
fragmented approach to resource protection and
human activity management.
1. Resource Protection
Resource protection directed at species and
individual habitats currently is the responsibihty of
a limited number of Federal authorities, including
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMI^), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the U.S. Coast
Guard (USCG), and the U.S. Department of the
Interior (DOT). Agency responsibilities are
described in PART THREE, Section I.
a. Ocean Discbarge and Deposit Activities
Under the status quo alternative, protection of
the Stellwagen Bank environment from possible
harmful effects of deposit and discharge activities
would be dependent on existing regulatory
authorities which are mandated to conduct those
activities in an environmentally safe manner.
Currently, regulations exist addressing the
contamination of marine areas by deposits and
discharges from a variety of sources, including:
1) point sources (which require a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit); 2) discharges
of oil or other hazardous substances; and 3) ocean
dumping. These activities are regulated by the
Clean Water Act (CWA), Title I of the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA), Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), and the National Contingency Plan
(NCP).
The Clean Water Act prohibits discharge of oil
or other hazardous substances "which may affect
natural resources ... under the exclusive
management authority of the United States".
(33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1367). The National
Contingency Plan, established under the CWA,
includes guidance to contain, disperse, or remove oil
and hazardous substances following a spill.
Although the CWA provides some protection for
marine resources, its penalties for violation are
minimal, and do not provide strong disincentives.
In contrast, violation of Title III regulations under
the MPRSA (establishing the National Marine
Seinctuary Progrcim) carries maximum penalties of
$50,000 per day.
The CWA also controls discharges from point
sources through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), which issues permits
for discharge activities in navigable waters.
Title I of MPRSA prohibits nearly all ocean
disposal activities. It allows certain disposal actions
under permits issued (in the instance of dredged
materials) by the Corps of Engineers. Title I is
administered by the EPA.
While effective management and administration
of these authorities provide reasonable protection
for the resources in the immediate vicinity of the
activity in question, there is no particular
consideration given at the time of permit application
review to the overall marine system in which these
activities occur. Therefore, in the absence of
implementing the National Marine Sanctuary
designation, individual deposit and discharge
activities will continue to be regulated by existing
authorities, without the benefit of a comprehensive
perspective of the possible cumulative effects of
such activities on the surrounding marine
enviroimient.
In the absence of continuing research/
monitoring and review from the wider perspective
of effects on the Stellwagen Bank system, it may be
anticipated that the environmental effects of the
status quo alternative are potentially negative over
the long-term.
b. Ocean Incineration
At present, there is no site designated for
ocean incineration, pursuant to Title I of the
MPRSA, nor is there a pending proposal for
incineration activities within the Sanctuary's
boundaries. Under the status quo alternative,
although proposals for ocean incineration activities
would be required to meet the provisions of
MPRSA's Title I (40 CFR §§ 220.3(f) and 228.4(b)),
there is no particular assurance that: 1) an ocean
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 129
incineration site would not be designated within the
Sanctuary; or 2) in the absence of a designated
ocean incineration site, that a "research" or "interim"
permit for ocean incineration would not be granted
for areas within the Sanctuary.
Thus, the status quo alternative would offer no
particular protection for Sanctuary resources and
quahties from the effects of ocean incineration
activities. The environmental consequences of
possible incineration activities on Sanctuary
resoiu-ces are presently not fully known. At a
minimum, it may reasonably be anticipated that
ocean incineration activities within the Sanctuary
would adversely affect the site's aesthetic qualities.
Therefore, adoption of the status quo alternative
may be expected to leave open the potential for
adverse impacts on Sanctuary qualities and/or
resources.
c. Offshore Industrial Materials
Development
Pursuant to §2202(d) of P.L. 102-587,
exploration for, and mining of sand and gravel and
other minerals is prohibited within the Sanctuary.
Thus, the status quo alternative of no programmatic
implementation of the Congressional designation of
the Sanctuary would result in no environmental
consequences to the productivity of the Bank and
thus to the living resources dependent upon the
Bank beyond those resulting from the Congressional
prohibition.
d. Alteration of or Construction on the
Seabed
The status quo alternative would result in
rehance on existing Federal authorities to protect
the seabed from the effects of various human
activities, e.g., the construction of fixed artificial
platforms. However, during the permit evaluation
process, no particular emphasis or attention would
be afforded to the importance of the Stellwagen
Bank feature and the area surrounding it. The
environmental consequences of the status quo
alternative are somewhat uncertain, depending upon
the emphasis given to the Bank feature itself when
considering permit requests.
e. Mariculture Activities
Under the status quo alternative, the siting,
establishment, and operation of any mariculture
facility would remain subject to existing authorities.
These authorities include specific requirements
under § 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, §§ 402
and 404 of the Clean Water Act, and various permit
conditions related to the protection of endangered
species and marine mammals. In addition, the
issuance of permits for the construction of
mariculture facilities generally are also subject to
existing COE giiidance prohibiting the siting of such
facilities in sensitive areas designated by Act of
Congress, Presidential Proclamation, or federal
agencies (although this guidance does not
specifically identify National Marine Sanctuaries as
such "sensitive areas").
Assuming successful compliance with these
requirements, a mariculture operation could be
established within the Sanctuary's boundary, or in
close proximity to the Sanctuary, under the status
quo alternative. This type of operation is largely
imtested in ocean areas such as that around the
Stellwagen Bank feature. There may be potential
for fish pen structure damage during storm events.
There edso may be some potential for marine
mammal, marine reptile, seabird, or other fish
entanglement, notwithstanding permit conditions
designed to prevent such occurrences. Additionally,
issues related to permanent private commercial uses
of Federal waters would not be addressed.
In general, the environmental consequences of
the status quo alternative are somewhat
unpredictable, but are, at a minimum, potentially
negative.
f. Removing. Taking or Injuring Historical
or Cultural Resources
There are some data existing on the presence
of shipwrecks within the Sanctuary which may be of
historical significance. However, a complete and
detailed inventory is lacking. Currently, there are
no such resources listed on the National Register
(under the Historic Preservation Act), administered
by the Department of the Interior. Although such
listing would make available possible fimding from
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 130
DOI for identification and assessment activities,
there is no protection against removal of, or damage
to, such resources. There also has been a recent
discovery of a potentially historical wreck, the
Portland. Under the status quo alternative, there
would be no special protection provided to these
resources in Federal waters.
The environmental consequences, therefore, of
the status quo alternative are anticipated to be
potentially negative to any such resources existing
within the Sanctuary.
g. Taking of Marine Mammals. Marine
Reptiles, or Seabirds
All marine mammals are afforded some
protection from taking under the provisions of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, as amended.
Additionally, threatened or endangered marine
mammals are also protected under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), as are marine reptiles (sea
turtles) and listed bird species. Migratory seabirds
generally are protected from taking activities by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), with the
exception of hunting licenses issued under that Act.
Despite these existing regulatory authorities,
protection is in reahty only provided on a case-by-
case basis, with no particular consideration of the
species' importance to the Stellwagen Bank system.
The status quo alternative would continue the
present regulatory regime; environmental
consequences would be anticipated as slightly
negative to the living resources of the Bank system,
when viewed from a long-term perspective.
h. Offshore Hydrocarbon Development
There is currently in place a moratorium on
leasing of OCS tracts in the area of Stellwagen
Bank until the year 2000. Therefore, the status quo
alternative would have no effect on the potential for
exploration, development, or production of hydro-
carbon resources in this area until at least 2000.
In the event of increased industry interest in
this area at a date beyond 2000, hydrocarbon
activities would be regulated by the provisions of the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments
(OCSLA), and a variety of additional regulations
and directives covering spill prevention; protection
of sensitive areas; and preservation of the marine
environment. However, despite these existing
protective regulations, there is still some potential
for environmental damage and/or general
degradation of the area resulting from exploration,
development, production, and transportation
operations.
Therefore, in the event of proposed OCS
leasing following the year 2000, the status quo
alternative may be anticipated to result in
potentially negative effects on the Bank system.
i. Operation of Commercial Vessels
The status quo alternative would not affect
ciu-rent vessel operations; existing Coast Guard
regulations would remain in effect. Under the
direction of the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), recommendations in the Draft Right
Whale Recovery Plan may result in future
investigations into the level of vessel collisions with
cetaceans, and the possible need to institute changes
in vessel speeds when traversing the Stellwagen
Bank area. These investigations, however, would
proceed independently imder the status quo
alternative.
There have been documented incidents of
commercial vessel coUisions with marine mammals
within the Sanctuary area. Recommendations have
come from both private and government sectors for
further investigation into commercial vessel/marine
mammal interactions, so that appropriate decisions
may be made regarding actions to reduce such
interactions. At this time, however, no specific
actions have been taken affecting commercial vessel
operation. The status quo alternative would rely on
existing authorities to address such interactions.
The enviroiunental consequences of the status quo
alternative are therefore not precisely known at this
time.
j. Lightering Activities
There is presently no confirmed documentation
that lightering occurs within the Sanctuary's
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 131
boundaries. The activity does occur, however, in
entrance areas to Boston Harbor. Lightering
activities are currently subject to the provisions of
the Oil Pollution Control Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. §
2701).
Under the status quo alternative, lightering
activities would continue to be monitored on a
discretionary, as needed basis by the U.S. Coast
Guard. Some Ughtering activities would also likely
continue to occur without prior notification by
vessel operators to the Coast Guard's Marine Safety
Office. There is always some potential for
accidental spillage of petroleum products into areas
near or inside Sanctuary boundaries during ship-to-
ship transfer operations. In the absence of direct
monitoring by the Coast Guard, there is also a
potential for delay in spill response actions.
Although the Ukelihood is remote, the status
quo alternative would result in the possibility for
accidental environmental damage to Sanctuary
resources and qualities resulting from spilled
petroleum products.
k. Operation of Commercial Charterboats
Under the status quo alternative, the operation
of commercial charterboats would not be affected;
existing applicable Coast Guard regulations would
remain in effect. Currently, NMFS whalewatch
guidelines apply to all vessels, whether or not they
are engaged in commercial operations. Generally,
these guidelines are adhered to by the commercial
charterboat industry via voluntary compUance.
There have been some incidents of marine mammal
harassment; and they may inadvertently continue,
particularly if the number of whalewatch,
sportfishing, and other vessels whose activities focus
on Stellwagen Bank increases. NMFS intends to
propose enforceable national whalewatch
regulations during 1992.
Environmental consequences of the status quo
alternative may be shghtly negative, given the lack
of enforceability of existing guidelines; the necessary
time involved in implementing enforceable
regulations; the realistic need to rely upon voluntary
compliance; and the lack of control over the
number of vessels (commercial or otherwise)
operating in proximity to marine mammals.
1. Operation of Recreational Vessels
The status quo alternative would have no effect
on operation of recreational vessels. All vessels,
including recreational vessels, are subject to ciurent
NMFS whalewatch guidelines designed to minimize
harassment of marine mammals. However,
recreational vessel operators are more likely to be
unaware of these guidelines, and may therefore be
more likely to violate them. There have been
instances of smaller, recreational vessels harassing
marine mammals within the Sanctuary area.
As is true with regard to the operation of
commercial vessels, the environmental consequences
of the status quo alternative may be shghtly
negative, for the same reasons cited for that activity.
m. Installation or Placement of Submerged
Cables and Pipelines
Under the status quo alternative, the placement
or installation of submerged cables or pipelines on
the seabed of the Sanctuary would be subject to
existing conditions imposed by current authorities.
These authorities may, depending upon various
circumstances, include § 404 of the Clean Water
Act. There would be no particular consideration
given to the possible effects of electrical
transmission cables or oil pipelines on Sanctuary
resoiu-ces or on fishing gear.
Additionally, the presence of pipelines or
electrical transmission cables within the Sanctuary
would always present the possibihty of leaks, which
could cause localized injury or mortahty to benthic
organisms, and could also contaminate surrounding
waters. The environmental consequences of the
status quo alternative are thus potentially negative
on Sanctuary resources and quaUties.
n. Fishing Activities
Under the status quo alternative, fishing in the
Sanctuary would continue to be regulated by the
New England Fishery Management Council and the
National Marine Fisheries Service, through fishery
management plans developed for various fisheries.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 132
Therefore, there are no consequences expected to
the conduct of fishing activities under the status quo
alternative. However, absent implementation of the
National Marine Sanctuary designation, there may
be anticipated indirect negative effects on fishing
activities through adverse environmental
consequences to the fishing environment, e.g.,
habitat degradation.
o. Defense Activities
The status quo alternative is not expected to
have any consequence to military activities, since
Sanctuary prohibitions or other restrictions set forth
in the Sanctuary regulations do not apply to
activities of the Department of the Defense (DOD)
or to the Coast Guard (USCG), if they: 1) are
being carried out as of the effective date of
Sanctuary designation; 2) have no potential for any
significant adverse impacts on Sanctuary resources
or qualities; or 3) are exempted by the NOAA
following consultation between the NOAA and the
Department of Defense (in instances where the
activities have a potential for significant adverse
impact on Sanctuary resources or qualities).
P-
Enforcement
Under the status quo alternative, the level of
enforcement presence would likely remain constant,
unless other existing regulatory authorities are able
to supplement funding necessary for enforcement
activities and personnel. The need for additionjd
enforcement, particularly in the areas of marine
mammal/vessel interactions and fishing activities,
has been identified; however, agency budgets have
generally precluded increasing existing levels of
personnel. The longer-term environmental effects
of static enforcement capabilities may be anticipated
to be negative to Sanctuary resources.
2. Research and Education
Under the status quo alternative, there will be
no research or education programs estabUshed that
focus on the national priorities of ensuring the long-
term protection of the Stellwagen Bank system.
Individual scientific studies of various single species,
or single issues will likely continue under the aegis
of private, university, or other governmental
agencies. There will be no particular mechanism
for coordination of research results and fmdings,
unless one is possibly developed under the
Massachusetts Bays Program for nearshore waters.
Additionally, it is unlikely that needed baseline or
monitoring data will be developed relative to the
Stellwagen Bank environment. Also, under the
status quo alternative, it is unlikely that any
concerted effort will be undertaken to locate and
identify potential historical or cultural resources
which may exist in the area of Stellwagen Bank.
Education or interpretive programs addressing
the importance of the Stellwagen Bank area will not
be developed under the status quo alternative.
Public information center(s) will not be estabhshed
to serve as focal points for the user and other
interested pubhc to learn about the significance of
Stellwagen Bank, and the importance of its
protection.
In general, the status quo alternative may, over
the long-term, contribute indirectly to the gradual
deterioration of the Stellwagen Bank system, if the
user and other public are not made aware, through
education and interpretation, of both its special
quahties and the importance of its long-term
protection and management.
3. Management
Under the status quo alternative, there will be
no comprehensive and integrated management of
the Stellwagen Bank area. Existing management
initiatives will continue as presently structured, i.e.,
the Ocejm Sanctuaries Program (Commonwealth of
Massachusetts); the Massachusetts Bays
Program/National Estuary Program
(Commonwealth of Massachusetts/EPA); the Gulf
of Maine Initiative (MA/NH/ME/Nova
Scotia/New Brunswick); and the Cape Cod National
Seashore (DOI) (Figure 23). Of these, the
Massachusetts Bays Program /National Estuary
Program is beginning development of a
comprehensive conservation and management plan
(CCMP) for the Bays area. The CCMP will not
directly include the Stellwagen Bank, which is
immediately adjacent to Massachusetts Bay. The
Gulf of Maine Initiative has developed the
framework for a coordinated monitoring program
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 133
v~^ Massachusetts
Bbv
FIGURE 23: CAPE COD NATIONAL SEASHORE
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 134
for the entire Gulf of Maine, and has implemented
pilot monitoring studies. Stellwagen Bank is
included within this large general area.
While these management initiatives are highly
worthwhile, under the status quo alternative there
would be no particular focus on management of the
Bank system; nor would there be established any
opportunities for local and regional involvement in
these efforts by those either directly or indirectly
dependent on the Bank's resources. As with
research and education/ interpretation programs,
therefore, it may be generally anticipated that the
status quo alternative (i.e., no Stellwagen Bank
management program), may result in gradual
deterioration or diminishment of the Bank's
resources.
B. Sanctuarv Designation: The Preferred
Alternative
Designation of the Stellwagen Bank National
Marine Sanctuary will permit the implementation of
a coordinated and comprehensive management
scheme, resulting in the most efficient means of
protecting the resources of the Stellwagen Bank
system. System-wide resource protection will be
promoted by Sanctuary designation in three ways: 1)
existing regulatory and resource protection
mechanisms will be enhanced, and resource
protection gaps filled; 2) a coordinated research
program will be established to expand current
knowledge of the Stellwagen Bank system, thus
providing the foundation for sound management;
and 3) a broad-based education/interpretive
program will be established to improve pubUc
understanding and appreciation of the importance
of the Stellwagen Bank system as habitat for a
nationally-significant community of marine
organisms providing important livelihoods; and of
the need for a comprehensive management
framework to ensure the future of this habitat.
The highly-productive, yet relatively unspoiled
environment of the Stellwagen Bank is unique, given
its proximity to several points of access, and the
relatively high levels of human activities. The
Stellwagen Bank area supports a variety of
important human activities: a large commercial
fishing industry and commercial whalewatching
industry, shipping, scientific research, education, and
recreation. Although the historic level of these
activities has not been intense, in recent years these
and other new planned human activities have begun
to indicate potential conflicts and adverse impacts
on the area's natural resources. Possible
development activities, such as extraction of sand
and gravel resources from the Bank feature itself,
have posed particular threats to the continued
vitality of the overall system. Also of concern are
the possible long-term consequences to living
resources of habitat degradation from activities such
as dredged materials disposal operations.
The preferred boundary alternative is
particularly appropriate for two reasons: it
encompasses identified important habitats, including
the entirety of the Stellwagen Bank feature, Tillies
Bank, and portions of Jeffreys Ledge, which
collectively support them; and it is immediately
adjacent to the boundaries of the Cape Cod Bay,
Cape Cod, and North Shore Ocean Sanctuaries,
already designated as protected areas by the
Commonwealth. The latter factor enhances the
potential for Federal-State coordination in working
toward effective ocean system management. The
Commonwealth of Massachusetts has long
recognized the importance of establishing long-term
and comprehensive management for coastal areas
and offshore areas subject to increasing pressures
from humjm activities. To that end, the
Commonwealth established its Ocean Sanctuaries
Program, to provide the mechanism for such
management. Although the Stellwagen Bank system
is uniformly recognized as an especially productive
area from which many residents make a living, it
occurs outside the boundaries of Commonwealth
jurisdiction, thus exposing it to the potentially
adverse effects of imcontroUed human activities.
Designation of the Stellwagen Bank National
Marine Sanctuary will allow NOAA to: 1) assist in
coordinating activities undertaken by existing
authorities (such as the Ocean Sanctuaries
Program); 2) support and coordinate research on
and monitoring of Bank resources; 3) enhance
pubUc awareness of and appreciation for the value
and sensitivity of the Bank system; 4) formulate
long-range plans for responding to currently
unforeseen threats to the Bank system; and 5)
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 135
regulate activities which either currently threaten
significant damage to the area's resources; or which
may pose greater adverse impacts on the area as
human activities increase. Acknowledgement of the
species and habitat values of the Stellwagen Bank
system, through Sanctuary designation, should focus
national, as well as regional, attention on the
importance of ensuring the future of this area.
1. Resource Protection Regime
Designation of the Sanctuary will improve
resource protection by instituting new regulatory
measures, and by enhancing present surveillance
and enforcement activities. The overall effect of
these proposed regulations, focused on specific
activities, will be beneficial to the Bank system. The
impacts of each regulation are discussed below.
a. Ocean Discharge and Deposit Activities
The following activities will be prohibited by
Sanctuary regulations:
• Discharging or depositing, within the boundary
of the Sanctuary, any material or other matter,
except for:
fish, fish parts and chumming materials
(bciit) used in or resulting from traditional
fishing operations in the Sanctuary;
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) excluding oily wastes from
bilge pumping); and
engine exhaust.
• Discharging or depositing, from beyond the
boundary of the Sanctuary, materials or
substances of any kind, other than those listed
above, that subsequently enter the Sanctuary
and injure a Sanctuary resource or Sanctuary
quality.
According to COE/EPA studies, disposed
dredged materials at the "interim" MBDS do not
enter the Sanctuary or harm Sanctuary resources or
quahties. Thus, disposal activities should continue
following the effective date of final Sanctuary
designation. In addition disposal of dredged
materials will be relocated to a permanently-
designated MBDS outside the Sanctuary. Assuming
disposal continues to be conducted without harm to
Sanctuary resources, no certification of disposal
permits will be required. However, NOAA will
actively participate in the EPA/COE review process
for disposal events to ensure the effects of such
disposal do not enter the Sanctuary and cause harm
to Sanctuary resoiu-ces or qualities. The preferred
Sanctuary regulatory alternative (prohibiting
disposal within the Sanctuary) is anticipated to be
beneficial to maintaining water quality (and thus
hving marine resources).
Although Title I and its regulations provide a
comprehensive framework for management and
regulation of ocean disposal of dredged materials,
they are nonetheless directed at a single activity. As
areas of "special national significance", national
marine sanctuaries require a broader context for
regulatory decision-making. The proposed
Sanctuary regulation, prohibiting discharge or
deposit activities from outside the Sanctuary
boundary which enter and harm resources or
qualities will improve and complement existing
regulatory mechanisms for ocean deposit and
discharge activities, by 1) imposing a larger, system-
wide framework upon those authorities empowered
to issue such permits, within which they would be
required to consider the merits (and effects) of such
activities; and 2) ensuring that those considerations
and determinations would be made based in part on
Sanctuary research data relevant to the proposed
disposal or discharge activity. ZHZ -
This expanded level of scrutiny due to national
marine sanctuary designation will aid in overall
efforts to maintain the reasonably good water
quahty currently found in the Stellwagen Bank
system, by ensuring that localized effects of disposal
actions are minimized and contained; and also by
providing the regulatory mechanism to stop such
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 136
disposal actions if they are determined to be
harmful to the Sanctuary's resources or qualities.
The preferred regulatory alternative of
prohibiting ocean outfall discharges into the
Sanctuary is anticipated to be environmentally
beneficial to Sanctuary resources and qualities. The
MWRA outfall, to be located approximately 12
miles from the Sanctuary site, will not likely be
^lffected directly by this prohibition. However, in
coordination with the Massachusetts Bays Program
(MBP), the Sanctuary will provide a larger
contextual framework for far-field monitoring and
consideration of possible effects to the Sanctuary
from the outfall.
b. Ocean Incineration Activities
Incineration in the Sanctuary of any materials,
such as waste and trash, from onboard any vessel,
will be prohibited in the Sanctuary.
The environmental consequences of a
prohibition on incineration of waste and trash
materials from onboard any vessels will be both
directly and indirectly beneficial to Sanctuary
resources and quahties. In addition to preventing
incineration activities from occurring within the
Sanctuary, this prohibition will effectively preclude
the possible designation of ocean incineration sites
within the Sanctuary under Title I of the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA). Sanctuary prohibition of this activity will
also prevent the issuance of any "research" or
"interim" permit under Title I regulations for ocean
incineration within the Sanctuary.
Although the environmental consequences of
ocean incineration activities on marine resources are
presently not fully known, the proposed prohibition
is, at a minimum, anticipated to be beneficial to the
Sanctuary's aesthetic qualities.
c. Offshore Industrial Materials
Development Activities
Exploring for, developing or producing clay,
stone, sand, gravel, metalliferous and
nonmetalliferous ores, and any other soHd material
or substances of commercial value ("industrial
materials") in the Sanctuary is prohibited.
The prohibition of sand and gravel mining
activities (classified as "industrial materials" by the
Minerals Management Service), is particularly
important to protection of the physical structure of
the Bank itself, whose features would be altered or
destroyed by development operations. Mining
technologies involve scraping the surface and
excavation of pits and tunnels into the surface.
Variations of these methods likely involve the use of
dredges, which unquestionably cause destruction of
existing benthic biota; resuspension of fine
sediments; and introduction of pollutants or
undesirable nutrients. These consequences may
result in interference with filtering, feeding, and
respiratory functions of marine organisms; loss of
food sources, spawning areas and other habitats;
diminished photosynthesis and oxygen levels, and
possibly degraded appearance of Sanctuary waters.
In addition to adverse effects on the living
resources of the Bank system, changes made to the
Bank feature would also hkely result in changes in
the causal relationship between the Bank and the
production of internal waves and seasonal upwelling,
both necessary to the biological productivity of the
Bank system. Given the national significance of the
Sanctuary's resources and the Bank feature which is
essential to the continued health and vitahty of the
overall system, the prohibition of sand and gravel
mining is necessary.
A prohibition on sand and gravel extraction
activities within the Sanctuary will prevent any
alteration of the physical structure of the Bank
feature, in addition to preventing physical and
possible chemical disturbances to the Bank and
surrounding water associated with extraction
activities.
The environmental consequences of a
prohibition on the extraction of sand and gravel
resources from the Stellwagen Bank feature, or
from areas surrounding the Bank therefore, will be
beneficial to Sanctuary resources and quahties.
Socioeconomic consequences of this regulation
may include the necessity for locating alternative
sources of sand and gravel deposits. However, from
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 137
the perspective of supply for the currently-initiated
or planned large public works projects in the Boston
metropohtan area, the need to remove sand and
gravel resources from Stellwagen Bank is highly
questionable. Additionally, the Bureau of Mines,
within the Department of the Interior, has already
performed preliminary investigations into other
potential sources for these materials; further
investigations would be needed before actual
development 2md production activities could
proceed. Such investigations would need to include
detailed cost-benefit analyses in order to rank sites
on an economic basis. Consideration of exact
material needs and availabiUty (e.g., grain size)
would also be necessary to assist in determining the
feasibility of commercial operations. It is unhkely
that Stellwagen Bank would be the most desirable
site available. Because of this and the availability of
additional sources of sand and gravel, any possible
negative socioeconomic consequences of a Sanctuary
prohibition are expected to be minimal.
d. Alteration of. or Construction on. the
Seabed
Constructing, placing, or abandoning on the
seabed of the Sanctuary any structure or material;
drilling through the seabed of the Sanctuary; or
dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of the
Sanctuary will be prohibited. This prohibition will
not apply if any of the above results from anchoring
vessels, commercial fishing, or installation of
navigation aids.
This proposed prohibition will prevent the
placement of fixed offshore platforms, or "artificial
islands" anywhere within the Sanctuary; and will also
prevent any other construction, placement, or
abandonment activities anywhere on the Sanctuary's
seabed. Included in this prohibition is the
placement or use of submerged pipehnes and
cables.
Effects of the construction and operation of the
currently-proposed offshore fixed platform include:
operation of necessary on-shore support facilities for
the platform; increased boat and barge traffic and
trips to and from Stellwagen Bank; interaction with
commercial and recreational fisheries on the Bank;
and potential environmental harm to fishery
resources and overall Bank ecology. The latter
effect would result from: construction activities;
volume and composition of discharges; fuel and
other spills occurring during transfer operations;
accidental loss of debris and litter; noise and light-
induced changes in fish behavior; potential
environmental harm to threatened and endangered
species of cetaceans and marine turtles resulting
from noise and vessel traffic; and interaction with
whalewatch vessels. The proposed prohibition will
preclude the development of this proposed artificial
platform anywhere within the Sanctuary; and the
environmental consequences of this proposed
regulation are anticipated to be beneficial to the
entire array of living and non-living resources in the
Stellwagen Bank system.
e. Mariculture Activities
Constructing, placing, operating, or maintaining
any structure relating to any phase of mariculture
activities will be subject to Sanctuary regulation. No
Sanctuary regulation of this activity is proposed at
this time. Therefore, there are no environmental or
socioeconomic consequences resulting from the
listing of this activity as subject to Sanctuary
regulation.
f. Removing. Taking or Injuring Historical
or Cultural Resources
Moving, possessing, or injuring, or attempting
to move, possess, or injure, a Sanctuary historical or
cultural resource will be prohibited in the Sanctuary.
This prohibition does not apply to accidental
moving, possession, or injury occurring during
traditional fishing operations.
This proposed regulation protects any historical
or cultural resources which may be located within
the Sanctuary. Currently, incomplete information
exists on the number, location and condition of tmy
historical or cultural resources which may be
situated within the Sanctuary; however, the
presence of some historical/cultural resources is
known. Following fmal Sanctuary designation,
efforts will be initiated to inventory
historical/cultural resources. Educational and
interpretive programs on submerged historical and
cultural resources in the Sanctuary will enhance the
public's involvement and understanding of the
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 138
importance of preserving these resources.
NOAA may also seek to have identified
resources Usted on the National Register, under the
National Historic Preservation Act. Such listing
would make survey and other funding available from
the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
(Department of the Interior), to assist in
identification of resource distribution and
historical/cultural significance. Such Usting does
not, however, prevent removal or djimage of
historical or cultural resources by non-Federal
entities. Therefore, the proposed regulation will
protect these resources from disturbance and
damage.
The environmental consequences of this
proposed prohibition will be beneficial to the
resources, and is not anticipated to affect other
existing activities in the Sanctuary.
g. Taking of Marine Mammals. Marine
Reptiles, or Seabirds
Taking of any marine mammal, marine reptile,
or seabird will be prohibited in the Sanctuary,
except for those marine mammals taken incidentally
to commercial fishing operations in accordance with
§ 114 of the MMPA; those marine species taken by
permit issued under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) or MMPA; or except for those seabirds
taken by permit issued under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (MBTA).
All marine mammals are provided with some
protection from "taking" under provisions of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, and threatened or
endangered marine mammal species are additionally
protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The ESA also protects marine reptiles (i.e., sea
turtles) from "taking", inasmuch as all species of sea
turtles are currently Usted as either threatened or
endangered. Migratory seabirds are generally
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and
particular species hsted as either threatened or
endangered under the ESA, and also protected from
taking.
Overall, these Acts only provide protection on
a case-by-case basis, without any particular
consideration given to the species' role within an
ecosystem. The proposed prohibition is designed to
provide equal protection to all marine mammals,
marine reptiles, and seabirds, in recognition of their
importance and inter-relationships within the
Sanctuary. (Marine mammals taken incidentally to
commercial fishing operations would continue to be
exempted from this prohibition, pursuant to §114 of
the Marine Mammal Protection Act.)
The environmental consequences of this
proposed regulation will be beneficial to the
Sanctuary's resources; and are not anticipated to
impose any economic or other hardships on
commercial users of the Sanctuary.
h. Offshore Hydrocarbon Development
Activities
The exploration for, development of, or
production of, offshore hydrocarbon resources will
be subject to Sanctuary regulation. No Sanctuary
regulation of this activity is proposed at this time.
Therefore, there are no environmental or socio-
economic consequences resulting from the Usting of
this activity as subject to Sanctuary regulation.
If, in the future, industry interest in the
SteUwagen Bank area increases, and there is no
Congressional or other existing moratoriimi
precluding leasing of OCS tracts over the Bank,
then a regulatory means exists for determining
whether restrictions or a prohibition on hydrocarbon
activities should be put into place within the
Sanctuary's boundaries.
The potential risks and adverse environmental
effects of oil and gas production include weU
blowouts; oil spills and pipeline leaks; noise and
visual disturbances; pollution from aquatic
discharges; and disruption from pipeline
construction. The biological resources of the
Stellwagen Bank system, in particular endangered
cetacean species, are vulnerable to the effects of oil
and gas activities. Indirectly, therefore, the
proposed potential for regulation wiU have
beneficial environmental effects on the Sanctuary
system, by ensuring the means for protection of its
resources if the need arises in the future.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 139
i. Operation of Commercial Vessels
Operation of commercial vessels in the
Sanctuary wiU be subject to Sanctuary regulation.
There is no Sanctuary regulation of this activity
proposed at this time. Therefore, no environmental
or socioeconomic consequences will result from the
listing of this activity as subject to Sanctuary
regulation.
Stellwagen Bank lies beneath an established
Vessel Traffic Separation Scheme (VTSS) serving
Boston, which is heavily used throughout the year.
The operation of commercial vessels is controlled by
existing Coast Guard regulations. Vessel cargo is
dominated by petroleum products; and thus the
greatest potential environmental threat is that of oil
spills. However, the Bank feature is well below the
point at which vessel groundings are a possibility;
and the safety record of the VTSS indicates the
potential for a collision is very minimal. Therefore,
NOAA does not currently propose or anticipate any
need for the proposal of any Sanctuary regulation of
vessel traffic.
Based upon the resuhs of future investigations
into the level of vessel collisions with cetaceans,
NOAA may determine a need to regulate
commercial vessel speeds during seasons when
cetaceans are present in the Sanctuary, or to impose
other measures to ensure the safety of cetaceans.
The proposed listing of this activity as subject to
Sanctuary regulation provides a means of addressing
these possible determinations.
j. Lightering
Ship-to-ship transfer of petroleum products, or
"lightering" activities will be prohibited in the
Sanctuary.
Although there is presently no firm
documentation that lightering activities occur in the
immediate vicinity of the Sanctuary, the activity does
occur in areas near the entrance to Boston Harbor.
Because some of these activities are not directly
monitored by the U.S. Coast Guard, there is always
some potential for accidental spillage of petroleum
products into the marine environment. Additionally,
the distance of such areas from shore, combined
with the absence of Coast Guard presence, may also
result in delayed responses to spill events.
The prohibition on lightering in the Sanctuary
will prevent any accidental spillage of petroleum
products, and thus provide better protection of
Sanctuary resources and qualities. Additionally, the
prohibition will provide the opportimity for
extended monitoring, via Sanctuary personnel, to
ensiu-e that no potential threats to the marine
environment occur as a result of lightering activities.
Therefore, the environmental consequences of this
prohibition will be beneficial to the Sanctuary's
hving and non-living resources, and to its overall
qualities.
k. Operation of Commercial Charterboats
Operation of commercial charterboats in the
Sanctuary will be subject to Sanctuary regulation.
There is no Sanctuary regulation of this activity
proposed at this time. Therefore, no environmental
or socioeconomic consequences will result from the
Usting of this activity as subject to Sanctuary
regulation.
1. Operation of Recreational Vessels
Operation of recreational vessels in the
Sanctuary will be subject to Sanctuary regulation.
No Sanctuary regulation of this activity is proposed
at this time. Therefore, no environmental or
socioeconomic consequences will result from the
listing of this activity as subject to Sanctuary
regulation.
m. Installation or Placement of Submerged
Cables and Pipelines
The installation or placement of submerged
cables and pipelines in the Sanctuary will be
prohibited. The principal potential environmental
impact from the presence of submerged electrical
transmission cables, or from pipelines carrying
petroleimi products, is the possibility of leaks, which
could cause environmental damage to Sanctuary
resources or quaUties. Although one or more
proposals for transmission cables have been
discussed, there are no cables or pipelines currently
planned or installed across Stellwagen Bank or
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 140
through the Sanctuary.
A prohibition on the installation of
transmission cables and pipelines will also prevent
the possibility of disturbance and/or damage to
fishing gear, fish spawning areas, and marine
archeological sites, which may result from trench-
and-fUl activities necessary for burying cables and
pipelines.
Therefore, this proposed regulation is
anticipated to be environmentally beneficial to
Sanctuary resources and quahties by preventing
these particular potentials for resource damage.
n. Defense Activities
No prohibition or other restriction set forth in
the Sanctuary regulations shall apply to Department
of Defense (DOD) or Coast Guard activities that:
1) are being carried out as of the effective date of
Sanctuary designation; 2) have no potential for any
significant adverse impacts on Sanctuary resources
or qualities; or 3) although having the potential for
significant adverse impacts on Sanctuary resources
or qualities, are exempted by the Director of the
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
after consultation between the Director and the
Department of Defense. Department of Defense
activities are required to be carried out in a manner
that minimizes any adverse impact on Sanctuary
resources and qualities. In the event of threatened
or actual destruction of, loss of, or injury to a
Sanctuary resource or quality resulting from an
untoward incident, including but not hmited to spills
and groundings, caused by it, the Department of
Defense must promptly coordinate with the Director
for the purpose of taking appropriate actions to
respond to and mitigate the harm and, if possible,
restore or replace the Sanctuary resource or quality.
o. Enforcement
Designation of the Sanctuary will provide the
opportunity for improved surveillance and
enforcement. Coordination among the Sanctuary,
NFMS and the Coast Guard will enhance
commercial and recreational fishing activity
enforcement efforts, which are presently
understaffed. Although the Sanctuary occurs
entirely in Federal waters, it is adjacent to State-
designated protected marine areas. NOAA
anticipates a continuing coordination with the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts toward the
objective of enhanced enforcement efforts for
protection of these ocean areas. The enhancement
of enforcement and surveillance efforts is
anticipated to be environmentally beneficial to the
Bank's resources.
2. Research and Interpretation /Education
Implementation of both Sanctuary research and
education programs will result in positive benefits to
the user and other interested pubUc. The research
program will be focused on coordination with the
efforts of existing institutions, as well as providing
funding for individual projects, in order to study the
Bank's resources and develop effective management
strategies. The education/ interpretation program
will be designed to enhance public awareness and
appreciation for the special quahties of the
Stellwagen Bank system, its resources, and the need
to ensure protection for this nationally-significant
area.
The research program will initially estabhsh a
coordinated approach to obtaining vital baseUne and
monitoring data on the Bank's resources, and on
human activities in the area. More complete
information is needed on, for instance, water quality
and circulation, geologic composition, species
density and distribution, fishery resources, marine
mammal interactions with vessels, and seabird
interactions with cetaceans. A better understanding
of the relationships among these, as well as other
resources, will provide the basis for developing well-
supported, long-term planning for the Sanctuary.
The Sanctuary will initiate coordinating efforts with
research institutions and organizations, such as the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Marine
Biological Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries
Service Northeast Center, Manomet Bird
Observatory, Cetacean Research Unit, Center for
Coastal Studies, New England Aquarium, and
others, to begin compilation of important data.
The education program will seek to improve
public awareness and imderstanding of both the
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 141
special qualities of the Stellwagen Bank system, and
the importance of ensuring its protection for the
future. Educational/interpretive products such as
audio/visual materials, exhibits, brochures, etc., will
be developed for the visiting pubUc and for
dissemination to schools, organizations, and user
groups.
The Sanctuary headquarters will also serve as
the public information center for the Sanctuary.
The Sanctuary facihty will serve as a focal point for
the interested public to learn about the Sanctu2U7
Program, its resources, its human uses, and the
plans for its protective management. In addition to
on-site educational materials, the Sanctuary will
initiate coordination efforts with existing agencies
and programs, such as the Massachusetts Bays
Program, the Gulf of Maine Initiative, the
Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries Program, and the
educational programs of organizations such as the
New England Aquarium, Center for Coastal Studies,
Massachusetts Audubon Society, Manomet Bird
Observatory, Cetacean Research Unit, and others,
to establish a useful public information center on
the Sanctuary. Information collected would include
both technical and non-technical references.
The Sanctuary information center could also
incorporate information on current research projects
and their results; this Usting would be updated
regularly and made available to the interested
pubUc, scientists and decisionmakers. The listing
would provide a record of scientific investigations
with management impUcations; contribute to
understanding use patterns in the Sanctuary; assist
in identifying research areas requiring further
attention; and ensure that Sanctuary managers are
aware of area-specific studies. The resulting record
of researchers with first-hand experience in the
Stellwagen Bank area will also provide an important
means of coordinating research through multi-
disciplinary analyses.
The Sanctuary Program will encourage
research directly by estabUshing a monitoring
program, and by providing competitive funding for
rese2U"ch. The monitoring program will focus on the
overall health of the Sanctuary's resources, and on
the level of effects of human activities occurring in
the Sanctuary or close to it. Information from the
monitoring program will assist NOAA in ensuring
well-reasoned management for the Sanctuary, as
well as providing a means for assisting other
authorities in carrying out their responsibihties in
the area.
An important objective of the Sanctuary will
also be to complete jm inventory of historical or
cultural resources existing in the Sanctuary. Very
limited archeological research has been conducted
in the Stellwagen Bank area, and research into and
mapping of possible historical artifacts around the
Bank area will be a necessary element of the
Sanctuary program.
3. Boundary Alternatives
All five of the boundary alternatives presented
in this document would provide protection to the
Stellwagen Bank feature, and to the biolotjical
resources in its immediate vicinity.
Boundary alternative #1 (Figure #18) is the
smallest of areas considered for Sanctuary
designation, encompassing approximately 259 square
nautical miles. The boundary forms a rectangular
area close around the Bank feature itself. Most of
the species found in the larger boundary alternatives
are found within this alternative, with the possible
exception of some of the fish and invertebrate
species. However, important habitat and feeding
areas are not included in this alternative.
The focus of this alternative is the protection
of the Bank feature, as both habitat and causal
feature in the production of internal waves and
upwelling, which contribute to the biological
productivity of the overall Stellwagen Bank and
Basin area. Boundary alternative #1 would provide
the means for protection of the Bank from the
effects of activities such as sand and gravel
extraction, and from the effects of offshore oil and
gas development activities. Thus, the environmental
consequences of boundary alternative #1 would be
beneficial to the Bank feature itself; however,
similar protection would not be extended to
important habitat and human use areas surrounding
the Bank.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 142
Designation of boundary alternative #1 would
not provide for the establishment of a natural link
between the National Marine Sanctuary Program
and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Ocean
Sanctuary Program; or between the NMSP and the
Massachusetts Bays/NEP. Additionally, designation
of boimdary alternative #1 would not permit the
development of research or education/interpretive
programs founded in a system-wide approach.
Boundary alternative #2 (Figure 19)
encompasses approximately 453 square nautical
miles of Federal waters. The boundary forms an
approximately rectangular area around the
Stellwagen Bank feature, with the southern border
extended to coincide with the seaward limit of the
Commonwealth's jurisdictional waters. The
northern and southern borders of boundary
alternative #2 are of approximately equal distance
from the land points of Cape Cod (Race Point) and
Cape Ann (Gloucester).
In addition to the entirety of the Bank feature,
boundary #2 incorporates important marine
habitats which result from, and are sustained by the
cyclic upwelling and mixing processes caused by the
presence of the Bank. Endangered and other
species of cetaceans, pinnipeds, and numerous
species of commercially-important fish and
invertebrates depend on the habitats included in this
boundary alternative. The most frequently-utilized
feeding and nursery areas for the largest high-
latitude population of humpback whales in the
contiguous United States are included in this
boundary alternative, as well as spawning areas for
the humpbacks' primary prey, the American sand
lance. This and other species of endangered large
cetaceans attract large numbers of seasonal
commercial and recreational whalewatch vessels, as
well as significant scientific interest, to the area
included in boundary alternative #2.
The commercial value of fisheries existing
within boundary alternative #2 is also well-
established, generating multi-milUon-doUar revenues
to the regional economy. The tradition of fishing
within the Stellwagen Bank system is historically the
most important human activity in the New England
region, dating from the time of the early Colonists.
The southern border of boundary alternative
#2 comcides with the seaward limit of
Commonwealth jurisdictional waters adjacent to the
Cape Cod Bay Ocean Sanctuary; and is also
tangential to waters designated by the
Commonwealth as the Cape Cod Ocean Sanctuary,
creating the potential for Federal-State coordination
in ocean system management initiatives.
Boundary alternative #2 does not include any
of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS), as
currently proposed for permanent designation by
EPA. However, the MBDS (if designated at the
site proposed by EPA) will be situated in close
proximity to the Sanctuary. Designation of both
sites will provide the opportunity for coordinated
management considerations to enhance scrutiny of
disposal activities, in particular from the perspective
of Sanctuary protection.
The environmental consequences of boundary
alternative #2 would be expected to be beneficial to
a significant portion of the overall Stellwagen Bank
system, due in part to the manageability of the site,
and to the reahstic potential for coordinated efforts
with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts through
its Ocean Sanctuaries Program, and through the
Massachusetts Bays Program/NEP planning efforts.
Boundary alternative #3 (Figure 20),
encompassing approximately 702 square nautical
miles of Federal waters, is the largest boundary
option considered by NOAA for Sanctuary
designation. The boundary includes all of
Stellwagen Bank, as well as additional submerged
features, i.e., TiUies Bank and southern portions of
Jeffreys Ledge, located north of Stellwagen Bank.
Boimdary alternative #3 also extends into
Stellwagen Basin, west of the Bank feature.
This boundary alternative includes additional
important habitat areas important to invertebrate,
fish, and cetacean species, as well as human
activities. The northwest border of this boundary
alternative also is extended to coincide with the
North Shore Ocean Sanctuary, designated by the
Commonwealth. Adoption of this boundary
alternative would therefore offer enhanced
opportunities to ensure that management planning
for resource protection, research, and education
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 143
would be developed from the perspective of
ecosystem relationships and interdependence.
Inclusion of most or all of the MBDS within
this boundary alternative would increase the
possibihty for direct and indirect environmental
damage to Sanctuary resources or qualities; and
could also potentially increase the administrative
costs of Sanctuary management. Real costs to the
Sanctuary could also be increased under this
boundary alternative, if in the future clean-up of
hazardous materials in the vicinity of the MBDS is
required. While the environmental consequences of
boundary alternative #3 would be anticipated to be
beneficial to the Stellwagen Bank system overall, the
increased costs to the Program may delay complete
achievement of Sanctuary goals.
Boundary alternative #4 (Figure 21),
encompassing 330 square nautical miles, is similar
in configuration to boundary alternative #1, except
that the western border extends further into
Stellwagen Basin, to the west of the Bank feature.
The configuration of this alternative is primarily
premised on a Sanctuary which would protect the
Stellwagen Bank feature; encompass the entirety of
the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS); and
otherwise be limited in its physical coverage.
Alternative #4 was also suggested to NOAA for its
consideration as an area identified by LORAN-C
lines. This is the primary method utilized by many
vessel operators of determining vessel location
within the Sanctuary area.
Although alternative #4 would provide an area
within which the opportunity exists for protection of
the Stellwagen Bank feature, several important
habitat areas for invertebrate, fish and cetacean
species are excluded. Because of these exclusions,
areas of concentrated human activities are not fully
encompassed by this boundary alternative.
Moreover, inclusion of the MBDS within Sanctuary
boundaries may also increase the management
responsibilities and costs to NOAA, related to
possible clean-up requirements in the area of the
MBDS. Under this alternative, therefore, the
objective of system protection would not be fully
possible, due to hmitations in NOAA's ability to
protect important resources and habitat areas; and
to the potential for increased administrative and
management costs.
The environmental consequences of boundary
alternative #4 would be of limited benefit to the
resources and quaUties of the overall Stellwagen
Bank system.
Boundary alternative #5 (Figiu-e 22),
encompassing approximately 638 square nautical
miles has been Congressionally designated, pursuant
to P.L. 102-587, §2202(b). With the exception of its
western border, the boundary configuration is the
same as boimdary alternative #2. The western
border extends in a straight line from the
southwestern corner of boundary alternative #2, to
a west-northwestern point adjacent to
Commonwealth jurisdictional waters off Cape Ann
(Gloucester). The significant difference between
this boimdary alternative and alternative #3 is the
exclusion of the MBDS currently proposed by EPA
for permanent designation. This boundary option
includes the habitat areas identified as important to
marine mammals, fish, invertebrates, and seabirds.
These areas also attract the majority of human
activities involving the Stellwagen Bank area.
These "focused" areas of hving resource
activities within boundary alternative #5,
representative of the high natural resource and
human use values of the site, provide the basis for
soimd long-term "management of a conservation
unit", as discussed in the NMSP's site identification
criteria. The presence of identified management
concerns affecting, or possibly affecting, the
Stellwagen Bank system, also offer opportunities for
coordinated efforts to achieve system conservation
and management. Participation of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, via its Ocean
Sanctuaries Program, as well as the Massachusetts
Bays Program/NEP, would provide the potential for
effective, system-wide management, incorporating
long-range planning, for the overall Massachusetts
Bay/Stellwagen Bank system.
The administrative costs of boundary
alternative #5 are anticipated to be less than those
of alternatives #3 or #4, given the exclusion of the
MBDS. Exclusion of the MBDS from the
Sanctuary is also expected to be beneficial to the
Bank system generally, as it eliminates the
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 144
possibility of disposal of dredged materials directly
within the Sanctuary. The environmental
consequences of boundary alternative #5, therefore,
are anticipated to be beneficial to living and non-
living resources of the Stellwagen Banli/Jeffreys
Ledge/Tillies Bank system.
4. Management Alternative
Management alternative #1 would provide
Sanctuary management from SRD headquarters in
Washington, D.C. Implementation of Sanctuary
progrcuns would be coordinated via cooperative
agreements and other arrangements with existing
Federal, State, emd/or regional programs in the area
of the Sanctuary.
Although the economic consequences of this
alternative are beneficial in at least the short-term,
the long-range effects of adopting management
alternative #1 would be detrimental to meeting
Sanctuary Program goals and objectives. Because
Program goals would be difficult to meet, it is likely
that the Sanctuary's resources would be, over the
long-term, adversely affected environmentally by this
alternative.
Under the preferred management alternative
#2, Sanctuary administrative functions and
programs would be phased in, with initial emphasis
placed on research and education/ interpretative
activities. An independent administrative and
management system would be housed in a NOAA-
operated facility; and a Sanctuary Manager and
administrative assistant would be identified soon
after Sanctuary designation. Additional Sanctuary
staffing, consisting of a research coordinator, an
education coordinator and at least one enforcement
officer, would be identified within a short period of
time following initial staffing actions.
The Sanctuary staff would coordinate directly
with other existing Federal and State agencies in the
implementation of Sanctuary regulations. In
combination with a Sanctuary Advisory Committee,
the Sanctuary Manager would initiate the processes
of informing the pubhc and regional officials of the
Sanctuary's mandate, regulations, and research and
education programs.
This alternative is immediately cost-effective,
and provides the framework for implementing
Sanctuary programs within a short period of time.
Additionally, the early on-site presence of a modest
staff provides the opportunity to determine the
feasibility of future "satellite" information centers at
one or more locations. It is anticipated that the
environmental consequences of this management
alternative would be beneficial to Sanctuary
resources and qualities, by the initiation of
Sanctu£U7 programs, followed by expanded program
activities and facilities, as they are identified as
necessary.
Management alternative #3 would establish a
Sanctuary headquarters within six months following
designation, and also provide fuU staffing, consisting
of a Sanctuary Manager, administrative assistant,
research coordinator, education coordinator, and
one or more enforcement officials. Additionally,
"satellite" information centers would be quickly
established for the user and other interested pubhc
to provide information on the Sanctuary's mandate,
regulations, and research and education programs.
This alternative provides for rapid
implementation of the Sanctuary program,
enhancing the potential for early coordination
efforts and cultivation of public support for the
Sanctuary. The full-time research and education
coordinators would provide the Sanctuary Manager
with the opportunity to focus on programmatic
coordination with existing management authorities
and resource protection efforts.
The initial costs of this management alternative
are obviously higher than alternatives #1 or #2.
Over the longer-term, these staff and facilities are
likely to be necessary to a successful Sanctuary
program at Stellwagen Bank; however, in the short-
term, full staffing and multiple facihties immediately
following Sanctuary designation are likely to be
prematurely placed. Environmental benefits to
Sanctuary resources and qualities are likely to be
better served by implementation of staffing and
facihties at a reasonable pace, estabhshed as
determined necessary for the public.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Page 145
Section 11: Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or
Socioeconomic Effects
No unavoidable adverse environmental or
socioeconomic impacts due to implementation of
the Sanctuary management plan are foreseen. To
the contrary, it is possible that there will be a
positive local socioeconomic impact due to
increased awareness of the Stellwagen Bank's
ecological value and visitation by the pubUc.
Section III: Relationship Between Short-Term
Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and
Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity
Sanctuary designation will emphasize the
importance of the natural and historical resources of
the Stellwagen Bank area. The quahty of the
Stellwagen Bank environment is still relatively
pristine, and the diversity and abundance of the
ecosystem is relatively unaltered. National marine
sanctuary designation will enhance pubhc awareness
of this system, and provide long-term assurances
that its natural resources will be maintained for
future use and enjoyment. Implementation of the
preferred alternative will ensure that any changes in
use patterns which degrade the Bank environment
are monitored and possibly reversed or halted.
The education, research and resource
protection programs will provide information,
management and protection that develop a
foundation for wise public use of the Stellwagen
Bank area, and result in long-term productivity of
the system. Similarly, information collected through
the research program will assist marine natural
resource managers in making better management
decisions. Better management in turn will help
resolve use conflicts and mitigate the adverse effects
of human activities.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan
Page 146
PART FIVE: LIST OF PREPARERS
Ms. Sherrard C. Foster
Mr. Bradley W. Barr
Ms. Patmarie Maher
Project Manager
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
OCRM, NOAA
U.S. Department of Commerce
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Ms. Foster serves as Project Manager for the development of the proposed Stellwagen
Bank National Marine Sanctuary. She is principal author of this FEIS/MP. Ms.
Foster holds a BA. in English, with a minor in Biology, from Lynchburg College,
Lynchburg, VA. Before joining the SRD in 1984, she served as Director of Marine
Issues, Defenders of Wildlife, Inc., Washington, DC.
Critical Areas Coordinator
Coastal Zone Management Office
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Boston, MA 02202
Mr. Barr serves as contributing author to this FEIS/MP, through a cooperating agency
agreement between the EOEA and SRD/NOAA. Mr. Barr holds a Master § Degree
in Apphed Marine Ecology, University of Massachusetts, Boston.
Program Specialist
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
OCRM, NOAA
U.S. Department of Commerce
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Ms. Maher served as contributing author for the development of the EIS/MP. Ms.
Maher holds a M.S. in Oceanography from Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA.
Mr. Darren TuozzoU
Summer Intern, 1991
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
OCRM, NOAA
U.S. Department of Commerce
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Mr. Tuozzoli updated information and re-drafted various discussions in the FEIS/MP
document. He is an English and Economics major at Seton Hall University.
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Page 147
PART SIX: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS
RECEIVING COPIES OF THE FEIS/MP
Federal Agencies
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Agriculture
Department of the Air Force
Department of the Army
Department of the Army/Corps of Engineers
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of the Navy
Department of State
Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Marine Mammal Commission
Maritime Administration
New England Fishery Management Council
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
National Science Foundation
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Congressional
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
U.S. House of Representative Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries
Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, U.S. Senate
Honorable John F. Kerry, U.S. Senate
Honorable Gerry E. Studds, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Peter Torkildsen, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Edward J. Markey, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Joseph P. Kennedy II, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Barney Frank, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable John Joseph Moakley, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Martin Meehan, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Richard E. Neal, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable John Olver, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Peter Blute, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Robert C. Smith, U.S. Senate
Honorable Judd Gregg, U.S. Senate
Honorable Bill Zeliff, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Dick Swett, U.S. House of Representatives
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Page 148
Honorable William S. Cohen, U.S. Senate
Honorable George J. Mitchell, U.S. Senate
Honorable Thomas Andrews, U.S. House of Representatives
Honorable Olympia Snowe, U.S. House of Representatives
National and Regional Interest Organizations
American Association of Port Authorities
American Bureau of Shipping
American Cetacean Society
American Fisheries Society
Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod
Atlantic Cetacean Research Center
Atlantic Sportfishing Association
Boating Industry Association
Boston Fisheries Association
Boston Pilots
Cape Ann Vessel Association
Cape Cod Charterboat Association
Center for Coastal Studies
Center for Law and Social Policy
Center for Marine Conservation
Cetacean Research Unit
Coast Alliance
Conservation Law Foundation
The Cousteau Society
CZM Newsletter
Defenders of Wildlife
Environmental Policy Center
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
Environmental Law Institute
Friends of the Coast
Friends of the Earth
Gloucester Fisheries Association
The Greenpeace Foundation
International Wildlife Coalition
Manomet Bird Observatory
Marine Biological Laboratory
Marine Technology Society
The Marine Wilderness Society
Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association
Massachusetts Inshore Draggermen's Association
Massachusetts Marine Educators
Massachusetts Wildlife Federation
Massport Maritime Department
National Association of Conservation Districts
National Association of Counties
National Audubon Society
National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc.
National Federation of Fishermen
Stellwagen Bank Final EIS and Management Plan Page 149
National Fisheries Institute, Inc.
National Ocean Industries Association
National Parks and Conservation Association
National Recreation and Park Association
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
New England Aquarium
New England Gillnetters Association
The Oceanic Society
Sportfishing Institute
Stellwagen Bank Commercial Fisheries Cooperative
The Sounds Conservancy
The Whale Center
Water Pollution Control Federation
Wilderness Society
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
World Wildlife Fund-U.S.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11