State
of the Sanctuary Report
(continued)
ISSUE
2: Impacts of Human Activities on Marine Mammals
The
need for increased protection of various marine mammals in the
Sanctuary was a large concern voiced by scoping participants.
To provide better protection, commenters argued, the site needs
more information about such things as how marine mammals use
the Sanctuary and how their sex, age, maternal lineage, calving
history and distribution affect their populations. Habitat requirements,
prey bases, interrelationships with other species, and impacts
of humans on their behavior were noted as important to know.
Within the larger issue of human impacts, three concerns stood
out in particular.
The
first concern focused on the role of vessels in the harassment,
injury and mortality of Sanctuary marine mammals, particularly
the "seen" whale around which vessels congregate. Commenters
disagreed about whether densities and proximity of whale watching
vessels interfere with feeding activity of whales. It was deemed
appropriate that the Sanctuary direct greater effort toward
establishing programs to encourage responsible whale watching
within its boundaries.
The
second concern related to the "unseen" whale. This is a whale
that surfaces unexpectedly in the path of a moving vessel or
is subsurface, but at a depth at which it could be struck. It
was pointed out that an increased number of ship strikes are
occurring in areas where whales congregate near shipping lanes
or where vessel speed among whale watch vessels and recreational
boats could be a factor.
The
third concern focused on marine mammal entanglements and the
associated risk of mortality. Entanglements often involve fishing
gear, derelict or otherwise. Of note, the appearance of an entangled
animal in the Sanctuary does not necessarily mean that the animal
became entangled in the Sanctuary. Marine mammals are wide ranging
and may encounter gear elsewhere and drag it long distances.
General
concerns raised by commenters included the impact of vessel
noise and other human generated acoustics on marine mammals,
a lack of coordination among various regional marine mammal
protection agencies, inadequate guidelines for approach distances
to whales in the Sanctuary, impacts from off-shore mariculture
on marine mammals (e.g., risk of entanglement), and the potential
northward extension of the Sanctuary boundary to include additional
marine mammal feeding areas on Jeffreys Ledge.
Concern
A: Need for more information on Habits and Habitat use of SBNMS
Whales and Other Marine Mammals
Possible
Actions:
• Continue to Support Regional Marine Mammal Data Set Development
and Analysis
• Research and Report on Marine Mammal Food Web Relationships
and Prey Life Histories
• Evaluate Extending Sanctuary Boundaries to Encompass
Additional Marine Mammal Feeding Grounds
Concern
B: Vessel Strikes on Whales and Other Marine Mammals
Possible
Actions:
• Assess Need for Speed Controls in the Sanctuary
• Design and Implement a Whalewatching Vessel Traffic Management
Scheme
Concern
C: Whale Harassment/Behavioral Disturbance
Possible
Actions:
• Design and Implement a Whalewatching Vessel Traffic Management
Scheme
Concern
D: Entanglement of Whales and Other Marine Mammals in Fishing
Gear and Forms of Marine Debris
Possible
Actions:
• Develop Means to Determine Extent and Nature of Entanglements
in the Sanctuary
• Coordinate With and Support Regional Efforts to Mitigate
Impacts of Gear on Marine Mammals
Concern
E: Impacts of Vessel Noise and Other Acoustics on Marine Mammals
Possible
Actions:
• Determine Effects of Noise on Marine Mammals in the Sanctuary
• Develop and Implement Vessel Noise Monitoring Plan
Concern
F: Better Coordination with Other Regional Marine Mammal Protection
Authorities
Possible
Actions:
• Participate in Regional Resource Management Organizations
Involved in Marine Mammal Protection (e.g., Atlantic Right Whale
Take Reduction Team)
• Coordinate With and Support Regional Efforts to Mitigate
Impacts of Gear on Marine Mammals
• Establish Relationships with Other National and International
Marine Protected Areas Having Marine Mammal Protection Issues
ISSUE
3: Condition of Water Quality
Public
concerns over issues of water quality in the Sanctuary were
numerous. Many of these concerns were due in large part to the
opening of the 9.5-mile long sewage and wastewater discharge
pipe operated by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.
Commenters argued that a clearer understanding of the outfall's
effects on the Sanctuary ecosystem is needed, particularly any
impacts it could have on the endangered right whale or other
marine mammal species in the Sanctuary.
A
second concern related to the dumping of graywater and head
waste in the Sanctuary. It was commented that the impact of
individual and cumulative dumping events on Sanctuary resources
could be harmful and significant in the case of endangered species,
while the process of dumping was counter to the image of the
Sanctuary.
Further
concern was raised over the lack of information on the bioaccumulation
of toxins and contaminants in various Sanctuary resources. Data
on the levels of contaminants of living marine resources in
the Sanctuary are limited at best, and almost no information
exists to address the effects of pathogens (bacteria, viruses
and parasites) on Sanctuary resources. The Sanctuary was urged
to identify areas of potential or existing contaminant accumulation,
evaluate potential pollutant contributions from various sources
(e.g., outfall, disposal sites, atmospheric deposition), and
determine the incidence level and impact of contaminants and
pathogens on Sanctuary resources.
Concern
also was expressed over the potential impact of off-shore mariculture
operations on water quality in the Sanctuary. Currently, mariculture
activities do not occur there, though the potential for off-shore
work in the region has been discussed.
Finally, scoping participants argued that the Sanctuary needs
to be better prepared for a hazardous materials (HazMat) spill
and be better educated on response. It is incumbent upon the
Sanctuary, they stated, to have a plan for cooperating with
and supplementing the overarching HazMat plans of various other
water quality authorities in the Massachusetts Bay area.
Concern
A: No Existing Comprehensive Water Quality Plan
Possible
Actions:
• Design and Implement Annual Water Quality Monitoring
Plan
• Revise Existing HazMat Plan
Concern
B: Lack of Baseline Water Quality Data
Possible
Actions:
• Encourage Placement of Oceanographic Water Quality Monitoring
Buoys
• Deploy High Frequency Wave and Current Monitoring Radar
System
Concern
C: Lack of Data on Resource Impacts of Various Toxins and Contaminants
Possible
Actions:
• Foster Partnerships with Regional Entities Researching
Water Quality Conditions
next
page
return to menu
