| |
Management
Plan Review 
Management Plan Update
Management
Plan Review Update: 1998-2002
To
view the complete report in PDF (Acrobat) format click here
The
document as HTML is continued below
Issues and Concerns
The existing management plan for the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank
National Marine Sanctuary was published in July 1993. In December 1998
and January 1999, the Sanctuary initiated formal review of its management
plan by holding "scoping" meetings to ask the public for comments on
the status of site management. Scoping comments generally include a
broad range of information on scope, types and significance of issues
related to the Sanctuary's management.
The public identified several high-profile topics as important matters
for Sanctuary management during the scoping meetings and associated
comment period of 1998/99. The issues and concerns that follow relate
to these topics. They are representative of the comments received at
that time and lend perspective to continued scoping, which is scheduled
for Summer/Fall 2002.
Each concern is followed by possible actions suggested through Sanctuary
staff analysis. The actions are indicative of the kinds of management
strategies the site could develop to address the issues and concerns
presented. Consider them only as examples for the eventual development
of actual management strategies.
The Sanctuary is not seeking comment for or against this information
at this time; that will await preparation of the draft management plan
when various alternative approaches will be presented. Instead, we are
seeking additional comments people have on any aspect of the management
of Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary that the Sanctuary should
consider in revising its management plan.
Read the accompanying document "State
of the Sanctuary Report" for background and see the note at the
end of this insert to learn how to get involved.
ISSUE 1: Alteration of Seafloor Habitat and Ecosystem Protection
ISSUE
2: Impacts of Human Activities on Marine Mammals
ISSUE
3: Condition of Water Quality
ISSUE
4: Lack of Public Awareness
ISSUE 5: Effective Enforcement
Next
Steps
ISSUE 1: Alteration of Seafloor Habitat and Ecosystem Protection
The alteration of seafloor habitat in the Sanctuary was an issue of
particular concern. Comments focused specifically on the growing evidence
that fishing effort with certain gear types (mostly bottom trawls and
dredges) is having significant and measurable impacts on benthic communities
in the Sanctuary. Some argued that these activities might be dramatically
changing community compositions and affecting ecosystem processes.
Repeated interest was expressed in the use of marine zoning within the
Sanctuary as a means to realize specific management goals. A zoning
plan would delineate areas within the Sanctuary that limit or exclude
particular activities (such as fishing with mobile gear). Part of a
zoning plan might involve no-take marine reserves, areas that exclude
fishing activity entirely, for a subset of each major seafloor habitat
type. Opportunity exists to work cooperatively with the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the New England Fishery Management Council in
addressing this issue.
Other areas of concern focused on human impacts to living marine resources
from such activities as ghost fishing (lost gear that continues to fish),
fiber optic cable installation, ocean dumping, marine debris, off-shore
mariculture and coastal run-off. Many argued for increased efforts to
better understand Sanctuary biodiversity and impacts of human activity
on the site ecosystem, placing greater emphasis on conservation. The
need for monitoring ecosystem condition was expressed, as was boundary
expansion to include more diverse habitat types.
Concern A: Alteration of Sanctuary Habitat by Human Activity
Possible Actions
o Calculate Recovery Rates of Seafloor Habitat and Associated Species
o Implement Marine Zoning Approach to Management
Concern B: Need for More Detailed Site Characterization
Possible Actions
o Design and Implement a Spatially-Referenced Inventory of Habitat Types
in the Sanctuary
o Establish a Habitat Research Reference Area Within the Sanctuary Section
of the Western Gulf of Maine Closure Area
o Undertake an Integrated Analysis of Food Web Relationships in the
Sanctuary
o Strengthen Cooperative Efforts with Other Regional Resource Management
Agencies
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
o Continue to Support Regional Marine Mammal Data Set Development and
Analysis
o Research and Report on Marine Mammal Food Web Relationships and Prey
Life Histories
o Evaluate Extending Sanctuary Boundaries to Encompass Additional Marine
Mammal Feeding Grounds
Concern B: Vessel Strikes on Whales and Other Marine Mammals
Possible Actions
o Assess Need for Speed Controls in the Sanctuary
o Design and Implement a Whalewatching Vessel Traffic Management Scheme
Concern C: Whale Harassment/Behavioral Disturbance
Possible Actions
o 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
o Develop Means to Determine Extent and Nature of Entanglements in the
Sanctuary
o 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
o Determine Effects of Noise on Marine Mammals in the Sanctuary
o Develop and Implement Vessel Noise Monitoring Plan
Concern F: Better Coordination with Other Regional Marine Mammal
Protection Authorities
Possible Actions
o Participate in Regional Resource Management Organizations Involved
in Marine Mammal Protection (e.g., Atlantic Right Whale Take Reduction
Team)
o Coordinate With and Support Regional Efforts to Mitigate Impacts of
Gear on Marine Mammals
o 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
o Design and Implement Annual Water Quality Monitoring Plan
o Revise Existing HazMat Plan
Concern B: Lack of Baseline Water Quality Data
Possible Actions
o Encourage Placement of Oceanographic Water Quality Monitoring Buoys
o Deploy High Frequency Wave and Current Monitoring Radar System
Concern C: Lack of Data on Resource Impacts of Various Toxins and
Contaminants
Possible Actions
o Foster Partnerships with Regional Entities Researching Water Quality
Conditions 5
ISSUE 4: Lack of Public Awareness
Many concerns were directed to the Sanctuary's limited visibility in
the general public. Commenters called for the Sanctuary to increase
its name recognition and enhance basic understanding of the Sanctuary
and its resources. Scoping participants also called for the Sanctuary
to serve as a conduit of information to user groups including researchers,
fishermen, scientists and recreational boat owners, and to conduct naturalist
training and certification.
Concern A: Low Name Recognition
Possible Actions
o Develop and Implement Outreach Plan for Various Media
o Develop Outreach Program for Virtual Sanctuary Visitation (e.g.,Website)
o Develop Corporate/Celebrity Sponsorships and Other Partnerships
Concern B: Better Information Dissemination to the Public and User
Groups
Possible Actions
o Develop Outreach Program for Whale Watchers Including Certification
o Develop Network of Sanctuary Information Centers
o Establish Sanctuary as Regional Marine Education Resource Center
o Develop Volunteer Program to Increase Effectiveness of Public Outreach
Concern C: Program Support
Possible Actions
o Establish "Friends" Organization to Leverage Sanctuary Capabilities
o Establish Graduate Intern Program to Facilitate Joint Education /
Research with Area Universities
ISSUE 5: Effective Enforcement
Many concerns were expressed regarding enforcement in the Sanctuary.
Several commenters noted that compliance with laws and regulations was
unlikely without an enforcement presence and that enforcement was therefore
critical to effective protection of Sanctuary resources. The general
sentiment was expressed that existing laws need to be better enforced.
Other comments were directed at enforcement of voluntary guidelines
associated with whale watching (which can only be encouraged, not legally
enforced) and the need to strengthen regulations. Commenters stated
that current Sanctuary regulations alone are insufficient to protect
Sanctuary resources. 6 The Sanctuary staff
Concern A: Need Greater Compliance with Regulations
Possible Actions
o Increase Enforcement Effort to Conduct Year-Round Sanctuary Patrols
o Develop Penalty Schedule for Sanctuary Regulations
o Revitalize Coast Guard Partnership to Help Enforce Sanctuary Regulations.
o Establish Volunteer Corps to Conduct On-the-Water Outreach
Concern B: New Types of Vessels / Activities Require Monitoring
Possible Actions
o Survey and Assess Uses and Activities in the Sanctuary Every Three
Years
o Promulgate New Regulations as Needed to Avoid Injury to Sanctuary
Resources
o Collaborate with NMFS to Assure Complementary Regulatory Scheme
Concern C: Whalewatching Guidelines Need to Become Regulations to
Avoid Injury to Marine Mammals
Possible Actions
o Consult in Promulgation of Whalewatching Regulations by NMFS
Next Steps
The Sanctuary will re-open the public comment period and hold additional
meetings as the means to gather broad public participation in identifying
possible issues for further evaluation and analysis. The public comment
period will be open during July1-October 18, 2002 The meetings are scheduled
for September 2002 and will be held at various dates, times and locations
still to be decided. This meeting information will be posted on the
Sanctuary website and publicly announced through various media when
available. Please see the accompanying notice on how to get involved.
Upon completion of the comment period and next round of meetings, the
site will review all input and work with the Sanctuary Advisory Council
(SAC) to prioritize the various management actions proposed. With the
assistance of Working Groups created by and reporting to the SAC, Sanctuary
staff will develop draft action plans to address major issues. Workshops
may be conducted in the course of Working Group deliberations to refine
action plan content. The action plans ultimately will form the foundation
of the revised management plan.
When the action plans are completed, they will be incorporated into
the draft management plan. Release of the draft management plan is expected
to occur during Summer 2003. In addition to the proposed action plans,
it will contain relevant environmental information and background information
on site operations. The draft management plan may also contain proposed
regulatory changes.
The Sanctuary will release the draft management plan for public comment
by holding another series of public meetings. Following these meetings,
the Sanctuary and the National Marine Sanctuary Program will review
the comments and make necessary changes before issuing the final management
plan. The final management plan is expected to be completed during Summer
2004. The accompanying summary timeline identifies milestones in the
management plan review process.
back to top
|
|
