Stellwagen: The Making and Unmaking of a National Marine Sanctuary

5: An Ocean Runs Through It

Chapter 5 n Ocean runs Through It In 2001, the National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) developed a monitoring program to assess the condition of its thirteen sanctuaries. While the programacknowledgesthat“eachareahasitsownconcernsandrequirements for environmental monitoring,” it argues that the “the ecosystem structure andfunctionofalltheseareashavesimilaritiesandareinfluencedbycommon factors that interact in comparable ways.”1 Based on this general assumption, NMSP asked each sanctuary a series of questions about water quality, habitat , fishes and marine mammals, and marine archaeological resources derived from the program’s overall mission. State of the Sanctuary For the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary, the evaluation process began in 2006. To answer the questions, sanctuary staff conferred among themselves and consulted with outside experts. The compilation of their responses was then peer reviewed, published, and quietly released in April 2007 as NOAA’s 2007 Condition Report.2 Taking into account that opinions may vary on the relative importance of the resources under investigation and that measurements of change may vary both in accuracy and degree of significance, the report nevertheless provides resource managers, lawmakers, and the general public with a useful snapshot of the sanctuary. And the picture is? Not good. Not even not “good,” but “fair-to-poor.” Of theseventeenquestionsrelatingtowaterquality,habitat,livingresources,and maritime archaeological resources, current conditions for Stellwagen Bank were rated “good” only three times, “good-to-fair” four times, “fair” three times, “fair-to-poor” six times, and “poor” once. That amounts to a grade of C− or D+. The questions and answers (summarized) were as follows: 42  N I N U S P I C I O U S B E g I N N I N g 1. Are specific or multiple stressors, including changing oceanographic and atmospheric conditions, affecting water quality? Status: good/fair. Basis for judgment: Numerous contaminants at low levels. 2. What is the eutrophic condition of sanctuary waters? Status: good. Basis for judgment: Ongoing monitoring. 3. Do sanctuary waters pose risks to human health? Status: good. Basis for judgment: Ongoing monitoring. 4. What are the levels of human activities that may influence [water quality]? Status: good/fair. Basis for judgment: Boston outfall and vessel discharges. 5. What are the abundance and distribution of major habitat types? Status: Fair. Basis for judgment: Alteration of microhabitat due to bottom dragging and dredging. 6. What is the condition of biologically structured habitats? Status: fair/ poor. Basis for judgment: Fishing gear impacts. 7. What are the contaminant concentrations in sanctuary habitats? Status: good/fair. Basis for judgment: Limited monitoring results. 8. What are the levels of human activities that may influence habitat quality? Status: fair/poor and declining. Basis for judgment: Fishing gear impacts and shipping. 9. What is the status of biodiversity? Status: fair/poor. Basis for judgment : Long-term changes in fish diversity, but improving. 10. What is the status of environmentally sustainable fishing? Status: fair/poor. Basis for judgment: Scientific assessments of regional and local groundfish populations. 11. What is the status of nonindigenous species? Status: good/fair, but declining. Basis for judgment: Recent invasives discovered. 12. What is the status of key species? Status: fair/poor. Basis for judgment : Cod (keystone species) and sand lance (key species). 13. What is the condition or health of key species? Status: fair. Basis for judgment: Ship strikes and entanglement of whales. 14. What are the levels of human activities that may influence living resource quality? Status: fair/poor. Basis for judgment: Stable levels of activity. 15. What is the integrity of known maritime archaeological resources? Status: fair but declining. Basis for judgment: Fishing gear impacts. n Ocean runs Through It 43 16. Do known maritime archaeological resources pose an environmental hazard? Status: good. Basis for judgment: Lack of hazardous cargoes. 17. What are the levels of human activities that may influence maritime archaeological resource quality? Status: poor and declining. Basis for judgment: Fishing gear impacts.3 For many close to the machinations and politics of sanctuary planning and management, the very un-sanctuary-like report card came as no surprise. Among those who had expected designation of this “special place” called Stellwagen Bank to lead to innovative ways of protecting the marine environment , the sanctuary has been a major disappointment. The multiple-use management principles underlying both the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and the designation of Stellwagen Bank have buttressed a laissez-faire approach to most commercial activities within the sanctuary. With the exception of the highly publicized discovery of three historic shipwrecks, the steamship...