Stellwagen: The Making and Unmaking of a National Marine Sanctuary

6: Business as Usual

Chapter 6 Business as Usual While some in Congress may have envisioned national marine sanctuaries as the marine equivalents of parks, refuges, or wilderness areas, early proponents of Stellwagen Bank becoming a sanctuary were almost unanimous in their belief that recreational and commercial fishing, including fishing for shellfish and invertebrates, were compatible uses—at least in principle .1 The original designation bills introduced by Gerry Studds and John Kerry clearly were targeted at prohibiting sand and gravel mining and other industrial activities—in part to protect fishing activity. It is equally clear from their strident records on sustainable fisheries that by allowing fishing activity to continue, they were not condoning fishing practices that would deteriorate the marine environment and ultimately undermine the future of the industry.2 To allay the concerns of fishing interests that sanctuary designation might lead to stringent gear restrictions, the final regulations issued by NOAA not only listed fishing as an allowed activity but exempted what it termed “traditional fishing” methods from the prohibition against “dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of the Sanctuary.” Traditional fishing was vaguely defined as “commercial or recreational fishing methods which have been conducted in the past.” By “past” NOAA was not referring to colonial times or for that matter to the first half of the twentieth century. The intent quite clearly was to allow the continued use of bottom trawls that in the post–World War II era became the tools of the industry for catching cod, haddock, flounder, and other groundfish. By exempting “traditional fishing” from the prohibition within the sanctuary against significant alteration of the seabed, NOAA set a semantic and regulatory trap that inevitably would spring on both the sanctuary program and the fishing industry. At that point, fishing by such methods would be 52  N I N U S P I C I O U S B E g I N N I N g determined to be in violation (and arguably already has violated) one of the central purposes of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act: namely, “to maintain the natural biological communities in the national marine sanctuaries, and to protect, and, where appropriate, restore and enhance natural habitats, populations, and ecological processes.”3 ThemostcommonlyusedtrawlinNewEngland,accountingformorethan 50 percent of the gear types used on Stellwagen Bank, is the otter trawl. The otter trawl consists of a large conical net that is towed along the seafloor to catch bottom-dwelling fish such as cod, haddock, flounder, pollock, redfish, and other groundfish species. The mouth of the net is held open vertically by a series of floats and weights, while heavy “otter boards” or trawl doors often equipped with a steel sole for good contact with the seafloor control the horizontal opening. Impacts of Fishing Gear The trawls are designed to scrape the seafloor and stir up sediments that startle their prey into the net. In the process, the trawls also dislodge and crush tons of plants and animals such as sponges, hydroids, urchins, sea squirts, and level sedimentary structures such as sand waves and depressions that provide refuge for young fish. No less of an authority than the noted undersea explorer Sylvia Earle, who served briefly as NOAA’s chief scientist, has described trawling to be “so obviously destructive it’s a no-brainer.”4 In 2002, the Ocean Studies Board of the National Research Council, based on an extensive review of scientific literature concluded the following: Trawling and dredging can reduce habitat complexity by removing or damaging the biological and physical structures of the seafloor. The extent of the initial effects and the rate of recovery depend on the habitat stability. The more stable biogenic (i.e., of biological origin), gravel, and mud habitats experience the greatest changes and have the slowest recovery rates. In contrast, less consolidated coarse sediments in areas of high natural disturbance show fewer initial effects. Because those habitats tend to be populated by opportunistic species that recolonize more rapidly, recovery is faster as well. Significant alterations to habitat can cause changes in the associated biological communities, potentially altering the composition and productivity of fish communities that depend on seafloor habitats for food and refuge.5 Business as Usual 53 During the early 1990s, as fish stocks continued to plummet and just as the sanctuary came into existence, the concerns of scientists and managers alike finally were reflected in public policy. The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act required...