Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

stellwagen bank national marine sanctuary

2020 CONDITION REPORT

STELLWAGEN BANK

FINDINGS OF STATUS AND TRENDS 

2007-2018
Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

U.S. Secretary of Commerce

Wilbur Ross

Under Secretary of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Dr. Neil Jacobs (acting)

Assistant Administrator for National Ocean Service

Nicole LeBoeuf (acting)

Director, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

John Armor

Cover photo: Two American lobsters (Homarus americanus) and a school of cunner (Tautogolabrus 

adspersus) use a historic shipwreck as home and habitat. The underwater photographer, Keith 

Ellenbogen, is the recipient of a Ernest F. Hollings Ocean Awareness Award to use the art of underwater 

photography to raise awareness about Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Photo: Keith 

Ellenbogen

Suggested Citation: Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. 2020. 2020 Condition Report: Findings of 

Status and Trends for 2007-2018. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 263 pp.
1

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents..................................................................................................................... 1

Authors..................................................................................................................................... 3

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries.................................................................................... 4

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary ......................................................................... 4

Framework for Condition Reports .......................................................................................... 5

About This Report.................................................................................................................... 7

Executive Summary................................................................................................................. 9

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Summary of Resource Conditions ..............17

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Summary of Ecosystem Services................23

Site History and Resources....................................................................................................26

Overview ...............................................................................................................................26

Location.................................................................................................................................27

Discovery of the Bank............................................................................................................29

Setting...................................................................................................................................31

Water.....................................................................................................................................31

Habitat...................................................................................................................................31

Living Resources...................................................................................................................34

Maritime Heritage Resources ................................................................................................36

Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary..................................................................40

Driving Forces .......................................................................................................................40

Pressures ..............................................................................................................................42

State of Drivers and Pressures ..............................................................................................65

Driver Rating (Question 1).....................................................................................................65

Pressure Ratings (Questions 2–5).........................................................................................67

State of Sanctuary Resources ...............................................................................................88

Water Quality (Questions 6–9) ..............................................................................................88

Habitat (Questions 10–11)...................................................................................................102

Living Resources (Questions 12 –15)..................................................................................110

Maritime Heritage Resources (Question 16)........................................................................141

State of Ecosystem Services ...............................................................................................143

Ecosystem Services Indicators............................................................................................144

Cultural (Non-Material Benefits)...........................................................................................146

Provisioning (Material Benefits)...........................................................................................166

Response to Pressures...................................................................................................................174

Noise...................................................................................................................................175

Marine Debris and Pollution.................................................................................................176

Whale Watching ..................................................................................................................176

Recreational Diving .............................................................................................................177

Recreational Fishing and Boating........................................................................................177

Commercial Fishing.............................................................................................................177

Commercial Shipping ..........................................................................................................179
2

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Ports...............................................................................179

Outfall Discharges and Dump Sites .....................................................................................179

Submerged Cables and Pipelines........................................................................................180

Climate Change...................................................................................................................180

Impacts to Maritime Heritage Resources.............................................................................181

Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................183

Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................................184

Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................185

Literature Cited .....................................................................................................................186

Appendix A: Rating Scheme for System-Wide Monitoring Questions..............................205

Appendix B: Description of Ecosystem Services and Methods to Determine Ratings....223

Appendix C: Stellwagen Bank 2007 Condition Report Ratings .........................................230

Appendix D: Consultation with Experts, Documenting Confidence, & Review................233

Appendix E: Driving Forces and Pressures — Supplemental Graphs and Figures.........238

Appendix F: Ecosystem Services — Supplemental Graphs and Figures .........................242

Appendix G: Glossary ..........................................................................................................263
3

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

AUTHORS

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

Ben Haskell

Leila Hatch, Ph.D.

Matthew Lawrence

Anne-Marie Runfola

Tammy Silva, Ph.D.1

Anne Smrcina

Alice Stratton

Michael Thompson

David Wiley, Ph.D.

NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

Brad Barr, Ph.D.

Kathy Broughton

Stephen R. Gittings, Ph.D.

Vernon R. Leeworthy, Ph.D.

Danielle Schwarzmann, Ph.D.

Mystic Aquarium

Peter J. Auster, Ph.D.2

Rochelle Kurth

University of Connecticut

Christian W. Conroy, Ph.D.

University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography

Anna Robuck3

 

1 Tammy Silva was supported by the NOAA Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship to conduct dissertation research on toothed whale 

occurrence in SBNMS relevant to this report.

2 Peter Auster was supported by a grant from the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation to conduct analyses and synthesize 

information related to habitat, living marine resources, and biodiversity presented in this report. 

3 Anna Robuck is supported by the NOAA Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship in pursuit of Ph.D. research relevant to SBNMS water 

and habitat quality.
4

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

OFFICE OF NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES

The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), serves as the trustee for a system of underwater parks encompassing more than 

620,000 square miles of ocean and Great Lakes waters. The 14 national marine sanctuaries and two 

marine national monuments within the National Marine Sanctuary System represent areas of America’s 

ocean and Great Lakes environment that are of special national significance. Within their waters, giant 

humpback whales breed and calve their young, coral colonies flourish, and shipwrecks tell stories of our 

maritime history. Habitats include beautiful coral reefs, lush kelp forests, whale migration corridors, 

spectacular deep-sea canyons, and underwater archaeological sites. These special places also provide 

homes to thousands of unique or endangered species and are important to America’s cultural heritage. 

Sanctuaries range in size from less than one square mile to more than 582,000 square miles and serve as 

natural classrooms, cherished recreational spots, and are home to valuable commercial industries.

STELLWAGEN BANK NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS) stretches between Cape Ann and Cape Cod and is 

east of the Boston metropolitan region. The 842-square-mile sanctuary, designated in 1992, hosts one of 

the most biologically diverse and productive ecosystems in the Gulf of Maine. The underwater landscape 

was formed by the retreat of glaciers during the Great Ice Age. Renowned for its biological diversity and 

remarkable productivity, the sanctuary is a critical feeding and nursery ground for several whale and 

dolphin species, and has become one of the world’s premier whale watching destinations. Named an 

Important Bird Area by Mass Audubon in concert with BirdLife International, the sanctuary’s rich waters 

provide abundant prey for many species and serve as a stopover location for migrating seabirds, as well as 

a seasonal destination for both summer and winter species. The sanctuary’s position astride historic 

shipping routes and fishing grounds for Massachusetts’s oldest ports also makes it a repository for historic 

shipwrecks representing several hundred years of maritime transport.
5

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

FRAMEWORK FOR CONDITION REPORTS

Sanctuary condition reports are tools employed by NOAA to assess the condition and trends of national 

marine sanctuary resources (NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 2018a). Condition reports 

provide a standardized summary of resources in NOAA’s sanctuaries, drivers and pressures on those 

resources, and current conditions and trends for resources and ecosystem services. These reports also 

describe existing management responses to pressures that threaten the integrity of the marine 

environment. Condition reports include information on the status and trends of water quality, habitat, 

living resources, and maritime heritage resources, and the human activities that affect them. They present 

responses to a set of questions posed to all sanctuaries (Appendix A). The reports also rate ecosystem 

service status and trends (Appendix B). Resource and ecosystem service status are rated on a six-point 

scale from good to poor, and the timelines used for comparison vary from topic to topic. Trends in the 

status of resources and ecosystem services are also reported, and are generally based on observed changes 

in status since the prior condition report, unless otherwise specified.

Sanctuary condition reports are structured around two frameworks: 1) a series of questions posed to all 

national marine sanctuaries; and 2) a management-logic model called the Driving forces (Drivers)-

Pressure-State-Ecosystem Services-Response (DPSER) framework (detailed below). The first framework 

is based around the generic structure of an ecosystem, and is used as the logic framework for the reports. 

The second framework defines the structure of the condition reports themselves.

Although the National Marine Sanctuary System's 14 sanctuaries and two marine national monuments are 

diverse in many ways, including size, location, and resources, condition reports allow ONMS to 

consistently analyze the status and trends of abiotic and biotic factors in each ecosystem to inform placebased management. To that end, each sanctuary is asked to answer the same set of questions, located in 

Appendix A, in the preparation of each condition report. Additional details about how the condition report 

process has evolved over time are below.

Driving forces (Drivers)-Pressure-State-Ecosystem ServicesResponse (DPSER) Framework

Beginning in 2019, sanctuary condition reports are structured on a model that describes the interactions 

between driving societal forces (Drivers), resulting threats (Pressures), resource condition (State), derived 

benefits (Ecosystem services), and management responses (Response). This DPSER framework 

recognizes that human activities are ultimately linked to demographic, economic, social, or institutional 

values and conditions (collectively called drivers). Changes in these drivers affect the nature and level of 

pressures placed on both natural and heritage resources, which can alter their condition (e.g., the quality 

of natural resources or aesthetic value). This affects the availability of benefits that humans receive from 

the resources (ecosystem services4), which prompts targeted management responses intended to prevent, 

reduce, or mitigate the undesirable changes (see Figure FCR.1).

 

4 For the purposes of this report, ecosystem services are defined as “benefits that humans desire from the environment” (e.g., 

recreation or food). They are what link humans to ecosystems, can be goods or services (e.g., food is a good, and coastal 

protection is a service), are valued by various types of users and can be regulated directly by the environment, or managed by 

controlling human activities or ecosystem components (e.g., restoring habitats). Whether or not specific services are rendered can 

be evaluated directly or indirectly based on attributes of the natural ecosystem that people care about. For example, recreational 

scuba divers care about water clarity and visibility in coral reef ecosystems. These are attributes that can be measured and 

assigned status and trend ratings, which then allows one to track one or more specific ecosystem services to which they pertain.
Framework for Condition Reports

6

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure FCR.1. This diagram provides a visual depiction of the DPSER framework, illustrating connectivity between each aspect of 

the model, and showing how management responses can be incorporated to modify driving forces, pressures, and state. Image: 

NOAA

Driving Forces 

Global, regional, local political, demographic and 

economic circumstances, and societal values

Pressures 

Near and far-field human activities and natural 

events and processes that threaten resources

State 

Condition of water, habitat, living resources, 

maritime archaeological resources, and human 

dimensions

Ecosystem Services 

Cultural, provisioning, and regulating outputs that 

benefit people

Response

Actions to prevent, 

reduce, and mitigate 

undesirable change

create

affect condition of

impact availability of

maintain or 

restore

elicit

elicit

modify

modify
7

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

ABOUT THIS REPORT

The purpose of a condition report is to use the best available science and most recent data to assess the 

status of various parts of the sanctuary’s ecosystem. The first condition report for SBNMS was released in 

2007 (NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 2007); ratings from that report are provided in 

Appendix C. This updated condition report marks a second comprehensive description of the status and 

trends of sanctuary resources. The findings in this condition report document status and trends in water 

quality, habitat, living resources, and maritime heritage resources from 2007–2018, unless otherwise 

noted. The report helps identify gaps in current monitoring efforts, as well as causal factors that may 

require monitoring and potential remediation through management actions in the coming years. The data 

discussed will not only enable sanctuary resource managers and stakeholders to acknowledge and have a 

shared perspective on prior changes in resource status, but will also inform management efforts to address 

challenges stemming from pressures, such as increasing coastal populations and climate change.

The findings in this condition report will provide critical support for identifying high priority sanctuary 

management actions, specifically helping to shape updates to the SBNMS management plan. The 

management plan helps guide future work and resource allocation decisions at SBNMS by describing 

strategies and activities designed to address priority issues and advance core sanctuary programs. The 

next update to the sanctuary management plan will build on the 2010 management plan, which contains a 

number of actions to address issues and concerns (NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 2010). 

The next management plan review process will begin in 2020. The process will involve significant public 

input, agency consultations, and environmental compliance work, and depending on the complexity of 

actions proposed, may take one to three years to complete.

As described above, condition reports use a DPSER framework. The State section of this document 

reports the status and trends in water quality, habitat, living resources, and maritime heritage resources 

from 2007–2018, unless otherwise noted. The Ecosystem services section includes an assessment of 

heritage, food supply, consumptive and non-consumptive recreation, science, and education. 

In order to rate the status and trends associated with resources, human activities, and ecosystem services,

sanctuary staff consulted with a group of outside experts familiar with the resources, activities, and 

services in the sanctuary. This group of experts also had knowledge of previous and current scientific 

efforts in the sanctuary (Appendix D). Evaluations of status and trends were based on the interpretation of 

quantitative and, when necessary, qualitative assessments, as well as on observations of scientists, 

managers, and users. An external expert panel was not employed during the 2007 condition report 

development process, which, in hindsight, was a shortcoming of that process.

Two other important changes to the condition report process since 2007 should be noted. First, in 

response to feedback provided to ONMS, the process used to generate the current condition report is more 

quantitatively robust and repeatable. This was achieved by using the NOAA Integrated Ecosystem 

Assessment (IEA) framework (NOAA 2019a), which takes a literature-based approach to developing 

indicators for key components of the ecosystem. Status and trend assessments can then be made for the 

selected indicators over time. This approach ensures that the expert community has quantitative data 

representative of core ecosystem components available to them as they contribute to assessment ratings. 
About this Report

8

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

These indicators continue to be tracked over time, and updated time series data can be used in subsequent 

assessments.

Another improvement pertains to communication of uncertainty. In the prior report, inferences regarding 

the level of confidence for each status and trend rating were drawn from the literature reviewed. The new 

approach used in this report incorporates a level of uncertainty into the symbols for each status and trend 

rating for every question. Determination of uncertainty is based on both an evaluation of the data utilized 

to determine the rating (e.g., peer-reviewed literature, expert opinion) as well as the level of agreement 

among the experts (Appendix D).

This condition report meets the aforementioned standardized format and framework that has been 

prescribed for all NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries condition reports. To the greatest extent 

possible, the authors have attempted to make each section’s narrative consistent and comparable in terms 

of content, detail, and length; however, it is important to understand that each section contains different 

types and amounts of information given the realities and confines of datasets and expert opinions that 

were available during this process. In addition, this report is the result of a multi-year, collaborative effort 

across multiple authors, contributors, and reviewers and thus contains stylistic writing differences across 

some sections. These differences do not detract from the validity or quality of this report. Finally, ratings 

reflect the collective interpretation of sanctuary staff and outside experts, based on their knowledge and 

perception of local conditions. Where there was not agreement on ratings, differences in opinion were 

acknowledged; however, the final ratings were made by sanctuary staff. To reiterate this point, it is 

important to understand that the interpretation, ratings, and text in this condition report are the 

responsibility of and determined to be final by ONMS. To emphasize this important point, authorship of 

the report is attributed to ONMS; subject matter experts are not authors, though their efforts and 

affiliations are acknowledged in the report. This report has been peer-reviewed and complies with the 

White House Office of Management and Budget's peer-review standards, as outlined in the Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (OMB 2004).
9

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 1992, the U.S. Congress designated Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS), located 

off the coast of Massachusetts in the southwestern Gulf of Maine. The sanctuary stretches from Cape Ann 

to Cape Cod and encompasses 842 square miles surrounding Stellwagen Bank, a shallow, glaciallydeposited underwater plateau and the sanctuary’s most prominent bathymetric feature. The interaction 

between tides, currents, winds, and Stellwagen Bank drives remarkable productivity and biodiversity. The 

sanctuary’s rich waters serve as a critical feeding ground and nursery for whales and dolphins, provide a 

vital stopover and seasonal destination for migrating seabirds, and offer essential habitat for 

commercially-harvested fish. The sanctuary’s proximity to the Boston metropolitan region attracts many 

valuable commercial and recreational activities such as fishing, shipping, and tourism, and its position 

astride historic shipping routes and fishing grounds for Massachusetts’s oldest ports make it a repository 

for historic shipwrecks and rich maritime heritage.

The purpose of a condition report is to use the best available science and most recent data to assess the 

status and trends of various parts of the sanctuary’s ecosystem. The first condition report for SBNMS was 

released in 2007; status and trend ratings from that report are provided in Appendix C. This report marks 

a second comprehensive update to describe the status and trends of sanctuary resources, including water 

quality, habitat, living resources, and maritime heritage resources. In addition, this new condition report 

includes the status and trends of ecosystem services—how humans either derive benefit or accrue costs 

from different ecosystem attributes that people care about for their lives and livelihoods. Ecosystem 

services evaluated in this report include heritage, food supply, consumptive and non-consumptive 

recreation, sense of place, science, and education.

The findings document status and trends in sanctuary resources and ecosystem services from 2007–2018, 

unless otherwise noted. The report helps identify gaps in current monitoring efforts, as well as causal 

factors that may require monitoring and potential remediation through management actions in the coming 

years. The data discussed in this report will not only enable sanctuary resource managers and stakeholders 

to acknowledge and have a shared perspective on prior changes in resource status, but will also inform 

management efforts, primarily through the management plan review process, to address challenges 

stemming from pressures, such as increasing coastal populations and climate change.

The summaries below suggest that water quality in the sanctuary is fairly good, but habitat, living 

resources, and maritime heritage resources continue to be impacted in various ways by human 

activities, such as shipping traffic and commercial and recreational fishing. Ecosystem services in 

the sanctuary are generally improving, and in either good or fair condition.

Human Activities

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary is located 25 miles east of the port of Boston. The proximity 

of the sanctuary to the metropolitan region and surrounding Cape Cod communities make it highly 

accessible, exposing the sanctuary and its resources to a large range of human activities and pressures. 

Due to its offshore location, human activities in SBNMS are associated with different pressures on 

resources than inshore or mainland activities. Understanding the driving forces behind these pressures can 

aid in predicting the direction and extent of future pressures. The majority of driving forces (factors that 

lead to pressures) are increasing; these forces include population, per capita income, and gross domestic 
Executive Summary

10

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

product (GDP) of international trading partners. Demand for seafood, demand for recreation, and 

import/export of goods were also identified as specific, primary drivers of pressures on SBNMS 

resources. Additionally, gasoline prices have been stable and relatively low, making access to the 

sanctuary relatively affordable. The direction of these drivers indicates that pressures will continue to 

increase within the sanctuary.

Water Quality

Despite several potential stressors, sanctuary water quality is good/fair and does not appear to be 

adversely impacted by human activities. The largest effluent contributor in the region and the primary 

potential human source of nutrients is the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) outfall, 

which is located approximately 12 nautical miles from the western boundary of SBNMS. Ongoing 

monitoring suggests that the MWRA outfall is currently not adversely influencing monitored water 

quality parameters in SBNMS, and no evidence suggests that eutrophication is occurring. The 

Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) is directly adjacent to the sanctuary’s western boundary and 

receives dredged material deemed suitable for open water disposal. This site incorporates the areas of two 

historic disposal sites containing toxic materials, though deposited toxic materials show limited mobility, 

and assessments have not shown any associated contamination of SBNMS. Maintenance dredging and 

expansion of Boston Harbor will generate 12 million cubic yards of dredged material for disposal in 

MBDS, but this is not expected to impact sanctuary water quality. Limited data exist to thoroughly 

evaluate potential impacts to water quality from vessel discharge and sediment perturbation by mobile

fishing gear. 

Monitoring suggests that concentrations of bacteria and toxigenic phytoplankton species rarely reach or 

exceed levels of concern in SBNMS and likely pose low risk to human health. However, the presence of 

toxigenic phytoplankton species indicates the potential for harmful algal blooms (HABs). HAB dynamics 

in the Gulf of Maine may be related to climate change, but current data show no explicit association 

between HAB occurrence and increasing temperatures in SBNMS.

Climate change impacts in SBNMS are measurable, and the threat of climate change to ecological 

integrity is increasing. The Gulf of Maine is warming faster than 99% of the global ocean; increases in 

both surface and bottom temperatures in SBNMS reflect these trends. Recent work suggests changes in 

seasonal temperature dynamics, longer summer seasons, and changes to primary production in and around 

SBNMS. Climate change is causing shifts in phenology and distributions of plankton, fish, whales, and 

other organisms in the Gulf of Maine. Impacts of climate change on important prey (foundation) species 

like sand lance and the copepod Calanus finmarchicus are particularly concerning, as these changes have 

the potential to drive cascading ecosystem effects and impact abundance, distribution, and health of top 

predators. In addition, climate change is causing impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries, local 

businesses, and communities. More robust monitoring of climate change effects and ocean acidification 

conditions in SBNMS is necessary to understand trends, seasonal fluctuations, and the possible 

ramifications for water quality, shell-forming invertebrates, and the larger ecosystem.

Habitat

The sanctuary’s diverse underwater landscape is a patchwork of habitats composed of both geologic and 

biogenic components. Benthic substrate types are generally correlated with seafloor communities and 

constitute important geologic habitat components. Data suggest measurable degradation of habitat quality 
Executive Summary

11

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

over the past ten years, primarily due to direct impacts of bottom-contact gear used in commercial fishing, 

which occurs extensively throughout SBNMS. Mobile, bottom-tending fishing gear can alter or remove 

important structural characteristics and/or biological components of the seabed, which is a concern for 

maintaining habitat integrity. Lower levels of direct impact are evident in the Western Gulf of Maine 

Closure Area, and the closure led to recovery in some areas. Significant increases in scallop dredging may 

have impacted the northwest corner of Stellwagen Bank in 2017; this effort has been reduced, but is 

expected to continue. Overall fishing effort has declined by around 55% since 2009; however, it is unclear 

whether reductions in effort have resulted in improved sanctuary benthic habitat integrity. Fixed gear has 

less impact on the seabed, but poses an entanglement risk for protected species. Fishing effort reductions 

and gear modifications have been implemented to reduce bycatch of small marine mammals and seabirds 

and to attempt to reduce serious injury and mortality of large whales.

Localized disturbance of benthic habitats was observed after the installation of the sanctuary’s only 

submerged cable, the Hibernia Atlantic cable, in the year 2000. Post-installation monitoring showed that 

impacts to benthic communities were not significantly different than those caused by commercial fishing. 

Other potential localized seabed impacts, including anchoring of recreational fishing vessels, should be 

evaluated.

Legacy contaminants and metals in benthic habitats have been reported; however, they do not appear to 

remobilize beyond sites where they have been identified, and no population effects have been 

documented. Limited data suggest emerging contaminants are present within Massachusetts Bay at low 

concentrations, with uncertain biological ramifications, and may be shifting or increasing with the 

continued introduction of new chemicals. No data exist regarding microplastics in SBNMS, though 

surface water concentrations of microplastics in the Gulf of Maine are far lower than in the North 

Atlantic. Abundance of marine debris in SBNMS depends on natural forces and human drivers, which 

may increase with increasing population growth and coastal development. Additional work to 

characterize and quantify emerging contaminants and microplastics in SBNMS habitats is needed.

SBNMS is an urban sanctuary, and impacts to its acoustic environment are a concern. Designated 

shipping lanes such as the Boston Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) cut through the sanctuary and are 

used by most commercial vessels transiting to the port of Boston. Commercial fishing vessels use the 

sanctuary year-round. The whale watching industry has expanded, and the numbers of recreational 

boaters and whale watchers are rising. Human-generated underwater noise from vessels, particularly from 

large commercial ships, can degrade habitat quality and interrupt behavior and communication of many 

marine species. Increasing noise levels and impacts of noise to some marine mammal and fish species 

have been documented in the sanctuary and are expected to continue. SBNMS has been at the forefront of 

raising awareness of the potential threat of noise to organisms and has pioneered the use of several 

advanced passive acoustic monitoring methods and technologies to further the study of ocean noise and 

its impacts.

Living Resources

The large-scale circulation of the Gulf of Maine and influx from the Maine Coastal Current, along with 

tidal fluctuations, local wind forcing, and long-term climate dynamics, drive a strong seasonal cycle of 

stratification, nutrient availability, and primary production that forms the foundation of the SBNMS food 

web and ecosystem. SBNMS supports over 575 species of invertebrates, fish, seabirds, and marine 
Executive Summary

12

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

mammals. Community structure and local stability in SBNMS are maintained by several foundational 

species that serve as prey or biogenic habitat, including calanoid copepods, Atlantic herring, sand lance, 

sponges, and anemones. The status and trends of these species are variable, but generally good to fair, 

though data are limited in some cases, and several species may be particularly vulnerable to climate 

change.

Calanus finmarchicus is a crucial, lipid-rich copepod and food source for several ecologically and 

economically important species in SBNMS, including larval cod and haddock, herring, sand lance, and 

the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale. Despite a general downward trend in abundance and 

shifts in distribution in the larger Gulf of Maine driven by climate change, C. finmarchicus has persisted 

regionally.

Sand lance is a key prey species for marine mammals, seabirds, and commercially important fish in 

SBNMS and the larger Gulf of Maine. Data suggest that the abundance and distribution of sand lance at 

local and/or regional scales influence the abundance and distribution of predators including humpback 

whales, great shearwaters, and Atlantic cod. Sand lance are dependent on shallow, coarse grain sand 

habitats to escape predation and lay their eggs. Their geographic restriction to sand habitat, as well as 

their winter dormancy and possible water temperature-induced spawning, raises concerns about their 

ability to adapt to accelerated climate change. Sand lance exhibit natural, dramatic fluctuations in spatial 

and temporal abundance, but what drives these cycles is unknown. Atlantic herring also exhibit patchy 

distributions and variable abundance within SBNMS. Herring and sand lance populations in the SBNMS 

region typically oscillate out of phase, suggesting either bottom-up forcing of such patterns, or an effect 

of direct species interactions (predation, competition, or overfishing) in determining abundance. Declines 

in recruitment, variability in abundance and distribution, patch characteristics that increase vulnerability 

to overfishing, and potential climate change impacts are concerns for ecologically and commercially 

important forage species.

Porifera (sponges) and Cnidaria (hydroids and anemones) serve important roles as benthic, structureforming organisms in SBNMS, as they provide shelter for associated species and contribute to habitat 

complexity. These species are physically fragile and sensitive to direct disturbance. Changes in the 

abundance and distribution of these taxa over time correspond both to larger regional and local processes 

as well as human-caused disturbance, but the current status of these species is uncertain.

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary serves as important habitat for several species whose 

presence and health contribute to the economic, ecological, and conservation value of the sanctuary. The 

status of these eight focal indicator species is mixed. Select human activities have caused severe, 

widespread, and/or persistent impacts to some species. Impacts from commercial fishing and commercial 

and recreational vessel activity are primary concerns. However, ongoing efforts to monitor and mediate 

threats has led to some improvement in other species, resulting in a collective rating of fair for focal 

species.

The sanctuary and surrounding waters are primary foraging grounds for humpback whales and critically 

endangered North Atlantic right whales, and poor ratings for both species drove the overall fair rating for 

focal species. North Atlantic right whales are at risk for extinction, as their population has been in decline 

since 2010, and only 12 births have been documented since 2017. Despite positive population growth of 
Executive Summary

13

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Gulf of Maine humpback whale populations, frequent fisheries interactions and serious injury and 

mortality in most years warrants a poor rating for this species.

SBNMS is a hot spot for reports of entangled humpback whales, though the locations of entanglement 

origin are often unknown. Recent SBNMS research shows that humpback whales are tightly collocated 

with sand lance in southern SBNMS, where trap/pot fisheries operate. In addition, recreational tuna 

vessels often target areas where whales are present, which can have adverse impacts for whales. In 

response to the critical status of right whales, NOAA’s Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team, 

which includes SBNMS, recommended modifications to their Large Whale Take Reduction Plan to 

further reduce the risk of serious injury and mortality from entanglement, including reductions in the use 

of vertical lines and changes to closure areas.

Ship strikes to right and humpback whales in SBNMS have likely decreased following a number of 

actions. These include 1) working with multiple partners to shift the Boston TSS away from primary 

feeding areas for large whales; 2) a NOAA Fisheries regulation to limit the speed of vessels larger than 65 

ft at certain times; 3) the installation of a real-time passive acoustic monitoring system along the TSS 

following the construction of two deepwater liquefied natural gas ports; 4) the development of an app to 

alert mariners to the presence of right whales; and 5) the development of a corporate responsibility report 

card program to evaluate mariner compliance with speed restrictions. Recreational boat strikes remain a 

concern for humpback whales. Recreational boating in SBNMS is mostly seasonal, but is intensive during 

high season and could produce concerning levels of noise.

Noise levels in the ocean and in SBNMS have increased dramatically during the last 50 years. SBNMS 

research has focused on characterizing the sanctuary’s low-frequency “noise budget” associated with 

large commercial vessels by using automatic identification system (AIS) data to document the distribution 

and density of vessel traffic-associated noise and its potential to “mask” biologically-important acoustic 

signals. Work by SBNMS and colleagues shows that baleen whale species have lost over two thirds of 

their communication space, primarily due to ambient noise and AIS vessel activity in SBNMS. Data also 

show that vessel noise can significantly impact humpback whale communication and foraging behavior. 

Constant high levels of low-frequency sound in SBNMS also reduced communication space for 

commercially important Atlantic cod and haddock during winter spawning times. Efforts to mitigate noise 

impacts on marine species are ongoing.

Commercial fishing occurs extensively throughout SBNMS. While large whales experience high 

entanglement risk from trap/pot fisheries, smaller marine mammals and seabirds are at greater risk from 

gillnet fisheries. Grey seals are the most commonly bycaught marine mammal, while harbor porpoise and 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins are also at risk of bycatch in gillnets. Great shearwaters comprise the 

highest bycatch of any animal in the sanctuary and are the most frequently bycaught seabird in the Gulf of 

Maine. Gillnets account for the vast majority of mortalities in seabirds.

Atlantic white-sided dolphins and great shearwaters are the most commonly sighted toothed whale and 

seabird species in SBNMS, respectively, and recent work suggests that these species may prey on sand 

lance. Bluefin tuna on Stellwagen Bank frequently prey on sand lance as well as herring. Abundance of 

bluefin tuna has increased in the Gulf of Maine and the western Atlantic, resulting in a 2017 increase in 

the annual bluefin tuna quota. Atlantic cod distributions are also strongly influenced by sand lance in 

SBNMS.
Executive Summary

14

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Atlantic cod is a culturally, ecologically, and economically important species in the Gulf of Maine, and 

SBNMS and has historically been the focus of commercial and recreational cod fishing. Research 

indicates that the Atlantic cod population is at a historic low and has contracted to the western Gulf of 

Maine, including SBNMS. This shift in distribution is primarily driven by sand lance abundance. The 

hyper-aggregation of cod in a small area in SBNMS makes this species vulnerable to overexploitation. 

SBNMS and colleagues have documented spawning aggregations of cod in SBNMS using several 

acoustic technologies. The western Gulf of Maine, including SBNMS, is possibly the last area with 

consistent aggregations of cod in the Gulf of Maine stock. A combination of fishing pressure, species 

interactions, and environmental change contributes to continued population decline.

Lobster are iconic in the Gulf of Maine and SBNMS. Abundance is at an all-time high following 

increases in growth and reproduction aided by warming water temperatures. However, consistent declines 

in young-of-the-year lobster since 2012 in the Gulf of Maine and the poor status and recruitment of 

southern New England lobster suggest that prolonged temperatures above a certain threshold negatively 

impact lobster, and climate change may have an adverse impact on lobsters in SBNMS in the future.

Biodiversity in SBNMS has changed since the 2007 condition report; this change was primarily driven by 

variability in fishing and climate at both regional and local scales. Data show that fish species richness in 

SBNMS and the region has increased since 2006 and fish community composition has shifted over time. 

Seabird community data specific to SBNMS are limited, but regional data collected along Massachusetts 

coastlines suggest possible changes in relative abundance over time. There are diverse communities of 

seafloor invertebrates within SBNMS, including three species considered rare within the Gulf of Maine 

region. However, it is difficult to assess the status of seafloor communities from 2007–2018 due to the 

disruption of a long term monitoring station, which compromised the ability to assess change over time. 

Additional monitoring, particularly for seabirds and invertebrates, and at regional and local scales, is 

needed.

The number of non-indigenous species in SBNMS is likely low, though limited information on these 

species is available. High levels of vessel traffic in and around the sanctuary have the potential to 

introduce non-indigenous species through ballast water or fouling on hulls or other equipment (fishing 

nets, etc.). In addition, climate change may result in increased introductions of non-indigenous species 

due to altered species ranges influenced by warming waters and changes in ocean circulation. Didemnum

vexillum, an invasive tunicate, was documented in the sanctuary in small, isolated areas dominated by 

hard bottom habitats, but this species is unlikely to be an issue in SBNMS because its preferred habitat 

(hard bottom) is not abundant.

Maritime Heritage Resources

Forty-seven historic shipwreck sites have been inventoried in the sanctuary, representing a long, rich 

maritime history. The condition of the sanctuary’s heritage resources varies due to natural deterioration 

and human impacts, and as non-renewable resources, their decline is irreversible. Commercial fishing 

activity continues to be the greatest source of disturbance to maritime heritage resource integrity. 

Incidental contact from fishing gear has impacted nearly every maritime heritage resource in SBNMS. 

The diminished condition of some heritage resources has reduced their historical, archaeological, 

scientific, or educational value. 
Executive Summary

15

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Recreational diving in SBNMS has increased since 2007, and some evidence suggests that divers 

occasionally disturb wrecks through movement of artifacts or by anchoring on wrecks; degradation from 

recreational diving, however, does not appear to be widespread. More frequent monitoring and 

documentation of shipwreck sites is required to track site degradation over time and to broaden our 

knowledge of and connection to New England maritime history and our sense of place.

Ecosystem Services

Seven ecosystem services were evaluated for this condition report: heritage, food supply, consumptive 

recreation, non-consumptive recreation, sense of place, science, and education.

Maritime heritage is the recognition of historical or heritage legacy. There are significant products telling 

the stories of historic shipwrecks in the sanctuary, all of which indicate there is significant economic 

value associated with maritime heritage in SBNMS. At the same time, resource indicators show some 

decline in integrity due to natural degradation and commercial fishing gear damage, but overall, damage 

is not severe. 

Consumptive recreation includes recreational activities that result in the removal of or damage to natural 

and cultural resources. For SBNMS, this activity is primarily recreational fishing. While the number of 

charter boat and party boat anglers has declined over most of the time period of interest, private boat 

registrations have generally remained stable but increased recently. Local communities are also highly 

engaged in recreational fishing. Yet, the resource (recreational fishing stocks) condition is mixed. These 

factors suggest that there is significant and augmented economic value associated with consumptive 

recreational resources in SBNMS, but there are mixed results among the indicators, as well as information 

gaps. In addition, very little information is available for fishing on private household boats, and there is a 

lack of other ancillary socioeconomic data for recreational fishing.

Sanctuary visitors also participate in non-consumptive recreational activities that do not result in the 

removal of or damage to natural and heritage resources. The primary non-consumptive recreational 

activities conducted in SBNMS include whale watching and other wildlife observation, scuba diving, 

sailing, and motor boating. Economic indicators suggest there are significant economic contributions 

associated with non-consumptive recreation in SBNMS that are either stable or increasing. As of 2008, 

the majority of whale watching in the New England region occurred within SBNMS, amounting to 

spending of approximately $100 million (2017$). Resource indicators suggest that, with the exception of 

an increase in bird sightings, there has been a decline in the natural resources that support nonconsumptive recreation in the sanctuary, however, the decline is not widespread across affected resources. 

Sense of place is the aesthetic and spiritual attraction of a particular location, as well as the level of 

recognition and appreciation given to efforts to protect a place’s iconic elements. Several studies show 

that people put positive economic value on natural resources and are willing to pay to protect them. These 

valuation corollaries, trends in environmental attitudes, and growth in real per capita incomes suggest that 

economic indicators are positive and increasing. Though there has been a decline in some natural 

resources, like whales, it has not been widespread across all relevant resources, and other indicators, like 

water quality, have not been affected. 

The ecosystem service of science is defined as the capacity to acquire and contribute information and 

knowledge. Research occuring in SBNMS, led by sanctuary staff and partners, is expanding and has 
Executive Summary

16

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

gained international recognition. There is, however, a noteworthy information gap of indicators to 

estimate the economic value and contributions of science in SBNMS. Non-economic indicators, on the 

other hand (the number of research hours and days on the R/V Auk, citizen science hours, and the number 

of volunteers) have been increasing or stable through time. Further, SBNMS is at the forefront of 

anthropogenic noise and humpback and fin whale research. As a result of the research being conducted in 

SBNMS by site staff and partners, the body of scientific work in SBNMS has contributed significantly to 

the state of knowledge of resource conditions.

Many people of all ages study ecosystems and their importance through both formal and informal 

education. When people derive benefits from educational experiences or products resulting from the 

sanctuary, this is considered an ecosystem service. Although there have been no economic valuation 

studies done for education programs in SBNMS, studies of other environmental education programs 

indicate a positive value for hands-on education experiences. Further, several non-economic indicators 

have been increasing. Specifically, the number of volunteers and volunteer hours has increased since 

2011, and related social media presence, as measured by the number of SBNMS followers on Facebook 

and Twitter, has increased since 2015, indicating that education work in SBNMS has contributed to 

public knowledge about SBNMS resources.

The food supply ecosystem service is defined as the capacity to support market demands for nutritionrelated commodities, namely fish, through various fisheries. Economic indicators have mixed results. 

From 2007 to 2016, the total value of landings (cumulative revenue across all years, in 2017$) from 

species caught in the sanctuary was in excess of $194 million. Trends in both landings values and pounds 

from 2007 to 2016 for sea scallops, lobster, and Atlantic mackerel were generally increasing. 

Additionally, some resource indicators suggest a decline in the natural stock, but it is important to note 

that this trend is not widespread or across all stocks (e.g., there may be emerging stocks as a result of 

changing species distributions within the region). More information is needed for both economic and noneconomic indicators on costs-and-earnings to assess whether there are above normal returns on 

investments that result in more fishing effort, and non-economic indicators are needed that gauge the 

socio-demographic profiles of fishers. 

In Conclusion

The findings in this condition report will provide critical support for identifying high priority sanctuary 

management actions, specifically helping shape updates to the SBNMS management plan. The revised 

management plan will guide future work and resource allocation at SBNMS by describing strategies and 

activities that address priority issues and advance core sanctuary programs. Likely issues that the revised 

management plan will need to address include, among other things, climate change, water quality 

monitoring, the effects of underwater noise, and a better understanding of the maritime cultural landscape, 

in addition to renewed education, outreach, and citizen science efforts. The management plan review 

process will begin in 2020 and will build on the 2010 management plan. The process will involve 

significant public input, agency consultations, and environmental compliance work, and depending on the 

complexity of actions proposed, may take one to three years to complete.
17

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

STELLWAGEN BANK NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY 

SUMMARY OF RESOURCE CONDITIONS

The various resource status and trend evaluations presented in this report are summarized below. Each 

question used to rate the condition and trends sanctuary resources is listed, followed by:

1) A set of rating symbols that display key information. The first symbol includes a color and term 

to indicate status. The next symbol indicates trend. A shaded scale adjacent to both symbols 

indicates confidence (see key for example and definitions).

2) The status description, which is a statement that best characterizes resource status and 

corresponds to the assigned color rating and definition as described in Appendix A. The status 

description statements are customized for all possible ratings for each question.

3) The rationale: a short statement or list of criteria used to justify the rating.

Key:

Drivers/Pressures

Question 1: What are the states of influential human drivers and how are they changing?

Status Description: Selected drivers are influencing pressures 

in ways that result in severe impacts that are either widespread or 

persistent.

Rationale: Increasing demand at multiple scales for food, ocean transportation, and recreation, 

influenced heavily by population growth and increasing income, enhances commercial and 

recreational activities with adverse impacts that include habitat damage, entanglement, ship strikes, 

noise, and contaminant discharges.
Summary of Resource Conditions

18

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Question 2: What are the levels of human activities that may adversely influence water 

quality and how are they changing?

Status Description: Some potentially harmful activities exist, 

but they have not been shown to degrade water quality.

Rationale: Several human activities have the potential to adversely influence water quality, but 

generally do not seem to be doing so. Potential activities of concern include the Massachusetts Water 

Resources Authority (MWRA) outfall and other effluent discharges, vessel discharges, ballast water 

discharges, disposal of dredged material, resuspension of sediments from bottom-contact fishing gear, 

and airborne industrial discharges.

Question 3: What are the levels of human activities that may adversely influence habitats 

and how are they changing?

Status Description5: Selected activities have caused 

measurable resource impacts, but effects are localized and not 

widespread or persistent.

Rationale: Some activities, such as the use of mobile gear and anthropogenic noise, are of particular 

concern, as they can alter structural characteristics of habitat. Other activities that occur, but result in 

more localized habitat disturbance, include the dumping of dredged material adjacent to the sanctuary 

and submarine cable installation.

Question 4: What are the levels of human activities that may adversely influence living 

resources and how are they changing?

Status Description: Selected activities have caused severe 

impacts that are either widespread or persistent.

Rationale: Fixed and mobile commercial fishing methods, shipping, and recreational activities such 

as fishing and whale watching are of particular concern, as they can cause negative impacts on living 

resources. Improvements in gear management and decreases in overall fishing effort have resulted in 

reduced impacts on living resources, ship strikes of whales have decreased, and efforts are underway 

to mitigate noise impacts on marine mammals.

 

5 The status rating for this question was changed from “undetermined” to “fair.” The expert workshop participants recommended 

an undetermined rating primarily due to the lack of vessel monitoring system (VMS) data. Staff have subsequently acquired and 

analyzed VMS data. The data show that these impacts, in combination with other impacts such as noise and vertical lines from 

trap fishing, warrant the rating of “fair” for the status of sanctuary habitats, which include the seafloor and water column.
Summary of Resource Conditions

19

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Question 5: What are the levels of human activities that may adversely affect maritime 

heritage resources and how are they changing?

Status Description: Selected activities have caused severe, 

persistent, and widespread impacts.

Rationale: Incidental contact from fishing gear has affected nearly every maritime heritage resource 

in the sanctuary and continues to negatively impact archaeological site conditions. Recreational 

diving has also caused some local impacts but is not considered to be causing widespread degradation 

of maritime archaeological sites.

Water Quality

Question 6: What is the eutrophic condition of sanctuary waters and how is it changing?

Status Description: Eutrophication has not been documented, 

or does not appear to have the potential to negatively affect 

ecological integrity.

Rationale: MWRA hydrographic modelling (Zhao et al. 2017a) suggests that eutrophication is not 

occurring. Dissolved oxygen has not approached hypoxic or anoxic conditions over time. Background 

nitrogen may be decreasing regionally, which would decrease the probability of eutrophication.

Question 7: Do sanctuary waters pose risks to human health and how are they 

changing?

Status Description: One or more water quality indicators 

suggest the potential for human health impacts, but human health 

impacts have not been reported.

Rationale: Toxigenic algae are present but not observed to cause demonstrable threats to human 

health. Observed water quality changes over the last 12 years may be related to changes in the North 

Atlantic Oscillation.

Question 8: Have recent changes in climate altered water conditions and how are they 

changing?

Status Description: Climate-related changes have caused 

measurable, but not severe, degradation in some attributes of 

ecological integrity.

Rationale: Climate change is influencing the primary production cycle in the region, and has the 

demonstrated capacity to produce cascading effects within the ecosystem. Additional changes in 

water temperature, dissolved oxygen, stratification, sea level, precipitation, and storm activity have 

been documented or modeled, with some suggestion of changes in pH, though more monitoring is 

needed to more robustly identify acidification trends and effects.
Summary of Resource Conditions

20

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Question 9: Are other stressors, individually or in combination, affecting water quality, 

and how are they changing?

Status Description: Undetermined

Rationale: Ongoing contaminant monitoring has focused on a handful of legacy contaminants, 

leaving the majority of emerging organic contaminants unmeasured. No data exists to determine 

changes over time, which is the primary factor driving the rating and trend. More monitoring is 

needed in this area.

Habitat Resources

Question 10: What is the integrity of major habitat types and how is it changing?

Status Description: Selected habitat loss or alteration has 

caused measurable but not severe degradation in some attributes 

of ecological integrity.

Rationale: Data suggest measurable changes in habitat quality, likely due to the use of bottomcontact commercial fishing gear. Some habitat attributes show degradation, while others show 

improvement. Significant habitat degradation is observed in isolated areas due to chronic disturbance. 

Use of bottom-contact gear is intensive in SBNMS, but diminishing due to regulatory controls and 

fleet consolidation. An increase in scallop dredging started in 2017 and will continue. Seabed 

disturbance from anchoring and other activities might also be locally important and should be 

evaluated.

Question 11: What are contaminant concentrations in sanctuary habitats and how are 

they changing?

Status Description: Undetermined

Rationale: Legacy contaminants have been reported in benthic habitats. However, they infrequently 

exceed thresholds of concern, do not appear to remobilize beyond sites where they have been 

identified (e.g., MBDS), and no indications of acute life history or population effects have been 

observed. Compounds of emerging concern are present, but poorly documented or monitored; thus, 

their status and trends could not be assessed. More monitoring is needed in this area.
Summary of Resource Conditions

21

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Living Resources

Question 12: What is the status of keystone and foundation species and how is it 

changing?

Status Description: The status of keystone or foundation 

species may preclude full community development and function, 

but has not yet led to measurable degradation.

Rationale: Foundation species considered include Calanoid copepods, Atlantic herring, sand lance, 

sponges, and anemones. Calanoid copepods have persisted in the western Gulf of Maine despite 

recent warming. Atlantic herring have recovered from overfishing, but poor recruitment may result in 

a future decline in biomass. Sand lance are tightly linked to isolated shallow sand habitat on top of 

Stellwagen Bank and exhibit variable, unpredictable local abundance. The status of sponges and 

anemones is uncertain.

Question 13: What is the status of other focal species and how is it changing?

Status Description: Selected key species are at reduced levels, 

but recovery is possible.

Rationale: The eight focal species considered include North Atlantic right whale (poor and 

worsening), humpback whale (poor and improving), harbor porpoises (fair and undetermined), 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins (good and undetermined), great shearwaters (good/fair and 

undetermined), Atlantic cod (fair/poor and worsening), lobster (good and improving), and bluefin 

tuna (undetermined and improving). The overall rating is driven by the precarious status of North 

Atlantic right whales, whose recovery is dependent on additional management intervention, and 

humpback whales, which have been experiencing an unusual mortality event since 2017.

Question 14: What is the status of non-indigenous species and how is it changing

Status Description: Non-indigenous species are present and 

may preclude full community development and function, but have 

not yet caused measurable degradation

Rationale: Invasive species exist in the sanctuary and have for many decades; however, their 

abundance and distribution are poorly documented. The invasive tunicate, Didemnum vexillum has 

been found in isolated, small areas dominated by hard bottom habitats.
Summary of Resource Conditions

22

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Question 15: What is the status of biodiversity and how is it changing?

Status Description: Selected biodiversity loss or change is 

suspected and may preclude full community development and 

function, but has not yet caused measurable degradation.

Rationale: Changes in sanctuary biodiversity are likely driven by variability in multiple factors at 

local and regional scales. At a local scale, fishing activities focused on species with high residency 

may impact biodiversity. Regional-scale factors include fishing of highly mobile species and climate 

change. The resulting shifts in species interactions at both spatial scales may also influence 

biodiversity in SBNMS.

Maritime Heritage Resources

Question 16: What is the condition of known maritime heritage resources and how is it 

changing?

Status Description: The diminished condition of selected 

maritime heritage resources has reduced, to some extent, their 

aesthetic, cultural, historical, archaeological, scientific, or 

educational value, and may affect the eligibility of some sites for 

listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

Rationale: Shipwreck sites are known to experience damage from mobile and fixed fishing gear, as 

these sites create structure on the seabed that can attract commercially important fish species, and 

thus fishing effort. Damage to shipwreck sites from fishing gear has been documented. Shipwreck 

sites are also visited by scuba divers. Scuba diving in the sanctuary has increased since 2007, but 

seems to be well-managed by dive operators to avoid site disturbance.
23

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

STELLWAGEN BANK NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY 

SUMMARY OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

The various resource ecosystem service evaluations presented in this report are summarized below. Each 

ecosystem service is listed, followed by

1) A set of rating symbols that display key information. The first symbol includes a color and term 

to indicate status, the next symbol indicates trend, and a shaded scale adjacent to both symbols 

indicates confidence (see key for example and definitions).

2) The status description, which is a statement that best characterizes status and corresponds to the 

assigned color rating and definition as described in Appendix B.

3) The rationale, a short statement or list of criteria used to justify the rating.

Key:

Cultural (Non-Material Benefits)

Heritage

Status Description: Unable to fully provide the ecosystem 

service due to prior or existing human activity, but performance is 

acceptable.

Rationale: Indicators show that historic SBNMS shipwreck stories are told in newspapers, 

magazines, and museums in New England. The dissemination of historic shipwreck information and 

stories indicates there is economic value for this resource. The resource indicators show that in-water 

shipwreck resources are fair and worsening.
Summary of Ecosystem Services

24

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Consumptive Recreation

Status Description: Ability to provide ecosystem service is 

compromised, and existing management would require 

enhancement to enable acceptable performance.

Rationale: The number of charter and party boat anglers declined from 2007–2016, while the 

number of private boat registrations remained stable from 2007–2015 and increased in 2016. Local 

communities are also highly engaged in recreational fishing. The resource indicator for the most 

sought after stock (Atlantic cod) is poor, but alternative stocks (haddock, pollock, etc.) are sustainably 

managed and responsibly harvested.

Non-Consumptive Recreation

Status Description: Unable to fully provide the ecosystem 

service due to prior or existing human activity, but performance is 

acceptable.

Rationale: Some commercial operations have noted that demand for whale watching has steadily 

increased and the number of reports mentioning bird sightings has been increasing. Income and 

population in the area have also been increasing, and stable fuel prices have led to increased nonconsumptive recreational activity in the sanctuary. The resource indicators show that there is a decline 

in some of the focal and foundation species used for non-consumptive recreation.

Sense of Place

Status Description: Ability to provide ecosystem service is 

compromised, and existing management would require 

enhancement to enable acceptable performance.

Rationale: Studies show a positive willingness to pay for marine protected areas. Opinion polls 

show that over the past several years, the percentage of people that prioritize environmental 

protection at the risk of economic growth is increasing. The resource indicators show variation in 

their rankings.

Science

Status Description: The capacity to provide the ecosystem 

service has been enhanced or remained unaffected.

Rationale: The number of research hours and days on the R/V Auk, citizen science hours, and the 

number of volunteers have been increasing. Further, SBNMS is at the forefront of research focused 

on anthropogenic noise, humpback whales, and fin whales.
Summary of Ecosystem Services

25

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Education

Status Description: The capacity to provide the ecosystem 

service has been enhanced or remained unaffected.

Rationale: Studies show that parents have a willingness to pay for hands-on ocean conservation and 

stewardship programs. The number of Twitter and Facebook followers of SBNMS has increased over 

the past few years. Education activities at SBNMS have contributed to the public’s understanding of 

SBNMS resources and programs.

Provisioning (Material Benefits)

Food Supply

Status Description: Ability to provide ecosystem service is 

compromised, and existing management would require 

enhancement to enable acceptable performance.

Rationale: Pounds caught and value of landings show variability over the study period. Data 

indicate a shift from smaller to larger commercial vessels operating in the sanctuary. The groundfish 

fishery is still recovering, while lobster and sea scallop fisheries have been increasing.
26

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

SITE HISTORY AND RESOURCES

Overview

Figure SH.1. The sun sets over the ocean in Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Photo: NOAA

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary is one of 14 national marine sanctuaries and two marine 

national monuments comprising a national system of ocean and Great Lakes areas selected for their 

ecological, recreational, historical, and aesthetic values (Figures SH.1, SH.2). Congressionally designated 

in 1992, the sanctuary’s mission is to conserve, protect, and enhance biodiversity, ecological integrity, 

and cultural legacy, while facilitating compatible uses. The sanctuary is administered by the Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries within NOAA, which is part of the Department of Commerce. 
Site History and Resources

27

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure SH.2. Humpback whales and seabirds frequent the sanctuary. Photo: NOAA

Location

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary is located in the southwestern Gulf of Maine and stretches 

between Cape Ann and Cape Cod at the mouth of Massachusetts Bay (Figure SH.3). The sanctuary 

encompasses 842 square miles in a topographically diverse area that geologists estimate was created some 

18,000 years ago during the retreat of the Great Ice Age glaciers, a time when Stellwagen Bank was 

emergent land and may have hosted Pleistocene mammals and potentially Native Americans. Today, the 

dominant feature of the sanctuary is a shallow, glacially-deposited, primarily sandy underwater bank, 

curving in a southeast to northwest direction for 19 miles. The bank is roughly six miles across at its 

widest point, which is located at its southern end. Water depths within the sanctuary range from 65 feet to 

more than 600 feet. 
Site History and Resources

28

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure SH.3. The sanctuary is located between Cape Ann and Cape Cod, in the southwest corner of the Gulf of Maine. 

Image: NOAA
Site History and Resources

29

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Discovery of the Bank

There is little to no documentation in the historic record regarding the earliest encounters with what is 

now known as Stellwagen Bank. Native peoples were undoubtedly aware of the shallow bank and its 

associated productivity. Narrative accounts of early European voyages of exploration to New England 

provide evidence of the region’s varied and abundant marine resources prior to wide‐scale exploitation. 

Early published accounts include those of Giovanni da Verrazano (1524), Bartholomew Gosnold and 

John Brereton (1602), Martin Pring (1603), James Rosier and George Waymouth (1605), Samuel de 

Champlain (1605–1606), and John Smith (1614). Each of these explorers noted the richness and potential 

commercial value of New England fisheries. Descriptive and qualitative data can be extracted from these 

narratives to provide a general sense of abundance, distribution, and diversity in Massachusetts Bay prior 

to large‐scale fisheries exploitation. Publications from the second half of the 17th century, such as 

William Wood’s New England’s Prospect (1634) and John Josselyn’s New‐Englands Rarities Discovered 

(1672), also document the condition of marine resources observed by early New England settlers. One of 

the earliest documented encounters was by Captain John Smith, who was sent by the King of England to 

prospect for fishing grounds around 1614. In 1614, he remarked:

You shall scarce find any bay, shallow water or cove of land, where you may not take clams, or 

lobsters, or both at your pleasure, and in many places load your boat if you please, nor isles where 

you find not fruits, birds, crabs, and mussels, or all of them, for taking at low water. And in the 

harbors we frequented, a little boy might take of cunners, and pinnacks, and such delicate fish, at the

ship's stern, more than six or ten can catch in a day; but with a casting‐net, thousands when we 

pleased: and scarce any place, but cod, cusk, halibut, mackerel, skate, or such like, a man may take 

with a hook and line what he will. And, in diverse sandy bays, a man may draw with a net great store 

of mulletts, bass and diverse other sorts of such excellent fish, as many as his net can draw on shore: 

no river where there is not plenty of sturgeon, or salmon, or both; all which are to be had in 

abundance observing but their seasons (Smith 1624). 

In 1616, Captain Smith drafted an incredibly accurate chart of the Gulf of Maine, and in the vicinity of 

Stellwagen Bank, he drew his ship, a convention to identify good fishing grounds. In 1635, he 

embellished the chart with a pyramid of “cod heads” under the ship to denote that this area was especially 

good for fishing (Figure SH.4) (Smith 1624).
Site History and Resources

30

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure SH.4. Explorer John Smith’s Map of New England, 1616. Image: Smith 1624

Cape Cod and Stellwagen Bank also teemed with whales in the early 17th century. In 1620, William 

Bradford of the Plymouth Plantation observed: 

Cape Cod was like to be a place of good fishing, for we saw daily great whales of the best kind for oil 

and bone, come close aboard our ship, and in fair weather swim and play about us. There was once 

one, when the sun shone warm, came and lay above water as if she had been dead, for a good while 

together, within half a musket shot of the ship, at which two were prepared to shoot to see whether 

she would stir or no. He that gave fire first, his musket flew into pieces, both stock and barrel, yet, 

thanks be to God, neither he nor nay man else was hurt with it, though many were there about. But 

when the whale saw her time, she gave a snuff, and [went] away (Heath 1986). 

And every day we saw whales playing hard by us, of which in that place, if we had instruments and 

means to take them, we might have made a very rich return, which to our great grief we wanted. Our 

master and his mate, and others experienced in fishing, professed we might have made three or four 

thousand pounds’ worth of oil. They preferred it before Greenland whale‐fishing, and purpose the 

next winter to fish for whale here (Heath 1986).
Site History and Resources

31

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Mariners and fishers transiting Massachusetts Bay recognized the shoal waters of Stellwagen Bank as a 

navigational aid and rich fishing ground not long after European settlement of New England began. 

Known as Middle Bank for several centuries, it was later named Stellwagen Bank after Henry Stellwagen, 

a Lieutenant of the U.S. Navy on loan to the U.S. Coast Survey. Henry Stellwagen commanded the U.S. 

Coast Survey steamer Bibb during a scientific mapping survey of the bank in 1854. Accompanying Henry 

Stellwagen on his surveying vessel were two other individuals of note — an amateur surveyor by the 

name of Alexander Wadsworth Longfellow, brother of the famous poet, and a fellow hydrographer, 

Edward Cordell. In 1869, Cordell, by then in charge of his own survey ship, discovered a similar-sized 

bank on the west coast, which would eventually be named after him. Today, both Cordell and Stellwagen 

Banks are among the significant marine areas designated as national marine sanctuaries.

Setting

SBNMS is one of the most biologically diverse and productive areas in the Gulf of Maine. The area 

supports marine mammals and fishery resources that constitute important regional ecological and 

economic resources. Due to its accessibility, the region is used extensively for a variety of human uses, 

such as whale and seabird watching, wreck diving, recreational boating, and commercial and recreational 

fishing.

Beginning in the Colonial Period, groundfish, invertebrate, and pelagic fisheries became vital commercial 

resources for the New England region. Overfishing has contributed to stock collapses and a decline in 

commercial fishing, but a reduced, active, domestic commercial fishery continues throughout the Gulf of 

Maine. The productivity of Stellwagen Bank and its proximity to the coast gave rise to 400 years of vessel 

traffic across what is now the sanctuary. As a result, several hundred historic vessel losses are recorded 

within the sanctuary.

Today, New England has a diverse economy. With an adjacent population of approximately eight million 

people, the unique features, location, and resources of SBNMS draw business interests and recreational 

users, with concomitant, growing pressures on the integrity of the sanctuary ecosystem.

Water

The high productivity that defines the sanctuary as a special place and attracts wildlife and human users is 

driven by water circulation and its interaction with the seafloor. Located along the western edge of the 

Gulf of Maine, water circulation in the sanctuary is heavily influenced by the southerly flowing Maine 

Coastal Current. This current, in combination with twice-daily tidal fluctuations and riverine input, serves 

to turn the sanctuary into a mixing bowl of nutrient-laden waters. Once exposed to the shallow, sunlit 

waters on top of the bank, nutrients become fuel for seasonal plankton blooms that, in turn, become the 

foundation for a complex food web. The food web and its inherent productivity make SBNMS one of the 

most important seasonal feeding areas for whales, seabirds, and bluefin tuna in the western North 

Atlantic.

Habitat

The underwater landscape of the sanctuary, which includes Stellwagen Bank, surrounding banks, and 

basins, is a patchwork of habitat composed of both geologic and biologic features. These features provide 

shelter from predators and the flow of tidal and storm-generated currents, serve as sites that enhance 
Site History and Resources

32

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

capture of prey, such as drifting zooplankton or species associated with particular features, and serve as 

foci for fish spawning activities, including egg-laying and brooding young. All organisms have particular 

habitat requirements, and the important attributes of habitat vary between species and between life-history 

stages within species.

SBNMS contains all of the five major seafloor habitat types found in the Gulf of Maine: gravel, piled 

boulder, sand, mud, and rocky outcrop (Figures SH.5-SH.7). The percent cover of these sediment types 

are: gravel: 34% (boulder reefs are included in the gravel category), sand: 28%, and mud: 38% (NOAA 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 2010). Rocky boulder ledges and outcrop comprise less than 1% of 

the sanctuary (Valentine et al. 2001). These habitats are spread across a series of shallow banks and deep 

basins in a patchwork that make the sanctuary a diverse landscape. Within each habitat type, there are 

many microhabitats formed by the combination of water masses, sediments, and inhabiting organisms. 

For example, northern cerianthids, a type of tube-building anemone that burrows in mud, serve as 

important habitat for redfish, hake, and a multitude of invertebrates that live in and around the tubes.

Figure SH.5. Gravel habitat can be found in the sanctuary. Photo: USGS
Site History and Resources

33

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure SH.6. Boulder habitat can also be found within the sanctuary. Photo: National Undersea Research Center-University of 

Connecticut

Figure SH.7. A lobster shelters in a rocky reef. Photo: D. Costa/NOAA
Site History and Resources

34

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

In general, species composition of seafloor communities is highly correlated with grain size of benthic 

sediments, and as such, seafloor substrata constitute an important habitat component for many organisms 

in the sanctuary. Studies on the continental shelf of the northeastern United States, including portions of 

the sanctuary, indicate that substrate and water mass characteristics are highly correlated with the 

composition of benthic communities (e.g., Auster et al. 2001, Skinder 2002). These habitat features may 

therefore serve as proxies for the distribution of biological diversity where detailed information on the 

distributions and abundances of species is lacking (Cook and Auster 2006). Infaunal invertebrates (those 

that burrow into the seafloor), show strong associations with sand grain size and unconsolidated mud 

sediments in the sanctuary (Grannis 2005). Epifaunal species, those that live on the seafloor, are linked to 

variation in larger grain sizes at the scale of the Gulf of Maine (Skinder 2002). 

Although macroalgae (e.g., seaweeds) once grew on Stellwagen Bank, bottom trawling has virtually 

removed this marine algae, and it no longer appears to play a substantive role in structuring seafloor 

habitats in the sanctuary (Cahoon et al. 1993). Instead, benthic invertebrates make up the majority of 

biogenic structure on the seafloor. Microscopic examination of surface sediment samples showed that 

pennate diatoms dominated the benthic microflora (more than 97% of total cells) (Cahoon et al. 1993). 

Biological communities are formed by the interaction of populations within habitats in a particular area. 

The interaction of fish, such as sand lance, with their habitat is of particular concern and has been wellstudied in SBNMS. For the purposes of this document, the ecological role of seafloor habitats is largely 

defined by our understanding of links between these habitats and the distribution and abundance of fishes. 

An increasingly recognized element of sanctuary habitat is its acoustic environment. The sanctuary is 

home to many soniferous species that are protected and/or managed by NOAA under multiple U.S. 

statutes, notably the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The 

sanctuary’s location is also a busy place for human commerce, particularly maritime transportation, and 

thus is subjected to high levels of sound-producing activities.

Living Resources

SBNMS’s extraordinary primary productivity, 

complex oceanography, and diverse seafloor terrain 

provide habitat for well over 575 species of marine 

life, including over 80 species of fish, 53 species of 

seabirds, and 22 species of marine mammals (NOAA 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 2010) (Figures 

SH.8—SH.10).

Every major taxonomic group of invertebrates that 

occurs in the global marine environment is present in 

the sanctuary. This includes a diversity of sponges, 

hydroids, and anemones, bryozoans, bivalves, 

gastropods, sea stars, sea cucumbers, sand dollars, and 

tunicates, among others. 

Figure SH.8. Many sea stars can be found in the sanctuary. Photo: 

USGS
Site History and Resources

35

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure SH.9. Whales and seabirds feed in the sanctuary waters. Photo: NOAA

Figure SH.10. Shipwrecks in the sanctuary serve as homes for fish and invertebrates like this lobster. Photo: NOAA
Site History and Resources

36

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

The benthic fish community includes Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), haddock (Melanogrammus 

aeglefinus), silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis), various flatfish, sand lance (Ammodytes dubius and A. 

americanus), Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), and Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus), the latter 

three of which are considered to be forage fish. Populations of these species are seasonally prolific in 

Stellwagen Bank and serve as primary prey for humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), fin (Balaenoptera 

physalus), and minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), as well as many finfish and seabirds (NOAA 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 2010). Substantial commercial and recreational fisheries exist for 

herring and mackerel.

The sanctuary is the seasonal home to two species of endangered sea turtles, the Atlantic or Kemp’s ridley 

(Lepidochelys kempii) and the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea). Green (Chelonia mydas) and 

loggerhead (Caretta caretta) turtles occur occasionally in the Gulf of Maine. The leatherback is a summer 

visitor to SBNMS and is the only species of sea turtle that journeys to cold waters for feeding activities. 

Kemp’s 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.

The rich biological environment of the sanctuary also attracts a diversity of seabirds that feed on prey 

ranging from copepods to fish. Frequent visitors include shearwaters and storm petrels (Procellaridae), 

gannets (Morus bassanus), phalaropes (Phalaropus spp.), gulls (Laridae), terns (Sterna spp.), jaegers 

(Stercorarius spp.), alcids (Alcidae), and various sea duck species (Anatidae). These species arrive in 

relatively high numbers, with some species numbering in the tens of thousands. More occasionally, 

roseate terns (Sterna dougallii), a federally listed species, as well as Arctic (Sterna paradisaea) and 

common (Sterna hirundo) terns, both state listed species, have been observed in the sanctuary. The 

significance of the sanctuary as seabird habitat led to its designation as an Important Bird Area by the 

Massachusetts Audubon Society and BirdLife International.

The abundance of preferred prey species attracts marine mammals, and whales are the most charismatic 

occupants of sanctuary waters. Seventeen species of cetaceans have been observed in the sanctuary and 

ten are known to regularly frequent the sanctuary. Of these, humpback whales are perhaps the most 

conspicuous because of their large size, charismatic behavior, and distinctive markings. SBNMS is 

recognized as one of the primary North Atlantic feeding grounds of the humpback whale. The critically 

endangered North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) is one of the world’s most endangered whale 

species. Every year, approximately one third of the endangered North Atlantic right whale population 

utilizes the sanctuary and nearby waters for feeding and nursing calves. Fin (or finback) whales, the 

second largest of the world’s whales, are regularly seen in the sanctuary, along with the smaller minke 

whales. Harbor (Phoca vitulina) and gray (Halichoerus grypus) seals are also commonly observed in the 

sanctuary.

Maritime Heritage Resources

Numerous prehistoric and historic heritage sites are believed to lie within SBNMS as a result of 

prehistoric, glacially-lowered sea levels, which created opportunities for native peoples to hunt and gather 

coastal resources in what is now SBNMS. Archaeological evidence of these activities may exist, but is not 

yet confirmed. More recently, hundreds of years of fishing, whaling, and maritime transportation have 

made the sanctuary a repository for historically significant maritime heritage resources. Since sanctuary 

researchers began investigating SBNMS’s maritime heritage in 2000, archaeologists have inventoried 47 
Site History and Resources

37

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

shipwreck sites and identified 12 of these shipwrecks by name (Lawrence et al. 2015). Six shipwreck sites 

containing seven vessels have been recognized as historic properties and listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

The steamship Portland is considered the sanctuary’s most historically significant wreck and is the most 

intact nineteenth-century New England coastal steamship located to date. Listed on the National Register

of Historic Places in 2005, it is highly significant to the history of New England, specifically Boston, 

Massachusetts and Portland, Maine. Constructed in 1889, the 291-foot steamship (Figure SH.11) was lost 

in an 1898 gale that now bears its name. The Historical Maritime Group of New England located its 

wreckage in 1989, and in July 2002, NOAA researchers confirmed its identity as the Portland shipwreck.

Figure SH.11. The steamship Portland is one shipwreck found in the sanctuary. Image: Antonio Jacobsen courtesy of Maine 

Historical Society

Also listed on the National Register of Historic Places (in 2006) are the wrecks of two coal-carrying 

schooners (colliers) that collided in December 1902. The Frank A. Palmer and the Louise B. Crary were 

carrying coal to Boston when they collided and sank. At 274.5 feet, the Frank A. Palmer was the longest 

four-masted schooner ever built, while the Louise B. Crary was a slightly smaller, five-masted vessel. 

Side scan sonar images collected in 2002 and 2003 clearly show the hulls of the two large sailing vessels, 

their bows locked together for all time (Figure SH.12).
Site History and Resources

38

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure SH.12. A 2002 sidescan image of the coal schooners Frank A. Palmer and Louise B. Crary. Of the 21 crew members of both 

vessels, only 10 survived the collision. Image: NOAA

Archaeologists have located and investigated several other collier shipwreck sites with varying degrees of 

preservation. The five-masted schooner Paul Palmer caught fire and sank off Highland Light in 1913. 

Built in 1902, its history includes several other instances when it was nearly destroyed by fire, revealing 

the peril faced by mariners and shipowners. Much of the hull was destroyed by the fire that sank the Paul 

Palmer, as well as subsequent storms and trawling, but many of the vessel’s iron fittings can still be 

found. The shipwreck has become a striking oasis of biodiversity, providing habitat for encrusting 

invertebrates and fishes on an otherwise flat and sandy seafloor (Figure SH.13). 

After colliers, the second most common category of shipwreck located thus far is the twentieth century 

commercial fishing vessel, the majority of which are wooden-hulled, eastern rig draggers. Constructed 

from the 1920s through the 1970s, these side trawlers exemplify the transition from hook-and-line fishing 

to engine-powered trawling. Several of the eastern rig dragger shipwrecks in the sanctuary are remarkably 

intact, with extant pilot houses and masts. Others are much more fragmented as a result of damage from 

nets and trawl doors from more recent trawling activity (Lawrence et al. 2015).
Site History and Resources

39

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure SH.13. The wreck of the Paul Palmer provides habitat for many organisms. Photo: NOAA

Archaeological surveys have also revealed the story of another emblematic New England commodity: 

granite. Four shipwrecks on the sanctuary’s seafloor carried granite cargoes. Beginning in the 1820s, 

Massachusetts and Maine quarries cut stone that was shipped throughout the world. Two sanctuary 

shipwrecks carried large stones used in construction of architectural structures and two carried stone 

cargoes used to create urban streets. One vessel, the two-masted schooner Lamartine, exemplifies some of 

this trade’s history. Lamartine carried a cargo of sewer basin covers and curbing destined for the streets of 

New York when it sank in 1893. Built in 1848, the schooner sailed broadly in the U.S. coasting trade, 

transporting bulk cargoes of coal and lumber before transitioning into the granite trade. 
40

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

DRIVING FORCES AND PRESSURES ON THE SANCTUARY

The condition of natural and heritage resources in marine sanctuaries is affected by both natural processes 

and human activities. Driving forces are the characteristics of human societies that influence the nature 

and extent of human activities. This section describes the known drivers and pressures affecting SBNMS 

resources and addresses five questions related to their influence on major sanctuary resources 

components: water, habitat, living resources, and maritime heritage resource quality. Trends in drivers 

and pressures support the assessment of sanctuary resources described in the State section of this report 

and can aid in forecasting the direction and extent of future pressures.

The general approach used herein is to integrate drivers with pressures in discussions of each pressure; 

however, since there are several drivers that affect several different pressures, they are addressed in this 

introduction. Quantitative details are included in this section and are not repeated in subsequent sections 

discussing each pressure.

Prominent drivers affecting resources in SBNMS include:

1. Population and per capita income

2. Gross domestic product

3. Fuel prices

These high-level drivers operate at multiple scales ranging from local to international and affect demand 

for resources (e.g., food and access), and thus, levels of activity that can alter resource conditions (e.g., 

development, shipping traffic, boating, pollution, noise, etc.).

Societal values, measured by opinion polls on environmental quality and the level of environmental 

protection, determine demand and affect supply of all goods and services humans consume. The 

institutions humans create to supply many goods and services are sometimes slow to adapt to changing 

societal values. The indicators used for drivers reflect, to a large extent, societal values via the 

relationship between the demand and supply of different goods and services and the relevant pressures 

they place on sanctuary natural and cultural resources. These indicators also capture economic factors that 

may influence or correlate with other human activities that exert pressure on sanctuary resources, such as 

trade, recreation, and waste generation. 

Driving Forces

Population and Per Capita Income

International and domestic demand for goods and services, resulting from increases in population and real 

per capita income, is and will remain a primary driver of pressures on sanctuary resources. The U.S. 

population increased 0.9% per year between 2000 and 2015 and is forecasted to increase 1.0% per year 

through 2030 (Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. 2016). In 2010, 123 million people (39% of the nation’s 

population) lived along the U.S. coast. By 2020, NOAA predicts another 10 million people will move to a 

coastal county (NOAA 2018a). 

The population of Massachusetts has increased, consistent with national trends. Nearly 5.14 million 

Massachusetts residents (out of the state’s total 6.79 million residents) now live within Massachusetts’s 

coastal counties. More than eight million people reside in the 14-county study area identified as 
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

41

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

SBNMS’s local economy (Appendix E: Figure App.E.1). The area includes counties adjacent to and 

inland from SBNMS, which receive most of the socioeconomic contribution of activities within the 

sanctuary. Socioeconomic contributions to SBNMS’s local economy include income, jobs and economic 

output (Figure DP.DF.1, U.S. Census Bureau 2015, Appendix E: Table App.E.1, Figure App.E.2).

Figure DP.DF.1. Map depicting the 14 coastal counties whose local economy is impacted by SBNMS. Image: R. Shea/NOAA

Between 2000 and 2015, average annual population growth rates were 0.9% for the U.S., 0.45% for 

Massachusetts, and 0.45% for the 14-county study area. Between 2015 and 2030, average annual growth 

rates are projected to be 0.98% for the U.S., 0.52% for Massachusetts, and 0.56% for the 14-county study 

area (Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. 2016, Appendix E: Table App.E.2, Figure App.E.2).

Meanwhile, the standard of living in the 14 counties adjacent to the sanctuary has increased faster than 

that in the rest of the United States (Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. 2016). Between 2000 and 2015,

average annual real per capita income (adjusted for inflation) increased 1.28% in the United States, 1.54% 

in Massachusetts, and 1.6% in the 14-county study area. Between 2015 and 2030, average annual real per 

capita income is projected to increase by 1.6% in the United States, 1.7% in Massachusetts, and 1.6% in 

the 14-county study area (Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. 2016, Appendix E: Table App.E.3, Figure 

App.E.3). Given the projected growth in population and per capita income, it can be expected that many 

of the uses of and therefore, pressures on SBNMS driven by these factors will continue to increase in the 

foreseeable future.
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

42

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Gross Domestic Product

Another high-level driver of pressures on U.S. resources, including those in SBNMS, is the real (adjusted 

for inflation) gross domestic product (GDP) of Canada, the European Union, China, Japan, and South 

Korea. Increases in GDP in these countries result in increased demand for all goods, including seafood 

and other fishery products. Seafood is bought and sold in a global market such that demand from 

entities/countries such as the European Union, Canada, China, Japan, and South Korea6affects prices of 

species caught in SBNMS, and thus, affects fishing behavior on and around the bank itself. Between 2010 

and 2017, these entities/countries imported 80-95% of the exported component of the commercial product 

categories that species caught in SBMNS fall into (NOAA Office of Science and Technology 2017). In 

other words, while it is unknown what share of fish caught in SBNMS are sold locally versus 

internationally, international consumer demand for fish products caught in SBNMS puts pressure on those 

resources at the macro level. (See Appendix E: Table App E.4 for more information).

Fuel Prices

Fuel prices are an important and more immediate driver of many ocean activities. Ocean users consider 

fuel prices in their decisions to conduct activities like commercial fishing, ocean recreation, or offshore 

gas exploration. Gasoline prices declined 29% between 2012 and 2017, while diesel prices declined 35% 

during the same time period, affecting levels of visitation to the sanctuary and various uses (U.S. Energy 

Information Administration 2017, Appendix E: Figure App.E.4). Lower fuel prices decrease costs of 

commercial fishing and ocean recreation activities, which may lead to increases in these activities. The 

offshore location of SBNMS requires all users to purchase fuel, suggesting that lower fuel prices could 

lead to increased pressure on sanctuary resources. However, oil producers may be less likely to invest in 

oil exploration and drilling during periods of low fuel prices when costs of research and exploration may 

exceed gains. This reduces pressures related to offshore oil development, including pollution, habitat 

destruction, and noise. In addition, alternative renewable energy sources, such as wind or tidal, could lead 

to less demand for oil and gas, lower fuel prices, and decreased incentives for investment in oil 

exploration and drilling near the sanctuary.

In summary, population growth, per capita income, and fuel prices are high-level drivers operating at 

multiple spatial scales (local to international) that may influence multiple pressures discussed in the 

following section. 

Pressures

The following section discusses the various pressures that impact sanctuary resources, including noise, 

marine debris, whale watching, recreational diving, recreational fishing and boating, commercial fishing, 

commercial shipping, liquefied natural gas deepwater ports, submarine cables and pipelines, and climate 

change.

 

6 U.S. GDP increases averaged 1.3% per year between 2000 and 2015. Between 2000 and 2017, real GDP average annual 

increase was 2.2% for Canada, 1.7% for the European Union, 9.8% for China, 1.0% for Japan, and 4.3% for South Korea. 

Between 2018 and 2022, GDPs are forecasted to increase at a slower pace with an annual average of 1.8% in Canada, 1.8% in the

European Union, 5.9% in China, 0.6% in Japan, and 3.0% in South Korea (Trading Economics 2017, Appendix E: Table 

App.E.4).
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

43

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Noise

Many marine organisms, including marine mammals, turtles, fish, and invertebrates, rely on sound for 

their survival (Figure DP.N.1). In general, sound can be perceived underwater over greater distances than 

sight or smell, and sound is the primary way that many marine species gather and understand information 

from other organisms and their ocean environment.

The level of ocean noise pollution in general and in SBNMS in particular has increased dramatically 

during the last 50 years. Noise generated by human activities can have a detrimental effect on marine life. 

Studies have documented behavioral responses, lost listening opportunities, and physical injury to 

wildlife due to exposure to anthropogenic (human-induced) noise (Gedamke et al. 2016). Sources of 

underwater noise include large commercial shipping traffic, such as container ships, freighters, barges, 

and tankers; smaller recreational and commercial vessels; sonars used in military training; pile drivers and 

dredging used in marine construction; airguns and other seismic sources used in energy exploration; 

sonars and other active acoustic sources used in research activities; and aerial sources, such as overflights.

Exposure to high decibel noise, especially in close proximity, can cause injuries to marine organisms, 

including marine mammals, turtles, fish, and invertebrates (see review in Gedamke et al. 2016). Acute 

impacts can include tissue damage as well as rupturing or hemorrhaging of body parts. Higher level noise 

exposure can also cause marine mammals and other organisms to acquire temporary or permanent hearing 

loss (Southall et al. 2019). Over a wider range of exposure levels and distances, elevated underwater noise 

levels can mask biologically important acoustic signals that marine animals use to survive and reproduce 

(e.g., those used for echolocation, interspecies communication, mother/calf contact, predator-prey cues, 

and navigation/larval settlement) as well as cause behavioral alterations (such as changes in migration 

patterns or abandonment of important habitats) (Southall et al. 2019). These alterations can have adverse 

effects on animals’ energy and physiology, which in turn can reduce their abilities to survive and 

reproduce (reviewed in Francis and Barber 2013).
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

44

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure DP.N.1. Many marine organisms, including marine mammals, turtles, fish, and invertebrates, rely on sound and hearing for 

their survival. Increasing human activity within our oceans over the last 100 years has also meant increasing levels of humaninduced noise. Image: M. Thompson/NOAA

Marine Debris

According to NOAA's Marine Debris Program, marine debris is any persistent, manufactured, or 

processed solid material that is directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, disposed of or 

abandoned in the marine environment. Marine debris can include a wide variety of objects (e.g., lost 

fishing gear, lost vessel cargo, plastics, metal military debris, household goods, or balloons) from multiple 

sources (e.g., stormwater runoff, landfills, recreational and commercial activities, military activities) 

(Keller et al. 2010) (Figures DP.MD.1, DP.MD.2).
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

45

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure DP.MD.1. Derelict fishing nets wrap around shipwrecks. Photo: NOAA

Figure DP.MD.2. Mylar balloon floats in SBNMS. Photo: NOAA
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

46

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Plastic is the most prevalent type of marine debris found in the ocean. Plastic debris can come in all 

shapes and sizes, but those that are less than five millimeters in length are called microplastics. Recent 

research suggests these microplastics can accumulate in seafood, particularly shellfish (Avio et al. 2017).

Many types of marine debris exist in the sanctuary and collect at various places in the sanctuary. The 

prevalence of debris within the sanctuary is affected by both natural forces (e.g., currents) and human 

drivers, including population growth and increasing coastal development.

Marine debris in SBNMS threatens the marine environment, human health, and safe navigation. For 

example, ingestion of or entanglement in marine debris may lead to death in animals like sea turtles, 

marine mammals, birds, and benthic organisms (NOAA Marine Debris Program 2014a, 2014b). 

Entanglement in commercial fishing gear, such as lines, nets, and derelict gear is observed throughout 

SBNMS and may result in drowning, starvation, physical trauma, systemic infections, or increased 

susceptibility to other threats, such as ship strikes. Raw observer data reported in Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center (NEFSC)’s Observer Program suggests that marine mammals and seabirds are the main 

interactors with marine debris, with apparently few turtles involved (NEFSC 2019). There is no evidence 

that large whales have been entangled in marine debris in the sanctuary. Marine debris can also alter the 

condition and structure of benthic habitats (NOAA Marine Debris Program 2014a, 2014b, 2016). 

Whale Watching

Whale watching on the east coast of the United States had its start in the mid-1970s on Stellwagen Bank, 

with trips from a single operator departing from Provincetown, Massachusetts. There are currently eight 

whale watching companies that offer daily trips during a season that generally runs from April through 

October (Figure DP.WW.1). For some companies, the season has expanded in recent years, starting as 

early as March and ending as late as mid-November. As the industry has matured, the vessels have gotten 

larger, their speeds have increased, and, for some companies, the number of trips per day has increased.

Figure DP.WW.1. Many whale watching vessels travel to SBNMS to view whales. Photo: NOAA

Calculations from printed whale watch company schedules indicated there were more than 3,650 

individual whale watching trips scheduled in 2018. The majority of the scheduled trips, almost 2,000, 

occurred in July and August. Since the primary feeding ground for local humpbacks (the preferred whale 

to watch due to its dramatic behaviors) is Stellwagen Bank, it is assumed that most trips travel to the 

sanctuary, as that is historically where most whale watches have occurred in past years.
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

47

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Similar to other vessels, whale watch vessels pose a threat to whales in terms of potential collisions, 

behavioral disturbance, and noise. However, for vessels watching whales, the window of time that they 

are near whales is limited to daylight hours (generally 10:00 am–6:00 pm). Industry growth seems to have 

leveled off, with companies widely spaced around the Massachusetts Bay/Cape Cod Bay region, allowing 

for a dispersed distribution of boats and ship tracks in the sanctuary. When whale abundance is reduced 

due to natural, cyclical declines in prey, the few remaining whales may be inundated with vessel visits, 

but companies usually have enough whales to select from to minimize the concentration of effort on 

individual animals.

Almost all of the Massachusetts-based whale watching companies (except those from Cape Ann) have 

now joined Whale SENSE, a voluntary education and recognition program offered to commercial whale 

watching companies in the U.S. Atlantic and Alaska Regions. Whale SENSE is sponsored by NOAA 

Fisheries, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, and SBNMS. Developed in collaboration with the whale 

watching industry, Whale SENSE recognizes whale watching companies committed to responsible 

practices. Non-member companies report that they too follow the Northeast Region Whale Watch 

Guidelines (developed in 1994 by the industry, NOAA Fisheries, SBNMS, and non-governmental 

organizations focused on whale conservation) (GARFO 2019a). 

In addition to the large commercial whale watch vessels, there is a growing contingent of smaller 

recreational boats that make occasional visits to the sanctuary to watch whales. Many of these boaters 

may not be following whale watch guidelines; some have been observed (e.g., reports from sanctuary 

staff, sanctuary advisory council members, non-governmental organizations, and small boat passengers) 

traveling directly into whale feeding areas (including across bubble nets), where they pose whale strike 

and behavioral disturbance threats (Lynch 2017).

Although the number of “for hire” whale watching operators has declined over the past decade (from 15 

companies in 2007 to eight in 2018), that was due to consolidation in the industry, not a reduction in 

demand. Demand for whale watching is expected to remain strong as the population and real per capita 

incomes increase in the U.S., Massachusetts, and the 14-county study area adjacent to the sanctuary. As 

demand for whale watching increases, pressures from wildlife viewing are also expected to increase. For 

example, in 2018, one company began offering helicopter-based whale watching tours. Similarly, the 

demand for whale watching and general boating from private household boats is expected to increase.

Recreational Diving

Recreational scuba diving in the sanctuary has increased since 2007. Almost 15% of the sanctuary is less 

than 130 feet deep, which is within depth limits of recreational diving. However, strong currents and 

exposed waters create challenging conditions. Technical diving allows access to depths greater than 130 

feet. There are several areas on top of Stellwagen Bank (including the Sponge Forest), as well as shallow 

areas on parts of southern Jeffreys Ledge and Sanctuary Hill, which are interesting dive sites due to their 

complex habitat (Figure DP.RD.1). In addition, there are several shipwreck sites, both historic and 

modern, that are visited by recreational divers. There are an estimated one dozen dive charters that visit 

SBNMS wrecks each year, but dive operators appear to be managing their dive operations well to avoid 

disturbing these sites. In addition to organized dive charters, there are independent recreational divers 

who visit wrecks, and there is evidence that these divers may occasionally disturb wrecks and/or artifacts.
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

48

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure DP.RD.1. A diver explores a shipwreck in SBNMS. Photo: NOAA

Recreational Fishing and Boating

The sanctuary is a popular destination for recreational vessels, 

such as fishing boats, party boats, sailboats, powerboats, and 

charters. Recreational fishing in the sanctuary targets 

groundfish species and pelagic species (Figure DP.RF.1). In 

2007, the recreational fishing fleet harvested approximately 

25% of all Atlantic cod harvested in the Gulf of Maine 

(NEFMC 2014a). Since 2007, harvest levels have fluctuated 

each year, but have generally remained constant (NEFMC 

2014a). In 2016, recreational landings of Atlantic cod within 

the Gulf of Maine exceeded the harvest limit by 92% (Federal 

Register 2017). As a result, in July 2017, NOAA Fisheries 

prohibited retention of Atlantic cod for the rest of the 2017 

fishing year (Federal Register 2017). Recreational fishing is 

also a significant component of the overall landings in other 

fisheries, such as haddock.

There are 65 small boat harbors and over 80 boating and 

yacht clubs along the Massachusetts coast allowing for easy 

access to the sanctuary. Recreational boaters typically transit 

to the sanctuary from Boston, Cape Cod Canal, Cape Cod 

Bay, Provincetown, and Cape Ann. Recreational boaters are most numerous and often aggregate within 

the sanctuary during whale watching season (i.e., April to October). On a calm summer day, recreational 

boats can number in the hundreds. Potential impacts from recreational boating and fishing activities 

include targeted removal of large spawning and breeding fish, disturbance of whale feeding, strikes to 

whales, and discharge of pollutants.

Figure DP.RF.1. Fishers can recreationally fish for 

tuna in the sanctuary. Photo: On The Water Media 

Group
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

49

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Recent rule changes regarding discharge of pollutants from recreational vessels may impact SBNMS. In 

2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated all Massachusetts state waters as “No 

Discharge Zones,” making it illegal to discharge treated or untreated sewage in state waters; however, 

these regulations do not apply to the sanctuary because it is entirely outside of state waters. However, it is 

unclear whether this has changed recreational boating discharge in SBNMS.

Although charter and party fishing effort in the SBNMS region declined from 2010 to 2015, there was an 

uptick in effort from 2015 to 2016. With increasing population and real per capita incomes in the U.S., 

Massachusetts, and the 14-county study area adjacent to the sanctuary, pressures from party boats, charter 

boats, and private household boats would be expected to increase in the future. The vast majority of 

private boats that visit the sanctuary are 26 feet or longer. Massachusetts registrations for vessels of this 

size have been increasing, and with real per capita income expected to increase, the number of registered 

boats is likely to increase further. Additionally, gas prices, which are a fundamental factor in boating 

demand, have been stable and are forecasted to remain stable over the long term, supporting increased 

future demand for boating. However, the sportfishing participation rate of those aged 18-34 has been 

declining since 1980 (ASA 2016). While pressures from private boating are expected to increase in the 

future, it is difficult to predict exactly how recreational fishing pressures will impact SBNMS.

Commercial Fishing

Commercial fishing (Figure DP.CF.1) is a significant pressure on the natural and historic resources of 

SBNMS. Numerous commercial fisheries operate in the sanctuary, including scallops, Northeast 

multispecies (i.e., groundfish), lobster, and herring (see text box). These fisheries use a wide variety of 

gear types, with the most common identified in Table DP.CF.1.7In addition to fish species, commercial 

fishing also impacts populations of invertebrates, seabirds, and mammals, as well as the condition of 

historic resources due to incidental contact by fishing gear.

 

7 Other gear types used in the sanctuary but not in the top six are: midwater pair trawl (87 trips), tuna harpoon (55 trips), pelagic 

longline (10 trips), and ocean quahog dredge (8 trips). Commercial fishing for bluefin tuna with rod and reel is an important 

fishery in the sanctuary, but is managed separately from the Northeast multispecies fishery and therefore is not included in the 

Data Matching and Imputation System data.
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

50

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Collaborative Fisheries Management

SBNMS does not manage fisheries in the sanctuary. Rather, it relies on three regional fishery 

management authorities to manage species occurring in the sanctuary. The New England Fishery 

Management Council (NEFMC) and the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (MAFMC) are 

authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act; the Atlantic States 

Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) is authorized by the Atlantic Fisheries Act of 1942 and the 

Atlantic Coastal Fishery Cooperative and Management Act. In addition to these three councils, NOAA 

Fisheries directly manages highly migratory species, such as bluefin tuna and sharks, that frequent 

sanctuary waters.

Species or species complexes in federal waters are managed under fishery management plans prepared by 

the NEFMC and MAFMC. For those species that cross jurisdictional boundaries, one of these authorities 

will take the lead on management plan development and coordinate implementation with the other as 

affected. The ASMFC prepares coastal fishery management plans for any fishery resource that moves 

among, or is broadly distributed across, waters under the jurisdiction of one or more states or waters 

under the jurisdiction of one or more states and the U.S. exclusive economic zone, which explains why 

some species are double listed below. The respective authority(ies) for managing fisheries for the 

following species, which occur in the sanctuary, is as follows:

NEFMC:

• Northeast multispecies (cod, haddock, 

pollock, halibut, yellowtail flounder, 

winter flounder, windowpane flounder, 

witch flounder, American plaice, white 

hake, ocean pout, redfish)

• monkfish

• Atlantic herring

• scallops

• skates (thorny and smooth)

• red crab

• Atlantic salmon

• whiting complex (silver hake, red hake, 

and offshore hake)

MAFMC:

• spiny dogfish 

• Atlantic mackerel 

• squid

• bluefish

• surf clam 

• butterfish

• summer flounder 

• black sea bass 

• scup

• ocean quahog 

• tilefish

ASMFC:

• American lobster 

• northern shrimp

• menhaden 

• tautog

• striped bass 

• Atlantic sturgeon

• American eel 

• bluefish

• Atlantic menhaden 

• Atlantic herring

• scup 

• summer flounder

• winter flounder 

• black sea bass

• spiny dogfish and coastal sharks

• river herring (alewife and blueback 

herring)

The regulation of fishery resources in SBNMS is a collaborative process whereby sanctuary staff work 

within the framework of the various councils and with the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office 

(GARFO) to address sanctuary concerns.
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

51

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure DP.CF.1. A bottom trawler fishes on Stellwagen Bank. Photo: NOAA

Table DP.CF.1. Top six gear types used in SBNMS based on effort (trips). Fixed gear comprised 62.9 percent and mobile gear 

comprised 32.7 percent. Source: GARFO 2019b

Type of Gear Fixed or Mobile? Number of Trips Percent

Bottom gill net Fixed 25,051 35.3%

Bottom trawl Mobile 18,587 26.2%

Lobster trap Fixed 17,002 24.0%

Scallop dredge Mobile 4,598 6.5%

Hand line/rod and reel N/A 3,131 4.4%

Longline, Bottom Fixed 2,589 3.6%

TOTAL 70,958 100.0%

Commercial fishing also provides food, an essential ecosystem service, which supports much needed 

employment and income in coastal communities. The section on food supply in Ecosystem Services 

discusses the value of commercial fishing in more detail.

SBNMS is one of the more important fishing grounds in the Gulf of Maine due to its productivity and 

close proximity to ports around Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. Figure DP.CF.2 illustrates the 

distribution of fishing throughout the sanctuary. The sanctuary’s accessibility allows for day trips by 

smaller vessels (<50 feet), which are more limited geographically with respect to their fishing grounds 

when compared to larger vessels. The productivity of the sanctuary largely results from the persistence of 

forage fish such as sand lance, herring, and mackerel. The sanctuary provides a diverse array of fishery 

resources, allowing fishers to target different species depending on regulatory constraints and/or seasons. 

Larger vessels (>50 feet) that conduct multi-day trips also fish the sanctuary, but because of their greater 

range, are not as reliant on it as day boats.
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

52

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure DP.CF.2. Spatial distribution of commercial and recreational “for hire” fishing based on vessel trip report (VTR) data in 2016. 

Pink circles represent commercial, mobile bottom-tending gear, green circles represent commercial fixed gear, and purple circles 

represent “for hire” party and charter gear. Note: the dashed polygon represents the western Gulf of Maine habitat closed area, 

which overlaps 22% of SBNMS. The area of overlap is called the “sliver.” The closed area began as a groundfish closed area in 

1998 and was then overlaid with a habitat closure in 2004. Bottom-tending gear (except for lobster) is prohibited within this closed 

area. VTR reports of gillnet gear in the overlap area are a reporting error. Source: VTR Data – 1,000 meter search radius, Jenks 

Natural Breaks Symbology
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

53

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Landings by weight in SBNMS account for a relatively large portion of cod, yellowtail flounder, and 

Atlantic mackerel caught in the Gulf of Maine (see Figure DP.CF.3 for Gulf of Maine statistical areas). 

Around 31% of cod and 20% of Atlantic mackerel caught in the Gulf of Maine (as shown in Figure 

DP.CF.3) comes from SBNMS. In terms of the value of landings in SBNMS, cod account for roughly 

30% of the total region’s value and yellowtail flounder account for about 29% (Table DP.CF.2). In 2010, 

one 10 mile by 10 mile-square covering the northwest corner of SBNMS accounted for 45% of the Gulf 

of Maine cod landings (Richardson et al. 2014). This was due to the abundance of sand lance, preferred 

prey for cod. 

Figure DP.CF.3. NOAA Fisheries statistical areas that comprise the Gulf of Maine. The SBNMS boundary and its overlap with the 

Western Gulf of Maine Closure Area are shown in area 514. Image: M. Thompson/NOAA
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

54

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Table DP.CF.2. Landings value for the top five species in SBNMS and as a percent of the Gulf of Maine1, 2007–2016 Total (2017$). 

Source: GARFO 2017a

Species Value in Stellwagen Bank 

National Marine Sanctuary

Value Landed in 

Gulf of Maine

Percentage of 

Region

Cod $63,570,163 $211,261,718 30.1%

Lobster $35,450,731 $631,686,228 5.6%

Sea scallop $33,250,766 $1,865,094,849 1.8%

Yellowtail flounder $10,514,552 $36,842,558 28.5%

Haddock $7,579,083 $144,599,665 5.2%

1. The Gulf of Maine is defined by the statistical areas shown in Figure DP.CF.3.

Data Sources and Types

Commercial fishing in the sanctuary is characterized in this report through the use of NOAA Fisheries’ 

Data Matching and Imputation System (DMIS) and from the NOAA Fisheries Vessel Monitoring System 

(VMS). These systems have different purposes; DMIS is a reporting tool, while VMS is primarily an 

enforcement tool.8

DMIS supports the region's quota monitoring programs by matching different data sources associated 

with a fishing trip. The three main data sources matched are vessel trip reports (VTRs), dealer reports, and 

trip notifications/declarations. VTR is the primary means of collecting catch data from commercial and 

recreational fishers. Other data sources include observer reports, species catch reports, and permit 

information. Since DMIS records only contain partial data information from data sources, VTR point data 

were added to DMIS records from 2007–2016, if points were determined to overlap with the sanctuary.

DMIS does not include data on fishers who own only a federal lobster permit or a federal highly 

migratory species (i.e., bluefin tuna) permit. Specifically, the highly migratory species permit categories 

not included in DMIS are “general category”, “angling”, and “charter/headboat”, which make up the 

majority of highly migratory species permit holders. However, highly migratory species longline permit 

holders are required to submit VTRs and therefore are included in the DMIS data. Highly migratory 

species permit holders are not required to record the exact location where a tuna was caught, rather they 

are only required to list “area 4”, a large reporting area extending from shore out to the exclusive 

economic zone. NOAA Fisheries does produce an annual stock assessment report for the Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico, but the data are not collected or analyzed in a way that provides estimates for specific 

locations, such as SBNMS. Individuals holding only a federal lobster permit do not have to submit a VTR 

and are therefore not included in DMIS.

VTR data are considered a reliable estimator of commercial fishing activity at the spatial scale of the 

sanctuary (NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 2010; see p. 147). Data were gathered and/or 

analyzed to document and typify the spatial distribution, landings value (ex-vessel, dockside sales paid to 

 

8 VMS data used in this report was treated in accordance with NOAA Administrative Order 216-100. It is the policy of the 

National Marine Fisheries Service not to release confidential data, other than in aggregate form, as the MSA protects the 

confidentiality of those submitting data. 
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

55

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

fishers) and volume, and species composition representative of commercial fisheries in the sanctuary. Exvessel or landings value is the price paid to fishers upon direct sale of fish landed.

VMS data are another important data source that complement VTR data. While VTR is a reporting tool 

that provides catch data and a single fishing location per trip, VMS provides vessel locations while 

transiting and fishing. The VMS system uses specialized computers and integrated global positioning 

systems installed on required vessels to transmit, via satellite, the vessel’s identification, location, speed, 

and the permit under which the vessel is operating. The advantage of VMS data is that it provides an 

accurate representation of the vessel’s position; however, a disadvantage is that it applies to only a subset 

of fishing vessels in the sanctuary. For example, “for hire” recreational fishing vessels, commercial tuna 

vessels, and lobster vessels are not required to use VMS, unless they carry another permit with a VMS 

requirement (e.g., scallop or multispecies groundfish). Another disadvantage is that VMS data do not 

differentiate between time spent transiting and actively fishing. This report assumes that a trawl vessel 

moving at 4 knots or less is actively fishing and a dredge vessel moving at 5 knots or less is actively 

fishing (Muench et al. 2017, Palmer and Wigley 2007, 2009). Vessel locations are transmitted hourly 

(except for scallop vessels, which report every half hour), so vessel location between polls is unknown. At 

fishing speeds of 4-5 knots, and greater transit speeds, a vessel could move between 4 and 10+ nautical 

miles over the course of an hour, which is a relatively large distance at the scale of the sanctuary.

How has fishing changed?

Fisheries management in New England is notoriously complex due to several reasons, such as the variety 

of species, overfishing, intensive regulations, and conflicts between different fishing interests, for 

example mobile gear and fixed gear.

The regulatory landscape for commercial fishing changed dramatically over the time period analyzed in 

this report (2007–2018). Perhaps the most important change in fisheries management during this time was 

the implementation of catch shares (hereafter referred to as sector management) in the multispecies 

(groundfish) fishery.

Sector management was implemented on May 1, 2010 through Amendment 16 to the Northeast 

Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. Sector management is an output control regulatory system that 

allocates a portion of the total annual harvest of groundfish species to cooperatives called sectors. The 

total allowable catch for each fish stock can be traded or leased among sectors, creating a market-based 

approach to the fishery (Labaree 2012). 

Prior to 2010, a variety of input controls were used to manage the multispecies fishery, such as days at 

sea, area closures, size limits, and gear restrictions. These input controls resulted in high rates of bycatch, 

which is one of several reasons why sector management was adopted. The major shift from input controls 

to output controls (i.e., sector management) necessitated major changes in the industry, from data 

collection, monitoring, and reporting protocols to fishing strategies. Fishing effort and its spatial footprint 

are now driven more by regulatory constraints than by fish locations.

The vessels that opted not to join a sector, approximately 46% in 2010 and 43% in 2015, remained in the 

“common pool” fleet and were subject to traditional input controls like days at sea (NEFSC 2018a). There 

are currently 16 sectors operating in New England, of which about three regularly fish in SBNMS. 

Sectors can fish anywhere they choose and are not geographically restricted as long as they hold a quota 
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

56

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

for all stocks in the area. While sectors account for the majority of fishing effort in the sanctuary, other 

types of commercial fishing are also prevalent (see description above).

Commercial Shipping

SBNMS sits at the mouth of Massachusetts Bay, which is open to commercial vessel traffic traveling to 

and from the Port of Boston, one of the most modern and efficient container ports in the United States. 

Annually, the port handles more than 1.3 million tons of general cargo, 1.5 million tons of non-fuel bulk 

cargo, and 12.8 million tons of bulk fuel cargo. General cargo includes consumer goods like clothes, 

furniture, cars, and food. As the per capita income of the SBNMS region and the USA increases, this may 

increase demand for consumer goods, increasing shipping and the number of vessels traversing the area.

The designated Transportation Separation Scheme (TSS; an area that is highly regulated in terms of ship 

navigation) for Boston passes through SBNMS in a roughly east-west direction. These designated 

shipping lanes are used for numerous types of domestic and foreign-flagged vessels, including container 

ships (some with hazardous materials), liquefied natural gas and oil tankers, and barges, as well as an 

increasing number of cruise liners. Automatic identification system (AIS) ship traffic data indicate that 

many vessels comply with the use of designated shipping lanes, however, such compliance is not 

mandatory; therefore, commercial vessel traffic occurs throughout the sanctuary.

Figure DP.CS.1. Map of SBNMS and surrounding region illustrates baleen whale density within the sanctuary, right whale sightings, 

and original and current Boston TSS lanes. Image: M. Thompson/NOAA
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

57

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

The vast majority of vessel traffic through the sanctuary involves transits to and from the port of Boston, 

Massachusetts. Data from Massachusetts Port Authoristy show that cargo volume in the Port of Boston 

has increased since 2012 (Figure DP.CS.2). In 2015, the port handled 237,000 containers, 60,000

automobiles, and 121,000 metric tons of cement. Other major forms of cargo processed at the port include 

petroleum, liquefied natural gas, gypsum, and salt. In 2015, 328,305 cruise ship passengers passed 

through Boston, and approximately 114 vessel calls were scheduled for the 2016 cruise season.

Figure DP.CS.2. Volume of cargo (in twenty-foot equivalent units, or TEUs) shipped through the Port of Boston, 2013–2017. Image: 

Massport 2019

Boston’s Conley Terminal is the only full-service container facility in New England, and the port is 

responsible for $4.6 billion dollars of economic activity and 7,000 direct jobs. In 2016, the Conley 

Terminal experienced record growth (a double-digit increase in imports and exports), including a visit by 

the 1,100-foot COSCO Container Ship Xin Mel Zhou, the largest ship ever to service the port. The 

enlargement of the Panama Canal to allow passage by larger vessels [~8,500 twenty-foot equivalent units 

(TEUs), “post-Panamax” vessels] will potentially result in larger and possibly faster vessels crossing the 

sanctuary to the port. The Conley Terminal is currently built to accommodate ships from 4,000–6,000 

TEUs, and work is underway to improve the port to provide access to larger “post-Panamax” vessels.

Shipping companies indicate they will be using ships capable of carrying 10,000–12,000 TEUs in the 

future. In 2016, the port received a grant of $42 million from the U.S. Department of Transportation and 

$107.5 million from the State of Massachusetts for port improvement to accommodate larger ships.
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

58

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Impacts from commercial vessels include pollutant discharges, introduction of contaminants and invasive 

species that may be released in or near the sanctuary in ballast water, noise disturbance, and whale strikes. 

Large, ocean-going commercial traffic (e.g., container ships, tankers, cruise ships, etc.) produce lowfrequency noise through cavitation (the bursting of bubbles from their propellers), as well as other onboard sources (e.g., machinery) (Richardson et al. 1995). Large vessels transit the sanctuary regularly 

through the TSS lanes to access the Port of Boston (Figure DP.CS.3). Additional vessel types in the 

sanctuary are typically seasonally prolific, including smaller and more regional commercial, recreational, 

military, and research vessels. Smaller vessel types usually produce reduced sound levels (measured as 

energy or pressure) and higher frequency noise (Richardson et al. 1995). However, seasonal 

concentrations of smaller vessels can result in significant potential for disturbance of resident marine 

mammal and seabird species, including disruption of feeding, communication, mating, and predator 

avoidance (e.g., McKenna et al. 2017).

SBNMS conducted research into the relative abundance and distribution of ships and whales in the TSS, 

and in 2007 worked with the Boston Port Operators Group, Massachusetts Port Authority, U.S. Coast 

Guard, NOAA Fisheries, and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to move the TSS lane that 

crosses the sanctuary. Shifting of the TSS lane (Figure DP.CS.1) was designed to reduce the cooccurrence of baleen whales and ships transiting the sanctuary. When compared to the original route, the 

realigned TSS lane contained 81% fewer baleen whale sightings and 58% fewer right whale sightings 

(Wiley et al. 2013). The TSS shift became active in July of 2007 and SBNMS AIS monitoring indicates 

mariner compliance is near 100%. 

In addition to vessel location, ship speed is an important element of ship strike risk. In 2008, NOAA 

Fisheries published a “Final rule to implement speed restrictions to reduce the threat of ship collisions 

with North Atlantic right whales” (Federal Register 2008). This rule requires that vessels 65 feet or 

greater in length travel at 10 knots or less during times and in areas of historic right whale aggregations. 

These areas are known as seasonal management areas, two of which overlap portions of SBNMS. 
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

59

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure DP.CS.3. Commercial vessel transiting the sanctuary and humpback whales. Photo: NOAA/Whale Center of New England

The number of ships in the sanctuary is driven by the demand for imports and exports. Demand from the 

European Union, Canada, China, Japan, and South Korea is the main driver of exports. Given that GDP in 

those countries is expected to grow, as is the U.S. population and real per capita income, this pressure is 

likely to continue.

Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Ports

A deepwater liquefied natural gas (LNG) port is a system of pipelines, mooring buoys, anchors, risers, 

and related equipment that is regulated under the Deepwater Port Act (DWPA) and administered by the 

U.S. Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration. Two LNG deepwater ports, one owned by Northeast 

Gateway and the other by Neptune LNG LLC, were installed adjacent to the western boundary of 

SBNMS in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Based on information provided by the U.S. Coast Guard and the 

Maritime Administration, ONMS found that the projects, considered individually and together were likely 

to have significant, constant, and long-term adverse effects upon sanctuary resources because of: 1) 

increased risk of ship strikes to the sanctuary’s endangered whale populations, including the North 

Atlantic right whale; 2) increased acoustic exposure to marine mammal and fish species; 3) increased risk 

of whale entanglement and loss of benthic habitat in the sanctuary due to displaced fishing effort; 4) 

possible re-suspension of toxic materials during construction; 5) diminished visual aesthetics; and 6) 

entrainment of planktonic and fishery resources by LNG carriers at port and during transit. During 

consultation with the primary agencies, ONMS made recommendations to mitigate potential impacts on 

marine mammals, including installation of a passive acoustic monitoring system to detect the presence of 

marine mammals. The two ports were subsequently licensed in 2007, and operations began in 2008 and 

2009.
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

60

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

By 2016, the two ports had hardly been used as a consequence of increased land-based, domestic 

production of natural gas. Consequently, Neptune requested permission to decommission its port in 2016; 

however, decommissioning has neither been approved nor commenced. Northeast Gateway has kept its 

port operational, which includes the continued operation of the 10 right whale listening buoys that bisect 

the sanctuary in the TSS.

Outfall Discharges and Dump Sites

Municipal Waste Discharges

Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay have historically received inputs of municipal waste in the form of 

effluent or sludge from numerous pipes extending from municipal wastewater treatment plants along the 

coast of Massachusetts. These discharges into Boston Harbor, combined with sewer outfalls, were once 

considered to be the greatest point sources of contaminants, such as metals, polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and nutrients, to the Massachusetts Bay area 

(Hunt et al. 2006). Improved treatment and pre-treatment methods and technologies have helped to 

dramatically lessen the quantity of pollutants discharged into the Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay 

systems (Werme et al. 2017, Libby et al. 2017). However, as the population of the area is expected to 

increase, so too will the amount of waste. This could put additional pressures on SBNMS if technologies 

and infrastructure do not develop at a pace consistent with the population.

The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) wastewater treatment plant on Deer Island, 

completed in 2000, provides effective, secondary treatment of wastewater and has eliminated the 

discharge of sludge into coastal waters. The ocean outfall for this facility is located approximately 23.12 

kilometers (12.48 nautical miles) from the western boundary of SBNMS (Figure DP.OD.1). Long-term 

average flow from the outfall is 350 million gallons per day of treated secondary wastewater (MWRA 

2018). In a dry year like 2016, annual average flow can drop to 281 million gallons per day (Werme et al. 

2017). Potential stressors from the outfall or other point and non-point sources of pollution include 

eutrophication, discharge of toxic chemicals, and discharge of agents that alter biological processes (e.g., 

endocrine disruptors) (Libby et al. 2017, Werme et al. 2017).
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

61

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure DP.OD.1. Location of sewer outfalls, the MWRA outfall, industrial discharge sites, LNG deepwater port sites, which are 

connected to the HubLine gas pipeline, and dumping/disposal sites within Massachusetts Bay. Image: NOAA Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries 2010

Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site

The Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) receives dredged material that is deemed suitable for open 

water disposal. The MBDS is located directly adjacent to the western boundary of the sanctuary in 

Stellwagen Basin and encompasses an area of two nautical miles in diameter (Figure DP.OD.1). Only 

materials considered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to be relatively free of hazardous substances are eligible for disposal at this site. 

Known hazardous and radioactive materials were dumped in and around this site in the 1940s and 1950s 

(Wiley et al. 1991). This site incorporates the areas of two historic disposal sites: the Industrial Waste Site 

(IWS), an area once authorized for the disposal of toxic, hazardous and radioactive materials in barrels, 

and the Interim MBDS (also known as the Foul Area Disposal Site), designated only for the disposal of 

dredged materials. The proximity of the dump site to the sanctuary generated concern that previouslydumped toxic materials might be leaking and potentially impacting sanctuary habitats. However, in 1993, 

the EPA and NOAA concluded that the MBDS would not threaten resources within the sanctuary, and 

subsequent assessments have not shown any contamination (Sturdivant and Carey 2017, USACE 2015).

In 2017, USACE began maintenance dredging of Boston Harbor, which will generate approximately 1 

million cubic yards of dredged material suitable for ocean disposal. After completion of maintenance 

dredging, USACE will initiate the Boston Harbor Deep Draft Navigation Project to allow for the passage 
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

62

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

of larger cargo vessels. This project will generate approximately 11 million cubic yards of suitable 

dredged material, which will be deposited in the MBDS. The EPA and USACE are proposing to use this 

dredged material to create a protective cover over the IWS barrel field. This is intended to sequester any 

contaminants and to reduce the risk of contaminants from historic disposal entering the food web of 

Massachusetts Bay (USACE 2015, U.S. EPA 2017).

Submarine Cables and Pipelines

There is only one submerged cable in the 

sanctuary. The Hibernia Atlantic cable is a 

12,200 kilometer private fiber-optic 

submarine cable system in the North 

Atlantic Ocean, connecting Canada, the 

United States, Ireland, and the United 

Kingdom (Figure DP.SCP.1). It was 

installed in 2000 and has a life expectancy 

of 25 years.9

Potential impacts from cable or pipeline 

installation include habitat disturbance, 

post-installation mechanical impacts, and 

exposure to the electromagnetic field of the 

cable. Current cable installation methods 

are similar to those used for the Hibernia 

Atlantic cable: trenching to an intended 

burial depth of 1.5-2.0 meters or covering 

with rock or other materials if burial is not 

possible. Habitat disturbance impacts depend in part on the sediment types along the cable route and 

whether or not the cable can be buried. Monitoring of the Hibernia Atlantic cable route indicated that 

while there was minimal long-term impact to infauna and epifauna communities along the cable route, 

sedimentary processes did not return the trench and local seabed area to pre-existing conditions (Auster et 

al. 2013b). Extensive portions of the fiber-optic cable were exposed immediately following installation 

(complete burial had been the goal), and 10 years after installation, the trench along the cable pathway 

was still identifiable in sidescan sonar along most of the route. Research from Australia (Sherwood et al. 

2016) found limited impacts to community composition or biomass along a cable route, and concluded 

that electromagnetic fields from high voltage-direct current cables pose little to no risk to marine life. 

It is important to consider potential future impacts of submarine cables on sanctuary resources, as 

SBNMS has and may continue to receive future applications to construct cables in the sanctuary, and 

impacts from other submarine cable operations may not be as benign as the Hibernia Atlantic cable.

 

9 Per the ONMS permit, the cable's disposition at the end of its service will be determined after consultation between the cable 

owner and NOAA.

Figure DP.SCP.1. Location of the Hibernia Atlantic Cable in SBNMS. 

Image: M. Thompson/NOAA
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

63

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Climate Change

Climate change was identified as an emerging threat in the 2007 condition report. Potential impacts from 

climate change are now better understood, and data suggest a wide range of impacts to the Gulf of Maine 

and SBNMS (Hare et al. 2016, Dupigny-Giroux et al. 2018). Most notably, the Gulf of Maine has 

experienced dramatic warming in the last decade (0.23 degrees Celsius per year) and was identified as 

one of the fastest warming areas in the global ocean (Pershing et al. 2015). Global and regional impacts of 

climate change include sea-level rise and coastal erosion, increased flooding, altered patterns of 

precipitation and runoff, altered storm frequency and intensity, alteration to currents, higher surface and 

deep-water temperatures, and increased carbon dioxide inputs resulting in ocean acidification. Because 

biological processes in the ocean are closely tied to physical properties, climate change is causing a 

variety of biotic responses within ocean and coastal ecosystems, including changes in the ability to 

maintain and increase biodiversity. Changes in species range, distribution, and phenology (timing of 

natural events) are strongly predicted to lead to increases in resource mismatches (mismatches in food and 

habitat resources) and other ecological disruptions. As species follow environmental optima in response 

to climate change, novel species are increasingly likely to occupy the sanctuary, potentially altering 

community structure and ecosystem functions (Lipton et al. 2018, Reidmiller et al. 2018). Non-native and 

invasive species are also expected to increase in prevalence (Reidmiller et al. 2018, Grieve et al. 2016, 

Sorte 2014).

The accelerated warming experienced by the Gulf of Maine over the last decade was attributed to a 

northward shift in the Gulf Stream and associated eddy currents (Pershing et al. 2015, Dupigny-Giroux et 

al. 2018). Warming is occurring during all seasons, with the fastest rates occurring in summer (Thomas et 

al. 2017). The duration of summer sea-surface temperatures has expanded by two days per year 

(Dupigny-Giroux et al. 2018). Warming waters have negatively impacted the Gulf of Maine ecosystem in 

several ways, from declines in primary prey species (such as copepods) to shifting distributions of 

valuable commercial fish stocks (including American lobster and Atlantic cod), marine mammals, 

seabirds, and sea turtles, as well as changes in sessile seafloor communities. Such community shifts have 

already resulted in and will continue to result in socioeconomic stress in New England (Dupigny-Giroux 

et al. 2018, Lucey and Nye 2010). 

Ocean acidification is caused by absorption of increasing amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide by the 

ocean. Impacts in SBNMS from ocean acidification are likely to manifest first in animals and plants with 

calcium carbonate skeletons or shells, including calcareous larval fishes and plankton, copepods, 

shellfishes, sea stars, sea urchins, and crustaceans. Effects may include larval mortality and diminished 

recruitment, shell thinning, reduced growth rates and reproduction, and increased stress and susceptibility 

to disease. Some affected planktonic species form the base of the food web, and shifts in the abundance of 

these species could have cascading and devastating impacts for consumers at higher levels, including 

humans. Ekstrom et al. (2015) predicted that coastal and oceanic waters of the northeastern U.S. and 

western Atlantic Ocean will exhibit measurable increases in ocean acidification by 2030. They also 

indicated that Massachusetts’s commercial and recreational shellfisheries are highly vulnerable to ocean 

acidification, and as a result, businesses and communities will be forced to adapt to changing resource 

availability.

Sea level has already risen by ~1 foot since the early 1900s and is predicted to rise 2 to 4.5 feet by 2100 in 

the northeastern U.S., including the Gulf of Maine (Dupigny-Giroux et al. 2018). This could cause 
Driving Forces and Pressures on the Sanctuary

64

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

saltwater to enter historically freshwater coastal areas, destroying critical nursery areas and coastal 

infrastructure. Impacts from high waves and storm surge will also increase, as will the frequency and 

impacts of nuisance flooding and erosion. Natural resources at risk include intertidal shellfish, fishes, sea 

turtles, marine mammals, and shore, sea, and terrestrial birds, although vulnerabilities vary and still 

remain largely uncertain (Powell et al. 2017). Coastal communities, businesses, Native American cultural 

and maritime heritage resources, and some of the sanctuary’s operational facilities and assets may also be 

affected.
65

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

STATE OF DRIVERS AND PRESSURES

Below are answers to questions related specifically to the drivers and pressures discussed above. The 

status and trends of sanctuary resources are addressed in the next section.

Driver Rating (Question 1)

Driving forces help to explain the origins of pressures on resources and potentially estimate the future 

trends of those pressures. More specifically, drivers help to illustrate the direction and magnitude of 

demand for different ecosystem goods and services. Drivers include societal values, demographics, and 

economic factors that result in pressures on the resources. Societal values may include levels of 

conservation awareness, political leanings, or changing opinions about the acceptability of specific 

behaviors (e.g., littering, fishing). Societal values inform preferences that determine the demand and 

supply of all goods and services humans consume. Drivers reflect the relationship between the demand 

and supply of goods and services humans consume. This economic activity leads to relevant pressures of 

that activity on sanctuary natural and cultural resources. That said, the remaining demographic and 

economic factors (i.e., income) that comprise these drivers shed light on the extent to which consumers 

can actually realize or express their preferences in markets for ecosystem goods and services.

Other driving forces may include specific changes in the demographics of an area (age structure, 

population, etc.), demand for ocean products, economic situations, industrial development patterns, or 

business trends. An overall rating for the status and trends of drivers is made in the following question 

(Question 1).

1. What are the states of influential human drivers and how are they changing?

Status Description: Selected drivers are influencing 

pressures in ways that result in severe impacts that are either 

widespread or persistent.

Rationale: Increasing demand at multiple scales for food, ocean transportation, and recreation, 

influenced heavily by population growth and increasing income, enhances commercial and 

recreational activities with adverse impacts that include habitat damage, entanglement, ship 

strikes, noise, and contaminant discharges.

The most influential drivers of pressures impacting sanctuary resources are:

 Demand for seafood

 Demand for other imported and exported goods via water transport

 Demand for recreation (e.g., boating, whale watching, fishing)

These are referred to as primary drivers, which exert pressures that directly impact sanctuary resources.
State of Drivers and Pressures

66

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Secondary drivers operate further from SBNMS (offshore or inland) and may indirectly exert pressures on 

sanctuary resources. Secondary drivers include:

 Demand for local development (e.g., housing, transportation, personal services, education, and 

sewage/waste disposal)

 Demand for energy and communication (e.g., cables and pipelines)

The primary indicators used to understand past and future trends are presented in the drivers section 

above. They are reviewed again here.

 Population and real per capita income (adjusted for inflation) in the U.S., Massachusetts, and the 

14-county study area (where most of the socioeconomic impacts and contributions from SBNMS 

resources occur) have been increasing and are expected to continue increasing. These indicators

are related to all of the primary and secondary drivers, as an increase in population and income 

would be expected to lead to increasing demand, all else being equal (Appendix E: Figure 

App.E.1 and Figure App.E.2).

 The standard of living in the 14 counties adjacent to the sanctuary has increased faster than the 

rest of the U.S. between 2000 and 2015. Between 2015 and 2030, average annual real per capita 

income is projected to increase in the country, state of Massachusetts, and the 14-county study 

area (Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. 2016, Appendix E: Table App.E.3 and Figure App.E.3).

As explained in the drivers section, population and real per capita income are key influences behind the 

demand for commercial seafood products, recreational fishing, boating, and non-consumptive recreation 

(e.g., whale watching and other wildlife observation). These activities increase noise through commercial 

cargo vessel traffic, commercial fishing vessels, and recreational boating activity. The increased demand 

for these goods and services also leads to pressures on fish stocks, vessel strikes, entanglement in 

commercial fishing gear, and habitat destruction from various fishing methods that disturb bottom 

habitats. Vessel discharges also lead to pressures from pollutants and introduction of invasive species via 

bilge water discharges. Increased commercial vessel traffic leads to the demand for harbor dredging and 

dredge disposal. Population and real per capita income are also key drivers behind the demand for seabed 

cable services (e.g., telecommunications and energy). Increasing population size and real per capita 

income may lead to future development projects that alter and could impact sanctuary habitats.

General pressures resulting in habitat destruction and pollution via development and wastewater are also 

driven by population and real per capita income.

 The real (adjusted for inflation) GDP of Canada, the European Union, China, Japan, and South 

Korea are indicators of demand for imported and exported goods via water transport through the 

Port of Boston, as well as the demand for seafood. Because the species caught in SBNMS fall 

into the category of species heavily imported by these countries, a real GDP increase in these 

countries increases demand for all goods, including, for example, seafood and other fishery 

products from SBNMS. Any increase in demand for commercial seafood also places additional 

pressures on fish stocks and potentially results in increased prices, given managed fishery 

(seafood) supply is often capped. In addition, higher exports of other goods increase vessel traffic 

at ports and harbors. As stated above, the real GDP in all the countries listed here increased, but 

the rate of increase is expected to slow from 2018 to 2022 (Trading Economics 2017, Appendix 
State of Drivers and Pressures

67

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

E: Table App.E.4). Still, the trend in GDP is likely to result in continued demand for products 

from SBNMS.

GDP of foreign countries also drives demand for commercial vessel traffic via the export of 

goods and services through local ports. Noise from both commercial vessel traffic and 

commercial fishing boats changes accordingly. Entanglements and habitat destruction from 

commercial fishing gear are also driven by demand for seafood products from these countries. 

Additionally, more commercial vessel traffic requires harbor development, dredging, waste 

disposal, and increases the risk of invasive species introductions via bilge water discharges.

 The price of fuel is a reliable indicator of the demand for recreational boating. Because it also 

affects the cost of research and exploration, it is also a reliable indicator of the willingness of oil 

and gasoline producers to invest in exploration and drilling near SBNMS. Gasoline prices 

declined between 2012 and 2017 (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2017, Appendix E: 

Figure App.E.4), resulting in increased visitation to SBNMS. The price of gasoline may reduce 

the willingness of producers to invest in exploration and drilling in and around the sanctuary, as 

the costs of research and exploration may be prohibitive. This reduces profits to the oil and gas 

industry and the pressures related to development, including pollution, habitat destruction, and 

noise.

Recreational boating and commercial vessel traffic can result in discharge of pollutants, noise, and whale 

strikes, with consequences for whale health and survival, whale and fish feeding, and fish spawning

behaviors. Commercial fishing has additional impacts, such as habitat destruction, marine mammal 

entanglement, bycatch, reductions in biomass and wider ecological impacts, damage to shipwrecks 

(cultural resources), and discharge of pollutants. Although question 2 (human activities impacting water 

quality) is rated as “good/fair,” the rating for question 4 (human activities impacting living marine 

resources) is “fair/poor,” and the rating for question 5 (human activities impacting maritime heritage 

resources) is “poor.” Due to the predominance, breadth, and persistence of the effects of the drivers on 

living marine resources, the rating across all drivers is “fair/poor” with a “worsening” trend.

Pressure Ratings (Questions 2–5)

Questions 2–5 address pressures and their potential effects on sanctuary resources. Human activities that 

adversely impact water quality are the focus of Question 2. These include terrestrial point source 

discharges, commercial and recreational vessel-based activities, fishing activities, coastal development, 

and the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS). 

Question 3 covers human activities that may adversely influence habitats. Human activities often have 

structural impacts (e.g., removal or mechanical alteration) to habitats. Fishing activities that physically 

disrupt the seafloor (e.g., trawls and dredges), anchoring, commercial dredging, and pipe and cable 

installation are described as resulting in structural impacts.

Human activities that have the potential to negatively impact living resources are the focus of Question 4. 

These include activities that remove plants or animals as well as activities that have the potential to injure 

or degrade the condition of living resources. Activities that can facilitate the introduction or spread of 

non-indigenous species are also relevant to this question.
State of Drivers and Pressures

68

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Activities that influence maritime heritage resource quality are the subject of Question 5. These include 

activities that diminish resource quality through intentional or inadvertent destruction. Importantly, and 

unlike most natural resources, maritime archaeological resources are non-renewable. Once degraded or 

destroyed, their archaeological value is lost forever.

2. What are the levels of human activities that may adversely influence water quality and 

how are they changing?

Status Description: Some potentially harmful activities 

exist, but they have not been shown to degrade water quality.

Rationale: Several human activities have the potential to adversely influence water quality, but 

generally do not seem to be doing so. Potential activities of concern include the Massachusetts 

Water Resources Authority (MWRA) outfall and other effluent discharges, vessel discharges, 

ballast water discharges, disposal of dredged material, resuspension of sediments from bottomcontact fishing gear, and airborne industrial discharges.

In the 2007 SBNMS condition report, this question was rated "good/fair" and "not changing." Since then, 

levels of human activity within and around the sanctuary have evolved commensurate with regional 

growth and increasing stakeholder demand. The cumulative impacts of multiple anthropogenic activities, 

such as shipping, bottom trawling, changing land use within the watershed and airshed, cable and pipe 

laying, and sediment disposal, have the potential to impact SBNMS water quality. These activities 

generally do not seem, nor have they seemed since the timing of the previous condition report, to be 

adversely influencing water quality; therefore, this question is still rated "good/fair" (medium 

confidence). However, as the availability of data on many of these human activities is limited, the trend 

rating is now “undetermined” (medium confidence).

Terrestrial point source discharges, such as wastewater or industrial discharges, have the potential to 

influence regional water quality by contributing variable loads of nutrients or pollutants. Effluent 

discharge from the Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant, the largest effluent contributor in the region, 

has not significantly changed over time, with observed effluent volumes strongly correlating to rainfall 

(Figure S.WQ.9.1). Importantly, an increased proportion of effluent receives maximum possible treatment 

before discharge compared to the initial years of outfall operation from 1999–2006 (Werme et al. 2017). 

Continued monitoring of key water quality parameters suggests the MWRA outfall is not adversely 

influencing monitored water quality parameters in the sanctuary. Non-point source inputs derived from 

river or stormwater sources could potentially have adverse impacts on water quality, but require further 

monitoring and evaluation. The influence and impact of the Merrimack River may have particular 

relevance to sanctuary water quality, as it is the source of one of the largest volumes of riverine discharge 

in close proximity to the northern boundary of the sanctuary.

Both point and non-point sources of pollution are land-based, and relate to land use and human 

development patterns. Analysis of land development in Massachusetts from 2005–2013 suggests eastern 

Massachusetts continues to experience high rates of land development, with the highest rates of 

development occurring around the I-495 belt. This belt of increasing development encompasses 

significant land area within watersheds that drain into coastal bays and greater Massachusetts Bay 

(Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. 2016, Appendix E; Lautzenheiser et al. 2014), yet explicit 
State of Drivers and Pressures

69

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

relationships between the rate and extent of coastal land development and sanctuary water quality are 

unclear.

Airborne industrial discharges that travel offshore into the sanctuary may also be of concern, but little is 

known about the potential of these airborne discharges to adversely influence sanctuary water quality. 

There is significant commercial and recreational vessel traffic in the sanctuary, and associated vessel 

discharges have some potential to influence water quality (Figure S.P.2.1). However, there is limited data 

available to suggest that vessel discharges are causing significant adverse impacts to water quality. 

The 2010 SBNMS management plan estimated an average of 2,257 transits by deep draft commercial 

vessels annually. Preliminary processing of fiscal year 2017 Boston Harbor pilot data suggests a total of 

1,182 total transits. This rudimentary comparison may indicate reduced commercial shipping and 

associated discharges in 2017 compared to previous years. While there is also potential for ballast water 

discharges from vessels to impact water quality, it is considered unlikely that the amount of ballast water 

discharged in the sanctuary could result in significant water quality concerns, but this may merit further 

evaluation. 

Figure S.P.2.1. Large vessels may impact water and habitat quality via a number of different discharges or activities. Image: 

Andersson et al. 2016

Commercial fishing data suggest the number of vessels operating in SBNMS has varied from year to year 

between 2007 and 2016. However, when looking at the trend of commercial fishing vessels operating in 

SBNMS between 2007 and 2016, the number of boats has remained fairly constant, with a possible 

increase in the number of vessels over 70 feet in length. Fishing vessels can also impact water quality via 

trawling activities that resuspend soft sediments and associated nutrients or contaminants, increase 

turbidity in bottom water habitats, or alter the nepheloid layer (Churchill 1989, Martín et al. 2014). 

Sediment trap observations within the Gulf of Maine indicate that trawl activity significantly perturbs and 

resuspends sediment and benthic organisms, but no information is available regarding whether potential 
State of Drivers and Pressures

70

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

remobilization is more than a local, short-term phenomenon within the sanctuary’s benthic environments 

(Pilskaln et al. 1998).

The use of a dredged material disposal site in Massachusetts Bay (MBDS) will increase with the planned 

deepening of the Port of Boston, but all material to be deposited within the MBDS must be deemed 

suitable for unconfined, open-water disposal. The disposal strategy proposes to further bury historicallydeposited hazardous materials using dredged material and entails no significant perturbation or 

resuspension of contaminated sediments (Butman et al. 1992, USACE 2015). Extensive testing of the 

disposal strategy, along with hydrographic modeling, suggests this activity will not have an impact on 

local or regional water quality and will not result in contaminant introduction.

3. What are the levels of human activities that may adversely influence habitats and how 

are they changing?

Status Description10: Selected activities have caused 

measurable resource impacts, but effects are localized and not 

widespread or persistent.

Rationale: Some activities, such as the use of mobile gear and anthropogenic noise, are of particular 

concern, as they can alter structural characteristics of habitat. Other activities that occur, but result in 

more localized habitat disturbance, include the dumping of dredged material adjacent to the sanctuary 

and submarine cable installation.

The 2007 rating for this question was “fair/poor” and “declining.” According to the expert panel for this 

report, some activities, such as the use of fixed gear and human activities resulting in noise, are of 

particular concern to the sanctuary habitat, however, there are efforts underway to monitor and mitigate 

these continuing threats. Data availability across all activities is generally limited. Since 2014, NOAA 

Fisheries has implemented effort reductions, vertical line reductions, requirements for weaker links on 

lines, and other management measures to reduce the risk of serious injury and mortality of large whales 

due to entanglement.

Human activities can impact the structural (physical), biological, oceanographic, acoustic, and/or 

chemical characteristics of the habitat. Structural impacts, such as removal or mechanical alteration of 

habitat, can result from various fishing methods (e.g., trawls, traps, dredges, longlines, and even hookand-line in some habitats), dredging of channels and harbors, dumping dredged material, anchoring, 

laying pipelines and cables, and installing offshore structures. Removal or alteration of critical biological 

components of habitats can occur due to several of the above activities, including bottom trawling that is 

ongoing and relatively widespread. The Swept Area Seabed Impact (SASI) method for analyzing the 

effects of fishing was applied by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) Habitat Plan 

Development Team using susceptibility and recovery scores assigned individually for each combination 

of habitat and gear type, for physical habitats and their associated benthic communities. The primary 

assumption of SASI is that the area over which trawling gear is applied, when adjusted for gear contact 

 

10 The status rating for this question was changed from “undetermined” to “fair.” The expert workshop participants recommended 

an undetermined rating primarily due to the lack of vessel monitoring system (VMS) data. Staff have subsequently acquired and

analyzed VMS data. The data show that these impacts, in combination with other impacts such as noise and vertical lines from 

trap fishing, warrant the rating of “fair” for the status of sanctuary habitats, which include the seafloor and water column.
State of Drivers and Pressures

71

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

with the seabed, is a proxy for seabed impact. Further, seabed impact, as modified to account for the 

vulnerability of habitat features encountered, is taken as a suitable proxy for the adverse effects of fishing 

on fish habitat. It is unclear how adverse effects from trawling are currently impacting SBNMS water 

quality and contaminant levels, or how this may be changing over time (Pittman 2019).

Changes in water circulation and quality often occur when channels are dredged, or the system is altered 

by changing frequency and intensity of coastal storms. Alterations in circulation can lead to changes in 

transport of planktonic prey, waste removal, water quality (e.g., salinity, clarity, and sedimentation), 

recruitment patterns, and a host of other ecological processes. Chemical alterations most commonly occur 

from ocean discharges of wastewater, spills, other point and non-point source discharge from vessels or 

adjacent land areas, and river inputs to the sanctuary. Airborne contaminants can also be a source of 

pollutant input. All of these sources can have both acute and chronic impacts. Many of these human 

activities can be controlled through management actions in order to limit their impact on protected 

resources.

For SBNMS, one of the primary focuses of habitat quality is the assessment of benthic habitats. Of the 

many human activities that are conducted within the sanctuary, only a few have the potential to adversely 

influence benthic habitat quality. 

The use of trawls and dredges in commercial fishing is considered one of the primary activities that 

adversely influence benthic habitat integrity. Much of the potential disturbance from towing gear across 

the seabed is generated during the first pass of the gear (Cook et al. 2013, Ocean Studies Board 2002), but 

disturbance may be chronic if the area is subjected to multiple tows of such gear over time. While 

trawling and dredging is legally allowed in 78% of the sanctuary, not all of this area is suitable for mobile 

gear due to bottom roughness such as boulder reefs, steep slopes, or obstructions such as shipwrecks. 

Figures S.P.3.1 and S.P.3.2 depict areas where mobile bottom-tending gear have impacted the seabed over 

the past 10 years. Commercial fishing with fixed gear (e.g., traps and sink gillnets) can also impact 

benthic habitat integrity (Grabowski et al. 2014), but is considered somewhat less of a concern because 

the footprint of the impacted area is smaller.

VMS data provide the most accurate spatial representation of some types of commercial fishing effort. 

VMS data from 2009–2018 were analyzed to better understand commercial fishing effort in SBNMS. 

Data from each year were categorized by gear type based on gear codes. Gear types included bottom 

trawl, dredge, mid-water trawl, purse seine, pot/trap, gillnet, hook, and pelagic hook. Fishing effort, 

defined as hours fished, was calculated for all gear types and used as a proxy for habitat impacts. VMS 

data are reported at 60-minute intervals for all non-scallop dredge vessels and at 30-minute intervals for 

scallop dredge vessels. Active fishing was defined as VMS data logged at speeds of 4 knots or less for all 

non-dredge vessels and 5 knots or less for dredge vessels. Hours fished for non-dredge gear types was 

calculated by summing the total number of points categorized as fishing. Hours fished for dredge vessels 

was calculated by summing the total number of points categorized as fishing and dividing by 2 to account 

for the faster reporting interval.

The following figures show the spatial distribution of fishing effort from VMS data. Figure S.P.3.1 

reveals the change in effort for commercial dredge and bottom trawl fishing over the 2009–2018 time 

period. Figure S.P.3.2 reveals the cumulative effort for that time period for all VMS gear, and indicates 

effort across gear types.
State of Drivers and Pressures

72

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.P.3.1. Spatial distribution for all VMS-reported commercial dredge and bottom trawl fishing effort by year for the period 2009–2018. The large triangle-shaped area with no 

data on the east side of the sanctuary represents the Western Gulf of Maine Closure Area where it overlaps 22% of SBNMS. Bottom tending gear (except for lobster) is prohibited from 

this closed area. VMS points were interpolated using the ArcGIS kernel density function with a 500 meter search radius. Symbology is identical across maps. Source: NOAA Office of 

Law Enforcement 2019
State of Drivers and Pressures

73

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.P.3.2. Spatial distribution of VMS-reported commercial fishing effort for 2009–2018. Left to right, the panels show: all gears that use VMS (bottom trawl, dredge, mid-water 

trawl, purse seine, pot/trap, gillnet, hook, and pelagic hook); dredge data (scallop and clams); bottom trawl data; dredge and bottom trawl data; and all other gear (mid-water trawl, 

purse seine, pot/trap, gillnet, hook, and pelagic hook). See Figure S.P.3.1 for an explanation of the map and symbology. Source: NOAA Office of Law Enforcement 2019
State of Drivers and Pressures

74

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

The background provided in response to Question 10 (Integrity of Habitat) offers further detailed 

explanation and documentation of commercial fishing activity and its consequences. The potential 

adverse influence of commercial fishing is of concern. However, overall fishing effort, including bottomcontact gear, has declined by around 55% since 2009, leading to divergent viewpoints among expert 

panelists about whether this has resulted in significantly improved benthic habitat integrity throughout the 

sanctuary.

Anchoring of recreational vessels in shallower areas of the sanctuary is another potential source of 

disturbance to benthic habitats, but is likely localized to small areas on top of Stellwagen Bank. These 

shallow areas are routinely disturbed by storm-generated waves, thus any anchor disturbance may be 

short-term. Little documentation of the potential effects of anchoring in the sanctuary is available, so the 

actual impact of this activity is unknown, but perhaps worthy of additional investigation.

There is also potential for localized disturbance of benthic habitats along pipeline and cable installation 

routes. The one existing cable in the sanctuary, the Hibernia Atlantic cable, was installed using a seaplow 

and was to be buried in a trench approximately 1.5 meters deep. However, immediately post-installation, 

the company reported that many locations were only 0.5-0.75 meters deep. Surveys conducted postinstallation showed that portions of the cable remained exposed. According to the final monitoring report 

(Auster et al. 2013b) and ROV and side scan sonar surveys in 2010, some of the unburied sections remain 

exposed and natural processes have not allowed full recovery of the trenched areas. However, apart from 

this localized impact, sanctuary monitoring (Auster et al. 2013b) seems to suggest that recovery of the 

disturbed areas occurs within a few years, and therefore, is not considered a major concern (see Question 

10, Integrity of Major Habitat Types, for additional information).

Although there is active commercial and recreational fishing around the cable, SBNMS staff are not 

aware of any instances of fishing gear or other equipment becoming caught on or entangled in the cable. 

In addition, despite the still-exposed cable segments and detectable trench, monitoring data indicate that 

cable installation did not cause any habitat injury or changes in benthic composition greater or 

significantly different than those caused by commercial fishing (Auster et al. 2013b).

Other habitat impacts occur in the water column, such as sediment contaminants, vertical lines from fixed 

fishing gear, and acoustic impacts.

With the planned deepening of channels and berths in the Port of Boston, additional disposal of large 

amounts of dredged material at the MBDS is a concern in the local area surrounding the MBDS. Though 

the disposal site was thought to have been used less frequently between 2007 and 2017, the MBDS is still 

considered to be an effective disposal site, because material disposed there seems to be confined to 

specific areas where it was deposited. Therefore, even with the relatively large volume of dredged 

material anticipated from the deepening project, given the testing required to ensure that materials are 

suitable for unconfined open water disposal and the subsequent limited mobility of material once 

deposited, this activity is not likely to be a major concern.

Habitat degradation from sediment contaminants is also a potential concern, but the sources of 

contaminants from vessel discharges, land-based sources, and wastewater outfalls are not a major 

concern. The available information on these human activities is discussed in greater detail in the response 

to Question 11 (Contaminant Concentrations in Habitats). Existing monitoring activity related to these 

discharges may be sufficient to alert sanctuary staff to any unanticipated changes that may raise the level 
State of Drivers and Pressures

75

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

of concern about contaminants in benthic habitats; however, it is insufficient to detect novel or emerging 

contaminants in the water column.

To better understand the impact of fixed gear on benthic habitats, researchers conducted a comprehensive 

evaluation of fishing gear impacts on these habitats. The goals of this evaluation were to inform managers 

in the northeastern US which habitats are the most susceptible to fishing, which gears cause the greatest 

impacts, and what the expected recovery times are for habitat features that are affected. The evaluation 

revealed that substrates were most vulnerable to impacts from hydraulic dredging, slightly less vulnerable 

to those from trawling and scallop dredging, and least vulnerable to fixed gears. Traps had a greater 

impact than gillnets and longlines. However, researchers also pointed out the paucity of quantitative data 

on fixed gear impacts on the benthos (Grabowski et al. 2014). A more recent study focused specifically 

on the effects of lobster traps on the benthos off the coast of Delaware and Maryland. This study 

concluded that the dragging of traps across the benthos during the process of hauling a 20-trap trawl, 

which is a typical configuration in the sanctuary, can have considerable effects on structure-forming fauna 

in benthic habitats (Schweitzer et al. 2018). The study did not address impacts from trap movement 

during storm events, which are frequent in the vicinity of SBNMS. Given the large number of traps fished 

in the sanctuary during the open season, and given the frequency of storm events, the impact of traps 

dragging across benthic habitats that are targeted in the lobster fishery is not insignificant, although likely 

less than that of mobile gears (based on spatial estimates of adverse effects of trawl gear and traps in the 

SASI model described in the Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2; NEFMC 2018).

Impacts to acoustic habitats within the sanctuary are also a concern. The acoustic environment of the 

sanctuary has been studied intensively, and concerns have been raised regarding the impact of humangenerated underwater noise on the quality of acoustic habitats in the sanctuary. Specifically, commercial 

vessel traffic can interrupt behavior and communication of various species, including marine mammals 

and some fish species (e.g., cod spawning behavior). The acoustic environment is another significant 

habitat for many living resources in the sanctuary. SBNMS has been at the cutting edge of expanding our 

collective understanding of the acoustic environment since concerns began to be raised about the potential 

impacts of human-generated noise in the ocean environment. Utilizing advanced passive acoustic 

monitoring technology, the sanctuary has been at the forefront of raising awareness of the potential threat 

of noise to organisms including marine mammals, fish, and some invertebrates. SBNMS staff have 

worked with many partners to conduct essential research to expand our collective knowledge of the 

acoustic environment; the results of this research have been documented in numerous scientific 

publications including Hatch et al. (2012). The acoustic environment was not extensively considered 

when evaluating the state of the sanctuary’s habitat integrity.
State of Drivers and Pressures

76

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

4. What are the levels of human activities that may adversely influence living resources 

and how are they changing?

Status Description: Selected activities have caused severe 

impacts that are either widespread or persistent.

Rationale: Fixed and mobile commercial fishing methods, shipping, and recreational activities 

such as fishing and whale watching are of particular concern, as they can cause negative impacts 

on living resources. Improvements in gear management and decreases in overall fishing effort 

have resulted in reduced impacts on living resources, ship strikes of whales have decreased, and 

efforts are underway to mitigate noise impacts on marine mammals.

SBNMS supports significant marine mammal, fish, and seabird populations. Humans are also attracted to 

these resources in considerable numbers, and the sanctuary’s proximity to Boston makes it readily and 

conveniently accessible. The 2007 rating for this question was “fair/poor” and “not changing.” The 2018 

status rating is unchanged. Available data are, in general, limited across all activities; however, there are 

some efforts underway to monitor and mitigate these continuing threats. The trend is now “improving” 

(high confidence) due to several factors. Analysis of VTR and VMS data indicates significant reductions 

in fishing effort. This decreased effort combined with improvements in gear management have reduced 

impacts to living resources. Ship strikes to large whales have also declined, and efforts are underway to 

mitigate noise impacts on marine mammals.

Commercial Fishing

Commercial fishing occurs extensively throughout the sanctuary (see Figure DP.CF.2). Commercial 

fishing can directly impact aggregations and populations of economically and ecologically important 

species and their habitats, and can also result in incidental capture of associated species (bycatch) 

(NEFSC 2017b, Pittman 2019). In addition, commercial fishing has indirect effects on species and 

populations through injury and mortality associated with entanglement and the effects of underwater 

noise, which can mask sounds used by fish, crustaceans, and protected species (e.g., whales) in 

reproduction, feeding, and social interactions (e.g., Stanley et al. 2017). This section will focus on impacts 

by mobile and fixed gear types.

Mobile Gear

In terms of direct impacts, the average pounds landed from the sanctuary per year from 2007–2018 was 

around 13 million pounds (Figure S.P.4.1). During the previous 10-year period, from 1996–2005, the 

average pounds landed per year from the sanctuary was around 17 million pounds.
State of Drivers and Pressures

77

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.P.4.1. Commercial landings in pounds by species in SBNMS, 2007–2016. Image: GARFO 2019b

Cod accounts for the greatest volume by species landed from the sanctuary, averaging 3.0 million pounds 

annually (2007–2016), with the highest single-year landings of 6.5 million pounds in 2009. The second 

most fished species in SBNMS was Atlantic herring, with an average of 2.9 million pounds annually 

(2007–2016) and the highest single-year landings totaling 7.6 million pounds in 2014. Since 2009, cod 

landings decreased and herring landings have been erratic, while Atlantic mackerel landings have 

increased dramatically since 2013 (Figure S.P.4.1). The availability of herring may be a factor in 

determining the local abundance of whales, dolphins, tuna, and other wildlife in the sanctuary. Although 

herring are currently not overfished in the Gulf of Maine, the potential for localized depletion of herring 

by fishing in the sanctuary is a related concern. Herring and sand lance are key prey species that 

constitute a major segment of the forage base underlying all ecological functions and economic and 

recreational activities that define the sanctuary. Catch of scallops increased dramatically after 2014 

through intensive fishing in a relatively small part of the northwest corner of Stellwagen Bank, an 

important habitat for sand lance. In 2018, GARFO changed the Northern Gulf of Maine scallop 

regulations, which significantly reduced the level of effort on the northwest corner.

The transition to sector management in May 2010 for the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management 

Plan is clearly reflected in effort data for commercial fishing in the sanctuary, and the effect was 

profound. In terms of number of vessels, there was an 11.5% increase in 2010 (from 2009), which was 

likely due to vessels targeting the hyperaggregation of cod (Richardson et. al. 2014) (Figure S.P.4.2). 

Between 2010 and 2011, the number of vessels declined about 21%. The 34% increase in the number of 

vessels in 2016 was likely due to the scallop fishery on the northwest corner of the bank; however, scallop 

boats are not included in sector management. There was, on average, a 2.5-fold increase in the number of 

large vessels (>70 feet) within SBNMS after 2010, likely due to the change to sector management, which 

removed the days-at-sea restriction for large trawlers, allowing them to target Stellwagen Bank (Figure 

S.P.4.2). The influx of these large trawlers resulted in rapid depletion of the concentration of Gulf of 

Maine cod, which were aggregated on the northwest corner of Stellwagen Bank due to an abundance of 

sand lance (Richardson et. al. 2014).

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Pounds

COD HERRING,ATLANTIC MACKEREL,ATLANTIC

DOGFISH SPINY POLLOCK
State of Drivers and Pressures

78

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.P.4.2. Number of all commercial fishing vessels within SBNMS by year and categorical vessel length, 2007–2016. (Note: 

some, but not all, vessels represented in these data were affected by sectors.) Data: GARFO 2019b. Image: SBNMS 2019

In terms of fishing effort (expressed in number of vessel trips), the total number of trips decreased by 

55.3% between 2009 and 2016 (Figure S.P.4.3). The number of vessel trips declined for boats less than 

50 feet and those that were 50–70 feet. Trips by large vessels increased 2.2-fold from 2015 to 2016, likely 

due to the scallop fishery on the northwest corner of the bank.

Figure S.P.4.3. Commercial fishing trips in SBNMS by vessel size, 2007–2016. (Note: some, but not all, vessels represented in 

these data were affected by sectors.) Data: GARFO 2019b. Image: SBNMS 2019

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

SBNMS Vessels

Less than 50 Feet 50-70 Feet Greater than 70 Feet

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

SBNMS Trips

Less than 50 Feet 50-70 Feet Greater than 70 Feet
State of Drivers and Pressures

79

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Based on VMS data, fishing effort (expressed in hours fished) declined 19.2% between 2009 and 2016. 

This is not as dramatic a decline as the number of trips (from VTR data), which is likely due to the fact 

that fewer vessels are required to use VMS.

Figure S.P.4.4. Fishing effort based on VMS data, expressed as hours fished. Data: GARFO 2019b. Image: SBNMS 2019

Fixed Gear

During the time period of this report, 2007–2016, fixed gear (sink gillnets, lobster traps, and longlines) 

comprised 62.9% of commercial fishing, whereas mobile gear comprised 32.7%. The transition to sector 

management and drastic cuts in cod quota led to a ~87% decrease in gillnet fishing in the sanctuary since 

2009, and a ~56% increase in the lobster fishery (Figure S.P.4.5). The decline in spatial extent and effort 

of mobile gear fishing since 2009 allowed the lobster fishery to expand into areas previously fished by 

mobile gear (the two gear types conflict with each other).

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Hours

VMS data within SBNMS

VMS Linear (VMS)
State of Drivers and Pressures

80

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.P.4.5. Trends in effort (number of trips) for two types of fixed gear: gillnets and lobster traps, 2006–2017. Data: GARFO 

2019b. Image: SBNMS 2019

Entanglement/Bycatch

Fixed gear (e.g., traps and gillnets) used in commercial fishing has the potential to bycatch or entangle 

marine mammals and seabirds. For marine mammals, the greatest apparent bycatch is grey seals, followed 

by harbor seals and harbor porpoises. For seabirds, the greatest apparent bycatch is great shearwaters, 

followed by common murres and northern fulmars. As identified by the number of bycaught species and 

the number of bycaught individuals, the gillnet fishery is the main source of bycatch (Figures S.P.4.6–

S.P.4.8) (NEFSC 2017c), although this might be influenced by differences in observed trips among the 

fisheries. Spatially, most entanglements of pinnipeds, small cetaceans, and seabirds reported in NEFSC’s 

Observer Program occur in the northern part of the sanctuary and along the line that delineates the 

western edge of the Western Gulf of Maine Closure Area, where it runs through the sanctuary (Figure 

S.P.4.9). Mobile gear also has the ability to incidentally catch non-targeted species. However, after the 

2010 implementation of catch shares in the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, discards of 

groundfish were reduced dramatically (see Figure S.P.4.7).

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Trips

GILL NET, SINK TRAP, LOBSTER
State of Drivers and Pressures

81

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.P.4.6. Number of bycaught animals in SBNMS by species and year. Data are not corrected for observer effort. Data: 

GARFO 2019b. Image: SBNMS 2019

Figure S.P.4.7. Number of bycaught animals (all species) by gear type for the years 2007–2016, showing the apparent greatest 

level of bycatch resulting from the gillnet fishery. Data are not corrected for observer effort. Data: GARFO 2019b. Image: SBNMS 

2019
State of Drivers and Pressures

82

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.P.4.8. Number of bycaught animals in SBNMS by species and gear type, showing the apparent greatest level of bycatch 

resulting from the gillnet fishery. Data are not corrected for observer effort. Data: GARFO 2019b. Image: SBNMS 2019

Figure S.P.4.9. Location of bird, mammal, and turtle bycatch in SBNMS (2007–2016). Data: GARFO 2019b. Image: SBNMS 2019
State of Drivers and Pressures

83

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Summary of Commercial Fishing Impacts

Over the time period covered by this report, there has been a significant reduction in effort and spatial 

extent of mobile gear fishing and gillnet fishing for groundfish. At the same time, there have been 

increases in lobster fishing, scallop dredging, and midwater trawling for forage fish like herring and 

mackerel. The overall direct effects of commercial fishing have been considerable. The primary direct 

effects have been the collapse of the cod population around 2010 and entanglement of marine mammals 

and seabirds.

Shipping

Commercial vessels can impact sanctuary resources through collisions with whales and increased noise 

levels. 

Strikes

In 2008, NOAA Fisheries mandated that from March 1–April 30, all vessels 65 feet or longer transiting in 

seasonal management areas (including the Off Race Point Management Area, which overlaps with the 

TSS portion of the sanctuary) must travel at 10 knots or less. The purpose of this regulation is to reduce 

the likelihood of deaths and serious injuries to North Atlantic right whales resulting from collisions with 

ships. In addition, this mandate may also result in reduced noise contribution from compliant vessels. 

However, a cause and effect relationship between reduced vessel speed and reduced noise generation has 

proven difficult to quantify.

While operating around seasonal populations of large marine mammals, vessels could disturb or 

potentially collide with whales. The shift of the TSS shipping lanes in 2007 from the southern portion of 

the bank to mid-bank (Figure DP.CS.1) has moved large ships away from the primary feeding area for 

humpback, finback, and minke whales and further away from concentrated zooplankton in Cape Cod Bay 

and the southern part of the sanctuary. This shift has moved large commercial traffic away from the usual 

whale watching area, and has thus reduced the potential for and threat of collisions between ships and 

whales.

Noise

The level of noise pollution in the oceans in general and in SBNMS in particular has increased 

dramatically during the last 50 years. Noise generated by human activities can have a detrimental effect 

on marine life in terms of feeding and spawning behavior.

In 2006–2007, the sanctuary conducted a year-long passive acoustic monitoring project to characterize the 

sanctuary’s low-frequency “noise budget” associated with large commercial vessels by using data from 

AIS to document the distribution and density of vessel traffic. The monitoring project quantified baseline 

noise conditions for the sanctuary, including intra-annual variability, providing an understanding of 

average conditions, loudest conditions, and quietest conditions (Hatch et al. 2008, 2009). The study also 

assessed spatial variability in noise conditions within the sanctuary, and demonstrated a clear correlation 

between sites with the highest average noise levels and sites with the highest numbers of close approaches 

by container ships, tankers, and cruise ships (e.g., in the TSS). With the shifting of the TSS in 2007, 

estimates were also made for the collateral reduced risk of peak noise exposures from close approaches of 

vessels in lanes that were now, on average, more distant from preferred whale feeding locations (Hatch et 

al. 2008).
State of Drivers and Pressures

84

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Low-frequency noise travels efficiently underwater, and thus significant noise energy is retained over 

large distances. The 2006–2007 monitoring program demonstrated that despite being relatively shallow 

and therefore propagation-limited, waters within SBNMS retained significant regional-scale noise 

signatures from vessel traffic occurring within greater Massachusetts Bay. This signature was 

omnipresent, and is of concern because of the potential for noise to “mask” the biologically-important 

acoustic signals that marine animals use to survive and reproduce.

From 2007–2010, a collaborative group of researchers from SBNMS, NEFSC, Cornell University, and 

Marine Acoustics, Inc. worked to quantify impacts associated with masking on large whales within the 

sanctuary. The study showed that on average, right whales have lost 63-67% of the space over which they 

could detect each other’s contact calls in sanctuary waters, relative to historic conditions (Hatch et al. 

2012). This study also aimed to compare current noise levels in the sanctuary to historic levels. It was 

concluded that historic data sets (Wenz 1964, Piggott 1964, Urick 1983, 1984) suggest that historical 

ambient noise levels were as much as 20 dB less than the levels measured contemporarily in SBNMS, 

which is indicative of lower traffic conditions in the past. However, Hatch et al. (2012) suggested 10 dB 

less than contemporary values as a highly conservative value for historical noise, and retained 20 dB less 

than contemporary values for a broader sensitivity analysis.

Subsequent work by the same team expanded the study to examine masking potential for other large 

whale call types that are common within SBNMS, including fin and humpback whale songs, humpback 

whale social sounds, minke whale pulse trains, and North Atlantic right whale gunshots. This work found 

that current ambient noise in SBNMS and AIS vessel activity contribute most heavily to masking these 

call types, with lesser impacts by both whale watching and fishing vessels. Right whale gunshots were 

found to suffer the least amount of masking, while fin, humpback, and minke whales experienced 

masking levels of 80% or more for their respective sound types. These estimates of loss of 

communication capability are relative, and 10 dB less than current sound levels continues to be used as a 

highly conservative historical reference value (Cholewiak et al. 2018).

In 2013, SBNMS and NEFSC began partnering with the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA 

DMF) to document the calling behavior of spawning Gulf of Maine cod in remnant spawning areas both 

within and directly west of sanctuary waters (Hernandez et al. 2013). In 2016, SBNMS and NEFSC staff 

began mining the 2006–2007 passive acoustic dataset to examine calling behavior by cod, haddock, and 

other soniferous fishes in more detail throughout sanctuary waters, and to document overlap with sources 

of noise. The study investigated the alteration of estimated effective communication spaces during the 

winter (January through March) at three spawning locations (two within and one inshore of the sanctuary) 

for populations of cod and haddock. Both the ambient noise levels and the estimated distance over which 

fish vocalizations could be heard fluctuated dramatically during the three month period at each of the 

recording sites. Increases in sound level appeared to be largely driven by large vessel activity, and 

accordingly exhibited a significant positive correlation with the number of AIS tracked vessels within a 

10 nm radius of the recording site. The near constant high levels of low-frequency sound and 

consequential reduction in communication space observed at these recording sites during times of high 

vocalization activity raises concerns that communication between conspecifics may be compromised 

during critical biological periods, such as migration, courtship, and spawning (Stanley et al. 2017).
State of Drivers and Pressures

85

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Recreation

Recreational Fishing

Recreational use of the sanctuary is mostly seasonal (April–October) but can be widespread and intensive, 

potentially resulting in adverse impacts to living marine resources. While recreational discards can 

outnumber landings by 2:1, mortality of discarded cod is around 15% (Capizzano et al. 2016). In addition, 

recreational tuna fishing frequently targets areas where whales are present and can result in lures and 

hooks being snagged in whales’ skin. The Center for Coastal Studies documents reports of recreational 

fishing gear entanglements of whales. Recreational vessels can also create underwater noise that can 

disturb whales. Data on the number of recreational boats operating in sanctuary waters are limited, so it is 

challenging to derive any numerical threshold for identifying when adverse impacts are more likely to 

occur.

Whale Watching

Since the last condition report, the whale watching season has expanded. The season starts earlier in the 

spring and lasts longer into late fall. Since 2007, there is increased knowledge about sound and its effects 

on whale communication. No mitigation measures have been identified, and therefore, there has been no 

change in overall whale watching practices regarding minimization of noise. However, more companies 

have joined the Whale SENSE program, which increases awareness around issues such as noise. Largely 

due to the efforts of Whale SENSE, communication between whale watch companies and NOAA has 

improved dramatically, which has resulted in increased reporting of right whale sightings and 

entanglements.

5. What are the levels of human activities that may adversely affect maritime heritage 

resources and how are they changing?

Status Description: Selected activities have caused severe, 

persistent, and widespread impacts.

Rationale: Incidental contact from fishing gear has affected nearly every maritime heritage 

resource in the sanctuary and continues to negatively impact archaeological site conditions. 

Recreational diving has also caused some local impacts but is not considered to be causing 

widespread degradation of maritime archaeological sites.

In the 2007 condition report, this question was rated “poor” and “declining.” Because selected activities 

have caused severe, persistent, and widespread impacts, the rating remains unchanged. 

Commercial fishing activity continues to be the greatest source of impacts to archaeological site 

condition. For a non-renewable resource such as historic shipwrecks, one encounter with a scallop dredge 

or bottom trawl can result in catastrophic damage that diminishes both historic and economic value. 

Commercial fishing impacts to shipwreck sites are fairly widespread, show variability by gear type, and 

are considered to be the primary source of concern for site disturbance (Figure S.P.5.1). A significant 

increase in scalloping by large vessels in the sanctuary in 2017 was thought to be a potential issue for 

historic site preservation, but NOAA’s Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) closed a 

loophole in regulations in 2018 that alleviated the potential for another intensive fishery and impacts to 

historic sites.
State of Drivers and Pressures

86

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

ONMS management of maritime heritage resources has not changed significantly since 2007. As a result, 

human activities that have the greatest impact on maritime heritage resource integrity also remain 

unchanged. In the past, ONMS policy prevented disclosure of historic shipwreck locations in order to 

afford them protection, primarily from looting. Maritime heritage disclosure policy is currently being 

refined to better account for a variety of hazards. SBNMS regulations prohibit the destruction or removal 

of historic resources except by traditional fishing operations such as trawling and dredging. Whether nondisclosure of historic shipwrecks enhances their protection is open to debate and will be addressed in the 

next management plan.

Figure S.P.5.1. A trawl net entangled on the historic steamship Portland’s starboard bow and gillnet headropes entangled on the 

walking beam and aft deck. Note the aggregations of large fish off the port side that appear as white specks in the side scan image. 

Image: Klein Sonar

A recent example of fishing impacts on a wreck occurred in 2017 with the remains of the clam dredge 

vessel North Star. The North Star sank in 2003, making it a modern, non-historic vessel that became a 

popular dive site by local charter dive boat operators. In 2017, an intensive commercial scallop fishery 

targeted a dense bed of scallops on the northwest corner of Stellwagen Bank. This “derby” fishery was 

unexpected and involved over 40 scallop dredge vessels (a mix of smaller general category and larger 

limited-access boats) fishing a relatively small area for three weeks until the fishery was closed. The 

remains of the North Star (comprised of several sections) were impacted and dispersed over a wider area 

on the seabed. This site is no longer a worthwhile destination for recreational SCUBA divers, thus 

nullifying its economic value (Figure S.P.5.2).
State of Drivers and Pressures

87

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.P.5.2. Comparison of side scan sonar images of the shipwreck North Star acquired before the March 2017 scallop fishery 

and after the fishery. Note dispersion of components of wreck site over wider area. Image: NOAA

Recreational diving does not appear to produce widespread degradation of maritime archaeological sites, 

but disturbance has been documented at a few sites. As recreational diving has increased in SBNMS, so 

has the potential for impacts from this activity. Recreational diving occurs on a limited basis and, for the 

purposes of this report, includes technical diving (diving to depths greater than 130 feet). In rare 

instances, some dive charter boats have directly anchored on a historic shipwreck, risking damage to the 

shipwreck’s structure. These rare events likely occurred when no mooring was present at the site. 

Although sanctuary regulations prohibit the removal of artifacts from sanctuary shipwrecks, there have 

been isolated cases in which divers have picked up and moved artifacts around an archaeological site. In 

cases where the artifact is partially buried, moving it exposes it to increased levels of oxygen and hastens 

degradation. This activity also diminishes the site’s integrity and ability to answer research questions 

based upon an artifact’s provenance (i.e., its relationship to other artifacts and the site in general).
88

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

STATE OF SANCTUARY RESOURCES

This section provides summaries of the status and trends within four resource areas: water quality, habitat, 

living resources, and maritime heritage resources. An expert workshop was convened by sanctuary staff 

on February 13–15, 2018 to discuss and evaluate the following series of questions about each resource 

area (Appendix D). Answers are supported by data and the rationale is provided at the end of each section 

for each resource area. Where published or additional information exists, the reader is provided with 

appropriate references and web links. Workshop discussions and ratings were based on data available at 

the time (e.g., through February 2018). However, in select instances, sanctuary staff later incorporated 

newly available data in order to more accurately describe the current status and trends of resources. 

Situations where data were used by sanctuary staff to support a rating, but were not presented or discussed 

during the workshop, are noted in the text.

Water Quality (Questions 6–9)

The following information provides an assessment of the status and trends of key water quality indicators 

in SBNMS for the period 2007–2018. Eutrophic conditions and their influence on primary production in 

sanctuary waters is the focus of Question 6. Eutrophication is the accelerated production of organic 

matter, particularly algae, usually caused by an increase in the amount of nutrients (primarily nitrogen and 

phosphorus) in surface waters. Eutrophication can impact the condition of sanctuary resources, for 

example, by promoting nuisance and toxic algal blooms or impacting dissolved oxygen levels.

Question 7 focuses on parameters affecting public health. Human health concerns can arise from water, 

beach, and/or seafood contamination (bacteria or chemical). Indications of health impacts may include 

fishery closures and seafood consumption advisories.

Question 8 focuses on shifts in water quality due to climate drivers. Climate indicators include indices of 

large-scale climate patterns, water temperature, acidity, upwelling intensity and timing, and dissolved 

oxygen. Shifts in water temperature can affect species growth rates, phenology, distribution, and 

susceptibility to disease. Acidification can affect organism survival, growth, and reproduction. Upwelling 

influences oxygen content and nutrient cycling.

Question 9 assesses other biotic and abiotic stressors, individually or in combination, that may influence 

sanctuary water quality, but were not addressed in other questions. Examples include non-point source 

contaminants, and hard-to-quantify stressors that influence the condition of habitats and living resources. 

Such inputs may include industry discharges and emissions, fertilizers, pesticides, heavy metals, and 

sewage.
State of Sanctuary Resources

89

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

6. What is the eutrophic condition of sanctuary waters and how is it changing?

Status Description: Eutrophication has not been 

documented, or does not appear to have the potential to 

negatively affect ecological integrity.

Rationale: MWRA hydrographic modelling (Zhao et al. 2017a) suggests that eutrophication is 

not occurring. Dissolved oxygen has not approached hypoxic or anoxic conditions over time. 

Background nitrogen may be decreasing regionally, which would decrease the probability of 

eutrophication.

The 2007 rating for this question was “good” (very high confidence) and “not changing” (very high 

confidence). Since 2007, regional monitoring suggests no sustained increases of key nutrient 

concentrations or nutrient ratios. Observed nutrient dynamics within the sanctuary and greater 

Massachusetts Bay are primarily driven by regional circulation and hydrodynamics of the Gulf of Maine 

(Townsend et al. 2015, 2010, McManus et al. 2014, Libby et al. 2017). Thus, the rating remains 

unchanged.

SBNMS receives nutrient and pollutant inputs from coastal point and non-point sources and via 

atmospheric deposition from proximate and distant inland regions. Anthropogenic nutrient sources of 

primary importance include wastewater treatment plants discharging into rivers or directly into 

Massachusetts Bay. Notably, the MWRA Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant sewage outfall 

discharges approximately 350 million gallons of effluent daily into the offshore Massachusetts Bay 

environment, roughly 12 nautical miles west of the SBNMS boundary (Werme et al. 2017).

MWRA conducts ongoing water quality monitoring across Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay to 

identify impacts of the Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant outfall within the coastal and offshore 

environment. The monitoring program assesses an extensive suite of physical and chemical parameters, 

such as temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and nutrient concentrations, in addition to biological 

parameters, such as chlorophyll concentrations and phytoplankton community composition. Monitoring 

has been ongoing since 1992, with increased monitoring in SBNMS directly following outfall relocation 

in 2000 until 2010, when it was determined that a smaller subset of offshore stations adequately 

represented offshore conditions. MWRA currently maintains one monitoring station in the southwest 

corner of SBNMS (F29), one station slightly outside the northwest corner of SBNMS (F22), and two 

stations within Cape Cod Bay (F01 and F02). These stations are monitored nine months of the year. The 

Northeastern Regional Association of Coastal Ocean Observing Systems also maintains a monitoring 

buoy along the northwest boundary of the sanctuary, collecting data on water temperature, salinity, 

turbidity, chlorophyll concentration, density, dissolved oxygen, wind, waves, and currents on an hourly 

basis. These current and historical data sources provide an excellent platform from which to identify and 

infer long-term water quality trends within and around SBNMS.

The 2007 condition report and 2010 management plan both suggested that eutrophication was not a 

pressing problem in SBNMS waters. Nitrogen and phosphorus (in elevated concentrations) are the 

primary nutrients that may contribute to eutrophication. Ammonium and nitrate are two forms of nitrogen 

that may particularly contribute. Nutrient dynamics in the region are dominated by large-scale circulation 

of the Gulf of Maine and influx of Gulf of Maine water into Massachusetts Bay (Figure S.WQ.6.1, 
State of Sanctuary Resources

90

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

HydroQual 2000). Nutrient availability in surface and bottom waters is influenced by stratification and 

circulation patterns that are regulated by long-term climate dynamics and seasonal forcing. Surface water 

nutrient concentrations have remained roughly constant or declined over the course of MWRA 

monitoring (Figure S.WQ.6.3). Bottom water nutrient trends roughly approximate surface water results, 

yet bottom water reservoirs display predictably higher nutrient concentrations compared to surface waters 

(Figure S.WQ.6.4). Specifically, total nitrogen and total phosphorus have decreased in concentration 

since the early 2000s, possibly related to circulation shifts driven by the North Atlantic Oscillation 

(Figure S.WQ.6.4). SBNMS waters contain sustained concentrations of ammonium and nitrate, consistent 

with seasonal nutrient cycles observed across the region (McManus et al. 2014, Costa et al. 2017, Libby 

et al. 2017). Concentrations of orthophosphate and silicate, two other types of nutrients important for 

primary productivity, have decreased in the offshore environment since roughly 2010–2011. These 

nutrients typically come from terrestrial environments, so changes may reflect larger-scale shifts in 

circulation or precipitation altering riverine inputs or connectivity to offshore habitats (Figure S.WQ.6.3, 

Townsend et al. 2010, 2015, Berton et al. 2017). Overall, nutrient data from 1994–2016 suggest no 

evidence of increased eutrophication in sanctuary waters (Townsend et al. 2010, 2015, Costa et al. 2017, 

Libby et al. 2017). Modeling results support a lack of eutrophication potential in surface and bottom 

waters of Massachusetts Bay and SBNMS due to effluent inputs (Zhao et al. 2016, 2017a). Bottom water 

dissolved oxygen concentrations also do not indicate hypoxic or anoxic conditions indicative of 

eutrophication (Libby et al. 2017).

Figure S.WQ.6.1. A mass balance of nitrogen inputs into Massachusetts Bay from 1992-1994 suggests approximately 3% of the 

nitrogen in Massachusetts Bay originates from MWRA sources, while 92% of nitrogen in the system comes from regional circulation 

beyond the boundary of Massachusetts Bay. This modeling underscores the low impact of the MWRA outfall tunnel on nutrient 

dynamics in SBNMS and the greater Massachusetts Bay. Image: Modified from HydroQual 2000
State of Sanctuary Resources

91

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

S.WQ.6.2. Location of MWRA monitoring sites across Massachusetts Bay. Station F29 is at the southwest corner of the sanctuary, 

while F22 is slightly outside sanctuary boundaries to the west. These two stations were used as representations of sanctuary water 

quality as captured within this monitoring program. Image: Libby et al. 2017 
State of Sanctuary Resources

92

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.WQ.6.3. Intra- and interannual nutrient data from F29, an MWRA monitoring station within SBNMS. Figures present 

monthly and yearly average concentrations of nitrate + nitrite, ammonium, orthophosphate, and silicate (top row) along with total 

dissolved nitrogen (TDN, bottom row). These data suggest an apparent lack of eutrophication as indicated by concentrations of key 

nutrients. Quasi-predictable seasonal fluctuations coupled with regional biogeochemical and hydrological dynamics drive observed 

nutrient concentrations and subsequent primary productivity in SBNMS and Massachusetts Bay. Gaps in nitrogen data reflect gaps 

in measurement of these parameters at station F29. Image: MWRA yearly average nutrient data, stations F02, F06, F29, F22, and 

N20. MWRA data courtesy of Kenneth Keay and Douglas Hersh
State of Sanctuary Resources

93

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.WQ.6.4. Data from F22, an MWRA monitoring station directly adjacent to SBNMS boundaries, also suggest that 

eutrophication is not a pressing problem in SBNMS surface or bottom waters, or the surrounding far-field environment. Dashed 

purple lines indicate mean parameter concentration across time series, while red vertical lines demarcate MWRA outfall introduction 

in 2000. Note: F22 was used to denote total dissolved nitrogen (TDN) and total dissolved phosphorus (TPP) in the absence of 

identical data at F29. Image: MWRA yearly average nutrient data, stations F02, F06, F29, F22, and N20. MWRA data courtesy of 

Kenneth Keay and Douglas Hersh

Further evidence against eutrophication includes constant or declining regional primary production 

(Figure S.WQ.6.5, NEFSC 2017b, Libby et al. 2017, Oviatt et al. 2007). Notably, phytoplankton and 

zooplankton abundance and community makeup show significant seasonal and annual variation since 

MWRA monitoring began in 1992; however, these changes are likely driven by regional, decadal scale 

processes in the Gulf of Maine rather than eutrophication-related drivers (Oviatt et al. 2007, McManus et 

al. 2014, Costa et al. 2017, Libby et al. 2017).

Figure S.WQ.6.5. Primary production in the Gulf of Maine, left, and Georges Bank, right, has fluctuated over time, with current 

conditions suggesting stable and average overall system production. Dashed lines indicate +/- 1 standard deviation. Image: NEFSC 

2017b
State of Sanctuary Resources

94

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

7. Do sanctuary waters pose risks to human health and how are they changing?

Status Description: One or more water quality indicators 

suggest the potential for human health impacts, but human 

health impacts have not been reported.

Rationale: Toxigenic algae are present but not observed to cause demonstrable threats to human 

health. Observed water quality changes over the last 12 years may be related to changes in the 

North Atlantic Oscillation.

In the 2007 condition report, this question was rated “good” and “not changing.” The status has now been 

downgraded to “good/fair.” Ongoing bacterial monitoring suggests bacteria are rarely detectable. The 

downgraded rating stems from the documented occurrence of several toxigenic phytoplankton species 

with varying degrees of predictability; this suggests the potential for human health impacts, though these 

impacts have not been reported. Harmful algal bloom dynamics in SBNMS and the wider Gulf of Maine 

are thought to be mediated by large-scale circulation and climatic dynamics.

At present, SBNMS waters likely pose low risk to human health. Bacterial monitoring has been ongoing 

across the region by MWRA related to the Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant outfall, and indicates 

that water column bacterial counts consistently remain below detection limits, with a very low likelihood 

of exceeding thresholds protective of public health and resource use (Codiga et al. 2016).

The most likely source of possible human health effects in the region stems from the presence of 

toxigenic phytoplankton species (Figure S.WQ.7.1). Identified species of note include Pseudo-nitzschia 

spp., Alexandrium spp. (Pittman 2019), and Dinophysis spp., which have all been documented in 

SBNMS, Massachusetts Bay, and the greater Gulf of Maine. Pseudo-nitzschia spp. are classified as 

diatoms, while the latter two species are dinoflagellates; all produce toxins that may bioaccumulate, 

particularly in shellfish, and can cause widespread economic loss or health effects in humans (Anderson 

et al. 2000, Etheridge 2010, Lefebvre and Robertson 2010).

There is no definitive understanding regarding the risk of harmful algal blooms (HABs) to humans or 

wildlife that utilize the sanctuary, although risk from these or other toxigenic algae may be changing due 

to evolving HAB dynamics in the greater Gulf of Maine. Alexandrium spp. and Dinophysis spp. have 

been irregularly identified at low numbers within SBNMS and surrounding waters as measured via 

MWRA whole water phytoplankton assessments and regional research (Figure S.WQ.7.1, Anderson et al. 

2014a, Gobler et al. 2017, Libby et al. 2017). Alexandrium spp. blooms are frequently a health concern in 

waters further north of the sanctuary (Anderson et al. 2014a, 2014b). Literature review and regional 

monitoring suggest Alexandrium spp. concentrations in excess of 1000 cells/L require increased 

monitoring for shellfish toxicity; MWRA maintains a caution threshold of 100 cells/L for the same taxa. 

Concentrations of Alexandrium spp. have infrequently surpassed either threshold, with notable occurrence 

of Alexandrium in the sanctuary only in 2005 according to MWRA cell count data.

Over 14 Pseudo-nitzschia species have been identified in the Gulf of Maine, seven of which are known to 

produce domoic acid, a neurotoxin. Pseudo-nitzschia spp. has been regularly documented in SBNMS 

according to MWRA survey data, with notable occurrences in sanctuary waters in the autumns of 2012, 

2013, and 2016 (Figure S.WQ.7.1). Literature review, regional monitoring, and safety thresholds 

established by states in the region suggest Pseudo-nitzschia cell counts in excess of 20,000 cells/L merit 
State of Sanctuary Resources

95

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

increased monitoring for potential adverse effects in shellfish. Data exist regarding the relationship 

between cell count and domoic acid production or bioaccumulation specific to the offshore environment 

(Fernandes et al. 2014), which makes understanding risks associated with cell count thresholds 

challenging. It is also unclear if or to what extent the presence of this toxigenic diatom may translate to 

domoic acid exposure in the sanctuary food web. Blooms of toxigenic Pseudo-nitzchia spp. have been 

implicated in marine mammal and bird deaths around the globe, yet no SBNMS-specific mortality events 

have been documented (Lefebvre and Robertson 2010, D’Agostino et al. 2017).

Climate change likely plays a pivotal role in local and regional HAB dynamics. Recent research 

examining the relationship between sea surface temperature and HAB dynamics across the greater 

Northwest Atlantic from 1982–2016 found that bloom season and growth rate of Alexandrium spp. and 

Dinophysis spp. were positively correlated with increasing sea surface temperature, suggesting that 

climate change may have already exacerbated these or other HAB species dynamics in the region (O’Neil 

et al. 2012, Gobler et al. 2017). Modeling work considering the greater Gulf of Maine also suggests that 

climatically-mediated variables, such as river discharge, wind patterns, and cross-shore transport, are 

specifically associated with paralytic shellfish poisoning toxicity events caused by Alexandrium 

fundyense in a given year; it is uncertain if or how these variables may be shifting within SBNMS and 

how this may translate to increased risk for toxic HAB events (Nair et al. 2013). Phytoplankton cell 

counts obtained via MWRA monthly monitoring data from F22 and F29 do not indicate an explicit 

association between HAB species occurrence and warming SBNMS surface water temperatures or 

repositioning of the outfall. Although this may be a function of sampling frequency or a similar artifact, 

substantial regional evidence of decadal variation modulating HAB dynamics suggests the same factors 

are moderating HAB occurrence locally in SBNMS (Anderson et al. 2014a, 2014b, Libby et al. 2017, 

Nair et al. 2013). Note that MWRA cell count and monitoring data, taken monthly from February until 

December, can only be used to moderately comment on the occurrence or risk of quickly evolving HAB 

blooms, as blooms may develop and dissipate over the course of a few days or weeks. Further study of 

phytoplankton communities and toxigenic algae dynamics in the face of changing regional dynamics is 

warranted.
State of Sanctuary Resources

96

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.WQ.7.1. Yearly average cell counts of toxigenic algae genera at two MWRA ambient monitoring stations. Grey area 

indicates the species was not observed. While there is no clear trend associated with cell counts of toxigenic algae species over 

time, several types of toxigenic algae occur regularly or semi-regularly in cell count surveys conducted at MWRA stations F29 and 

F22, in or directly adjacent to SBNMS waters. Image: MWRA monthly surface phytoplankton count data, stations F29 and F22. 

MWRA data courtesy of Kenneth Keay and Douglas Hersh

8. Have recent changes in climate altered water conditions and how are they changing?

Status Description: Climate-related changes have caused 

measurable, but not severe, degradation in some attributes of 

ecological integrity.

Rationale: Climate change is influencing the primary production cycle in the region, and has the 

demonstrated capacity to produce cascading effects within the ecosystem. Additional changes in 

water temperature, dissolved oxygen, stratification, sea level, precipitation, and storm activity 

have been documented or modeled, with some suggestion of changes in pH, though more 

monitoring is needed to more robustly identify acidification trends and effects.

This question is new and was not assessed in the 2007 condition report. SBNMS, as part of the Gulf of 

Maine, is one of the fastest warming regions around the globe. The current rating is based on changes in 

the phenology and distribution of fish, plankton, and other organisms that are being observed and 

attributed to climate change (Staudinger et al. 2019, Pershing et al. 2015, Nye et al. 2009), all of which 

are affecting production and food web dynamics within the ecosystem.

Climate change impacts have manifested regionally in remarkable and dramatic ways. Overall, the Gulf 

of Maine is warming 99% faster than the global ocean. This 1.5°C/decade temperature increase is likely 

due to the influence of decadal-scale cycles and the northward shift of the Gulf Stream (Pershing et al. 
State of Sanctuary Resources

97

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

2015, Thomas et al. 2017). The Gulf of Maine is experiencing areas of increasingly warmer surface water 

and decreases in areas of cold water since 1980 (Figure S.WQ.8.1, NEFSC 2017a). Using monitoring data 

from the MWRA monitoring site in SBNMS, linear regression of yearly average water temperature data 

suggests increases in both surface water and bottom water commensurate with regional trends (Figure 

S.WQ.8.2). Seasonal water temperature changes have also been documented in the Gulf of Maine, with 

recent research suggesting an earlier summer start date, a later summer end date, and longer summer 

length based on data from a 33-year period (Thomas et al. 2017). Recent national predictions also suggest 

average annual air temperatures in the northeast may increase between 3.98 and 5.09°F as early as 2036 

(Wuebbles et al. 2017).

Figure S.WQ.8.1. Changes in sea surface temperature and thermal habitat area over time. Red dashed line indicates 2016 data. 

Image: NEFSC 2017b

Figure S.WQ.8.2. Plot displaying average yearly surface water (left panel) and bottom water (right panel) temperatures observed at 

F29, the MWRA monitoring station on the southern boundary of SBNMS. Image: MWRA yearly average nutrient data, stations F02, 

F06, F29, F22, and N20. MWRA data courtesy of Kenneth Keay and Douglas Hersh
State of Sanctuary Resources

98

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Dissolved oxygen concentrations have decreased over time in SBNMS and Massachusetts Bay according 

to MWRA monitoring data. This may be due to sampling artifacts or related to the reduced capacity of 

warmer water for oxygen. Note that decreased oxygen concentrations are likely not yet ecologically 

relevant, as bottom water consistently maintains saturation levels above 80% based on MWRA 

monitoring data (Libby et al. 2017).

Figure S.WQ.8.3. Plot displaying average annual surface (left panel) and bottom water dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations (right 

panel) observed at five MWRA monitoring stations in Massachusetts Bay, with the purple line depicting the mean dissolved oxygen 

level observed over the time series. Image: MWRA yearly average nutrient data, stations F02, F06, F29, F22, and N20. MWRA data 

courtesy of Kenneth Keay and Douglas Hersh

Climate change is also likely affecting primary production within SBNMS and the surrounding offshore 

environment, with uncertain cascading effects within the regional food web (McManus et al. 2014, Costa 

et al. 2017, Libby et al. 2017). Discharge from the Merrimack River has been demonstrated to strongly 

correlate with conditions associated with key climate indices, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and 

the North Atlantic Oscillation, with greater than average river discharge anticipated in future (Berton et 

al. 2017). Climatically-mediated river discharge from the Merrimack and other coastal rivers, Western 

Maine Coastal Current intrusion, wind stress, and inflow contributions to the greater region from lowsalinity Scotian Shelf waters act to freshen the surface layer and increase stratification, producing variable 

and dynamic levels of primary production and nutrients (McManus et al. 2014, Townsend et al. 2015).

The Northeast is expected to experience higher rates of sea level rise by 2100 compared to the global 

average (NEFSC 2017b, Wuebbles et al. 2017). Massachusetts coastlines are projected to experience an 

average sea level rise of 2.83 mm/year. Cape Cod and outlying islands are particularly at risk in terms of 
State of Sanctuary Resources

99

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

sea level rise (NOAA 2019b). The offshore location of SBNMS insulates it from direct effects of sea level 

rise. It is unclear how inundation of coastal areas and changing sediment sources/transport may impact 

offshore environments in Massachusetts Bay.

The Gulf of Maine region is particularly susceptible to ocean acidification, due to poor buffering capacity 

and existing low calcium carbonate concentrations as a result of substantial freshwater and low-salinity 

inputs from coastal rivers and Scotian Shelf flow (Gledhill et al. 2015, Townsend et al. 2015, Wang et al. 

2017). However, recent increases in the temperature and salinity of the Gulf of Maine as a result of the 

northward shift in the Gulf Stream appear to be buffering against the impacts of ocean acidification on pH 

and aragonite saturation state (Salisbury and Jönsson 2018). Regional work has demonstrated that 

inorganic carbon concentrations are determined by seasonal cycles driven by primary productionrespiration dynamics, with apparent CaCO3 dissolution in bottom water during fall and winter (Wang et 

al. 2017). A pilot study in SBNMS from December 2011–June 2012 indicated decoupling of surface and 

bottom water pCO2 in response to the spring bloom, with corresponding decreases in bottom water pH 

and calcium carbonate saturation state, a derived index of carbonate ion availability (SBNMS 2013). 

Sustained ocean acidification may result in sustained subsurface aragonite undersaturation across the 

region in 30–40 years, with variable and uncertain consequences for water quality or shell-forming 

invertebrates in SBNMS and the greater Gulf of Maine (Gledhill et al. 2015, Ekstrom et al. 2015, Wang et 

al. 2017). More robust monitoring incorporating both surface and bottom water measurements is 

necessary across SBNMS and the wider region to understand acidification trends, seasonal fluctuations, 

and possible ramifications for shellfish and the larger ecosystem.

A warming atmosphere and ocean also translates to increased water vapor in the atmosphere, impacting 

precipitation and tropical cyclone activity. In the northeast, the annual maximum daily precipitation was 

17% higher between 1981 and 2015 than it was in the years between 1901 and 1960, while extreme 

precipitation from 1996-2014 was 53% higher than 1901-1995 (Figure S.WQ.8.5, Huang et al. 2017, 

Wuebbles et al. 2017). Though numbers of tropical cyclones are predicted to remain the same or even 

decrease globally, tropical cyclone intensity has increased over the past 40 years as illustrated by the 

doubling of the number of category 4 and 5 tropical cyclones since the 1970s. Moreover, more storms are 

predicted to track poleward under current emission and temperature change scenarios, likely translating to 

increased tropical activity reaching SBNMS and the greater North Atlantic (Tamarin-Brodsky and Kaspi 

2017, Wuebbles et al. 2017). It is uncertain how increased hurricane and tropical storm exposure may 

impact local resources and processes.
State of Sanctuary Resources

100

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

9: Are other stressors, individually or in combination, affecting water quality, and how 

are they changing?

Status Description: Undetermined

Rationale: Ongoing contaminant monitoring has focused on a handful of legacy contaminants, 

leaving the majority of emerging organic contaminants unmeasured. No data exists to determine 

changes over time, which is the primary factor driving the rating and trend. More monitoring is 

needed in this area.

In the 2007 condition report, this question was rated “good/fair” and “not changing.” Since that report, 

limited data has emerged to document other water quality stressors. Sediment monitoring has indicated 

concentrations of man-made organic contaminants and metals have decreased or remained steady in the 

SBNMS region. Both modeling and observational work indicate that dredge material and any associated 

contaminants remain confined within disposal sites, and are not likely to impact water quality. However, 

ongoing contaminant monitoring has focused on only a handful of legacy contaminants, leaving the 

majority of emerging organic contaminants unmeasured, with no indication of how they may be changing 

in the system, which is the primary uncertainty driving the “undetermined” rating for status and trend for 

this question. 

As an offshore region adjacent to urbanized margins, SBNMS is subjected to a variety of stressors with 

variable influence on observed water quality. Anthropogenic contaminants, wastewater discharges, and 

vessel discharges are stressors of particular relevance that may impact water quality within the sanctuary.

Current organic pollutant monitoring by MWRA within the region entails sediment sampling and 

measuring legacy hydrophobic chemicals that readily adsorb to particles and prefer to remain particlebound (versus dissolved). Few data exist on concentrations of dissolved or suspended, particulateassociated hydrophobic pollutants within SBNMS or greater Massachusetts Bay (Dahlen et al. 2006, 

Nestler et al. 2017). Based on existing sediment monitoring and well-established partitioning behavior of 

these hydrophobic chemicals, dissolved concentrations of legacy organic contaminants are likely very low 

and not a significant stressor of water quality within SBNMS (Nestler et al. 2015).

However, there are no data describing dissolved concentrations of emerging contaminants with waterloving or hydrophilic chemistries, such as water repellents (PFASs) or personal care products (Wang et al. 

2011, 2017), whose partitioning behavior is poorly understood. Microplastics and nanomaterials are also 

poorly described in the region. These emerging pollutants have been identified in water samples and 

biotic tissues regionally and are likely present in SBNMS due to its proximity to urban source areas 

(Shaw et al. 2009b, Costa 2012, Cantwell et al. 2016a, 2016b). Dissolved concentrations of emerging 

contaminants are likely below levels associated with acute impacts due to vigorous flushing mechanisms 

within Massachusetts Bay or possible degradation, but this has yet to be demonstrated empirically (Jones 

et al. 2005, Corcoran et al. 2010, Zhao et al. 2016). Testing for emerging contaminants by the EPA and 

the University of Rhode Island will occur in 2019. There are also no data informing how dissolved 

emerging organic contaminants may be changing over time.

SBNMS receives continued inputs of dissolved trace metals via offshore circulation, the MWRA outfall 

and other wastewater streams, and seasonally-mediated resuspension from local sediments (Kalnejais et 

al. 2015). While sediment metal concentrations are characterized within Massachusetts Bay via ongoing 
State of Sanctuary Resources

101

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

MWRA monitoring, dissolved concentrations are less clearly documented. Modeling work suggests 

differential distributions of dissolved metals between surface and bottom water, while existing sediment 

monitoring implies that dissolved concentrations are likely below biologically meaningful thresholds due 

to generally low sediment concentrations (Li et al. 2010, Nestler et al. 2017, Werme et al. 2015). 

However, it is unclear how seasonal and climatic cycles impacting relevant physicochemical water 

column parameters may change the availability of dissolved metals over time (Atkinson et al. 2007).

Effluent volume from the MWRA Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant is not significantly increasing 

over time. Discharge volume mirrors regional rainfall trends, with an increasing percentage of effluent 

receiving full secondary treatment (Figure S.WQ.9.1, Werme et al. 2017). Additionally, the Merrimack 

River brings significant and rain-dependent flow to the northern area of the sanctuary; its discharge has 

the capacity to carry point and non-point source pollution from the large Merrimack watershed, which 

could threaten SBNMS water quality.

Figure S.WQ.9.1. Average annual effluent discharge volume, in green and yellow, is associated with regional precipitation, tracked 

in blue. Effluent discharge from the Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant has not increased over time. Image: Werme et al. 2017

Disposal of dredge material likely does not pose a threat to water quality, as modeling indicates that 

disposed sediment remains confined in the disposal area, and only sediment deemed safe for offshore 

deposition is considered for disposal (USACE 2015). While large commercial and cruise ship discharges 

have the potential to adversely influence water quality in the sanctuary, there is no data available on the 

levels of discharges that may be occurring in the sanctuary.
State of Sanctuary Resources

102

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Habitat (Questions 10–11)

The following information provides an assessment of the status and trends of key habitat indicators in 

SBNMS for the period 2007–2018. Question 10 focuses on the integrity of major habitats within the 

sanctuary, including biologically (biogenic) and abiotically (physical) structured habitats. Physical 

habitats are abiotic structures, such as sand waves, mud-draped gravel, and piled boulders. Biogenic 

habitats are structure-forming species, which create habitat structures used by other living marine 

resources, including hydroids, anemones, and sponges. Biogenic habitats are layered on top of, and are 

often determined by, the coincident physical habitat. Changes to both biotic and abiotic habitat can 

significantly alter the diversity of living marine resources and ecosystem services. Question 11 examines 

concentrations and variability of contaminants in major sanctuary habitats. 

10. What is the integrity of major habitat types and how is it changing?

Status Description: Selected habitat loss or alteration has 

caused measurable but not severe degradation in some 

attributes of ecological integrity.

Rationale: Data suggest measurable changes in habitat quality, likely due to the use of bottomcontact commercial fishing gear. Some habitat attributes show degradation, while others show 

improvement. Significant habitat degradation is observed in isolated areas due to chronic 

disturbance. Use of bottom-contact gear is intensive in SBNMS, but diminishing due to 

regulatory controls and fleet consolidation. An increase in scallop dredging started in 2017 and 

will continue. Seabed disturbance from anchoring and other activities might also be locally 

important and should be evaluated.

In the 2007 condition report, this question was addressed differently, with abiotic and biotic habitat types 

assessed separately. Here, major habitat types are assessed collectively. 

The sanctuary has a variety of habitats that have been characterized by both geologic attributes and 

dominant structure-forming species, including sand waves with dense hydroids, shell deposits over sand, 

mud-gravel with burrowing anemones, gravel with sponges, and piled boulders with dense invertebrates. 

The organisms that contribute to elements of habitat complexity are vulnerable and sensitive to direct 

disturbance (Figure S.H.10.1).

The condition of major habitat types within the sanctuary is widely affected by human activities, with 

lower levels of direct impacts in the Western Gulf of Maine (WGOM) Closure Area, which overlaps the 

sanctuary. Information suggests measurable changes in habitat quality over the past ten years (see below), 

primarily due to bottom-contact gear used in commercial fishing. Impacts to habitat are both direct (from 

disturbance by fishing gear) and indirect (from shifts in trophic and competitive interactions that affect 

populations of structure-forming species). Fishing effort is not uniform across the sanctuary and is more 

intensive in certain productive areas. Overall fishing effort in the sanctuary has decreased since 2009, 

partly as a result of sector management implementation in 2010 as part of the Northeast Multispecies 

Fishery Management Plan (see Figs. S.P.3.1 and S.P.3.2). There was a significant increase in scallop 

dredging in the northern end of the sanctuary in 2017 but, as a result of actions taken by the NEFMC and 

GARFO, this effort was significantly reduced in 2018. Seabed disturbance from anchoring of recreational 

fishing vessels might also produce locally important impacts and should be evaluated. Also, evidence of 
State of Sanctuary Resources

103

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

disturbance in the WGOM Closure Area suggests that impacts from bottom-tending mobile gear (Auster 

2015 and see discussion below) have resulted in some habitat degradation there.

Effects from the installation of the Hibernia Atlantic fiber-optic cable in 2000 appear to be minimal. 

Changes to local topography persist along deeper, coarser-grained parts of the cable route, but burial was 

complete in shallower, finer-grained sediments, and community structure in habitats on and off the cable 

is similar.

Figure S.H.10.1. Examples of biogenic habitats in SBNMS. Clockwise from top left: boulder with attached epifauna, sponge 

community on sand-gravel ridge, burrowing anemones in mud-draped gravel, sponge attached to hydroid skeletons on mud-draped 

gravel. Photos: P. Auster/University of Connecticut and Seafloor Habitat Recovery and Monitoring Project Science Team

Fishing gears in aggregate demonstrably alter the structure of marine habitats and influence the diversity, 

composition, biomass, and productivity of the associated organisms in the SBNMS region (Auster et al. 

1996, NRC 2002, Collie et al. 2017). These and other studies have found that chronic and widespread use 

of bottom-contact fishing gear significantly impacts all habitat types and reduces vertical relief and 

structure. The structure of shallow, mobile sand habitats tends to recover faster than deep boulder and 

mud areas (i.e., months versus years to decades). However, during recovery from disturbance, the 

functional role of even highly resilient habitats may be diminished (Auster and Langton 1999). Further, 

indirect effects from removal of predators by fishing (e.g., cod, wolffish, cusk, haddock, flounders) have a 

potential to alter top-down controls of species (e.g., predatory sea stars, urchins, crustaceans) that affect 

structure-forming invertebrate species (e.g., sponges, hydroids, bivalves).

Fishing effort across the northeast U.S. continental shelf has declined for over a decade (NEFMC 2014b). 

However, fishing affects nearly all areas of the sanctuary and makes all habitats vulnerable to direct and 

indirect impacts. Fishing effort persists within the sanctuary where bottom-tending mobile gear is allowed 
State of Sanctuary Resources

104

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

and exceeds habitat-specific recovery rates based on a gear-impact model, precluding full recovery 

(NEFMC 2014b). Some research suggests that even habitats that can rapidly recover from fishing impacts 

cannot sufficiently meet the ecological requirements needed by early demersal fish after they settle to the 

seafloor, which may suggest long-term impacts of fishing on sanctuary habitats (Auster and Langton 

1999).

The Seafloor Habitat Recovery and Monitoring Project was designed to investigate and compare the 

recovery rates of seafloor habitat (both physical and biogenic) and associated taxa (such as fish) following 

natural and anthropogenic disturbance (e.g., a single acute impact from a fiber-optic cable installation and 

chronic impacts from a range of fishing activities) (Auster et al. 2013b). This program was initiated in 

1998 following the designation of the WGOM Closure Area by the NEFMC. Seafloor Habitat Recovery 

and Monitoring Project results indicated that a complex system of natural and human-caused drivers of 

habitat change are at play (Auster et al. 2013b). Of significance, the study found that communities of epiand emergent fauna were dynamic over the 1998–2010 sampling period (Figure S.H.10.2), and while 

communities both inside and outside the WGOM Closure Area changed over time, there was still a clear 

and significant effect of the closure on species abundance and community structure across all major 

habitat types (sand, mud, gravel, and piled boulder). Also, in the twelve years following closure, 

communities inside the closed area had not reached a stable climax state, suggesting that these 

communities do not exhibit successional change (i.e., recovery without resilience). Finally, infaunal 

communities in deep mud habitat exhibited a clear response to closure, while those in shallow sand were 

more stochastic.
State of Sanctuary Resources

105

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.H.10.2. Non-metric multidimensional scaling plots based on community structure from 1998–2010 in gravel habitats (top) 

and boulder habitats (bottom). These plots visualize similarity-dissimilarity in species composition based on relative distances in 

two-dimensional space. Stations from each year and inside or outside the WGOM Closure Area are grouped in circles, with 

trajectories tracked by red (outside) and black (inside) arrows. Differences between years as well as between inside outside are 

notable over time. Image: Auster et al. 2013b
State of Sanctuary Resources

106

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Auster et al. (2013b) also identified trends in composition and distribution of particular structure-forming 

species and groups relative to the closed area, further suggesting differential impacts due to fishing levels 

(Figure S.H.10.3). For example, structure-forming taxa recovered both inside and outside the closed area, 

although different taxa were dominant in each. Increases in species diversity at stations within the 

WGOM Closure Area were not observed by the end of the study period, suggesting that community 

recovery draws from a regional species pool and patterns of abundance vary based on local patterns of 

disturbance.

Figure S.H.10.3. Patterns of numerical dominance for invertebrate species in boulder habitats over time (1998–2010) for sites 

inside and outside the WGOM Closure Area (ordered most to least abundant from left to right). It is notable that some species inside 

the closed area increased in dominance (abundance) over time since closure, indicative of small-scale processes of competition and 

predation as drivers of community structure, while physical disturbance remains a driver for communities outside the closure. Image: 

Auster et al. 2013b

Subsequent imaging surveys from 2013–2015 (Figure S.H.10.4) revealed that while the seafloor 

community of habitat-forming species has been dynamic, the condition of the community in 2015 

essentially mirrored that found at the time of closure in 1998 (i.e., a gravel pavement with virtually no 

biological structure; Auster 2015). The large-scale nature of this disturbance suggests intermittent impacts 

from bottom-contact fishing gear.

Other more northerly, deeper sites within WGOM Closure Area and just east of the sanctuary boundary 

were surveyed in 2015 to assess changes in sea pen density following the closure in 1998. Seafloor 

communities appeared to have been impacted recently based on sector-scanning sonar records of gear 

marks on the seafloor and the species observed (Auster 2015). These sites may have been fished after the 

initial closure, but estimating the times of those impacts is difficult.
State of Sanctuary Resources

107

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.H.10.4. Time series images from seafloor monitoring surveys. 1998: typical condition within the station at the time of 

closure. 2009: state of recovery in the seafloor invertebrate community eleven years after closure with high coverage of emergent 

and structure-forming fauna. 2010: apparent impacts to the community; it is unclear whether this represents ecological versus 

anthropogenic effects. 2013-2014: structure-forming fauna generally absent with some coverage of early recruits. 2015: the 

community was highly disturbed, but with conditions comparable to maximal fishing effects from 1998 at time of closure. No obvious 

ecological process would produce this pattern. Photos: Auster 2015

11. What are contaminant concentrations in sanctuary habitats and how are they 

changing?

Status Description: Undetermined

Rationale: Legacy contaminants have been reported in benthic habitats. However, they 

infrequently exceed thresholds of concern, do not appear to remobilize beyond sites where they 

have been identified (e.g., MBDS), and no indications of acute life history or population effects 

have been observed. Compounds of emerging concern are present, but poorly documented or 

monitored; thus, their status and trends could not be assessed. More monitoring is needed in this 

area.

In the 2007 condition report, this question was rated “good/fair” and “not changing”. The current 

undetermined ratings primarily stem from the abundance of unknowns surrounding contaminant 

occurrence, trends, and biological effects. MWRA and other regional monitoring has demonstrated the 

continued, low-level presence of legacy contaminants in benthic habitats, occasionally at concentrations 

above established regulatory thresholds of low concern. Legacy contaminants in sediments do not appear 

to be subject to remobilization or transport beyond sites where they have been identified (e.g., MBDS), 

and there are currently no indications of acute life history or population effects related to legacy 

contaminant exposures despite demonstrated bioaccumulation in regional fauna. However, biological 

impacts of contaminants are particularly difficult to parse out in wildlife and marine systems given the 

abundance of other abiotic and biotic stressors, compounding uncertainty related to assessing contaminant 

degradation in the sanctuary habitat. Compounds of emerging concern are also present in sanctuary 

habitats and biota, but are not well-documented or effectively monitored; limited information suggests 
State of Sanctuary Resources

108

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

that emerging contaminant concentrations may be shifting or increasing with continued introduction of 

new chemicals to replace regulated compounds. Therefore, status and trends of these emerging 

compounds could not be assessed with the limited information available.

Contaminant concentrations in SBNMS sedimentary habitats are dynamic. Observed concentrations 

reflect the influence of local, regional, and global processes that distribute pollutants via atmospheric, 

particulate, or water-based transport at different time scales. Compound-specific partitioning and 

degradation pathways also determine environmental distribution and possible biological activity.

MWRA monitors locations across the nearshore-offshore continuum for sediment condition and infauna 

community structure annually, and sediment contaminant levels are determined every three years 

(Rutecki et al. 2017). This ongoing program, in combination with additional regional monitoring of 

sediments and biota, provides a relevant dataset describing concentrations of metals and selected organic 

contaminants. Regional monitoring of sediments indicates low yet persistent concentrations of metals, 

such as mercury, and legacy persistent organic pollutants (POPs), such as PAHs, PCBs, and 

organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) (Figures S.H.11.1—S.H.11.2, Nestler et al. 2015, Sunderland et al. 

2012, Kimbrough et al. 2009). Most metals and legacy POPs continue to decrease or remain steady within 

SBNMS, as documented at one current MWRA monitoring site within sanctuary boundaries. These local 

trends are commensurate with declines seen regionally and worldwide, as stringent regulation translates to 

decreased or negligible environmental inputs of many metals and legacy POPs (Zhao et al. 2017b, Werme 

et al. 2015, Nestler et al. 2015).

Figure S.H.11.1. Sum metal concentrations have decreased over time at the MWRA monitoring station in SBNMS (FF04), 

according to MWRA monitoring data. Images: MWRA sediment chemistry data, stations FF04, FF09, FF01A, NF12. MWRA data 

courtesy of Kenneth Keay and Douglas Hersh
State of Sanctuary Resources

109

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.H.11.2. Sum concentrations of all chlorinated persistent organic pollutants (POPs), including select organochlorine 

pesticides (OCPs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), in sediment at four MWRA benthic monitoring stations across 

Massachusetts Bay; FF04 is the station within SBNMS. Image: MWRA sediment chemistry data, stations FF04, FF09, FF01A, 

NF12. MWRA data courtesy of Kenneth Keay and Douglas Hersh

Biotic monitoring also indicates sustained concentrations of metals and legacy POPs. Some regional 

studies of mussels, fish, pinnipeds, and cetaceans indicate significant tissue burdens of metals and/or 

legacy POPs, suggesting these compounds remain relevant in the offshore food web, are capable of 

bioaccumulation, and, in some cases, exceed estimated immunotoxicity thresholds (Nestler et al. 2016, 

Shaw et al. 2014, 2009b, 2005, Sunderland et al. 2012, Elfes et al. 2010, Kimbrough et al. 2009). 

Additionally, a plethora of emerging contaminants remain uncharacterized within the Massachusetts Bay 

environment and food web, including per- and polyfluorinated substances, novel flame retardants, 

plasticizers, pharmaceuticals and personal care products, endocrine disrupting compounds, currently used 

biocides, and more. Few studies have documented various compounds regionally in water, sediment, or 

biota, and there is no substantial understanding regarding their presence, risk, or trends in SBNMS 

(Cantwell et al. 2016a, Costa 2012, Kimbrough et al. 2009, Shaw et al. 2009a, 2009b, Kolpin et al. 2002). 

Limited existing data suggest emerging contaminants are probably present within the overall 

Massachusetts Bay habitat, likely at low concentrations, with uncertain biological ramifications.

No data were found detailing concentrations of microplastic particles or fibers in SBNMS sediments, or 

how plastic levels may be changing over time; this is a major data gap, considering marine sediments are 

a major sink for microplastic pieces (Woodall et al. 2014). Surface water concentrations confirm the 

presence of microplastic contamination in the region. Surface tows between 1986–2008 suggest Gulf of 

Maine surface water concentrations of 1534 +/- 200 plastic pieces per square kilometer, an order of 

magnitude lower than concentrations observed in the North Atlantic subtropical gyre (Law et al. 2010, 

Eriksen et al. 2014).
State of Sanctuary Resources

110

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Concentrations of Clostridium perfringens, an anaerobic bacterium that acts as a tracer of wastewater 

effluent influence in sediments, have remained low or declined within SBNMS and at other offshore 

locations since outfall diversion. Observed concentrations are comparable to baseline levels at MWRA 

monitoring sites in and around SBNMS following the relocation of the outfall in 2000, suggesting that 

discharge from the outfall has minimal impact on bacterial loads in SBNMS sediments (Nestler et al. 

2015, 2017).

Living Resources (Questions 12 –15)

The following information provides an assessment of the status and trends of key living resource 

indicators in SBNMS for the period 2007–2018. Most benthic invertebrate species are not included in the 

living resources section because they are covered in the habitat section of this report (Questions 10 and 

11). However, major species groups that function as structure formers are considered here as foundation 

species. Rare invertebrates are considered under the topic of biodiversity.

Keystone species and foundation species are the focus of Question 12. Both are important components of 

the ecosystem, as the persistence of a large number of other species depends on them. They are 

differentiated by their numerical abundance or biomass.

 A “keystone” species has a disproportionately large effect on its environment relative to its 

abundance (Cottee-Jones and Whittaker 2012). It plays a critical role in maintaining the structure 

of its ecological community and helping to determine the types and numbers of various other 

species in the community. As such, keystone species are often called “ecosystem engineers” and 

can include habitat creators (e.g., corals, kelp), predators that control food web structure (e.g., 

Humboldt squid, sea otters), herbivores that regulate benthic recruitment (e.g., certain sea 

urchins), and those involved in critical symbiotic relationships (e.g., cleaning or cohabitating 

species). In the 2007 condition report, cod was considered a keystone species at SBNMS; 

however, based on the findings of Link et al. (2009), it is not considered a keystone species in this 

report. Cod are, nevertheless, focal species (see Question 13), as they have tremendous cultural 

value, have historically played an important role in the Gulf of Maine ecosystem, and remain an 

important species in fisheries management. There has been some scholarly debate about the role 

of American lobster (Homarus americanus) as a keystone predator in the coastal regions of the 

Gulf of Maine, but ultimately the evidence for such a role is inconclusive (Elner and Vadas 

1990). However, local context in terms of community composition and associated species 

interactions is important for identifying such roles (Power et al. 1996).

 “Foundation” species are those that define much of the structure of a community by creating 

locally stable conditions, such as providing primary prey for local predators or serving as 

biogenic habitat (sensu Dayton 1972). The loss of foundation species will acutely and chronically 

impact food webs, fluxes of energy and nutrients, and biodiversity. In this report, calanoid 

copepods, Atlantic herring, sand lance, sponges, and anemones are identified as foundation taxa 

within the greater SBNMS ecosystem.

“Other focal species” are the focus of Question 13. SBNMS staff selected a set of indicator species that 

are described in the response for this question — North Atlantic right whales, humpback whales, harbor 

porpoises, Atlantic white sided dolphins, great shearwaters, lobsters, tuna, and Atlantic cod.
State of Sanctuary Resources

111

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Question 14 focuses on assessing the impacts of non-indigenous species. Also called alien, exotic, nonnative, invasive, or introduced species, these are animals or plants living outside their endemic 

geographical range. Often having arrived in the sanctuary by human activity, either deliberately or 

accidentally, their abundance in sanctuary habitats along with any known ecological impacts will be 

discussed.

Question 15 addresses the status of biodiversity, which is defined as variation of life at all levels of 

biological organization, and commonly encompasses diversity within species (genetic diversity), among 

species (species diversity), and comparative diversity among ecosystems (ecosystem diversity). 

Biodiversity can be measured in many ways. The simplest measure is to count the number of species 

found in a certain habitat or ecosystem, termed species richness. Other indices of biodiversity couple 

species richness with relative abundance to provide a measure of evenness and heterogeneity. When 

discussing “biodiversity” in response to Question 15, the report primarily refers to species richness 

(simply the total number of species) and diversity indices (based on the relationship between the number 

of species and their abundances). Non-indigenous species were not included in estimates of native 

biodiversity.

12. What is the status of keystone and foundation species and how is it changing?

Status Description: The status of keystone or foundation 

species may preclude full community development and 

function, but has not yet led to measurable degradation.

Rationale: Foundation species considered include Calanoid copepods, Atlantic herring, sand 

lance, sponges, and anemones. Calanoid copepods have persisted in the western Gulf of Maine 

despite recent warming. Atlantic herring have recovered from overfishing, but poor recruitment 

may result in a future decline in biomass. Sand lance are tightly linked to isolated shallow sand 

habitat on top of Stellwagen Bank and exhibit variable, unpredictable local abundance. The status 

of sponges and anemones is uncertain.

A direct comparison between the 2018 rating and the 2007 condition report is not possible because this 

specific question was not previously addressed. However, there were two questions in the 2007 condition 

report that assessed the status and condition of key species. The status of key species was rated 

“fair/poor” and “not changing” in 2007 and the health of key species was rated “fair” and “not changing.” 

The ratings in the current report integrate the status and trends for numerous foundation species, but did 

not include data for cod, as discussed above. This explains, to a large extent, the difference in ratings from 

the question on key species in the 2007 report. Among the foundation species, data for some taxa are 

limited, particularly for ecologically important copepods. Sand lance is being monitored, but data are 

currently insufficient to offer a definitive sense of state and multi-year trends. However, sand lance may 

be particularly vulnerable to climate change due to their dependence on sand habitat and their potential 

inability to move into areas with favorable conditions. Sensitivity of Atlantic herring to fishing and spatial 

restriction of sand lance to sand habitat may both be emerging concerns.

Calanoid Copepods

The copepod Calanus finmarchicus is a crucial primary consumer in the Gulf of Maine and a lipid-rich 

food source for a diversity of ecologically and economically important species. It is one of the most 
State of Sanctuary Resources

112

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

abundant copepod species in the region, and is of special importance in SBNMS as it serves as a vital 

food source for larval cod and haddock, herring, and sand lance (Figure S.LR.12.1). Dense concentrations 

of copepods are particularly important for bioenergetics of North Atlantic right whales and have been 

linked to calving success (Meyer-Gutbrod et al. 2015).

Figure S.LR.12.1. Calanus finmarchicus abundance (per cubic meter log-transformed) in fall and spring surveys in the southern 

Gulf of Maine (2005 – 2014). Images: NEFSC and TNC Northeast ocean data, Pittman 2019

C. finmarchicus undergoes a complex life cycle consisting of six nauplii stages and five copepodite stages 

before reaching maturity (Marshall and Orr 1972). Each stage relies on multiple habitats, potentially 

leaving C. finmarchicus particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Grieve et al. (2017) 

demonstrated a general downward trend in C. finmarchicus abundance from the early 2000s through 2013 

(last year of the time series) and predicted that by 2081–2100 average C. finmarchicus density will 

decrease by as much as 50% under a high greenhouse gas emissions scenario. Results showed these 

decreases could be particularly pronounced in the Gulf of Maine during spring and summer. Reygondeau 

and Beaugrand (2011) projected that C. finmarchicus would be absent in the Gulf of Maine by 2050–

2059. However, Ji et al. (2017) predicted that C. finmarchicus could persist in Wilkinson basin (located 

northeast of the sanctuary) and moderate the effect in SBNMS. Recent warming since the 1980s in the 

Gulf of Maine and subsequent population responses, including a record spring cohort in 2013 despite 

record high water temperatures, suggests other mechanisms can maintain persistence (Runge et al. 2014). 

It is also possible that water temperature-induced changes in the phenology of C. finmarchicus

development could put the phytoplankton/zooplankton/larval fish production chain out of phase before 

the copepod becomes absent or severely reduced (Friedland et al. 2015).

Atlantic Herring

Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) is one of the most numerous fish species in the ocean. This species 

generally occurs in large pelagic schools during the daytime and can reach 45 centimeters (1.1 kilogram) 

in size. Herring have an important functional role in the northeast U.S. large marine ecosystem as prey 

(forage) for a diversity of piscivorous species (marine mammals, birds, fish), and as a primary target 

species in the regional fishery (Applegate et al. 2015). Multiple forage species occur across the northeast 
State of Sanctuary Resources

113

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

U.S. large marine ecosystem (including sand lance, Atlantic mackerel, squids, and hakes), although 

herring, sand lance, and mackerel have higher energy content than most other forage species. The 

ecological role of forage species in general, including Atlantic herring, depends on fish size, density, and 

school (patch) size, as well as the size, number, and behavior of their predators.

Atlantic herring landings in mobile gear fisheries (trawls and purse seines) peaked in the late 1960s and 

early 1970s, largely due to efforts from foreign fleets, resulting in severely depleted populations. 

However, since the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

in 1976, Atlantic herring populations recovered at the scale of the northeast U.S. large marine ecosystem. 

Catch in this fishery was relatively stable during the 2000s, and has accounted for most Atlantic herring 

catches in recent years, although the contribution has declined from 2010–2015 (Deroba 2015, NEFSC 

2018b). Recruitment of juvenile herring (age one) declined dramatically in 2016 and 2017. Four of the six 

lowest recruitment estimates have occurred since 2013 (Figure S.LR.12.2, NEFSC 2018b).11 If these 

estimates of poor recruitment are confirmed and continue into the future, projected stock status will 

continue to decline (NEFSC 2018b).

Figure S.LR.12.2. Data from the 2018 stock assessment (post-expert Workshop). Atlantic herring annual recruit time series, 1965–

2017 (in 000s). The horizontal line is the average over the time series. Source: NEFSC 2018b

Recent trawl survey data show that the distribution of Atlantic herring within SBNMS is highly patchy 

and abundance is quite variable (Auster and Conroy 2019). This variability at the spatial scale of SBNMS 

contributes to the variable functional role that herring plays within the local food web over time. For 

example, Richardson et al. (2014) demonstrated that Atlantic cod preyed on herring along the edges of 

 

11 Following the February 2018 workshop where subject matter experts gathered to discuss status and trends of important 

ecosystem indicators, a new stock assessment for Atlantic herring was completed. Although this assessment was not considered 

by the subject matter experts during the workshop, sanctuary staff reviewed the findings and have determined it does not change 

the rating for this question.
State of Sanctuary Resources

114

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Stellwagen Bank and in surrounding deeper waters, but in shallow waters on top of the bank, sand lance 

were the primary prey. Notably, herring and sand lance populations in the SBNMS region typically 

oscillate out of phase (see Fig. S.LR.12.3, Sherman et al. 1981, Richardson et al. 2014) and, given their 

role as primary prey of Atlantic cod, can serve as alternate high-calorie prey (e.g., Steimle and Terranova 

1985, Lawson et al. 1998) that occur in dense aggregations.

The patchiness of herring is a key factor in their ecological role at SBNMS. A recent study found that the 

number of schools of prey species (including herring) is proportional to the biomass of the species;

however, the size of the schools remains constant (Jech and Stroman 2012). The number of schools of 

prey is a critical bioenergetic issue for predators such as cod and whales. Predators that either need to 

search more widely for prey or switch to alternative prey may experience changes in growth (Hazen et al. 

2009, Rennie et al. 2005) and fecundity (Lambert 2008).

Sand Lance

Sand lance (Ammodytes spp.) are small (<20 cm) pelagic fish that function as zooplanktivores, forming a 

vital link for flow from lower to higher trophic levels. Like many short-lived forage species, sand lance 

exhibit dramatic fluctuations in spatial and temporal abundance. Sand lance are restricted to shallow sand 

habitats and are non-migratory as juveniles and adults (Nelson and Ross 1991). Sand lance typically feed 

in the water column during daylight periods and move to the bottom at night or bury themselves in coarse, 

well-ventilated sand (Meyer et al. 1979, Nelson and Ross 1991). Thus, sand lance are extremely placebased. Fluctuations in abundance of humpback whales (Payne et al. 1990) and cod (Richardson et al. 

2014) within SBNMS have been correlated with sand lance abundance. Further, sand lance abundance is 

negatively correlated with Atlantic herring (Richardson et al. 2014) based on time series data from 1963–

2011, with sand lance at low population levels between 1963–1975 and 1992–2005, while Atlantic 

herring abundance was high. The opposite trend occurred for these species between 1977–1991 and 

2006–2010 (Fig. S.LR.12.3).
State of Sanctuary Resources

115

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.LR.12.3. Relative abundance of sand lance and herring from 1963–2010. Image: Richardson et al. 2014

Sand lance are also key prey for endangered roseate terns (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998), which 

frequent the sanctuary. Recent research by SBNMS staff and colleagues (Powers et al. unpublished data, 

Silva et al. unpublished data) indicates that distribution of sand lance influences the distribution of great 

shearwaters and humpback whales.

Despite their importance, little is known about the ecology of sand lance and what drives observed 

temporal and spatial variability within SBNMS. That sand lance and Atlantic herring exhibit out-of-phase 

population cycles in the Gulf of Maine (Richardson et al. 2014) suggests either bottom-up forcing of such 

patterns, or an effect of direct species interactions (predation or competition). SBNMS and colleagues 

(Silva et al. unpublished data) observed sand lance spawning during a short time period in late November. 

The resulting eggs are demersal, and subsequent larvae are pelagic for several months (Dalley and 

Winters 1987). This long pelagic period prior to settlement, combined with prevailing currents, suggests 

that sand lance hatched on Stellwagen Bank could have low retention and that sand lance might recruit to 

the sanctuary from unknown sources to the north.

Hare et al. (2016) found that sand lance are highly exposed to, but at moderate risk from, detrimental 

effects of climate change (although uncertainty was high). This is due to their exposure to increased ocean 

temperature and ocean acidification at all life stages, limited mobility as adults, specific sand habitat 

requirements, winter dormancy, and possible water temperature-induced spawning. While this 

combination of factors might make sand lance in the Northeast only moderately susceptible to climate 

change, the more spatially isolated shallow sand habitat in the sanctuary would suggest that abundance 

and distribution of sand lance in SBNMS could be significantly impacted.
State of Sanctuary Resources

116

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Sponges and Anemones

Structure-forming species have important ecological roles related to provision of shelter (e.g., settlement 

sites and cover from predators, refugia from flow, focal sites for predation) for a diversity of associated 

species (e.g., crustaceans, echinoderms, fishes). This role enhances patterns of local diversity and 

contributes to the patchiness of environmental conditions across the seafloor landscape that enable 

competing species to coexist. Two major taxonomic groups, Porifera (sponges) and Cnidaria (hydroids 

and anemones), fulfill this role and are physically fragile, have species with highly variable life histories, 

and can serve as indicator species for the state of diverse seafloor communities.

Structure-forming sponges and cnidarians are sensitive to disturbance (Auster and Langton 1999). In 

SBNMS, these species have important roles as structure-forming organisms (Auster et al. 1996, 2003, 

Auster and Lindholm 2005). Both taxa principally occur in hard substratum habitats, small patches of 

hard substratum nested within fine-grained sediment habitats (such as in the troughs of sand waves), and 

mud- and sand-draped gravel buried to a minimal depth (i.e., ca. 1–2 cm). However, sponges also attach 

to and grow on other features, such as the dead skeletal remains of bryozoans and hydroids (Auster et al. 

1998). Hydrozoans, like Corymorpha pendula, occur in very dense patches anchored in fine-grained 

sediments (e.g., Auster et al. 1996, 1998). Burrowing anemones also occur in fine-grained sediments and 

appear to have high survival in areas with a gravel-fine-grain sediment matrix, with tubes extending deep 

below the sediment-water interface (Auster et al. 2003, Shepard et al. 1987).

Changes in the abundance and distribution of these taxa over time correspond both to larger regional (e.g., 

water temperature, primary production) and local (e.g., predation, competition) processes as well as 

effects of fishing and other uses inside and outside the WGOM Closure Area (e.g., Tamsett et al. 2010). 

Monitoring studies conducted at various boulder habitat stations in SBNMS (see Tamsett et al. 2010 for 

locations) have demonstrated general trends of initial decline and then increasing density of sponges from 

1998–2010, occurring both inside and outside the closed area (Figure S.LR.12.4). However, patterns for 

cnidarians are different, with declining density since the time of closure, both inside and outside the 

closed area, but with an increase in 2010 at both protected and open stations (Figure S.LR.12.4). The 

status of these foundational species across monitoring sites within SBNMS from 2011–2017 remains 

unknown.
State of Sanctuary Resources

117

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.LR.12.4. Patterns in the abundance of aggregate Porifera (sponge) species (top) and Cnidaria (hydroids, anemones) 

species (bottom) from boulder habitat stations inside (BI) and outside (BO) the WGOM Closure Area from 1998–2010. Image: 

Auster et al. 2013b
State of Sanctuary Resources

118

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

In summary, the rating for this question, “good/fair” and “not changing,” integrates the status and trends 

for numerous foundation species that exhibit variable states and trends based on multiple pressures. 

Calanus has demonstrably persisted in the western Gulf of Maine despite recent warming, although 

longer-term climate change effects could have significant impacts. Atlantic herring have recovered from 

overfishing that occurred decades ago, but patch dynamics are linked to their ecological role as prey 

species. Sand lance, another important forage species, are tightly linked to the isolated shallow sand 

habitat on top of Stellwagen Bank and exhibit variable local abundance that is not predictable at our 

current level of ecological understanding. Finally, the status and trends in abundance of structure-forming 

species and their responses to both regional population processes and local ecological and human-caused 

effects creates difficulty in determining the causes of trends. Identifying local-scale versus regional-scale 

drivers that can aid in interpretation of data on the state of foundation species within SBNMS remains a 

significant challenge.

13. What is the status of other focal species and how is it changing?

Status Description: Selected key species are at reduced 

levels, but recovery is possible.

Rationale: The eight focal species considered include North Atlantic right whale (poor and 

worsening), humpback whale (poor and improving), harbor porpoises (fair and undetermined), 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins (good and undetermined), great shearwaters (good/fair and 

undetermined), Atlantic cod (fair/poor and worsening), lobster (good and improving), and bluefin 

tuna (undetermined and improving). The overall rating is driven by the precarious status of North 

Atlantic right whales, whose recovery is dependent on additional management intervention, and 

humpback whales, which have been experiencing an unusual mortality event since 2017.

As with Question 12, direct comparison of the 2018 rating with the 2007 condition report is not possible 

for this question because it was changed after 2007. However, two separate questions in the 2007 

condition report assessed the status and condition of key species. The status of key species was rated 

“fair/poor” and “not changing” in 2007 and the health of key species was rated “fair” and “not changing.”

In the current report, this question involved an assessment of the status of eight specific, but very 

different, focal species, and thus it is challenging to arrive at an integrated rating that is illustrative of the 

collective state and trends. To summarize, the condition for focal species in SBNMS is mixed. North 

Atlantic right whales are declining and potentially at risk of extinction (Pace et al. 2017). SBNMS is a hot 

spot for reports of entangled humpback whales; however, locations of entanglement reports are not 

necessarily the same locations of entanglement origin. SBNMS remains an area of entanglement risk for 

great shearwaters and other seabirds. Small odontocetes, such as harbor porpoises and Atlantic whitesided dolphins, also remain at risk, though not at a level which would impact populations. Large whales 

are most at risk from trap/pot fisheries, while small cetaceans, seals, and seabirds are most at risk from 

gillnet fisheries. The current rating is largely driven by the decline and status of right whales with an 

undetermined trend for all species because there is no consistent trend across all species.

This question targets focal species of particular interest from the perspective of sanctuary management. 

These other species may not be abundant or provide high value to ecosystem function, but their presence 

and health is important for the provision of other conservation-related or economic services. The focal 

species evaluated in this report were identified during a workshop at SBNMS in March 2017, during 
State of Sanctuary Resources

119

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

which participants developed a conceptual model for the SBNMS ecosystem by identifying key 

components of the ecosystem and the drivers, pressures, and links between them. In February 2018, the 

focal species identified during the 2017 workshop were presented to the expert panel, who agreed with 

the selections. Focal species considered in this discussion include North Atlantic right whales, humpback 

whales, harbor porpoises, Atlantic white-sided dolphins, great shearwaters, lobster, bluefin tuna, and 

Atlantic cod.

North Atlantic Right Whales

North Atlantic right whales are critically endangered. Serious injury and mortality from ship strikes and 

entanglement have resulted in a decreasing population since 2010 (Pace et al. 2017). Within the 

sanctuary, the TSS shipping lane shift in 2007, implementation of seasonal speed restrictions in 2008, a 

sanctuary-led campaign to increase mariner compliance with NOAA’s Right Whale Ship Strike Rule, the 

creation of a near real-time passive acoustic detection system for right whales, and the development of 

Whale Alert (a mobile app) have likely contributed to reducing the risk of ship strikes in SBNMS. From 

2007–2017, two right whales were sighted as entangled, and possibly became entangled, in the sanctuary. 

Implementation of NOAA’s Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan, including attempts to reduce 

vertical lines and changes to closures, may have reduced entanglement risk in the sanctuary. Given 

declines in the population, the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team, which includes SBNMS, 

recommended modifications to the plan to further reduce the risk of right whale entanglement-related 

serious injury and mortality.

Research on right whales in the Bay of Fundy using fecal hormones showed that cortical steroids (an 

indicator of stress) dropped significantly during a period with less vessel traffic and its accompanying 

noise (Rolland et al. 2012). Additional research in the sanctuary showed that noise from large ships can 

completely mask the social upcalls of right whales, and that this species has, in the last 50 years, lost 

about two-thirds of its communication space (i.e., their opportunity to communicate). Because right 

whales, humpback whales, and other whales use sound for many purposes, extra noise may have 

significant effects on these species. Since June 7, 2017, elevated North Atlantic right whale mortalities 

have been documented (primarily in Canada) and were declared an unusual mortality event by NOAA. In 

2017, there was a total of 17 confirmed dead, stranded whales (12 in Canada and 5 in the United States) 

and in 2018, three whales stranded dead in the United States. In 2019, nine whales died in Canada and 

one, last seen entangled in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, stranded dead in the U.S. Thirty total mortalities are 

associated with the unusual mortality event at present (21 in Canada and 9 in the United States). Necropsy 

results are pending, however, preliminary findings support human interactions, specifically vessel strikes 

or rope entanglements, as the cause of death for the majority of whales.

Humpback Whales

The humpback whales that frequent SBNMS are part of the West Indies distinct population segment, 

which is one of 14 distinct population segments around the world. After careful review of available data

on population status and threats, NOAA Fisheries removed the West Indies distinct population segment 

from the list of endangered and threatened species in 2016. The Gulf of Maine supports a population of 

approximately 900 humpback whales, some portion of which rely on the productive waters of the 

sanctuary to feed and to rear their calves.

Humpback whales have been aided by the TSS shift; however, whales continue to be observed in the 

sanctuary entangled in fixed fishing gear (trap/pot and gillnet) and struck by small boaters. Numerically, 
State of Sanctuary Resources

120

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

large whales (e.g., right, humpback, fin, and minke) are poorly represented in the database collected by 

onboard fishery observers because the animals frequently swim away from the site of original 

entanglement, and observers in trap/pot fisheries are rare. These challenges make it difficult to reliably 

identify where large whale entanglement occurs. Research based on acoustic recordings in the sanctuary 

indicates that the detection range of sounds produced by humpback whales during feeding activity are 

significantly reduced in the presence of vessel traffic (both large commercial ships and smaller vessels, 

such as whale watching and fishing vessels) (Cholewiak et al. 2018). Sanctuary research has found 

sounds produced by humpback whales during feeding have key roles in prey manipulation and social 

coordination (Stimpert et al. 2007). Additionally, louder sounds, such as those generated by close passage 

of larger vessels, have been shown to disrupt humpback whale feeding activity in the sanctuary (Blair et 

al. 2016). Therefore, vessel traffic influences on communication as well as behavioral aspects of feeding 

have been shown to be of concern for humpbacks in sanctuary waters. An additional confounding variable 

is that entangled whales are most frequently reported by commercial whale watching vessels, which have 

disproportionately high occurrence within SBNMS. Still, large whales are observed entangled in SBNMS, 

particularly in the southern part of the sanctuary (Figure S.LR.13.1), where an economically valuable 

trap/pot fishery operates. Humpback whales are the most frequently observed entangled species, followed 

by minke, right, and fin whales. Since January 2016, elevated humpback whale mortalities have occurred 

along the Atlantic coast from Maine through Florida (primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and about half due to 

vessel strikes), prompting NOAA to declare an unusual mortality event (an unusual mortality event was 

also declared for minke whales in 2017).
State of Sanctuary Resources

121

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.LR.13.1. Location and species of large whales observed to be entangled within SBNMS. Large whales can carry 

entangling gear for many miles, and the site of observation is not necessarily the site of original entanglement. Image: Center for 

Coastal Studies and the Atlantic Large Whale Disentanglement Network

Harbor Porpoises

SBNMS is also a member of the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Team, which is tasked with reducing 

serious injury and mortality of harbor porpoises in the gillnet fishery. Harbor porpoise take exceeded 

potential biological removal12 (PBR) from 2008–2013 and was below PBR from 2014–2016. Observer 

data provided by NEFSC indicate that gillnets pose a major danger to marine mammals (Figure 

S.LR.13.2), and harbor porpoises are the second most frequently observed marine mammal species in 

bycatch (90 observed bycatch incidents, Figure S.LR.13.3). 

 

12 Potential biological removal is the maximum number of animals, not including in natural mortalities that may be removed 

annually from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimal sustainable population level.
State of Sanctuary Resources

122

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.LR.13.2. Observed bycatch of marine mammals (excluding large whales) in SBNMS by gear type for the years 2007–2016 

(n = 319). Gillnets were the largest source of bycatch. Numbers are not corrected for effort. Source: NEFSC 2017c

Figure S.LR.13.3. Observed marine mammal bycatch in SBNMS for the years 2007–2016 (n = 313). Observations indicate that 

harbor seals, harbor porpoise and gray seals were at greatest risk. Data are not corrected for effort. Source: NEFSC 2017c
State of Sanctuary Resources

123

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Atlantic White-Sided Dolphins

Opportunistic sightings data shows that Atlantic white-sided dolphins are the most commonly sighted 

toothed whale species in SBNMS and are seen most frequently April-May and in August (Silva 2018). 

Standardized surveys (Wiley et al. 2003, NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 2010), stranding 

data (Hayes et al. 2017), and recent passive acoustic data (Silva 2018) suggest a frequent winter presence 

in SBNMS and surrounding waters. Habitat models indicate that Atlantic white-sided dolphins associate 

most strongly with shallow, sandy habitats in Stellwagen Bank, suggesting that sand lance may be an 

important prey item (Silva et al. 2019).

Primary potential threats to Atlantic white-sided dolphins in SBNMS include bycatch and ocean noise. 

Seven animals were bycaught in SBNMS from 2007—2016 (see Figure S.LR.13.3). The presence of 

boats and associated ocean noise is known to influence toothed whale behavior (Nowacek et al. 2001, 

Buckstaff 2004, Jensen et al. 2009, Pirotta et al. 2015). However, ocean noise at delphinid communication 

frequencies has not been characterized in SBNMS and potential impacts on toothed whales are unknown.

Great Shearwaters

Since 2013, SBNMS has led a large collaboration involving government agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and U.S. Geological Survey) and academic institutions (Boston University, Long Island 

University, University of Rhode Island, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology) to investigate the 

habitat use, foraging habits, and health of great shearwaters in and around the sanctuary. This research 

identified SBNMS as a high-use foraging area for shearwaters (Powers et al. 2017). It also found that the 

areas of highest great shearwater bycatch in the Gulf of Maine were located outside SBNMS (Hatch et al. 

2015). However, great shearwaters have the highest rate of bycatch of any animal in the sanctuary, with 

gillnets accounting for the vast majority of mortalities in seabirds (Figures S.LR.13.4—S.LR.13.5). The 

sanctuary-led research team also identified that great shearwaters are not a reservoir for avian influenza 

virus. The team is also leading an investigation into the recent mass mortality of great shearwaters along 

the eastern seaboard of the U.S., including Cape Cod (the landmass nearest to SBNMS). SBNMS and the 

Massachusetts Audubon Society are also collaborating on seasonal standardized seabird surveys of the 

sanctuary. These surveys have occurred since 2014, and the sanctuary’s long-term commitment to the 

project will provide key data about changes to this important living resource. SBNMS is also 

collaborating with commercial whale watching vessels as platforms of opportunity, with trained SBNMS 

seabird volunteers joining whale watching trips to record seabird observations.
State of Sanctuary Resources

124

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.LR.13.4. Observed seabird bycatch in SBNMS for the years 2007–2016 (n = 343). Observations indicate that great 

shearwaters, common murres, and northern fulmars were at greatest risk. Data are not corrected for effort. Source: NEFSC 2017c

Figure S.LR.13.5. Observed bycatch of seabirds in SBNMS by gear type for the years 2007–2016 (n = 343). Gillnets were the 

largest source of bycatch. Data are not corrected for effort. Source: NEFSC 2017c
State of Sanctuary Resources

125

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Atlantic Cod

Atlantic cod is a culturally, ecologically, and economically important species in the Gulf of Maine and 

SBNMS, where it historically has been the focus of commercial and recreational fishing. Research 

indicates that the population is at historic lows. The remaining population is heavily centered on, or 

contracted into, SBNMS, where Atlantic cod feed on sand lance and Atlantic herring (Richardson et al. 

2014). Since 2011, SBNMS scientists and collaborators (MA DMF, NOAA Fisheries, Cornell University 

Bio-Acoustic Research Program, UMass Dartmouth, and The Nature Conservancy) have used marine 

autonomous recording units to investigate the occurrence, spatial extent, and duration of spawning cod 

aggregations (Zemeckis et al. 2019). Since 2013, the group has also worked with scientists from Woods 

Hole Oceanographic Institution using gliders equipped with passive acoustic detectors to map wider areas 

for sounds made by cod and other fishes. Numerous cod detections were documented in sanctuary waters 

(Figure S.LR.13.6). While these and other efforts will provide important information on cod in SBNMS 

and elsewhere, a combination of fishing pressure, species interactions (e.g., predation, competition), and 

environmental change have led to a continued decline in the Gulf of Maine cod stock (NEFSC 2017a). 

The western Gulf of Maine, including SBNMS, is possibly the last area with consistent aggregations of 

cod in the Gulf of Maine stock.
State of Sanctuary Resources

126

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.LR.13.6. Daily presence of cod grunts (yellow dots) from three gliders (November 2015-March 2016), showing high levels 

of activity in SBNMS. Image: NEFSC Passive Acoustics Research Group
State of Sanctuary Resources

127

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Atlantic cod were once a dominant piscivore in the Gulf of Maine ecosystem. Now, the Gulf of Maine 

cod population is at historic lows for both spawning stock biomass and recruitment for the period from 

2010–2016, and even below the low population status from 2000–2009 (Figure S.LR.13.7, NEFSC 

2017a, MA DMF 2017). The distribution of cod has also shifted. While once distributed throughout the 

Gulf of Maine region, cod now occur primarily in the western Gulf of Maine (Figure S.LR.13.8), with 

declining populations resulting in spatially limited hyper-aggregations (Richardson et al. 2014). Such 

aggregations make this species vulnerable to exploitation. Notably, significant percentages of both 

commercial and recreational catches of cod are taken from a small percentage of the Gulf of Maine 

region, and those areas significantly overlap with SBNMS (NEFSC 2013). Within SBNMS, mean spring 

cod abundance per survey tow has increased from the 1970s–2000s, reflecting the general trend of high 

concentrations of cod in the western Gulf of Maine over time. However, abundance declined during the 

2000s and 2010s (Auster and Conroy 2019).

Figure S.LR.13.7. Estimated trends in the spawning stock biomass (SSB) of Gulf of Maine Atlantic cod between 1982 and 2016 

from the current (2017 — solid line) and earlier (2015 — dashed line) population assessments. Estimates were made using the M = 

0.2 assessment model. Image: NEFSC 2017a
State of Sanctuary Resources

128

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.LR.13.8. Kernel density plot of Atlantic cod distribution. Three levels of probability contours were mapped (25%, 50%, and 

75%) for species distributions recorded in 1970s trawl data (blue shading, base) and in 2013–2015 data (orange, recent), whereby 

the 25% kernel defines the core area of the distribution and the 75% kernel defines the broader outlying extent of the distribution. 

Overlap between the 1970s and recent years is shaded purple. Image: Pittman 2019

Atlantic cod generally eat the same types of food across the Gulf of Maine despite local changes in habitat 

(Link and Garrison 2002). Diets are representative of local organisms and depend on seasonal and yearround availability of small pelagic forage species (e.g., Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel, and sand 

lance species). Over the past two decades, the diet of cod shifted, reflecting changes in the availability of 

forage species (Link and Garrison 2002). Both herring and mackerel abundance declined in the 1970s, 

while sand lance (Ammodytes spp.) increased and replaced those once dominant small pelagic species in 

the Atlantic cod diet (Fogarty et al. 1991). In the SBNMS region, cod predation on small pelagic forage 

species is linked to landscape attributes and the variable distribution of prey fish linked to such changes. 

For example, sand lance are primary prey for cod on top of Stellwagen Bank, where they occur in high 

abundance, in part due to the availability of shallow sand habitats, while Atlantic herring are the primary 

prey along the edges of the bank and in deeper surrounding waters (Richardson et al. 2014).

While some predators of cod have increased over past decades (e.g., sea raven), most have declined or are 

at low abundance (e.g., sharks, Atlantic halibut, large cod, large hakes) since the 1970s (Link et al. 2009). 

There is no strong relationship between predator population declines and the decline of cod as a prey 

species, as cod did not make up a significant percentage of predator diets. Even for species that have 

increased in abundance, such as sea raven, cod is not a large portion of their diet. However, some have 

hypothesized that cod populations may be stuck in a “predator pit,” (a situation in which predation 

increases when a prey population increases), precluding population recovery (Link et al. 2009). There has 

been much speculation about the role of abundant elasmobranchs, such as spiny dogfish or winter skate, 

as predators of cod but this has been refuted (Link et al. 2002). However, predation by planktivorous fish 

on cod larvae may play a role in suppression of cod populations (Collie et al. 2013), although the 

magnitude of this interaction remains unresolved. Predation on post-settlement juveniles in nursery 

habitats may also limit year class success. Ambush predators, like longhorn and shorthorn sculpin, have 
State of Sanctuary Resources

129

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

increased over time in the Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank ecosystem, and densities have been highly 

variable in both trawl and visual surveys in gravel habitats at SBNMS (Auster et al. 2013a). The cooccurrence of ambush predators in gravel habitats that function as nursery areas for early benthic phase 

cod (and where juvenile cod have been observed directly) suggests that recruitment variability, at least at 

some places and times, could be linked to local predator abundance. These processes are consistent with 

the general pattern in which early life history phases of fish are subject to the greatest degree of mortality. 

Understanding how and where such mortality occurs is one key element for developing interventions to 

enhance recovery of previously abundant fish populations like Atlantic cod.

At the spatial scale of large marine ecosystems, compensation in trophic role, where one species declines 

and another increases to serve the same trophic function, can occur. Auster and Link (2009) found that 

five of seven trophic guilds on the northeast shelf exhibited compensation in numbers over multiple 

decades. In the present case, while numbers of Atlantic cod declined, other predator species increased in 

abundance so the trophic role of predation was maintained over time. However, at smaller spatial scales 

of habitats and landscapes, such as SBNMS, such compensation was not always apparent. Further work is 

needed to tease out such trophic relationships at the sanctuary scale.

The issue of competitive interactions hampering recovery of cod is also a concern (Link et al. 2009, Link 

and Auster 2013). Whether prey or habitat is a limiting resource, or whether prey switching can reduce 

competitive interactions in the Gulf of Maine and SBNMS is unclear. In Newfoundland and Labrador, 

growth, condition, and reproductive capacity of cod were significantly influenced by prey quality 

(Sherwood et al. 2007). Switching from capelin, once the primary prey species, to pandalid shrimp 

resulted in physiological limitations. While cod can eat a wide variety and size range of prey (within the 

limits of gape), in order to grow and reproduce they need to eat optimal-sized and high-quality prey. 

Rebuilding depleted cod populations will likely require a return of prey with higher nutrient quality, such 

as capelin, herring, or sand lance (Sherwood et al. 2007). How cod, and related predators, interact and 

compete (through direct or interference competition) for discrete patches of high-quality schooling prey 

remains unknown.

Despite a limited knowledge of interactions that could limit cod population size and recovery in the Gulf 

of Maine and SBNMS, their status is currently poor in relation to their status in the last condition report. 

Lobster

Lobster are iconic species in the Gulf of Maine and SBNMS and are subject to an intensive and lucrative 

fishery. Two stock units have been identified based on regional differences in life history parameters: the 

Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank (GOM/GBK) and Southern New England (SNE). Warming waters have led 

to increased growth and reproduction of lobsters in the GOM/GBK stock. Also, commercial catch and 

assumed population have been increasing annually (ASMFC 2019). Lobster in SBNMS are part of the 

GOM/GBK stock and the Massachusetts Statistical Reporting Area 19 shown in Figure S.LR.13.9.
State of Sanctuary Resources

130

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.LR.13.9. Map of MA DMF Statistical Reporting Areas. SBNMS is part of statistical reporting area 19. Image: MA DMF

GOM/GBK stock abundance has increased since 1979 and at an accelerated pace since 2007 (Figure 

S.LR.13.10). Landings of lobster from ports in Massachusetts also increased from 2007–2016 (Figure 

S.LR.13.11). Current stock abundance is at an all-time high and recruitment has remained high between 

2008 and 2013. Warming waters have evidently aided reproduction and growth, increasing biomass and 

supporting larger catches. Importantly, since 2012, there have been consistent declines in abundance of 

young-of-year lobsters in the GOM/GBK stock. This may indicate future declines in recruitment and 

landings. The SNE stock is in poor condition and factors associated with that condition may be of future 

importance to the GOM/GBK stock, and therefore SBNMS. The SNE stock is severely depleted, with 

record low abundance and recruitment failure. This poor stock condition is thought to be the result of 

several factors, including changing environmental conditions, such as warming waters and increased 

predation, and continued fishing mortality (ASMFC 2019). Epizootic shell disease, which eats away at 

animals' shells, causing deep body lesions, occurs at warmer temperatures. These lesions are extremely 

unattractive, making infected lobsters unmarketable, and can be fatal. The MA DMF found that the 
State of Sanctuary Resources

131

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

disease was present in 20% of 716 lobsters sampled south of Cape Cod, but less than 1% of lobsters 

sampled along the outer Cape area were affected (MA DMF 2019). While warming temperatures seem to 

have benefited the GOM/GBK stock to date, a temperature threshold (prolonged temperatures above ~68° 

F) appears to have been exceeded in southern New England, negatively impacting the SNE stock. If 

climate change continues to warm sanctuary waters, lobsters could be negatively affected.

Figure S.LR.13.10. Trends in lobster abundance for the GOM/GBK and SNE stocks, 1979–2013. GOM/GBK stock is increasing, 

while the SNE stock is decreasing. Warming waters, increased predation, and shell disease are suspected causes of the SNE stock 

decline. Image: ASMFC 2019
State of Sanctuary Resources

132

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure S.LR.13.11. Landings reported from Statistical Area 19 from 1997–2016, which includes SBNMS and surrounding waters. 

The number of fished traps reported has increased from 2007–2016. Image: MA DMF

Bluefin Tuna

The status of bluefin tuna is complex, but abundance in the region has been increasing over the past 

decade. Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) are large, higher trophic level predators in the family 

Scombridae. This species can exceed 300 cm in size and 680 kg in weight, and can swim at speeds up to 

70 km/h (43 mph). Bluefin tuna nominally dive to depths encompassing the entire water column on the 

continental shelf, but can dive to depths >1000 m in deep sea regions (Block et al. 2001). The species 

occurs from the tropics to the arctic in both the western and eastern Atlantic Ocean, and tagged 

individuals have crossed ocean basins (Block et al. 2001). For example, one fish traveled from the 

Bahamas to Norway in 54 days.

Off the northeast U.S., there are oceanographic and topographical features where bluefin tuna aggregate 

and hunt for prey during annual migrations, including Stellwagen Bank. A study of the diets of bluefin 

tuna caught at five principal foraging grounds off the northeast U.S. shelf (Jeffreys Ledge, Stellwagen 

Bank, Cape Cod Bay, Great South Channel, and south of Martha’s Vineyard) found sand lance, Atlantic 

herring, Atlantic mackerel, squid, and bluefish had the highest frequency of occurrence and weight (Chase 

2002). Notably, prey composition was generally not correlated with bathymetric features except for 

significant associations with Stellwagen Bank and Great South Channel, where sand lance and Atlantic 

herring occurred most frequently in sampled stomachs.

Bluefin tuna distribution and abundance varies dramatically by area, by year, and within a given year. 

Shifts in tuna abundance and distribution may be attributed to shifts in the abundance and distribution of 

prey resources. Spatial linkages between tuna and herring distributions in the Gulf of Maine have been 

documented (Golet et al. 2013). Movement tracks of tagged tuna indicate that fish respond to a prey patch 
State of Sanctuary Resources

133

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

on average every 2 h, that patches have an average radius of 0.7–1.2 km, and that there are at most only 

5–9 patches per 100 km2to which they respond (Gutenkunst et al. 2007). These results imply that not just 

prey abundance, but characteristics of patchiness are important for sustaining bluefin tuna populations on 

foraging grounds.

Recent increases in bluefin tuna abundance observed in the Gulf of Maine support the overall trend for 

the western Atlantic. However, uncertainty remains with regard to changes in distribution, management 

regulations, fishing behavior, and the environment. NOAA Fisheries increased the baseline annual U.S. 

bluefin tuna quota from 1,058.79 to 1,247.86 metric tons (mt), the level recommended for 2018 through 

2020 by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas at its 2017 annual meeting.

Summary

While this report is focused on SBNMS, it is informed by the condition of species at large. For 

commercial species, Gulf of Maine cod are at historic lows, but local abundance and commercial catch 

per unit effort in SBNMS are relatively high as the remaining cod have apparently constricted into 

SBNMS to feed on sand lance. SBNMS lobster are healthy and increasing. Bluefin tuna are increasing 

from past low abundances.

Given that this question involved an assessment of the status of eight specific, but very different, focal 

species, it is challenging to arrive at an integrated rating that is illustrative of the status and trends 

identified. Therefore, SBNMS used a simple scoring metric for the ratings of the eight focal species as 

identified below (Good = 3, Fair = 2, and Poor = 1), and attempted to estimate an “average” collective 

status and trend; the average score is 2, or Fair. The large number of undetermined trends makes an 

overall assessment difficult.

Table S.LR.13.1. Status, trend, and confidence ratings for individual focal species.

Focal Spp. Status13 Trend Trend 

Confidence

North Atlantic right whale Poor Worsening Very High

Humpback whale Poor Improving High

Harbor porpoise Fair Undetermined High

Atlantic white-sided 

dolphin

Good Undetermined Low

Great shearwater Good/Fair Undetermined High

Atlantic cod Fair/Poor Worsening Medium

Lobster Good Improving Very High

Bluefin tuna Undetermined Improving Low

 

13 Definitions for each status rating are provided in Appendix A, which describes the specific considerations and thresholds to 

rate each question. 
State of Sanctuary Resources

134

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

The state of large whale populations in the sanctuary are poor, with unusual mortality events declared for 

three species in the northeast region: right, humpback, and minke (NOAA Fisheries 2019a). The most 

recent information on right whales suggests that the situation is worsening, with only 12 births since 

2017, a period in which 30 mortalities have been documented. Despite the fact that right whale abundance 

in Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay, including the sanctuary area, has been steady or slightly 

increasing, the poor condition of right whales is due to the declining trend in their overall population 

combined with elevated mortalities caused by ship strikes and entanglement throughout their range. 

Similarly, despite a positive growth trend for humpback whales in the Gulf of Maine (NOAA Fisheries 

2019c), their co-occurrence with entangling fishing gears in the sanctuary (Wiley et al. 2003) and the 

relatively frequent sightings of entangled whales in the sanctuary leads to the poor status rating. 

Odontocete populations have been estimated to be in fair condition, with insufficient data to determine 

trends in some species. Conservation measures, such as the use of pingers in the gillnet fishery, seems to 

have resulted in reduced bycatch of harbor porpoises. Great shearwater populations in the sanctuary are in 

good/fair condition. The trend for these populations is unknown as bycatch in fishing gear is considered 

to be a threat, but gillnet fishery effort appears to be declining. Lobster populations appear to be 

increasing, and fishing effort is also increasing. SBNMS remains an important tuna fishing ground, but 

the status of the bluefin tuna population is unknown, as available data are limited. Atlantic cod are at 

historic lows in the Gulf of Maine region, but local abundance and commercial catch per unit effort in 

SBNMS are relatively high, which is attributed to the stock contracting to feed on sand lance within the 

sanctuary.

14. What is the status of non-indigenous species and how is it changing

Status Description: Non-indigenous species are present 

and may preclude full community development and function, 

but have not yet caused measurable degradation.

Rationale: Invasive species exist in the sanctuary and have for many decades; however, their 

abundance and distribution are poorly documented. The invasive tunicate, Didemnum vexillum 

has been found in isolated, small areas dominated by hard bottom habitats.

The 2007 rating for the status of non-indigenous species was “good/fair” with a “declining” trend. 

Unfortunately, little information is available on non-indigenous species in the sanctuary. Nevertheless, as 

changes water temperature and other regional conditions are underway, species distributions are 

changing. The arrival of non-indigenous species through range extensions and related processes poses an 

uncertain threat to sanctuary ecosystems.

Non-indigenous species exist in the sanctuary and have for many decades; however, their abundance and 

distribution is poorly documented. Human activity is likely the largest cause of species introduction, but 

the exact means are not well understood. High levels of vessel traffic in and around the sanctuary may 

introduce species through ballast water or fouling on hulls or other equipment (e.g., fishing nets). In 

addition, climate change may result in increased introductions due to altered habitats, warming waters, 

and changes in ocean circulation patterns.

The invasive tunicate Didemnum vexillum (Figure S.LR.14.1) has been observed in the sanctuary for the 

past decade, and is typically found in isolated, small areas dominated by hard bottom habitats, such as 
State of Sanctuary Resources

135

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

boulders, rock, gravel, or cobble substrates. It has also been observed on at least two sanctuary 

shipwrecks, the Paul Palmer and the Portland (A. Stratton, personal observation, January 19, 2018). 

Systematic monitoring has not occurred to determine its abundance and distribution. D. vexillum is a 

colonial ascidian (sea squirt or tunicate) with rapidly expanding populations on the east and west coasts of 

North America (Bullard et al. 2007). D. vexillum can degrade habitats through smothering; however, D. 

vexillum requires hard bottom habitat, which is not abundant in SBNMS; thus it is likely that any impacts 

will be limited to small, localized areas.

Figure S.LR.14.1. The tunicate D. vexillum is invasive in SBNMS. This photo was taken in sanctuary waters in 2010. Photo: D. 

Costa
State of Sanctuary Resources

136

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

15. What is the status of biodiversity and how is it changing?

Status Description: Selected biodiversity loss or change is 

suspected and may preclude full community development and 

function, but has not yet caused measurable degradation.

Rationale: Changes in sanctuary biodiversity are likely driven by variability in multiple factors 

at local and regional scales. At a local scale, fishing activities focused on species with high 

residency may impact biodiversity. Regional-scale factors include fishing of highly mobile 

species and climate change. The resulting shifts in species interactions at both spatial scales may 

also influence biodiversity in SBNMS.

In the 2007 condition report, the status of biodiversity was rated “fair/poor” with an “increasing” trend. 

The status of biodiversity has now improved largely due to increases in abundance of several fish species 

and the discovery of three rare invertebrate species. 

Broadly defined, biodiversity refers to the variety of life on Earth, and includes diversity of communities, 

species, and genetic characteristics within populations, as well as the ecological processes that support 

them. Information to assess the status of biodiversity at SBNMS at multiple levels of organization is 

limited, but time series data for fish, marine birds, and invertebrates can be useful to infer status and 

trends.

Observed changes in biodiversity are thought to be driven by human activities (i.e., fishing effects) and 

climate change (i.e., principally temperature), but determining causality is challenging. New rare species 

are being identified, but these findings could be a function of increased sampling for some species and 

range expansion due to climate change for others. New surveys are needed to detect change at low levels 

of abundance. Time series data for fish are most comprehensive compared to other species groups, while 

marine invertebrates and marine birds are only sampled at selected stations over limited time periods.

Fish

Systematic seasonal trawl surveys conducted since 1970 provide a time series dataset that can be used to 

assess patterns and dynamics in diversity of marine fishes in SBNMS, as well as the surrounding Gulf of 

Maine ecosystem (Auster and Conroy 2019). Mean species richness per sample tow across the nearly 48-

year time series (1970—2017), for both spring and fall surveys, has a distinct and upward trend since 

2006 (Figure S.LR.15.1). Sample-based rarefaction curves and diversity estimation by decade also 

indicate that the last decade of the time series (2010 onwards) is different than earlier decades.

Multivariate analyses of community composition from fall surveys across decades indicate that the fish 

community in the 1970s, 1990s, and 2000s differed significantly from the 2010s. Based on changes in 

species dominance, variation in community composition was principally driven by changes in species that 

are exploited in fisheries and, for the most recent two decades, include ocean pout, silver hake, haddock, 

American plaice, spiny dogfish, and Atlantic herring, among others. For spring surveys, community 

composition in the 1980s and 1990s was significantly different than the 2010s, again based on changes in 

dominance, with Acadian redfish, yellowtail founder, longhorn sculpin, and Atlantic cod, along with the 

same species listed above, contributing to decadal differences (see Auster and Conroy 2019 for details).

To address changes in community composition across the larger Gulf of Maine, multivariate regression 

tree analyses were used to link changes to factors beyond decadal period (e.g., geographic location, depth, 
State of Sanctuary Resources

137

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

season, and temperature over time). These analyses revealed seasonal, geographic, depth, and decadal 

differences, with notable differences in species composition and abundance before and after the year 

2010. The same approach was used for the smaller SBNMS region. Similar to the larger region, there was 

a split in community composition before and after 2010. Differences in abundance of silver hake, 

haddock, red hake, Atlantic herring, Acadian redfish, and alewife were associated with the shift in 2010 at 

the Gulf of Maine scale, while haddock, silver hake, winter flounder, yellowtail flounder, Acadian 

redfish, alewife, and spiny dogfish were the principal species linked to changes in dominance and 

abundance in the SBNMS region. Notably, most species linked to significant changes in community 

composition have increased in abundance over time in the SBNMS region (i.e., haddock, silver hake, 

alewife, Acadian redfish, winter flounder, yellowtail founder, spiny dogfish); whether this is a function of 

fisheries management or species response to climate change (Hare et al. 2016), or a synergy of both, 

remains unclear.

Figure S.LR.15.1. Spring (left) and fall (right) patterns in species richness (S) per tow in the region of SBNMS (see Auster and 

Conroy 2019 for details of sample boundaries). Top panels are box-and-whisker plots to compare distributions of S by year and 

season. The central line denotes the median value. The top of each box is the upper value of the third quartile (75% of data less 

than or equal to this value) and bottom is the upper value of the first quartile (25% of the data are less than or equal to this value). 

The tip of the upper whisker is the highest data value within the limit of Q3 + 1.5 (Q3–Q1) while the tip of the lower whisker is the 

lowest value within the limit of Q1–1.5 (Q3–Q1). Stars represent outliers of unusually high or low values outside the limits of the 

whiskers. The lower panels are fitted line plots of the raw data, with regressions and models illustrating upward trends in years 

beyond 2009. Images: (top) Auster and Conroy 2019, (bottom) Auster and Conroy unpublished.

While fish species that drive shifts in community composition are, due to sheer statistical force, dominant 

species, the status of rare species is also of conservation concern. Besides Atlantic and shortnose 

sturgeon, which are listed as threatened or endangered under the authority of the ESA, there are a number 

of species of concern that have been identified based on general population status and threats, but for 
State of Sanctuary Resources

138

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

which insufficient information is available to justify listing the species under the ESA (GARFO 2017b). 

Species of concern known to occur in SBNMS include: Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus), dusky 

shark (Carcharhinus obscurus), sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus), rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), 

cusk (Brosme brosme), Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus), Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus 

hippoglossus), and river herring (alewife — Alosa pseudoharengus and blueback herring — Alosa 

aestivalis). While most of these species are transient through SBNMS, cusk has been classified as a yearround resident, and Atlantic wolffish as a seasonal resident (Auster and Lindholm 2005). While the status 

of these populations at both regional and local scales is uncertain, modeling studies can aid in inferring 

status and explaining spatial trends in data. For example, cusk have suffered dramatic declines, 

principally because of fishing (Hare et al. 2012). As many species are reacting to variation in temperature 

and related ecosystem changes due to climate variability, it is likely that both fishing and climate change 

will affect population status (Hare et al. 2016). Hare et al. (2012) linked a species niche model with 

output from an ensemble of climate models to project future distributions of cusk in the Gulf of Maine 

region. The results suggest that cusk habitat will both shrink and fragment because of a spatial mismatch 

between high-complexity seafloor habitat and suitable temperature regimes. Further, the SBNMS region 

functions as one of the refuge fragments under most climate model scenarios. While the importance of 

habitat connectivity is poorly understood, SBNMS could serve as one important element for sustaining 

population persistence.

Marine Birds

SBNMS conducted standardized seabird surveys from 2012–2016. Fifty-two species of marine birds have 

been observed during 20 standardized surveys. Herring gull, great black-backed gull, northern gannet, 

great shearwater, sooty shearwater, and Cory’s shearwater are the principal species in the SBNMS marine 

bird community.

The National Audubon Society’s Christmas Bird Count provides a regional perspective on changes in 

diversity of marine birds in the greater SBNMS region. An exploratory examination of ten decades of 

Christmas Bird Count data comparing winter avifauna along the coasts of Delaware Bay, Long Island 

Sound, and Cape Cod-Massachusetts Bay was conducted from 1920–2014 (Auster et al. 2017, Auster 

unpublished data). Species composition from each large estuary was generally distinct based on species 

and abundance. While most census areas are coastal and SBNMS has only recently been included in the 

Christmas Bird Count, general patterns over time from Cape Cod-Massachusetts Bay are useful for 

assessing the status of avifauna diversity in the general area. While there were significant differences in 

species composition from earlier decades to the present, the differences from the 1990s and 2000s to the 

2010s are small. Differences from the 1950s to the 1980s compared to the 2000s and 2010s were 

significant. For example, differences between the 1980s and 2010s include reduced abundances of herring 

gull, great black-backed gull, and black-legged kittiwake and increases in razorbill and northern gannet. 

Overall, the analysis illustrated that community structure varied over a century at decadal time scales as 

well as between count locations. However, changes due to variation in breeding colony conditions, local 

prey resources, local human disturbances, or cascading effects from changes to oceanographic conditions 

are unknown.

Invertebrates

Seafloor invertebrate communities were assessed from 1998–2010 to assess changes inside and outside of 

the WGOM Closure Area implemented by the NEFMC. Overall, results from multivariate analyses 
State of Sanctuary Resources

139

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

indicate that community structure within each macrohabitat type (piled boulder, gravel, sand, mud) has 

been dynamic across time (years) and fishing treatment (i.e., inside and outside the WGOM Closure Area) 

despite the high degree of similarity between paired habitat stations at the time of closure (Auster et al. 

2013b). Notably, closure effects persisted across time. Despite this pattern, changes in similarity between 

replicate transects within macrohabitats and between years were dynamic. This pattern suggests that 

dominance of local processes, such as predation and competition, may be driving community composition 

during some periods (i.e., contributing to greater patchiness in the distributions of taxa within stations), 

while larger spatial scale disturbance processes, produced either by natural events (e.g., storms, disease) 

or fishing activities are dominant during other periods. Species populations and community structure 

within the closed area have yet to reach any stable configuration, suggesting, at least to-date, recovery 

without resilience. Multivariate and univariate comparisons of each habitat type inside and outside the 

closure across years, with regard to community composition, population responses of component taxa, 

and patterns of diversity, all demonstrated a response to the closure, but not for all habitats or all species 

at all times, or in ways that are normally predicted from previous closed areas studies. For example, 

structure-forming taxa recovered both inside and outside the closed area, although different taxa were 

dominant. Differences in taxa such as Iophon spp. (sponge), Molgula spp. (tunicate), Terebratulina 

septentrionalis (stalked brachiopod), Cerianthus borealis (stalked anemone), among many structureforming species, all exhibited significant differences in abundance over time and due to closure status. 

Notably, aggregated abundance based on functional role was significantly different across years and 

between habitats, but a closure effect was only found for emergent fauna in gravel habitats. Expected 

increases in invertebrate species diversity at stations within the WGOM Closure Area were not observed 

by the end of the study period, suggesting that community recovery draws from a regional species pool, 

and patterns of abundance vary based on local patterns of disturbance.

Rare invertebrate species have been 

identified in several discrete places 

within SBNMS. Pom pom 

anemones (Liponema multicornis) 

have been observed in extremely 

small numbers and in a small patch 

in the northern part of the sanctuary 

(Figure S.LR.15.2, Auster et al. 

2011). This species occurs in sand 

and mud habitats and is extremely 

sensitive to disturbance. A glass 

sponge, tentatively identified as 

Vazella pourtalesii, has been 

identified on the wreck of the 

Portland in the deep water of 

Stellwagen Basin (Figure 

S.LR.15.3, Stratton and Auster 

2015). The shipwreck likely serves 

as a refuge from disturbance. 

Finally, near the western boundary of the sanctuary, the stalked sponge Stylocordyla borealis was 

observed in 2014 and 2015 in extensive patches. Interestingly, these species have rarely been observed or 

Figure S.LR.15.2. A pom pom anemone Liponema multicornis on fine-grain 

sediment seafloor. This species occurs on unconsolidated sediments and does not 

attach to hard substratum like most other anemones. Photo: NOAA
State of Sanctuary Resources

140

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

reported from the Gulf of Maine; however, they have been observed across larger ranges both north and 

south of the Gulf of Maine. Those individuals observed in SBNMS are remnants of previously 

widespread populations or are re-occupying former parts of their range due to changing conditions (e.g., 

regional oceanographic conditions or local changes in disturbance). There are diverse communities of 

seafloor invertebrates within SBNMS, including three species considered rare within the Gulf of Maine 

region. However, it is difficult to assess the status of seafloor communities during the current period, as 

fishing activities within the WGOM Closure Area may have impacted a long-term monitoring station, 

compromising the ability to assess change over time (Auster 2015).

Figure S.LR.15.3. A glass sponge, tentatively identified as Vazella pourtalesii attached to the wreck of the steamship Portland. 

Photo: NOAA

Overall, the status of biodiversity within SBNMS has changed since the last condition report. Direct and 

indirect effects at regional and local scales have likely influenced biodiversity of fish, birds, and seafloor 

invertebrates. Direct effects include fishing of highly migratory and highly resident species at regional 

and local scales, respectively, and climate change. Indirect effects include changes in species interactions 

(predation, competition, parasitism, and facilitative interactions). The ability to parse regional- versus 

local-scale effects is critical for understanding how sanctuary-scale versus regional-scale interventions 

might be used to sustain future biodiversity.
State of Sanctuary Resources

141

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Maritime Heritage Resources (Question 16)

The Maritime Heritage Resources section of this report addresses the condition and threats to heritage 

resources in the sanctuary. These include shipwrecks and other submerged archaeological sites, which are 

a subset of a larger category of maritime heritage resources that may include other cultural themes, such 

as traditions, histories, and values; the latter are not the subject of this report. Archaeological resources 

are material evidence of past human activities and include vessels, aircraft, structures, habitation sites, and 

objects created or modified by humans. Question 16 assesses the integrity of known maritime heritage 

resources in the sanctuary. The integrity of a heritage resource refers to its ability to convey information 

about the past, and can be impacted by both natural events and human activities.

16. What is the condition of known maritime heritage resources and how is it changing?

Status Description: The diminished condition of selected 

maritime heritage resources has reduced, to some extent, their 

aesthetic, cultural, historical, archaeological, scientific, or 

educational value, and may affect the eligibility of some sites 

for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

Rationale: Shipwreck sites are known to experience damage from mobile and fixed fishing gear, 

as these sites create structure on the seabed that can attract commercially important fish species, 

and thus fishing effort. Damage to shipwreck sites from fishing gear has been documented. 

Shipwreck sites are also visited by scuba divers. Scuba diving in the sanctuary has increased since 

2007, but seems to be well-managed by dive operators to avoid site disturbance.

In the 2007 condition report, the integrity of known maritime heritage resources was rated “fair” and 

“declining.” These ratings remain unchanged in this report. Human activities, such as commercial fishing, 

continue to affect shipwreck structures, causing fragmentation and scattering of artifacts, reducing the 

site’s value as a source for archaeological and historical knowledge. The declining trend is maintained 

because maritime heritage resources are non-renewable and do not recover once impacted.

Assessments of archaeological condition seek to determine if the sanctuary’s heritage resources have the 

potential to yield information that addresses important research questions relating to past human activity. 

Based on the condition of the archaeological remains at the site and the influences of post-depositional 

environmental deterioration and human activities, SBNMS’s heritage resources are in varying levels of 

condition, and every shipwreck shows signs of interaction with fishing gear. In general, the sanctuary’s 

largest historic shipwrecks are in better condition than smaller shipwrecks. Shipwrecks dating to the 18th 

century and older are generally less intact than more recent shipwrecks. Archaeological surveys have yet 

to locate a shipwreck believed to date prior to 1800.

The condition of the sanctuary’s shipwrecks is also influenced by their depth. The shipwrecks found on 

top of Stellwagen Bank have fewer hull remains compared to similarly-sized shipwrecks in deeper water. 

Strong currents and wave activity reach an estimated depth of 50 meters or more, creating an erosional 

environment that leads to greater physical deterioration. This environmental deterioration coupled with 

the likelihood of interactions with fishing gear has reduced the condition of some sites. Only six of the 

shipwreck sites located to date have been found at depths less than 50 meters. The remaining vessels lie in 

a depositional environment that is conducive to archaeological preservation.
State of Sanctuary Resources

142

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

For a non-renewable resource such as historic shipwrecks, one encounter with a scallop dredge or bottom 

trawl can result in catastrophic damage that diminishes its historical, archaeological, cultural, and 

economic value. A recent example of this is damage to the modern wreck North Star associated with 

scallop fishing (see the explanation to the response for Question 5).

Despite increased degradation and worsening condition of SBNMS shipwrecks from environmental (e.g., 

storm wave action or bacteriological consumption) and anthropogenic (fishing gear interactions) impacts, 

SBNMS sites are revealing novel historical information. For example, archaeologists have located four 

shipwrecks containing granite cargoes. Each cargo is a different variety of granite, and the position of

stones within each hull reveal how it was stowed. The spatial distribution of wrecks also suggests sailing 

routes and links to quarries and ports. The identification of the Lamartine, a Maine-built, two-masted 

schooner constructed before the Civil War, reveals adaptive use patterns, or ways that shipowners 

changed the vessel’s trade. Interpretation of these granite wrecks as part of a broader maritime cultural 

landscape connects them to the New England maritime community.

Most shipwreck sites are only surveyed once every fifteen years. While survey data and some site 

documentation are available, more frequent inventory and monitoring of these sites would be valuable, as 

wrecks continue to degrade over time. Most information about these wrecks is anecdotal. Seabed 

disturbance on top of Stellwagen Bank from storms redistributes surficial sediments. Surveying wrecks 

before and after storms may be important for determining whether site conditions have changed (i.e., if 

sites are buried or uncovered). Documentation indicates that sites have experienced damage from mobile 

and fixed fishing gear, as these sites create structure on the seabed that can attract commercially important 

fish species. Scuba diving in the sanctuary has increased since 2007, and shipwreck sites are visited by 

divers. However, dive operations (about a dozen dive charters each year) seem to be well-managed by 

operators to avoid disturbing these sites, though some incidences of disturbance have been documented. 

In addition, organized groups of divers have partnered with the sanctuary to research and promote 

stewardship of maritime heritage resources.

.
143

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

STATE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Ecosystem services are the benefits that humans receive from natural and cultural resources. Generally, 

the taxonomy of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) is used in ONMS condition reports. 

MEA (2005) was an initiative of the United Nations to assess ecosystem services, including cultural, 

provisioning, regulating, and supporting services. Categories of ecosystem services include “final” 

services, which are directly valued by people, and “intermediate” services, which are ecological functions 

that support final services (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007). In ONMS condition reports, only final ecosystem 

services are rated, which is consistent with the anthropogenic focus of the reports and highlights priority 

management successes and challenges in sanctuaries. The complete definitions of ecosystem services 

considered by ONMS are included in Appendix B.

Twelve final ecosystem services may be rated in ONMS condition reports

Cultural (non-material benefits)

1. Heritage — Recognition of historical or heritage legacy

2. Consumptive recreation — Experiential opportunities that result in resource removal

3. Non-consumptive recreation — Experiential opportunities that include recreation and community 

activities

4. Sense of place — Aesthetic and spiritual attraction, and the level of recognition and appreciation 

given to efforts to protect a place’s iconic elements

5. Science — The capacity to acquire information and knowledge

6. Education — The capacity to provide intellectual enrichment

Provisioning (material benefits)

7. Food supply — The capacity to support market demands for nutrition-related commodities 

through various fisheries

8. Water — Filtration for drinking water that minimizes pollutants, including trash, nutrients, 

sediments, pathogens, and chemicals 

9. Ornamentals — Resources collected for decorative or aesthetic purposes

10. Biotechnology — Medicine and other chemicals found in sanctuary animals or plants, or 

manufactured from them

11. Energy — Use of renewable materials or processes to supply energy

Regulating (buffers to change)

12. Coastal protection — Flow regulation that protects habitats, property, coastlines, and other 

features

Final vs Intermediate Ecosystem Services

There are intermediate and final ecosystem services. Ecosystem services that are evaluated in 

condition reports are final ecosystem services. Intermediate services support other ecosystem 

services, whereas a good/service must be directly enjoyed by a person to be considered a final 

ecosystem service. For example, nutrient balance leads to clearer water and higher visibility for 

snorkeling and scuba diving. Nutrient balance is an intermediate service that supports the final 

ecosystem service of non-consumptive recreation via snorkeling and scuba diving.
State of Ecosystem Services

144

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Notably, some consider consumptive recreational fishing as a provisioning service, but it is included here 

as a cultural ecosystem service. Also, even though biodiversity was listed as an ecosystem service by both 

MEA (2005) and ONMS (2015), ONMS decided to remove it, recognizing that biodiversity is an attribute 

of the ecosystem for which many “final” ecosystem services depend (e.g., recreation and food supply); 

therefore, it is addressed in the State section of this report. Lastly, although ONMS listed climate stability 

as an ecosystem service in 2015, it is no longer considered an ecosystem service in ONMS condition 

reports, because national marine sanctuaries are not large enough to influence climate stability (Fisher et 

al. 2008, Fisher et al. 2011).

For SBNMS, only seven of the 12 “final” ecosystem services were rated during the February 15, 2018 

workshop (see Appendix B for a more detailed description of content and methods). Specifically, all of 

the cultural services are rated, including heritage, consumptive recreation, non-consumptive recreation, 

sense of place, science, and education. There is only one provisioning service rated for SBNMS, which is 

food supply via commercial fisheries. The sanctuary does not provide “final” ecosystem services for other 

provisioning services: ornamentals used by the aquarium trade, biotechnology, alternative energy, or 

clean water. Similarly, sanctuary resources do not significantly influence coastal protection (a regulating 

ecosystem service that involves protection of property values from damaging storms).

Ecosystem Services Indicators

The status and trends of ecosystem services are best evaluated using a combination of economic and noneconomic human dimension indicators, as well as relevant ecological/resource indicators evaluated in the 

State section of this report, to assess the compatibility and sustainability of services relative to the 

condition of impacted resources.

Economic Indicators

Economic indicators may include direct measures of use (e.g., person/days of recreation or catch levels) 

that result in spending, income, jobs, gross regional product, and tax revenues, or non-market economic 

values (the difference between what people pay to use a good/service and what they would be willing to 

pay).

There are other measures, often referred to as indirect measures, that can impact resources in and around 

the sanctuary, but are not a measurement of the direct use of resources. For example, as populations and 

per capita incomes increase in the U.S., Massachusetts, and counties surrounding SBNMS, demand for 

recreation and commercial fisheries’ products would be expected to increase (Bell 1978). In addition, 

demand in China for seafood products originating off the U.S. East Coast is so high that population and 

per capita incomes in China can similarly serve as good indicators of the status and trends for this 

provisioning service (Bell 1978). The status and trends for science (Sobel 1996, Dixon and Sherman 

2009), education (Sobel 1996, Parsons 1997, Dixon and Sherman 2009), and heritage (Mires 2014) 

services may also correlate with changes in populations and per capita income in the U.S., Massachusetts, 

and local areas surrounding SBNMS. In short, people create demand for goods and services, and higher 

incomes can lead to investments, making these useful indicators for these services.

In addition to population and per capita income, fuel prices can serve as indirect measures of recreational 

demand at SBNMS because the only way to gain access to the sanctuary’s offshore location for 

recreational purposes is by boat (Gornik et al. 2013). Thus, fuel prices can be a predictor of recreational 
State of Ecosystem Services

145

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

use by boaters. For example, decreasing or stable fuel prices could support increasing use of SBNMS by 

recreational boaters.

Fuel prices also affect the cost of production in commercial fisheries, thus impacting distribution of effort 

and food supply. Higher fuel prices can cause fishers to alter fishing patterns to minimize fuel 

consumption; they may, for example, choose to fish closer to shore than their preferred fishing grounds.

Redistribution of fishing in SBNMS could result from either fishers moving out of the sanctuary and 

closer to shore or into the sanctuary from offshore fishing grounds. Depending on the change in levels of 

effort, either could affect targeted species within and around the sanctuary.

In evaluating the above types of economic indicators, it is also important to consider "passive economic 

use value" (also called "non-use value"), which is an important element in evaluating sense of place. 

Passive economic value is the value people would be willing to pay for resources to stay in a certain 

condition, even though they may never actually directly use them. Estimating these values requires the 

use of surveys that integrate social science information with physical and natural science information in 

defining changes in goods or services of value to people. Economic valuation methods (Louviere et al. 

2009, Bishop et al. 2011) can be used to estimate passive economic use value. This kind of data, however, 

is rarely available and can be expensive and time-consuming to collect. Scientifically designed public 

polls on peoples’ preferences for environmental protection and restoration can serve as a proxy indicator 

for this value.

Non-Economic Indicators

Human dimension, non-economic indicators can be used to complement the economic indicators 

discussed above. These include importance-satisfaction ratings for natural and cultural resources, 

facilities and services for recreation uses, limits of acceptable change for resource conditions, social 

values and preferences (measured by polls), social vulnerability indicators, perceptions of resource 

conditions in the present and expectations for the future, and access to resources. For SBNMS, few 

studies have measured most of these non-economic indicators, representing a major gap in socioeconomic 

research and understanding. Nevertheless, some non-economic human dimensions indicators are 

available. For example, to rate the status and trends of science and education, the indicators used in this 

report include the number of vessel hours on NOAA boats, research permits, number of publications, and 

number of volunteers and hours.

Resource Indicators

Ecological/resource indicators are also considered in determining status and trend ratings for each 

ecosystem service. For each ecosystem service, a matrix was developed mapping relevant 

ecological/resource indicators to each ecosystem service. To rate the status of each ecosystem service, 

ecological/resource indicators might be used to downgrade a rating based on economic and human 

dimension non-economic indicators; this is because the ecological/resource indicators suggest that 

humans are using a stock of natural or cultural resources to get short-term economic gains that are not 

sustainable. For example, during periods of high interest in whale watching, both economic (e.g., 

spending or profit) and non-economic (e.g., visitation) data typically indicate favorable status and trends 

for this non-consumptive recreation activity. But if the number of ship strikes on whales is shown to be 

increasing, or whale feeding behaviors are negatively altered by high levels of disturbance, the activity 

could be deemed unsustainable at the current level, and the rating downgraded accordingly.
State of Ecosystem Services

146

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Cultural (Non-Material Benefits)

Heritage

Status Description: Unable to fully provide the ecosystem 

service due to prior or existing human activity, but 

performance is acceptable.

Rationale: Indicators show that historic SBNMS shipwreck stories are told in newspapers, 

magazines, and museums in New England. The dissemination of historic shipwreck information 

and stories indicates there is economic value for this resource. The resource indicators show that 

in-water shipwreck resources are fair and worsening.

The status of maritime heritage is rated as “good/fair” (medium confidence) and the trend is “improving” 

(high confidence). The maritime heritage ecosystem service recognizes the sanctuary’s ability to convey 

its historical or heritage legacy. For SBNMS, efforts are needed to understand the socioeconomic (direct 

and indirect) impacts of its activities. One option could be to conduct a cultural landscape analysis for 

shipwrecks and cultural resources to better understand cultural identity14 (MPAFAC 2011). Cultural 

landscape analysis tells the story of how a place has developed its character and cultural identity. In 

addition, economic valuation work, discussed in Claesson (2011) and similar to that in Mires (2014), 

explained below, could be conducted along with non-economic measures, such as importance and 

satisfaction with cultural resource attributes and knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of management 

strategies, regulations, and condition of the cultural resources. Additional information on diving and 

museum visitation and the economic effects of this use on local economies would provide valuable 

information on this service for future evaluations.

Economic Indicators

There have not been any studies identifying the use or economic value of cultural resources supporting 

the maritime heritage service for SBNMS. However, a study done on the Graveyard of the Atlantic (Mires 

2014), which includes Monitor National Marine Sanctuary, found that people’s willingness to pay for 

maritime heritage increased with:

 expansion of the number of shipwrecks protected;

 the level of investments in museum exhibits;

 maritime heritage trails, including virtual trails using video and mobile phone technology; and

 educational workshops on maritime heritage and training in maritime archaeology.

Similar research could be applied to SBNMS to help understand what aspects people value from maritime 

heritage resources. The shipwrecks in SBNMS reflect the diverse range of activities and nationalities that 

have traversed the New England area. Coal transport, granite trade, vessels engaged in commerce, and 

commercial fishing vessels have all been lost in sanctuary waters. Researchers have located more than 47

 

14 Cultural identity is the way in which a person identifies or feels they belong to a group. “As identified by oral or written record, 

indigenous stories, knowledge, people, places, structures, objects, and traditional practices contribute to maintaining cultural 

identity” (MPAFAC 2011). Further, “The broad array of stories, knowledge, people, places, structures, and objects, together with 

the associated environment, that contribute to the maintenance of cultural identity and/or reveal the historic and contemporary 

human interactions with an ecosystem” is defined as (marine) cultural resources (MPAFAC 2011). 
State of Ecosystem Services

147

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

historic shipwrecks in SBNMS, and archival data indicates there may be 200 more historic wrecks still to 

be located (Lawrence et al. 2015).

The number of news stories appearing in newspapers and magazines is another indicator of the economic 

value of historic shipwrecks. From 2007 to 2016, 28 stories on historic SBNMS shipwrecks were reported 

in local, regional, and national newspapers and magazines (B. Barr, personal communication, January 17, 

2018). A documentary on the Portland aired on the Science Channel in 2003 and continues to be aired 10 

years later.

One workshop expert and dive shop operator noted that since 2007, diving on shipwrecks in SBNMS has 

been an important part of the business, which, while currently small (three boats doing a dozen trips per 

year), is increasing. This activity would usually be captured in the non-consumptive recreation ecosystem 

service, but it is noted here because learning the story of a historic shipwreck adds value to the dive, as 

does seeing marine life that use the site.

Non-Economic Indicators

In New England, there are nine museums/visitor centers that have exhibits, artifacts, or tell stories of the 

sanctuary’s maritime heritage:

 Provincetown Lands Visitor Center — shipwreck interpretive panel

 Provincetown Museum — Portland Gale artifacts

 Maine Maritime Museum — Maine-built shipwrecks kiosk

 Mystic Seaport Museum — general regional maritime heritage information

 Essex Shipbuilding Museum — general regional maritime heritage information

 Highland House Museum — Portland artifacts

 Penobscot Marine Museum — Maine-built shipwrecks kiosk

 Maritime Gloucester (largest) — kiosks, videos, interpretive displays

 Scituate Maritime and Irish Mossing Museum — Portland Gale artifacts

One workshop expert noted that there are also 25 different historical societies, museums, and historical 

ships, such as the schooner Adventure in Gloucester, MA, that provide the public with a wealth of cultural 

heritage resources that do not exist anywhere else in the U.S. Another noted that, through the Preserve 

America Grant Program, four SBNMS partner organizations have made maritime heritage kits to help 

educate the public.

There are currently 47 known historic shipwrecks located within SBNMS in various stages of survey. As 

more is learned and discovered about other maritime heritage resources in the sanctuary, there is an 

expectation of future benefits from educational opportunities, development of trails (including virtual), 

museum exhibits, and the protection of maritime heritage resources.

Resource Indicators

As noted in the State of Resources section of this report, the condition of maritime heritage resources is 

rated “fair” and “worsening.” The rating is largely due to natural degradation in the shallow marine 

environment and impacts from commercial fishing gear. Some degradation is also due to diver impacts, 

but it is not considered a major factor.
State of Ecosystem Services

148

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Summary

There are significant products telling the stories of historic SBNMS shipwrecks via books, magazines, 

and artifacts and kiosks at many museums, which would all indicate there is significant economic value 

associated with maritime heritage in SBNMS. At the same time, resource indicators show some decline in 

integrity due to natural degradation and commercial fishing gear damage, but overall, damage is not 

severe. These economic value and resource indicators justify a rating of “good/fair” and “improving” for 

this ecosystem service.

Consumptive Recreation

Status Description: Ability to provide ecosystem service 

is compromised, and existing management would require 

enhancement to enable acceptable performance.

Rationale: The number of charter and party boat anglers declined from 2007–2016, while the 

number of private boat registrations remained stable from 2007–2015 and increased in 2016. 

Local communities are also highly engaged in recreational fishing. The resource indicator for the 

most sought after stock (Atlantic cod) is poor, but alternative stocks (haddock, pollock, etc.) are 

sustainably managed and responsibly harvested.

The status of consumptive recreation is “fair” (medium confidence) and the trend is “undetermined” 

(medium confidence). Consumptive recreation includes recreational activities that result in the removal of 

or damage to natural and cultural resources. For SBNMS, this activity is primarily recreational fishing. 

While the number of charter boat and party boat anglers (Table ES.CR.1) declined from 2007–2016, the 

number of private boat registrations remained stable over the same time period and increased in 2016. 

There is high engagement of local communities in recreational fishing activity. Mostly notably, the 

recreational fishing species most targeted in SBNMS (such as cod and bluefin tuna) show poor and 

worsening conditions.

There is very good information on recreational use and spending associated with recreational fishing on 

charter and party boats, but there is very little information available regarding fishing on private boats. 

Little information exists for other socioeconomic information. Periodic surveys are needed to gather use 

data for private boats; economic spending profiles; socio-demographic profiles of users; non-market 

economic use values; importance-satisfaction ratings of natural and cultural resource attributes, facilities, 

and services; and knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of users regarding management strategies, 

regulations, and sanctuary natural and cultural resources. In addition to private boats, the same types of 

information are needed from passengers of “for hire” operations that take people into the sanctuary for 

non-consumptive recreation.

Economic Indicators

Since the last condition report in 2007, the number of party boat anglers (people paying individually) 

declined from about 18,500 per year to 11,300 in 2016 (Table ES.CR.1, Figure App.F.21). In addition to 

party boats, the number of charter boat anglers (people paying per group) decreased by about 2,400, from 

6,700 to 4,300 (Table ES.CR.1, Figure App.F.22). The complete economic analysis summarized in this 

section is provided in Schwarzmann et al. (2020) and uses data provided by GARFO (2019b).
State of Ecosystem Services

149

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

A snapshot of private boating activity within SBNMS was estimated for 2009 (Hellin et al. 2011). It was 

found that 92% of boats that visit the sanctuary were 26 feet or greater and there was a total of 117,120 

person-days of private boat fishing in the sanctuary. This activity supported roughly $6 million in 

spending, $4.6 million in value-added, $2.5 million in income, and supported roughly 60 jobs in the local 

economy (Table ES.CR.2).

Table ES.CR.1. Number of party and charter boat vessels, anglers, and trips, 1998–2016. Source: GARFO 2019b

Party Charter

Year Vessels Vessel 

Trips Anglers Vessels Vessel Trips Anglers

1998 19 149 3,820 44 452 3,678

1999 23 215 6,649 45 469 3,682

2000 19 222 6,716 53 751 5,243

2001 31 485 20,459 58 922 6,686

2002 23 409 16,931 76 1,044 6,622

2003 25 526 20,531 63 823 6,378

2004 34 589 23,328 65 751 5,624

2005 44 493 19,621 76 944 6,124

2006 36 474 18,467 74 950 6,400

2007 31 483 18,482 84 1,068 6,691

2008 28 398 13,270 80 1,037 6,612

2009 31 417 14,206 87 1,232 7,904

2010 30 365 12,767 91 1,420 8,536

2011 25 506 17,557 88 1,409 8,727

2012 21 351 11,744 73 1,100 6,605

2013 19 195 6,512 65 986 5,755

2014 21 329 10,800 59 943 5,863

2015 14 209 7,119 41 483 2,909

2016 17 307 11,329 45 678 4,296
State of Ecosystem Services

150

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Table ES.CR.2. Economic contribution/impact of private boat recreation in 2009. Source: Hellin et al. 2011

Person-days 117,120

Spending $6,028,437

Output $10,143,414

Value-Added $4,589,275

Income $2,455,113

Employment 57

Although this is a snapshot of activity, changes in the number of boat registrations over 26 feet can be 

analyzed. From 2007 to 2015, the number of Massachusetts boat registrations remained fairly stable, with 

an average of approximately 6,700 registrations for the time period; however, in 2016 there was an 

increase of over 2,000 boat registration from 2015, to roughly 9,000. It is unknown if this is an outlier, 

data error, or indication of a future trend (Figure ES.CR.1, NMMA 2016). Given the relative stability of 

boat registrations from 2009–2015, it can be expected that the contribution of private boat fishing to the 

local economy has also remained relatively stable.

Figure ES.CR.1. Boat registrations in Massachusetts from 2005–2016. Source: NMMA 2016

Non-Economic Indicators

Non-economic indicators include the species kept by party and charter anglers, as well as fishing 

engagement indicators. Table ES.CR.3 and Figures App.F.23–App.F.32 show the top species kept by 

party and charter anglers. The top five species for both include cod, pollock, haddock, cusk, and redfish.

This information is used in conjunction with the resource indicators (which discuss the state of the 

species) to make an integrated and informed decision about the state and trend of consumptive recreation.

6,892 6,907 6,789 6,826 6,694 6,763 6,657 6,682 6,680 6,628 6,530

8,977

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Number of Registrations

Year

Boat Registrations 26 Feet and Over
State of Ecosystem Services

151

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Table ES.CR.3. Top species and number of fish kept by party and charter boat anglers, cumulative total 1998–2016. Source: 

GARFO 2019b

Species Party Quantity Kept Charter Quantity Kept

Cod 320,218 712,381

Haddock 274,635 279,311

Pollock 62,701 119,051

Cusk 37,847 23,410

Redfish 25,701 22,366

Mackerel 10,490 20,859

Bluefin tuna 11 19,741

Dogfish 8,748 1,374

Catfish 5,208 4,167

Bluefish 1,157 3,389

NOAA Fisheries developed an online database on fishing communities throughout the U.S. (NOAA 

2018b). Indicators for recreational fishing engagement were developed for New England communities 

(Jepson and Colburn 2013, Figures App.F.33). The recreational fishing engagement indicator (presence of 

recreational fishing through fishing activity estimates) shows that the highest engagement occurs along 

the Massachusetts coastline, and more specifically, in Cape Cod.

Resource Indicators

Resource indicators help to determine if current use is sustainable and if there is potential for the service 

to improve or decline. The table below provides a summary for top species, including whether the stock is 

being overfished (i.e., the population size is too small) and if the stock is subject to overfishing (i.e., the 

annual rate of catch is too high).
State of Ecosystem Services

152

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Table ES.CR.4. Status of top commercial fisheries stocks. Source: NOAA Fisheries 2019b

Species

Stock is 

overfished? (i.e., 

stock size is too 

small) 

Stock is subject to 

overfishing? (i.e., 

annual catch rate 

is too high)

Cod Yes Yes

Haddock No No

Pollock No No 

Cusk15 Yes Yes

Redfish No No

Mackerel Yes Yes 

Bluefin tuna Unknown No

Ocean pout Yes No

Bluefish Yes No 

While some of these species, such as cod, are overfished and subject to overfishing, others such as 

haddock and pollock are considered a smart seafood choice because they are sustainably managed and 

responsibly harvested.

Summary

While the number of charter boat and party boat anglers declined over most of the time period of interest, 

private boat registrations remained stable and have increased more recently. Local communities are also 

highly engaged in recreational fishing. Yet, the resource (recreational fishing stocks) condition is mixed. 

These factors suggest that there is significant and augmented economic value associated with 

consumptive recreational resources in SBNMS, but there are mixed results among the indicators, as well 

as information gaps. In addition, very little information is available for fishing on private household 

boats, and there is a lack of other ancillary socioeconomic data for recreational fishing. These indicators 

justify a rating of “fair” for the status of consumptive recreation, and the trend is “undetermined.”

 

15 Candidate for listing under ESA, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/cusk
State of Ecosystem Services

153

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Non-Consumptive Recreation

Status Description: Unable to fully provide the ecosystem 

service due to prior or existing human activity, but 

performance is acceptable.

Rationale: Some commercial operations have noted that demand for whale watching has 

steadily increased and the number of reports mentioning bird sightings has been increasing. 

Income and population in the area have also been increasing, and stable fuel prices have led to 

increased non-consumptive recreational activity in the sanctuary. The resource indicators show 

that there is a decline in some of the focal and foundation species used for non-consumptive 

recreation.

The status of non-consumptive recreation is “good/fair” (low confidence) and the trend is “improving” 

(medium confidence). Recreational activities that do not result in the removal of or damage to natural and 

heritage resources are considered non-consumptive. The primary non-consumptive recreational activities 

include whale watching and other wildlife observation, scuba diving, sailing, and motor boating. In most 

studies of recreation, museum and visitor center use would be included in non-consumptive recreation. 

For SBNMS, this is a land-based activity, which is included in the maritime heritage ecosystem service 

discussion.

There is very little information for non-consumptive recreation since there are no formal institutions in 

place to estimate or monitor use on a regular basis. There is a need to conduct regular, periodic surveys to 

gather data on use by activity type; economic spending profiles; socio-demographic profiles of users; nonmarket economic use values; importance-satisfaction ratings of natural and cultural resource attributes, 

facilities, and services; and knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of users about management strategies 

and regulations and sanctuary natural and cultural resources. In addition, surveys of “for hire” operations 

that take people out for non-consumptive recreation are needed to obtain information on intensity of use 

(number of days or trips) by type of activity (e.g., bird or whale watching), both inside and outside 

SBNMS; costs-and-earnings of the operations; and knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of management 

strategies, regulations, and status of natural and cultural resources.

Economic Indicators

In 1998 and 2008, two studies of “for hire” whale-watching operations worldwide were done by the 

International Fund for Animal Welfare (O’Connor et al. 2009). For the New England region of the U.S., 

SBNMS was singled out for focus in their reports because over 80% of whale watching in the New 

England region was done in SBNMS. In 1998, 36 “for hire” operations took 992,000 people out for whale 

watching in SBNMS, with economic spending of $85.6 million (2017$). In 2008, there were 31 

operations, carrying 728,000, with economic spending of $100.8 million (2017$).

Since 2008, there has been a reduction and concentration of the “for hire” industry that takes people out 

for whale watching and other wildlife observation in SBNMS. Currently, there are an estimated eight 

whale/wildlife watching operations that frequent SBNMS. Some have noted a general trend in which 

humpback whales are more frequently located in the southern half of the sanctuary, making it more 

difficult for operations located near the northern part of SBNMS to access the whales. Some operations 

are adapting their offerings and expanding their visitor experience to incorporate more bird and other 
State of Ecosystem Services

154

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

marine mammal watching activities and outreach during their trips. Some are extending their seasons, and 

although there is a contraction in the industry, most existing operations are doing better financially. Some 

operators have noted that demand for whale watching has steadily increased.

The Boston Globe publishes bird sighting reports. A compilation of those reports from 2007 to 2016 

recorded the percent of bird sighting reports that mentioned sightings in SBNMS (Barr, personal 

communication, January 17, 2018). From 2007 to 2010, none mentioned SBNMS. In 2013, 25% of 

reports mentioned SBNMS, in 2015 this figure doubled to 50%, and in 2016 it jumped to 94% (Figure 

ES.NCR.1). This correlates with the “for hire” industry shifting its focus to add more bird watching 

opportunities to SBNMS trips.

Figure ES.NCR.1. Percent of Boston Globe bird sighting reports mentioning SBNMS, 2007–2016. Source: B. Barr, personal 

communication, January 17, 2018 

In 2010, the University of Massachusetts Boston’s Urban Harbors Institute conducted a study of 

Massachusetts-registered marine recreational boaters (Hellin et al. 2011). Sample sizes for nonconsumptive recreation were not large enough to estimate non-consumptive use in SBNMS. The study 

did find that of all Massachusetts recreational boaters in coastal and ocean waters, 3.2% engaged in whale 

watching, 12.1% engaged in bird watching, 3.3% engaged in scuba diving, 29.4% engaged in sailing, and 

67.4% engaged in cruising (boating on the water for pleasure). In addition, 69% of all recreational 

activities were non-consumptive. Of the sampled boaters in SBNMS, 92% were in boats 26 feet in length 

or greater. Boat registrations for the State of Massachusetts (NMMA 2016) show a relatively flat trend 

from 2005 to 2015 (averaging 6,700 registrations) with a big spike upward in 2016 (to nearly 9,000 

registrations) (Figure ES.CR.1, Appendix F: Table App.F.1).

Past trends and future increases in population and real per capita income (adjusted for inflation) for the 

U.S., Massachusetts, and the 14-county study area and stable fuel prices are indicators of positive and 

increasing past and future trends for non-consumptive recreation use in SBNMS (Appendix E: Tables 

App.E.1–E.2, Figures App.E.2–E.3).

Non-Economic Indicators

One study analyzing the public’s willingness to pay for marine protected areas found that most groups 

would utilize for marine reserves. More specifically, depending on the size and use combinations of the 

0

20

40

60

80

100

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Sightings

Year

Percentage of Bird Sighting Reports Mentioning National Marine 

Sanctuaries
State of Ecosystem Services

155

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

protected areas, welfare estimates (willingness to pay) range from $26-$144 per year per household 

(Wallmo and Edwards 2008). Although a few studies have been conducted on marine protected areas in 

general, there have been no studies conducted on non-economic indicators for non-consumptive 

recreational users in SBNMS. This is a major research gap, and the only information available is at the 

community level. Further, for non-consumptive operators, their level of dependency on sanctuary 

resources for their livelihoods is unknown, which represents another data gap. 

Resource Indicators

The primary resources supporting non-consumptive recreation in the SBNMS are the focal species 

discussed previously, as well as the foundation species on which they depend. Water quality, especially 

water visibility, is important for scuba diving. However, scuba diving is relatively infrequent in SBNMS 

and therefore, water quality, although rated “good,” has a relatively low weight across all resource 

indicators.

Focal species include whales (right whales and humpback whales), other marine mammals (harbor 

porpoises, Atlantic white-sided dolphins), seabirds (great shearwater), lobster, bluefin tuna, and cod. The 

state of right whales in the sanctuary is poor due to the declining trend in overall abundance combined 

with the high entanglement risk in the sanctuary. Similarly, despite a positive growth trend for humpback 

whales in the Gulf of Maine (NOAA Fisheries 2019c), their co-occurrence with entangling fishing gears 

in the sanctuary (Wiley et al. 2003) and the relatively frequent sightings of entangled whales in the 

sanctuary results in a poor status rating. Harbor porpoises are increasing, while Atlantic white-sided 

dolphins appear stable. The status and trends among shearwaters are uncertain.

The primary foundation species on which many focal species depend include sand lance and Atlantic 

herring. Sand lance are rated as worsening, and there is concern about their spatial distribution, as they 

have not returned to the northern area of SBNMS. This is a major driver of whale distributions and the 

associated decline of whale watching operations located near the northern part of the sanctuary. 

Foundation species are rated “good/fair” with a “not changing” trend. Overall, the resource indicators 

demonstrate that the natural resources that support non-consumptive recreation have declined, but the 

decline is not widespread across species.

Summary

Economic indicators suggest there is significant value associated with non-consumptive recreation in 

SBNMS that is either stable or improving. As of 2008, the majority of whale watching in the New 

England region occurred within SBNMS, amounting to a spending value of approximately $100 million 

(2017$). Resource indicators suggest that, with the exception of an increase in bird sightings, there has 

been a decline in the natural resources that support non-consumptive recreation in the sanctuary, however, 

the decline is not widespread across affected resources. Therefore, non-consumptive recreation is 

“good/fair” because it is unable to fully provide the ecosystem service, but the trend is “improving.”
State of Ecosystem Services

156

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Sense of Place

Status Description: Ability to provide ecosystem service 

is compromised, and existing management would require 

enhancement to enable acceptable performance.

Rationale: Studies show a positive willingness to pay for marine protected areas. Opinion polls 

show that over the past several years, the percentage of people that prioritize environmental 

protection at the risk of economic growth is increasing. The resource indicators show variation in 

their rankings.

The status of sense of place is “fair” (medium confidence) and the trend is “improving” (high 

confidence). Sense of place is the aesthetic and spiritual attraction and the level of recognition and 

appreciation a person (visitor or resident) may have for a place’s iconic elements. National marine 

sanctuaries protect more than 600,000 square miles of ocean and Great Lakes waters. They are designated 

as marine protected areas because of their extraordinary scenic beauty, biodiversity, historical 

connections, and economic productivity.

Non-use, or passive economic use value, is a broad economic expression of the value people have for 

protecting special places. Generally, estimating non-use value for any place is relatively expensive, and 

thus rarely done. When it is possible, data collected from scientifically sound public surveys aimed at 

understanding environmental attitudes can be good predictors of people’s passive economic use value 

(Aldrich et al. 2007, Leeworthy et al. 2017). When these studies are replicated year after year, they can 

track how values are changing over time. In addition, real per capita income is a good predictor of 

people’s passive economic use values, so it can also be used as an indicator (Alberini et al. 2006, 

Leeworthy et al. 2017).

Economic Indicators

There are no studies that have estimated non-use values specifically for SBNMS, but as mentioned above 

a study of the willingness to pay for marine protected areas found positive values (Wallmo and Edwards 

2008). However, studies conducted in other, similar marine protected areas may provide relevant 

economic information. For example, at Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS) located off 

the coast of southern California, commercial vessels pose a ship strike risk to whales. Similar to 

management actions taken at SBNMS, traffic separation lanes were established at CINMS in an effort to 

reduce the number of whale strikes. Vessel speed reductions are also recommended at CINMS (while 

mandatory at SBNMS at certain times of year in specific areas, speed reductions are voluntary at 

CINMS). Given these similarities, recent research at CINMS documenting the economic value associated 

with the avoidance of whale strikes can be relevant to SBNMS.

At CINMS, a study was conducted that focused on the non-use value of avoiding whale deaths from 

vessel strikes (Bone et al. 2016). In that study, a national sample was used to estimate the non-use value 

people would have for reducing the number of whale deaths due to ship strikes through slowing 

commercial vessels during seasons when whales are known to frequent the area. On average, U.S. 

households were willing to pay $69.92 per household (a one-time payment), which, when aggregated 

across almost 134 million households in 2014, yielded a total value of $9 billion. For households that 

actually visited the CINMS region to view whales, their willingness to pay was $24.04 per household, 
State of Ecosystem Services

157

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

which, when aggregated across 31,000 households, was estimated at $755,000. SBNMS could expect 

similar or perhaps even higher non-use values given the similarity of issues and the highly publicized 

endangered status of right whales.

Bone et al. (2016) included the New Ecological Paradigm (also known as the New Environmental 

Paradigm) index in their estimating equation for economic values and found a strong, positive statistical 

relationship for people’s willingness to pay to protect whales and their environmental paradigm score. 

The New Ecological Paradigm is a scientifically sound index of people’s environmental attitudes and has 

been widely used (Dunlap and Van Liere 1978, Dunlap 2008, Gallup 2017) in predicting visitation and 

values of national parks and special places around the world.

Aldrich et al. (2007) and Leeworthy et al. (2017) also used the New Ecological Paradigm and found the 

same results as Bone et al. (2016). Gallup, known for its public opinion polls, has been conducting 

scientifically sound public polls tracking people’s environmental attitudes for 45 years. One question 

posed to the public since 1984 has been, “How much protection of the environment should be given 

priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth?” The answer has fluctuated over the years, but with 

an exception for the Great Recession that began in 2007, people have generally preferred environmental 

protection to economic growth (Figure ES.SP.1). Another Gallup Poll question asked since 2000 is, “Do 

you think the U.S. government is doing too much, too little, or about the right amount in terms of 

protecting the environment?” Again, the answer has fluctuated, but the highest proportion of Americans 

during this reporting period (2000–2017) responded “too little”, followed by “about the right amount”, 

and the lowest proportion responded “too much” (Figure ES.SP.2).

Figure ES.SP.1. Public opinions regarding protection of the environment versus economic growth from 1984 to 2017.Responses to 

the question: “With which one of these statements about the environment and the economy do you most agree?” Source: Gallup 

2017

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Percentage of Respondents

Year

Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic

growth

Economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent

Equal priority
State of Ecosystem Services

158

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure ES.SP.2. Public opinions regarding the amount the U.S. government is doing to protect the environment. Responses to the 

question: “Do you think the U.S. government is doing too much, too little, or about the right amount in terms of protecting the 

environment?” Source: Gallup 2017

Real per capita income (adjusted for inflation) for the U.S., Massachusetts, and the 14-county area closest 

to SBNMS (where the primary socioeconomic effects of SBNMS use take place) has been increasing 

from 2000 to 2016 in all three geographies and is forecasted to continue to grow for all three areas until 

2030 (Appendix E: Table App.E.2, Figure App.E.3). As income increases, it can change the 

demographics of a place, influencing how people feel about it.

Science, education, and outreach are key factors in people learning about the natural resources of a 

protected area and can therefore influence their values for protection and restoration efforts (i.e., people 

have to know about something in order to value it). This in turn becomes the basis for judging the return 

on investment in science, education, and outreach. As was demonstrated with the whale strike example 

from CINMS, the potential economic values associated with science, education, and outreach can be very 

high.

Non-Economic Indicators

The environmental attitudes cited above also serve as non-economic indicators of how people recognize 

and appreciate the aesthetic and spiritual attraction rendered by the resources in SBNMS. There have been 

no other national studies measuring other non-economic human dimensions indicators.

Resource Indicators

All of the indicators of water quality, habitat, living marine resources, and maritime heritage 

archaeological resources that were evaluated in the State of Resources section are relevant for assessing 

the status and trends of sense of place, since the health of the ecosystem affects how people relate to and 

appreciate their surroundings. Ratings for non-climate water quality indicators ranged from “good” to 

“undetermined,” with trends ranging from “stable” to “undetermined.” Water quality for climate 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Percentage

Year

Too much Too little Right amount
State of Ecosystem Services

159

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

indicators had a declining trend. Habitat integrity was rated “fair/poor” but with a “stable” trend. 

Contaminants in habitats were rated as “undetermined” for both status and trend. Living marine resources 

were generally rated “good/fair” and “stable.” There were mixed results for focal species, such as whales, 

that were showing declines. Considering all status and trends of the resource indicators relevant to sense 

of place, the rating of “fair” for this service is supported.

Summary

Sense of place is the aesthetic and spiritual attraction, as well as the level of recognition and appreciation 

a person may have for a place’s iconic elements. No studies have estimated non-use values specifically 

for SBNMS; however, recent research at CINMS documenting the economic value associated with the 

avoidance of whale strikes is relevant to SBNMS. Additional studies show that people put positive 

economic value on natural resources and are willing to pay to protect them. These valuation corollaries, 

trends in environmental attitudes, and growth in real per capita incomes suggest that economic indicators 

are positive and increasing. However, an evaluation of resource indicators suggests there is a decline in 

some natural resources, like whales, but the decline is not widespread across all relevant resources, while 

others, like water quality, are good. Consequently, the status of sense of place is “fair” and the trend is 

“improving.”

Science

Status Description: The capacity to provide the ecosystem 

service has been enhanced or remained unaffected.

Rationale: The number of research hours and days on the R/V Auk, citizen science hours, and 

the number of volunteers have been increasing. Further, SBNMS is at the forefront of research 

focused on anthropogenic noise, humpback whales, and fin whales.

Science as an ecosystem service is defined as the ability to acquire and contribute knowledge. At 

SBNMS, the status of science is rated “good” (high confidence) and the trend is “improving” (high 

confidence).

Economic Indicators

To date, no indicators have been used to evaluate the economic value of science conducted within 

SBNMS. 

Non-Economic Indicators

The number of boat days and hours on the sanctuary’s research vessel, R/V Auk, can be used as a noneconomic indicator. Since 2011, the number of hours and number of days has increased. Further, 40% of 

R/V Auk’s time is funded by non-NOAA research dollars. The increase in both numbers of days and 

hours indicates that funding for R/V Auk is also increasing (Table ES.S.1).
State of Ecosystem Services

160

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Table ES.S.1. Number of SBNMS R/V Auk ship days and hours. Source: NOAA

Year Days Hours

2011 53 577

2012 58 627

2013 36 360*

2014 53 530*

2015 51 510*

2016 68 758

2017 80 915

2018 91 947

* indicates that a constant of 10 hours per day was used to estimate ship time.

In addition to boat hours, the number of volunteer and citizen science16 hours can serve as good noneconomic indicators. Citizen science hours nearly doubled from 2013 to 2017, increasing from 1,800 to 

3,400 hours and reaching a peak of 7,700 hours in 2016. The number of volunteers and volunteer hours 

have also increased (Figure ES.S.1, C. Fackler, personal communication, January 25, 2018). The number 

of volunteer hours increased from 3,400 in 2011 to 6,800 in 2017; however, the number of hours on 

average per volunteer has declined over the same time period from 67.7 hours to 43.4 hours per year 

(Figure ES.S.2). Any funding received for research is highly leveraged between volunteers and partners to 

maximize the level and quality of research.

Figure ES.S.1. Number of SBNMS citizen science hours. Source: NOAA

 

16 Citizen science is a term that describes projects in which volunteers partner with scientists to answer real-world questions. 

These volunteers can work with scientists to identify research questions, collect and analyze data, interpret results, make new 

discoveries, develop technologies and applications, as well as solve complex problems.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Citizen Science 

Hours

Year
State of Ecosystem Services

161

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure ES.S.2. Number of SBNMS volunteers and SBNMS volunteer hours. Source: NOAA

The number of research permits issued from 2007 to 2017 remained fairly constant, with an average of 

four permits each year (Figure ES.S.3, NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 2018b). Although 

the number of permits provides some information on research, not all research requires permits, and 

therefore, the number of permits is not a comprehensive indicator for how much research may be 

occurring within the sanctuary. In fact, much of the research occurring within SBNMS has helped to 

change the national dialogue on certain topics. For example, impacts of anthropogenic noise and 

humpback and fin whale tagging research taking place at SBNMS are at the forefront of science.

Figure ES.S.3. Number of research permits granted to allow some research activities to occur in SBNMS. Source: NOAA Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries 2018b

Lastly, the number of science publications referencing research conducted in SBNMS has also increased 

over the past 10 years. In 2008, three articles referencing research conducted in SBNMS were published, 

and in 2017, seven articles were published (Figure ES.S.4, B. Barr, personal communication, January 17, 

2018). This does not include non-scientific publications, such as white papers or news articles.

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Volunteers 50 60 150 227 120 175 155

Hours 3,386 5,896 5,395 6,107 7,223 9,791 6,796

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

0

50

100

150

200

250

Volunteer Hours

Number of Volunteers

Year

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Permits

Year
State of Ecosystem Services

162

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure ES.S.4. Number of scientific publications referencing research conducted in SBNMS. Source: NOAA

Resource Indicators

Science is different from most other ecosystem services in that the provision of the service does not 

substantially affect the state of natural and cultural resources. In fact, the state of science and knowledge 

learned from research aids in developing the protection and restoration strategies to improve or stabilize 

natural and cultural resource conditions. The body of scientific work in SBNMS has contributed 

significantly to the state of knowledge of resource conditions and the design and implementation of 

policies and management strategies to protect and/or restore resource conditions.

Summary

Given the international recognition and expansion of research occurring in SBNMS by sanctuary staff and 

partners, the status of the science ecosystem service (in terms of the ability to acquire and contribute 

knowledge in SBNMS) is “good” and “improving.” There is, however, a noteworthy informational gap of 

indicators to estimate the economic value of science in SBNMS. Non-economic indicators—the number 

of research hours and days on the R/V Auk, citizen science hours, and the number of volunteers—have 

been increasing or stable through time. Further, SBNMS is at the forefront of anthropogenic noise and 

humpback and fin whale research. As a result of the research being conducted in SBNMS by site staff and 

partners, the body of scientific work in SBNMS has contributed significantly to the state of knowledge of 

resource conditions.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Staff 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 3 3 2 6 2 2 2 4 3 7

Other 3 2 3 0 2 2 3 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

Total 3 2 4 0 2 4 4 3 4 4 7 3 3 3 4 3 7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Number of Publications

Year
State of Ecosystem Services

163

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Education

Status Description: The capacity to provide the ecosystem 

service has been enhanced or remained unaffected.

Rationale: Studies show that parents have a willingness to pay for hands-on ocean conservation 

and stewardship programs. The number of Twitter and Facebook followers of SBNMS has 

increased over the past few years. Education activities at SBNMS have contributed to the public’s 

understanding of SBNMS resources and programs.

Education, as an ecosystem service, is defined as the capacity to acquire and provide intellectual 

enrichment. At SBNMS, the status of education is rated “good” (high confidence) and the trend is 

“improving” (high confidence).

Economic Indicators

In 2017, ONMS completed a study estimating the economic value of the Ocean Guardian School Program 

(Schwarzmann et al. 2017), a grant-based program aimed at teaching students about ocean conservation 

and stewardship of local watersheds and special ocean areas like national marine sanctuaries (Figure 

ES.E.1–ES.E.2). Although Ocean Guardian schools are primarily based in California, study results are 

relevant to other sanctuary education programs with the same goals. Five pathways were valued: 1) 

refuse/reduce/reuse/recycle/compost, 2) marine debris, 3) watershed restoration, 4) schoolyard 

habitat/garden, and 5) energy and ocean health. The highest valued pathway or attribute of the Ocean 

Guardian School Program was habitat. Parents were willing to pay $59 annually per student so that their 

child could engage in habitat restoration and school gardening projects. The second highest willingness to 

pay level was watershed restoration, where parents were willing to pay $44.79 annually per student so 

they could participate in activities aimed at learning about and participating in projects to improve the 

local watershed, such as removing invasive species, planting native species, or improving fish habitat. In 

regard to the remaining three attributes, energy, marine debris, and recycling had the third, fourth, and 

fifth highest marginal willingness to pay levels per attribute in all three models, respectively. When the 

three models are averaged, the marginal willingness to pay for energy was $34.24, marine debris was 

$25.50, and recycling was $21.41.
State of Ecosystem Services

164

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure ES.E.1. Students playing a game to learn about the SBNMS foodweb. Photo: NOAA

Figure ES.E.2. The SBNMS traveling exhibit provides visitors with an introduction to SBNMS in a variety of museums and other 

public spaces throughout New England. Photo: NOAA
State of Ecosystem Services

165

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Non-Economic Indicators

Volunteers (Figure ES.E.3) and volunteer hours are noneconomic indicators that can be used to monitor education. 

Since 2011, the number of volunteer and volunteer hours 

have increased. The number of volunteers more than tripled 

from 50 in 2011 to 155 in 2017, and the number of volunteer 

hours roughly doubled from 3,400 to 6,800 (Figure ES.S.2).

Social media is another non-economic indicator for 

education. Since September 2015, the number of Facebook 

and Twitter followers has grown for SBNMS. The number 

of Facebook followers has grown by 73.3%, and the number 

of Twitter followers has grown by 131%. In September 

2015, the combined number of Facebook and Twitter 

followers was 6,315, and this number grew to 11,222 by 

December 2017 (Figure ES.E.4). Although not reflected in 

the number of followers, there are times when the number of 

impressions or views of sanctuary content spike. Spikes may 

indicate an increase in those following and learning about 

specific stories or events in the sanctuary.

Figure ES.E.4. Number of SBNMS social media followers over time. Source: NOAA

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

September 1, 2015

October 1, 2015

November 1, 2015December 1, 2015

January 1, 2016

February 1, 2016

March 1, 2016

April 1, 2016

May 1, 2016

June 1, 2016

July 1, 2016

August 1, 2016

September 1, 2016

October 1, 2016

November 1, 2016December 1, 2016

January 1, 2017

February 1, 2017

March 1, 2017

April 1, 2017

May 1, 2017

June 1, 2017

July 1, 2017

August 1, 2017

September 1, 2017

October 1, 2017

November 1, 2017December 1, 2017

Number of Followers

Date

FB Followers

Twitter Followers

Figure ES.E.3. A volunteer gives school-aged 

children a tour of an inflatable whale. Photo: NOAA
State of Ecosystem Services

166

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Resource Indicators

Education is different from some other ecosystem services in that the provision of the service does not 

substantially affect the state of natural and cultural resources. Instead, it focuses on developing and 

distributing materials and services. The body of education programs and curriculum in SBNMS has 

contributed significantly to understanding about resources and the design and implementation of 

education programs and initiatives.

Summary

Although there have been no economic valuation studies done for education programs in SBNMS, studies 

of other environmental education programs indicate a positive value for hands-on education experiences. 

Further, several non-economic indicators have been increasing. In particular, the number of volunteers 

and volunteer hours has increased since 2011, and related social media presence, as measured by the 

number of SBNMS followers on Facebook and Twitter, has increased since 2015. These indicators 

suggest that education work in SBNMS has contributed to the understanding about SBNMS resources. 

Consequently, the rating of status of this service is “good” and the trend is “improving.”

Provisioning (Material Benefits)

Food Supply

Status Description: Ability to provide ecosystem service 

is compromised, and existing management would require 

enhancement to enable acceptable performance.

Rationale: Pounds caught and value of landings show variability over the study period. Data 

indicate a shift from smaller to larger commercial vessels operating in the sanctuary. The 

groundfish fishery is still recovering, while lobster and sea scallop fisheries have been increasing.

The status of food supply is “fair” (very high confidence) and the trend is “not changing” (very high 

confidence). The food supply ecosystem service is the capacity to support market demand for nutritionrelated commodities through various fisheries. For SBNMS, commercial fisheries supply this service. As 

described in the commercial fishing section, fisheries landings data from SBNMS was obtained from 

DMIS.

Regarding both economic and non-economic indicators, more information is needed on costs and earnings 

to assess whether there are “economic rents” (above normal return on investments) that lead to pressure 

on regulatory agencies to allow more fishing effort. Socio-demographic profiles of fishers are needed. 

This information, when combined with costs and earnings data, support assessments of dependency on 

fisheries. The ability of fishers to adapt to management/policy changes to improve fisheries is better 

understood when dependency information exists. Access to individual fishing operation records for total 

landings by fishing location would also allow for estimation of fishers’ dependency on SBNMS for their 

total fishing revenues. Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of management strategies, regulations, and 

conditions of sanctuary resources would support assessments of job satisfaction.
State of Ecosystem Services

167

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Economic Indicators

Value of Landings (Harvest Revenue to Fishers)

From 2007–2016, the total value of landings from species caught in the sanctuary was in excess of $194 

million. During the same time period, the top 10 species harvested from SBNMS (measured in cumulative 

revenue across all years in 2017 dollars) accounted for 92% of the total value of landings. The top five 

species (cod, lobster, sea scallops, haddock, and yellowtail flounder) accounted for about 77.5% (Table 

ES.FS.1). In 2016 (the most recent year of data available for this assessment), the top 10 species 

accounted for 88%, while the top five accounted for 80%. The top ten species from 2007–2016 were cod, 

lobster, sea scallop, haddock, yellowtail flounder, monkfish, pollock, witch flounder, winter flounder, and 

Atlantic herring. The complete economic analysis summarized in this section is provided in Schwarzmann 

et al. (2020) and uses data provided by GARFO (2019b).

Table ES.FS.1. Top 13 commercial fishing species caught in SBNMS by value of landings (2017$). Source: GAFRO 2019 2017

Species 

Total Value 

2007-2016

(2017$)

% of Total 

Value 2007-

2016

Rank 

2007-

2016

2016 Value % of Total 

Value 2016

2016 

Rank

Cod $63,570,163 33% 1 $521,493 2% 6

Lobster $35,450,731 18% 2 $5,582,613 24% 2

Sea scallop $33,250,766 17% 3 $11,292,402 49% 1

Yellowtail 

flounder $10,514,552 5% 5 $744,700 3% 4

Haddock $7,579,083 4% 4 $296,678 1% 10

Monkfish $7,106,043 4% 6 $586,745 3% 5

Pollock $6,983,546 4% 7 $81,039 0% 16

Witch flounder $5,541,711 3% 8 $497,626 2% 7

Winter flounder $4,693,464 2% 9 $476,384 2% 8

Atlantic herring $3,935,549 2% 10 $141,009 1% 13

Atlantic 

mackerel $3,400,237 2% 11 $1,444,836 6% 3

Spiny dogfish $2,941,184 2% 12 $285,360 1% 11

American 

plaice $2,134,810 1% 13 $271,458 1% 12

 Top 10 $178,625,609 92% $20,220,689 88%

 Top 5 $150,365,295 77% $18,437,885 80%
State of Ecosystem Services

168

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

For 2016 the top 10 species changed. Pollock and Atlantic herring fell out of the top 10, while winter 

flounder and bluefin tuna entered the top 10. Cod, which was rated number one in 2007–2016, was ranked 

sixth in 2016 having declined significantly from its 2010 high.

In 2016, sea scallops became the dominant fishery in SBNMS with $11.3 million in value of landings 

accounting for 49% of the total value of landings from SBNMS. This was followed by lobster, Atlantic 

mackerel, yellowtail flounder, monkfish, cod, witch flounder, winter flounder, bluefin tuna, and haddock.

For the top 10 species caught in SBNMS, the trends in both pounds and value of landings are presented in 

Appendix F (Figures App.F.1–App.F.20). For 2007 to 2016, sea scallops, lobster, and Atlantic mackerel 

had general upward trends.

Some species have been more variable over time, with unclear trends over the study period. Although cod 

had the highest value overall from 2007–2016, landings value for this species increased from 2007 to 

2010 and then sharply declined through 2016. Spiny dogfish had an increasing trend in terms of landings 

value from 2007 to 2012, when the value of landings peaked, but value declined through 2016. Monkfish, 

pollock, and haddock all exhibited declining trends in value from 2007–2016. Witch flounder, winter 

flounder, and Atlantic herring had peaks and valleys during the study period, but when comparing 2007 to 

2016, the value was flat.

Economic Contribution to the Local Area Economy

Commercial catch from SBNMS is landed at 81 ports and has economic contributions in a 14-county 

area. Economic contributions are measured in value of landings and then translated to economic 

contributions to the local area using the NEFSC IMPLAN input-output model (Steinback and Thunberg 

2006). IMPLAN captures how the landings are processed and sold at different market levels and accounts 

for price mark-ups at each market level (e.g., fish house, processing plant, wholesale, retail, and 

restaurant). The model also estimates ripple or multiplier effects17.

NEFSC ran its model for each year from 2007 to 2016 using catch data from SBNMS. All dollars were 

converted to 2017 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (BLS 2017). The value of landings and the 

economic contribution peaked in 2010 then declined from 2011 to 2015 (except for an uptick in 2012). In 

2016, the contribution increased to near 2010 levels.

In 2010, the value of landings was about $23.3 million, with an economic contribution of $81.8 million in 

output, $27.4 million in income, which supported 893 full and part-time jobs. Comparatively, in 2016, the 

value of landings were about $23.1 million with an economic contribution of $73.7 million in output, 

$25.7 million in income, which supported 747 full and part-time jobs (Table ES.FS.2).

 

17 For SBNMS, adjustments have been made by NOAA Fisheries to the IMPLAN model, including both backward and forward 

linkages (Steinbeck and Thunberg 2006). NOAA Fisheries used their customized IMPLAN model to estimate economic 

contributions to the local economy from commercial fishing in SBNMS. Backward linkages reflect the direct connection to 

industries from which an industry purchases its inputs in order to provide its good or service (output). For example, commercial 

fishers must purchase gear to fish. This direct expenditure is then used by the gear seller to purchase the inputs (supplies, heat, 

food, labor, etc.) necessary to run their business. The way money moves through the economy to support the gear seller is an 

example of backward linkages. Forward linkages reflect how industries utilize the output of another industry. In the context of 

national marine sanctuaries, a commercial fisher may catch their fish quota in SBNMS, then once ashore, sell their landings to a 

fish market, seafood processor, or restaurant. From the point of sale forward in time reflects forward linkages and traces how the 

outputs of commercial fishers benefit the economy.
State of Ecosystem Services

169

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Definition of Terms (adopted from Hackett et al., 2009)

Harvest Revenue: What fishermen receive when they land their catch at various MA ports.

Output: Total industry production, equal to shipments plus net additions to inventory.

Value Added: The value added during production to all purchased intermediate goods and services. This 

is equal to employee compensation plus proprietor’s income plus other property income plus indirect 

business taxes. Often referred to as gross regional product.

Total Income: Sum of employee compensation, proprietor’s income, corporate income, rental income, 

interest, and corporate transfer payments.

Employment: Full- and part-time jobs.

Table ES.FS.2. Economic contributions of commercial landings in SBNMS to the local area economy (2007–2016 in 2017$). 

Source: Schwarzmann et al. 2020

Year Value of Landings Output Income Full and Part-time 

Employment

2007 $18,665,067 $66,482,662 $21,643,385 754

2008 $21,558,290 $77,714,959 $25,426,350 868

2009 $19,389,542 $69,229,147 $22,591,177 775

2010 $23,287,107 $81,897,492 $27,372,385 893

2011 $19,915,754 $69,017,471 $23,203,493 758

2012 $22,880,433 $77,788,084 $27,133,479 937

2013 $16,034,664 $52,228,776 $18,319,016 571

2014 $15,206,949 $48,553,328 $17,189,160 576

2015 $13,881,393 $43,466,414 $15,141,195 454

2016 $23,066,635 $73,720,988 $25,714,818 747

Other indicators of economic health of fisheries include the number of fishing vessels operating and 

number of fishing trips taken (both proxies for fishing effort). However, interpreting changes in these 

indicators requires understanding the management context. The New England groundfish fishery was 

generally overfished, requiring fundamental changes in the management regime in the late 1990s. Vessel 

buyback and assistance programs were instituted because it was projected that even after the fisheries 

recovered, 50% of fishers would be unlikely to get their jobs back. Management changes in New England 

fisheries included a transition to a market-based approach called catch shares in 2010. The transition to 

catch shares enabled larger boats (>70 feet) to target cod in SBNMS. Prior to 2010, these vessels were 

constrained by limitations on days-at-sea and tended to stay far offshore.

The average number of vessels fishing the sanctuary during the time period of this report was 253. In 

2010, the number spiked to a peak of 320 vessels, then began a steady decline from 2011 to 2015, with 

181 vessels fishing the sanctuary in 2015. In 2016, the number of commercial vessels increased to 242. 
State of Ecosystem Services

170

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

The distribution of vessel size has changed over the 10-year time period, with vessels less than 50 feet 

and 50–70 feet declining in proportion of vessels. This indicates a shift from small to larger commercial 

fishing vessels operating in the sanctuary, as well as a shift in the target species in the sanctuary, primarily 

toward scallops. However, for all years, vessels less than 50 feet in length comprised the largest 

proportion of vessels in the sanctuary (Figure ES.FS.3 and Table App.F.4).

Figure ES.FS.3. Commercial fishing vessels by size of vessel in SBNMS, 2007–2016. Data: GARFO 2019b. Image: SBNMS 2019

As with vessels, the number of trips to SBNMS peaked early in 2009, then declined from 2010 to 2015 

(except for the uptick in 2012) and increased in 2016 to a level slightly higher than in 2013. As with the 

number of vessels, the proportion of trips to SBNMS by vessel size was highest for vessels less than 50 

feet in length, accounting for roughly 86% of vessel trips on average each year (Table ES.FS.3). The 

relevant data are presented in Question 4 in Figure S.P.4.2.
State of Ecosystem Services

171

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Table ES.FS.3. Number of commercial fishing vessel trips by size class of vessels in SBNMS, 2007–2016. Source GARFO 2019b

Year Less than 50 Feet 50–70 Feet Greater than 

70 Feet

Total

2007 7,240 1,074 108 8,422

2008 8,406 1,299 191 9,896

2009 9,665 1,191 225 11,081

2010 7,855 1,093 236 9,184

2011 5,347 897 261 6,505

2012 6,496 1,037 276 7,809

2013 4,142 600 110 4,852

2014 4,032 453 78 4,563

2015 3,557 423 66 4,046

2016 4,361 435 154 4,950

2007-2016 Average 6,110 850 171 7,131

% 2007–2016 85.69 11.92 2.39 100.00

% 2007–2009 86.09 12.12 1.78 100.00

% 2010 85.53 11.90 2.57 100.00

% 2016 88.10 8.79 3.11 100.00

Economic indicators show that value of landings and their economic contribution peaked in 2010 then 

declined from 2011 to 2015 (except for an uptick in 2012). In 2016, economic contributions increased to 

near 2010 levels. The number of vessels fishing the sanctuary followed a similar pattern. In 2010, the 

number of vessels spiked to a peak of 320 then began a steady decline from 2011 to 2015, reaching 181 

vessels in 2015. In 2016, the number of commercial vessels increased to 242. From 2015–2016, economic 

indicators were positive, but over the study period, economic indicators were not stable.

Non-Economic Indicators

There have not been any studies conducted on commercial fisheries in SBNMS to develop non-economic 

indicators for fishers, such as importance/satisfaction ratings of various commercial fishing attributes or 

regulations.
State of Ecosystem Services

172

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Resource Indicators

Several resource indicators reported in the State of Resources are related to the health of fish stocks and 

invertebrates and are important to commercial fisheries; those ratings are repeated below.

Water Quality

6. What is the eutrophic condition of sanctuary waters and how is it changing?

7. Do sanctuary waters pose risks to human health and how are they changing?

Habitat Resources

10. What is the integrity of major habitat types and how is it changing?

11. What are contaminant concentrations in sanctuary habitats and how are they 

changing?

Living Resources

12. What is the status of keystone and foundation species and how is it changing?

13. What is the status of other focal species and how is it changing?

Climate change and rapidly warming ocean water is resulting in Gulf of Maine species migrating to 

deeper and/or more northerly waters, while Mid-Atlantic species are moving into the Gulf of Maine and 

SBNMS. Key among these species shifting into the region is black sea bass, which could become an 

important commercial species.

Sea scallops, lobsters, haddock, herring, and Atlantic mackerel were stable or increasing, while pollock 

and haddock were in decline, and seven groundfish stocks were in an overfished status. This was 

especially true for cod; therefore, it is concluded that there is a decline in some of the fish stocks, but it is 

not widespread across all stocks.

Although the groundfish fishery is still in recovery in the New England region, the lobster and sea scallop 

fisheries are still in good condition, leading to increasing economic contributions/impacts to the local-area 

economy. The decline in the natural capital stock is attributed to the herring and groundfish fisheries, 

therefore the ratings for status was fair and the trend was stable or not changing.
State of Ecosystem Services

173

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Summary

The status of the capacity or ability to support market demand for nutrition-related commodities, namely 

fish, is “fair” and the trend is “not changing,” largely due to mixed results for the economic indicators. 

From 2007 to 2016, the total value of landings (cumulative revenue across all years, 2017$) from species 

caught in the sanctuary was in excess of $194 million, with cod, lobster, sea scallops, haddock, and 

yellowtail flounder accounting for approximately 78%. Trends in both landings values and pounds from 

2007 to 2016 for sea scallops, lobster, and Atlantic mackerel were generally improving. Additionally, 

some resource indicators suggest a decline in the natural stock, but it is important to note that this trend is 

not widespread or unilateral across all stocks (e.g., there may be emerging stocks as a result of changing 

species distributions within the region). More information is needed for both economic and non-economic 

indicators on costs-and-earnings to assess whether there are above normal returns on investments (i.e., 

what economists refer to as ‘rents’) that result in more fishing effort, and, non-economic indicators are 

needed that gauge the socio-demographic profiles of fishers. 
174

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

RESPONSE TO PRESSURES

The Driving Forces and Pressures section of this report describes a variety of issues and human activities 

occurring within and beyond the sanctuary that warrant attention, tracking, study, and, in some cases, 

specific management actions. Addressing any of these issues requires participation by and coordination 

with a variety of agencies and organizations. ONMS is fortunate to be able to work with many entities 

that contribute to managing human activities and addressing marine conservation issues. Central to that 

collaborative approach is the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, a 

community-based advisory body established to provide advice and recommendation to ONMS on issues 

including management, science, service, and stewardship (see text box).

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary established its advisory council on October 3, 2001. The 

council is a community-based body that advises the sanctuary superintendent on issues relevant to the 

effective implementation of the sanctuary management plan. The council is the formal organizational link 

to the sanctuary's user community and others interested in the management of this nationally significant 

area of the marine environment.

Duties of the council include:

• Providing advice and recommendations to the superintendent regarding management of the 

sanctuary, drawing upon the expertise of its members and other sources;

• Serving as liaisons between their communities and the sanctuary by keeping the sanctuary staff 

informed of issues and concerns, as well as performing outreach to their respective communities 

on the sanctuary's behalf;

• Serving as a forum for consultation and deliberation among its members and as a source of 

consensus advice to the superintendent. 

The council membership consists of 17 non-governmental voting members, one non-voting youth 

member, and six governmental ex-officio members (non-voting).

For each of the main issues and human activities presented in the Driving Forces and Pressures section of 

this report, this Response Section provides a summary of related activities and management actions led or 

coordinated by sanctuary staff. The activities described below are not exhaustive of all the ways the 

sanctuary serves the community and the marine ecosystems encompassed within the sanctuary, but 

highlights significant contributions that are responsive to known or emerging pressures.

Recommended future response actions are not presented in this section; however, in 2020 sanctuary staff 

will begin updating the sanctuary’s management plan18and this condition report’s findings will serve as an 

important foundation on which to build new action plans designed to address priority needs.

 

18 The sanctuary management plan serves as a non-regulatory policy framework for addressing the issues facing the sanctuary 

over the next five years. It lays the foundation for restoring and protecting the sanctuary‘s ecosystem, details the human pressures 

that threaten the qualities and resources of the sanctuary, and recommends actions that should be taken both now and in the future 

to better manage the area and resources.
Response to Pressures

175

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Described below is a summary of actions that ONMS has taken, primarily since 2007, to address the 

issues and human activities that were described in the Driving Forces and Pressures section of this report.

Noise

Meeting marine resource protection and management objectives in SBNMS necessitates understanding 

the relative inputs of sound sources within the sanctuary and the possible effects of these sounds on 

marine animal behavior. Standardized data collection methods, such as passive acoustic monitoring and 

acoustic tags that are attached to whales, are being used to help characterize the acoustic environment and 

understand animal behavior in the sanctuary. These data can be used to compare acoustic habitat across 

sanctuary sites and other marine environments.

Vessel Noise Policy

SBNMS’s acoustic research program has provided opportunities for partnership and leadership in the 

development of regional, national, and international policies for managing noise impacts on marine life. 

In 2010, the SBNMS management plan recognized the importance of this larger-scale work to site-based 

goals, and identified development of a marine acoustics policy framework as a continuing action to 

address noise impacts to marine mammals in the sanctuary.

Close collaboration with NEFSC has provided NOAA Fisheries with a case study environment for their 

broader regional scientific work on whale and fish calling behavior, distribution, abundance, and 

population health (Van Parijs et al. 2009, 2015). SBNMS, in partnership with the U.S. National Park 

Service, has explored lessons learned from management of soundscape attributes within national parks 

and particularly the challenges of addressing noise impacts to wildlife from air and marine transportation 

networks within protected areas on both land and in the ocean (Hatch and Fristrup 2009).

From 2008 to 2014, SBNMS worked with staff from multiple NOAA offices to chair a correspondence 

group within the Marine Environmental Protection Committee of the IMO. In 2014, this effort led to the 

IMO’s ratification of voluntary guidelines for quieting commercial vessels (IMO 2013). These guidelines 

continue to support dialogue among IMO member states and organizations regarding the relationship 

between reducing noise and new regulatory and market pressures for both existing and newly built ships 

to improve fuel economy and reduce carbon emissions.

From 2010 to 2016, SBNMS staff co-led an agency-wide initiative to improve NOAA’s science and 

management addressing ocean noise impacts to marine life. This culminated in the release of NOAA’s 

Ocean Noise Strategy Roadmap (Gedamke et al. 2016). The roadmap summarizes relevant NOAA 

management and science capacities and recommends cross-agency actions that could be taken to achieve 

more comprehensive management of noise impacts. Two out of the four chapters draw from SBNMS for 

examples and have now been published in peer-reviewed literature (Hatch et al. 2016, Redfern et al. 

2017).

In 2017, SBNMS began working with regional partners to create a Boston-based consortium focused on 

technical solutions to quieting commercial ships. The group’s intent was to develop both port-based and 

more globally-focused projects.
Response to Pressures

176

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Long-Term Passive Acoustic Monitoring in SBNMS

SBNMS has an extensive large whale passive acoustics program and leads an ongoing program to tag 

humpback and other large whales with synchronous motion, acoustic recording, and video recording tags 

to understand underwater behavior as it relates to mitigating ship strikes and entanglement.

In 2014, SBNMS became a co-lead on a national initiative to deploy the first ever NOAA-maintained 

long-term passive acoustic monitoring network, including the installation of a hydrophone in SBNMS, 

located within the Stellwagen Dedicated Habitat Research Area (DHRA)19. Data from 2014–2018 

sampling continue to be analyzed to compare trends in low-frequency noise throughout U.S. waters and 

specifically among shallower water sampling sites in protected areas (Haver et al. 2018, 2019).

In addition, beginning in 2016, SBNMS and NEFSC acoustic researchers developed and implemented a 

new program to conduct coordinated shallow-water acoustic monitoring in relatively shallow water 

sanctuaries on the east coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, including Stellwagen Bank, Gray’s Reef, Florida 

Keys, and Flower Garden Banks national marine sanctuaries. These deployments were coordinated in 

order to provide comparable data among sanctuaries. Data analysis is expected to demonstrate variability 

among these sanctuaries in both the natural and human-induced noise contributions to their soundscapes, 

including, as examples, temporal peaks in spawning activity by fish, feeding activity by baleen whales, 

small and large vessel activity, and offshore energy exploration/research using airguns. This research is 

ongoing, and future analysis will focus on deriving new metrics that can be extracted from long-term 

monitoring of soundscapes to reflect important ecological thresholds for consideration in management. 

This work was also supported by a NOAA Dr. Nancy Foster Scholar, who used opportunistic sightings 

from whale watching trips and acoustic detections from gliders to develop the first model of sanctuary 

acoustic habitat use by odontocete species.

Marine Debris and Pollution

As described in the Pressures section, although the EPA has designated all of Massachusetts state waters 

“No Discharge Zones,” making it illegal to discharge both treated or untreated sewage in state waters, 

these regulations do not apply to the sanctuary because it is located entirely in federal waters. 

Understanding how wastewater discharge from all vessel types may or may not be impacting sanctuary 

waters is an important issue.

Whale Watching

SBNMS staff are involved in a variety of education and outreach efforts to inform the public and ocean 

users about avoiding adverse interactions with whales. The Whale SENSE program, which began in 2009 

and involves sanctuary partners, allows SBNMS staff and volunteers to conduct on-water education 

programs with vessel captains and other boaters. These programs teach proper boating procedures around 

whales, with the aim of reducing harassment of whales by boaters. Participation in this training program 

is voluntary, but participants receive a form of certification when completed. The See a Spout, Watch 

Out! program is an online whale watch boaters’ education course that offers tips to both commercial and 

recreational boaters to encourage safe and responsible boating when in the vicinity of whales. Also, the 

 

19 The Stellwagen DHRA was designated in 2018. It is within the WGOM Closure Area and is closed to all commercial mobile 

bottom-tending gear, commercial sink gillnet gear, and commercial demersal longline gear.
Response to Pressures

177

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Boater Outreach for Whale Watching program described below provides on-the-water education about 

safe boating around whales. These efforts, while important outreach programs, still only reach a small 

segment of the recreational boating public.

Recreational Diving

Recreational diving in SBNMS has increased significantly in the past decade. Most divers access the 

sanctuary on charter boats for the purpose of visiting shipwreck sites. To facilitate diver access, SBNMS 

has installed mooring buoys at three dive sites; these buoys also serve to protect the wrecks from anchor 

damage. In addition, SBNMS staff conduct outreach to dive organizations and clubs by providing 

presentations and lectures. The sanctuary advisory council includes a recreational diving seat, which is 

intended to serve as a conduit to the recreational diving community.

Recreational Fishing and Boating

In 2017, the sanctuary made a public statement to confirm that recreational fishing is allowed and 

recreational fishers are encouraged to visit SBNMS. SBNMS continues to communicate these messages 

to the recreational fishing community, including by providing small grants in 2018 and 2019 that promote 

sustainable fishing and support research questions important to these stakeholders.

In 2016, the sanctuary initiated the Boater Outreach for Whale Watching program, which is intended to 

improve recreational boating etiquette around whales. Staff make 3–4 trips into the sanctuary on busy 

summer days and intercept recreational boaters to inform them about the sanctuary and proper boat 

handling around whales. The program is very successful and should be expanded to reach more boaters.

Commercial Fishing

ONMS does not regulate fishing in the sanctuary. GARFO is responsible for regulating fishing in the 

sanctuary. Sanctuary staff work closely with staff from GARFO, NEFSC, and NEFMC on issues of 

concern and raise them with GARFO early in the regulatory process so they can be addressed. SBNMS 

currently lacks a resource protection specialist, whose job is to track relevant fishery actions; however, 

existing staff attempt to stay informed by attending NEFMC meetings, talking with fisheries managers, 

and seeking advice from sanctuary advisory council members. Sanctuary staff have had some 

involvement in the following fishery actions that have or will result in some increased protection of 

sanctuary resources.

• Forage fish: In 2018, NEFMC approved Amendment 8 of the Atlantic herring plan. SBNMS 

expressed concerns that the amendment could result in the localized depletion of forage fish 

during critical fall feeding by humpback whales, endangered minke and fin whales, as well as 

other migratory species. At the time of this writing, one of the proposed regulations to implement 

Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan is to create a 12 nautical mile 

buffer seaward from the shore from Maine to Cape Cod, which would be closed to midwater 

trawling year round (Figure R.1). This buffer will overlap the southwest and northwest corners of 

the sanctuary, which would help protect these critical foraging areas; however, it may also 

concentrate midwater and pair trawling activity in the remainder of the sanctuary. Sanctuary staff 

will monitor this activity during upcoming fishing seasons.
Response to Pressures

178

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

• Scallops: NEFMC and NOAA Fisheries agreed to remove a regulatory provision for the Northern 

Gulf of Maine scallop fishery that allowed large scallop dredge boats to participate in the fishery 

alongside smaller dredge boats. This alleviated the derby-style fishery that occurred in 2017, 

leading to a reduction in risk to maritime heritage resources in the area where this fishery takes 

place.

• Habitat: In 2014, NEFMC approved the Omnibus Habitat Amendment (a final rule 

implementing approved changes to year-round and seasonal closure areas) and, in 2018, NOAA 

Fisheries issued regulations. The regulations established the Stellwagen DHRA that overlaps with 

the eastern side of the sanctuary by 22%. Regulations for the DHRA are the same as the ones for 

the habitat closed area it overlaps with and essentially prohibit bottom-tending mobile and fixed 

gear; however, lobster trapping and recreational fishing are allowed. The DHRA serves as the 

sanctuary’s de facto reference area for studies on habitat use and recovery and is being used as a 

site for long-term acoustic monitoring of low-frequency sound (10–2,500 Hz).

SBNMS, Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association, and NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement 

collaborated on a program in 2015 to reduce the wet storage of trap-pots in and around the sanctuary to 

reduce entanglement. SBNMS is also a member of NOAA’s Large Whale Take Reduction Team, which 

is tasked with reducing the serious injury and mortality of large whales caused by commercial fisheries to 

below the calculated PBR. Serious injury and mortality for right and humpback whales continue to be 

above PBR in almost all years.

Figure R.1. Proposed 12 nautical mile buffer where midwater trawling for herring would be prohibited year-round. This proposed 

action, under consideration by NOAA Fisheries, is part of Amendment 8 for the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan. Image: 

NOAA
Response to Pressures

179

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Commercial Shipping

In April 2012, SBNMS, along with numerous partners, launched Whale Alert, a free app designed to 

assist commercial ships in complying with whale protection regulations. The app, aimed at a shipping 

industry audience, displays speed zone regulations and whale management areas along the U.S. Atlantic 

Coast. Whale Alert aims to ease compliance with existing regulations by providing regulation measures 

and near real-time data on easy-to-read nautical charts with pop-up alerts to serve as reminders when 

vessels enter regulated areas. SBNMS was the first sanctuary to be a part of Whale Alert project and it 

uniquely leverages acoustic technology to help detect the presence of right whales in Boston shipping 

lanes. Since its inception, the Whale Alert project has expanded to all five west coast sanctuaries 

(Channel Islands, Cordell Bank, Greater Farallones, Monterey Bay, and Olympic Coast national marine 

sanctuaries).

Since 2009, SBNMS has partnered with the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the National 

Marine Sanctuary Foundation to use AIS and GIS technologies to evaluate mariner compliance with 

seasonal management areas in the sanctuary and provide report cards to ships and companies transiting 

the areas. In 2015, SBNMS initiated a corporate responsibility program, which, in addition to report 

cards, provides certificates of corporate responsibility to ships and companies whose commitment levels 

were evaluated to be A+ or A. In 2016, 82% of the companies and 83% of the ships received grades of 

A+ or A.

Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Ports

Shortly after the last condition report was published, two LNG terminals were constructed adjacent to the 

sanctuary’s western boundary. Northeast Gateway finalized construction of one port in December 2007, 

and began operating it in January 2008. Neptune finalized construction of the other in October 2009, and 

began operating it in spring 2010. Following recommendations from SBNMS to mitigate impacts of LNG 

ports on marine mammals, an array of 10 real-time passive acoustic detection buoys were deployed to 

reduce the risk of right whale ship collisions in the TSS, and will be maintained for the life of the port 

(25-40 years). Additional real-time buoys were recommended to listen for right whales during 

construction activities in order to trigger mitigation action, reducing ensonification and collision risk. The 

real-time TSS array was deployed in January 2008 and remains in operation in 2019, co-funded by the 

two companies under the terms of their licenses.

In 2018, Neptune indefinitely suspended operations at its port, leaving Northeast Gateway as the only 

active deepwater port in the Northeast. While that port is still active, the right whale listening buoy array 

will remain in operation; however, Northeast Gateway has considered suspending operations due to 

unfavorable market conditions for the import of LNG. SBNMS is concerned that decommissioning of one 

or both ports would result in loss of funding for the listening array. The array provides one of several 

tools for monitoring the presence of right whales in the area and alerting ships to be cautious. If the 

listening array is defunded, serious consideration should be given to whether it is worth keeping the array 

operational through other means.

Outfall Discharges and Dump Sites

In 2018, USACE began the Boston Harbor Deepening Project, which will take place over three years and 

include dredging the Boston navigation channel and other port improvements. The project will require the 
Response to Pressures

180

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

removal of 11.7 million cubic yards of material. In order to accommodate this material, the EPA has 

modified MBDS by temporarily expanding its boundaries into the historic IWS. The expansion would 

open the area only for the disposal of suitable dredged material generated during the dredging project. 

This will allow for the IWS barrel field to be covered and restored, protecting both the ecosystem and 

fishers utilizing the area.

The Harbor Dredging project and the associated dredge disposal at MBDS will increase turbidity in 

surrounding areas and has the potential to adversely impact nearby benthic communities due to potential 

contamination and smothering. Impacts are expected to be short-term, with habitat recovery occurring 

within 18-24 months (Sturdivant and Carey 2017). As plans for this project are finalized and 

implemented, sanctuary staff will carefully review plans and pay close attention to dredged material 

disposal activities as they are conducted and monitored. For example, dredge barges will carry AIS 

transponders that will allow the sanctuary to independently monitor barge tracks and dumping locations.

In 2019, SBNMS is supporting a research program designed by a NOAA Dr. Nancy Foster Scholar to 

monitor the MWRA outfall for contaminants of emerging concern, such as flame retardants and 

pharmaceuticals. This project, conducted in collaboration with the EPA and MWRA, will enhance the 

long-standing MWRA monitoring program and will provide better understanding of the status of water 

quality in SBNMS.

Submerged Cables and Pipelines

There have been no identifiable adverse impacts from cables or pipelines since the last condition report. 

However, in 2017–2018 SBNMS received several inquiries from the industry and regulators about 

installing new submarine cables across the sanctuary. SBNMS staff have been actively involved with 

federal and state agencies in the review of at least two proposed projects, and have worked to fully inform 

stakeholders of SBNMS regulations. If a future submarine cable was approved and installed in any part of 

the sanctuary, cable proponents would be required to receive different federal permits and undergo 

environmental review for different federal statutes. At a minimum, SBNMS would require the issuance of 

a Special Use Permit, which includes assessment of a fair market value fee for use of sanctuary resources; 

funds from this fee could be used for monitoring and research on project impacts.

Climate Change

SBNMS protects waters vital for whales, seabirds, and economically important species such as lobster, 

sea scallops, and cod. A coastal blue economy thrives on the resources of the sanctuary. These resources 

are at risk from a rapidly changing ocean environment due to climate change.

Water temperatures in the Gulf of Maine region are increasing three times faster than the global average, 

causing major shifts in species distributions and even the extirpation of economically important species, 

such as pink shrimp. Regional government agencies are reacting by developing regulations and licensing 

to create new commercial fisheries. For example, Maine regulators are working on creating a licensing 

process for black sea bass, a species historically associated with the Mid-Atlantic region. Other predicted 

impacts from climate change include increasing acidity due to absorption of atmospheric CO2, increasing 

sea level, and increasing runoff due to rain events.

The sanctuary incorporates climate change into its research and monitoring programs. The sand lance is a 

pencil-sized forage fish and essential prey for whales, bluefin tuna, cod, and many other species. The 
Response to Pressures

181

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

sanctuary and University of Connecticut researchers are studying the little-known ecology of this fish, 

including its susceptibility to ocean acidification. Seabirds are the ocean equivalent of the “canary in the 

coal mine” because of their sensitivity to changing ocean conditions. The sanctuary’s seabird research and 

monitoring program allows managers to understand how climate change is impacting the ecology of these 

important species. These programs and others have made SBNMS an important sentinel site in the Gulf of 

Maine.

Communicating about climate change and its impacts is an important part of the sanctuary’s public 

outreach efforts. For example, the sanctuary works with whale watch naturalists to communicate climate 

change. Whale watch companies interact with over one million people each year and help them 

understand how climate change is impacting the animals they have come to see. The sanctuary is also 

incorporating climate change into its volunteer training to enable them to communicate essential 

messages to sanctuary visitors. Further, climate change and its potential biological, economic, and social 

impacts is an important part of the sanctuary’s 2019 condition report and the next sanctuary management 

plan.

Impacts to Maritime Heritage Resources

Since late 2017, there has not been an archaeologist on staff at the sanctuary and there are currently no 

plans to fill that position. SBNMS maritime heritage needs are being addressed by existing SBNMS staff 

with support from ONMS headquarters and other sites. Given these staffing limitations, it is unlikely that 

SBNMS will be able to conduct regular monitoring and documentation of impacts to the sanctuary’s 

known archaeological resources. Additionally, there will be no locally coordinated activity to identify and 

search for new archaeological resources in the sanctuary, or to conduct outreach and education regarding 

maritime heritage.

After a modern shipwreck was impacted during the 2017 scallop season, in an attempt to mitigate further 

impacts to heritage resources in 2018, sanctuary staff worked with colleagues at GARFO to implement 

and test an experimental approach to mitigation by disclosing the location of historic wrecks and 

requesting that the scallop fleet voluntarily avoid the six known historic and non-historic wrecks, 

including the North Star, by keeping their gear 360 feet away from the wreck. Side scan sonar surveys 

were conducted before and after the fishing season to determine effectiveness of the mitigation strategy; 

results were mixed (see Table R.MHR.1). Further engagement with fishers focused on the context, goals, 

and value of such mitigation measures may help with voluntary compliance and site preservation.
Response to Pressures

182

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Table R.MHR.1. Results of the pre- and post-season side scan surveys of six shipwreck sites vulnerable to scallop dredge impacts in 2018. Source: B. Haskell/NOAA

SiteID Vessel 

Name Status Depth (fathoms)

Pre-season survey 

results

Date: 4/11-

12/2018

(distance to 

nearest dredge 

mark in ft.)

Post-season 

survey results

Date: 5/11/2018 

(distance to 

nearest dredge 

mark in ft.)

Pre-season 

survey results

Date: 3/29/2019 

(distance to 

nearest dredge 

mark in ft.)

Post-season 

survey results

Date: 5/23/2019 

(distance to 

nearest dredge 

mark in ft.)

Avoidance 

buffer (ft.)

STB022 Heroic Historic 16 156 no survey no dredge marks no dredge marks 360

STB023 Ruth and 

Margaret Historic 18 no dredge marks 135 no dredge marks no dredge marks 360

STB025 Madonna 

Catena Historic 47.5 300 210 no dredge marks no dredge marks 360

STB032 STB032 Historic 46 no dredge marks no survey no dredge marks no survey 360

STB045 North Star Modern 16 75 0 (hit by dredge) no dredge marks >360 360

STB049 Patriot Modern 16 90 600 no dredge marks no dredge marks 360
Response to Pressures

183

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

SBNMS and GARFO initiated a research project to interview fishers to determine the effectiveness of the 

outreach effort and learn whether the notice changed fishers’ behavior (and if so, how and why).

Conclusion

Given the sanctuary’s offshore setting and diverse mix of human activities, effectively responding to the 

wide range of issues and threats presented in the Driving Forces and Pressures section of this report 

requires a long-term commitment to marine conservation using a multidisciplinary, partnership-based 

approach. This involves the need for scientific research and monitoring, enforcement of existing 

regulations, close attention to emerging threats, community-based initiatives, and the use of education and 

outreach to inspire others to care and help. Groups such as the Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary Advisory Council are critical for crafting sound management advice and helping to identify, 

assess, and prioritize emerging issues. The collection of actions summarized in this Response section are 

representative of this type of multi-faceted and partnership-based approach, but not necessarily adequate 

for addressing every threat. The dynamic and emerging nature of many issues requires that recurring 

assessment and adaptation are part of the sanctuary’s management cycle. Going forward, this condition 

report will inform the next sanctuary management plan update process, which will begin in 2020. That 

process will identify priority actions, whether new or continuing, to help address issues raised in this 

report.
184

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

CONCLUDING REMARKS

A statement from Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary 

Superintendent, Captain Peter DeCola, U.S. Coast Guard (Retired)

This report updates the 2007 Condition Report for Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. As we 

prepare to update and revise the sanctuary’s management plan, we can use the updated data and other 

information in this report as the basis for action plans and metrics to evaluate their effectiveness.

This report shows that despite several potential stressors, sanctuary water quality is good/fair and that 

habitat, living resources and the condition of maritime heritage resources continue to be impacted in 

various ways by human activities such as shipping traffic and commercial/recreational fishing. 

Furthermore, it highlights the need to fill gaps in research and monitoring. 

Against the backdrop of these challenges, sanctuary staff have built a strong research program that is 

providing us with insights to better understand the behaviors of the marine mammals, birds, and fish that 

live in our sanctuary. In addition, innovative successes such as our corporate responsibility program and 

the creation of the Whale Alert app are making a difference in mitigating the impacts from human 

activities both inside and outside the sanctuary.

The next management plan review process will begin immediately after the publication of this report. The 

process will involve significant public input, agency consultations, and environmental compliance work. 

Based on this condition report, we know that the next management plan will need to address, among other 

things, climate change, water quality monitoring, the effects of underwater noise, and a better 

understanding of the maritime cultural landscape, in addition to renewed education, outreach, and citizen 

science efforts. I’m looking forward to engaging with the public to identify other important issues to 

include in our next management plan and developing the action plans needed to address these challenges.

Finally, I’m fond of saying that ocean management is a team sport. There is no greater example of that 

sentiment than in the creation of this report. Its completion would not have been possible without the 

dedicated involvement of the 23 participants in the expert panel workshop, the 18 participants in the 

invited partner review, the 4 peer reviewers and numerous advisory council members and staff, both at 

SBNMS and at ONMS headquarters, who have seen this massive project through from first draft to final 

copy. It’s this team, along with our federal, state, and local agencies and numerous research partners that 

give us hope for making a positive difference moving forward. On behalf of the Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) and myself, I want to express our sincerest gratitude for these efforts in 

addition to the past and ongoing contributions to sanctuary monitoring and management. It is only 

through these continued collaborations and partnerships that we will successfully protect and conserve 

this special place for generations to come. 

Captain Peter DeCola

U.S. Coast Guard (Retired)

Superintendent, Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary
185

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report would not have been possible without significant contributions from many state and federal 

agencies, academic and non-governmental organizations, consortia, partners, funders, and researchers. 

Specific individuals are mentioned below.

Expert Workshop Participants and Reviewers

Jennifer Anderson (NOAA), Michelle Bachman (NEFMC), Kevin Blinkoff (On The Water), Diane 

Borggaard (NOAA), Arne Carr (retired), Peter Christopher (NOAA), Danielle Cholewiak (NOAA), Amy 

Costa (Center for Coastal Studies), Tracey Dalton (University of Rhode Island), John Galluzzo (South 

Shore YMCA), Vito Giacalone (Gloucester Fishing Community), Porter Hoagland (Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institution), Peter Hong (SBNMS), Carlton Hunt (retired), Ken Keay (Massachusetts 

Water Resources Authority), Marty Klein (Martin Klein Consultants), Heather Knowles (Northern 

Atlantic Dive Expeditions), Joe Levine (Researcher), Charles Mayo (Center for Coastal Studies), Calvin 

Mires (Bridgewater State University), Wayne Peterson (Massachusetts Audubon Society), Kevin Powers 

(retired), Allison Rosner (NOAA), Dave Slocum (SBNMS), Kimberly Starbuck (University of 

Massachusetts-Boston), Kevin Stokesbury (University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth), Bruce Terrell 

(NOAA ONMS), Eric Thunberg (NOAA), Page Valentine (US Geological Survey).

Invited Partner Reviewers

Kevin Blinkoff (On The Water), Todd Callaghan (Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management), 

Deborah Cramer (Independent), Susan Farady (University of New England), Paula Fratatoni (NOAA), 

Erica Fuller (Conservation Law Foundation), Laura Howes (Boston Harbor Cruises), Heather Knowles 

(Northern Atlantic Dive Expeditions), Scott Large (NOAA), John Mandelman (New England Aquarium), 

Brad McHale (NOAA), Frank Mirarchi (retired commercial fisherman), Tom Noji (NOAA), Cate 

O’Keefe (Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries), Kevin Powers (retired), Jeffrey Rosen 

(independent), Allison Rosner (NOAA), Katie Spidalieri (independent), Michelle Staudinger (U.S. 

Geological Service), Scott Steinbeck (NOAA), Mason Weinrich (independent).

Peer Reviewers

ONMS would like to give special thanks to the peer reviewers of his document: Stefan Claesson 

(NearView LLC), Lew Incze (retired), Candace Oviatt (University of Rhode Island), and Geret DePiper 

(NOAA).

Finally, we are also grateful to Kathryn Lohr (NOS ONMS) for providing copy edits and Dayna 

McLaughlin and Shannon Shikles (NOS ONMS) for designing the final report.
186

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

LITERATURE CITED

Alberini, A., Longo, A., Veronesi, M., 2006. Basic Statistical Models for Stated Choice Studies, in: Kanninen, B. 

(Ed.), Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies: A Common Sense Approach to Theory and 

Practice. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 203–227.

Aldrich, G., Grimsrud, K.M., Thatcher, J.A., Kotchen, M.J., 2007. Relating environmental ethical attitudes and 

contingent values: how robust are methods for identifying preference heterogeneity? Environmental Resource 

Economics 37, 757–775.

Anderson, D. M., Hoagland, P., Kaoru, Y., White, A. W., 2000. Estimated annual economic impacts from harmful 

algal blooms (HABs) in the United States. Technical Report WHOI-2000-11. Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institution, Woods Hole.

Anderson, D. M., Keafer, B. A., Kleindinst, J. L., McGillicuddy, D. J., Martin, J. L., Norton, K., Pilskain, C. H., 

Smith, J. L., Sherwood, C. R., Butman, B., 2014a. Alexandrium fundyense cysts in the Gulf of Maine: long-term 

time series of abundance and distribution, and linkages to past and future blooms. Deep Sea Research Part II: 

Topical Studies in Oceanography 103, 6–26.

Anderson, D.M., Couture, D.A., Kleindinst, J.L., Keafer, B.A., McGillicuddy, D.J., Martin, J.L., Richlen, M.L., 

Hickey, J.M., Solow, A.R., 2014b. Understanding interannual, decadal level variability in paralytic shellfish 

poisoning toxicity in the Gulf of Maine: The HAB index. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in 

Oceanography 103, 264–276.

Andersson, K., Brynolf, S., Lindgren, J. F., Wilewska-Bien, M. (Eds.), 2016. Shipping and the environment: 

Improving environmental performance in marine transportation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Applegate, A., Auster, P., Curti, K., Deroba, J., Gaichas, S., Fogarty, M., DePiper, G., Steele, L., 2015. Scientific 

advice on herring control rules that account for forage requirements and the role of Atlantic herring in the 

ecosystem. Ecosystem Based Fishery Management Plan Development Team, New England Fishery Management 

Council, Newburyport, MA.

ASA (American Sportfishing Association), 2016. Will millennials sustain sportfishing? Technical series report 

number 5 of 6. Southwick Associates, Fernandina Beach, FL.

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission), 2019. “American lobster”.

http://www.asmfc.org/species/american-lobster (accessed 26 February, 2019XX Month XX).

Atkinson, C. A., Jolley, D. F., Simpson, S. L., 2007. Effect of overlying water pH, dissolved oxygen, salinity and 

sediment disturbances on metal release and sequestration from metal contaminated marine sediments. 

Chemosphere 69, 1428–1437.

Auster, P.J., Malatesta, R.J., Langton, R.W., Watling, L., Valentine, P.C., Donaldson, C.L.S., Langton, E.W., 

Shepard, A.N., Babb, I.G., 1996. The impacts of mobile fishing gear on seafloor habitats in the Gulf of Maine 

(northwest Atlantic): implications for conservation of fish populations. Reviews in Fisheries Science 4, 185–202.

Auster, P.J., Michalopoulos, C., Valentine, P.C., Malatesta, R.J., 1998. Delineating and monitoring habitat 

management units in a temperate deep-water marine protected area, in: Munro, N.W.P., Willison, J.H.M. (Eds.) 

Linking protected areas with working landscapes conserving biodiversity: Proceedings of the Third International 

Conference on Science and Management of Protected Areas. Science and Management of Protected Areas 

Association, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, pp. 169–185.

Auster, P.J. Langton, R.W., 1999. The effects of fishing on fish habitat. American Fisheries Society Symposium 22, 

150–187.
Literature Cited

187

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Auster, P.J., Joy, K., Valentine, P.C., 2001. Fish species and community distributions as proxies for seafloor habitat 

distributions: the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary example (Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Maine). 

Environmental Biology of Fishes 60, 331–346. 

Auster, P.J., Lindholm, J., Valentine, P.C., 2003. Variation in habitat use by juvenile Acadian redfish, Sebastes 

fasciatus. Environmental Biology of Fishes 68, 381–389.

Auster, P.J., Lindholm, J., 2005. The ecology of fishes on deep boulder reefs in the western Gulf of Maine, in: 

Godfrey, J.M, Shumway, S.E. (Eds.), Diving for Science 2005. Proceedings of the American Academy of 

Underwater Sciences Symposium. University of Connecticut at Avery Point, Groton, CT.

Auster, P.J., Link, J.S., 2009. Compensation and recovery of feeding guilds in a northwest Atlantic shelf fish 

community. Marine Ecology Progress Series 382, 163–172.

Auster, P.J., Heinonen, K.B., Watling, L., Parrish-Kuhn, C., Lindholm, J., 2011. A rare deepwater anemone and its 

associates in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (Gulf of Maine, north-west Atlantic). Marine 

Biodiversity Records 4, e19. 

Auster, P.J., Lindholm, J., Link, J.S., Kilgour, M., Heupel, E., Tamsett-Verkade, A., 2013a. Ambush predators in 

juvenile cod habitat: important element of the recruitment bottleneck? Poster presented at the ICES/NAFO 

Symposium on "Gadoid Fisheries: the Ecology and Management of Rebuilding", October 14-18, 2013, St. 

Andrews, Canada.

Auster, P., Lindholm, J., Cramer, A., Nenandovic, M., Prindle, C., Tamsett, A., 2013b. The seafloor habitat recovery 

monitoring project (SHRMP) at Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Final Project Report.

Auster, P.J., 2015. Can fishery closed areas be considered OECMs (Other Effective Conservation Measures) for 

conservation of biological diversity: a case study from the western Gulf of Maine (NW Atlantic). White paper 

contributed to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Commission on Protected Area's 

Task Force on Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures. 

Auster, P.J., 2017. [Supplemental data on avifauna in northeast U.S. estuaries.]. Unpublished data.

Auster, P.J., Kurth, R., Wahle, L.C., Robben, T., 2017. A century of change in avifauna of three large northeast 

estuaries. Poster presented at the Connecticut Conference on Natural Resources 2017, March 13, 2017, Storrs, CT. 

Auster, P.J., Conroy, C.W., 2019. Time-series patterns and dynamics of species richness, diversity, and community 

composition of fishes at Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (1970-2017). Marine Sanctuaries 

Conservation Series ONMS-19-04. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Office of

National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 

Avio, C.G., Gorbi, S., Regoli, F., 2017. Plastics and microplastics in the oceans: from emerging pollutants to 

emerged threat. Marine Environmental Research 128, 2–11.

Bell, F. 1978. Food from the Sea: The economics and politics of ocean fisheries. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Berton, R., Driscoll, C.T., Adamowski, J.F., 2017. The near-term prediction of drought and flooding conditions in 

the northeastern United States based on extreme phases of AMO and NAO. Journal of Hydrology 553, 130–141.

Bishop, R.C., Chapman, D.J., Kanninen, B.J., Krosnick, J.A., Leeworthy, B., Meade, N.F., 2011. Total economic 

value for protecting and restoring Hawaiian coral reef ecosystems: final report. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries and Office of Response and Restoration, Silver Spring, 

MD.
Literature Cited

188

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Blair, H.B., Merchant, N.D., Friedlaender, A.S., Wiley, D.N., Parks, S.E., 2016. Evidence for ship noise impacts on 

humpback whale foraging behaviour. Biology Letters 12, 20160005.

Block, B.A., Dewar, H., Blackwell, S.B., Williams, T.D., Prince, E.D., Farwell, C.J., Boustany, A., Teo, S.L., Seitz, 

A., Walli, A. and Fudge, D., 2001. Migratory movements, depth preferences, and thermal biology of Atlantic 

bluefin tuna. Science 293, 1310–1314.

BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics), 2017. Consumer price index for all urban workers. U.S. Department of Labor, 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://data.bls.gov (accessed 10 December 2017).

Bone. J., Meza, E., Mills, K., Rubino, L.L., Tsukayama, L., 2016. Vessel speed reduction, air pollution, and whale 

strike tradeoffs in the Santa Barbara Channel region. A group project submitted in partial satisfaction of the 

requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Science and Management for the Bren School of 

Environmental Science and Management at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Boyd, J., Banzhaf, S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardizing environmental accounting 

units. Ecological Economics 63, 2-3, 616-626. 

Bricker, S.B., Clement, C.G., Pirhalla, D.E., Orlando, S.P., Farrow, D.R.G., 1999. National estuarine eutrophication 

assessment: effects of nutrient enrichment in the nation’s estuaries. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Ocean Service, Special Projects Office and the National Centers for Coastal Ocean 

Science, Silver Spring, MD.

Buckstaff, K.C., 2004. Effects of watercraft noise on the acoustic behavior of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops 

truncatus, in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Science 20, 709–725.

Bullard, S.G., Lambert, G., Carman, M.R., Byrnes, J., Whitlatch, R.B., Ruiz, G.M., Miller, R.J., Harris, L.G., 

Valentine, P.C., Collie, J.S., Pederson, J., McNaught, D.C., Cohen, A.N., Asch, R.G., Dijkstra, J., Heinonen, K., 

2007. The invasive colonial ascidian Didemnum sp.: current distribution, basic biology, and potential threat to 

marine communities of the northeast and west coasts of the United States. Journal of Experimental Marine 

Biology and Ecology 342, 99–108.

Butman, B., Bothner, M.H., Hathaway, J.C., Jenter, H.L., Knebel, H.J., Manheim, F.T., Signell, R.P., 1992. 

Contaminant transport and accumulation in Massachusetts Bay and Boston Harbor: a summary of U.S. Geological 

Survey studies. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-202. Woods Hole, MA.

Cahoon, L.B., Beretich Jr., G.R., Thomas, C.J., McDonald, A.M., 1993. Benthic microalgal production at 

Stellwagen Bank, Massachusetts Bay, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series

102, 179–185.

Cantwell, M.G., Katz, D.R., Sullivan, J.C., Borci, T., Chen, R.F., 2016a. Caffeine in Boston Harbor past and 

present, assessing its utility as a tracer of wastewater contamination in an urban estuary. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

108, 321–324.

Cantwell, M.G., Katz, D.R., Sullivan, J.C., Ho, K., Burgess, R.M., Cashman, M., 2016b. Selected pharmaceuticals 

entering an estuary: concentrations, temporal trends, partitioning, and fluxes. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 35, 2665–2673. 

Capizzano, C.W., Mandelman, J.W., Hoffman, W.S., Dean, M.J., Zemeckis, D.R., Benoit, H.P., Kneebone, J., 

Jones, E., Stettner, M.J., Buchan, N.J., Langan, J.A., Sulikowski, J.A., 2016. Estimating and mitigating the discard 

mortality of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in the Gulf of Maine recreational rod-and-reel fishery. ICES Journal of 

Marine Science 73, 2342–2355.

Chase, B.C., 2002. Differences in diet of Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) at five seasonal feeding grounds 

on the New England continental shelf. Fishery Bulletin 100, 168–180.
Literature Cited

189

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Cholewiak, D., Clark, C.W., Ponirakis, D., Frankel, A., Hatch, L.T., Risch, D., Stanistreet, J.E., Thompson, M., Vu, 

E., Van Parijs, S.M., 2018. Communicating amidst the noise: modeling the aggregate influence of ambient and 

vessel noise on baleen whale communication space in a national marine sanctuary. Endangered Species Research 

36, 59–75.

Churchill, J.H., 1989. The effect of commercial trawling on sediment resuspension and transport over the Middle 

Atlantic Bight continental shelf. Continental Shelf Research 9, 841–865.

Claesson, S., 2011. The value and valuation of maritime cultural heritage. International Journal of Cultural Property 

18, 61–80. 

Codiga, D.L., Rex, A.C., Coughlin, K., 2016. Indicator bacteria in Massachusetts Bay 1999-2014: water quality 

monitoring in receiving waters of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority outfall. Massachusetts Water 

Resources Authority Environmental Quality Department Report 2016-01. Massachusetts Water Resources 

Authority, Boston, MA.

Collie, J., Hiddink, J.G., van Kooten, T., Rijnsdorp, A.D., Kaiser, M.J., Jennings, S., Hilborn, R., 2017. Indirect 

effects of bottom fishing on the productivity of marine fish. Fish and Fisheries 18, 619–637.

Collie, J., Minto, C., Worm, B., Bell, R., 2013. Predation on prerecruits can delay rebuilding of depleted cod stocks. 

Bulletin of Marine Science 89, 107–122.

Cook, R., Auster, P.J., 2006. Developing alternatives for optimal representation of seafloor habitats and associated 

communities in Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-06-

02. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 

Cook, R., Fariñas-Franco, J.M., Gell, F.R., Holt, R.H., Holt, T., Lindenbaum, C., Porter, J.S., Seed, R., Skates, L.R., 

Stringell, T.B. and Sanderson, W.G., 2013. The substantial first impact of bottom fishing on rare biodiversity 

hotspots: a dilemma for evidence-based conservation. PloS ONE 8, e69904.

Corcoran, J., Winter, M. J., Tyler, C.R., 2010. Pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment: a critical review of the 

evidence for health effects in fish. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 40, 287–304.

Costa, A., 2012. Tracking the presence and persistence of pharmaceuticals in Cape Cod Bay. Final report to 

Massachusetts Bays Program Research and Planning Grants. 

Costa, A., Taylor, D., Accardo, C., Hudak, C. McKenna, B., 2017. Water column monitoring of Cape Cod Bay and 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary 2014-2016. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority 

Environmental Quality Department Report 2017-07. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA.

Cottee-Jones, H.E.W., Whittaker, R.J., 2012. Perspective: the keystone species concept: a critical appraisal. 

Frontiers of Biogeography 4, 117–127.

D’Agostino, V. C., Degrati, M., Sastre, V., Santinelli, N., Krock, B., Krohn, T., Dans, S. L., Hoffmeyer, M.S., 2017. 

Domoic acid in a marine pelagic food web: exposure of southern right whales Eubalaena australis to domoic acid 

on the Península Valdés calving ground, Argentina. Harmful Algae 68, 248–257.

Dahlen, D., Hunt, C., Emsbo-Mattingly, S., Keay, K., 2006. Are toxic contaminants accumulating in Massachusetts 

coastal sediments following startup of the Massachusetts Bay outfall: a comprehensive comparison of baseline 

and post-diversion periods. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52, 1372–1388.

Dalley, E.L., Winters, G.H., 1987. Early life history of sand lance (Ammodytes), with evidence for spawning of A. 

dubius in Fortune Bay, Newfoundland. Fishery Bulletin 85, 631–641.
Literature Cited

190

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Dayton, P.K., 1972. Toward an understanding of community resilience and the potential effects of enrichments to 

the benthos at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, in: Parker, B.C. (Ed.) Proceedings of the colloquium on conservation 

problems in Antarctica. Allen Press, Lawrence, KS.

Deroba, J., 2015. Atlantic herring operational assessment report 2015. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference 

Document 15-16. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA.

Dixon, J.A., Sherman, P.B., 2009. Economics of protected areas: a new look at benefits and costs. Island Press, 

Washington, DC.

Dunlap, R.E., 2008. The new environmental paradigm scale: from marginality to worldwide use. Journal of 

Environmental Education 40, 3–18.

Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., 1978. The “new environmental paradigm”: a proposed measuring instrument and 

preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education 9, 10–19. 

Dupigny-Giroux, L.A., Mecray, E.L., Lemcke-Stampone, M.D., Hodgkins, G.A., Lentz, E.E., Mills, K.E., Lane, 

E.D., Miller, R., Hollinger, D.Y., Soleck, W.D., Wellenius, G.A., Sheffield, P.E., MacDonale, A.B., Caldwell, C., 

2018. Northeast, in: Reidmiller, D.R., Avery, C.W., Easterling, D.R., Kinkel, K.E., Lewis, K.L.M., Maycock, 

T.K., Stewart, B.C. (Eds.) Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the 

United States. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, pp. 669–742.

Ekstrom, J.A., Suatoni, L., Cooley, S.R., Pendleton, L.H., Waldbusser, G.G., Cinner, J.E., Ritter, J., Langdon, C., 

van Hooidonk, R., Gledhill, D., Wellman, K., Beck, M.W., Brander, L.M., Rittschof, D., Doherty, C., Edwards, 

P.E.T., Portela, R., 2015. Vulnerability and adaptation of US shellfisheries to ocean acidification. Nature Climate 

Change 5, 207–214.

Elfes, C.T., VanBlaricom, G R., Boyd, D., Calambokidis, J., Clapham, P.J., Pearce, R.W., Robbins, J., Salinas, J.C., 

Straley, J.M., Wade, P.R., Krahn, M.M., 2010. Geographic variation of persistent organic pollutant levels in 

humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) feeding areas of the North Pacific and North Atlantic. Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry 29, 824–834.

Elner, R., Vadas, Sr., R.L., 1990. Inference in ecology: the sea urchin phenomenon in the Northwestern Atlantic. 

American Naturalist 136, 108–125.

Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L.C.M., Carson, H.S., Thiel, M., Moore, C.J., Borerro, J.C., Galgani, F., Ryan, P.G., Reisser, 

J., 2014. Plastic pollution in the world’s oceans: more than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons 

afloat at sea. PLoS ONE 9, e111913.

Etheridge, S.M., 2010. Paralytic shellfish poisoning: seafood safety and human health perspectives. Toxicon 56, 

108–122.

Federal Register, 2008. Endangered fish and wildlife; final rule To implement speed restrictions to reduce the threat 

of ship collisions with North Atlantic right whales. Vol. 73, No. 198, 60173–60191.

Federal Register, 2017. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act provisions; fisheries of the 

northeastern United States; northeast groundfish fishery; fishing year 2017; recreational management measures. 

Vol. 82, No. 145, 35457–35467.

Fernandes, L.F., Hubbard, K.A., Richlen, M.L., Smith, J., Bates, S.S., Ehrman, J., Léger, C., Mafra, L.L., Kulis, D., 

Quilliam, M., Libera, K., McCauley, L., Anderson, D.M., 2014. Diversity and toxicity of the diatom Pseudonitzschia Peragallo in the Gulf of Maine, Northwestern Atlantic Ocean. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical 

Studies in Oceanography 103, 139–162.
Literature Cited

191

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

FGDC (Federal Geographic Data Committee), 2012. Coastal and marine ecological classification standard, version 

4.0. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Marine and Coastal Spatial Data Subcommittee, Reston, VA.

Fisher, B., Turner, K., Zylstra, M., Brouwer, R., Groot, R., Farber, S., Ferraro, P., Green, R., Hadley, D., Harlow, J., 

Jefferiss, P., Kirkby, C., Morling, P., Mowatt, S., Naidoo, R., Paavola, J., Strassburg, B., Yu, D., Balmford, A., 

2008. Ecosystem services and economic theory: integration for policy-relevant research. Ecological Applications 

18, 2050–2067.

Fisher, W., Santavay, D., Bradley, P., Principe, P., Peter, P., Yee S., Johnson, E., 2011. Measures to assess coral reef 

ecosystem services. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National 

Health and Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL.

Fogarty, M.J., Cohen, E.B., Michaels, W.L., Morse, W.W., 1991. Predation and the regulation of sand lance 

populations: an exploratory analysis. ICES Marine Science Symposium 193, 120–124.

Francis, C.D., Barber, J.R, 2013. A framework for understanding noise impacts on wildlife: an urgent conservation 

priority. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11, 305–313.

Friedland, K.D., Leaf, R.T., Tommasi, J., Asch, R.G., Rebuck, N., Ji, R., Large, S., Stock, C., Saba, V.S., 2015. 

Spring bloom dynamics and zooplankton biomass response on the US Northeast Continental Shelf. Continental 

Shelf Research 102, 47–61.

Gallup, 2017. “Environment”. http://news.gallup.com/poll/1615/environment.aspx (accessed 10 November 2017).

GARFO (Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office), 2017a. “Data matching imputation system”. National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region Headquarters. 

https://inport.nmfs.noaa.gov/inport/item/17328 (accessed 20 October 2017).

GARFO (Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office), 2017b. “New England/Mid-Atlantic.” 

https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/pcp/index.html (accessed 28 December 2017).

GARFO (Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office), 2019a. “Whale watching and wildlife viewing in New 

England and the Mid-Atlantic”. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Fisheries.

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-life-viewing-guidelines/whale-watching-andwildlife-viewing-new (accessed 02 May 2019).

GARFO (Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office), 2019b. “Data matching and imputation system.” National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Fisheries. https://inport.nmfs.noaa.gov/inport/item/17328

(accessed 10 December 2017).

Gedamke, J., Harrison, J., Hatch, L.T., Angliss, R., Barlow, J., Berchok, C., Caldow, C., Castellote, M., Cholewiak, 

D., DeAngelis, M.L., Dziak, R., Garland, E., Guan, S., Hastings, S., Holt, M., Laws, B., Mellinger, D., Moore, S., 

Moore, T.J., Oleson, E., Pearson-Meyer, J., Piniak, W., Redfern, J., Rowles, T., Scholik-Schlomer, A., Smith, A., 

Soldevilla, M., Stadler, J., Van Parijs, S., Wahle, C., 2016. Ocean Noise Strategy Roadmap. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD 144 pp.

Gledhill, D.K., White, M.M., Salisbury, J., Thomas, H., Misna, I., Liebman, M., Mook, B., Grear, J., Candelmo, 

A.C., Chambers, R.C., Gobler, C.J., Hunt, C.W., King, A.L., Price, N.N., Signorini, S.R., Stancioff, E., Stymiest, 

C., Wahle, R.A., Waller, J.D., Rebuck, N.D., Wang, Z.A., Capson, T.L., Morrison, J.R., Cooley, S.R., Doney, 

S.C., 2015. Ocean and coastal acidification off New England and Nova Scotia. Oceanography 28, 182–197.

Gobler, C.J., Doherty, O.M., Hattenrath-Lehmann, T.K., Griffith, A.W., Kang, Y., Litaker, R.W., 2017. Ocean 

warming since 1982 has expanded the niche of toxic algal blooms in the North Atlantic and North Pacific oceans. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114, 4975–4980.

Golet, W.J., Galuardi, B., Cooper, A.B., Lutcavage, M.E., 2013. Changes in the distribution of Atlantic bluefin tuna 

(Thunnus thynnus) in the Gulf of Maine 1979-2005. PloS ONE 8, e75480.
Literature Cited

192

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Gornik, K., Lin, T., McDonald, G., Ng, N., Quigley, C., Viana, D., 2013. The non-market value of private 

recreational boating in Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. A group project submitted in partial 

satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Science and Management for the Bren 

School of Environmental Science and Management at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Grabowski, J.H., Bachman, M., Demarest, C., Eayrs, S., Harris, B.P., Malkoski, V., Packer, D., Stevenson, D., 2014. 

Assessing the vulnerability of marine benthos to fishing gear impacts. Reviews in Fisheries Science and 

Aquaculture 22, 142–155.

Grannis, B.M., 2005. Impacts of mobile fishing gear and a buried fiber-optic cable on soft-sediment benthic 

community structure. MS thesis. University of Maine, Orono, ME.

Grieve, B.D., Hare, J.A., Saba, V.S., 2017. Projecting the effects of climate change on Calanus finmarchicus

distribution within the U.S. Northeast Continental Shelf. Scientific Reports 7, 6264. 

Grieve, B.D., Curchitser, E.N., Rykaczewski, R.R., 2016. Range expansion of the invasive lionfish in the Northwest 

Atlantic with climate change. Marine Ecology Progress Series 546, 225–237.

Gutenkunst, R., Newlands, N., Lutcavage, M., Edelstein-Keshet, L., 2007. Inferring resource distributions from 

Atlantic bluefin tuna movements: an analysis based on net displacement and length of track. Journal of 

Theoretical Biology 245, 243–257.

Hackett, S.C., Hansen, M.D., King, D., Price, E., 2009. The economic structure of California’s commercial fisheries. 

A report in fulfillment of contract P0670015. California Department of Fish and Game (now California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife), Monterey, CA.

Hare, J.A., Manderson, J.P., Nye, J.A., Alexander, M.A., Auster, P.J., Borggaard, D.L., Capotondi, A.M., DamonRandall, K.B., Heupel, E., Mateo, I., O'Brien, L., Richardson, D.E., Stock, C.A., Biegel, S.T., 2012. Cusk (Brosme 

brosme) and climate change: assessing the threat to a candidate marine fish species under the US Endangered 

Species Act. ICES Journal of Marine Science 69, 1753–1768.

Hare, J.A., Morrison, W.E., Nelson, M.W., Stachura, M.M., Teeters, E.J., Griffis, R.B., Alexander, M.A., Scott, 

J.D., Alade, L., Bell, R.J., Chute, A.S., Curti, K.L., Curtis, T.H., Kircheis, D., Kocik, J.F., Lucey, S.M., 

McCandless, C.T., Milke, L.M., Richardson, D.E., Robillard, E., Walsh, H.J., McManus, M.C., Marancik, K.E., 

Griswold, C.A., 2016. A vulnerability assessment of fish and invertebrates to climate change on the northeast U.S.

continental shelf. PLoS ONE 11, e0146756.

Hatch, L.T., Fristrup, K.M., 2009. No barrier at the boundaries: implementing regional frameworks for noise 

management in protected natural areas. Marine Ecology Progress Series 395, 223–244. 

Hatch, L., Clark, C., Merrick, R., Van Parijs, S., Ponirakis, D., Schwehr, K., Thompson, M., Wiley, D., 2008. 

Characterizing the relative contributions of large vessels to total ocean noise fields: a case study using the Gerry 

E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Environmental Management 42, 735–752.

Hatch, L.T., Clark, C., Merrick, R., Van Parijs, S., Ponirakis, D., Schwehr, K., Thompson, M., Wiley, D., 2009. 

Erratum to: Characterizing the relative contributions of large vessels to total ocean noise fields: a case study using 

the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Environmental Management 44, 998.

Hatch, L.T., Clark, C.W., Van Parijs, S.M., Frankel, A.S., Ponirakis, D.W., 2012. Quantifying loss of acoustic 

communication space for right whales in and around a U. S. National Marine Sanctuary. Conservation Biology 26, 

21–28.

Hatch, J.M., Wiley, D., Murray, K.T., Welch, L., 2015. Integrating satellite-tagged seabird and fishery-dependent 

data: a case study of great shearwaters (Puffinus gravis) and the U.S. New England sink gillnet fishery. 

Conservation Letters 9, 43–50.
Literature Cited

193

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Hatch, L.T., Wahle, C.M., Gedamke, J., Harrison, J., Laws, B., Moore, S.E., Van Parijs, S.M., 2016. Can you hear 

me here? Managing acoustic habitat in US waters. Endangered Species Research 30, 171–186.

Haver, S.M., Gedamke, J., Hatch, L.T., Dziak, R.P., Van Parijs, S.M., McKenna, M.F., Barlow, J.P., Berchok, C., 

DiDonato, E., Hanson, B., Haxel, J., Holt, M., Lipski, D., Matsumoto, H., Meinig, C., Mellinger, D.K., Moore, 

S.K., Oleson, E.M., Soldevilla, M.S., Klinck, H., 2018. Monitoring long-term soundscape trends in U.S. waters: 

the NOAA/NPS Ocean Noise Reference Station Network. Marine Policy 90, 6–13.

Haver, S.M., Fournet, M.E.H., Dziak, R.P., Gabriele, C., Gedamke, J., Hatch, L.T., Haxel, J., Heppell, S.A., 

McKenna, M.F., Mellinger, D.K., Van Parijs, S.M., 2019. Comparing the underwater soundscapes of four U.S. 

national parks and marine sanctuaries. Frontiers in Marine Science 6, 500.

Hayes, S.A., Josephson, E., Maze-Foley, K., Rosel, P.E. (Eds.), 2017. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessments -- 2016. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-241. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Woods Hole, MA.

Hazen, E.L., Friedlaender, A.S., Thompson, M.A., Ware, C., Weinrich, M.T., Halpin, P.N., Wiley, D.N., 2009. Finescale prey aggregations and foraging ecology of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 395, 75–89.

Heath, D.B. (Ed.), 1986. Mourt's relation: a journal of the pilgrims at Plymouth, first thus edition. Applewood 

Books, Bedford, MA.

Hellin, D., Wiggins, J., Uiterwyk, K., Starbuck, K., Napoli, N., Terkla, D., Watson, C., Roman, A., Roach, L., 

Welch, T., 2011. 2010 Massachusetts Recreational Boater Survey. Technical Report 03.UHI.11. Massachusetts 

Ocean Partnership, Boston, MA.

Hernandez, K.M., Risch, D., Cholewiak, D.M., Dean, M.J., Hatch, L.T., Hoffman, W.S., Rice, A.N., Zemeckis, D., 

Van Parijs, S.M., 2013. Acoustic monitoring of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in Massachusetts Bay: implications 

for management and conservation. ICES Journal of Marine Science 70, 628–635.

Huang, H., Winter, J.M., Osterberg, E.C., Horton, R.M., Beckage, B., 2017. Total and extreme precipitation changes 

over the northeastern United States. Journal of Hydrometeorology 18, 1783–1798.

Hunt, C.D., Hall, M., Pala, S., Dahlen, D.T., 2006. A review and summary of toxic contaminants in Boston Harbor 

and Massachusetts Bay: 1990 to 2005. Report ENQUAD 2006-23. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, 

Boston, MA.

HydroQual, 2000. Bays Eutrophication Model (BEM): modeling analysis for the period 1992-1994. Report 

ENQUAD 2000-02. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA.

IMO (International Maritime Organization), 2013. Noise from commercial shipping and its adverse impacts on 

marine life: outcome of DE 57. MEPC 66/17. International Maritime Organization, London.

Jech, J.M., Stroman, F., 2012. Aggregative patterns of pre-spawning Atlantic herring on Georges Bank from 1999-

2010. Aquatic Living Resources 25, 1–14.

Jensen, F.H., Bejder, L., Wahlberg, M., Aguilar De Soto, N., Johnson, M.P., Madsen, P.T., 2009. Vessel noise 

effects on delphinid communication. Marine Ecology Progress Series 395, 161–175.

Jepson, M., Colburn L.L., 2013. Development of social indicators of fishing community vulnerability and resilience 

in the U.S. Southeast and Northeast Regions. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-129. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Silver Spring, MD. 
Literature Cited

194

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Ji, R., Feng, Z., Jones, B.T., Thompson, C., Chen, C., Record, N.R., Runge, J.A., 2017. Coastal amplification of 

supply and transport (CAST): a new hypothesis about the persistence of Calanus finmarchicus in the Gulf of 

Maine. ICES Journal of Marine Science 74, 1865–1874.

Jones, O.A.H., Voulvoulis, N., Lester, J.N., 2005. Human pharmaceuticals in wastewater treatment processes. 

Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 35, 401–427.

Kalnejais, L.H., Martin, W.R., Bothner, M.H., 2015. Porewater dynamics of silver, lead and copper in coastal 

sediments and implications for benthic metal fluxes. Science of the Total Environment 517, 178–194.

Keller, A.A., Fruh, E.L., Johnson, M.M., Simon, V., McGourty, C., 2010. Distribution and abundance of 

anthropogenic marine debris along the shelf and slope of the U.S. West Coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60, 692–

700.

Kimbrough, K.L., Johnson, W.E., Lauenstein, G.G., Christensen, J.D., Apeti., D.A., 2009. An assessment of 

polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in sediments and bivalves of the U.S. coastal zone. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NOS NCCOS 94. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.

Kolpin, D.W., Furlong, E.T., Meyer, M.T., Thurman, E.M., Zaugg, S.D., Barber, L.B., Buxton, H.T., 2002. 

Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999-2000: a national 

reconnaissance. Environmental Science and Technology 36, 1202–1211.

Labaree, J.M., 2012. Sector management in New England’s groundfish fishery: dramatic change spurs innovation. 

Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Portland, ME.

Lambert, Y., 2008. Why should we closely monitor fecundity in marine fish populations? Journal of Northwest 

Atlantic Fishery Science 41, 93–106.

Lautzenheiser, T.E., Collins, J.M, Ricci, E.H., Clarke, J., 2014. Losing ground: planning for resilience. 

Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln, MA.

Law, K.L., Morét-Ferguson, S., Maximenko, N.A., Proskurowski, G., Peacock, E.E., Hafner, J., Reddy, C.M., 2010. 

Plastic accumulation in the North Atlantic subtropical gyre. Science 329, 1185–1188.

Lawrence, M., Marx, D., Galluzzo, J., 2015. Shipwrecks of Stellwagen Bank: disaster in New England’s national 

marine sanctuary. The History Press, Charleston, SC.

Lawson, J.W., Magalhães, A.M., Miller, E.H., 1998. Important prey species of marine vertebrate predators in the 

northwest Atlantic: proximate composition and energy density. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 164, 13–20.

Leeworthy, V.R., Schwarzmann, D., Reyes Saade, D., 2017. Technical appendix: non-market economic value of 

recreation use on the outer coast of Washington and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, An Attributes 

Approach: Volume 5, 2014. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-17-9. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver 

Spring, MD.

Lefebvre, K.A., Robertson, A., 2010. Domoic acid and human exposure risks: a review. Toxicon 56, 218–230.

Li, L., Pala, F., Jiang, M., Krahforst, C., Wallace, G.T., 2010. Three-dimensional modeling of Cu and Pb 

distributions in Boston Harbor, Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 88, 450–

463.

Libby, P.S., Borkman, D.G., Geyer, W.R., Turner, J.T., Costa, A.S., Wang, J., Codiga, D., Taylor D., 2017. 2016 

water column monitoring results. Report 2017-11. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA.

Link, J.S., Auster, P.J., 2013. The challenges of evaluating competition among marine fishes: who cares, when does 

it matter, and what can one do about it? Bulletin of Marine Science 89, 213–247.
Literature Cited

195

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Link, J.S., Garrison, L.P., 2002. Trophic ecology of Atlantic cod Gadus morhua on the northeast U.S. continental 

shelf. Marine Ecology Progress Series 227, 109–123.

Link, J.S., Garrison, L.P., Almeida, F.P., 2002. Ecological interactions between elasmobranchs and groundfish 

species on the northeast U.S. continental shelf. I. Evaluating predation. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 22, 550–562.

Link, J.S., Bogstad, B., Sparholt, H., Lilly, G.R., 2009. Trophic role of Atlantic cod in the ecosystem. Fish and 

Fisheries 10, 58–87.

Lipton, D., Rubenstein, M.A., Weiskopf, S.R., Carter, S., Peterson, J., Crozier, L., Fogarty, M., Gaichas, S., Hyde, 

K.J.W., Morelli, T.L., Morisette, J., Moustahfid, H., Muñoz, R., Poudel, R., Staudinger, M.D., Stock, C., 

Thompson, L., Waples, R., Weltzin, J.F., 2018. Ecosystems, ecosystem services, and biodiversity, in: Reidmiller, 

D.R., Avery, C.W., Easterling, D.R., Kinkel, K.E., Lewis, K.L.M., Maycock, T.K., Stewart, B.C. (Eds.) Fourth 

National Climate Assessment, Volume II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States. U.S. Global 

Change Research Program, Washington, DC, pp. 268–321.

Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.D., 2009. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge.

Lovelace, S., Fletcher, P., Dillard, M., Nuttle, W., Patterson, S., Ortner, P., Loomis, D., Shivlani, M., 2013. 

Selecting human dimensions indicators for South Florida’s coastal marine ecosystem – noneconomic indicators. 

Marine and Estuarine Goal Setting for South Florida (MARES) White Paper, Ocean Chemistry and Ecosystems 

Division, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Miami, FL. 

Lucey, S.M., Nye, J.A., 2010. Shifting species assemblages in the northeast U.S. continental shelf large marine 

ecosystem. Marine Ecology Progress Series 415, 23–33.

Lynch, B., 2017. Hook and line interactions involving humpback whales in the southern Gulf of Maine. Poster 

presented at the 22nd Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, October 22-27, 2017, Halifax, 

Nova Scotia.

MA DMF (Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries), 2017. “Industry-based trawl survey for Gulf of Maine 

cod”. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. https://www.mass.gov/service-details/industry-based-survey-for-gulf-ofmaine-cod (accessed 02 February 2018).

MA DMF (Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries), 2019. “American lobster research and monitoring”.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. https://www.mass.gov/service-details/american-lobster-research-andmonitoring (accessed 02 February 2018).

Marshall, S.M., Orr, A., 1972. The biology of a marine copepod: Calanus finmarchicus (Gunnerus). Springer, 

Berlin.

Martín, J., Puig, P., Palanques, A., Giamportone, A., 2014. Commercial bottom trawling as a driver of sediment 

dynamics and deep seascape evolution in the Anthropocene. Anthropocene 7, 1–15.

Massport, 2019. “Containerized cargo”. http://www.massport.com/conley-terminal/about-the-port/portstatistics/conley-terminal/containerized-cargo-volumes/ (accessed 12 November 2019).

McKenna, M.F., Gabriele, C., Kipple, B., 2017. Effects of marine vessel management on the underwater acoustic 

environment of Glacier Bay National Park, AK. Ocean and Coastal Management 139, 102–112.

McManus, M.C, Oviatt, C.A., Giblin, A.E., Tucker, J., Turner, J.T., 2014. The Western Maine Coastal Current 

reduces primary production rates, zooplankton abundance and benthic nutrient fluxes in Massachusetts Bay. ICES 

Journal of Marine Science 71, 1158–1169.
Literature Cited

196

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. A framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

Meyer, T.L., Cooper, R.A. Langton R.W., 1979. Relative abundance, behavior, and food habits of the American 

sand lance, Ammodytes americanus, from the Gulf of Maine. Fishery Bulletin 77, 243–254.

Meyer-Gutbrod, E.L., Greene, C.H., Sullivan, P.J., Pershing, A.J., 2015. Climate-associated changes in prey 

availability drive reproductive dynamics of the North Atlantic right whale population. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series 535, 243–258

Mires, C.H., 2014. The value of maritime archaeological heritage: an exploratory study of the cultural capital of 

shipwrecks in the graveyard of the Atlantic. Doctoral dissertation. East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.

MPAFAC (Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee), 2011. Recommendations for integrated 

management using a cultural landscape approach in the national MPA system. National Marine Protected Areas 

Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.

Muench, A., DePiper, G.S., Demarest, C., 2017. On the precision of predicting fishing location using data from the 

vessel monitoring system (VMS). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 75, 1036–1047.

MWRA, 2018. “About MWRA”. http://www.mwra.com/02org/html.whatis.htm, (accessed 11 June 2018).

Nair, A., Thomas, A.C., Borsuk, M.E., 2013. Interannual variability in the timing of New England shellfish toxicity 

and relationships to environmental forcing. Science of the Total Environment 447, 255–266.

NEFMC (New England Fishery Management Council), 2014a. Recreational Advisory Panel Meeting Summary. 

Newburyport, Massachusetts.

NEFMC (New England Fishery Management Council), 2014b. Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2. Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1. New England Fishery Management Council, Newburyport, MA.

NEFMC (New England Fishery Management Council), 2018. Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2. Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1. New England Fishery Management Council, Newburyport, MA. 

NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center), 2013. 55th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (55th 

SAW) Assessment Report. U.S. Department of Commerce, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference 

Document 13-11. National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, MA.

NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center), 2017a. Gulf of Maine Atlantic cod: 2017 Assessment Update Report. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA.

NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center), 2017b. State of the Ecosystem - Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank. 

Ecosystem Dynamics and Assessment Branch, Northeast Fisheries Science Center. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, 

MA. 

NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center), 2017c. [NEFSC Observer Program 2007-2016]. Unpublished data.

[dataset] NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center), 2018a. Commercial fisheries VTR catch data by species in 

the SBNMS. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, MA

NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center), 2018b. 65th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (65th 

SAW) Assessment Summary Report. U.S. Department of Commerce, Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Reference Document 18-08. National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, MA.

NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center), 2019. “Northeast Fisheries Sampling Branch”. 

https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/femad/fsb/ (accessed 31 January 2018).
Literature Cited

197

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Nelson, G.A., Ross, M.R., 1991. Biology and population changes of northern sand lance (Ammodytes dubius) from 

the Gulf of Maine to the Middle Atlantic Bight. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 11, 11–27.

Nestler, E.C., Diaz, R.J., Hecker, B., Pembroke, A.E., Keay, K.E., 2015. Outfall benthic monitoring report: 2014 

results. Report 2015-08. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA.

Nestler, E.C, Pembroke, A.E., Lao, Y., 2016. 2015 fish and shellfish tissue chemistry report. Report 2016-13. 

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA.

Nestler, E.C., Diaz, R.J., Pembroke, A.E., 2017. Outfall benthic monitoring report: 2016 results. Report 2017-08. 

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA.

NMMA (National Marine Manufacturers Association), 2016. 2016 Recreational Boating Statistical Abstract. 

National Marine Manufacturers Association, Chicago, IL.

NMSP (National Marine Sanctuary Program), 2004. A monitoring framework for the National Marine Sanctuary 

System. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean 

Service, National Marine Sanctuary Program, Silver Spring, MD. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2018a. “What percentage of the American population 

lives near the coast?” U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Ocean Service. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html (accessed 13 January 2018).

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2018b. Mapping social vulnerability. U.S. Department 

of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of 

Science and Technology. https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map (accessed 3 

January 2018).

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2019a. “Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) 

framework.” https://www.integratedecosystemassessment.noaa.gov/ (accessed 1 January 2018).

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2019b. “Relative sea level trend: 8443970 Boston, 

Massachusetts”. NOAA Tides and Currents. 

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8443970 (accessed 20 December, 2019).

NOAA Fisheries, 2019a. “Active and closed unusual mortality events.” 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/active-and-closed-unusual-mortality-events (accessed 

3 December 2019).

NOAA Fisheries, 2019b. “Species directory.” https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species-directory (accessed 5 

November 2019).

NOAA Fisheries, 2019c. “Humpback whale.” https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/humpback-whale#overview

(accessed 17 December 2019).

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Marine Debris Program, 2014a. Report on the 

entanglement of marine species in marine debris with an emphasis on species in the United States. NOAA 

National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Marine Debris Program, 2014b. Report on the 

occurrence and health effects of anthropogenic debris ingested by marine organisms. NOAA National Ocean 

Service, Silver Spring, MD.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Marine Debris Program, 2016. Report on Marine 

Debris Impacts on Coastal and Benthic Habitats. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Marine Debris Program. 
Literature Cited

198

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, 2019. [Speed-filtered vessel monitoring system (VMS) data from Greater 

Atlantic VMS Program]. Unpublished data.

NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 2007. Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary 

Condition Report 2007. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Silver Spring, MD.

NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 2010. Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Final 

Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.

NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 2018a. Guide for developing national marine sanctuary condition 

reports. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD.

[dataset] NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 2018b. Permits issued for Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary between 2007 and 2018. NMS Osprey Permits Database. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Silver Spring, MD. 

[dataset] NOAA Office of Science and Technology, 2017. “Foreign fishery trade data”. Annual data, product by 

country/association. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA 

Fisheries, Silver Spring, MD. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/sustainable-fisheries/foreign-fishery-tradedata (accessed 12 December 2017).

Nowacek, S.M., Wells, R.S., Solow, A,R., 2001. Short-term effects of boat traffic on bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops 

truncatus, in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Science 17, 673–688.

NPS (National Park Service), 2018. “Vital Signs Monitoring”. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service.

NRC (National Research Council), 2002. Effects of trawling and dredging on seafloor habitat. The National 

Academies Press, Washington, DC.

Nuttle, W.K. Fletcher, P.J. (Eds.), 2013. Integrated conceptual ecosystem model development for the Florida 

Keys/Dry Tortugas coastal marine ecosystem. NOAA Technical Memorandum, OAR-AOML-101 and NOS-NCCOS-161. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Miami, FL.

Nye, J.A., Link, J.S. Hare, J.A., Overholtz, W.J., 2009. Changing spatial distribution of fish stocks in relation to 

climate and population size on the northeast United States continental shelf. Marine Ecology Progress Series 393, 

111–129. 

Ocean Studies Board, 2002. Effects of trawling and dredging on seafloor habitat. The National Academies Press, 

Washington, DC.

O’Connor, S., Campbell, R., Cortez, H., Knowles, T., 2009. Whale watching worldwide: tourism numbers, 

expenditures and expanding economic benefits. Special report prepared by Economists at Large. International 

Fund for Animal Welfare, Yarmouth, MA. 

OMB (Office of Management and Budget), 2004. Final information quality bulletin for peer review. Memorandum 

for Heads of Departments and Agencies, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, 

Washington, DC.

ONMS (Office of National Marine Sanctuaries), 2018. Guide for developing national marine sanctuary condition 

reports. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD.
Literature Cited

199

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

O’Neil, J.M., Davis, T.W., Burford, M.A., Gobler, C.J., 2012. The rise of harmful cyanobacteria blooms: the 

potential roles of eutrophication and climate change. Harmful Algae 14, 313–334.

Oviatt, C.A., Hyde, K.J.W., Keller, A.A., Turner, J.T., 2007. Production patterns in Massachusetts Bay with outfall 

relocation. Estuaries and Coasts 30, 35–46.

Pace III, R.M., Corkeron, P.J., Kraus, S.D., 2017. State–space mark–recapture estimates reveal a recent decline in 

abundance of North Atlantic right whales. Ecology and Evolution 7, 8730–8741.

Paine, R.T., 1966. Food web complexity and species diversity. American Naturalist 100, 65–75.

Palmer, M.C., Wigley, S.E., 2007. Validating the stock apportionment of commercial fisheries landings using 

positional data from vessel monitoring systems (VMS). Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 

07-22. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA.

Palmer, M.C., Wigley, S.E., 2009. Using positional data from vessel monitoring systems to validate the logbookreported area fished and the stock allocation of commercial fisheries landings. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 29, 928–942.

Parks Canada, 2019. “Ecological integrity”. Government of Canada, Parks Canada.

https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/nature/science/conservation/ie-ei (accessed 25 November 2019). 

Parsons, C., 1997. Education makes a difference: using evaluation to demonstrate that education is an effective 

management tool. National Estuarine Research Reserves (NERRS) Educator’s Meeting, February 19–23, 1997. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Sanctuary and Reserves 

Division, Silver Spring, MD.

Payne, P.M., Wiley, D.N., Young, S.B., Pittman, S., Clapham, P.J., Jossi, J.W., 1990. Recent fluctuations in the 

abundance of baleen whales in the southern Gulf of Maine in relation to changes in selected prey. Fishery Bulletin 

88, 687–696.

Pershing, A.J., Alexander, M.A., Hernandez, C.M., Kerr, L.A., Le Bris, A., Mills, K.E., Nye, J.A., Record, N.R., 

Scannell, H.A., Scott, J.D., Sherwood, G.D., Thomas, A.C., 2015. Slow adaptation in the face of rapid warming 

leads to collapse of the Gulf of Maine cod fishery. Science 350, 809–812.

Piggott, C.L., 1964. Ambient sea noise at low frequencies in shallow water of the Scotian Shelf. The Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America 36, 2152–2163.

Pilskaln, C.H., Churchill, J.H., Mayer, L.M., 1998. Resuspension of sediment by bottom trawling in the Gulf of 

Maine and potential geochemical consequences. Conservation Biology 12, 1223–1229.

Pirotta, E., Merchant, N.D., Thompson, P.M., Barton, T.R., Lusseau, D., 2015. Quantifying the effect of boat 

disturbance on bottlenose dolphin foraging activity. Biological Conservation 181, 82–89.

Pittman, S.J., 2019. Relevance of the Northeast Integrated Ecosystem Assessment for the Stellwagen Bank National 

Marine Sanctuary Condition Report (2007-2017). Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Science Series ONMS-19-08. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 

Powell, E.J., Tyrell, M.C., Milliken, A., Tirpak, J.M, Staudinger, M.D., 2017. A synthesis of thresholds for focal 

species along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts: a review of research and applications. Ocean and Coastal 

Management 148, 75–88.

Power, M.E., Tilman, D., Estes, J.A., Menge, B.A., Bond, W.J., Mills, L.S., Daily, G., Castilla, J.C., Lubchenco, J., 

Paine, R.T., 1996. Challenges in the quest for keystones. BioScience 46, 609–620.
Literature Cited

200

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Powers, K.D., Wiley, D.N., Allyn, A.J., Welch, L.J., Ronconi, R.A., 2017. Movements and foraging habitats of great 

shearwaters Puffinus gravis in the Gulf of Maine. Marine Ecology Progress Series 574, 211–226.

Powers, K.D., Wiley, D.N., Robuck, A.R., Olson, Z.H., Welch, L.J., Kaufman, L., 2019. [Spatiotemporal 

characterization of non-breeding great shearwaters Ardenna gravis within their wintering range.] Unpublished 

data.

Redfern, J., Hatch, L.T., Caldow, C., DeAngelis, M.L., Gedamke, J., Hastings, S., Henderson, L., McKenna, M.L., 

Moore, T.J., Porter, M.B., 2017. Assessing the risk of chronic shipping noise to baleen whales off Southern 

California, USA. Endangered Species Research 32, 153–167.

Reidmiller, D.R., Avery, C.W., Easterling, D.R., Kunkel, K.E., Lewis, K.L.M., Maycock, T.K., Stewart, B.C. (Eds.), 

2018. Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: fourth national climate assessment, volume II. U.S. 

Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA. 

Rennie, M.D., Collins, N.C., Shuter, B.J., Rajotte, J.W., Couture, P., 2005. A comparison of methods for estimating 

activity costs of wild fish populations: more active fish observed to grow slower. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences 62, 767–780.

Reygondeau, G., Beaugrand, G., 2011. Future climate-driven shifts in distribution of Calanus finmarchicus. Global 

Change Biology 17, 756–766.

Richardson, W.J., Greene Jr., C.R., Malme, C.I., Thomson, D.H., 1995. Marine mammals and noise. Academic 

Press, San Diego, CA.

Richardson, D.E., Palmer, M.C. and Smith, B.E., 2014. The influence of forage fish abundance on the aggregation 

of Gulf of Maine Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) and their catchability in the fishery. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences 71, 1349–1362.

Rolland, R.M., Parks, S.E., Hunt, K.E., Castellote, M., Corkeron, P.J., Nowacek, D.P., Wasser, S.K., Kraus, S.D., 

2012. Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological 

Sciences 279, 2363–2368.

Runge, J.A., Ji, R., Thompson, C.R., Record, N.R., Chen, C., Vandemark, D.C., Salisbury, J.E. and Maps, F., 2014. 

Persistence of Calanus finmarchicus in the western Gulf of Maine during recent extreme warming. Journal of 

Plankton Research 37, 221–232.

Rutecki, D., Nestler, E., Hasevlat, R., 2017. Quality assurance project plan for benthic monitoring. Report 2017-06. 

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA.

Salisbury, J.E., Jönsson, B.F., 2018. Rapid warming and salinity changes in the Gulf of Maine alter surface ocean 

carbonate parameters and hide ocean acidification. Biogeochemistry 141, 401–418.

SBNMS (Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary), 2013. [Monitoring ocean acidification in Stellwagen Bank 

National Marine Sanctuary: a pilot project]. Unpublished data. 

Schwarzmann, D., Nachbar, S., Pollack, N., Leeworthy, V., Hitz, S., 2017. Ocean Guardian – parents’ values and 

opinions of an ocean conservation and stewardship educational program. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series 

ONMS-17-08. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD.

Schwarzmann, D., R. Shea, V.R. Leeworthy, S. Steinbeck, M. Thompson, and C. Dato. 2020. Estimates of 

Economic Contributions and Fishing Effort for Commercial and For-Hire Recreational Fisheries Effort in 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-20-05. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 195 pp.
Literature Cited

201

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Schweitzer, C. C., Lipcius, R. N., and Stevens, B. G. 2018. Impacts of a multi-trap line on benthic habitat containing 

emergent epifauna within the Mid-Atlantic Bight. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 75: 2202–2212.

Shaw, S.D., Brenner, D., Bourakovsky, A., Mahaffey, C.A., Perkins, C.R., 2005. Polychlorinated biphenyls and 

chlorinated pesticides in harbor seals (Phoca vitulina concolor) from the northwestern Atlantic coast. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin 50, 1069–1084.

Shaw, S., Berger, M.L., Brenner, D., Tao, L., Wu, Q., Kannan, K., 2009a. Specific accumulation of 

perfluorochemicals in harbor seals (Phoca vitulina concolor) from the northwest Atlantic. Chemosphere 74, 

1037–1043.

Shaw, S.D., Kannan, K., 2009b. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers in marine ecosystems of the American continents: 

foresight from current knowledge. Reviews on Environmental Health 24, 157–229.

Shaw, S.D., Berger, M.L., Weijs, L., Päpke, O., Covaci, A., 2014. Polychlorinated biphenyls still pose significant 

health risks to northwest Atlantic harbor seals. Science of the Total Environment 490, 477–487.

Shepard, A.N., Theroux, R.B., Cooper, R.A., Uzmann, J.R., 1987. Ecology of Ceriantharia (Coelenterata, Anthozoa) 

of the northwest Atlantic from Cape Hatteras to Nova Scotia. Fishery Bulletin 84, 625–646.

Sherman, K., Jones, C., Sullivan, L., Smith, W., Berrien, P., Ejsymont, L., 1981. Congruent shifts in sand eel 

abundance in western and eastern North Atlantic ecosystems. Nature 291, 486–489.

Sherwood, G.D., Rideout, R.M., Fudge, S.B., Rose, G.A., 2007. Influence of diet on growth, condition and 

reproductive capacity in Newfoundland and Labrador cod (Gadus morhua): insights from stable carbon isotopes 

(δ13C). Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 54, 2794–2809.

Sherwood, J., Chidgey, S., Crockett, P., Gwyther, D., Ho, P., Stewart, S., Strong, D., Whitely, B., Williams, A., 

2016. Installation and operational effects of a HVDC submarine cable in a continental shelf setting: Bass Strait, 

Australia. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science 1, 337–353.

Silva, T.L., 2018. Habitat use and bioacoustics of toothed whales in two national marine sanctuaries. Doctoral 

dissertation. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA.

Silva, T.L., Fay, G., Mooney, T.A., Robbins, J., Weinrich, M.T., Carson, C.D., Cole, T.V.N., Thompson, M.A., 

Wiley, D.N., 2019. Habitat use of toothed whales in a marine protected area based on point process models. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series 609, 239–256.

Silva, T., Wiley, D., Thompson, M., Hong, P., Kaufman, L., Suca, J., Llopiz, J., Baumann, H., Fay, G., 2019. [High 

collocation of sand lance and protected top predators: implications for conservation and management.] 

Unpublished data.

Skinder, C.F., 2002. Marine protected areas in the Gulf of Maine: policy for a common resource. MS thesis. 

University of Maine, Orono, ME.

Smith, J., 1624. The generall historie of Virginia, New‐England, and the Summer Isles with the names of the 

adventurers, planters, and governours from their first beginning, ano 1584 to this present 1624. J. Dawson and J. 

Haviland, London.

Sobel, J., 1996. Marine reserves: necessary tools for biodiversity conservation? Global Biodiversity 6, 8–17.

Sorte, C.J.B., 2014. Synergies between climate change and species invasions: evidence from marine systems, in: 

Ziska, L.H., Dukes, J.S. (Eds.) Invasive species and global climate change. CAB, Oxfordshire, pp. 101–116.

Southall, B.L., Finneran, J.J., Reichmuth, C., Nachtigall, P.E., Ketten, D.R., Bowles, A.E., Ellison, W.T., Nowacek, 

D.P., Tyack, P.L., 2019. Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: updated scientific recommendations for residual 

hearing effects. Aquatic Mammals 45, 125–232. 
Literature Cited

202

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Stanley, J.A, Van Parijs, S.M., Hatch, L.T., 2017. Underwater sound from vessel traffic reduces the effective 

communication range in Atlantic cod and haddock. Scientific Reports 7, 14633.

Staudinger, M.D., Mills, K.E. Stamieszkin, K., Record, N.R., Hudak, C.A., Allyn, A., Diamond, A., Friedland, 

K.D., Golet, W., Henderson, M.E., Hernandez, C.M., Huntington, T.G., Ji, R., Johnson, C.L., Johnson, D.S., 

Jordaan, A., Kocik, J., Li, Y., Liebman, M., Nichols, O.C., Pendleton, D., Richards, R.A., Robben, T., Thomas, 

A.C., Walsh, H.J., Yakola, K., 2019. It’s about time: a synthesis of changing phenology in the Gulf of Maine 

ecosystem. Fisheries Oceanography 28, 532–566. 

Steimle Jr., F.W., Terranova, R.J., 1985. Energy equivalents of marine organisms from the continental shelf of the 

temperate northwest Atlantic. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 6, 117–124.

Steinback, S.R., Thunberg, E.M., 2006. Northeast region commercial fishing input-output model. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-NE-188. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA.

Stimpert, A.K., Wiley D.N., Au, W.W.L., Johnson, M.P., and Arsenault, R., 2007. ‘Megapclicks’: acoustic click 

trains and buzzes produced during night-time foraging of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). 

Biological Letters 3, 467–470.

Stratton, A., Auster, P., 2015. Glass sponge surprises researchers studying shipwreck biodiversity. Stellwagen Bank 

E-Notes: Sanctuary News and Events, May 2015, 2.

Sturdivant, S.K., Carey, D.A., 2017. Baseline seafloor assessment survey for the proposed expansion of the 

Massachusetts Bay disposal site September/October 2015. Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS) 

Contribution No. 201. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, Concord, MA.

Sunderland, E.M., Amirbahman, A., Burgess, N.M., Dalziel, J., Harding, G., Jones, S.H., Kamai, E., Karagas, M.R., 

Shi, X., Chen, C.Y., 2012. Mercury sources and fate in the Gulf of Maine. Environmental Research 119, 27–41.

Tamarin-Brodsky, T., Kaspi, Y., 2017. Enhanced poleward propagation of storms under climate change. Nature

Geoscience 10, 908–913.

Tamsett, A., Heinonen, K.B., Auster, P.J., Lindholm, J., 2010. Dynamics of hard substratum communities inside and 

outside of a fisheries closed area in Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (Gulf of Maine, NW Atlantic). 

Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-10-05. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD.

Thomas, A.C., Pershing, A.J., Friedland, K.D., Nye, J.A., Mills, K.E., Alexander, M.A., Record, N.R., Weatherbee, 

R., Henderson, M.E., 2017. Seasonal trends and phenology shifts in sea surface temperature on the North 

American northeastern continental shelf. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 5, 48. 

Townsend, D.W., Rebuck, N.D., Thomas, M.A., Karp-Boss, L., Gettings, R.M., 2010. A changing nutrient regime in 

the Gulf of Maine. Continental Shelf Research 30, 820–832.

Townsend, D.W., Pettigrew, N.R., Thomas, M.A., Neary, M.G., McGillicuddy Jr., D.J., O’Donnell, J., 2015. Water 

masses and nutrient sources to the Gulf of Maine. Journal of Marine Research 73, 93–122.

Trading Economics, 2017. “Annual growth rates of real gross domestic product of Canada, European Union, China 

and South Korea 2000 to 2022”. https://tradingeconomics.com (accessed 10 October 2017).

Urick, R.J., 1983. Principles of underwater sound, 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY.

Urick, R.J., 1984. Ambient noise in the sea. Undersea Warfare Technology Office, Naval Sea Systems Command, 

Department of the Navy, Washington, DC.
Literature Cited

203

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 2015. Massachusetts Bay disposal site restoration demonstration report 

2008–2009. Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS) Contribution No. 198. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

New England District, Concord, MA.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2015. “Population and housing unit estimates”. https://www.census.gov/programssurveys/popest.html (accessed 10 October 2017).

U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2017. “Gasoline and diesel fuel update”. 

https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/ (accessed 10 November 2017).

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2017. Draft environmental assessment on the expansion of the 

Massachusetts Bay ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 1, Boston, MA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998. Roseate tern recovery plan - northeastern population, first update. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA.

Valentine, P.C., Middleton, T.J., Fuller, S.J., 2001. Seafloor maps showing topography, sun-illuminated topographic 

imagery, and backscatter intensity of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary region off Boston, 

Massachusetts. Open-File Report 00-410. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO.

Van Parijs, S.M., Clark, C.W., Sousa-Lima, R.S., Parks, S.E., Rankin, S., Risch, D., Van Opzeeland, I.C., 2009. 

Mesoscale applications of near real-time and archival passive acoustic arrays. Marine Ecology Progress Series 

395, 21–36.

Van Parijs, S.M., Gerlach, D., Haver, S., Harrison, J., Izzi, A., Klinck, H., Matzen, E., Risch, D., Baumgartner, M., 

Cholewiak, D., Davis, G., Hatch, J., Hatch, L., Silber, G., Gedamke, J., Hotchkin, C., Thompson, M., 2015. 

NEPAN: a U.S. Northeast passive acoustic sensing network for monitoring, reducing threats and the conservation 

of marine animals. Marine Technology Society Journal 49, 70–86.

Wallmo, K., Edwards, S., 2008. Estimating non-market values of marine protected areas: a latent class modeling 

approach. Marine Resource Economics 23, 301–323.

Wang, Z., MacLeod, M., Cousins, I.T., Scheringer, M., Hungerbühler, K., 2011. Using COSMOtherm to predict 

physicochemical properties of poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFASs). Environmental Chemistry 8, 

389–398.

Wang, Z.A., Lawson, G.L., Pilskaln, C.H., Maas, A.E., 2017. Seasonal controls of aragonite saturation states in the 

Gulf of Maine. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 122, 372–389.

Wenz, G.M., 1964. Acoustic ambient noise in the ocean: spectra and sources. The Journal of the Acoustical Society 

of America 34, 1936–1956.

Werme, C., Keay, K.E., Libby, P.S., Wu, D.C., Taylor, D.I., Codiga, D.L., Coughlin, K., 2015. 2014 outfall 

monitoring overview. Report 2015-11. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA.

Werme, C., Keay, K.E., Libby, P.S., Codiga, D.L., Taylor, D.I., Wu, D.C., Charlestra, L., 2017. 2016 outfall 

monitoring overview. Report 2017-12. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA.

Wiley, D.N., Capone, V., Carey, D.A., Fish, J.P., 1991. Location survey and condition inspection of waste 

containers at the Massachusetts Bay industrial waste site and surrounding areas. Report submitted to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1. The International Wildlife Coalition, North Falmouth, MA.

Wiley, D.N., Moller, J.C., Zilinskas, K., 2003. The distribution and density of commercial fisheries and baleen 

whales within the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary: July 2001-June 2002. Marine Technology Society 

Journal 37, 35–53. 
Literature Cited

204

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Wiley, D., Hatch, L., Thompson, M., Schwehr, K., Thompson, M., MacDonald, C., 2013. Marine sanctuaries and 

marine planning: protecting endangered marine life. Coast Guard Journal of Safety and Security at Sea, 

Proceedings of the Marine Safety and Security Council 70, 10–15.

Woodall, L.C., Sanchez-Vidal, A., Canals, M., Paterson, G.L.J., Coppock, R., Sleight, V., Calafat, A., Rogers, A.D., 

Narayanaswamy, B.E., Thompson, R.C., 2014. The deep sea is a major sink for microplastic debris. Royal Society 

Open Science 1, 140317.

[dataset] Woods and Poole Economics, Inc., 2016. The Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source 

(CEDDS), Vol. 4. County data by state for Oregon through Wyoming. Woods and Poole Economics, Inc., 

Washington, DC.

Wuebbles, D.J., Fahey, D.W., Hibbard, K.A., Dokken, D.J., Stewart, B.C., Maycock, T.K. (Eds.), 2017. Climate 

Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Vol. 1. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 

Washington, DC, 2017.

Zabel, R.W., Harvey, C.J., Katz, S.L., Good, T.P., Levin, P.S., 2003. Ecologically sustainable yield. American 

Scientist 91, 150–157.

Zemeckis, D.R., Dean, M.J., DeAngelis, A.I., Van Parijs, S.M., Hoffman, W.S., Baumgartner, M.F., Hatch, L.T., 

Cadrin, S.X., McGuire, C.H., 2019. Identifying the distribution of Atlantic cod spawning using multiple fixed and 

glider-mounted acoustic technologies. ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsz064.

Zhao, L., Chen, C., Beardsley, R.C., Codiga, D.L., Leo, W.S., 2016. Simulations of 2015 hydrodynamics and water 

quality in the Massachusetts Bay system using the Bays Eutrophication Model. Report 2016-16. Massachusetts 

Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA.

Zhao, L., Beardsley, R.C., Chen, C., Codiga, D.L., Wang, L., 2017a. Simulations of 2016 hydrodynamics and water 

quality in the Massachusetts Bay system using the Bays Eutrophication Model. Report 2017-13. Massachusetts 

Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA.

Zhao, S., Breivik, K., Liu, G., Zheng, M., Jones, K.C., Sweetman, A.J., 2017b. Long-term temporal trends of 

polychlorinated biphenyls and their controlling sources in China. Environmental Science and Technology 51, 

2838–2845.
205

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

APPENDIX A:

Rating Scheme for System-Wide Monitoring Questions

The purpose of this appendix is to clarify the questions and possible responses used to report the 

condition of sanctuary resources in “condition reports” for all national marine sanctuaries. The Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) and subject matter experts used this guidance, as well as their own 

understanding of the condition of resources, to make judgments about the status and trends of sanctuary 

resources. 

The questions derive from the National Marine Sanctuary System’s mission, and a system-wide 

monitoring framework (NMSP 2004) developed to ensure the timely flow of data and information to 

those responsible for managing and protecting resources in the ocean and coastal zone, and to those that 

use, depend on, and study sanctuary resources. The questions are being used to guide ONMS and its 

partners at each of the sanctuary system’s 14 units in the development of periodic sanctuary condition 

reports. Evaluations of status and trends were based on interpretation of quantitative and, when necessary, 

non-quantitative assessments and observations of scientists, managers, and users.

In 2012, ONMS led an effort to review and edit the set of questions and their possible responses that were 

developed for the first round of condition reports (drafted between 2007 and 2014) (NMSP 2004). The 

questions that follow are revised and improved versions of those original questions. Although all 

questions have been edited to some degree, both in their description and status ratings, the nature and 

intent of most questions have not changed. Five questions (i.e., Questions 1, 8, 10, 12, and 13), however, 

are either new or are significantly altered and therefore, are not directly comparable to the original 

questions. For these, a new baseline will need to be established.

• A new question that addresses the status and trend of driving forces that ultimately influence the 

pressures on sanctuary resources was added. 

• Among the Water Quality questions, one was added on climate change. This was necessary to 

address the constantly increasing awareness and attention to the issue following the original 

design of the condition report process, which began in 2002. It also removed the need to combine 

climate change discussions with other questions. 

• Two Habitat Quality questions were combined due to feedback received during the development 

of the first round of reports. A single question regarding the “integrity of major habitat types” has 

been created and combines prior questions that separately inquired about non-biogenic and 

biogenic habitats. Our experience showed that species constituting biogenic habitat (e.g., kelp, 

corals, seagrass, etc.) were considered adequately within questions about living resources, and 

need not be covered twice in the reports.

• Among the Living Resource Quality questions, one used in the first round of condition reports 

was removed entirely. It asked about “the status of environmentally sustainable fishing.” It was 

removed for a variety of reasons — it was the only question focused on a single, specific human 

activity and because fishing activity discussions were already included in the question regarding 

“human activities that may influence living resource quality.” In addition, living resource quality 

that would provide a basis for judgement for this question was typically considered as part of 

other living resource questions, and need not be covered twice. Another change to the Living 

Resource Quality questions pertains to the question about the “health of key species” which was 
Appendix A: Rating Scheme for System-Wide Monitoring Questions

206

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

previously addressed in a single question, but is now split into two. The first asks specifically 

about the status of “keystone and foundation” species, the second about “other focal species.” In 

either case, the health of any species of interest can be considered in judgement of status and 

trends.

• One of the initial maritime archaeology questions addressed potential environmental hazards 

presented by heritage resources like shipwrecks. While the assessment of such threats is 

important, it was decided that the question should actually address environmental hazards in 

general rather than apply specifically to historic maritime properties. Therefore, the question was 

removed from the maritime heritage resources section of the report and the subject is discussed in 

the context of other questions. 

Ratings for a number of questions depend on judgments of the “ecological integrity” within a national 

marine sanctuary. This is because one of the foundational principles behind the establishment of 

sanctuaries is to protect ocean ecosystems. The term ecological integrity is used to imply “the presence of 

naturally occurring species, populations and communities, and ecological processes functioning at 

appropriate rates, scales, and levels of natural variation, as well as the environmental conditions that 

support these attributes” (modified from NPS 2018). Sanctuaries have ecological integrity when they have 

their native components intact, including abiotic components (i.e., the physical forces and chemical 

elements, such as water), biotic elements (such as habitats), biodiversity (i.e., the composition and 

abundance of species and communities), and ecological processes (e.g., competition, predation, 

symbioses) (modified from Parks Canada 2019). For purposes of this report, the level of integrity that is 

judged to exist is based on the extent to which humans have altered specific components of the system, 

and the effect of that change on the ability of an ecosystem to resist continued change and recover from it. 

The statements for many questions are intended to reflect this judgment. Reference is made in the rating 

system to “near-pristine” conditions, for which this report would imply a status as near to an unaltered 

ecosystem as can reasonably be presumed to exist, recognizing that there are virtually no ecosystems on 

Earth completely free from human influence.

Not all questions, however, use ecological integrity as a basis for judgment. One focuses on the impacts 

of water quality factors on human health. Two questions rate the status of keystone and key species 

compared with that expected in an unaltered ecosystem. One rates maritime archaeological resources 

based on their historical, archaeological, scientific, and educational value. Another considers the level and 

persistence of localized threats posed by degrading archaeological resources. Finally, four ask specifically 

about the levels of ongoing human activities (i.e., Pressures) that could affect resource condition. 

During workshops in which status and trends are rated, subject matter experts discuss each question and 

available data, literature (e.g., published scientific studies, reports), and experience associated with the 

topic. They then discuss the statements provided as options for judgments about status; these statements 

have been customized for each question. Once a particular statement is agreed upon, a color code and 

status rating (e.g., good, fair, poor) is assigned. Experts can also decide that the most appropriate rating is 

“N/A” (i.e., the question does not apply) or “Undet.” (i.e., resource status is undetermined due to a 

paucity of relevant information).

A subsequent discussion is then held about the trend. Conditions are determined to be improving, 

remaining the same, or worsening in comparison to the results found in the first round of condition 

reports. Symbols used to indicate trends are the same for all questions: “▲” — conditions appear to be 
Appendix A: Rating Scheme for System-Wide Monitoring Questions

207

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

improving; “▬” — conditions do not appear to be changing; “▼” — conditions appear to be worsening; 

and “?” — trend is undetermined.

Drivers/Pressures

Question 1 (Drivers/Human Activities): What are the states of influential human drivers 

and how are they changing?

Driving forces are those characteristics of human societies that influence the nature and extent of 

pressures on resources. They are the underlying cause of change in coastal marine ecosystems, as they 

determine human use. Drivers are influenced by demographics (e.g., age structure, population, etc.), 

demand, economic circumstances, industrial development patterns, business trends, and societal values. 

They operate at global, regional, and local scales. Examples include increasing global demand for 

agricultural commodities, which increases the use of chemicals that degrade coastal water quality; 

difficult economic times that reduce fishing efforts for a period of time within certain regions; or local 

construction booms that alter recreational visitation trends. Other drivers could be the demands that 

govern trends, such as global greenhouse gas generation, regional shipping or offshore industrial 

development, local recreation and tourism, fishing, port improvement, manufacturing, and age-specific 

services (e.g., retirement). Each of these, in turn, influences certain pressures on natural and cultural 

resources.

Integrated into this question should be consideration of societal values, which include such matters as 

levels of conservation awareness, political leanings, opinion about environmental issues relative to other 

concerns, or changing opinions about the acceptability of specific behaviors (e.g., littering, fishing). 

Understanding these values gives one a better understanding of the likely future trends in drivers and 

pressures, as well as the nature of the societal tradeoffs in different uses of the ecosystem resources (e.g., 

the effects of multiple changing drivers on each other and the resources they affect). This can better 

inform policy and management responses, and education and outreach efforts that are designed to change 

societal values with the intention to change drivers and reduce pressures.

In rating the status and trends for drivers, the following should be considered:

• the main driving forces behind each pressure affecting natural resources and the environment

• the best available indicators of each driving force

• the status and trend of each driving force

• societal values behind each driving force

• the best indicators of societal value

• the status and trend of societal values

Good Few or no drivers occur that have the potential to influence pressures in ways that will negatively 

affect resource qualities.

Good/Fair Some drivers exist that may influence pressures in ways expected to degrade some attributes of 

resource quality.

Fair Selected drivers are influencing pressures in ways that cause measurable resource impacts.

Fair/Poor Selected drivers are influencing pressures in ways that result in severe impacts that are either 

widespread or persistent.

Poor Selected drivers are influencing pressures in ways that result in severe, persistent, and

widespread impacts.
Appendix A: Rating Scheme for System-Wide Monitoring Questions

208

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Question 2 (Water/Human Activities): What are the levels of human activities that may 

adversely influence water quality and how are they changing?

Among the human activities in or near sanctuaries that affect water quality are those involving direct 

discharges and spills (vessels, onshore and offshore industrial facilities, public wastewater facilities), 

those that contribute contaminants to groundwater, stream, river, and water control discharges 

(agriculture, runoff from impermeable surfaces through storm drains, conversion of land use), and those 

releasing airborne chemicals that subsequently deposit via particulates at sea (vessels, land-based traffic, 

power plants, manufacturing facilities, refineries). In addition, dredging and trawling can cause 

resuspension of contaminants in sediments. Many of these activities can be controlled through 

management actions in order to limit their impact on protected resources.

Good Few or no activities occur that are likely to negatively affect water quality.

Good/Fair Some potentially harmful activities exist, but they have not been shown to degrade water quality.

Fair Selected activities have caused measurable resource impacts, but effects are localized and not 

widespread or persistent.

Fair/Poor Selected activities have caused severe impacts that are either widespread or persistent.

Poor Selected activities have caused severe, persistent, and widespread impacts.
Appendix A: Rating Scheme for System-Wide Monitoring Questions

209

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Question 3 (Habitat/Human Activities): What are the levels of human activities that may 

adversely influence habitats and how are they changing?

Human activities that degrade habitat quality do so by affecting structural (physical), biological, 

oceanographic, acoustic, or chemical characteristics of the habitat. Structural impacts, such as removal or 

mechanical alteration of habitat, can result from various fishing methods (e.g., trawls, traps, dredges, 

longlines, and even hook-and-line in some habitats), dredging of channels and harbors, dumping dredge 

spoil, grounding of vessels, anchoring, laying pipelines and cables, installing offshore structures, 

discharging drill cuttings, dragging tow cables, and placing artificial reefs. Removal or alteration of 

critical biological components of habitats can occur due to several of the above activities, most notably 

trawling, groundings, and cable drags. Marine debris, particularly in large quantities (e.g., lost gill nets 

and other types of fishing gear), can degrade both biological and structural habitat components. Changes 

in water circulation often occur when channels are dredged, fill is added, coastlines are armored or other 

construction takes place. Management actions such as beach wrack removal or sand replenishment on 

high public-use beaches, may impact the integrity of the natural ecosystem. Alterations in circulations can 

lead to changes in food delivery, waste removal, water quality (e.g., salinity, clarity and sedimentation), 

recruitment patterns, and a host of other ecological processes. Chemical alterations most commonly occur 

following spills and can have both acute and chronic impacts. Many of these activities can be controlled 

through management actions in order to limit their impact on protected resources.

Good Few or no activities occur that are likely to negatively affect habitat quality.

Good/Fair Some potentially harmful activities exist, but they have not been shown to degrade habitat quality.

Fair Selected activities have caused measurable resource impacts, but effects are localized and not 

widespread or persistent.

Fair/Poor Selected activities have caused severe impacts that are either widespread or persistent.

Poor Selected activities have caused severe, persistent, and widespread impacts.
Appendix A: Rating Scheme for System-Wide Monitoring Questions

210

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Question 4 (Living Resources/Human Activities): What are the levels of human activities 

that may adversely influence living resources and how are they changing?

Human activities that degrade the condition of living resources do so by causing a loss or reduction of one 

or more species, by disrupting critical life stages, by impairing various physiological processes, or by 

promoting the introduction of non-indigenous species or pathogens. (Note: Activities that impact habitat 

and water quality may also affect living resources. These activities are dealt with in Questions 2 and 3, 

and some may be repeated here as they also directly affect living resources). 

For most sanctuaries, recreational or commercial fishing and collecting have direct effects on animal or 

plant populations, either through removal or injury of organisms. Related to this, lost fishing gear can 

cause extended periods of loss for some species through entanglement and “ghost fishing.” In addition, 

some fishing techniques are size-selective, resulting in impacts to particular life stages. High levels of 

visitor use in some places also cause localized depletion, particularly in intertidal areas or on shallow 

coral reefs, where collecting and trampling can be chronic problems.

Mortality and injury to living resources has also been documented from cable drags (e.g., towed barge 

operations), dumping spoil or drill cuttings, vessel groundings, or repeated anchoring. Contamination 

caused by acute or chronic spills or increased sedimentation to nearshore ecosystems from road 

developments in watersheds (including runoff from coastal construction or highly built coastal areas), 

discharges by vessels, or municipal and industrial facilities can make habitats unsuitable for recruitment 

or other ecosystem services (e.g., as nurseries or spawning grounds). And while coastal armoring and 

construction can increase the availability of surfaces suitable for hard bottom species, the activity may 

disrupt recruitment patterns for other species (e.g., intertidal soft bottom animals), and natural habitat may 

be lost.

Oil spills (and spill response actions), discharges, and contaminants released from sediments (e.g., by 

dredging and dumping) can all cause physiological impairment and tissue contamination. Such activities 

can affect all life stages by direct mortality, reducing fecundity, reducing disease resistance, loss as prey 

and disruption of predator-prey relationships, and increasing susceptibility to predation. Furthermore, 

bioaccumulation results in some contaminants moving upward through the food chain, disproportionately 

affecting certain species. 

Activities that promote the introduction of non-indigenous species include bilge discharges and ballast 

water exchange, commercial shipping and vessel transportation. Intentional or accidental releases of 

aquarium fish and plants can also lead to introductions of non-indigenous species.

Many of these activities are controlled through management actions in order to limit their impact on 

protected resources. 

Good Few or no activities occur that are likely to negatively affect living resource quality.

Good/Fair Some potentially harmful activities exist, but they have not been shown to degrade living resource 

quality.

Fair Selected activities have caused measurable living resource impacts, but effects are localized and 

not widespread or persistent.

Fair/Poor Selected activities have caused severe impacts that are either widespread or persistent.

Poor Selected activities have caused severe, persistent, and widespread impacts.
Appendix A: Rating Scheme for System-Wide Monitoring Questions

211

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Question 5 (Maritime Heritage Resources/Human Activities): What are the levels of 

human activities that may adversely affect maritime heritage resources and how are they 

changing?

Maritime heritage resources are the wide variety of tangible and intangible elements (archaeological, 

cultural, historical properties) that reflect our human connections to Great Lakes and ocean areas.

Some human activities threaten the archaeological or historical condition of maritime heritage resources. 

Archaeological or historical condition is compromised when elements are moved, removed, or otherwise 

damaged. Threats come from looting, inadvertent damage by recreational divers, improper research 

methods, vessel anchorings and groundings, and commercial and recreational fishing activities, among 

others. Other human activities may alter or damage heritage resources by impacting the landscape or 

viewshed of culturally significant places or locations. Many of these activities can be controlled through 

management actions in order to limit their impact to maritime heritage resources. 

Good Few or no activities occur at maritime heritage resource sites that are likely to adversely affect 

their condition.

Good/Fair Some potentially damaging activities exist, but they have not been shown to degrade maritime 

heritage resource condition.

Fair Selected activities have caused measurable impacts to maritime heritage resources, but effects are 

localized and not widespread or persistent.

Fair/Poor Selected activities have caused severe impacts that are either widespread or persistent.

Poor Selected activities have caused severe, persistent, and widespread impacts.
Appendix A: Rating Scheme for System-Wide Monitoring Questions

212

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Water Quality

Question 6 (Water/Eutrophic Condition): What is the eutrophic condition of sanctuary 

waters and how is it changing?

Eutrophication is the accelerated production of organic matter, particularly algae, in a water body. It is 

usually caused by an increase in the amount of nutrients (largely nitrogen and phosphorus) being 

discharged to the water body. As a result of accelerated algal production, a variety of interrelated impacts 

may occur, including nuisance and toxic algal blooms, depleted dissolved oxygen, and loss of submerged 

aquatic vegetation (Bricker et al. 1999). Indicators commonly used to detect eutrophication and associated 

problems include nutrient concentrations, chlorophyll content, rates of water column or benthic primary 

production, benthic algae cover, algae bloom frequency and intensity, oxygen levels, and light 

penetration.

Eutrophication of sanctuary waters can impact the condition of other sanctuary resources. Nutrient 

enrichment often leads to plankton and/or algae blooms. Blooms of benthic algae can affect benthic 

communities directly through space competition. Indirect effects of overgrowth and other competitive 

interactions (e.g., accumulation of algal-sediment mats) often lead to shifts in dominance in the benthic 

assemblage, oxygen depletion, etc. Disease incidence and frequency can also be affected by algae 

competition and changes in the chemical environment along competitive boundaries. Blooms can also 

affect water column conditions, including light penetration and plankton availability, which can alter 

pelagic food webs. Harmful algal blooms (HABs), some of which are exacerbated by eutrophic 

conditions, often affect other living resources, as biotoxins are consumed or released into the water and 

air, or decomposition depletes oxygen concentrations.

Good Eutrophication has not been documented, or does not appear to have the potential to negatively 

affect ecological integrity.

Good/Fair Eutrophication is suspected and may degrade some attributes of ecological integrity, but has not yet 

caused measurable degradation.

Fair Eutrophication has caused measurable but not severe degradation in some attributes of ecological 

integrity.

Fair/Poor Eutrophication has caused severe degradation in some but not all attributes of ecological integrity.

Poor Eutrophication has caused severe degradation in most if not all attributes of ecological integrity.
Appendix A: Rating Scheme for System-Wide Monitoring Questions

213

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Question 7 (Water/Human Health): Do sanctuary waters pose risks to human health and 

how are they changing?

Human health concerns are generally aroused by evidence of contamination (usually bacterial or 

chemical) in bathing waters or seafood intended for consumption. They also arise when harmful algal

blooms are reported or when cases of respiratory distress or other disorders attributable to harmful algal 

blooms increase dramatically. Any of these conditions should be considered in the course of judging the 

risk to humans posed by waters in a marine sanctuary.

Some sanctuaries may have access to specific information about beach closures and seafood 

contamination. In particular, beaches may be closed when criteria for water safety are exceeded. Shellfish 

harvesting and fishing may be prohibited when contaminant or biotoxin loads or infection rates exceed 

certain levels. Alternatively, seafood advisories may also be issued, recommending that people avoid or 

limit intake of particular types of seafood from certain areas (e.g., when ciguatera poisoning is reported). 

Any of these conditions, along with changing frequencies or intensities, can be important indicators of 

human health problems and can be characterized using the descriptions below. 

Good Water quality does not appear to have the potential to negatively affect human health.

Good/Fair One or more water quality indicators suggest the potential for human health impacts but human 

health impacts have not been reported.

Fair Water quality problems have caused measurable human impacts, but effects are localized and not 

widespread or persistent.

Fair/Poor Water quality problems have caused severe impacts that are either widespread or persistent.

Poor Water quality problems have caused severe, persistent, and widespread human impacts. 
Appendix A: Rating Scheme for System-Wide Monitoring Questions

214

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Question 8 (Water/Climate Change): Have recent, accelerated changes in climate altered 

water conditions and how are they changing?

The purpose of this question is to capture shifts in water quality, and associated impacts on sanctuary 

resources, due to climate change. Though temporal changes in climate have always occurred on Earth, 

evidence is strong that changes over the last century have been accelerated by human activities. Indicators 

of climate change in sanctuary waters include water temperature, acidity, sea level, upwelling intensity 

and timing, storm intensity and frequency, changes in erosion and sedimentation patterns, and freshwater 

delivery (e.g., rainfall patterns). Climate-related changes in one or more of these indicators can impact the 

condition of habitats, living resources, and maritime archaeological resources in sanctuaries. 

Increasing water temperature has been linked to changing growth rates, reduced disease resistance, and 

disruptions in symbiotic relationships (e.g., bleaching on coral reefs), and changes in water temperature 

exposure may affect a species’ resistance or the capacity to adapt to disturbances. Acidification can affect 

the survival and growth of organisms throughout the food web, as well as the persistence of skeletal 

material after death (through changes in rates of dissolution and bioerosion). Recent findings also suggest 

acidification impacts at sensory and behavioral levels, which can alter vitality and species interactions. 

Sea level change alters habitats, as well as their use and persistence. Variations in the timing and intensity 

of upwelling is known to change water quality through factors such as oxygen content and nutrient flow, 

further disrupting food webs and the natural functioning of ecosystems. Changing patterns and intensities 

of storms alter community resistance and resilience within ecosystems that have, over long periods of 

time, adapted to such disturbances. Altered rates and volumes of freshwater delivery to coastal 

ecosystems affects salinity and turbidity regimes and can disrupt reproduction, recruitment, growth, 

disease incidence, phenology, and other important processes.

Good Climate-related changes in water conditions have not been documented or do not appear to have 

the potential to negatively affect ecological integrity.

Good/Fair Climate-related changes are suspected and may degrade some attributes of ecological integrity, but 

have not yet caused measurable degradation.

Fair Climate-related changes have caused measurable but not severe degradation in some attributes of 

ecological integrity.

Fair/Poor Climate-related changes have caused severe degradation in some but not all attributes of ecological 

integrity.

Poor Climate-related changes have caused severe degradation in most if not all attributes of ecological 

integrity.
Appendix A: Rating Scheme for System-Wide Monitoring Questions

215

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Question 9 (Water/Other Stressors): Are other stressors, individually or in combination, 

affecting water quality, and how are they changing?

The purpose of this question is to capture shifts in water quality due to anthropogenic stressors not 

addressed in other questions. For example, localized changes in circulation or sedimentation resulting 

from coastal construction or dredge spoil disposal can affect light penetration, salinity regimes, oxygen 

levels, productivity, waste transport, and other aspects of water quality that in turn influence the condition 

of habitats and living resources. Human inputs, generally in the form of contaminants from point or nonpoint sources, including fertilizers, pesticides, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and sewage, are common 

causes of environmental degradation. When present in the water column, any of these contaminants can 

affect marine life by direct contact or ingestion, or through bioaccumulation via the food chain.

[Note: Over time, accumulation in sediments can sequester and concentrate contaminants. Their effects 

may manifest only when the sediments are resuspended during storm or other energetic events. In such 

cases, reports of status should be made under Question 11 — Habitat contaminants.]

Good Other stressors on water quality have not been documented, or do not appear to have the potential 

to negatively affect ecological integrity.

Good/Fair Selected stressors are suspected and may degrade some attributes of ecological integrity, but have 

not yet caused measurable degradation.

Fair Selected stressors have caused measurable but not severe degradation in some attributes of 

ecological integrity.

Fair/Poor Selected stressors have caused severe degradation in some but not all attributes of ecological 

integrity.

Poor Selected stressors have caused severe degradation in most if not all attributes of ecological 

integrity.
Appendix A: Rating Scheme for System-Wide Monitoring Questions

216

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Habitat

Question 10 (Habitat/Integrity): What is the integrity of major habitat types and how are 

they changing? 

Ocean habitats can be categorized in many different ways, including water column characteristics, benthic 

assemblages, substrate types, and structural character. There are intertidal and subtidal habitats. The water 

column itself is one habitat type (FGDC 2012). There are habitats composed of substrates formed by 

rocks or sand that originate from purely physical processes. And, there are certain animals and plants that 

create, in life or after their death, substrates that attract or support other organisms (e.g., corals, kelp, 

beach wrack, drift algae). These are commonly called biogenic habitats. 

Regardless of the habitat type, change and loss of habitat is of paramount concern when it comes to 

protecting marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Of greatest concern to sanctuaries are changes to habitats 

caused, either directly or indirectly, by human activities. Human activities like coastal development alter 

the distribution of habitat types along the shoreline. Changes in water conditions in estuaries, bays, and 

nearshore waters can negatively affect biogenic habitat formed by submerged aquatic vegetation. 

Intertidal habitats can be affected for long periods by oil spills or by chronic pollutant exposure. Marine 

debris, such trash and lost fishing gear, can degrade the quality of many different marine habitats 

including, beaches, subtidal benthic habitats, and the water column. Sandy seafloor and hard bottom 

habitats, even rocky areas several hundred meters deep, can be disturbed or destroyed by certain types of 

fishing gear, including bottom trawls, shellfish dredges, bottom longlines, and fish traps. Groundings, 

anchors, and irresponsible diving practices damage submerged reefs. Cables and pipelines disturb 

corridors across numerous habitat types and can be destructive if they become mobile.

Integrity of biogenic habitats depends on the condition of particular living organisms. Coral, sponges, and 

kelp are well known examples of biogenic habitat-forming organisms. The diverse assemblages residing 

within these habitats depend on and interact with each other in tightly linked food webs. They may also 

depend on each other for the recycling of wastes, hygiene, and the maintenance of water quality. Other 

communities that are dependent on biogenic habitat include intertidal communities structured by mussels, 

barnacles, and algae and subtidal hard-bottom communities structured by bivalves, corals, or coralline 

algae. In numerous open ocean areas drift algal mats provide food and cover for juvenile fish, turtles, and 

other organisms. The integrity of these communities depends largely on the condition of species that 

provide structure for them. 

This question is intended to address acute or chronic changes in both the extent of habitat available to 

organisms and the quality of that habitat, whether non-living or biogenic. It asks about the quality of 

habitats compared to those that would be expected in near-pristine conditions (see definition above).

Good Habitats are in near-pristine condition.

Good/Fair Selected habitat loss or alteration is suspected and may degrade some attributes of ecological 

integrity, but has not yet caused measurable degradation.

Fair Selected habitat loss or alteration has caused measurable but not severe degradation in some 

attributes of ecological integrity.

Fair/Poor Selected habitat loss or alteration has caused severe degradation in some but not all attributes of 

ecological integrity.

Poor Selected habitat loss or alteration has caused severe degradation in most if not all attributes of 

ecological integrity.
Appendix A: Rating Scheme for System-Wide Monitoring Questions

217

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Question 11 (Habitat/Contaminants): What are contaminant concentrations in sanctuary 

habitats and how are they changing?

Habitat contaminants result from the introduction of unnatural levels of chemicals or other harmful 

material into the environment. Contaminants may be introduced through discrete entry locations, called 

point sources (e.g., rivers, pipes, or ships) and those with diffuse origins, called non-point sources (e.g., 

groundwater and urban runoff). Chemical contaminants themselves can be very specific, as in a spill from 

a containment facility or vessel grounding, or a complex mix, as with urban runoff. Familiar chemical 

contaminants include pesticides, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and nutrients. Contaminants may also 

arrive in the form of materials that alter turbidity or smother plants or animals, therefore affecting 

metabolism and production.

This question is focused on risks posed primarily by contaminants within benthic formations, such as soft 

sediments, hard bottoms, or structure-forming organisms (see notes below). Not only are contaminants 

within benthic formations consumed or absorbed by benthic fauna, but resuspension due to benthic 

disturbance makes the contaminants available to water column organisms. In both cases contaminants can 

be passed upwards through the food chain. While the contaminants of most common concern to 

sanctuaries are generally pesticides, hydrocarbons, and nutrients, the specific concerns of individual 

sanctuaries may differ substantially.

Notes: 1) contaminants in the water column addressed in the water quality section of this report should be 

cited, but details need not be repeated here; 2) many consider noise a pollutant, but in the interest of 

focusing here on more traditional forms of habitat degradation caused by contaminants, ONMS 

recommends addressing the impacts of acoustic pollution within the living resource section, most likely 

as it impacts key species. 

Good Contaminants have not been documented, or do not appear to have the potential to negatively 

affect ecological integrity.

Good/Fair Selected contaminants are suspected and may degrade some attributes of ecological integrity, but 

have not yet caused measurable degradation.

Fair Selected contaminants have caused measurable but not severe degradation in some attributes of 

ecological integrity.

Fair/Poor Selected contaminants have caused severe degradation in some but not all attributes of ecological 

integrity.

Poor Selected contaminants have caused severe degradation in most if not all attributes of ecological 

integrity.
Appendix A: Rating Scheme for System-Wide Monitoring Questions

218

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Living Resources

Question 12 (Living Resources/Keystone and Foundation Species): What is the status of 

keystone and foundation species and how is it changing?

Certain species are defined as “keystone” within ecosystems, meaning they are species on which the 

persistence of a large number of other species in the ecosystem depends (Paine 1966). They are the pillars 

of community stability (among other things, they strongly affect both resistance and resilience) and their 

contribution to ecosystem function is disproportionate to their numerical abundance or biomass. Their 

impact is therefore important at the community or ecosystem level. Keystone species are often called 

“ecosystem engineers” and can include habitat creators (e.g., corals, kelp), predators that control food 

web structure (e.g., Humboldt squid, sea otters), herbivores that regulate benthic recruitment (e.g., certain 

sea urchins), and those involved in critical symbiotic relationships (e.g., cleaning or co-habitating 

species).

“Foundation” species are single species that define much of the structure of a community by creating 

locally stable conditions for other species, and by modulating and stabilizing fundamental ecosystem

processes (Dayton 1972). These are typically dominant biomass producers in an ecosystem and strongly 

influence the abundance and biomass of many other species. Examples include krill and other 

zooplankton, kelp, forage fish, such as rockfish anchovy, sardine, and coral. Foundation species exhibit 

similar control over ecosystems as keystone species, but their high abundance distinguishes them.

Changes in either keystone or foundation species may transform ecosystem structure through 

disappearances of or dramatic increases in the abundance of dependent species. Not only do the 

abundances of keystone and foundation species affect ecosystem integrity, but measures of condition can 

also be important to determining the likelihood that these species will persist and continue to provide vital 

ecosystem functions. Measures of condition may include growth rates, fecundity, recruitment, agespecific survival, contaminant loads, pathologies (e.g., disease incidence, tumors, deformities), the 

presence and abundance of critical symbionts, or parasite loads. 

Good The status of keystone and foundation species appears to reflect near-pristine conditions and may 

promote ecological integrity (full community development and function).

Good/Fair The status of keystone or foundation species may preclude full community development and 

function, but has not yet led to measurable degradation.

Fair The status of keystone or foundation species suggests measurable but not severe degradation in 

some attributes of ecological integrity.

Fair/Poor The status of keystone and foundation species suggests severe degradation in some but not all 

attributes of ecological integrity.

Poor The status of keystone and foundation species suggests severe degradation in most if not all 

attributes of ecological integrity.
Appendix A: Rating Scheme for System-Wide Monitoring Questions

219

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Question 13 (Living Resources/Other Focal Key Species): What is the status of other key 

species and how is it changing?

This question targets other species of particular interest from the perspective of sanctuary management. 

These “key species” may not be abundant or provide high value to ecosystem function, but their presence 

and health is important for the provision of other services, whether conservation, economic, or strategic. 

Examples include species targeted for special protection (e.g., threatened or endangered species), species 

for which specific regulations exist to minimize perturbations from human disturbance (e.g., touching 

corals, riding manta rays or whale sharks, disturbing white sharks, disturbing nesting birds), or indicator 

species (e.g., common murres as indicators of oil pollution). This category could also include so-called 

“flagship” species, which include charismatic or iconic species associated with specific locations, 

ecosystems or are in need of specific management actions, are highly popular and attract visitors or 

business, have marketing appeal, or represent rallying points for conservation action (e.g., humpback and 

blue whales, Dungeness crab). 

Status of these other key species can be assessed through measures of abundance, relative abundance, or 

condition, as described for keystone species in Question 12. In contrast to keystone and foundation 

species, however, the impact of changes in the abundance or condition of key species is more likely to be 

observed at the population or individual level, and less likely to result in ecosystem or community effects.

Good Selected key species appear to reflect near-pristine conditions.

Good/Fair Reduced abundances in selected key species are suspected but have not yet been measured.

Fair Selected key species are at reduced levels, but recovery is possible.

Fair/Poor Selected key species are at substantially reduced levels, and prospects for recovery are uncertain.

Poor Selected key species are at severely reduced levels, and recovery is unlikely.
Appendix A: Rating Scheme for System-Wide Monitoring Questions

220

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Question 14 (Living Resources/Non-Indigenous Species): What is the status of nonindigenous species and how is it changing?

This question allows sanctuaries to report on the threat posed and impacts caused by non-indigenous 

species. Also called alien, exotic, non-native, or introduced species, these are animals or plants living 

outside their native distributional range, having arrived there by human activity, either deliberate or 

accidental. Activities that commonly facilitate invasions include vessel ballast water exchange, restaurant 

waste disposal, and trade in exotic species for aquaria. In some cases, climate change has resulted in water 

temperature fluctuations that have allowed range extensions for certain species. 

Non-indigenous species that have damaging effects on ecosystems are called “invasive” species. Some 

can be extremely destructive, and because of this potential, non-indigenous species are usually considered 

problematic and warrant rapid response after invasion. For those that become established, however, their 

impacts can sometimes be assessed by quantifying changes in affected native species. In some cases, the 

presence of a species alone constitutes a significant threat (e.g., certain invasive algae and invertebrates). 

In other cases, impacts have been measured, and may or may not significantly affect ecosystem integrity.

Evaluating the potential impacts of non-indigenous species may require consideration of how climate 

change may enhance the recruitment, establishment, and/or severity of impacts of non-indigenous species. 

Altered temperature or salinity conditions, for example, may facilitate the range expansion, establishment 

and survival of non-indigenous species while stressing native species, thus reducing ecosystem resistance. 

This will also make management response decisions difficult, as changing conditions will make new areas 

even more hospitable for non-indigenous species targeted for removal.

Good Non-indigenous species are not suspected to be present or do not appear to affect ecological 

integrity (full community development and function).

Good/Fair Non-indigenous species are present and may preclude full community development and function, 

but have not yet caused measurable degradation.

Fair Non-indigenous species have caused measurable but not severe degradation in some attributes of 

ecological integrity.

Fair/Poor Non-indigenous species have caused severe degradation in some but not all attributes of ecological 

integrity.

Poor Non-indigenous species have caused severe degradation in most if not all attributes of ecological 

integrity.
Appendix A: Rating Scheme for System-Wide Monitoring Questions

221

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Question 15 (Living Resources/Biodiversity): What is the status of biodiversity and how 

is it changing?

Broadly defined, biodiversity refers to the variety of life on Earth, and includes the diversity of 

ecosystems, species and genes, and the ecological processes that support them (United Nations 

Convention on Biological Diversity). This question is intended as an overall assessment of biodiversity 

compared to that expected in a near-pristine system (one as near to an unaltered ecosystem as people can 

reasonably expect, given that there are virtually no ecosystems completely free from human influence). It 

may include consideration of measures of biodiversity (usually aspects of species richness and evenness) 

and the status of functional interactions between species (e.g., trophic relationships and symbioses). Intact 

ecosystems require that all parts not only exist, but that they function together, resulting in natural 

symbioses, competition, predator-prey relationships, and redundancies (e.g., multiple species capable of 

performing the same ecological role). Intact structural elements, processes, and natural spatial and 

temporal variability are essential characteristics of community integrity and provide a natural adaptive 

capacity through resistance and resilience. 

The response to this question will depend largely on changes in biodiversity that have occurred as a result 

of human activities that cause depletion, extirpation or extinction, illness, contamination, disturbance, and 

changes in environmental quality. Examples include collection of organisms, excessive visitation (e.g., 

trampling), industrial activities, coastal development, pollution, activities creating noise in the marine 

environment, and those that promote the spread of non-indigenous species.

Loss of species or changing relative abundances can be mediated through selective mortality or changing 

fecundity, either of which can influence ecosystem shifts. Human activities of particular interest in this 

regard are commercial and recreational harvesting. Both can be highly selective and disruptive activities, 

with a limited number of targeted species, and often result in the removal of high proportions of the 

populations, as well as large amounts of untargeted species (bycatch). Extraction removes biomass from 

the ecosystem, reducing its availability to other consumers. When too much extraction occurs, ecosystem 

stability can be compromised through long-term disruptions to food web structure, as well as changes in 

species relationships and related functions and services (e.g. cleaning symbioses). This has been defined 

as “ecologically unsustainable” extraction (Zabel et al. 2003).

Good Biodiversity appears to reflect near-pristine conditions and promotes ecological integrity (full 

community development and function).

Good/Fair Selected biodiversity loss or change is suspected and may preclude full community development 

and function, but has not yet caused measurable degradation.

Fair Selected biodiversity loss or change has caused measurable but not severe degradation in some 

attributes of ecological integrity.

Fair/Poor Selected biodiversity loss or change has caused severe degradation in some but not all attributes of 

ecological integrity.

Poor Selected biodiversity loss or change has caused severe degradation in most if not all attributes of 

ecological integrity.
Appendix A: Rating Scheme for System-Wide Monitoring Questions

222

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Maritime Heritage Resources

Question 16 (Maritime Heritage Resources/Condition): What is the condition of known 

maritime heritage resources and how is it changing?

Maritime heritage resources are the wide variety of tangible and intangible elements (archaeological, 

cultural, historical properties) that reflect our human connections to Great Lakes and ocean areas.

Maritime heritage resources include archaeological and historical properties, and material evidence of 

past human activities, including vessels, aircraft, structures, habitation sites, and objects created or 

modified by humans. The condition of these resources in a marine sanctuary significantly affects their 

value for science and education, as well as the resource’s eligibility for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places. The “integrity” of archaeological/historical resources, as defined within the National 

Register criteria, refers to their ability to help scientists answer questions about the past through 

archaeological research. Historical significance of an archaeological resource depends on its integrity 

and/or its representativeness of past events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of 

history, its association with important persons, or its embodiment of a distinctive type or architecture. 

Maritime heritage resources also include certain culturally significant resources, locations and viewsheds, 

the condition of which may change over time. Such resources, often more intangible in nature, may still 

be central to traditional practices and maintenance of cultural identity. The integrity of both cultural 

resources and cultural locations are included within the National Register criteria.

Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to inventory, assess, and 

nominate appropriate maritime heritage resources (“historic properties”) to the National Register. The 

Maritime Cultural Landscape approach, adopted by the sanctuary system, provides a comprehensive tool 

for the assessment of archaeological, historical and cultural (maritime heritage) resources.

Assessments of heritage resources include evaluation of the apparent condition, which results from 

deterioration caused by human and natural forces (unlike questions about water, habitat, and living 

resources, the non-renewable nature of many heritage resources makes any reduction in integrity and 

condition, even if caused by natural forces, permanent). While maritime heritage resources have intrinsic 

value, these values may be diminished by changes to their condition. 

Good Known maritime heritage resources appear to reflect little or no unexpected natural or human 

disturbance.

Good/Fair

Selected maritime heritage resources exhibit indications of natural or human disturbance, but there 

appears to have been little or no reduction in aesthetic, cultural, historical, archaeological, 

scientific, or educational value.

Fair

The diminished condition of selected maritime heritage resources has reduced, to some extent, their 

aesthetic, cultural, historical, archaeological, scientific, or educational value, and may affect the 

eligibility of some sites for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

Fair/Poor

The diminished condition of selected maritime heritage resources has substantially reduced their 

aesthetic, cultural, historical, archaeological, scientific, or educational value, and is likely to affect 

their eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

Poor

The degraded condition of known maritime heritage resources in general makes them ineffective in 

terms of aesthetic, cultural, historical, archaeological, scientific, or educational value, and 

precludes their listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
223

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

APPENDIX B:

Description of Ecosystem Services and Methods to 

Determine Ratings

The following provides descriptions of the various ecosystem services considered in sanctuary condition 

reports and the process for rating them. Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) defines 

ecosystem services (ES) in a slightly more restrictive way than some other experts. Specifically, 

“ecosystem services” are defined herein as the benefits people obtain from nature through use, 

consumption, enjoyment, and/or simply knowing these resources exist. The descriptions below reflect this 

definition, and therefore, only those ecosystem services are evaluated in sanctuary conditions reports. In 

contrast, there are some supporting services, such as biodiversity, decomposition, and carbon storage, that 

are included in the State section of these reports instead. Specifically, these services are critical to 

ecosystem function and considered "intermediate" ecosystem services that are not directly used, 

consumed, or enjoyed by humans to meet the ONMS condition report definition of ecosystem services. In 

other words, these secondary or intermediate services support ecosystems and are not final ecosystem 

services in and of themselves.

As an example, biodiversity is often considered an ecosystem service, but ONMS recognizes biodiversity 

as an attribute of the ecosystem on which many “final” ecosystem services depend (e.g., recreation and 

food supply/commercial fishing). For this reason, it is considered a secondary ecosystem service and it is 

evaluated in the State section of the report.

In addition, ONMS does not consider climate regulation or stabilization in condition reports. The impacts 

of climate change on water quality and biodiversity, however, are considered separately in the State 

section of the report. While sanctuaries are not large enough to influence climate stability, they may 

locally buffer climate-related factors, such as temperature change and ocean acidity; thus, the extent to 

which they may locally buffer climate-related factors is reflected in resource conditions in the State 

section.

Below are brief descriptions of the ecosystem services considered within each sanctuary condition report 

(more complete descriptions are provided below the list).

Cultural (Non-Material Benefits)

1. Heritage — Recognition of historical or heritage legacy

2. Consumptive recreation — Recreational activities that result in the removal of or damage to 

natural or cultural resources

3. Non-consumptive recreation — Recreational activities that do not result in the removal of or 

damage to natural or cultural resources

4. Sense of place — Aesthetic and spiritual attraction, and the level of recognition and appreciation 

given to efforts to protect a place’s iconic elements

5. Science — The capacity to acquire and contribute information and knowledge

6. Education — The capacity to acquire and provide intellectual enrichment
Appendix B: Description of Ecosystem Services and Methods to Determine Ratings

224

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Provisioning (Material Benefits)

7. Food — The capacity to support market demands for nutrition-related commodities through 

various fisheries

8. Water — Providing water for human use by minimizing pollution, including nutrients, sediments, 

pathogens, chemicals, and trash

9. Ornamentals — Resources collected for decorative or aesthetic purposes

10. Biotechnology — Medicine and other chemicals found in sanctuary animals or plants, or 

manufactured from them

11. Energy — Use of ecosystem-derived materials or processes for the production of energy

Regulating (Buffers to Change)

12. Coastal protection — Flow regulation that protects habitats, property, coastlines, and other 

features

Sanctuaries vary with regard to the ecosystem services they support, so each sanctuary is likely to have a 

different mix of services and information to support its assessment. To rate the status and trends for each 

relevant ecosystem service, the following was considered:

• the ecosystem services relevant to the sanctuary

• the best available indicators for each ecosystem service (economic, non-economic human 

dimensions, and ecological)

• the status and direction of change of each ecosystem service

• whether economic and non-economic human dimensions indicators yield the same conclusions 

about the status and trend for each ecosystem service

• whether economic indicators send a false signal about the status and trend of an ecosystem 

service (namely, conflicting ecological and economic indicators, suggesting that people are 

sacrificing natural capital for short-term economic gain)

The steps used to rate ecosystem services were adapted from the multi-year study “Marine and Estuarine 

Goal Setting for South Florida” (MARES) of three south Florida marine ecosystems, including Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary. It used Integrated Conceptual Ecosystem Models (ICEMs) for each 

ecosystem under the Driving forces (Drivers)-Pressure-State-Ecosystem Services-Response (DPSER) 

Model (Nuttle and Fletcher 2013), and evaluation of three types of indicators: 1) economic; 2) human 

dimension non-economic (Lovelace et al. 2013); and 3) ecological for each ecosystem service.

Determining status and trend ratings is a two-step process, where first economic indicator data is used to 

develop preliminary ratings, which is then followed by an advisory-panel workshop. Discussions during 

each workshop consider and integrate non-economic and resource indicators, allowing participants to 

characterize an ecosystem service within the five-tier rating system below. The final rating (“Good,” 

“Fair,” etc.) corresponds to the criteria in the table above. The Status Description from that table is used 

to convey the rating in the condition report.
Appendix B: Description of Ecosystem Services and Methods to Determine Ratings

225

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Rating Scheme for Ecosystem Services

Rating Status Description Rationale

Good

The capacity to provide the ecosystem 

service has been either enhanced or 

remained unaffected.

Economic indicators are positive and 

increasing, human dimension non-economic 

indicators are increasing or stable, and 

resource indicators do not indicate there is 

a decline in the natural capital stock.

Good/Fair

Unable to fully provide the ecosystem 

service due to prior or existing human 

activity, but performance is acceptable.

Economic indicators are positive and stable, 

human dimension non-economic indicators 

are increasing or stable, and resource 

indicators do not indicate there is a decline 

in the natural capital stock.

Fair

Ability to provide ecosystem service is 

compromised, and existing management 

would require enhancement to enable 

acceptable performance.

Mixed results for the economic and noneconomic indicators and some resource 

indicators indicate a decline in the natural 

capital stock but not widespread.

Fair/Poor

Ability to provide ecosystem service is 

compromised, and it is uncertain whether 

new or enhanced management would 

restore it.

Economic indicators are negative and 

declining, while non-economic indicators 

are negative or stable. Resource indicators 

are showing more widespread declines in 

natural capital stock.

Poor

Unable to deliver ecosystem service due to 

the extreme, pervasive, or widespread 

nature of human activities, and it is doubtful 

that new or enhanced management would 

restore it.

Economic and non-economic indicators are 

negative and declining. Resource indicators 

are negative showing widespread declines 

in the natural capital stock.

The discussion of ecosystem services ratings within the written report should focus on the influence of 

drivers and societal values considered responsible for the ratings. This discussion may also consideration 

of whether economic and non-economic indicators yield the same conclusions; this will enable 

consideration of the sometimes conflicting relationship between economic gain and the preservation of 

natural capital. For example, economic indicators (e.g., dive operator income) may suggest improving 

recreational services while resource indicators (e.g., anchor damage) suggest that natural resource 

qualities are being sacrificed for short-term gain, making the activity unsustainable.

Descriptions of Ecosystem Services

CULTURAL (non-material benefits)

Sense of place — Aesthetic and spiritual attraction, and the level of recognition and appreciation given to 

efforts to protect a place’s iconic elements

Marine environments serve as places of aesthetic and spiritual attraction for many people, and inspire 

works of art, music, architecture, and tradition. Many people also value particular places as sources of 

therapeutic rejuvenation and to offer a change of perspective. Iconic places serve as motifs in books, film, 

artworks, and folklore and as part of national symbols, architecture, and advertising efforts. Many people 

even consider places as defining parts of their personality, especially if they have lived there during or 

since childhood; they associate them with fond memories and past experiences. Many people even 

incorporate water or water-related activities as habitual or significant parts of their lives and cultures. 

Different factors are considered to measure/assess sense of place, including level of uniqueness, 
Appendix B: Description of Ecosystem Services and Methods to Determine Ratings

226

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

recognition, reputation, reliance, and appreciation for a place. By accounting for sense of place, managers 

can evaluate or find reasons to support conservation, preservation, and restoration efforts.

Despite its value as a cultural ecosystem service indicator, it is difficult to quantify a sense of place with 

direct measures. Polls are often used to evaluate public opinions regarding economic and non-economic 

values of a place. One type considers “passive economic use values” (also called “non-use value”). Using 

estimates generated from survey analyses, this is the value people would be willing to pay for resources to 

stay in a certain condition even though they may never actually use them. 

Non-consumptive recreation — Recreational activities that do not result in removal of or damage to 

natural or cultural resources

Recreational activities , including ecotourism and outdoor sports, are often considered a non-consumptive 

ecosystem service that provides experiential opportunities. Non-consumptive recreational activities 

include those on shore or from private boats and for-hire operations, such as relaxing, exploring, diving 

and snorkeling, kayaking, birdwatching, surfing, sailing, and wildlife viewing. 

It should be noted that private boating often includes both non-consumptive and consumptive recreational 

activities (e.g., snorkeling and fishing during a single trip). Thus, field and survey data can be ambiguous, 

reflecting the heterogeneous preferences of boaters. This also has implications for interpretations of data 

regarding attitudes and perceptions of management strategies and regulations to protect and restore 

natural and cultural resources.

Indicators used to assess status and trends in market values for recreation can include direct measures of 

use (e.g., person-days of use by type of activity) that result in spending, income, jobs, gross regional 

product, and tax revenues. They can also be non-market economic values (the difference between what 

people pay to use a good/service and what they would be willing to pay). The data can be used to estimate 

the value a consumer receives when using a good or service over and above what they pay to obtain the 

good or service. Indirect measures are also used. For example, populations and per capita incomes at 

numerous scales influence demand for recreational products and services. Fuel prices can even serve as 

indirect measures of recreational demand because the levels of use by some recreational users tracks fuel 

prices. 

Consumptive recreation — Recreational activities that result in the removal of or damage to natural or 

cultural resources

Sometimes culturally valued pursuits, rituals, or traditions involve activities that result in the death or 

disturbance of wildlife, or the destruction of natural habitats, whether intentional or not. Perhaps the most 

popular activity that involves consumptive recreation is sport fishing from private boats and for-hire 

operations. Targeted species and bycatch are removed from the environment, and those that are released 

(e.g. “catch-and-release” fishing) sometimes die due to stress or predation. Nonetheless, fishing is a 

highly valued cultural tradition for many people, as well as a popular recreational activity; therefore, for 

these reasons, sport fishing is considered here as a cultural ecosystem service. Other activities than can 

affect habitats or wildlife including beachcombing (shell collecting) and tidepooling (trampling), are also 

considered to be a cultural ecosystem service.

Indicators of status and trends for consumptive recreation often include levels of use (direct counts or 

estimates made from commercial vessel records and landings, and fishing license registrations) and 
Appendix B: Description of Ecosystem Services and Methods to Determine Ratings

227

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

production of economic value through job creation, income, spending, and tax revenue. Public polls can 

also be used to assess non-market indicators, such as importance and satisfaction, social values, 

willingness to pay, and facility and service availability.

Science — The capacity to acquire and contribute information and knowledge

Sanctuaries serve as natural laboratories that can advance science and education. NOAA provides vessel 

support, facilities, and information that is valuable to the research community, including academic, 

corporate, non-governmental and government agency scientists, citizen scientists, and educators that 

instruct others using research. Sanctuaries serve as long-term monitoring sites, provide minimally 

disturbed focal areas for many studies, and provide opportunities to restore or maintain natural systems. 

Status and trends for science can be assessed by counting and characterizing the number of research 

permits and tracking the accomplishments and growth of partnerships, activity levels of citizen 

monitoring, and participation of the research community in sanctuary management. The number and types 

of research cruises and other expeditions conducted can also provide useful indicators. Indirect indicators, 

such as per capita income and gross regional or national product, may be helpful as higher incomes and 

better economic conditions often result in higher investments in research and monitoring.

Education — The capacity to acquire and provide intellectual enrichment

As with science, national marine sanctuaries’ protected natural systems and cultural resources attract 

educators at many levels for both formal and informal education. Students and teachers often either visit 

sanctuaries or use curricula and information provided by sanctuary educators. 

The status and trends for education can be tracked by evaluating the number of educators and students 

visiting the sanctuary and visitor centers, the number of teacher trainings, use of sanctuary-related 

curricula in the classroom, and levels of activity in volunteer docent programs. The number of outreach 

offerings provided during sanctuary research and education expeditions can also be a good indicator. 

Education can also follow trends in populations and per capita income locally, regionally, and nationally. 

Populations create demand for services, and higher incomes lead to investment, making these useful 

indirect indicators. 

Heritage — Recognition of historical or heritage legacy

The iconic nature of many national marine sanctuaries or particular places within them generally means 

that they have long been recognized, used, and valued. Communities developed around them, traveled 

through them, and depended on their resources. This shared past created the unique cultural character of 

many present-day coastal communities, and can be an important part of the current economy. The 

remnants of the past, including artifacts, records, and stories, provide not only a tangible link to the 

maritime heritage of these areas, but a way to better understand their history.

Economic indicators that reflect status and trends for heritage value as an ecosystem service may include 

spending, income, jobs, and other revenues generated from visitation, whether it is to dive on wreck sites 

or patronize museums and visitor centers where artifacts are displayed and interpreted. Non-market 

indicators, such as willingness to pay, activity levels for training and docent interpretation, and changes in 

threat levels (looting and damage caused by fishing), may also be considered.
Appendix B: Description of Ecosystem Services and Methods to Determine Ratings

228

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

PROVISIONING (material benefits)

Among the valued products provided to people by marine and freshwater ecosystems are: wild and 

cultured seafood, a source of freshwater, keepsakes, energy and biochemical, medical, and genetic 

resources.

Food — The capacity to support market demands for nutrition-related commodities through various 

fisheries

Humans consume a large variety and abundance of products originating from the oceans and Great Lakes, 

whether for nutrition or for use in other sectors. This includes fish, shellfish, other invertebrates, roe, and 

algae. More than a billion people worldwide depend on fishing for their main source of animal protein 

and it accounts for 16 percent of world animal protein consumption. Ten to twelve percent of people 

around the world depend on fishing for their livelihoods.

Fisheries located in national marine sanctuaries are usually encompassed by larger regional fisheries that 

are regulated by fisheries management plans. Fisheries management plans may include sanctuary-specific 

restrictions to protect sanctuary habitats, living resources, and archaeological resources. Different data 

can be used to assess status and trends for this ecosystem service including: catch levels by species and 

species groups; and economic contributions in the form of sector-related jobs, income, sales, and tax 

revenue. Indirect measures include data on licensing, fleet size, fishing vessel types and sizes, days at sea, 

and commodity prices.

Water — Providing water for human use by minimizing pollution, including nutrients, sediments, 

pathogens, chemicals, and trash

Clean water is considered a final ecosystem service when the natural environment is improving water 

quality for human consumption or other direct use (e.g., irrigation). Although sanctuary ecosystems often 

function to improve water quality, most do not result in the final ecosystem service of clean water for 

human use. For most natural resources, improving water quality in a sanctuary is a supporting or 

intermediate ecosystem service that may, for example, result in better water quality for fish species that 

are then enjoyed by commercial or recreational anglers, safer water in which to swim, or improved water 

clarity for diving. These are aspects of other final ecosystem services and the water quality itself is an 

indicator that is inherently important to them; however, ONMS does not include this aspect of clean water 

in condition reports because it would result in a double counting of its ecosystem service value. Instead, 

ONMS evaluates clean water as a final ecosystem service, where the natural environment is improving 

water for human consumption, such as drinking water, or for irrigation (e.g., through filtration or 

suitability for desalination). In this way, the benefits of management policies and actions that improve 

water quality are captured separately, but in relation to the relevant final ecosystem services they support. 

Ornamentals — Resources collected for decorative or aesthetic purposes

In sanctuaries where the collection of ornamental products is not prohibited or is allowed under permit, 

they are taken for their aesthetic or material value for souvenirs, fashion, handicrafts, jewelry, display, 

and worship. This includes live animals for aquaria and trade, pearls, shells, corals, sea stars, furs, 

feathers, ivory, and more. Some, particularly animals for the aquarium trade, are sold commercially and 

can be valued like other commodities; others cannot. Status and trends can also be evaluated using 

indicators, such as the number of permitted collectors, and frequency of operations and collection levels.
Appendix B: Description of Ecosystem Services and Methods to Determine Ratings

229

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Biotechnology — Medicine and other chemicals found in sanctuary animals or plants, or manufactured 

from them

Biochemical and genetic resources, medicines, chemical models, and test organisms are all potential 

products that can be derived or sourced from national marine sanctuaries. Biochemical resources are 

compounds extracted from marine animals and plants and used to develop or manufacture medicines, 

pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and other products (e.g., omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil). Genetic resources

are the genetic content of marine organisms used for animal and plant breeding and for biotechnology. 

Natural resources can also be used as a model for new products (e.g., the development of fiber-optic 

technology, based on the properties of sponge spicules).

In sanctuaries, activities involving the collection of biochemical products may be allowed under permit. 

The value of many products associated with biotechnology may be available. Sanctuary permit databases 

can be used to gauge demand and collection activity within a given national marine sanctuary.

Energy — Use of ecosystem-derived materials or processes for the production of energy

In the offshore environment, energy production sources are considered to be either non-renewable (oil 

and gas) or renewable (wind, solar, tidal, wave, or thermal). While oil and gas technically are ecosystemsourced and may be renewable over a time frame measured in millions of years, as an ecosystem service, 

they are not subject to management decisions in human time frames; therefore, they are not considered an 

ecosystem service in this section. The activities and management actions related to hydrocarbon 

production are, however, considered elsewhere in condition reports, primarily with regard to resource 

threats, impacts, and protection measures. 

In contrast, “renewable” forms of energy that depend on ecosystem materials and processes operating 

over shorter time periods are evaluated. Indicators of status and trends for these energy sources include 

the types and number of permitted or licensed experimental or permanent operations, energy production, 

revenues generated, and jobs created. Indirect indicators that inform trends and provide some predictive 

value include social and market trends, energy costs, and expected demand based on service market 

populations trends.

REGULATING (buffers to change)

Coastal protection — Natural features that control water movement and/or wind energy, thus protecting 

habitat, property, and coastlines.

Coastal and estuarine ecosystems can buffer the potentially destructive energy of environmental 

disturbances, such as floods, tidal surges and storm waves, and wind. Wetlands, kelp forests, mangroves, 

seagrass beds, and reefs of various types all absorb some of the energy of local disturbances, protecting 

themselves, submerged habitats closer to shore, intertidal ecosystems, and emergent land masses. They 

also can trap sediments and promote future protection through shoaling. They can also become sources of 

sediments for coastal dunes and beaches that control flooding and protect coastal properties from wave 

energy and the impacts of sea-level rise. 

The value of coastal protection can be estimated by evaluating the basis of the value of vulnerable coastal 

properties and infrastructure and modeled estimates of losses expected under different qualities of coastal 

ecosystems (replacement cost). Levels of historical change under different energy scenarios can be used 

to support these estimates. Public polls can also reveal information on willingness to pay that is used to 

value this service.
230

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

APPENDIX C:

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary 2007 Condition 

Report Ratings

The following table summarizes the condition and trend ratings as presented in the 2007 Stellwagen Bank 

National Marine Sanctuary Condition Report.

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Condition Summary 

Table

Condition Summary: The results in the following table are a compilation of findings from the “State of 

Sanctuary Resources” section of this report. (For further clarification of the questions posed in the table, 

see Appendix A.)

# Issue Rating Basis for 

Judgment Description of Findings

WATER

1 

Are specific or multiple 

stressors, including 

changing oceanographic 

and atmospheric 

conditions, affecting water 

quality?

▬

Numerous 

contaminants at 

low levels

Selected conditions may preclude full 

development of living resource 

assemblages and habitats, but are 

not likely to cause substantial or 

persistent declines.

2

What is the eutrophic 

condition of sanctuary 

waters and how is it 

changing?

▬

Specific aspects of 

ongoing 

monitoring 

Conditions do not appear to have the 

potential to negatively affect living 

resources or habitat quality.

3

Do sanctuary waters pose 

risks to human health? ▬

Specific aspects of 

ongoing 

monitoring

Conditions do not appear to have the 

potential to negatively affect human 

health.

4

What are the levels of 

human activities that may 

influence water quality and 

how are they changing?

▬

Vessel discharges

and outfall 

discharge

Some potentially harmful activities 

exist, but they do not appear to have 

had a negative effect on water quality.

HABITAT

5

What is the abundance and 

distribution of major habitat 

types and how is it 

changing?

▲

Alteration of 

microhabitat due 

to bottom dragging 

& dredging

Selected habitat loss or alteration 

may inhibit the development of 

assemblages, and may cause 

measurable but not severe declines in 
Appendix C: Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary 2007 Condition Report Ratings

231

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

living resources or water quality.

6

What is the condition of 

biologically-structured 

habitats and how is it 

changing?

▲

Fishing gear 

impacts

Selected habitat loss or alteration has 

caused or is likely to cause severe 

declines in some but not all living 

resources or water quality.

7

What are the contaminant 

concentrations in sanctuary 

habitats and how are they 

changing?

▬

Limited monitoring 

results

Selected contaminants may preclude 

full development of living resource 

assemblages, but are not likely to 

cause substantial or persistent 

degradation.

8

What are the levels of 

human activities that may 

influence habitat quality 

and how are they 

changing?

▲

Fishing gear 

impacts

Selected activities have caused or are 

likely to cause severe impacts, and 

cases to date suggest a pervasive 

problem.

LIVING RESOURCES

9

What is the status of 

biodiversity and how is it 

changing?

▲

Long-term 

changes in fish 

diversity

Selected biodiversity loss has caused 

or is likely to cause severe declines in 

some but not all ecosystem 

components and reduce ecosystem 

integrity.

10

What is the status of 

environmentally 

sustainable fishing and how 

is it changing?

▲

Published and 

unpublished 

literature on 

regional and local 

groundfish 

populations

Extraction has caused or is likely to 

cause severe declines in some but 

not all ecosystem components and 

reduce ecosystem integrity.

11

What is the status of nonindigenous species and 

how is it changing?

▼

Recent invasives 

discovered

Non-indigenous species exist, 

precluding full community 

development and function, but are 

unlikely to cause substantial or 

persistent degradation of ecosystem 

integrity.

12

What is the status of key 

species and how is it 

changing?

▬

Cod (keystone 

species)

Sand lance (key 

species)

The reduced abundance of selected 

keystone species has caused or is 

likely to cause severe declines in 

some but not all ecosystem 

components and reduce ecosystem 

integrity; or, selected key species are 

at substantially reduced levels, and 

prospects for recovery are uncertain.

13

What is the condition or 

health of key species and 

how is it changing?

▬

Whale strikes & 

entanglements

The diminished condition of selected 

key resources may cause a 

measurable but not severe reduction 

in ecological function, but recovery is 

possible.

14

What are the levels of 

human activities that may 

influence living resource 

quality and how are they 

changing?

▬

Stable levels of 

activity

Selected activities have caused or are 

likely to cause severe impacts, and 

cases to date suggest a pervasive 

problem.

MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

15

What is the integrity of 

known maritime 

archaeological resources 

▼

Fishing gear 

impacts

The diminished condition of selected 

archaeological resources has 

reduced, to some extent, their 
Appendix C: Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary 2007 Condition Report Ratings

232

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

and how is it changing? historical, scientific, or educational 

value and may affect the eligibility of 

some sites for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places.

16

Do known maritime 

archaeological resources 

pose an environmental 

hazard and is this threat 

changing?

▬

Lack of hazardous 

cargo

Known maritime archaeological

resources pose few or no 

environmental threats.

17

What are the levels of

human activities that may 

influence maritime 

archaeological resource 

quality and how are they 

changing?

▼

Fishing gear 

impacts

Selected activities warrant 

widespread concern and action, as 

large-scale, persistent, and/or 

repeated severe impacts have 

occurred or are likely to occur.
233

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

APPENDIX D:

Consultation with Experts, Documenting Confidence, and 

Document Review

The process for preparing condition reports involves a combination of accepted techniques for collecting 

and interpreting information gathered from subject matter experts. The approach varies somewhat from 

sanctuary to sanctuary in order to accommodate different styles for working with partners. Stellwagen 

Bank National Marine Sanctuary approach was closely related to the Delphi Method, a technique 

designed to organize group communication among a panel of geographically dispersed experts by using 

questionnaires, ultimately facilitating the formation of a group judgment. This method can be applied 

when it is necessary for decision makers to combine the testimony of a group of experts, whether in the 

form of facts or informed opinion, or both, into a single useful statement.

The Delphi Method requires experts to respond to questions with a limited number of choices to arrive at 

the best supported answers. Feedback to the experts allows them to refine their views, gradually moving 

the group toward the most agreeable judgment. For condition reports, the Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS) uses standardized questions related to the status and trends of sanctuary resources, 

with accompanying definitions and five possible choices that define resource condition (Appendix A).

In order to address the standardized state of the ecosystem questions and ecosystem services, ONMS 

selected and consulted outside experts familiar with water quality, habitat, living resources, maritime 

heritage resources, and socioeconomics in the sanctuary. A three-day workshop was held February 13–15, 

2018 to discuss and evaluate a series of questions about each resource area. At the workshop, experts 

participated in facilitated discussions about the questions related to pressures (Questions 2–4), water 

quality (Questions 6–9), habitat (Questions 10 and 11), living resources (Questions 12–15), maritime 

archaeological resources (Questions 16 and 17), and ecosystem services. Experts represented various 

affiliations; a list of experts who provided input is available in the Acknowledgements section of this 

report. The drivers question (Question 1) was determined and reviewed by ONMS socioeconomists, who 

used indicators to make a preliminary status and trend rating and draft an accompanying summary 

statement. This material was then reviewed by SBNMS staff.

At the workshop, experts were introduced to the questions and provided with relevant time series datasets 

ONMS had collected from experts prior to the meeting. Attendees were then asked to review the datasets, 

identify data gaps or misrepresentations, and suggest any additional datasets that may be relevant. Once 

all datasets were reviewed, experts were asked to provide status and trend recommendations and 

supporting arguments. In order to ensure consistency with the Delphic Method, a critical role of the 

facilitator was to minimize dominance of the discussion by a single individual or opinion (which often 

leads to "follow the leader" tendencies in group meetings) and to encourage the expression of honest 

differences of opinion. As discussions progressed, the group converged in an opinion of each rating that 

most accurately described the current resource condition. After an appropriate amount of time, the 

facilitator asked whether the group could agree on a rating for the question, as defined by specific 

language linked to each rating (see Appendix A). If an agreement was reached, the result was recorded 

and the group moved on to consider the trend in the same manner. If agreement was not reached, the 
Appendix D: Consultation with Experts, Documenting Confidence, and Document Review

234

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

facilitator recorded the vote of individuals for each rating category and that information helped to inform 

the confidence scoring process.

Experts were then asked to assign a level of confidence for each status and trend rating by: (1) 

characterizing the sources of information they used to make judgments, and (2) their agreement with the 

selected status and trend ratings. The evidence and agreement ratings were then combined to determine 

the overall confidence ratings, as described in the table below.

An initial draft of the report, written by ONMS, summarized the new information, expert opinions, and 

level of confidence expressed by the experts. Comments, data, and citations received from the experts 

were included, as appropriate, in text supporting the ratings and compiled in three appendices. This initial 

draft was made available to contributing experts and data providers, which allowed them to review the 

content and determine if the report accurately reflected their input, identify information gaps, provide 

comments, or suggest revisions to the ratings and text. 

Following the expert review, the document was then sent to representatives of partner agencies, including 

members of the SBNMS Advisory Council, GARFO, USFWS, and NEFSC. These representatives were 
Appendix D: Consultation with Experts, Documenting Confidence, and Document Review

235

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

asked to review the technical merits of resource ratings and accompanying text, as well as to point out any 

omissions or factual errors. Upon receiving reviewer comments, ONMS revised the text and ratings as 

appropriate.

In May 2019, a draft final report was sent to four regional science experts for a required external peer 

review. External peer review became a requirement when the White House Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (OMB Bulletin) that 

established peer review standards to enhance the quality and credibility of the federal government’s 

scientific information (OMB 2004). Along with other information, these standards apply to “Influential 

Scientific Information,” which is information that can reasonably be determined to have a "clear and 

substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions." Condition reports are 

considered Influential Scientific Information. For this reason, these reports are subject to the review 

requirements of both the Information Quality Act and the OMB Bulletin guidelines; therefore, every 

condition report is reviewed by a minimum of three individuals who are considered to be experts in their 

field, were not involved in the development of the report, and are not ONMS employees. Comments and 

recommendations of the peer reviewers were considered and incorporated, as appropriate, into the final 

text of this report. Furthermore, OMB Bulletin guidelines require that reviewer comments, names, and 

affiliations be posted on the agency website, http://www.cio.noaa.gov/. Reviewer comments, however, are 

not attributed to specific individuals. Comments by the external peer reviewers are posted at the same 

time as the formatted final document.

In all steps of the review process, experts were asked to review the technical merits of resource ratings 

and accompanying text, as well as to point out any omissions or factual errors; however, the 

interpretation, ratings, and text in the condition report were the responsibility of and received final 

approval by ONMS. To emphasize this important point, authorship of the report is attributed to ONMS; 

subject matter experts are not authors, though their efforts and affiliations are acknowledged in the report.
Appendix D: Consultation with Experts, Documenting Confidence, and Document Review

236

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

Confidence Ratings from February 13–15, 2018 Expert Workshop

A summary table for the findings regarding confidence ratings for the questions pertaining to SBNMS is 

included below:

Question

Evidence 

(Limited, Medium, 

Robust)

Agreement

(Low, Medium, High)

Confidence

(Very Low, Low, 

Medium,

High, Very High)

1

Status Robust High Very High

Trend Robust High Very High

2

Status Limited High Medium

Trend Limited High Medium

3

Status Limited High High

Trend Medium Medium Medium

4

Status Medium High High

Trend Medium High High

5

Status Medium Medium Medium

Trend Medium High High

6

Status Robust High Very High

Trend Robust High Very High

7

Status Medium High High

Trend Medium High High

8

Status Medium High High

Trend Medium High High

9

Status Medium High High

Trend Limited High Medium

10

Status Medium Medium Medium

Trend Medium High High

11

Status Limited High Medium

Trend Limited High Medium
Appendix D: Consultation with Experts, Documenting Confidence, and Document Review

237

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

12

Status Robust High Very High

Trend Medium High High

13

Status Medium Medium Medium

Trend Medium High High

14

Status Medium High High

Trend Medium High High

15

Status Medium High High

Trend Medium High High

16

Status Medium High High

Trend Medium High High

17

Status Robust High Very High

Trend Robust High Very High

Ecosystem 

Service

Evidence 

(Limited, Medium, 

Robust)

Agreement

(Low, Medium, High)

Confidence

(Very Low, Low, 

Medium,

High, Very High)

Heritage

Status Limited High Medium

Trend Medium High High

Consumptive 

Recreation

Status Medium Medium Medium

Trend Limited High Medium

NonConsumptive 

Recreation

Status Limited Medium Low

Trend Limited High Medium

Sense of 

Place

Status Limited High Medium

Trend Medium High High

Science

Status Medium High High

Trend Medium High High

Education

Status Medium High High

Trend Medium High High

Food Supply

Status Robust High Very High

Trend Robust High Very High
238

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

APPENDIX E:

Driving Forces and Pressures — Supplemental Graphs and 

Figures

Figure App.E.1. Population of the 14-county study area representing the SBNMS local economy, Massachusetts, and the United 

States in 1,000s, 1990–2050. Source: Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. 2016

Table App.E.1. Population of the 14-county study area representing the SBNMS local economy, Massachusetts, and the United 

States in 1,000s, 1990–2050. Source: Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. 2016

Year Study 

Area MA U.S.

1990 7,099 6,023 249,623 

2000 7,562 6,361 282,162 

2010 7,820 6,565 309,347 

2015 8,076 6,794 321,421 

2020 8,300 6,970 336,383 

2025 8,531 7,151 352,315 

2030 8,756 7,325 368,644 

2040 9,112 7,595 399,419 

2050 9,359 7,773 428,119 

Table App.E.2. Average annual population growth rates (%). Source: Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. 2016

Year1 Study Area MA U.S.

2000-2015 0.45 0.45 0.93

2015-2030 0.56 0.52 0.98

2030-2050 0.34 0.31 0.81

1. 2000–2015 and 2015–2030 report average annual growth rates for those time periods.

 -

 50,000

 100,000

 150,000

 200,000

 250,000

 300,000

 350,000

 400,000

 450,000

 -

 1,000

 2,000

 3,000

 4,000

 5,000

 6,000

 7,000

 8,000

 9,000

 10,000

1990 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050

U.S. Population (1,000s)

Population (1,000s)

Year

Study Area MA U.S.
Appendix E: Driving Forces and Pressures — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

239

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure App.E.2. Average annual population growth rates. Source: Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. 2016

Table App.E.3. Real per capita income from 1990 to 2050 and real per capita growth rates (%) for 2000-2015 and 2015-2030. 

Source: Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. 2016

Year1 Study Area MA U.S.

1990 $38,712 $39,355 $33,282

2000 $52,004 $53,129 $42,152

2010 $58,507 $59,733 $45,344

2015 $64,140 $65,409 $50,267

2020 $69,546 $70,876 $54,220

2025 $74,840 $76,385 $58,311

2030 $79,958 $81,720 $62,186

2040 $89,572 $91,780 $69,049

2050 $100,409 $103,128 $76,550

2000-2015 1.56 1.54 1.28

2015-2030 1.64 1.66 1.58

2030-2050 1.28 1.31 1.15

1. For 2000-2015 and 2015-2030, annual average growth rates

0.45 0.45

0.93

0.56

0.52

0.98

0.34

0.31

0.81

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Study Area MA US

Percent

Average Annual Growth Rates

2000-2015 2015-2030 2030-2050
Appendix E: Driving Forces and Pressures — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

240

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure App.E.3. Real per capita growth rates. Source: Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. 2016

Table App.E.4. Annual growth rates of real gross domestic product of Canada, the European Union, China, Japan, and South 

Korea, 2000–2022. Source: Trading Economics 2017

Year Canada European 

Union China Japan S. Korea

2000 5.2 3.9 8.4 2.8 8.9

2001 1.8 2.3 8.3 0.4 4.5

2002 3.0 1.5 9.1 0.1 7.4

2003 1.8 1.5 10.0 1.5 2.9

2004 3.1 2.7 10.1 2.2 4.9

2005 3.2 2.3 11.3 1.7 3.9

2006 2.6 3.6 12.7 1.4 5.2

2007 2.1 3.3 14.2 1.7 5.5

2008 1.0 0.6 9.6 -1.1 2.8

2009 -2.9 -4.3 9.2 -5.4 0.7

2010 3.1 2.1 10.6 4.2 6.5

2011 3.1 1.7 9.5 -0.1 3.7

2012 1.7 -0.4 7.9 1.5 2.3

2013 2.5 0.3 7.8 2.0 2.9

2014 2.6 1.7 7.3 0.3 3.3

2015 0.9 2.4 6.9 1.2 2.8

1.56 1.54

1.28

1.64 1.66

1.58

1.28 1.31

1.15

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Study Area MA U.S.

Percent

2000-2015 2015-2030 2030-2050
Appendix E: Driving Forces and Pressures — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

241

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

2016 1.4 2.0 6.7 1.0 2.8

2017 1.9 2.0 6.6 1.2 2.7

2018 2.0 1.8 6.2 0.6 2.8

2019 1.8 1.8 6.0 0.8 3.0

2020 1.8 1.8 5.9 0.2 3.0

2021 1.8 1.7 5.8 0.7 3.1

2022 1.8 1.7 5.7 0.6 3.1

2000–2017 

avg.

2.2 1.7 9.8 1.0 4.3

2018–2022 

avg.

1.8 1.8 5.9 0.6 3.0

Figure App.E.4. Fuel prices in 2017$, 2012–2017. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration 2017

3.69

3.58

3.44

2.52

2.26

2.48 2.46

3.97 3.92 3.83

2.71

2.31

2.61

2.72

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

2017 Dollars Per Gallon

Retail Price Gasoline US Average Retail Price Diesel US Average
242

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

APPENDIX F:

Ecosystem Services — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

Figure App.F.1. Value of cod landings 2007–2016 (2017$). Source: GARFO 2019b

Figure App.F.2. Pounds of cod landed 2007–2016 (2017$). Source: GARFO 2019b

8,792

11,902

10,762

12,771

9,430

6,152

1,781 1,265

192 521

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Value (Thousands of 2017$)

Year

Cod

3,808

5,693

6,489

6,151

3,860

2,345

612 568

67 175

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Pounds (Thousands)

Year

Cod
Appendix F: Ecosystem Services — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

243

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure App.F.3. Value of sea scallops landed 2007-2016 (2017$). Source: GARFO 2019b

Figure App.F.4. Pounds of sea scallops landed 2007–2016 (2017$). Source: GARFO 2019b

571 174 195

896

1,607

4,921

5,743

4,106 3,746

11,292

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Value (Thousands of 2017$)

Year

Sea Scallops

72

21 24

98

138

441 465

279 277

810

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Pounds (Thousands)

Year

Sea Scallops
Appendix F: Ecosystem Services — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

244

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure App.F.7. Value of lobster landed 2007–2016 (2017$). Source: GARFO 2019b

Figure App.F.8. Pounds of lobster landed 2007–2016 (2017$). Source: GARFO 2019b

$2,384

$1,755

$2,333

$2,827 $2,748

$3,429

$4,362 $4,333

$5,697 $5,583

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Value (Thousands of 2017$)

Year

Lobster

409 386

580

654 707

973

1,143

972

1,211

1,284

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Pounds (Thousands)

Year

Lobster
Appendix F: Ecosystem Services — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

245

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure App.F.5. Value of yellowtail flounder landed 2007–2016 (2017$). Source: GARFO 2019b

Figure App.F.6. Pounds of yellowtail flounder landed 2007–2016 (2017$). Source: GARFO 2019b

1,000

1,390

1,019

1,361

1,026

1,720

1,195

662

397

745

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Value (Thousands of 2017$)

Year

Yellow Tail Flounder

473

641 620

756 740

1,230

788

550

292

414

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Pounds (Thousands)

Year

Yellowtail Flounder
Appendix F: Ecosystem Services — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

246

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure App.F.7. Value of lobster landed 2007–2016 (2017$). Source: GARFO 2019b

Figure App.F.8. Pounds of lobster landed 2007–2016 (2017$). Source: GARFO 2019b

$2,384

$1,755

$2,333

$2,827 $2,748

$3,429

$4,362 $4,333

$5,697 $5,583

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Value (Thousands of 2017$)

Year

Lobster

409 386

580

654 707

973

1,143

972

1,211

1,284

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Pounds (Thousands)

Year

Lobster
Appendix F: Ecosystem Services — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

247

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure App.F.9. Value of monkfish landed 2007–2016 (2017$). Source: GARFO 2019b

Figure App.F.10. Pounds of monkfish landed 2007–2016 (2017$). Source: GARFO 2019b

$1,226

$995 $966

$703 $682

$533

$379

$447

$588 $587

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Value (THousands of 2017$)

Monkfish

450

309

274

178 189

158 144

176

228

188

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Pounds (Thousands)

Year

Monkfish
Appendix F: Ecosystem Services — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

248

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure App.F.11. Value of haddock landed 2007–2016 (2017$). Source: GARFO 2019b

Figure App.F.12. Pounds of haddock landed 2007–2016 (2017$). Source: GARFO 2019b

$1,825

$849 $943 $946

$1,067

$1,230

$274

$116 $32

$297

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Value (Thousands of 2017$)

Year

Haddock

692

364

438 425 453

507

92

46 17

187

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Pounds (Thousands)

Year

Haddock
Appendix F: Ecosystem Services — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

249

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure App.F.13. Value of witch flounder landed 2007–2016 (2017$). Source: GARFO 2019b

Figure App.F.14. Pounds of witch flounder landed 2007–2016 (2017$). Source: GARFO 2019b

$470 $433 $439

$567

$633

$917

$610

$520

$454

$498

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

$1,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Value (Thousands of 2017$)

Year

Witch Flounder

144 129

150 165

227

394

192

163 153

133

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Pounds (Thousands)

Year

Witch Flounder
Appendix F: Ecosystem Services — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

250

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure App.F.15. Value of pollock landed 2007–2016 (2017$). Source: GARFO 2019b

Figure App.F.16. Pounds of pollock landed 2007–2016 (2017$). Source: GARFO 2019b

$970

$2,144

$861 $775

$936

$627

$250 $193 $147 $81

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Value (Thousands of 2017$)

Year

Pollock

2,169

4,520

1,120

748

1,012

508

173 151 148 55

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Pounds (Thousands)

Year

Pollock
Appendix F: Ecosystem Services — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

251

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure App.F.17. Value of winter flounder landed 2007–2016 (2017$). Source: GARFO 2019b

Figure App.F.18. Pounds of winter flounder landed 2007–2016 (2017$). Source: GARFO 2019b

$511

$666

$486

$321

$387

$725

$404 $393

$325

$476

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Value (Thousands of 2017$)

Year

Winter Flounder

205

270

245

149

203

350

197 190

162 170

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Pounds (Thousands)

Year

Winter Flounder
Appendix F: Ecosystem Services — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

252

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure App.F.19. Value of Atlantic mackerel landed 2007–2016 (2017$). Source: GARFO 2019b

Figure App.F.20. Pounds of Atlantic mackerel landed 2007–2016 (2017$). Source: GARFO 2019b

$4 $4 $8 $9 $3 $10 $36

$874

$1,008

$1,445

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Value (Thousands of 2017$)

Year

Atlantic Mackerel

4 6 11 11 4 13 36

4,451

4,112

5,724

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Pounds (Thousands)

Year

Atlantic Mackerel
Appendix F: Ecosystem Services — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

253

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure App.F.21. Number of party boat anglers and trips, 1998–2016. Source: GARFO 2019b

Figure App.F.22. Number of charter boat anglers and trips, 1998–2016. Source: GARFO 2019b

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

1998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016

Number of Trips

Number of Anglers

Year

Party Boats

Anglers

Trips

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

1998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016

Number of Trips

Number of Anglers

Year

Charter Boats

Anglers

Trips
Appendix F: Ecosystem Services — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

254

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Table App.F.1. Boat registrations in Massachusetts, 2005–2016. Sources: NMMA 2016

Year

Boat 

Registrations 26 

Feet and Over

Total Boat 

Registrations

Percent 26 

feet and over

2005 6,892 150,026 4.59

2006 6,907 148,640 4.65

2007 6,789 145,496 4.67

2008 6,826 145,113 4.70

2009 6,694 142,625 4.69

2010 6,763 141,959 4.76

2011 6,657 139,991 4.76

2012 6,682 139,123 4.80

2013 6,680 137,668 4.85

2014 6,628 135,750 4.88

2015 6,530 134,678 4.85

2016 8,977 140,008 6.41
Appendix F: Ecosystem Services — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

255

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure App.F.23. Number of cod landed— charter boats, 1998–2016. Source: GARFO 2019b

Figure App.F.24. Number of cod landed — party boats, 1998–2016. Source: GARFO 2019b

 -

 20,000

 40,000

 60,000

 80,000

 100,000

 120,000

1998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016

Quantity Landed

Year

Charter Boats - Cod

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

1998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016

Quantity Landed

Year

Party Boats - Cod
Appendix F: Ecosystem Services — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

256

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure App.F.25. Number of haddock landed — charter boats, 1998–2016. Source: GARFO 2019b

Figure App.F.26. Number of haddock landed — party boats, 1998–2016. Source: GARFO 2019b

 -

 5,000

 10,000

 15,000

 20,000

 25,000

 30,000

 35,000

 40,000

1998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016

Quantity Landed

Year

Charter Boats - Haddock

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

1998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016

Quantity Landed

Year

Party Boats - Haddock
Appendix F: Ecosystem Services — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

257

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure App.F.27. Number of pollock landed — charter boats, 1998–2016. Source: GARFO 2019b

Figure App.F.28. Number of pollock landed — party boats, 1998–2016. Source: GARFO 2019b

 -

 5,000

 10,000

 15,000

 20,000

 25,000

1998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016

Quantity Landed

Year

Charter Boats - Pollock

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

1998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016

Quantity Landed

Year

Party Boats - Pollock
Appendix F: Ecosystem Services — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

258

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure App.F.29. Number of cusk landed — charter boats, 1998–2016. Source: GARFO 2019b

Figure App.F.30. Number of cusk landed — party boats, 1998–2006. Source: GARFO 2019b

 -

 500

 1,000

 1,500

 2,000

 2,500

1998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016

Quantity Landed

Year

Charter Boats - Cusk

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016

Quantity Landed

Year

Party Boats - Cusk
Appendix F: Ecosystem Services — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

259

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure App.F.31. Number of redfish landed —charter boats, 1998–2016. Source: GARFO 2019b

Figure App.F.32. Number of redfish landed party boats, 1998–2016. Source: GARFO 2019b

 -

 1,000

 2,000

 3,000

 4,000

 5,000

 6,000

 7,000

1998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016

Quantity Landed

Year

Charter Boats - Redfish

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

1998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016

Quantity Landed

Year

Party Boats - Redfish
Appendix F: Ecosystem Services — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

260

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

Figure App.F.33. Social vulnerability indicators; recreational engagement. Source: NOAA 2018b

Table App.F.2. Responses to the question “With which one of these statements about the environment and the economy do you 

most agree: (1) protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth, or (2) economic 

growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent?” Source: Gallup 2017

Year

Protection of the 

environment should be given 

priority, even at the risk of 

curbing economic growth

Economic growth 

should be given priority, 

even if the environment 

suffers to some extent

Equal priority No opinion

1984 61% 28% 11%

1990 71% 19% 10%

1991 71% 20% 9%

1992 58% 26% 8% 8%

1995 62% 32% 6%

1997 66% 27% 7%

1998 68% 24% 8%

1999 65% 30% 5%

2000 67% 28% 2% 3%
Appendix F: Ecosystem Services — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

261

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

2001 57% 33% 6% 4%

2002 54% 36% 5% 5%

2003 47% 42% 7% 4%

2004 49% 44% 4% 3%

2005 53% 36% 7% 4%

2006 52% 37% 6% 4%

2007 55% 37% 4% 4%

2008 49% 42% 5% 3%

2009 42% 51% 5% 3%

2010 38% 53% 4% 5%

2011 36% 54% 6% 4%

2012 41% 49% 6% 4%

2013 43% 48% 4% 5%

2014 50% 41% 4% 5%

2015 46% 42% 6% 5%

2016 56% 37% 4% 3%

2017 56% 35% 5% 4%

Table App.F.3. Responses to the question “Do you think the U.S. government is doing too much, too little, or about the right amount 

in terms of protecting the environment?” Source: Gallup 2017

Year Too much Too little Right amount

1992 4% 68% 26%

2000 10% 58% 30%

2003 7% 51% 37%

2004 5% 55% 37%

2005 5% 58% 34%

2006 4% 62% 33%

2010 15% 46% 35%
Appendix F: Ecosystem Services — Supplemental Graphs and Figures

262

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

2011 16% 49% 33%

2012 17% 51% 30%

2013 16% 47% 35%

2014 17% 48% 34%

2015 16% 48% 34%

2016 12% 57% 29%

2017 11% 59% 26%

Table App.F.4. Commercial fishing vessels by size of vessel in SBNMS, 2007–2016. Source: GARFO 2019b

Year Less than 

50 Feet

50–70 

Feet

Greater than 

70 Feet Total

2007 224 51 16 291

2008 217 44 14 275

2009 225 45 17 287

2010 248 41 31 320

2011 186 38 27 251

2012 194 36 34 264

2013 162 27 31 220

2014 153 27 19 199

2015 143 21 17 181

2016 171 34 37 242

2007–2016 

Average

192 36 24 253

% 2007–2016 76.01 14.39 9.60 100.00

% 2007–2009 78.08 16.41 5.51 100.00

% 2010 77.50 12.81 9.69 100.00

% 2016 70.66 14.05 15.29 100.00
263

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020

APPENDIX G:

Glossary 

AIS Automatic Identification System

CINMS Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary

DHRA Dedicated Habitat Research Area

DMIS Data Matching and Imputation System

DPSER Driving forces-Pressures-State-Ecosystem services-Response

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

GARFO Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office

GDP gross domestic product

GOM/GBK Gulf of Maine / Georges Bank

HAB harmful algal bloom

IMO International Maritime Organization

IWS Industrial Waste Site

LNG liquified natural gas

MA DMF Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries

MBDS Massachusetts Bay disposal site

MWRA Massachusetts Water Resources Authority

NEFMC New England Fisheries Management Council

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

ONMS Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PBR potential biological removal

PCB polychlorinated biphenyls

POP persistent organic pollutants

SBNMS Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

SNE Southern New England

TEU twenty-foot equivalent unit

TSS transportation separation strategy

USACE US Army Corps of Engineers

VMS vessel monitoring system

VTR vessel trip report

WGOM Western Gulf of Maine 
Appendix I

264

Stellwagen Bank | Condition Report 2020